GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090307713


From: Peter Stewart <>
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07:15:13 GMT
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$K53.1844@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ac1a3786.0407161102.6a41873c@posting.google.com> <DFZJc.3829$K53.2108@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ac1a3786.0407190859.1489ab63@posting.google.com> <vmYKc.8132$K53.3063@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ac1a3786.0407191934.95a102d@posting.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ac1a3786.0407191934.95a102d@posting.google.com>


Jared Linn Olar wrote:
> Peter Stewart <> wrote in message news:<vmYKc.8132$>...
>
>>So having claimed there was no Muslim documentation within decades of
>>the religion's beginnings, now you are stating only that there may have
>>been some but less than are found for Christianity,
>
>
> I would have to be convinced that there are some, since I've never
> seen any proof that any Muslim writings date to the seventh century.
> But even if the two or three items you mention date to the seventh
> century, it's still obvious that 29 items outnumber two or three.
> Therefore Christianity's origins are better documented than Islam's.

I didn't challenge this - what I did object to was your statement
"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". COmparisons are irrelevant: you are wrong.

Will and Peter were not wrong on this matter - I haven't read all of
Will's posts in the thread so I can't speak for him on anything
extraneous to this very specific point. Islam IS documented from the
7th-century, and if you don't know that you should not label other
people's information as "spectacularly wrong".
>
>>and you have introduced an arbitrary standard that
>>these must have been committed to paper in their
>>surviving form by the end of the 7th-century.
>
>
> Arbitrary shmarbitrary. There's got to be some standard for
> determining which religion's origins are "better documented."

Maybe, but that wasn't the issue.

> I think
> my standard works pretty well. Of course that would mean
> Christianity's origins are better documented than Islam's origins, so
> obviously there must be something wrong with my standard, since
> everyone knows that Islam's origins are better documented, right?

I didn't say that - perpahs Will did, but if so I missed it. You should
try to be more accurate when spraying around inferences about your
interlocutor's opinions.

>
>>As to theology, that is the stuff of religion and your original remarks
>>were about the Christian religion - not the life of Jesus.
>
>
> My remarks were about the documentation of the origin of the Christian
> religion, and there is no origin of the Christian religion without the
> life of Jesus Christ.

There would be none _with_ his life unless some people thought his
nature to be divine as well as human, and it's only when they believed
and said (or indeed wrote) so that the Christian religion came into
being. Semantics are not going to alter the fact that you misspoke in
criticism of others & then set off at a tangent from that point in the
thread.

Peter Stewart


This thread: