Matthew and the Midrash

Midrash in Matthew

In our article on religious borrowing in the Qur'an we put forth the argument that some of the stories found in the Islamic scriptures may have been adopted from Jewish Midrash. However, we also conceded that we were not the first to make such a claim. This stance is one that has been held by many Christians before us, a point that the defenders of Islam did not fail to exploit.

The Muslims who would dispute Christian "missionary" claims about the Qur'an and Midrash often supplemented their arguments with mentionings of similar charges launched against the Bible. MENJ asked the following question in his article:

To be sure, we wonder how the author of the article could even ask this question when if by applying his "own" methodology to his Bible, it would immediately fall at the first blow? [...] In order for the theory of the missionaries' to work, then the Bible should be free from such "borrowing", which it is not, as evident in the similarities of the Story of Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.

An article by the esteemed Dr. Muhammad Saifullah and his Islamic Awareness team spoke of "the dilemma and the double standard," and put forth a more sophisticated version of the above:

Since it is the claim of the Christian missionaries that similarities imply borrowing then one can simply show the same in the Bible concerning the notion of God as depicted in the Old Testament as an aged diety, his dwelling place and heavenly court being borrowed from Ugaritic sources. The Flood narrative in Genesis and the Mesopotamian parallels are some of the most interesting parallels in the history. [...] Now the key question is: Are the Christian missionaries now ready to accept the conclusions of the orientalists with regards to biblical data being borrowed from ancient texts? Surely it seems unlikely. [...] They would accept the 'one source' theory when it comes to comparing biblical data with ancient literature or traditions; but resorts back to the borrowing theory when it comes to comparing Qur'ân with earlier literature or traditions.

Of course, such a comment is a red herring, and a deliberate appeal to Christian sentiments. When the Muslims say "the same has been said of your Bible," they are laying the groundwork for a silent agreement to create an air of intellectual dishonesty. If the Christian "missionaries" refrain from postulating theories of borrowing regarding the Qur'an, al-Muttaqeen will do the same with the Bible. There is a subtle request for a mutual contract that keeps both sides from asking certain uncomfortable questions.

Naturally, had a Hindu, a Deist, or an Atheist been the first to start posting these theories all over the net, MENJ, Dr. Saifullah and the rest of our pious counterparts would not have made such a claim. They deliberately tried to attack the belief of those with whom they were debating, shifting the discussion away from the topic of their text.

Well, despite our criticism of the Muslim defenders of the Qur'an mentioned above, we are here to now lend support to their claim. There should be no attempt to establish a mutual silence; rather the non-Christians should be quite forward about borrowing theories pertaining to the Bible. When speaking of Midrash specifically, it must be noted that this subject in relation to the gospels has been explored in much greater detail than it has for the Qur'an. This article will look at the use of Midrash in the gospel of Matthew.

The term Midrash will be used rather loosely in this study. The word Midrash () literally means "exposition," "investigation," or "exegesis," and stems from the Hebrew root for "to study" or "to investigate." Generally it has come to refer to Midrash Rabbah, an in-depth look at the Hebrew Bible through the hermeneutics of the great Talmudic sages. The way that the Midrash Rabbah anchors elaborate stories to small portions of text makes it similar to Islamic tafseer. The way it gives small biographical notes on so many of the Jewish prophets makes it seem like a compilation of numerous little Jewish seerahs for the Israelite heroes.

While we will cite a passage from the Midrash Rabbah, this is not precisely what we are referring to when we use the term Midrash. This term will simply serve to note the ancient Jewish style of exegesis, and how this method has appeared in the gospel of Matthew. It will be used to denote both the deliberate use of Midrash in the first gospel, as well as a Midrashic style used to create new stories.

The idea of the exegetical methods of Rabbinic Judaism being used to construct portions of the New Testament is not new. In fact, Benjamin Kennicott, in his 18th century work The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, preserved a subtle reference to ancient claims of Midrashic hermeneutics being employed to construct gospel narrative. Kennicott was attempting to refute an older work by a certain "Mr. Collins," who wrote a polemic against Christianity titled Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion. In the passage quoted and preserved by Kennicott, Collins mentions Surenhusius, and writes the following about him:

[H]e convers'd with many Jews, who insolently reflected on the New Testament; affirming it to be plainly corrupted, because it seldom or never agreed with the Old Testament; some of whom said, they would profess the Christian religion, if anyone could reconcile the New Testament with the Old; he was the more griev'd, because he knew not how to apply a remedy to this evil --- at last he met with a Rabbin, who recommended him some allegorical Jewish writings, and gave him ten rules, to show how the Apostles quoted, and why they alleg'd passages of the Old Testament otherwise than they are express'd in the original.

Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion

The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament

This vague passage is almost certainly making reference to Midrashic exegesis, and possibly even the Midrash Rabbah itself! Several centuries after Surenhusius' introduction to the concept of Midrash in the gospels, the great New Testament scholar Michael Goulder, a former priest in the Church of England, was influencing others with similar arguments. The popular John Shelby Spong, the current Episcopal Bishop of Newark, stated Goulder's influence on him as follows:

I also found in the Cambridge library a copy of one of Goulder's out-of-print books, Midrash and Lection in Matthew. I read it in its entirety. It was, quite frankly, the most exciting New Testament scholarship reading I had done in my professional life. Goulder documented for me the midrashic connections between the Gospels and the Jewish scriptures in mind-boggling ways[.]

Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes

It should be noted that Bishop Spong also mentioned that the original title for the work cited above was going to be The Gospels as Midrash, but he ultimately settled with Liberating the Gospels at the behest of his publisher. So, while theories regarding the Qur'an and Midrash may still be on the fringe, similar approaches to the New Testament are actually discussed openly in circles of Biblical Scholarship.

However, one might wonder how Christian scriptures could be seen in the light of a Jewish literary framework. The answer is simple: the gospels are decidedly Jewish texts. The portions that imply an ignorance of the Jewish religion can be chalked up to later interpolations, or merely the innocence of authors who were not always Jews. How is that possible?

Well, it is no mistake that Christianity appeared roughly around the same time that the Jews were trying to carry out a heavy missionary campaign within the Roman empire. Just prior to 100 BCE the Jews had erected several public alters in Rome in an effort to spread their religion. By 30 BCE they were writing Sibylline oracles, where the Greek Sibyl was suddenly made to proclaim the greatness of Monotheism and the worthlessness of idolatry. We know from the gospel of Matthew (23:15) itself that the Pharisees were quite zealous in their efforts to gain a convert (proshlutoV). Acts 13:43 also makes passing reference to converts to Judaism. The success of Jewish missionaries often caused some Romans to harbor anti-Semitic sentiments, as can be seen, for example, in Tacitus' disdain for the Jews and their proselytes:

Nam pessimus quisque spretis religionibusn patriis tributa et stipes illuc congrebant, und auctae Iudaeorum res, et quia apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericirdia in promptu, sed adversus omnis alios hostile odium. [...] Circumcidere genitalia instituerunt ut diversitate noscantur. Transgressi in morem eorum idem usurpant, nec quicqam prius imbuuntur quam contemnere Deos, exuere patriam, parentes liberos fratres vilia habere.
[Cornelii Taciti, Historiarum, Liber V]

The worst rascals among people other [than the Jews], renouncing their ancestral religions, always kept sending tribute to Jerusalem, increasing the wealth of the Jews. They are extremely loyal to one another, and always ready to show compassion, but towards all others they offer only hostility. [...] They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples. Those transgressors who have converted follow the same practice, and the earliest lesson they receive is to despise the Gods, to disown their country, and to hold little regard for their parents, children, and brothers.
[Tacitus, Histories, Book 5, ch. 5]

Now, with regard to a large missionary campaign, there are proselytes who maintain the faith, those who commit apostasy, and a whole spectrum of hybrids in between. Josephus proudly made reference to the spread of the Jewish religion among Greek and "barbarian" cities (Against Apion, 2:282) and also made note of the existence of both proselytes and apostates:

twn Ellhnwn de pleon toiV topoiV h toiV epithdeumasin afesthkamen wste mhdemian hmin einai proV autouV ecqran mhde zhlotupian. tounantion mentoi polloi par autwn eiV touV hmeterouV nomouV sunebhsan eiselqein kai tineV men enemeinan eisi d oi thn karterian ouc upomeinanteV palin apesthsan.

