It seems that Moslem commentaries on the Incarnation have always been dogged by contradiction.
See the
discussion at length here
Most Islamic traditions categorically deny that Jesus physically died on the cross or otherwise. Most traditions instead teach substitution, or the idea that another person was crucified in Jesus' place. However, some modern Muslim scholars believe that Jesus
did indeed die, and references to his survival are angogical.
Disagreement and confusion on the nature of Jesus' death is found within the Islamic canon itself, with the earliest Hadith quoting the companions of Muhammad saying that Jesus had died. Meanwhile, the majority of subsequent Hadith and Tafsir argue in favor of the opposite.
-- from wiki --
(Modern Moslem scholarship makes more sense to me, as
@muhammad_isa has said, we're not in the Middle Ages any more)
It seems the
substitutionist theory originated with 2nd century Gnostics, and the Quran and Hadith have been clearly influenced by (heretical) Christian sources that prevailed in the Arab peninsula.
Muslim commentators have been unable to convincingly disprove the crucifixion, the problem compounded by their substitutionist theories.
Most Western scholars, Jews and Christians believe Jesus died, while orthodox Muslim theology teaches He ascended to Heaven without being put on the cross and God transformed another person, Simon of Cyrene, to appear exactly like Jesus who was crucified instead of Jesus.
Disagreement and discord can be traced to Ibn Ishaq (d. 761), reporting that Jesus was replaced by someone named Sergius, that His tomb is in Medina.
John of Damascus highlighted the Quran's assertion that the Jews did not crucify Jesus being very different from saying that Jesus was not crucified, explaining that it is the varied Quranic exegetes in Tafsir, and not the Quran itself, that denies the crucifixion, further stating that the message in the 4:157 verse simply affirms the historicity of the event.
Subsequent scholars of the 10th century on
affirm the historicity of the Crucifixion, reporting Jesus
was crucified and
not substituted.
More recently, Mahmoud M. Ayoub, a professor and scholar, provided a more symbolic interpretation for Surah 4 Verse 157:
The Quran, as we have already argued, does not deny the death of Christ. Rather, it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus Christ the Messenger of God. The death of Jesus is asserted several times and in various contexts. (3:55; 5:117; 19:33.)
Early interpretations of verse 3:55 ("I will cause you to die and raise you to myself"), attributed to Ibn 'Abbas, used the literal "I will cause you to die" (mumayyitu-ka) rather than the metaphorical mutawaffi-ka "Jesus died". Wahb ibn Munabbih, an early Jewish convert, reportedly said "God caused Jesus, son of Mary, to die for three hours during the day, then took him up to himself." From Ibn Ishaq: "God caused Jesus to die for seven hours", while at another place reported that a person called Sergius was crucified in place of Jesus. Ibn-al-Athir forwarded the report that it was Judas, while also mentioning the possibility it was a man named Natlianus.
Al-Masudi (d. 956) reported the death of Christ under Tiberius.
Mahmoud Ayoub furthers modern Islamic scholars' interpreting the historical death of Jesus, the man, as man's inability to kill off God's Word and the Spirit of God, which the Quran testifies were embodied in Jesus Christ. Ayoub continues highlighting the denial of the killing of Jesus
as God (my emphasis) denying men such power to vanquish and destroy the divine Word. The words, "they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him" speaks to the profound events of ephemeral human history, exposing mankind's heart and conscience towards God's will. The claim of humanity to have this power against God is illusory. "They did not slay him ...but it seemed so to them" speaks to the imaginations of mankind, not the denial of the actual event of Jesus dying physically on the cross. Islamic reformer Muhammad Rashid Rida agrees.
-- from wiki --
So it seems that:
The narratives of Jesus are derived from various Christian sources, orthodox, heterodox and heresiarch. The nativity (primarily Luke) with additional speculation about Mary and Joseph's 'backstory'. The infancy narratives are apocryphal and were regarded by the Fathers as post-era fictions.
The crucifixion – clouded by conflicting commentaries – can be seen as utilising Gnostic speculation to interpret a metaphorical reading of the Qur'an as literal. Read metaphorically, it does not contradict that orthodox Christian understanding – that Christ was crucified, died, rose again and ascended into heaven.
Modern Islamic scholarship makes the most sense to me.
There's no mention of some a 'Pilate conspiracy', which frankly sounds a bit like some 'Dan Brown' nonsense.
