RyanS2

Purged its calendar of Saints who may not have lived? You mean St. Bacchus the Martyr didn't really live??????

Steven Carr

<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-325928,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-325928,00.html</a>

An obituary of Wansbrough who claimed that the Koran was not written by 650 AD.

More mythicism for Bede to slam?

Vorkosigan

Wansbrough is clearly a "creationist" arguing for his "fans" and on the "fringe" outside of "mainstream" scholarship. He is only writing for the big bucks one can make writing "fringe" works, and is not a "serious" scholar.

I can't wait to get hold of his books.

Vorkosigan

Toto

Wansbrough was doing well to die a natural death in his 70's instead of being assassinated due to a fatwah.

And it's day 14 waiting for Bede's historical methodology.

Bede

Run for cover, it's the invalid comparision police again!

Does Wansbrough deny Mohammed existed? No, he doesn't. Instead his work suggests that, like Christianity, Islam developed over a good number of years as the religion expanded and met new problems and challenges. He basically thought the same about Islam as I do about Christianity. This appears radical only because critical Islamic scholarship is way behind the Christian. From my drinking with students from SOAS in London this does appear to changing.

But for those who are looking for historical figures who didn't exist, it's back to the drawing board. Better luck next time.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

Run for cover, it's the invalid comparision police again!

Does Wansbrough deny Mohammed existed?

Does anybody here suggest Jesus never existed?

Vorkosigan

BTW, the idea that Islamic history is sacred history (nonsense) is increasingly common among Islamists.

<a href="http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/guest_columns/wheeler_007.htm" target="_blank">See here, for example</a>

<a href="http://www.secularislam.org/reviews/pipes.htm" target="_blank">Or here</a>

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/scohel/page55.html" target="_blank">Here is some great background</a>

Once again, the thoughtful must ask why only the Jesus cycle is treated differently....

Vorkosigan

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Bede

Michael,

Interesting stuff. I would prefer not to get my information from, for instance, a far right website but the scholars named will be followed up.

I expect we will end up with the origins of Islam where were are now with Christianity - a realisation that only the broad framework is historically verifiable. Today's origins of Islam scholars seem to be at about the stage of Schweitzer or Bultmann - swinging too far towards the speculative scepticism end of the spectrum. Still, this could be a fascinating field for years to come.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

PS: The second site did say some (unnamed) scholars doubt Mohammed's existence so it seems wrongheadedness is universal.

RyanS2

With Muhammad, we possess Doctrina Iacobi, (circa 636 CE), which names Muhammad as being alive in Palestine. That is two years after Muhammad died according to the Traditions, (Hadith), in 634 CE. The tract also says that Muhammad is the real savior. Do we possess any artifacts within two years of Jesus purported death, or while he was alive, that bear testimony to his name? However, on another matter, we also have Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem, (circa 634-38 CE), which mentions Arabian Invasion as a punishment against Israel, but no mention of Muhammad, (as far as I know).

To quote Patricia Crone:

"New religions do not spring fully fledged from the heads of prophets, old civilizations are not conjured away."

Wansbrough charged, based upon studying early Islamic commentary and absenses of evidence, that Islam was formed very rapidly, drawing upon sources which were not understood by the Muslims themselves, in the same way they'd quote Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato as all being equally authoritive, without recognizing the philosophical differences between them. *That is a generalization.*

Btw, Wansbrough is a TOUGH read, I'd recommend Crone before him because she is obviously inspired by him w/o the very difficult language that Wansbrough used.

The main people who didn't believe in a historical Muhammad were N.A. Morozov, Klimovich, "Did Muhammad Exist", and S.P. Tolstov. Bede may find consolation in the words of Snouch Hurgronje, (if I'm reading my text notes correctly):

"In our skeptical times there is very little that is above criticism, and one day or other we may expect to hear that Muhammad never existed."

I suppose I should also mention Barbara Walker's idea that Muhammad was a personification of Arabian Gods and Goddesses. Others, (I think Schacht: Origins of Muhammadan Juriprudence), believe that Muhammad was recast as a modern-day Moses, it traces the lineage to Moses, then has an exodus, (Hijra), revelation (Qur'an), and a Sacred Arabian Mountain, Mt. Hira. M.J. Kister belives the Qur'an only has "meagre and scanty" historical evidence, and Sammuel Zwimmer believes that what little historical evidence is in the Qur'an, it is taken from ancient folklore and Coptic religions.

Crone and Hinds, "God's Caliph" tell us also on this matter that:

"Documentary evidence from the safyanid period, (circa. 661-684 CE), makes no mention of the messenger of God at all. The papri do not refer to him. The Arabic inscriptions invoke Allah, not his rasul." (p. 24)

Finally, we find John Burton, Al-Taburi's History, "We know little about Muhammad". What you are missing from these people's commentaries, (and a few dozen others if you really want them from my somewhat scratchy notes), is that there's hundreds of more commentaries on the life of Muhammad than Jesus, but once the historiographic method is invoked, what we REALLY know about Muhammad is next to nothing, so little that if we WERE to say that Muhammad didn't exist, it would make little difference to saying he DID exist. To put it in another context, suppose we know the name of a soldier who lived through the Civil War, but his name is all we had. Would it make any difference whether or not his name was included in history books?

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>