From the Greeks we are separated more by our geographical position than by our institutions, with the result that we neither hate nor envy them. On the contrary, many of them have agreed to adopt our laws; of whom some have remained faithful, while others, lacking the necessary endurance, have become apostates.
[Josephus, Contra Apionem (Against Apion), 2:123]

The aforementioned "hybrids" that exist within the spectrum between full Jewish proselyte and apostate gave birth to a plurality of interpretations. That there were different understandings of what made a convert can be seen in the debates over the issue of circumcision vs mikveh (baptism/ablution) that are recorded in the Talmud (Yebamot 46a-46b), the New Testament (Colossians 2:9-12), and Philo (Questiones in Exodum, 2:2). The result is the emergence of gentiles living within the Roman empire who espouse a rather Jewish doctrine, yet aren't exactly Jews. As Patricia Crone put it:

Christianity may be defined as the outcome of a syncretic bargain between Jewish missionaries and gentile proselytes. In the course of the bargaining, the missionaries had jettisoned the substance of their Judaic faith. Their converts did not in fact become Jews, or rather they did so only in a spiritual sense: they were circumcised of the heart, not of the flesh, and they adhered to the inner, not the literal sense of Mosaic law. But in return, the proselytes accepted the Judaic shell. If they did not become Jews, they still ceased to know themselves as Hellenes, and if they did not live by the law, they still retained the Old Testament as part of their scriptures. Mainstream Christianity is not Jewish Christianity, but equally it is not Marcionism; or, to put it in the words of the Iconoclast Council of 754, Christianity strikes a middle course between paganism and Judaism.

Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam

So, how does one start a look into the subject of Midrash in Matthew? Well, I recently read in The Tao of Pooh that "a thousand mile journey begins with the first step," so I guess we should start at the beginning. The gospel of Matthew begins with the alleged genealogy of Jesus. The majority of our readers need not be told that this genealogy contradicts the one found in the third chapter of Luke. It would seem that Matthew had an agenda in his choice of names.

The last male ancestor mentioned in Jesus' genealogy is the man who was believed to be his father, Joseph, the son of Jacob. The name Yosef Ben Ya'akov (or Yusuf ibn Yaqub for our Muslim readers) may bring to mind a certain hero from the Hebrew folklore. Would this be accidental? Or are there other similarities between the Joseph of Genesis and the Joseph found in Matthew? Spong had the following to say on the issue:

I would suggest that it was in these various elements of this ancient biblical portrait of Joseph the patriarch that Matthew found the inspiration on which he built the character of Joseph that he placed into his birth narrative. Embrace the similarities! Both the Joseph who was the earthly father of Jesus, as Matthew created him, and the Joseph who was the patriarch of ancient Israel had fathers named Jacob. Both Josephs had lives and careers marked by dreams, and both Josephs played dramatic roles in salvation history. Joseph the patriarch had saved the People of the Covenant from death by taking them down into Egypt to live. Matthew's Joseph saved from death the child of promise who came to establish the second covenant by taking him down into Egypt to live. Surely that was not coincidental, but was rather the result of the Jewish midrashic technique of opening the scriptures[.]

Liberating the Gospels

One difference, however, would be the force that originally sent the respective Josephs into Egypt. While the patriarch was sold into slavery by his brothers, the father of Jesus fled there on his own. Jesus' parents were fleeing the slaughter of the innocents, an event that only Matthew seems to know about. The story is not corroborated by any historical evidence. It would seem that this story is itself a Midrashic build, though one that was built on previous Midrash rather than scripture (thus making it meta-midrash).

As the story goes, some Magi were able to figure out that the Israel's savior was born simply by looking into the sky (a bit of astrology it would seem, which is important). The tyrant who was ruling over the land at that time (Herod in this case) consulted many wise men and later the astrologically inclined Magi as to the time of birth for Israel's savior. The details that the tyrant ruler received were incomplete, so he ended up ordering all the male children in the area to be killed. Herod was even willing to kill his own people (i.e. Jewish children)! While Matthew connects this with a passage from Jeremiah, it is strikingly similar to a passage in the Midrash. Consider the following from Shemot Rabbah 1:18:

Vay'tsav Paroh l'khal amo, aamar rabbi Yosei bar rabbi Chaninaa af al amo gazar v'lamah asah khen shehayu astrologeen omrim lo goel israel nitabrah mimenu imo v'ein aanu yodeen im israel hu O Mitsri hu b'otah sha'ah kines Paroh kal haMitsrim v'aamar lahem hashilu li et b'nikhem tishah chadashim she'ashlikhem lai'or hadaa hu dikhtiv kal haben hayilod hai'orah v'go kal haben shel israel ein k'tiv kaan elaa kal haben bein Y'hudi bein Mitsri v'lo ratsu l'qabel mimenu she'aamru ben Mitsri lo ig'al otan l'olam elaa min ha'ivriyyot.
Hai'orah tashlikhuhoo, lama gazru l'hashlikhan lai'or l'fi shehayu ro'in ha-astrologeen shemoshiyaan shel israel al y'dei ma'im yilqeh v'hayu savorin shebama'im yitbaa v'lo hayaa elaa al y'dei v'er mayim nigzar aalayv g'zirat mavet shene'emar (Bamidbar K, YB-YG) ya'an lo he'emantem bi v'go v'rabanan aamri he'emiqu etsah shelo haqadosh, barukh hu, m'shalem elaa midah k'neged midah v'hayu b'tuchim shelo yavee mabul la'olam l'khakh gazru l'hatbiyaam bamayim.

"And Pharaoh charged all his people." Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina said: He [Pharaoh] decreed against his own people too. And why was this? Because his astrologers told him, 'the mother of Israel's savior is already pregnant with him, but we do not know whether he is an Israelite or an Egyptian.' Then Pharaoh assembled all the Egyptians before him and said: 'Give unto me your children for nine months so they can be cast into the river,' as it is written 'Every son that is born, cast it into the river.' It does not say 'every son who is an Israelite,' but 'every son,' that is Jewish sons [and] Egyptian sons. But they did not agree, saying that a son of Egypt would not redeem them, he must be from among the Hebrews. "You shall cast it into the river." Why did they decree that they should cast them into the river? Because the astrologers foresaw that Israel's savior would be smitten by means of water, and they thought that he would be drowned in the water; but as we know, it was only on account of the well of water that the decree of death was pronounced, for it says 'because you believed not in Me' (Numbers 20:12/13). The Rabbis say: they took deep council so that the Holy One, blessed is He, would not exact retribution through water. They were confident that God would no longer bring a flood upon the world so they tried to drown them.

After this story, Joseph is visited by an angel in a dream. The angel tells Joseph to collect his child and take him back to Israel, as the man who sought to kill him is now dead. This shows signs of being a build on Exodus 4:19, where Moses is told to collect his people in Egypt and bring them to the promised land now that those who sought to kill him are dead.

Moving right along through Matthew's gospel we continue to see how at every turn there are signs that the story line was influenced by popular Jewish legends (be they in the TaNaKh or in the yet-to-be codified Midrash). John the Baptist's relation to the voice who calls for preparation for the way of the Lord (Isaiah 40) is weak to say the least. However, the use of this one passage to construct an elaborate narrative was a time-honored Midrashic technique. The seemingly tenuous interpretation of a verse taken out of context is as justified as any of the odd discoveries that the Rabbinic sages had managed to tear from their text.

It is interesting to note that the story of Jesus' life in Matthew makes a huge leap from his childhood in Egypt to his being baptized as an adult. One moment Jesus is returning from Egypt with his parents while still an infant, and then with breath-taking suddenness he is in the Jordan river. While the story of Jesus' baptism appears in many Christian accounts, placing it after coming out of Egypt makes it seem like an analogy for the people of Israel. This was no ordinary mikveh; rather here was Jesus in the same river on the banks of which Joshua (note that the names Joshua and Jesus are equivalent) told Israel that the "living God" was among them.

From the baptism Matthew leaps into the temptation in the desert without warning. This is at the beginning of the fourth chapter, and is just prior to the sermon on the mount (which begins in the next chapter). For both Moses (see Exodus 34:28) and Jesus, somewhere in-between leaving Egypt and delivering the new law was a forty day period of fasting. It is in this story of the temptation that we find numerous signs of Midrashic building upon smaller portions of text.

The gospel attributed to Mark, which New Testament scholars unanimously agree was written before Matthew and was also a source for the author of the latter, sums up the temptation in a single verse (Mark 1:13). The author of the gospel attributed to Matthew took this one verse and built upon it an elaborate tale. Note that every retort put into Jesus' mouth during the Matthean temptation comes from either Deuteronomy 6 or Deuteronomy 8. When it is realized that two thirds of the sayings placed into Jesus' mouth come from parsha va'etchanan, one might be tempted to guess what portion of the Torah was being covered during the weak that Matthew wrote this part of his gospel. Furthermore, each Deuteronomic utterance paralleled stories about Moses and Israel in the wilderness as found in Exodus, which Spong described as follows:

The manna story (Exod. 16) found expression in the temptation to turn stones into bread. The story of Moses striking the rock in the wilderness at Massah/Meribah (Exod. 17) was told as an act in which Moses put God to the test. That found echoes in the temptation story in Jesus' words, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Matt. 4:7). The story of the people of Israel building and worshiping the golden calf (Exod. 32) in the wilderness found its echo in Jesus' words, "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve" (Matt. 4:10).

Liberating the Gospels

Soon we come to the sermon on the mount. Just prior to going up onto the mountain to lay out the new law, there is a segment (4:18-21) where Jesus calls his first disciples. These were capable men of Israel, just like the ones Moses had called (Exodus 18:25) before his time on the mountain. By having Jesus survive the wrath of a tyrant and the slaughter of the innocents while a baby, then come out of Egypt, then stay in the wilderness, and then go up onto a mountain to lay down the law, Matthew was stringing together a clear theme: this is the new Moses.

Moses was far from the only person that Matthew modeled his Jesus after. In fact, many of his teachings reflect those uttered by the great Rabbinic sages. We have already demonstrated that the stories in the Midrash Rabbah influenced the gospel of Matthew, but others could object that the Midrash Rabbah was written long after this epistle. This is not a problem, as it is not the actual text of the Midrash Rabbah that influenced the author of this gospel; rather it was simply the stories that would later be included in it. That these stories existed during and prior to the time traditionally given for the life of Jesus can be seen in the fact that they also appear in the Talmud. The fact that the early Christian community took the teachings of the Talmudic Rabbis and put them in the mouth of Jesus are quite obvious:

Gospel of Matthew	Talmud
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy (Matthew 5:7)	He who shows mercy to his fellow creatures shall receive mercy from HaShem. (Shabat 151)
I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)	Whosoever regards even the little finger of a woman [with lust] has already sinned in his heart. (Berachot 24)
I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)	They who bear injury without returning it [...] it is of these the prophet speaks of when he says: The friends of God will shine one day like the sun. (Yoma 23)
And if someone wants [...] to take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (Matthew 5:40)	If any man demands your ass, give him also the saddle. (Baba Kamma 92)
I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:44)	Love the man who punishes thee. (Derech Erets, 9)
If you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. (Matthew 6:14-15)	So long as you yourself are compassionate, God will show you mercy. But if you have no mercy, God will have none for you. (Shabat 130)
Do not judge or you too will be judged. (Matthew 7:1)	Do not judge your neighbor until you have stood in his place. (Pirke Abot 2)
In the same way you judge others you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. (Matthew 7:2)	The measure by which a man measures others shall be meted out to him. (Sotah 8)

The parallels are seemingly endless, and the differences can be chalked up to the fact that the Christian version is an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew oral tradition. Some Christians have argued that Jesus knew the Talmudic teachings because he was educated in the Temple. It seems more obvious that the authors of the gospels were the ones with the familiarity with the Rabbinic law.

For another example, consider how in the sixth chapter of Matthew there is the parable about not worrying. Jesus tells his disciples that even the birds of the air are provided with food from God. The point is that one should have faith in their Lord and not worry about such things. This is quite similar to a teaching from the Midrash that I recently came across:

Rabbi Eleazer of Modim used to say: He that has something to eat today, and says, What shall I eat tomorrow - lo, he is lacking in faith.

Hammer on the Rock: A Short Midrash Reader

One could easily go further, but it seems it is already quite clear that the gospels were not forms of objective journalism; rather they were part of a creative literary genre. There are numerous instances where an event in Jesus' life is presented as the fulfillment of a passage from the Hebrew Bible. While Christian missionaries will say, "Gosh! How could he fulfill all these prophecies if he wasn't the one?" and Jewish counter-missionaries will make accusations of texts being quoted out of context, both camps are missing the bigger picture.

First, for the Christians, the verse fits with the story not because Jesus' life fulfilled some archaic prophecy; rather the gospel writers had the books opened before them as they constructed their story. This can be seen in the fact that most of these prophecies aren't really prophecies at all when read within their context (which is the Jewish stance), and also in the fact that the quotations are presented in a fashion that is identical to the way the scriptures are quoted in Jewish Midrash.

For the Jewish counter-missionaries, we have already mentioned that these quotations are as justified as any "scriptural corroboration" cited by the Rabbinic sages quoted in the Talmud and Midrash. Can orthodox Jews honestly say that every passage cited in the Rabbinic literature is cited in light of its original context? Of course not! They would be forced to concede that there are many passages that seek support in a verse that has totally been wrenched of its scriptural context. This was the literary method of the time, and this heterodox sect of Jews who would come to make-up the proto-Christians were simply using it to support their mythology.

It should be noted, however, that a theory of Midrash in the gospels must make room for several layers of such. There are ways in which Matthew may perform a Midrashic build on a Christian tradition, but that tradition itself may have been derived by similar methods. If the evolution of a tradition begins in the oral stage among the community, it can very easily make its way into multiple gospels. There were many great stories floating among the Jewish people, and some may have made their way into the legend of Jesus.

Of course, the most famous teaching of the Rabbis of the Talmud to be put into Jesus' mouth is the "golden rule." Matthew 7:12 quotes Jesus as saying: "do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Jesus has given a single teaching that best expresses what is taught in two large bodies of Jewish literature, the Torah (law) and Nevi'im (prophets). A similar quote is found in Mark. Either way, this attempt to sum up the Torah with such a line originates in a (most likely fictional) exchange between Hillel and a potential proselyte:

Shuv ma'aseh b'nakhri echad shebaa lifnei Shamai, amar lo: gaireni al m'nat shetlamdeni kal ha-Torah kulah k'she'ani omed al regel achat. D'chafo b'amat habinan shebyado. Baa lifnei Hillel, gaireih. Amar lo: da'alakh s'nei l'chavrakh lo ta'aveid - zo hi kal ha-Torah kulah v'idakh - peirushah hu, zil g'mor.

There was an occasion when it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him: "Make me a proselyte, on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." At that moment he ran the heathen off with a builder's tool which was in his hand. When the Heathen went before Hillel [with the same proposition], he said: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary - go an learn it.
[Talmud Bavli, Shabat 31a]

One could say a great deal more, but there is now before us quite enough evidence to corroborate a theory of borrowing for the gospels. We have punctured a hole in the silent contract mentioned at the beginning of this article. Still, while it has been demonstrated that Midrash appears in the gospels, this is not necessarily something the Muslims should celebrate.

Textual analysis of this sort can bring nearly the entire biography of Jesus (in each of the four gospels) into question. If every aspect of the story is being borrowed from an earlier tradition (be it written or oral), one is hard pressed to point out what part is actually historical. It could be argued, it seems, that nothing in these stories is historical, thus lending a small bit of weight to a possible argumentum ex silentio. If there is no evidence for the historical Jesus, what does this say about a religion that reveres him as a great prophet? It would seem this would only lead us to postulate yet another borrowing theory, where the stories of a certain Eesa (Jesus) as found in the Qur'an may have merely come from people (Christians) living in that time and location.

| Home | Sign Guestbook | View Guestbook | Last Updated: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 [email protected] If for FTMecca Eyes Only specify in the e-mail

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws