Muslim Theologian: Prophet Muhammad probably never existed

[Samuel]

Muslim Matrimonials ad is on the bottom of the screen. They choose the most inappropriate associations...

Actually, I don't think there is one non-Christian source detailing the life of Jesus. There are no contemporary sources either, which is interesting because a guy coming back to life would be fairly newsworthy.

I think the Muslim explanation (he didn't actually die on the cross and lived, but was in hiding) makes sense for this case. Of course, it shows that he isn't the son of god, but it is consistent with him existing.

Of course, that still leaves the rest of the miracles- especially raising the dead. You'd think some people would have heard about it and left to try to revive someone they cared about.

[hongi]

Patricia Crone, not a traditional Islamic scholar to say the least but she's highly respected.

What do we actually know about Mohammed?

In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts. For all that, we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal more.

There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

Mohammed's death is normally placed in 632, but the possibility that it should be placed two or three years later cannot be completely excluded. The Muslim calendar was instituted after Mohammed's death, with a starting-point of his emigration (hijra) to Medina (then Yathrib) ten years earlier. Some Muslims, however, seem to have correlated this point of origin with the year which came to span 624-5 in the Gregorian calendar rather than the canonical year of 622.

If such a revised date is accurate, the evidence of the Greek text would mean that Mohammed is the only founder of a world religion who is attested in a contemporary source. But in any case, this source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was an historical figure. Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching.

On the Islamic side, sources dating from the mid-8th century onwards preserve a document drawn up between Mohammed and the inhabitants of Yathrib, which there are good reasons to accept as broadly authentic; Mohammed is also mentioned by name, and identified as a messenger of God, four times in the Qur'an (on which more below).

True, on Arabic coins and inscriptions, and in papyri and other documentary evidence in the language, Mohammed only appears in the 680s, some fifty years after his death (whatever its exact date). This is the ground on which some, notably Yehuda D Nevo and Judith Koren, have questioned his existence. But few would accept the implied premise that history has to be reconstructed on the sole basis of documentary evidence (i.e. information which has not been handed down from one generation to the next, but rather been inscribed on stone or metal or dug up from the ground and thus preserved in its original form). The evidence that a prophet was active among the Arabs in the early decades of the 7th century, on the eve of the Arab conquest of the middle east, must be said to be exceptionally good.

[Modax]

I think its likely that Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Zoroaster, etc. really existed. Religions aren't founded by committees, they are generally the work of charismatic individuals. There are many modern examples, such as L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith Jr.

[PainRack]

I think its likely that Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Zoroaster, etc. really existed. Religions aren't founded by committees, they are generally the work of charismatic individuals. There are many modern examples, such as L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith Jr.

Errr. There is no historical evidence for Moses, and the internal evidence is relatively weak too. The relative books are definitely written post Moses death, and given the errors in history with regards to settlements and the conquest of Caanaan, as well as some problems with geography regarding the possible Exodus route, no correspondence to Egyptian records, so....... yeah.

Think about it. Moses was put in a basket because the Pharoh ordered jewish boys to be killed. Upon being picked up by an Egyptian princess, she adopted him immediately and....... gave him a Hebrew name? A bit weird right?

[Thanas]

Actually, I don't think there is one non-Christian source detailing the life of Jesus. There are no contemporary sources either, which is interesting because a guy coming back to life would be fairly newsworthy.

Of course there is. Flavius Josephus.

Just look at Jesus - we know there was one from non-christian sources, but 95% of the stories about him cannot be verified.

Which 5% are verified? And to what standard?

Flavius Josephus varifies that he was born in Bethlehem, was a carpenter, gained some following, tried to incite the people of Jerusalem and committed violent acts at the temple, whereupon he was tried, convicted and crucified. Since Flavius Josephus is one of the best roman propaganda sources there are, I would say he has no reason to invent any positive stories. For example, the details of the miracle works are completely omitted from the text. So yeah, there was a historical Jesus and we know the rough framework of his life through roman sources.

[hongi]

Think about it. Moses was put in a basket because the Pharoh ordered jewish boys to be killed. Upon being picked up by an Egyptian princess, she adopted him immediately and....... gave him a Hebrew name? A bit weird right?

Well, actually Moses is a real Egyptian name meaning 'the one who is born' and hence son. But your point stands, there's no evidence for the existance of Moses. At all.

[Sarevok]

Think about it. Moses was put in a basket because the Pharoh ordered jewish boys to be killed. Upon being picked up by an Egyptian princess, she adopted him immediately and....... gave him a Hebrew name? A bit weird right?

Well, actually Moses is a real Egyptian name meaning 'the one who is born' and hence son. But your point stands, there's no evidence for the existance of Moses. At all.

Is not moses an english version of the name ? The muslims use Musah to refer to Him and it is a common name for peoples too.

[Akhlut]

Think about it. Moses was put in a basket because the Pharoh ordered jewish boys to be killed. Upon being picked up by an Egyptian princess, she adopted him immediately and....... gave him a Hebrew name? A bit weird right?

Well, actually Moses is a real Egyptian name meaning 'the one who is born' and hence son. But your point stands, there's no evidence for the existance of Moses. At all.

Is not moses an english version of the name ? The muslims use Musah to refer to Him and it is a common name for peoples too.

Wikipedia link. As Thutmose/Thutmoses/whatever illustrates, it is an anglicized form of an Egyptian word for "born from/of" and probably would have been pronounced more like "Mes."

[Kanastrous]

Flavius Josephus varifies that he was born in Bethlehem, was a carpenter, gained some following, tried to incite the people of Jerusalem and committed violent acts at the temple, whereupon he was tried, convicted and crucified. Since Flavius Josephus is one of the best roman propaganda sources there are, I would say he has no reason to invent any positive stories. For example, the details of the miracle works are completely omitted from the text. So yeah, there was a historical Jesus and we know the rough framework of his life through roman sources.

Isn't all of Josephus' work on the matter just hearsay? Reporting that people were talking about someone who fits that bill does not mean that there in fact was such a person, as opposed to, say, a collection of different individuals whose actions were confabulated into one story.

And, is Josephus that reliable? His transition from Jewish fighter to Roman sycophant seems to have happened under suspicious circumstances; does that not cast some doubt on the veracity of his later work?

[NecronLord]

Of course there is. Flavius Josephus.

Your interpretation of 'contemporary' leaves a little to be desired, given that if Jesus existed, he would have been dead by the year Josephus was born. It would be like calling me (twenties now) a contemporary source on Watergate.

Josephus' claimed references to Jesus most certainly do include his miracles, most notably appearing after his death.

The authenticity of these occasional outbursts of Christianity is disputed, they may be later insertions, especially as all known versions of Josephus's texts come to us through later sources - and it is certainly incorrect to paint it as a rock solid contemporary source on the life of Jesus. Not like, say a real Pilate letter would be.

[Bilbo]

I doubt whether Jesus ever existed, but to me at least, Muhammed seems historical. Muhammed had a much more profound and immediate effect on his society than Jesus did. Muhammed's followers were all contemperaries, not like the Evangelists and Paul who never even met Jesus. Plus I buy the idea of a historical Muhammed because his fusion of Arianism, Pauline Christianity, Judaism and especially Arabian Polytheism was a great power play in order to become the new leader of Mecca. All prophets are frauds, but I have an easier time believing they actually existed in flesh and blood when they act in their own interest like Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard and Muhammed.

There is, apparently, at least one early source on the life of Muhammad (written by a man named Muhammad Ibn Ishaq which lost to us, but is copiously quoted in surviving sources,) which portrays him in a very unflattering light. Unflattering for a religious figure, but spot-on for a human robber-baron raised in the finest Machiavellian tradition.

Muhammad started out as a bandit and horse thief. Just like Jesus if he exists started out as a David Koresh cult figure. How much of their life as recorded in their scriptures is real we will never know. We do know if we have half a brain to note the obvious that even if we remove all the non-miracle related items the rest is probably at best half true as it was written with an agenda. Heck we know that Muhammad changed some of his own writings when he found that the Jews were not converting to him in mass. One example, origionally Muslims would fast for one day like Jews. When Jews did not convert in mass Muhammad decided that he would prove that his followers were even more godly than the Jews by changing fasting to be an entire month.

[Thanas]

Isn't all of Josephus' work on the matter just hearsay? Reporting that people were talking about someone who fits that bill does not mean that there in fact was such a person, as opposed to, say, a collection of different individuals whose actions were confabulated into one story.

Of course, but that is par the course for any ancient historian.

And, is Josephus that reliable? His transition from Jewish fighter to Roman sycophant seems to have happened under suspicious circumstances; does that not cast some doubt on the veracity of his later work?

It does, however this does actually benefit an argument regarding christianity - for example, why would Josephus need to make something beneficial up in this case?

Of course there is. Flavius Josephus.

Your interpretation of 'contemporary' leaves a little to be desired, given that if Jesus existed, he would have been dead by the year Josephus was born. It would be like calling me (twenties now) a contemporary source on Watergate.

You are of coure correct wrt to the contemporary, I should have specified that my response was to the "non-roman source" first sentence and not to the second one. Seems I was to hasty with the quote function.

Josephus' claimed references to Jesus most certainly do include his miracles, most notably appearing after his death.

He only speaks of him as the performer of miracles and that he was believed by his followers to be the anointed. In a long list of people who have all done the same.

The authenticity of these occasional outbursts of Christianity is disputed, they may be later insertions, especially as all known versions of Josephus's texts come to us through later sources - and it is certainly incorrect to paint it as a rock solid contemporary source on the life of Jesus. Not like, say a real Pilate letter would be.

Within the general context of Josephus work and the jewish love of anointed persons it does not seem to be such a stretch for me. Of course it is entirely possible that it is a later insertion, yet so far there seems to be no real consensus on it. A letter to/from Pilate of course does not exist.

However, Tacitus writes:

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

Which does back up Josephus in part, if only he at least confirms the general date and the name of the roman procurator. And he is one of the best sources we have. Now, as for the rest, there is some non-christian source for the birth of Jesus, but I have lent the book to a theologian and am currently unable to get it back.

[Kanastrous]

The lesson being, don't lend things to theologians...?

[Archaic`]

Normally, I wouldn't quote or direct people to Wikipedia, but the authenticity of these comments by Josephus seems to have been disputed for centuries, with the general consensus being that they're forgeries and interpolations.

[Thanas]

^That does not apply to the other quote we find in the antiquities. Whereas stories calling him the anointed are most likely forgeries, the text does mention him, so it is besides Tacitus another non-roman source.

[hongi]

However, Tacitus writes:

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

Which does back up Josephus in part, if only he at least confirms the general date and the name of the roman procurator. And he is one of the best sources we have. Now, as for the rest, there is some non-christian source for the birth of Jesus, but I have lent the book to a theologian and am currently unable to get it back.

Tacitus calls Pontius Pilate a procurator - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he a prefect?

[Thanas]

Tacitus calls Pontius Pilate a procurator - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he a prefect?

Yes, inscriptions call him a praefectus. During Tacitus time the title had reverted to procurator, which was used in roman provinces and had primarily a financial function unlike the tile of praefectus, which is often used in a military manner and includes the right to. Tacitus probably did not know the real title of Pilatus and simply used the one that was used during his time.

Another explanation is that Pontius, as a praefectus, should usually have had the ius gladii - the right to condemm someone to execution. However, the bible claims that he was turned over to the jews - maybe this is an instance where roman law did not apply? I would have to read the book (which I have loaned to my theologian friend) again. So maybe Tacitus used the correct legal term of his age.

[hongi]

Tacitus calls Pontius Pilate a procurator - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he a prefect?

Yes, inscriptions call him a praefectus. During Tacitus time the title had reverted to procurator, which was used in roman provinces and had primarily a financial function unlike the tile of praefectus, which is often used in a military manner and includes the right to. Tacitus probably did not know the real title of Pilatus and simply used the one that was used during his time.

Didn't know that, thank you.

Another explanation is that Pontius, as a praefectus, should usually have had the ius gladii - the right to condemm someone to execution. However, the bible claims that he was turned over to the jews - maybe this is an instance where roman law did not apply? I would have to read the book (which I have loaned to my theologian friend) again. So maybe Tacitus used the correct legal term of his age.

That's simply impossible, because under the Roman occupation, the Jews could no longer execute people as their religious laws stipulated. The Sanhedrin didn't have that power anymore, so if the Jews were calling for Jesus to be killed, they must have somehow convinced the Romans to do it for them.

[Thanas]

^Hmm. That's interesting. Couldn't they have condemmed him to death or found him guilty of treason though? Because if that had happened, the romans would have been quite happy to accommodate that wish. Granted, Pilatus is often credited with a heavy-handed approach so it might just have been a standard day for him though.

[hongi]

^Hmm. That's interesting. Couldn't they have condemmed him to death or found him guilty of treason though? Because if that had happened, the romans would have been quite happy to accommodate that wish. Granted, Pilatus is often credited with a heavy-handed approach so it might just have been a standard day for him though.

Some say that Jesus claiming to be the one and only God would have been taken as an implicit or explicit refusal to acknowledge the divus Tiberius, but that doesn't hold up when you realise that entire province of Judea believed the same thing, that there was only one God and Tiberius wasn't it.

Maybe Jesus had been preaching against the Roman Empire, perhaps encouraging rebellion against the state. In which case they were perfectly right to execute him. This means of course, that Christians can't blame the Jews anymore for what was after all, the lawful decision.

[Thanas]

^Hmm. That's interesting. Couldn't they have condemmed him to death or found him guilty of treason though? Because if that had happened, the romans would have been quite happy to accommodate that wish. Granted, Pilatus is often credited with a heavy-handed approach so it might just have been a standard day for him though.

Some say that Jesus claiming to be the one and only God would have been taken as an implicit or explicit refusal to acknowledge the divus Tiberius, but that doesn't hold up when you realise that entire province of Judea believed the same thing, that there was only one God and Tiberius wasn't it.

Furthermore, at this period in time Tiberius was not a god and refusal to worship any god was not yet punishable by law.

Maybe Jesus had been preaching against the Roman Empire, perhaps encouraging rebellion against the state. In which case they were perfectly right to execute him. This means of course, that Christians can't blame the Jews anymore for what was after all, the lawful decision.

Yeah, but the sources don't say any of that. In fact, Jesus speaks several times against rebellion (the pig story and the "render unto ceasar" story). I believe the most likely version to be that the Jews convicted him of treason and then handed him over to Pilatus for punishment. Pilatus would now have had no option besides executing him if he did not want to discredit himself or his allies. Plus, the life of one rabble-rouser who disrupted commerce wasn't really that much worth at that time.

[hongi]

Yeah, but the sources don't say any of that. In fact, Jesus speaks several times against rebellion (the pig story and the "render unto ceasar" story).

The trouble with stating that the sources do or don't say any of that, is that we have to believe the NT accounts are an accurate depiction of Jesus' life and teachings. But arguing against the evidence (even if they're religiously biased accounts and unreliable...) is poor form, so:

I believe the most likely version to be that the Jews convicted him of treason and then handed him over to Pilatus for punishment. Pilatus would now have had no option besides executing him if he did not want to discredit himself or his allies. Plus, the life of one rabble-rouser who disrupted commerce wasn't really that much worth at that time.

I'm going to offer a slightly different reason. The Sanhedrin leaders accuse Jesus of blasphemy, which was an executionable offense, and hand him over to Pilatus for punishment. Pilatus has no real reason to disagree with the court's decision and so he goes along with it. On the other hand, if he doesn't do what the court suggests, the Jews get rowdy because the Romans are repressing their religion and laws again.

If Jesus was convicted of treason, treason on what grounds?

BTW, I reread the Gospels to refresh my memory on this issue, and it shocked me just how border line anti-Semitic the texts are. It's quite jarring.

[NecronLord]

However, Tacitus writes:

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

Which does back up Josephus in part, if only he at least confirms the general date and the name of the roman procurator. And he is one of the best sources we have. Now, as for the rest, there is some non-christian source for the birth of Jesus, but I have lent the book to a theologian and am currently unable to get it back.

Of course, Tacitus was talking about Nero's persecution of the Christians, and in that context, relating their story of Christ makes sense. I don't think he's necesserily endorsing the idea that Christ was a historical figure who was recorded at the time. It is certainly far from a contemporary source, unrelated to the Cult of Christ, that one would need to seriously qualify as impartial evidence of his existance.

Tacitus calling Pilate a procurator is quite understandable if he were merely relating the Christian legend that 'Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea' or some such. Given the lack of inscriptions about Pilate, (though there is one probably authentic one) I doubt Tiberius would know much about him offhand, nor bother too closely with the details when his main aim is to talk about what a jerk Nero was.

Another explanation is that Pontius, as a praefectus, should usually have had the ius gladii - the right to condemm someone to execution. However, the bible claims that he was turned over to the jews - maybe this is an instance where roman law did not apply? I would have to read the book (which I have loaned to my theologian friend) again. So maybe Tacitus used the correct legal term of his age.

I would say it is more likely that the unusual excecution is a Constantine-era amendment to make the Romans blameless. I believe some of the Oxyrhynchus apocrytha have the Romans much more responsible for Jesus' death. When the Roman state endorsed Christianity, it didn't pay to be blaming them any more, so... J00z did it! Not that Christians liked the Jews before that, of course. But I would imagine elements like Pilate washing his hands of the matter were introduced (or favoured) at this time.

[Surlethe]

Which does back up Josephus in part, if only he at least confirms the general date and the name of the roman procurator. And he is one of the best sources we have. Now, as for the rest, there is some non-christian source for the birth of Jesus, but I have lent the book to a theologian and am currently unable to get it back.

Where would Tacitus have been getting his information? Oral histories?

[Thanas]

My apologies for not answering sooner, I was just too busy.

If Jesus was convicted of treason, treason on what grounds?

Insurrection against the people of Rome and violent disturbance of the peace? The Romans were quite flexible in that regard. My point is that it was highly unusual for a roman officer to condemm a non-roman citizen to death in a foreign country which was not colonized or turned into a province yet. Whatever other incidents we have speak of roman leaving the local authorities to handle this incident unless roman citizens were involved.

Which does back up Josephus in part, if only he at least confirms the general date and the name of the roman procurator. And he is one of the best sources we have. Now, as for the rest, there is some non-christian source for the birth of Jesus, but I have lent the book to a theologian and am currently unable to get it back.

Where would Tacitus have been getting his information? Oral histories?

That, the senate archives and friends.

Of course, Tacitus was talking about Nero's persecution of the Christians, and in that context, relating their story of Christ makes sense. I don't think he's necesserily endorsing the idea that Christ was a historical figure who was recorded at the time. It is certainly far from a contemporary source, unrelated to the Cult of Christ, that one would need to seriously qualify as impartial evidence of his existance.

He is confirming the existence of a person called christ, that much is clear for me from the text. And considering that this one sentence is as much literary evidence information as we get about 90% of roman officials I would not dismiss it purely on that fact.

Tacitus calling Pilate a procurator is quite understandable if he were merely relating the Christian legend that 'Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea' or some such. Given the lack of inscriptions about Pilate, (though there is one probably authentic one) I doubt Tiberius would know much about him offhand, nor bother too closely with the details when his main aim is to talk about what a jerk Nero was.

Yes, but that does not mean his story is incorrect.

I would say it is more likely that the unusual excecution is a Constantine-era amendment to make the Romans blameless. I believe some of the Oxyrhynchus apocrytha have the Romans much more responsible for Jesus' death. When the Roman state endorsed Christianity, it didn't pay to be blaming them any more, so... J00z did it! Not that Christians liked the Jews before that, of course. But I would imagine elements like Pilate washing his hands of the matter were introduced (or favoured) at this time.

Like I said, I am unable to get to my books about that issue. So I would ask you to provide the proof for that, since I currently cannot check that and I am far too busy to go to the library at this point.