rlogan

Hi Laura D.

I prefer to just look at the evidence for the case at hand instead of choosing an arbitrary position on whether the character in the myth has a historical "kernel" or whatever we wish to call it.

In the examples given there are simply too many differences to categorize situations as "one or the other", and I think there is some confusion here between the historicity of the myth vs the mythmaker.

Joseph Smith, other than seeing visions and the fabled Golden Plates was no miracle worker. The myth of Mormonism is not about Joseph Smith so much as it is the Book of Mormon with the indians being the lost tribe of Israel and etc. The history of Smith's westward movement is pretty well historically documented and not aggrandized into superhuman legend by the Mormons.

Joseph Smith, in his childhood, made up stories about the American Indians, and got a lot of practice in this kind of storytelling. He was sentenced in a criminal case prior to his Mormon stint for fraud - charging money as a "seer" who could find treasure and lost articles. In the tent-revival era of his teens and 20's he saw the Methodists and other groups vying for believers as keepers of the "true faith", and the power over people's minds these carnival-type gatherings produced.

Smith took advantage of the interesting set of skills he had acquired - fabricating ancient stories, defrauding the gullible, to start a religion that had a bizarre combination of hokey "lost Israelite" garbage with recent revelation on rules of conduct. He couched all of this using the same "pitch" he saw given by revivalists - that the true message of the dominant religion had become corrupted and he would lead them back to the true faith.

So when you point out Smith as a reason for lending credibility to a "historical kernel" behind the gospel version there is a fundamental difference precluding that analogy. The myth Smith created has no basis in reality whatsoever. Indians are genetically distinct from Jewish stock, coming instead from sequential waves via asia.

Saying the mythmaker is historical is not to say that the myth itself has some kind of historical basis. Smith is a case of a historical mythmaker just making stuff up. No historical kernel.

Hubbard does not go that far mythically speaking - no visions at all, no fabricated ancient history - just a fake lie-detector type machine and the genius of an administrative structure that controls its subjects. The man is real. The "science" is snake oil. No historical Kernel - and whereas Smith was convicted for fraud, Hubbard stated if he wanted to get rich he'd make up a religion. So he did exactly that. Both frauds.



In the case of Christianity the purported Jesus is no mythmaker. He IS the myth. And in this case we know exactly where the source material lies for just about everything significant for him: The Hebrew Bible.

The whole passion scene lifted out of Isaiah. Born in Bethlehem, being a naza-something, a Judean, coming out of Egypt, born of a "virgin" - on and on. All of it quote-mined out of various places and in the common manner of midrash for the time.

No reason to speculate about the historical "kernel" because it is right before our eyes.

In this case the "mythmaker" is plural because it is not until we reach Eusebius and Constantine where we have finally settled into a consistent story enforced under penalty of law. And what a mess indeed all through mid second century - and beyond. So many pious frauds.

And now to Muhammed.

I admit lack of knowledge there and only suggest that the battles Muhammed purportedly led ought to be verifiable archaeologically. Someone led them if they happened. Is there an alternative candidate? I don't know.

The coins submitted here are the very kind of thing we would hope for, and I admit ignorance there on the particular significance. We also seek though inscriptions on sarcophogi, rocks, mosques and etc. to verify the Quran and other writings.

Again - I don't know. But I do not subscribe to any predetermined bias that Muhammed must behistorical or not.

rlogan

This is such a key point in the whole HJ/MJ or now the HM/MM debate.

When someone states there is a historical person behind the myth it is simply preposterous to remove the obvious mythical parts and say "what's left is the historical person".

Because what is left is not an identifiable person. I cannot speak with any degree of confidence about Muhammed.

What you need to do is not speculate that there were generic leaders raiding neighboring lands on horseback. Of course there were. That proves nothing.

What you have to do is name your specific candidate. Demonstrate what battles he did indeed fight and point to the relevant archaeological site.

Is there a contemporary mosque with the inscription "built under the direction of his holy ass-kicker muhammed..." ?

Laura D.

Muhammad had a fairly short active period. Basically from age 40 he became prophetic. He lived in Mecca until 622. We have a ten year flurry of activity and he dies.

517 Born in Mecca
542 Marries the 40-year-old widow
610 Visions, Prophecy begins
622 Leaves Mecca for Medina with his followers (Mecca is mixed Arab/Jewish)
624 300 Medina Moslems clash with Meccans (Huge Victory for Moslems)
625 Small clash with Meccans (75 casualties)
626 Very small clash
627 Mecca attacks Medina but fails
628 Khadija dies; Mohammad remarries multiple times over the next few years
628 Moslems go to Medina where it concedes;
628 Battle of Khaybar (1,400+ Moslems involved)
629 Battle of Muta’h (3,000 Moslems against Byzantines (Ghassanid), Moslems lose)
632 Muhammad dies

The North Arabian (Arab) society was essentially illiterate. One reason the Qur'an is referred to as a "recitation." It's written in a manner to be orally recited. We had some Arabicized Jewish tribes in Medina who would have been literate. We have a clash with some Byzantines by Moslems (Mohammad wasn't at the one big Moslem Battle) for which the only outside source is an historian who wrote 100+ years later. No archeological evidence of the battles exist. There are no Mosques built by him with his name on them (verifiable ones at least). We can't rely on the Moslem literature for reasons of bias.

So, if we use the historical analytical model applied in the Jesus thread, we must dismiss Mohammad as fictional. Given that there are no contemporaneous outside sources such as Josephus or Tacitus to debate, he is in some ways easier than Jesus to dismiss as a figment.

Tammuz

Indeed. Actually, at least one Hadith attributed to ibn Abbas are supposed to be about an event that happened before his birth!

Yes. But your chronology list of events is wrong. Muhammed was (according to tradition) born about 570 C.E, not 517.

But Muhammed didn't work in the same context Jesus is supposed to have done. Jesus was supposed to have worked within the Roman Empire, and there were many writers in it which wrote about various religions. Yet there is no authentic mention of Jesus.

Muhammed is supposed to have worked in Arabia, a society in which not many could write, and oral memorization was the norm. Byzantine and Persian historians cared little about Arabia, hence it is unlikely that they would record the Hijra, even if they knew about it.

There are some early external references to Muhammed and Islam. Read for instance what Sebeos wrote in the 660s. He also gives some information on the early relationship between the Jews and the Arabs.

http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html#sebeos

Also, the inhabitants of Byzantine Syria got to hear of Muhammed between 632 and 634. A Greek text written during the invasion of Syria says that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens", and they dismiss him as an imposter by claiming that prophets do not come with "with sword and chariot", indicating that Muhammed was actually leading at least some of the attacks. There may be much uncertaity about Muhammed, but his existence is much better attested than the existences of Jesus, Moses, Buddha or Krishna. There is at least external sources referring to him.

I think the best attestion of Muhammed's existence is the criterion of embarrassment. He used "revelation" to get married to the wife of his adopted son (something which the Arabs considered to be incest), he had a harem, he raided caravans and so on.

Clivedurdle

Comparisons with Da Vince Code withstanding, when did it become a play and why? Why was it not always a play?

youngalexander

When the players began wearing Masks. At least 50k yrs, perhaps as many as 250k yrs ago (or more). But yes, always a play.:angel:

Clivedurdle

from my Pears Cyclopaedia
622 Hejira
627 Battle of Nineveh. Persians crushed by Byzantines
632 Death of Mo
638 Jerusalem captured
641 Persia taken
643 Fall of Alexandria
698 Fall of Carthage
711 Invasion of Spain
718 failure of 2nd attack on Constantinople
732 Tours - Martel halts Muslim advance.

750 Abbasid Caliphate

So the battles outside Arabia were not lead by mo, and far from being led by Allah, it looks to me as if a group of tribal peoples managed to create some unity and take advantage of a clear power vacuum due to the empires fighting themselves to a standstill.

Their unity does not look as if it is dependent on a person, but on an idea - god is on our side. The person may be a fiction to explain where the idea came from.

Laura D.

Sorry, it's a typographical error. My source says 571 C.E., I reversed the digits.

The only attacks Muhammad led (if he existed) were against Meccan forces, indigenous Jewish tribes in and around Medina, and perhaps against other North Arabian inhabitants. So when we see the references to a wild-eyed prophet leading a raid in Byzantine Syria, we may see evidence of the existence of other prophets and other raids. Alternatively, soon after Mohammad's death, we see the rapid militarization of North Arabia and the conquest begins. This could be evidence of that process and the prophet referred to could be the first Caliph Abu Bakr. We don't know.

True. But we cannot consider that evidence per se, it does provide support for speculating that he may have lived. On the other hand, If I was a man who wanted to marry the wife of my adopted son, would it help if I forged a hadiith and an isnad saying the prophet married the wife of his adopted son? I can think of a lot of embarassing things people would like to cover up and if you can point back to "Muhammd" as justification, your life will be easier.

Muhammad may have existed. If I went back in time to Mecca, I would expect to find a Muhammad figure. But we lack verifiable, independent third-party evidence to support a determination as to whether I am correct or not. If Muhammad had lived longer and led raids against Egypt and Syria Byzantine we would be in a much better position to evaluate the historical existence of Muhammad. As it stands, he may have to be labeled "unprovable."

Solo

The marriage between Mohammed and Zainab (the former wife of his adopted son Zayad) was preceded by a formal divorce, and actually canonized (Sura 33:37), so in this respect there was not much that would embarrass the prophet. Having several wives was a mark of social status. Marriages to child brides were common, so there was nothing all that unusual about him marrying a six-year old. By tradition, the marriage was consummated when Aisha was 9, again something quite acceptable for undeveloped, nomadic societies. Mohammed was extremely fond of the bright Aisha and it is through his open talks with her that some of the most interesting insights into the prophet's mind-states have been preserved for posterity.

Raiding caravans and other tribes' encampments was a way of living and getting ahead in the Arabia of 6th and 7th century. The sport was known as "ghazu" and formed an essential part of the nomadic economy. As the practice was widespread no moral scruples are known to have existed about it among bedouins. (The raid was prohibited only in the sacred month of Rajab). However, Mohammed's revelations from the archangel concerning the religious meaning of "war booty" seemed to amuse some of the indigent (mostly) Jewish intellectuals who saw in it a primitive abduction of religious sentiment and morality for self-serving ends. They mocked the new style kahin and the backwardness of his followers heartily. As the prophet was extremely touchy on the subject of religion vs. reality, his critics tended to become members, as a recent American publication put it, of Mohammed's dead poets society. No myth in that, as far as I can tell.

Jiri

Laura D.

Personally, I do not see it as originally a play. I think Matthew and Luke cribbed from Mark. And they introduced additional mythological elements, such as Matthew throwing in the earthquake at Jesus’ death—a traditional way of signaling the importance of the event. Mark is written in a colloquial, “street Greek” style. Matthew has a very distinctive style, he loves to quote the Old Testament. John’s style is very theological, a bit pedantic (note there isn’t much reference to John in the Nazarenes site). Luke is much more literary note, this is where you have the Nazarenes authors pointing to the use of the technical term “strepho” as a stage direction. But we see such "technical stage direction" used a number of times in the New Testament. Take a look at Rev. 11:6, Acts 7:42, Acts 13:46 – all using the Greek verb strepho. I particularly like, Matthew 18:3 where he uses strepho to mean "be converted" (i.e., turn your life around).

I think Luke may have borrowed ideas from the ancient tragedies in creating his narrative. But I don’t see it as originally a play.

You have nice theory, tremendous speculation. But if you want to take it beyond, we need to firm it up.

Do you see the Gospel of Mark as the original play? And that Matthew and Luke (and I use these terms in the general sense to indicate the author’s of the respective books whoever penned them) cribbed from him? I think it works better if you theorize an entirely different document and author from which Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote, changing the "play" to suit their purposes. Then we have a sort of glorified “Q."