Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090302948

Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 01:55:53 -0400

"Purported COPIES of purported documents from within...." would be a more accurate way to state it.

In this regard there is no difference between Christian and Muslim sources.


In a message dated 7/19/2004 11:33:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, (Jared Linn Olar) writes:

>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: