GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090251224


From: (Jared Linn Olar)
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: 19 Jul 2004 08:33:44 -0700
References: <1e2.255590ce.2e26e482@aol.com> <20040714194956.31395.qmail@web41710.mail.yahoo.com> <ac1a3786.0407150822.83f9817@posting.google.com> <ac1a3786.0407160512.1016af50@posting.google.com> <VHQJc.3624$K53.1844@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ac1a3786.0407161102.6a41873c@posting.google.com>


I should have mentioned that there are non-Muslim sources from the
600s A.D. I was contrasting the Christians documents of the first
century with the Muslim documents of the seventh century, but there is
a small amount of non-Christian documentation from the first century
just as there is non-Muslim documentation from the seventh century.

Jared Linn Olar

(Jared Linn Olar) wrote in message news:<>...
> The Quran as it exists today is a later recension -- Muslims sources
> state that the other recensions were confiscated and destroyed. And
> the early oral traditions are, as always, hazy and sometimes
> contradictory. There is in fact no unimpeachable evidence that
> Muhammad lived when he is said to have lived, or that he said what he
> is said to have said. The traditional dates may be a little off.
>
> In any case, the fact remains that Christian documentation from within
> a very few decades of the life of Jesus is superabundant, whereas
> Muslim documentation does not appear until long after the time when
> Muhammad traditionally lived (hint: oral tradition, no matter how
> trustworthy, is not a document). Will and Peter are spectacularly
> wrong on this point. A heap of documents dated to a short time after a
> religion's origin versus no documents dated to a short time after a
> religion's origin: which religion's origins are better documented?
> You decide.
>
> Jared Linn Olar


This thread: