Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090342830

From: (Jared Linn Olar)
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: 20 Jul 2004 10:00:30 -0700
References: <> <> <> <> <VHQJc.3624$> <> <> <adYKc.8120$>

Okay, I withdraw the "spectacularly wrong" remark. You and Will are
just "seriously mistaken." How's that? :-]]

Much of your objections here seem to have arisen because you
misunderstood what I said, which is partly due to my not being as
clear as necessary, and partly due to my inaccurately phrasing things.

Anyone who knows anything about the early written documentation of
Christian origins versus the early written documentation of Muslim
origins (and here I include documents written by non-Christians and
non-Muslims) knows Christianity's origins are better documented than
Islam's. If you did not wish to dispute that, you should have been
more clear about what it was about what I'd said that you were
objecting to.

Now that this offtopic nonsense is exhausted, what about the
traditional descents from Fatima's son al-Hassan? Anyone?

Jared Linn Olarr

Peter Stewart <> wrote in message news:<adYKc.8120$>...
> Jared Linn Olar wrote:
> > I should have mentioned that there are non-Muslim sources from the
> > 600s A.D. I was contrasting the Christian 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 -- Muslim 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
> Not good enough - you claimed that two others were "spectacularly wrong"
> in taking a different view from yours and I questioned this on specific
> grounds, naming early _Islamic_ sources. If you can't or won't address
> this, perhaps it would be more fitting to withdraw your remark.
> Peter Stewart

This thread: