Book Review: Did Muhammad Exist?, by Robert Spencer
It is not until page 100 that Spencer lays out his thesis clearly:
Muhammad was an Arab messenger, born in Mecca, speaking Arabic, and bringing the message of Allah to the Arabs and thence to the world at large. Every element of that sentence is a commonplace that both Muslims and non-Muslims take for granted; yet every element, upon closer scrutiny, begins to dissolve. From the extant historical records, it is not at all clear that there was an Arab prophet named Muhammad anywhere near Mecca, who brought any kind of message to the world. Or at the very least, the records indicate that if there was a Muhammad, he was not in Mecca and didn’t preach anything that closely resembles Islam — until long after his death, when his biography and holy book as we know them began to be constructed.
In the final third of the book Spencer goes off on what seems at first to be somewhat of a sidetrack, discussing whether or not the Qur’an has Arabic origins. But the purpose for this eventually becomes clear when evidence is presented to show that significant components of the Qur’an were “borrowed,” to put it kindly, from Jewish and Christian Syriac sources (some now little-known). If so much of Islam has roots in pre-existing religions (as opposed to haveing arisen from Allah completely intact and unique), then could it be that the tale of a “messenger of God” is also one of those borrowed tales?
The problem with attempting to disprove that something exists is that it is necessarily a laborious and detail-oriented task. No grand generalizations can suffice to dismiss all potential confirmations of something’s potential existence. Thus, if you have a cabinet with 100 drawers and want to prove that none of them contains a walnut, you must necessarily open all 100 drawers to demonstrate that they are all empty. To that end, Spencer opens as many historical drawers as he can in a standard-length book; to go into any more detail would have been far too tedious for a popular volume; but for those readers who want to explore every conceivable potential historical clue, Spencer provides an extensive bibliography for further independent research.
Could it be that Spencer is giving a selective reading of the evidence? That is to say, is he highlighting historical documents which cast doubt on the reality of Muhammad or of early Islam, while downplaying or ignoring other documents which might tend to support Muhammad’s historicity? It’s hard for a non-expert like myself to judge, but the book does seem to contain a fairly comprehensive collection of every reference, or potential reference, to Muhammad or Islam from the century or so after the religion’s supposed founding. And in a field fraught with controversy and more than a simple threat of violence, it may be hard to ever again find a book which approaches the topic of Islam with fearless academic impartiality. If anything, it might be more logical to question the veracity of any book which supports Islam’s self-referential origin myths, since the authors in that case may be hedging their bets and saving their necks by not challenging the orthodoxy.
To the Euro-American mind, the period we know as the “Dark Ages” remain almost completely obscure; even highly educated people would be hard-pressed to offhandedly name anything that happened in the 600s. The literary, archaeological and cultural record from the era is comparatively scant. And yet it is this exact period in which the story of Muhammad and the founding of Islam takes place. Thus, it could be argued that the absence of evidence is to be expected, since there is now an absence of evidence for most things that happened in that era.
Even so, there seems to be a sort of “event horizon” when it comes to the history of Islam: The closer one goes back in time toward the lifetime of Muhammad, the more difficult it is to proceed and the more unsure the sources. At a certain point – sometime in the century following Muhammad’s supposed death — the event horizon is reached, and no further progress can be made. The veil comes down, and we cannot see back to the beginning. So we will likely never know whether Muhammad was a real man, a linguistic boo-boo, or just a convenient fiction.
Within the context of modern geopolitics, a title like Did Muhammad Exist? is actually a meta-challenge about the existence of the book itself. Considering that the author risks condemnation, ostracism and fatwas for even daring to ask such a question, the book should be more properly titled, Is It OK to Write a Book Called “Did Muhammad Exist?“? And since the answer to that über-question is “No,” then we can only conclude that the answer to the embedded question (“Did Muhammad exist?”) is “No” as well. Why? Because if Muhammad did exist, and if his existence was incontrovertibly documented, then there would be no threat in asking the question or doing an investigation. And if despite all the evidence the author doubted the existence of Muhammad anyway, then his conclusions could be easily disproven, and his thesis dismissed and forgotten. So the very fact that the book is certain to be controversial and banned in certain countries lends credence to the notion that there must be something to the arguments it presents.
There is no controversy when scholars examine the historicity of Jesus. Biblical archaeologists work freely, with no danger to their persons or their careers. Even if some literalist Christians find the scholarly conclusions distressing, no death threats are issued. Christianity has survived all critiques of its origins, relying on the strength of its message and not the provability of historical details. One would hope that Islam reacts similarly.
Did Muhammad Exist?
by Robert Spencer
ISI Books, April 2012
$27.95
– already wrote this in the first edition of his Outline of History 80 years ago. Now onto the Angel Moroni…
There’s already an award-winning still-popular Broadway musical doubting the existence of the Angel Moroni: http://www.bookofmormonbroadway.com/home.php
No Mormon riots noted as of this writing.
– Wells first published it in 1919.
You are right, we need a “Muhammad Seminar”. Y’know, like the theologians who don’t believe in Jesus, but still spend their entire lives talking about Him, making a good academic living off of Him. This is my Flesh, this my Blood, Take and go Seminar…
That’s because Mormonisn really is a religion of peace, or so it certainly seems to this atheist.
Descendents of members of the old Mormon Battalion, who defended their faith against the US Cavalary amongst others, might wonder where you got that notion.
Google “Nauvoo Legion” and “Mountain Meadows Massacre.”
Of course, all that stuff happened in the 19th century when a lot of people were out to get the Mormons. Maybe bringing it up is like condemning modern-day Christians for medieval crusades and witch-burnings. Mormons and Christians are both much less militant these days.
Mountain Meadows Massacre was an isolated incident that was thoroughly condemned at the time. In their early history, Mormons were never the aggressors, but they also didn’t always lie down like sheep and allow themselves to be raped and murdered, either. Seriously. The bad guys at that time were not the Mormons. Even with Mountain Meadows.
Pity.
The Mormons were the bad guys in 1858. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was the worst slaughter of American people until the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Mormons were facing a war with America (the US Army was on the way to deal with the Mormon problem of rading wagon trains going west) and the wealth in terms of cattle, horses, and gold was needed for the coming war effort. The Mormons killed in cold blood all members of the Fancher Train excepting 17 small children. Horrifying. Of course, the church denies any knowledge of this brutal action but Brigham Young knew everything in his realm and nothing occurred without his consent.
BTW, the first Sherlock Holmes story is connected with the Mormon wars. But it is silly to blame current-day Mormons for this, as they no longer espouse this. Islam is different, unfortunately.
However, this is why I always claim that Islam does not have to be the problem; there is not reason they cannot do an about-face like the Catholics and interpret things differently.
Mountain Meadows should not be dismissed as inconsequential nor should it be used to define an entire group of people. The following passage properly reflects the more common trials visited upon Mormons settlers of the times.
“August 1847, Curtis and others started back to Winter Quarters for provisions and to bring out their families. They walked and carried their guns. A single horse carried their bedding and supplies that included only six pounds of flour per man.
One night when they were sleeping on the plains they awoke to find their horse was stolen. A light snow had fallen and they followed the tracks to an Indian camp. After consultation with the chief, the horse was returned.”
We still have the diary from where this passage originates and, for the most part, it shows Mormons as people just trying to survive winters, trading goods when possible and generally just wanting to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit.
Less militant unless you are an individual who supports reproductive rights for women. In that case there is a war raging right now.
Compare that to Christianity in which the earliest records of Jesus are from the generation that witnessed the Crucifixion and in which no attempt is made in Scripture to expunge the honest contradictions.
But not of anyone who even claimed to have seen him; am I wrong? I assume you are talking of Paul, since I presume that the synoptics did not claim to be anything but translations.
Guys,check out his theses articles about Islam and its history:
“The False Conversion to Islam by Henryk Broder,the Most Famous Jewish Intellectual in Germany”
http://www.antisharia.com/2011/08/08/the-false-conversion-to-islam-by-henryk-broderthe-most-famous-jewish-intellectual-in-germany/
“Babur,Founder of the Mughal Dynasty in India,Destroyed the Temple of Rama,one of the Most Sacred in Hinduism”
http://www.antisharia.com/2012/02/16/baburfounder-of-the-mughal-dynasty-in-indiadestroyed-the-temple-of-ramaone-of-the-most-sacred-in-hinduism/
“The Greatest University of India at its Time was destroyed by the Muslims”
http://www.antisharia.com/2011/06/08/the-greatest-university-of-india-at-its-time-was-destroyed-by-the-muslims/
I trust you know better than that. Islam, the most viciously anti-human creed ever promulgated, survives solely by virtue of its allegiants’ propensity to violence. If there hasn’t yet been any violence over Spencer’s book, I’d guess we won’t have long to wait.
Francis – Spot-on!!
I’d better pick up this book right away before it’s banned for being “insensitive” to those poor persecuted Muslims.
The earliest biography of Muhammad, upon which all subsequent biographies are based, was not written until a century after his death, in an era of few or no written records, when all potential eyewitnesses were long dead
Should we toss out the three gospels of which this is also probably true?
Never mind — I think we need to take a step back and judge the value of this _type_ of evidence. It can also be used to argue that Shakespeare wasn’t a real person, while the plays and poetry are proof of a single nervous system that produced all that literature. Similarly with Muhammad, I think you’d have a hard time presenting a convincing alternative theory. Islam a folk religion? Something gotten up by a committee? No, no. It’s clearly the creation of a psychopath. I think it would be more fruitful and useful to accept that Muhammad lived and then do some psychological and medical analysis of him.
It doesn’t surprise me that there’s scarcely a mention of Muhammad in the Qur’an, since it’s supposedly the word of God as dictated to Muhammad by an angel. Muhammad was a prophet, not a source or a principal like, say, Abraham or Hagar.
Well, if you ask me — the fact that the first evidence for the Gospels comes from 30-40 years after Jesus’ death does greatly lessen their evidentiary value. I am in fact one of those people not entirely convinced of Jesus’ historicity.
HOWEVER, having said that, the Gospels were written within the lifetime of (and thus could have been based on the eyewitness memory of) people who lived with Jesus. So they are much more significant as historical documents than the bio of Mohammed, the earliest example of which still exists dates from 200 years after M’s death.
Well, since there are independent outside references to William Shakespeare and to his plays writen during his lifetme, and since there are still extant manuscripts in Shakespeare’s hand, and since the theaters he performed in still exist — other kinds of (lack of) evidence couldn’t be used to disprove the existence of Shakespeare.
“Proof by absence of evidence” is a slow step-by-step process; An absence of evidence in one area is never proof by itself; it must coincide with an absence of proof in all areas.
Zombie – I have read several books questioning the historicity of Jesus, but the authentic Pauline letters were written only some twenty or so years after his death. So, while I too have my doubts, I would say the Pauline letters should be enough to tilt us in the direction of accepting Jesus’ historicity. (Of course, I’ve also read books claiming that the Christ of the Pauline letters refers to a Gnostic Christ, not to a real person.)
I’ve read many such books myself. The earliest Pauline letters, if I remember correctly, do not contain any specific personal details about the “Christ” (messiah) figure mentioned; it could that at the beginning Paul was referring to a sort of non-corporeal or Gnostic messiah, and only in the following decade made the transition to imputing those Christ-like qualities to an actual (now-gone) person.
By far the most interesting theory around this topic is one involving some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which seem to refer to a messianic character who is extremely similar to Jesus Christ — except that the scrolls were written before the guy we know about was supposed to even have been born. Thus, it could be that there was a story floating around the various Jewish sects of a Messiah to come, who had a specific genealogy and story, and and some point there was a paradigm shift and the tales no longer referred to a future messiah, but to a past messiah. That shift likely did not occur in 30AD, but rather about three or four decades later.
Three of four decades later, in the year 70, Jewish temple was destroyed, and with it the old temple based religious order. This had to create a religious crisis. Christianity as a separate religion seems to have been invented to explain it away.
It should be noted that ancient Judea was a literate society at the time. Not that all were, but running a kingdom (albeit one under Roman suzerainty) required records, while maintaining the Jewish faith required scribes who transcribed sacred texts, recorded marriages, divorces, and property transfers, and sages who argued over the texts. This is clear from the Qumran (“Dead Sea”) Scrolls, as well as the even earlier documents from the Jewish settlement at Elefantine (Egypt).
The same can’t be said about Arabia where literacy primarily existed among the Christians and Jews there. Mohammed himself was said to be illiterate. A tradition that only emerges after a hundred years or more of “oral tradition” is not only more subject to corruption but to legend, fantasy, and invention.
“since there are still extant manuscripts in Shakespeare’s hand”
Would you please identify these manuscripts as to folio and current location?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare%27s_handwriting
… “An absence of evidence in one area is never proof by itself; it must coincide with an absence of proof in all areas.”
Very true.
We DO, however, have physical evidence for the existence of William Shakespeare. It’s only a minor snag that he looks a great deal like Joseph Fiennes.
I understand that many Christians in the past had resisted utilizing this kind of challenge to Mohammed’s historicity because they recognize that the exact same arguments could be used to argue against Jesus’ historicity. But the cat is already out of the bag in that regard: people have been using the “absence of proof” argument to challenge the reality of Jesus for quite a long time by now. To be intellectually honest, the same arguments should be used against the reality of Mohammed as well.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander: People have been doubting the existence of Jesus since at least the Reformation; and yet Christianity still exists. Time for Islam to put on its big-boy pants and see if it can withstand critical examination as well.
>>Time for Islam to put on its big-boy pants and see if it can withstand critical examination as well.
I was wondering why Spencer and you were getting into this question. Of course you both know it’s a gauntlet that will never be picked up, but I guess it still has to be thrown down.
I think Islam stands with or without an historical Muhammad the same way Christianity* does without an historical Jesus, though. Definitely through different means — it spreads like a drug-resistant plague rather than shining like a light or forming naturally in an individual’s heart.
*the morality part not the narrative
The History Channel has any number of programs about doubts about the Bible and the people in it. Maybe someday they’ll do one about the Koran.
Not if they value their heads and prefer them attached to their necks.
Actually, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John – although written down several decades after Jesus’ death – were written by eyewitnesses. Luke specifically states that he interviewed (in a fashion familiar to modern historians) every eyewitness that he could find, including, and especially, Mary, the mother of Jesus. Paul was an eyewitness to much of Jesus’ teaching – if from the other side, being as Saul a Pharisee.
It is interesting that there are no eyewitness accounts to the rise of Islam. While there are few documents from the “Dark Ages” it is not true that there are none, and one would think that as influential a person as Mohammad would cause somebody to leave a testimony.
There are plenty of documents from the ‘dark ages,’ as the Eastern Empire continued to write and keep records the whole time, and there are scholars like Venerable Bede etc from the Germanic kingdoms. However we’d have a whole lot more if the Caliph Umar hadn’t finished off what was left of the Library of Alexandria.
Baloney. A bald faced lie and straight out of the Gospel of Jesus Seminar. Three gospels 100 years after the fact? Name them and I’ll make you look the fool you are…
With proof.
I’m fed up with idiots like you spreading rank propaganda.
PJ Media is as good a place as any to start.
I have no doubt Jesus existed. Only the experience of great guilt of those who felt they had betrayed their messiah to the authorities can explain why Jesus wasn’t forgotten as just another Jew with a healthy imagination. The need to believe in a resurrection absent an actual experience of feeling personally implicated in someone’s crucifixion is not plausible.
In the case of Mohammed, what is the equivalent “auto-probatory” element (see my comment here: http://zionistyoungster.blogspot.ca/2006/08/alliance-of-pristinians.html) in the story, the experience or historically-unique revelation that could only have been recorded in story if it really happened?
Following up on 4. Truepeers, the record of the crucifixion–found in in the “epistles” of Paul c. 40-45 CE–is the one “auto-probatory” event in the narrative of Jesus.
The record *could not* have been invented. To use the language of historical criticism, an an event it is too *dissimilar* from the expectations of (1) Jews, (2) pagans, (3) the earliest followers of Jesus. The Jews were expecting an charismatic warlord along the lines of Judas Maccabeus and Shimon Bar-Kockba. For pagans, crucifixion was reserved for slaves and brigands. The record of the NT is that the earliest Jesus-community also expected some sort of heroic spiritual figure (although not a warlord).
Claims that the Christ-kerygma was invented wreck on this rock: *you don’t invent a story unless it is plausible, unless it is likely to persuade.* The notion that a supernatural hero (for lack of a better term) was FIRST crucified would not have persuaded anyone–*unless it was in fact true.*
So we can be sure of two things: there was a Jesus, a wandering Jewish preacher, and he was crucified.
I do not want to be misunderstood: it is not the *resurrection-claim* that is “auto-probatory”. That is left to faith.
Yes, and there is so much genuine anthropological revelation in the Christian texts, it is impossible to imagine it was all invented absent a lived experience, truly revelatory *events*, focussed on some kind of messianic figure.
Oh. You mean like “Paul Bunyan” or “Pecos Bill”?
So we can be sure of two things: there was a Jesus, a wandering Jewish preacher, and he was crucified.
I do not want to be misunderstood: it is not the *resurrection-claim* that is “auto-probatory”. That is left to faith.
Exactly. There is no doubt with the non-biblical accounts of His existence. The crux of Christianity is based on Resurrection. Which is why some ache for his bones to be found so they can relish themselves as the highest power. But that’s Leftism personified. You will bow down before me as I know what’s best and screw your pretentious god in the clouds. Oh, and I hate you but at least I have good intentions.
Such as…?
And don’t start in with the Josephus, because a) his mentions were written 60 years after the fact, and are thus not really contemporary; and b) only one of the two references is authentic; and that one merely mentions Jesus’s name and nothing else; the inauthentic one is the one that refers to Biblical events, but since it has been altered we can’t know if it was a later addition.
Aside from the Josephus passages (which I personally find pretty dubious, though the arguments for and against could fill several books), which non-Biblical accounts are you referring to?
No one doubts that there was an active Christian community by about 70AD, so any references after that time could rely on the statements or beliefs of those early Christians. But what references — independent, non-Christian references — are there prior to that time?
Since the Romans kept pretty good records of everything, and since Jesus’s life and death seem have elicited (as far as I can tell) no notice at the time, my skeptometer keeps tingling.
Not that my opinion on the matter counts for anything or will sway anyone, but I am of the camp who thinks that it was Paul himself, during the 60s, who transformed an extremely obscure messianic movement, revolving around a figure who was either legendary or who had a very brief career noticed by only a few, and fashioned this movement into a major religion.
As an agnostic, and neither an atheist nor a Christian, I have no real skin in the game, as they say, but I’m pretty hard-nosed when it comes to solid evidence. Seeing as I have in modern times completely ridiculous non-facts like “9/11 Truth”ism and any number of liberal fantasies somehow manage to attract millions of believers, even in an age of publicly available evidence and videotapes and all the rest, I find it quite reasonable to assume that movements of a similar level of factuality could arise back 2000 years ago when there was no digital archive of reality.
I’m not stating categorically that there was no Jesus; I’m saying that the evidence for his existence, while much stronger than that for Mohammed, remains inconclusive, for secular folks like me. It may be hard for Christians to grasp how anyone could doubt the existence of something or someone that seems so larger than life and so incontrovertible from a believers’ perspective; but try to set aside that worldview for a moment to see it from the vantage point of someone looking for real, solid proof.
Now, if evidence crops up (and for all we know it still might), I’ll happily change my mind and accept without doubts that Jesus was real. But I have not seen that evidence, and so I remain passively skeptical.
Hey Zombie,
The fact that the Jesus is the Messiah is easily proved. Consider the following facts:
1. The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophesies relating to Him.
2. The Old Testament was established hundreds of years B.C. (Septuagint)
3. The odds aginst a man fullfilling all these prohesies are astronomical.
The only fact to acertain now is: Is the New Testament accurate?
1. As you point out, many eye witnesses were alive as the N.T. was written.
2. Why would the previously timid Disciples willingly martyr themselves for what they knew to a lie. Had they stolen the body, they would know that Jesus was not resurrected.
3. At the time of His death, to the world, Jesus was an traveling carpenter street preacher with a relatively small following; why would history record that? Since then He has grown somewhat in popularity.
Josh McDowell covers this type of apologetics well; here is a link to one of his books:
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631
Peace, Love, Rock-and-roll
It’s easy to see how those who wrote the New Testament after Jesus’ death could rewrite events regarding Jesus to make them fit more with the Old Testament prophecies. Just like the old Soviet Union used to rewrite history to make it look like they invented everything first and that the Baltic states had always been part of the Soviet Union.
All these religions survived the lack of confirming archaeological and historical evidence.
Jews still celebrate Passover every year, despite the fact that there is no evidence for those events: There is no evidence that the Red Sea was ever parted or that the Egyptian army was drowned. (The Egyptians never mention the destruction of their army in any of their own records.) In fact, there is no evidence that the Jews were ever enslaved.
These religions are all moral guides based on myths. Myths are not falsehoods; they are allegorical stories intended to make a point.
“There is no evidence that the Red Sea was ever parted or that the Egyptian army was drowned.”
There has been found a shallow ridge across the Red Sea that often is at or near sea level. They have also found remnants of Egyptian chariots and other remains along this ridge pointing to the fact they did try to cross at this point but didn’t make it. I saw that on the discovery channel not long back though I don’t remember all the details.
You are correct that the Baltics were not always part of Russia/U.S.S.R. By the end of the Great Northern War [1700-1721] between Russia and Sweden, Russia had captured Estonia, Latvia [except for the Western part - Poland] and a piece of Lithuania. By the Third Division of Poland, the Russian border abutted East Prussia, effectively incorporating all of the Baltic states. Each emerged as an independent State between 1918 and 1921 during the Bolshevik Revolution and were recognized by the Treaty of Versailles. The USSR occupied all three in 1940 and they did not regain independence until 1991.
It is also possible that the Disciples believed the end times messages would happen in their lifetime, and only after getting along in years did they realize they might not know when the end was and started putting the Message into letters and sending them out to known Christian groups. Many writings of this age from different authors and cultures have far less to back their claims, but historians have no problem accepting them into ‘the fold” of historical fact.
Archaeology, baby. That’s the crucial supporting evidence.
If Pliny had described a big volcanic explosion, but later archaeologists could find no record of that explosion, then his claim would not be automatically accepted s fact, but would instead be put (along with countless other ancient claims) in the “maybe” pile.
But if, as happened, later archaeoligists dig up the remains of Pompeii and Herculaneum, then the claim is accepted as fact — because there is archaeological confirmation.
We don’t just “trust” that the Greeks worshipped Zeus and Apollo and Hera — we have dug up temples proving it.
People mostly thought that the Trojan War was just a myth — until the site of ancient Troy, with huge walls, was discovered.
And so forth.
I myself have been inside Christian catacombs in Rome dating from shortly after 100AD; there’s proof right there that a big Christian community existed by that time. (No crosses visible, interestingly — just ICHTHOI fish [i.e. representing the Greek-based anagram Iesous Christos, Theou Yios, Soter, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, our Savior"]; I guess the cross didn’t emerge as a Christian symbol until later).
But try as everyone has since the time of St. Helen, no one has ever found convincing archaeological traces of Jesus Christ in the places mentioned in the Bible. Sure, the places are all real — but where is any physical evidence of what supposedly happened there?
The presence of archaeological evidence is what makes the difference between an ancient literary claim being accepted as true or remaining as unproven.
Replying to ZOmbie (no “reply” button appeared): the cross would not have been used at the time because crucifixion was such a shameful death (reserved for rebellious slaves etc.)
One theory I heard is that the Egyptian Xians (remember, the Coptic church is one of the very oldest, arguably older than the Roman Catholic one) were already familiar with the Egyptian “Ankh” symbol and thus less freaked out by the cross.
“Would the disciples have suffered and died for a fabricated saviour?”
One of the reeds of straw holding up the shabby edifice of Christendom is the alleged suffering and cruel fate of his original apostles, the twelve disciples chosen by the Lord himself. By their heroic, cheek-turning sacrifice, these worthies earned their martyr’s crown and joined their Lord in Heaven. In so-doing, they inspired generations of noble Christians, who ultimately taught the blood-thirsty Romans the Christian values of compassion and brotherly love. Well, that’s the myth.
Though cruelty and human suffering have ever been integral to the history of the Church the fanatics of Christ have rarely been the victimized innocents. Rather it has been the Christians who have bathed their faith in the blood of others.
There is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the twelve Apostles and absolutely NO evidence for the colourful variety of martyrs’ deaths they supposedly experienced. The Bible itself actually mentions the death of only two apostles, a James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa and the nasty Judas Iscariot, who gets several deaths because he’s the bad guy.
Legend and tradition alone, dreamed up by the early churches in their bid for legitimacy and authority, provided the uplifting fables of heroics and martyrdom. The plethora of conflicting claims and alternative deaths stand eloquent testimony to wholesale fabrication of the non-existent godman’s non-existent companions.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html
“No existing evidence”? I can point you to the Gospels, the Book of Acts, the Letters of Paul, the Works of Josephus, the writtings of the second generation of church leaders – including those personally connected to the disciples – etc.
Zombie – Both the NT & Josephus mention ‘Messianic’ groups around the time of Jesus (usually with the Romans stomping the groups and their leaders). There also seems to have been (at least) two versions of Christianity by the time of the Destruction, so I would think there is something to Jesus’ historicity (including the aforementioned Pauline letters). But I think you might be right about Jesus and his followers having been an obscure messianic group, with Jesus then having been crucified by the Romans. (If Jesus ever uttered, Render Unto Caeser what is Caeser’s and Unto God what is God’s, then for Romans his utterances would be very seditious; God as creator of the universe, would be technically its owner, and everything would be His, nothing would Caeser’s.) In any event, it would have been Paul who would then have spread belief in the ‘Messiah’ to the gentiles.
BTW Christ (Greek) = Messiah (fr. Hebrew) = Annointed
Every king in ancient Israel, probably including Herod, as well as every High-Priest was annointed, making them all messiahs.
Zombie: Please go to Issues, Etc and listen to the podcasts that I cited elsewhere. You might also want to check out some of the reference books, especially “From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology” by Andrew Steinmann – https://www.cph.org/p-18805-from-abraham-to-paul-a-biblical-chronology.aspx. Josephus is not as unreliable as you seem to think, the fact that he writes after the fact is not nearly as important as you assume.
John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on “The Christ,” compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time of Christ and not one of whom ever mentioned him.
Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod’s massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ’s heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.
In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on “The Antiquities of the Jews.” In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of “The Antiquities of the Jews” appeared, in which occurred this passage: “Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed Josephus had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his “Evangelical Demonstration,” (Book III., p.124), in these words: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
The alleged forgery you mention in Josephus has been proven to not be a forgery. A copy of the works of Josephus was found that predates the supposed date of the forgery. The earlier copy contains the reference to Jesus.
Josephus also contains a section on John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus.
The contention that Josephus only provides a vague reference to Jesus and that the reference is an obvious forgery is wrong.
I have to agree with Zombie’s take on this, not least because early Christianity and the stories of Jesus’ life and death so closely parallel those of an earlier religion, Mithraism. Mithra apparently was also born of a virgin, also died and was resurrected. Before that, there is the story of Egypt’s Osiris.
This doesn’t prove or disprove Jesus’ authenticity, of course, but it does lead one to wonder if one story gave rise to another, and to another, as a metaphor for human faith in the divine.
Anyway, this post on Mohammed (or Muhammad, or whatever) is a real eye-opener. I just assumed, along with everyone else, that there was documented proof that he existed. How very interesting to discover that maybe he didn’t. It also makes sense to me that the Koran was cobbled together from existing Jewish and Christian texts, with a lot of Arab superstition thrown in.
Don’t forget that Mithras’s feast day was…December 25. And then there’s this: “The Christian apologist Tertullian wrote that as a prelude to the Mithraic initiation ceremony, the initiate was given a ritual bath and at the end of the ceremony, received a mark on the forehead. Tertullian described these rites as a diabolical counterfeit of the baptism.” Or is it vice-versa?
Also: the priests in the Isis/Osiris cult wore clothing and performed rituals and gestures that were almost indistinguishable from later Catholic rituals.
I think it’s pretty well established that many surface (and some deeper) attributes of Christian practice contain “borrowings” from earlier religions. The question is: Are there similarities because Christianity is in some way a descendant of these earlier mystery religions; or is it simply the case that new converts to Christianity bought their old customs with them, and eventually those old customs transmogrified into Christian customs?
In central and northern Europe, in the early medieval period before the populace was fully Christianized, the local Christian priests slowly brought people into the church not by forcibly attempting to turn people away from their paganism, but instead by informing the locals that their local goddess, for example, was just a manifestation of the Virgin Mary. The locals would then still go to their pagan temple or holy site, and still worship the idol, but slowly over time the goddess became more and more associated with Mary, and then the younger generation would grow up thinking that the idol was a statue of Mary, and when it came time to rebuilt the old shrine, it was rebuilt as a church, and in this way over several generations pagans became Christians without anyone even really noticing. But the end result was that many “local customs” as it were became integrated into the Church.
The same thing likely happened in the late Roman era.
You’re using Victorian factoids. The most up-to-date archaeological and literary research sharply differentiates Roman Mithraism from the Persian worship of Mitra. The Roman group seems to be a sort of California version of Mitra, concerned with totally different, non-Persian, non-Zoroastrian, standard Roman initiation religion stuff, that the Romans made up themselves. We don’t know much about it, but it’s pretty clearly more about killing bulls, the zodiac, the planets, and having a symposium afterward, than anything Christian-like.
It does seem (from Justin Martyr’s remarks) that Roman worship of Mithras did incorporate some kind of communion-like stuff, which he complains that they stole from Christianity. (And given the Roman habit of religion mix-and-match, that’s not unheard of.) But that’s about it. (There are no sources for Mithras having a virgin birth, shepherds, etc. You can’t always believe what you read in Victorian books or the Internet. The one story we know says that Mithras was born out of solid rock, although not in as yucky a way as Attis, thank goodness.)
The religion of Sol Invictus (the one with the December 25th holiday) is totally different again, being mostly an imperial-instituted religion. It was invented after Christianity, and apparently was a try at appropriating the popularity of Jewish monotheism and the Christian Christmas holiday, probably with a little duck into other monotheisms of the east and philosophy’s monotheism. Various gods, emperors, and generals are occasionally called “sol invictus”, including Mithras, but that’s Roman rhetoric for you.
There is no doubt with the non-biblical accounts of His existence.
Such as…?
Zombie,
Thanks for the discussion. I always appreciate your comments. In regards to other non-Biblical, non-Christian sources from antiquity that mention Jesus.
Josephus:
Josephus is certainly our most important source from antiquity on 1st century Palestine.
He mentions the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas (Antiq. 18.116-19).
He mentions the killing of Jesus’ brother James by a mob whipped up by the high priest Ananus (Jesus had brothers and sisters Mt. 14:55, James one of his brothers later became head of the church in Jerusalem Acts15:19-23. Josephus identifies james as “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (Antiq, 20:200).
The most celebrated passage in Josephus is the one you referred to in which he refers at some length to Jesus. Also, as you mentioned, there are two versions. One version we know through Christian sources. It contains material that it would be hard to imagine a Jew like Josephus asserting. The other version we have, however, comes from an Arabic version of Josephus that many scholars assume may preserve a text that is closer to the original. It does far more than merely mention Jesus by name, however. If we discounted the Christian version and only relied on the Arabic, we would still know from Josephus that Jesus was the brother of James, the martyred leader of the Jerusalem church, and that he was a wise teacher who established a wide and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders (Antiq. 18:63-64)
The Talmud:
The Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 107B recounts that “Jesus of Nazareth practiced magic and led Israel astray..”
In the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a we read: It was taught: on the eve of the Passover Yeshu (the Nazarene) was hanged. For forty days before the the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.’
As indicated in these passages the Talmud does not deny Jesus’ miracles, it merely attributes them to magic (cf. Matthew 12:22 where the Pharisees accuse Jesus of performing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, i.e. by magic).
The Talmud also includes a number of Ben Pandera stories in which Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier and Mary.
Although the above mentioned material is polemical, the scholar M. Wilcox points remarks:
The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the Gospel’s claim that he was a healer and miracle worker, even though it ascribes these activities to sorcery. In addition it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher and that he had disicples (five of them!) and that at least in the earliest Rabbinic period not all of the sages had fully made up their minds about Jesus.
Tacitus (AD 55-117):
Written in 115, Tacitus refers to Nero’s persecution of the Christians. He writes, “Nero…inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out, not only in Judaea…but even in Rome… Accordingly an arrest was first made of all who pled guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted…”
Tacitus, a Roman author, knew that Christians were named after Christ, that Christ had been crucified (“suffered the extreme penalty”) under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. He was also aware that the movement had been temporarily checked in Judaea but had eventually spread to Rome where it was followed by an enormous multitude.
Suetonius (AD 70-160):
In his life of the emperor Claudius, Suetonius mentions disturbances in the Jewish community in Rome: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” Chrestus is most likely a variant spelling of Christus and many scholars assume that Suetonius is here referring to the expulsion of the Jews as a result of trouble whipped up by the preaching of Jewish-Christian missionaries (cf. Acts 18:2-Two compatriots of Paul were expelled from Rome at his time).
Pliny the Younger (AD 61-113):
In a letter written around 111 to the emperor Trajan, He was the governor of Bithnyia in Northwest Turkey. In the process of describing the burgeoning Christian movement in the area and the Christians he has interrogated, he writes, “They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this, they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ as to a god.”
So from Pliny we know that Christ was worshipped by his followers as a god.
These are the primary non-Christian sources we have from antiquity that attest to Jesus. Even without the Gospels, just relying on non-Christian sources, we would know that there was a Jew named Jesus, who was a miracle worker and healer who gathered a large following in Palestine and who at the instigation of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius and who was later worshipped by his followers.
And while our sources like Josephus were writing some times 40 years after Jesus crucifixion, this is a very short period when compared to other documents we have from antiquity. People would have still been alive who were eye witnesses of the events described. Also, when compared to other historical figures from antiquity, we have far more evidence for the existence of Jesus. None of this proves by the way that he was the son of God or that he rose from the dead. What it does support however, is the contention that Jesus was in fact a historical person and that we can be sure that the picture we get of Jesus from the Gospels is an accurate one.
Any way, I appreciate the conversation and want to encourage you to keep on seeking God. “To those who knock, the door shall be opened.”
Blessings!
Ward
Actually, no: Every single citation you note is from many decades after the fact, when a Christian community already existed. Thus, all we know from those quotes you gave is that by approximately the end of first century there were a group of believers who claimed that “there was a Jew named Jesus, who was a miracle worker and healer who gathered a large following in Palestine and who at the instigation of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius and who was later worshipped by his followers.” But there is are no documents contemporaneous (or nearly contemporaneous) with these events describing them as having occurred.
As for the Talmud accounts: If we are to accept part of it, then we are to accept all of it, and thus if we accept it as confirmation that Jesus existed, then we must also accept it as confirmation that he was the son of a Roman solider who impregnated Mary. Can’t embrace the parts you like and reject the parts you don’t.
You are right in saying that there is no more proof about the existence of some other purported historical figures than there is about Jesus; but that absence of proof in other cases in not the same thing as the presence of proof in this case. And if I were to examine some specific non-religious figure for whom there is no contemporaneous nor archaeological evidence, then I might very likely be unconvinced or skeptical about that person’s historicity as well — especially if extraordinary claims were made about that person.
Every single citation you note is from many decades after the fact
After the fact of what? His death? What is believed to be the earliest part of the New Testament — Galatians could have been written within 20 years of the Crucifixion. It starts: 1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me,
Zombie,
The fact that a non-Christian source like Josephus paints a picture of Jesus very similar to that found in the Gospels does not mean he relied on the Christian community for his information. That’s an assumption. He could very well have relied on other sources. in addition, there was no reason for him to toe-the-Christian party line. if the historical facts surrounding Jesus differed greatly from those promulgated by the early Christian community, there was no reason that Josephus as a Jew, and a historian who by his own accounts tried to be impartial, would not have pointed that out, or chosen the Christian version over another.
Also, in regards to there being no “contemporaneous” accounts of Jesus-this is to misunderstand the nature of most historical material from antiquity. Unfortunately, i don’t believe that we have any contemporaneous accounts of anything in antiquity, if by contemporaneous you mean the original records of an event written down immediately at the time it happened. You’d have to check me on this, but I believe we have two copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars both from hundreds of years after the fact. I believe in regards to the writings of Homer, we’re in the same boat. As I understand it, the New Testament, with literally thousands of copies, some from as little more than several decades after the events described, is by far the best attested ancient work. Of course this still doesn’t mean it’s true.
I guess the question that one is most concerned with, that can’ t be answered by appeals to historical documents, is really that of “Was there a man like the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels and other New Testament documents, and was God doing something through him?” Or simply, “Is the New Testament true?” To answer this question, I suppose one would want to know whether the the types of experiences described in the NT, the types of experiences associated with the Jesus described in the Gospels, still happen today. What do you think?
Ward
There is no doubt that Caesar existed, because there are portraits, statues, inscriptions, marble busts, coins, etc. etc. etc., all depicting him, created during his lifetime.
And there is no doubt that the Romans, under Caesar, invaded Gaul — we have the French language as evidence for that, not to mention roads, aqueducts, place names, etc.
And there is no doubt that Caesar wrote an account of his military campaign, because his account is referenced at the time by other writers.
EVEN SO, scholars still argue over and dispute the details of his accounts, because it is assumed, even by Latin-loving Caesar-admiring Classicists that Caesar faked up details in order to make the Gauls and the Celts look like villains, and the Romans as the good guys. His version is not taken for granted.
And if Classicists treat even the most confirmed texts this way, approaching with skepticism and an open mind every detail, and not assuming the ancient assertions to be true without confirming evidence, even when no religion is involved, then it’s completely understandable that they would treat highly sensitive and highly politicized religious documents the same way.
If Caesar fudged details, or even major portions, then the same might possibly be true of any ancient writer, including and especially writers with an agenda they’re trying to put across.
I am not a world-class scholar. All I know is what is reported by others.
And if Classicists treat even the most confirmed texts this way, approaching with skepticism and an open mind every detail, and not assuming the ancient assertions to be true without confirming evidence, even when no religion is involved, then it’s completely understandable that they would treat highly sensitive and highly politicized religious documents the same way.
Sure and if you treat Scripture with the same level of skepticism as one does Commentaries one will conclude that Jesus taught us to love God and neighbor, was crucified and entombed then seen by many afterwards.
Honest skepticism is a two-way street. Yes, it is possible to lie but it is also possible to tell the truth.
I’m assuming you’ve read the Bible.
Zombie wrote: “As for the Talmud accounts: If we are to accept part of it, then we are to accept all of it, and thus if we accept it as confirmation that Jesus existed, then we must also accept it as confirmation that he was the son of a Roman solider who impregnated Mary. Can’t embrace the parts you like and reject the parts you don’t.”
This is a made-up standard, which is contradicted by your later remark:
“EVEN SO, scholars still argue over and dispute the details of his accounts, because it is assumed, even by Latin-loving Caesar-admiring Classicists that Caesar faked up details in order to make the Gauls and the Celts look like villains, and the Romans as the good guys. His version is not taken for granted.”
Applying the all-or-nothing evidentiary standard you say Christians must use with the Talmud, it follows that scholars who dispute the details of Caesar’s accounts are bad historians in that they contravene that standard.
But of course they are not bad historians; it is your selectively applied, all-or-nothing standard which is spurious.
Zombie wrote: “There is no doubt that Caesar existed, because there are portraits, statues, inscriptions, marble busts, coins, etc. etc. etc., all depicting him, created during his lifetime. And there is no doubt that the Romans, under Caesar, invaded Gaul — we have the French language as evidence for that, not to mention roads, aqueducts, place names, etc.”
This is good point, but rather blithe. What if we were to apply the same hermeneutic of skepticism to the historic existence of Caesar that is applied by hyper-skeptics to the historic existence of Jesus?
The idea is developed here:
Some excerpts:
The Caesar myth theory in brief:
One of the most illustrious families, which eventually provided the Romans with their first emperors, worshipped a family god called “Julius Caesar”. The name is instructive: “Julius” means “Jove’s son”, and “aesar” is Etruscan for “god”.
In other words, the family god was “Jove’s Son, the God”…
In the First Century CE, the Roman Emperors — who sprung from this family — started to become known as gods themselves.
So, to impress their adversaries in the East — the Persian god kings — stories started to be created that they were descended from this “Son of Jove”. Probably this was done by Roman governors to the East, rather than deliberate deceptions by the emperors themselves…
So stories started to be written about an actual descendent of Augustus’s called “Julius Caesar”. There were probably a number of actual people that the stories were based on. For example, the books by “Julius Caesar” on Gaul may have been written by an actual general.
The earliest copies of Caesar’s texts, however, date to the 9th century, almost 800 years after they were allegedly written. Who knows how many times they were copied, edited, recopied, rewritten, interpolated, re-edited, recompiled, rewritten, recopied, and redacted yet again, to suit various religious, historical, and political agendas over time? The same may be said of historians who supposedly reference Julius Caesar, such as Suetonius; the earliest copy of Suetonius dates to the dark ages of the 10th century, a product of the scribal efforts of those notoriously wicked and unreliable, so-called “Christian” monks.
Q: What of the battles Caesar personally took part in that archaeologists can confirm took place at the time and place he describes?
A: Archaeologists can only confirm that battles have taken place in certain locations and at certain times, without being able to identify which individuals were present (or even why they were fought). The archaeological evidence is open to interpretation. While it can be harmonized with a historical Caesar, that is not the only interpretation with which it can be harmonized, and given the weight of the other evidence against Caesar’s historicity, that’s not even the most likely interpretation.
Q: What about the statues of Caesar, that show very little variation in his physiognomy, and which we presume were contemporaneous?
A: There are many more physical busts of Zeus and the other gods which show very little variation in physiognomy. Does this prove Zeus and the other gods are historical figures? On the contrary, it shows that Caesar was depicted in a stereotyped stylized manner which was used for mythical divine figures. Busts of a genuine historical figure wouldn’t all look the same, they would show changes in physiognomy over time.
Q: What about coins and inscriptions of Caesar?
A: These were later representations, or depictions of the Celestial Julius Caesar. After all, we have coins with Hercules on them, but no-one thinks that he was historical, right?
Q: What about Cicero and others that talked about Julius Caesar as a historical person?
A: These manuscripts have passed through numerous hands. We can’t say for sure what the original ones said. Further, cui bono? Cicero’s political and financial interests were furthered by propagating and embellishing the Caesar myth. He was no disinterested witness. The evidence points, rather, to his being the Walter Duranty of his day. Indeed, he was likely the primary inventor of the Caesar myth much in the way that Paul invented Christianity.
Q: What of Caesar’s affair with Cleopatra?
A: There are no eyewitnesses. There aren’t even any Egyptian records of Caesar in Egypt. Don’t you think they’d at least have a written record of something important like that? After all, it’s not as though Caesar was merely a short-lived, obscure rabbi possessed of neither armies nor political might.
Q: Why has no-one else found out about this?
A: It’s because the historical Julius Guild is too strong. People just **assume** there was a historical Julius Caesar. Have there been any peer-reviewed articles **proving** that Julius Caesar existed?
“…and thus if we accept it as confirmation that Jesus existed, then we must also accept it as confirmation that he was the son of a Roman solider who impregnated Mary.”
That was Brian…and he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!
IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?
If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then shouldn’t they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?
To take one example, examine the evidence for Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the “historicity” of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.
Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. The mortal and chaste Alcmene, the mother of Hercules, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Similar to Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.
Likewise the “evidence” of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxYQQoYfMtQ
To take one example, examine the evidence for Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the “historicity” of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.
Not even a little tiny bit.
No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.
You might want to check out the History/H2 channel. They have this guy by the name of Simcha Jacobovici who does specials about Judaism and Christianity. Over Easter there was 10 episodes or so called Christianity Decoded. Plenty of proof of a man named Jesus of Nazareth who was later given the title of Christ, including mentions of him in Pompeii ruins as well as Roman camps in the Middle East.
The Roman historians Tacitus and Setonius have passages referring to Jesus. So you can’t make the argument that there are no references to Jesus in Roman history. There are.
And that is in addition to Josephus, which are quite clear in discussing Jesus.
Simply not true Zombie. The references in Jospehus have been validated by copies that predate the supposed “addition.” Josephus also mentions both John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus.
Actually, it is not the resurrection that is the crux of Christianity (forgive the inadvertent punning reference) but the death of Christ. Christ died as the ultimate sacrifice, therefore no more sacrifices have to be made – truly repent in His Name and your relationship with G-d is as it should be. The resurrection is merely the demonstration of G-d’s power over death: Christ, the son of G-d and one person of the Blessed Trinity, demonstrates by his resurrection that G-d has power over death and therefore, by logical extension, over everything and is, therefore, the one true G-d.
However, even without the resurrection Christ’s death would have been quite sufficient to stop all sacrifices and to allow people to ask for G-d’s forgiveness in Christ’s name because of his ultimate sacrificial death. In modern times many otherwise well informed people have tended to confuse the meaning of the sacrificial death of Christ with the meaning of the resurrection. This is, and has been from the earliest times of the Church, a heresy and only recently, at Easter just passed in fact, the Pope spoke out about this again in one of his Easter sermons and made it quite plain that mainstream Christianity teaches two quite different things about Easter – Christ’s sacrifice for us for the remission of our sins if we repent and ask is the first and defining teaching, and G-d’s power over death, and all that that proves, as demonstrated by the resurrection is the second.
The issue of Islam, and its relation to Judaism and Islam, was discussed at length on the various forums associated with “Spengler” (aka David P. Goldman, now a columnist here at PJM).
Some of these forums are locked, and the material on the oldest forum (“The Edge” at Atimes.com) has been lost in various reformattings.
Here is a recent (less than a year old) thread on: “Is the traditional account of Islam historical” http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17286 . It covers a good bit of ground, and gives more detailed summaries of a number of the works that Spencer uses in his book.
I’ve been saying that Mohammed was a rapist, a mass murderer, a slaver, and now there’s some doubt that he ever existed? Mohammed may not have existed in the 7th century, but he exists today for sure. He’s a rapist, a mass murderer, and a slaver, and there are a multitude of him. Just read the news. Who was that guy who killed those school children in France? Mohammed. Who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11? Mohammed.
The “founder” of Islam no more existed that did a man named Jesus (Greek name). There are no contemporary accounts of either. Whereas both faiths took root in the populations of illiterate peasants, eventually one (Christianity) made solid contributions to the betterment of humanity. Islam to this day continues to be barbaric and primitive.
At its height, the Islamic caliphates made major contributions to culture and science and mathematics as well, back when the Christians in Europe were barbaric and primitive.
Times change. Cultures rise and fall.
In the 19th century, the British Empire was the world’s mightiest superpower.
Times change.
Notice all that science, math, and culture from the caliphates came shortly after the Islamic conquests? After the religion was imposed by force on the North African populations, but before they were fully indoctrinated into the Arab / Muslim culture.
After a couple of generations as Muslims, everything ground to a permanent halt.
I rather suspect that it was the educated and cultured people–mostly Christians, Jews and Indians–who the mostly illiterate Muslims conquerors captured and enslaved who “made major contributions to culture, science and mathematics…”
As was pointed out in a recent comment here, once this “intellectual capital” was expended i.e. these educated and cultured slaves died, and the almost exclusively extractive Muslim conqueror’s societies had to rely on their own devices, things inevitably started to head south.
Hate to nicpick but islam contributed nothing to the world, it merely appropriated (read: stole) the achievements of the non-muslim peoples it’s followers conquered, just as it did with the non-muslim lands, holy places and texts along with the very techologies, sciences and mathematics (i.e. Hindu numerals were converted into “Arabic numerals”) that people like to give islam undeserved credit towards.
Such notions have as much credibility as muslims or the chinese discovering America.
You will note, however, that the Greeks had already made all those contributions to math and science long before Islam ever existed. If the Caliphate was a center of learning, it was only because Greek, Jewish, and Christian scholars were still respected and listened to. Islam, by itself, has never contributed anything beneficial that didn’t already exist elsewhere.
> no more existed that did a man named Jesus (Greek name)
“Jesus” is NOT Greek!
“Jesus” is the ENGLISH equivalent of “Jesu”, which is the LATIN equivalent of ” ‘Iesou ” (transliterated) which is the GREEK equivalent of the HEBREW “YESHUA”. (sometimes transliterated as “YASHUA”)
Which is the same as Joshua.
“no contemporary accounts” I suppose if you choose to set aside the many writers of the New Testament this is true. Christians are not so inclined and trust the similar accounts of the various writers as evidence enough. What other ancient writings have survived in such pure form? Of course, faith, and the ongoing positive outgrowths of this faith in his followers provide evidence of another sort.
Interesting article, but it leads to one big question.
If Muhammad was a fictional character, why did they make him such a vicious bastard? Why make up a guy who laid out all sorts of sexual restrictions – then broke all those rules with a runaway libido? Every time it came time to split up the spoils of war (including the women) Allah conveniently ruled that the lion’s share should go to Muhammad.
This sort of psychopathic greed and lust has the ring of reality to it.
Spencer addresses that argument in the book, though I didn’t mention it in my review.
The answer: You are unconsciously applying your 21st-century liberal/Judeo-Christian/victimology/feminist morals to his actions. In 7th-century Arabia, all those things that you describe (and more) were seen as admirable, as incredible as that may seem to us. The authors of the Hadiths etc. did not think they were painting a picture of an evil man — they were trying to paint a picture of a hero.
By showing that Muhammad needed more women to satisfy his appetite, it just showed how virile and manly he was. By showing himself getting more of the spoils it just show was a powerful commander he was. Etc.
That hardly addresses his point, unless the 7th- and 8th-century Arabs who presumably invented Muhammad also considered it admirable to preach one thing and practice another.
Have you ever tried to bargain for a carpet in a Middle Eastern bazaar?
There are Hadiths saying that it is acceptable to lie, if it is for the good is Islam. And yet, there are other Hadiths prohibiting lying. Double-standards?
Many would argue that hypocrisy, or not yourself following your instructions to others, is indeed not only commonplace in Arab lands, but can be considered an admirable trait if deception leads to success.
As hard as it may be for us to accept from our modern moral standpoint, it may indeed have been admirable for someone — in particular a leader — to “be above the rules” which he lays down for others. The fact that he doesn’t have to follow his own laws just goes to prove how special and powerful he is.
Kinda like all the progs defending Bill Clinton. He needs all those blow jobs and hookers, because he’s Homo Superioris.
// Yes, I’ve actually heard that.
“…You are unconsciously applying your 21st-century liberal/Judeo-Christian/victimology/feminist morals to his actions. In 7th-century Arabia, all those things that you describe (and more) were seen as admirable, as incredible as that may seem to us”
Not incredible at all Zombie.
There is nothing new to human nature, nothing different, shocking or unheard of.
Murder, cruelty, desception and thieft are still celebrated today.
Its simple criminal mentality…Gang-Bang mentality…
Visit an American City and see the priorities of some peoples lives
The ways of Mohammad (not Islam, just Mohammad) are celebrated in certain cultures today in America as admirable, manly and desirable to emulate for the same reasons it was in Big Mo’s day….because the payoff, for the few who dare to “live so large” is astounding. Flash, flesh and a short glorious life are better (to some) than piety and patience.
Mohammad and Islam are simply the opposite side of the “civilization coin”, just as the gang bangers, rapists and Gangsta-theives are the “opposite” of the productive and compassionate people in todays society.
The world of dark and light, love and hate….
Always has been…always will be.
“Jesus” and “Mohammad” are just the convenient metaphores that have evolved over time to tell tell who’s who.
Allah has no resurrection power … whereas the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob does … end of story. I know who is the most powerful, and it ain’t Allah. In fact, I saw Allah packing his bags and getting out of town the other day; running.
So all this bloviating and intimidation in the Muslim call to “prayer” means nothing … who woulda thunk it?? Allah and Mo’ are counterfeit; they are pure evil disguised as “good”, and they don’t even do that very well. I’d say that they’re a pair of clowns … ’nuff said.
Hmmm. Super powers! My godguy is more magical than your godguy. Good argument.
“And in a field fraught with controversy and more than a simple threat of violence, it may be hard to ever again find a book which approaches the topic of Islam with fearless academic impartiality.”
I think you are playing fast and loose with the word “impartial” when you talk about Robert Spencer and Islam!!! I used to regularly read his Jihadwatch website and it was pretty obvious how little he regards Islam and Muslims. I’m not saying he’s wrong or that his book is likely to be full of holes but impartial he ain’t.
If Muhammad was a fictional character, why did they make him such a dick? Wouldn’t they have invented a character who at least lived by the rules he invented or received from Allah?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm
That’s a good point. Supposedly Mohammed gets his start by marrying a rich 40 year old widow, who can support him while he listens to God and tries his hand at politics. This is scarcely the preferred narrative for a heroic figure, which suggests both that there is some remnant of truth here and, therefore, that someone sort of like the traditional Mohammed existed.
Interesting indeed, Zombie. This actually feeds directly into something about Islam and the Quran that I’ve pondered for decades now. Specifically that there is precisely one mention of Jerusalem in the entire Quran, yet Muhammed just conveniently happened to “ascend to heaven” from the Temple Mount – the Jew’s holiest of holys?
It always appeared to me that this entire part of the Quran is just an out-and-out fabrication, added to specifically give Muslims claim to the Jew’s holiest of places, and nothing more.
Allston – The Koran does not quite say, Temple Mount. It says something about a holy place that is then interpreted to mean, Temple Mount.
As I understand it, it was referred to as the “Farthest Mosque,” or Masjid Al-Aqsa, which is historically considered to mean the site of the current Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount.
In any event, as I’d mentioned, it is just all-too-convenient for Islam to have a sudden claim to a hated other religion’s holiest place. Far too convenient for my tastes.
Allston – Don’t disagree, and they continue to do the same thing to the present. Whenever some grave of a Jewish sage is found, they claim if for their own, or they say there was a mosque there, etc.
“Historically considered” isn’t quite the sum of it.
Caliph Abd el-Malik built the Dome of the Rock, claiming that the stone beneath it was the destination of the Prophet’s Night Journey. He wanted to shift the focus of worship away from Mecca to Jerusalem, which was his capital. It was a crass, transparent attempt to increase his political influence, and was ignored in his day for that very reason. His son later built the al-Aqsa Mosque, next to the Dome, making the claim again, and was likewise ignored.
It wasn’t until much later, during the Crusades, when the great Saladin resurrected el-Malik’s fabrication as a rallying cry to motivate his troops, that it became “fact”.
More recently, Saladin’s claim (a mere tactic of war) has been taken up as dogma by the Islamist anti-Zionists.
Zombie – I have not read Spencer’s book, so let me ask the following three questions, which may have been answered in the book.
1) The Koran appears to have an earlier part and a later part, with the earlier part being much more ‘liberal’ in its treatment of Jews and Christians, and the later part being much more harsh. (The rule is that the later statement over-rule the earlier statements.) Some have said that the earlier part was written when Muhammed was weak and needed at least peaceful relations with Jews and Christians, and the later part was written when Muhammed was strong and was no longer in need of peaceful relations. Does Spencer address that?
2) There is a Jewish tradition that the city of Medina was originally nearly all Jewish (the word Medina can be Hebrew and can mean, state, or province). The tradition continues that Muhammed besieged the city and the city capitulated, and part of the terms were that the inhabitants were to be left in peace. After Muhammed entered the city he proceeded to massacre the inhabitants. Does Spencer mention anything about that?
3) There were presumably offspring from Muhammed who were the early rulers of the Caliphate. If there was no Muhammed, whose offspring were those early rulers. Anything by Spencer on that?
Your data is correct.
1) The Mecca Sura and the Medina Sura, pre- and post-Hijira (or ‘migration’), but ALSO pre- and post- the death of Muhammad’s first wife, Khadijah. She was an older, strong-willed, independently-wealthy businesswoman who hired Muhammad, then later married him. She had a great influence over him. (It’s my guess that her passing left him exposed to other influences.)
2) Don’t know whether it was “nearly all”, but there were three Jewish tribes living there. He didn’t besiege Medina. His followers and he peacefully moved there. Later, when these Jews rejected his teachings as outside the Judaic mainstream, he turned on them. (Yes, Muhammad’s and Khadijah’s spiritual background was rooted in Judaism and Christianity. Khadijah had a cousin who was a convert from Judaism to Christianity.)
Remember, none of this is history, in the western, scholarly sense of the word. It is legend and tradition, primarily based on the Sira. There is not a single word—much less sentence—that can be adduced from the Quran to support it.
… “none of this is history, in the western, scholarly sense of the word”
Precisely.
Islam, as a rule, has adamantly (and violently) resisted the kind of scholarly inquisitions which Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to, over and over.
IIRC, the Mu’tazili School combined Islamic and Hellenic intellectual traditions. It was hounded — and executed — out of existence.
pre-Boomer – Thanks for the info on Medina. My memory was faulty on that.
You’re welcome.
FYI, my “scholarship” is spotty on this subject where we have practically nothing to get our teeth into in the first place. That said, something deep in my gut keeps saying his first wife, Khadijah, is the key to the change in the tone and content of the Message. All indications I’ve seen say she was a strong influence upon him. They were married for quite a long time. He took no other wives until after her death.
It was during her lifetime that the Suras contained verses saying there should be no compulsion in matters of religion, and that righteous Jews and Christians will certainly enter Paradise.
A few years after she died, Muhammad appears to have gone through what might be labeled, a life-change. Problem is, we have zilch way of knowing.
1) Yes, he does touch on that. The early part of the Qur’an was supposedly “received” while he was still a nobody in Mecca. The later part was received after the hejira to Medina, after which he became a military leader/caravan thief. Thus, in the later revelations, they conveniently matched his new-found need to be a violent and vicious commander. (Presuming the whole story to be true, of course.) Another possibility he addresses, if I remember, is that there were two supposedly different gatherings-together of the Qur’an, by two rival political factions at different times, and that each faction may have slipped in passages that matched their political requirements at that particular time.
2) I think you’ve got two or more stories jumbled up. I don’t think he massacred the inhabitants of Medina as you describe — you may be thinking of the “Battle of the Trench”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench
Aside from that there was a different massacre that may be influencing your impressions.
3) Interesting point. None of the offspring were Muhammad’s biological sons (because none of his sons survived infancy), so there is less of anything resembling “direct lineage.” But as far as I recall, Spencer does not go into that particular detail.
re #2) Apart from the Battle of the Trench, he is reputed to have ordered the expulsion, killing and enslavement of the Nadir, Qainuqa and Qurayza tribes.
Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism, Yale paperback “updated” edition (2007), pp 13-15
Zombie – Thanks for the reply. On 2) I may have jumbled up how Muhammed (or whoever) got into the city, but I don’t think I jumbled up the business about the massacre. Here is something I found about it (although it’s more complicated than I though it was): http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/medina.html
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070615013851AAvksrn
asks: “The first word of Quran is ALIF-LAAM-MEEM. What does it mean?”
After reading all the wild possible explanations at this link, I think you’ll find the following explanation much more intriguing:
Alif-laam-meem are equivalents to the Hebrew Aleph-Lamed-Mem, which could be an acronym for Ani Lo Maamin, which means “I don’t believe.” Pretty subversive, no?
I don’t know whether Spencer discusses this, but I’m pretty sure that some Jews were involved (forced, I’m pretty sure) in writing or editing the Quran.
“Ani lo ma’amin” — heh
Wikipedia has this (caveat lector) on these abbreviations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqatta'at
Actually, the historical case for Jesus is quite established, what with contemporary historians Josephus (Jewish) and Tacitus (Roman) both mentioning Him and the early Christians. The Gospels are not merely stories, they are eyewitness accounts written to be acceptable by legal standards of the day.
See the Issues, Etc. podcasts at
http://issuesetc.org/tag/biblical-chronology/feed/
and
http://issuesetc.org/tag/history/feed/
Muhammad flew from the distant Mosque on a winged horse to heaven. Therefore, Muhammad must exist. I am not so sure about the horse.
I bet half a paycheck Spencer will get a Fatwa for this.
Kills my metaphorical soul to buy another book by Spencer (I vastly prefer the likes of Bernard Lewis) but I’m out to a Barnes and Noble to get a copy of this one. It might provide clues and directions for further research.
Thanks very much, oh Magnificent Undead One, for pointing it out.
As my mother taught me the trouble with a lie is keeping your story straight. Perhaps the contradiction between Islam aka the religion of peace and the reality we have been living is some evidence of that.
Your best joke. Ever.
Hilarious.
“Christianity has survived all critiques of its origins, relying on the strength of its message and not the provability of historical details. One would hope that Islam reacts similarly.”
Alas, there is not the remotest chance.
I’m sorry but I have no faith that this book actually exists. I have searched Amazon and see a reference to it in paperback but I see no Kindle edition hence it cannot truly exist.
I recently got a new Kindle reader and have several of Spencer’s books and am looking forward to him releasing it on Kindle.
As to whether or not Mohammad existed, I have no idea. The part I find unbelievable is the Hadiths. Some of the first Hadiths supposedly said by Mohammad is that he doesn’t want any Hadiths written down or followed after he was gone. I think this was also covered in the Quran itself. I know there were passages about Allah not wanting “partners”. In other words he didn’t want anyone saying they were speaking for Allah. He felt the Quran spoke for itself and that it was the final word. Also, Sharia was not mentioned in the Quran. It is a total fabrication based on Hadith. Those same hadiths neither Mohammad or Allah wanted. I believe you will also find in the Quran that Mohammad was just a messenger and was not supposed to be worshipped. It also gave people the choice to either believe it or not. Allah would iron all that out on judgement day.
Curious if Muhammad never existed then where did his “descendents” come from that lead to the schism of Sunni and Shia Islam. For example his daughter Fatima and his grandson Husain ibn Ali.
The schism could have been over competing political parties, both trying to lay claim to direct descent from a famous ancestor (like the various claimants to the British throne trying to trace descent from Arthur).
Oh, by the way, since we are talking books, may I recommend a book by Az Zaqqum entitled “The Humor Of Islam, You’ll Die Laughing”. It is well worth the cost. It takes actual passages from Hadiths and the Quran to point out the humor in them.
I read the Durants’ Story of Civilization and the “Search for the Historic Jesus” as well as Wells, and from my memory can note that Islam is some 700 or 800 years younger than Christianity. If religions go through the same evolution over time, this would put Islam at approximately the point Christianity was at Europe in the era of 1200 to 1300 Anno Domine. It had overrun its geographical area, but was still basically hegemonic, a good two to three hundred years away from the Reformation, though the challenges among the various Popes (Roman, Orthodox, Avignon) were already going on (or soon to be experienced). The Reformation came about as literacy and the printing press and the early economic advances of international exploration and capitalism put the Bible in everyone’s hands, and led to people actually reading it for themselves, with alot of competing interpretations leading to a splintering of Christianity. Catholicism prevailed where the priests and biships were able to hang onto their pre-existing monopoly of thought and teaching better than in the Protestant countries, which via the Atlantic, had to engage in more ecomomic competition. The “Search for the Historical Jesus” phase, where the challenge by the literate extended to a scientifically-minded class of skeptics who supped at the Altar of Rousseau and Voltaire, did not come until the 19th century.
Here we have the non-Muslim world, awakened again by Jihad, applying the Jeweler’s Eye of Skepticism a full 400 years in the evolutionary transition before Voltaire did it to Christianity. Voltaire did it from within the Citadel — Christian Europe, but after an early stay in the Bastille, he was allowed to flee to the border of Switzerland and to Germany for a spell. Here, the challenge comes from the Christian West. Will it hurry the reformation of Islam, which had already been split in two from its very beginnings, between two hostile camps of advocates, the Sunnis and the Shia (which is probably an economic class split, no?) My take: “Speed the Reformation.”
Refreshing to see someone reference Durant’s epic. I read the entire series as a youth (in the days when a public library was a font of knowledge – I must have driven the circulation clerks to exhaustion). I still keep “Our Oriental Heritage” next to my desk. He saw the common currents of human civilization, and used them to explain the present, with the slightest touch of cynicism. I imagine that is why his work is relegated to dusty shelves, rather than elevated to the lofty status it deserves.
On the one hand, I think it matters very little at this point. We have a religion that (sometimes, purportedly) acts according to the belief that he existed and (sometimes, purportedly) acts according to teachings attributed to him. Like Buddhism, the existence of the “founder” isn’t really an issue (as it would be in Christianity). It’s the teachings that matter.
On the other hand, it is of some historical interest whether the religion is founded in a person or in a collective.
What astounds me is the dearth of outside corroborative evidence. For Jesus, we have the writings of Josephus and a few citations in Roman documents. Mohammed has not even that.
With respect to Jesus, one needs to reflect on how many other Jewish carpenters one knows about. By ancient standards Jesus is highly documented. There is considerably less documentation for Socrates who was in reality was pretty much made up as Plato’s mouth piece. Oh the scandal!
Anyway, I would guess that there would be plenty of documentation for Muhammad if archeologists were allowed to poke around given he was a ruler of a couple of cities. However, I am sure the Saudi’s are wise not to let archeologists do so as it is certain the history of Islam is probably much more messy than the Saudi’s would like.
I might actually give this one a read (Spencer’s “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam” was somewhat useful), but Spencer’s anti-Islam schtick is so obnoxious that he’s criticized Shia Muslims for their “lax standards” and won’t even concede a right to self defense to the Turkic Uyghurs of China’s modern “Xinjiang” province, or the carpet-bombed-by-Putin Muslim Chechens.
I really think he’s crossed the line from “asking the tough questions/exposing religious dirty laundry” to just plain old bigotry – and I know the word has lost nearly all currency from overuse, but there IS such a thing and it’s not just applicable to Egyptian Muslims bombing Coptic Christian churches.
It seems there was someone name Mohammed, someone took over where he left off when he died his successors. It’s why Shites and Sunnis are fighting.
The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs–Mohammed’s successors–rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders.
The Sunnis believe that Muhammad had no rightful heir and that a religious leader should be elected through a vote among the Islamic community’s people. They believe that Muhammad’s followers chose Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s close friend and advisor, as his successor.
Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed.
Shiites believe that only Allah, the God of the Islam faith, can select religious leaders, and that therefore, all successors must be direct descendants of Muhammad’s family. They maintain that Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, was the rightful heir to the leadership of the Islam religion after Muhammad’s death.
http://hnn.us/articles/934.html
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1145-whats-the-difference-between-shiite-and-sunni-muslims.html
If Muhammad wasn’t a real person, how could his son in law, and cousin Ali be identified to take his place or his close friend Abu Bakr?
Did Moses exist? There is no historical record of either Moses or the “Exodus”. Outside of a few mentions by the Egyptians of a subject Bedouin tribe called the Hebrews, the first historical record of a Hebrew kingdom is a stele recording King Ahab of Israel (the northern kingdom) being led off in chains by the Assyrians. We know Muhammad existed because of the documented bloody wars of succession for his growing empire, fought after his death. The result was the Sunni-Shia schism that continues today. The question is to what degree he was a prophet, rather than just a warlord who had learned the secret of controlling a people through religion (the lesson learned by the Judean elite when they were ensconced in Babylon and applied thereafter, as it was by Emperor Constantine who created the Catholic Church). I believe the latter describes the reality of Muhammad.
Muhammad did not have an empire. He never fought a battle outside of Arabia.
After his supposed lifetime, Arab horsemen invaded nearby countries. The point of Spencer’s book is that we have no proof, as is now claimed, that those Arab armies were “inspired” by Muhammad or by Islam. It could be that the Arab expansion was just a military venture and had nothing (at first) to do with religion.
I think it’s quite likely that the form and structure of Islam was built to strengthen one of these conquerors. Bowing toward Mecca, absolute fealty to the emperor’s officers, raiding the outlanders, dhimmi status for the conquered who do not (and it’s called this explicitly) submit.
Andre in L.A. The first historical mention of Israel (as a people, not a kingdom) is the Merenpetah stele from the end of the 13th century BCE (or BC as some prefer). There is a deep debate amongst arachaeologists about the historicity of David, although the Tel Dan finding does indicate the existence of a Davidic kingdom.
Query: Does Spencer address the Sana’a ‘manuscripts’?
These supposedly offer some contradictory versions of the recognized ‘actual words of Muhammed’. Finding any actual ‘translations’ of the texts in today’s fatwa-threatened media is difficult. The documents have apparently radio-carbon tested to the appropriate time and having been found inside an ancient mosque would appear to have at least a patina of credibility.
As far as I can remember, he does not mention “the Sana’a manuscripts.”
Although I just checked, and he does mention in his notes and bibliography books written by Gerd-Rudiger Puin, who is one of the people who studied the Sana’a Manuscripts.
… “supposedly offer some contradictory versions…”
Not that I’ve heard. The possibility certainly exists (in the “erased writing texts”), but the Yemeni House of Manuscripts would kill before allowing a comprehensive translation to surface.
One reason for the attention to them is that the Great Mosque of Sana’a is the third-oldest mosque in Islam. The original section was supposedly constructed during Muhammad’s lifetime. I’m also read that it’s had a very-long-running reputation as a seat of Islamic learning. For these reasons, my guess is that the hardcore Wahhabis and Salafists would probably like to see those manuscripts go up in flames.
If.there.ever.was.another.Quran . then.those.documents.are.’dangerous’.
I agree – which is why I was wondering if Spencer had anything on this.
Several years ago I read a long article which suggested that they could be an Islamic Dead Sea Scrolls thing. Google tells me the article I remember was a 1999 Atlantic Monthly piece – but I remember reading it 2/3 yrs. after 9/11 so I can’t really be sure.
The Atlantic Monthly article. January, 1999.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199901/koran
WSJ 2008, on another source of images of early Qurans
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120008793352784631.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today
A 2008 follow-up article to the WSJ in the Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html
Great links! Thanks.
—> Everybody: read them.
Thanks for the references – I’ve read them all – musta’ just been a post 9/11 interest that drove me to the older Atlantic Monthly article. Never paid a lot of attention to Islamist theology prior to that.
A small note: The absence of anything really current on this tweeks my suspicion bone that maybe there IS something there (sigh, I’m not really a conspiracy-type theorist … but this IS Islam). My initial query was in the hope that Spencer had something more recent than 2008.
I’ve always thought that it’s quite plausible that Islam actually originated in Egypt. The reason being, as you pointed out, that they pulled a subtle but critical bit of replacement theology on the Jewish Bible by making Ishmael the chosen son. This made Haggar the matriarch, which is a narrative that would appeal to Egyptians. The notion that the Arabs descended from Ishmael is speculation, but there’s not much disagreement about Haggar’s Egyptian roots.
Also, kind of a subtle thing, but the Arabians had no particular love of cats or hate of dogs, but the Egyptians love their cats to this day. That little detail seems a lot more likely to be of Egyptian origin that Arabian.
The context is much more likely to be al-Sam (Palestine). The Quran is constantly interacting with Jews, especially, and to a lesser degree Christians. The city of pilgrimage appears to be Jerusalem, not Mecca or Medina. If in fact Islam is some sort of Jewish-Christian gnosis (or simply an anti-Chalcedonian heresy), the Palestinian matrix is almost certainly where it would have originated. The Dome of the Rock, the earliest testimony to quranian texts, is in Jerusalem. It lacks minarets, suggesting that it is a primitive version of mosque architecture. The Quran itself is clear that Jerusalem eas the original qibla, the orientation for prayer.
Dogs protect their owners, which would be inconvenient to a looter or thief. I think thats why Muslims don’t like dogs.
Wasn’t a Muslim the first Old World man to set foot in North America? I read it in the NYTIMES.
Also, NASA is compiling all the Muslim contributions to space exploration. Obama told them to. I can’t wait to read it.
I’m sure once Muslims feel better about themselves, thanks to the NYTIMES and NASA, we’ll see less of this beheading and Kill-the-Jews nonsense.
Since Obama’s Speech-to-the-Muslim-World, I sense less violence in the Arab World.
Amazing what a few words can do!
It’s not Mohammed that is causing the problems; it is the muslims.
So be warned: the next time you have a blank piece of paper, it could be interpreted as a drawing of Mohammed.
Incoming fatwa.
Including that soft, two-ply paper I buy by the roll?
Dear Zombie,
Im a big fan. Very happy that you reviewed Spencer’s book and summarized it for me. I wonder though, I’ve been going through your Mohammed Image archive, and there seems to be a few examples of images which purport to show Mohammed but which date from the 7th century. I suppose it could just be that those images were only later deemed to be of Mohammed, but seems like an interesting avenue for research.
Cheers.
Yes, I think you are referring to the coins depicted in the archive (http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/mo_coin_big.jpg) which might date from around 697AD and which might depict Mohammed.
Actually, Spencer spends several pages on Islamic numismatics from the era, but I didn’t have space to cover that in my review.
I too think it would be an interesting line of research.
Eleven of the twelve witness’s of Christ’s suffering and resurection were exicuted, with the offer of life if they recanted their story of Christ. They all refused. This is recorded in other, non-believer records, i.e. Roman notes, etc. From these accounts we know that there were people who believed enough to die for their beliefs. There is quite a bit of “other” types of records that have been found of the existance of Christ and his followers. There is no such supporting evidence regarding Islam. And the open research of religion is either going to conferm or disclose mistakes within that religion. Fear of questions makes me question the source anything put forward as truth, such as politics, (yeah, I am a birther) medicine, stocks and investments, etc.
Whether Muhammad existed or not is irrelevant. Even if he were fictional, the fact is that some wrote a narrative around the existence of such a person.
Likewise, what evidence do we have the Moses, Aaron, or Joshua existed? We don’t have any. But that’s not the point either.
The point is that there is a widespread belief in the things this man, whether real or not, stood for. Personally, I disagree with many of the things that Islam preaches.
However, I’m a live and let live kind of person. As long as they’re willing to build communities and cultural bridges, I’m happy for them. The trouble-makers are the supremacists, the bigots, and the utter hatred that often emerges under the umbrella of “religion.”
As long as that continues, I won’t have any more respect for what they stand for than I would have for the Westboro Baptist Church.
I wouldn’t waste time arguing theology with their Imams any more than I would argue such things with a Priest or a Rabbi. Instead, I’ll argue about the civil expectations we have of their leadership, and of the limits of that power.
And may God have mercy on them if they ever threaten me, my family, or my community, because I won’t.
“To the Euro-American mind, the period we know as the “Dark Ages” remain almost completely obscure; even highly educated people would be hard-pressed to offhandedly name anything that happened in the 600s.”
The first Arab siege of Constantinople, 678.
But, yeah, the 6th century was more interesting than the 7th, and the 8th at least saw the start of iconoclasm.
Mohammad was Allah’s messenger. He was not a teacher, he was not holy, he was not a priest. He was a man. It was not his job to force Islam and the Quran on anyone. He was just a mortal messenger and he didn’t even do that very well. Even one of his wives made a comment about how funny it seemed that Allah always took his side in any difference of opinion that arose in that he would almost immediately have one of his visions to end any argument.
So, a *sociopathic” messenger? God always supports me. In more generic terms, I’m always right. Someone who conveniently “receives” divinatory messages endorsing what he desires to do anyway.
Or is that narcissism? I can’t keep track.
The lefties, libs and atheists/marxists are revving up a campaign to say that Jesus was a homosexual. We must fight this in every way possible. Be prepared!
Ah, they’ve been trying that for decades already. It’s just for kicks — no one takes such insinuations seriously.
I wonder what Mark Durie thinks of this?
Zombie? Do you and Robert Spencer collect the fatwas and death threats?
I enjoyed the review, and will buy the book.
Well, I can’t speak for him, because I don’t know him, but I generally discard the death threats that I get. For a while I frequently updated my “Mo Mail” page with some of the more colorful ones, but I haven’t had time to update the Archive in quite a while. It just becomes almost a chore always feeling like I need to upload the death threats for the public’s amusement. So i’ve just taken to deleting the majority of them, these days, unless they’re particularly interesting.
Nowadays I generally get about 10 – 15 death threats per week, though at least half of them are in Arabic or Urdu or Farsi or whatever, so I can’t actually understand what they’re saying. But from the look of some of them, coupled with the occasional English word or phrase, makes it abundantly clear what the message is about. The ones in English that I save I do so solely because of the hilarious turns of phrase, like “Just wait for the Angle of Death.” The boring ones go in the circular file.
One thing I do for every death threat is trace the IP of the email to see where the sender is located. 95% of the time they are overseas — Pakistan, South Africa, Malaysia, etc. — so I don’t really worry about them. On rare occasion I will get a death threat from someone in the United States. I always save those — just in case. Those are the only ones that actually make me nervous.
Ever since Google recalibrated their search algorithm about a year or so ago, the Mohamed Image Archive jumped up from its standard position of around 5th top search result for the generic Google search “Mohammed” to either the 2nd or 3rd spot, depending on the day (not sure why it varies). For a brief while it was even #1. Having very high Google placement like that means a continuous firehose of traffic to the Archive, and substantial amount of the traffic comes from Muslims simply typing in “Mohammed” and seeing what comes up. You can imagine that a substantial portion of them go ballistic with confusion and fury when they click on a link and see not just a picture of Mohammed, but thousands of them. Some respond with anger and threats — to be expected.
Zombies are the walking dead and to prove it they made a TV show about it. Which is worth about as much as an atheists commentary on the Bible.
As the historical Jesus said: “let the dead bury the dead”.
So it is perhaps appropriate that spiritually dead atheists like Zombie are trying to bury the spiritually dead Mohammed.
See Jesus is alive and He’s laughing at you Zombie.
Nice thesis, except I’m not an atheist. I’m an agnostic.
Your argument — that only Christians can validly comment on the Bible — is the exact same argument that Muslims use — that only Muslims can comment on the Qur’an.
Thus, I’ll follow in your footsteps: Only agnostics and skeptics can comment on critiques of sacred texts.
Zombie – know anybody interested in following up on this subject and competent to handle the research? I certainly don’t have the time or resources.
Zombie – sorry, meant to link this to the Sana’a stuff above.
… “A small note: The absence of anything really current on this tweeks my suspicion bone that maybe there IS something there”
I’m a layman, but something fishy in my nostrils says that “Islam” was deliberately corrupted in the early days. There’s just too much which is incongruous, such as certain radical, 180 degree differences between the Mecca and Medina Sura.
I think that exhaustive examination of the Sana’a scriptural fragments might help, but fundamentalist Islam (“Islamism”) isn’t about to allow that.
I absolutely agree. That said, I believe the historical Christianity and Buddhism were similarly developed through the process of political accommodation (Old Bob hides under desk to avoid bricks, bats, and epithets thrown in his direction).
The problem is that, for the fundamentalist believers, their world-views are so deeply committed to the accepted doctrine that they are unable to discuss the issues rationally. They simply cannot perceive any alternative and, thus, any and all discussions of such will be viewed as a personal attack.
It has been reported that when Galileo offered the telescope to Cardinal Bellarmine the prelate declined saying, “even if it were as you say, I would not see it so.” He understood that his entire life and career were predicated upon a particular view of the way the Universe worked, and, if presented with incontrovertible facts to the contrary, he had to deny them, or confess his entire life to have been in error. The quandary is no less for the Pastor or village Imam.
As to the offer for the e-mail address; thanks but no. I am such an infrequent visitor/commentator that when I finally had a use for it I wouldn’t know where I hid it.
… “fundamentalist believers” …
All of that applies to the “fundamentalist” dis-believers as well.
As for e-mail, I understand. Then take it as a compliment. You have a good head on your shoulders, and maturity in your gut.
As for your other to Zom re: “golden gonad” guys, I would be very surprised if one were to publish anything that was at all earthshaking. I’m sure they’re well aware of Salman Rushdie’s situation.
By chance, do you have e-mail contact established with Zombie?
I do, and we can get in touch via he/she/it.
Sorry, that’s way out of my league. For somebody to do actual research on the Sana’a manuscripts, they’d have to be an expert on ancient near-eastern languages. Plus, know how to access the manuscripts. I am just a lowly book reviewer in this regard! I don’t know such people.
I’m not looking for an Islamist ‘scholar’, just someone who can do the research to find out the latest work the guys with the golden gonads have done.
The Qur’an is a conglomerate of documents coming from hear-say Christian sources, from the Apocrypha, From Zoroastrianism, from corrupt Jewish writings and false histories. Put all of this together it seems clear this document is inspired from the devil and with the devil’s agenda to destroy this world. To top this of, Muhammad did not actually exist would certainly be no surprise. I pray that every Muslim open their eyes that they have been misled by Satan ’cause he is alive and well. Godspeed
Zombie, your Christian history sucks. You should stick with criticizing Islam. When you step into the world of Christian apologetics, you’re incredibly lame.
Doubt Christ’s divinity if you wish. But to deny Christ’s existence is laughable and I am laughing at you.
There are 6,000 manuscripts in bits or pieces in three different languages from the 2nd century Christian fathers, so complete 97% of the New Testament could be transcribed from the historical Father’s writings alone. If that doesn’t pass your historical test for authenticity, then nothing of history is trustworthy.
Spare us your New Age, San Fran bullshit. You’re every bit as offensive as any militant atheist.
The recent book by Robert Spencer comes as no revelation
as it restates the facts
which were already established in Ibn Warraq’s earlier book
“The Quest for the Historical Muhammed” (2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_for_the_Historical_Muhammad_%28Ibn_Warraq%29
See:
http://www.meforum.org/1360/the-quest-for-the-historical-muhammad
for a review by Daniel Pipes.
This material, in turn, was largely based
on the research of the British Scholar John Wansbrough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough
whose research already caused some commotion in the 1970′s.
Something you did not mention which also is of interest:
NONE of the earliest mosques (including the Dome on the Rock) faces Mecca, which was not on any trading route
at the time of the alleged Mohammed.
Correction: John Wansbrough was American, not British,
though he did his research at the University of London.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Satan either. Does that mean He doesn’t exist? What does this have to do with the existence of Mohammed? The more I know about Him, the more I know about them…
This is exclusively for Zombie and this insufferable fool and scold ARHooley.
Since each of you question the authenticity and “historical” Jesus, both making reference to the time and place of the Gospels, I have a simple question.
If I could easily prove at least three of the Gospels were clearly written less than 40 years after Christ’s death, contrary to that crap ARHooley posted above (who obviously believes Dan Brown a Christian authority and probably watches too much History Channel for his own good), would that put anything to bed? Or are we to believe that even 25-30 years after Christ’s death is invalid and fiction?
——–
None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down,” (Luke 21:6, Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). No one disputes the temple destroyed in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple.
Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy surely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Matthew numerous times mentions “as it was written…” You mean to tell me that he wouldn’t have mentioned the destruction of the Jewish Temple? Give me a break…
Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims — such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said — would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.
Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke, by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus’ ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and would require inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. Neither does Acts include the well documented accounts of Nero’s persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64.
At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book – Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59.”
That’s all a matter of secular, historical record.
Sorry Zombie, but this denial of even Christ’s existence infuriates me. Your entitled to opinion, but you carry little authority on this particular subject. And you’re continually guilty of presenting yourself as some Christian historical scholar, when you clearly are not.
Why should you care what I think about somebody else’s religion? If I’m wrong, it doesn’t hurt you in any way. There are 2 billion Christians in the world; but that means about 5 billion people aren’t Christians. Are you furious at all 5 billion as well? I at least concede that Jesus might have existed, but I remained “unconvinced.” There are probably a couple of billion people with opinions much harsher than that. Why focus your fury on a wishy-washy skeptic, as opposed to members of rival religions, or on atheists?
Apparently not. If I was, then you wouldn’t be so upset about it.
I’m not upset in the slightest that you believe in Jesus. Fine by me. More power to ya. You think your evidence ought to convince people; but when (as in this case) it doesn’t, you gotta move on with life. My agnosticism isn’t going to unconvert any Christians.
On this very thread someone (Jeff Dixon, above) linked to an atheist site with an absolute blizzard of info, facts and theories challenging the very basic fundamentals of Christianity. Unapologetic antagonism. And yet you completely ignored that comment. If there’s someone else spoiling for a fight, then maybe that’s where you anger should be directed.
“Spencer in his new book Did Muhammad Exist? does quite a convincing job of showing that there is, indeed, a complete “absence of proof” when it comes to the historicity of Muhammad.”
So what? Religion is based on faith, not proof.
As for a lack of documents from Muhammad’s lifetime, again “so what?” I don’t see how this casts doubt on the existence of a man who lived 1400 years ago and belonged to a remote primitive tribe of desert nomads…none of these people would have left behind “documents” because probably 100% of them were illiterate. As for other people leaving behind documents about them, it would be extremely exceptional for them to have survived all this time. You run into a similar problem with artifacts…most of them would have been lost with time. Yes, this can be argued, but is a pretty strong argument. Likewise, some kind of “event horizon” could probably be determined for most any historical figure.
Based on your review, this book seems about as interesting as any of the similar multitude written about Jesus, which is to say “not at all.”
I think that when a people are united in their death-wish against you, the root cause really becomes irrelevant because they must be stopped at all costs.
The fact that the Adhan, the Muslim call to prayer includes the statement, “.. and Mohammed is Rasul-Allah” seems to indicate that there was some uncertainty about this and this declaration is an attempt to settle the debate by declaring that they are the same
To Zombie:
I think your strong skepticism leads to the denial of the historicity of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Just not enough evidence
Even the most radical skeptics about Jesus say that he was a historical person.
Actually, there is much more physical evidence about Caesar and Alexander the Great than there is about Jesus. Just for starters, both those guys founded entire cities that were named after them and were widely discussed and acknowledged at the time, and which still exist today, with the same names. And then there’s all the statuary, inscriptions, etc., made during their lifetimes, as previously mentioned (applies to Alexander as well).
In fact, you chose the two ancient people for whom there is just about the most evidence. In other cases — people like Homer, for example, or King Arthur, or whoever — I maintain the same level of skepticism as I do about religious figures.
But actually, there are plenty of “radical skeptics” who think Jesus is a legendary figure and not historical. I am not at the extremes on this topic.
A quote from Bart Ehrman, an atheist/agnostic New Testament scholar:
“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. . . . But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land in a bona fide department of biology.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html
More on Reasonable Faith:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/stephen-law-on-the-non-existence-of-jesus-of-nazareth
If we really want to get into facts, then start at the beginning;
The Phoenician alphabet is the prototype for Hebrew, Roman, and all western alphabet systems. Phoenicia ( called Canaanites and Sidoneans in the Bible) spread their stories across the old world, stories about a great flood and a man named Gilgamesh that built a ship and survived with his family, stories about boy being swallowed by a whale, stories about talking serpents and men that lived for a thousand years. Phoenicia controlled most ocean based trade for almost a thousand years and their ships spread their alphabet, their books and ideology
It was in Babylon that Jews learned how to write instead of oral history, and in Babylon the Torah was written depicting a single god we now read of in the old testament. Byblos, from where the word Bible is derived, was a Phoenician City.
It was Cyrus the great that sacked Babylon in 538BC, setting the Hebrew people free from their captors and allowed Jews to return to Israel, and with them they carried back newly assembled Books written in an alphabet derived from Phoenicia, borrowing heavily stories from Phoenician culture, along with Phoenician ideology, which was borrowed from Assyrian which borrowed from those before them.
The first prototype for Resurrection and trinity worship is the great hunter Nimrod and his mother/wife Semiramis and their son Tammuz. Nimrod is killed, and his wife/mother declares him to be Resurrected in the form of Tammuz, their son.
This is the origin of the Trinity worship, and from here spreads to Egypt where Nimrod becomes Osiris, Semiramis becomes Isis, and Tammuz becomes Horus. This story repeats itself dozens of times across thousands of years in many cultures. But this is the origin of Trinity worship.
As far as Christ…the most important individual in the entire bible, and there are 18 years of his life eradicated from the book, nothing from the time he is 12 until he is 30. We can read filler about letters to churches, we can be terrified by revelations, but we are kept in dark regarding the most important person in the whole book, Very Suspicious and intriguing.
Wow, there’s a farrago of factoids for you.
Shammuramat (called Semiramis by the Greeks and Romans) was married to a king called Ninos, not Nimrod. He was supposedly the founder of Nineveh. Their son was named Ninyas, for the normal reason that sons are often named after their fathers. The Bible usually counts Asshur as the founder of Nineveh, although some translations use Asshur as the name of Nimrod’s country and give him credit for Nineveh.
Armenian legend puts Semiramis (Shamiram) together with the Armenian hero-king Ara the Beautiful. She was a witch and he wouldn’t sleep with her, so she marched her armies against him, killed him near Mt. Ararat, and then pretended to be praying to the gods to have him come back to life. She then replaced the real Ara with a Folger’s Crystals Ara, played by one of her many lovers. But that’s so non-ancient a legend it’s funny, like treating Cinderella as a historical source.
I conclude therefore that you’ve been reading the evangelical Christian conspiracy book which the author himself eventually repudiated as having made too many assumptions, Hislop’s Two Babylons. Or you’ve been reading websites that believe that book. Either way, it doesn’t exactly mark you as a skeptic.
Anyway, the real Shammuramat’s husband was King Shamshi-Adad V, and their son was King Adad-Nirari. She was regent for him in his youth, and apparently a successful one. That’s it. The rest is centuries of male fantasizing and fetishization of the idea of a female ruler.
My reading of the actuak book would not stop or start with this reviewer.There is one thing I will say about the ‘reviewer’.To say the evidence of the historical Jesus is skimpy at best,(that’s the best?) , makes me think of this man or woman still being in the Zombie state! Where have you been for the last 50 years? The historical evidence for Christ is overwhelming .to say the least,to say the most is that no(that’s NO) reputable scholar,of which you are not one, can irrefute the historic Jesus no matter how hard they tried, my friend they have tried believe me. For you to enter that into the realm of maybe Jesus didn’t exist,shows your ignorance toward the apologetics of Christianity and the proof offered for His existence and indeed his teachings.there is NO doubt in educated minds on the historic Jesus, ignorance is not a reason to write something you show you are not an authority on.
I don’t have much interest in knowing whether Muhammad existed or not. My feeling is that he did, though he was not the Final Prophet. For the same reason, I don’t need to disprove Jesus’ existence. He did not meet the requirements – set out in Judaism – to be the Messiah for humanity. Nor did the world change following his life and the consecration of his life. I think he existed and was an idealistic young guy, a Galilee peasant who hated what the Romans did to his people. The rest was changed to fit the needs of human psychology, and politics (in Europe). Early Christianity probably had a lot going for it, but then it was ‘weaponized’ – specifically against the Jews and anyone who did not embrace it ‘whole cloth’ (so to speak).
Spencer seems to be using the argument to disembowel Islam. It won’t work, nor is it really necessary. That is, criticism and awareness of current Islamic practices should be enough to cause people to leave Islam. We can see in a place like Iran, where birth rates have collapsed – in part to the ‘pure’ Islamic regime in place – that people do ‘leave’ Islam. But removing Muhammad entirely? Dunno..
While I think you went overboard on Zombie, Tex (have done it myself a few years back), I understand your anger. But it really is just his opinion, so..
Zombie, et al,
Sorry if someone else mentioned “The Hidden Origin of Islam” Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin, eds. This book details with massive scholarly evidence Spencer’s thesis. I assume Spencer includes it in his bibilo.
A few tidbits:
The Umayyad dynasty were Christians, of a sort. They accepted Christ as Messiah, but not Son of God, Co-Equal with the Father. I.e., they rejected the Trinitarian Doctrine. The inscription on the Dome of the Rock is all about this. The Dome was, therefore, a Christian church (albeit built in theform of a Zoroasterian fire temple). Its referenec to “Muhammad” (the so-called earliest Muslim inscription) is really a reference to Christ as “the Praised One”.
Another Umayyad example: an inscription exists in the Gadarenes area (where the pigs rushed into the sea in the Gospel story) in which the first major Umayyad ruler dedicates some rebuilt baths–and a cross is used to lead off the inscription! “The Hidden Origins” also discusses a boatload of Arab coins with Christian inscriptions, etc, to add strength to this thesis.
It was the Abassid dynasty of Iraq/Iran that broke completely with Christianity, for imperial political reasons, etc.
Finally, there was no massive Arab conquest via Arabs storming out of (what is now Saudi) Arabia. The Arabs were already in place in Syria (Modern Syria, Israel, Jordan) and Iraq, and had been slowing immigrating into those areas since about two hundred years after Christ. When the Iranians and the Byzantines exhausted themselves in a truly M.A.S.S.I.V.E war (the pivotal year of which was 622, btw) then these Arab client kings and potentates simply took over their territories. The Arabian peninsula was too poor then (and would be now, if it had no oil) to support very large populations.
Most readers here probably won’t want to deal with the deeply scholarly “Hidden Origins”, but I’d recommend it highly to anyone who wants to delve into the details of this fascinating story.
An Préachán
Yes, he does indeed include the book in his bibliography, along with other similar books. As I said in the review, Spencer makes no claim to have done original research — all he’s doing here is presenting Puin’s (and other researchers’) info in an easily understandable form. Deep scholarly books like “The Hidden Origin of Islam” rarely reach a wide audience because they are so densely detailed. Sometimes groundbreaking ideas need to be put in a disgestible package.
Secular western Europe may have been in the dark ages, not so with the Roman Catholic Church, the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire. All were flourishing. If Islam existed as an organized religion in the 600s AD, I am sure it would have been mentioned somewhere in the records of at least 1 of the 3 mentioned (esp the Byzantines who controlled major regions of the eastern Mediterranean lands at that time).
Were any of the historical records of these organizations discussed in Spencer’s book?
Yes. And no, no one in the Catholic Church or the Byzantine Empire mentions islam until (as I remember) the early 700s.
I wish people would give it a rest when it comes to faith beliefs. There is no historical proof that God spoke to Moses or of Christ’s life and death and ressurection either.
“Even if some literalist Christians find the scholarly conclusions distressing, no death threats are issued.”
Not true. There are always some ‘religious nuts’ out there willing to die and/or kill for their cause if not just threaten it. The difference is that those who do that do this typically do not have the same clout as say Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Plus
“Even if some literalist Christians find the scholarly conclusions distressing, no death threats are issued.”
Not true. There are always some ‘religious nuts’ out there willing to die and/or kill for their cause if not just threaten it. The difference is that those who do this typically do not have the same clout as say Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Plus
I apologize for the double post.
A Woman: can you provide an example of a Christian “nut” issuing a death threat and acting on it over doctrinal differences over the course of the past year?
THE MISSING REVOLTING DETAILS OF MOHAMMED’S DISGUSTING LIFE
One wonders what “disgusting” details of Mohammed’s life or legend did Ibn Hisham leave out of his sanitized version of Ibn Ishaq’s biography of the prophet? Did the butcher Mohammed eat the flesh of his enemies and drink their blood? Was he homosexual or bisexual? Did he bugger little boys and girls? Was he a drunk in the habit of vomiting on himself and urinating in his robe? Was he addicted to hashish or other drugs? Did he practice bestaility or necrophilia? Did he marry his camel or horse? Maybe, maybe not. What is certain however is that Mohammed, if he existed, was more immoral, lawless and wicked than the sickening figure Ishaq and Hisham portray, and that the murdering prophet from the pit of hell was more pitiable and wretched than we suppose.
So Muhammed did not exist
Islamaphobes suckered
“And there is no doubt that the Romans, under Caesar, invaded Gaul — we have the French language as evidence for that, not to mention roads, aqueducts, place names, etc.”
French language only really came when the Franks adapted it (mostly from the Catholics and the influence of the Holy Roman Empire). Also, that does not prove Caesar, it only proves that Romans were there… By the same length we cannot say that Muslims prove Mohammed since there are Muslims… Just because Romans built those things, and that they are there, does not mean a Caesar ordered them. Same goes with your idiotic theories about the non-existence of Jesus, Christians existed from a very early time, almost immediately after Jesus was meant to die but that still does not mean Jesus existed.
So you are failing to your own rules, and you are getting your historical facts completely wrong.
So, someone writes a book about Muhammad, I review the book about Muhammad — and 80% of the comments are instead about Jesus. What’s up with that?
Spencer may have opened a different Pandora’s Box than the one he intended.
The Return of the Cargo Cult?
(The metaphor meant, this time, to indicate loopiness.)
I think you should try to publish your opinion/article in an Arabic publication, then you would have much more Muslims reading it. PJMedia is probably mostly read by North Americans and Europeans, most of whom are Christian.
If you had written an article disputing the existence of Buddha (500 year gap between alleged existence and earliest documents), your current audience would still be more interested in Jesus.
What is up with that? You got exactly the response you wanted. Otherwise you would not have begun your review of a book about Muhammed with an attack on the veracity of the historical accounts of Jesus.
Christianity versus Islam and Atheism: The thing anti-Christians can’t understand is that their opinions are Irrelevant. Christian belief is between the individual and God. There is no outside arbitrator. It is not in the nature of a ‘true’ Christian to physically attack someone over their non-belief because it has no bearing on the Christian.
Questions about the veracity of Jesus and the Bible have been kicked around for 2000 years(both within and outside the faith) and yet Christianity is still here and growing.
What is this, 17th-century Massachussetts?
These freakin 21st-century puritans and their insistence on hounding anyone who commits the thought-crime of doubting Jesus are starting to make me sick to my stomach.
I’m beginning to think that the Founding Fathers declared their independence not just from Britain but from the obsessives who wanted to turn America into a theocracy, and the First Amendment was not to protect us from the Church of England but from the Puritans.
You think a lot of things. None of which are true.
whirlwinder,
” (the US Army was on the way to deal with the Mormon problem of rading wagon trains going west)”
nonsense.
GPerkins,
You are spot on, Puritanical theology did not allow for deviation and they controlled society. Anyone stepping out of line paid a terrible price.
Spending a little time studying origins of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology will uncover a different understanding of what is truly being presented and where it came from.
Modern Popular religions have been corrupted and twisted to benefit the few that manage and are rewarded by masses too afraid to question their own beliefs.
Start at Beginning with Phoenicians, the Assyrian empire, Babylon, and it all leads right through to the modern day. Billions of people today are worshiping what they would brand pagan beliefs of they knew the true Origin of Jesus, Moses and Muhammad.
By the historical standards presented here, is there reliable evidence for the existence of ‘Zombie’?
Hopefully, none whatsoever!
I seek to remain evanescent, unprovable and unknown.
Your sense of humor argues in favor of your possible existence!
simply, Spencer has written one of the bravest books every written. i hope and pray for his safety and continued search for the truth to end the evils of Islam.
Than you obviously don’t have idea about Islam…
Interesting book.
I am not sure you are using the concept “event horizon” correctly. That is for black holes and works the opposite of what you ascribe to it.
Well, it looks like the discussion seems more intent on going after Christ than Mohammed, counter to the review presented in the article. Interesting on how the moral equivalence people come out of the woodwork whenever a charge of authenticity is laid against someone not of the West, isn’t it?
At any rate,m the author’s thesis should be read for itself, and then debated on its merit. I am personally skeptical that Mohammed is a fictional construct, or that the chief facets of his life and teachings have been invented as a cover for militant Arab imperialism. But having read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, and found it iconoclastic fun, I am willing to hear the author out on his current thesis. The rather smug and strident Muslim evangelists ought to play defense for once in the PC Western world, and be forced to explain why Mohammed’s life and teachings ought to be held up as a socio-political guide to happiness. This matter is of particular interest, because Islam holds to tenets and practices which are at odds with the Western (and particularly American) views of human rights and person7 civic values. Christianity allied itself with the converted heirs of Classical philosophy to define the framework where modern representative government was created and upheld. I do not see such a framework where the Muslim theocratic state is allowed to flourish, so some further critical examination of the origin of Islam and its Savior of the Sword should be carried out.