hakeem wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:47 pm
In addition, writings attributed to 2nd century writers like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus, Municus Felix show no knowledge of the character called Paul, no knowledge of his supposed letters, no knowledge of the Pauline teachings of the resurrection, no knowledge of the Pauline teachings about the Second Coming and no knowledge of a character called Paul who preached to anyone in the Roman Empire.
Et tu, hakeemi?
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6329
""We hardly have original Islamic sources from the first two centuries of Islam," Kalisch observes in a German-language paper available on the Muenster University (website). It is fascinating reading, and since it is not yet available in English I take the liberty of translating or summarizing a few salient points. Responsibility for any errors of translation of interpretation is my own.
Kalisch continues, "And even when a source appears to come from this period, caution is required. The mere assertion that a source stems from the first or second century of the Islamic calendar means nothing. And even when a source actually was written in the first or second century, the question always remains of later manipulation. We do not tread on firm ground in the sources until the third Islamic century."
This, Kalisch observes, is extremely suspicious: how can a world religion have erupted in a virtual literary vacuum? A great religion, moreover, inevitably throws off heresies: where are the early Islamic heretics and Gnostics? Later Islamic theologians knew the titles of some of their works, but the content itself was lost. "The only explanation for the disappearance is that it had long since become unusable theologically," he alleges of certain Shi'ite sources.
Kalisch draws on the well-known work of Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds, whose criticism of the received version have a distinctly minority position in Koranic scholarship:
It is a striking fact that such documentary evidence as survives from the Sufnayid period makes no mention of the messenger of god at all. The papyri do not refer to him. The Arabic inscriptions of the Arab-Sasanian coins only invoke Allah, not his rasul [messenger]; and the Arab-Byzantine bronze coins on which Muhammad appears as rasul Allah, previously dated to the Sufyanid period, have not been placed in that of the Marwanids. Even the two surviving pre-Marwanid tombstones fail to mention the rasul.
The great scandal of Islamic tradition is the absence of Islamic formulations from coins and monuments dating from the its first two centuries, as well as the presence of material obviously incompatible with Islam. "Coins and inscriptions are incompatible with the Islamic writing of history," Kalisch concludes on the strength of older work, including Yehuda Nevo and Jutith Koren's..."
Therefore, etc., etc., etc...
***
The lack of "Historicity" in the NT stories is only the beginning. What follows from that fact? That is what is important. Again, to the believer, the NT *IS* History. There are no other "facts". The "List" of non-historical events given above is not the point. AS DESCRIPTIONS, the events are manifestly non-historical. So, what?
We have 2 Supersessionist religions that are suspect at their origins. Both exhibit similar flaws but that is a bit tangential. To me, the Historical aspect of the problem is important. The Hasmoneans, Jannaeus and the Mishmarot Priesthood have been submerged to tell about a "New Religion" that arose. Why? The material that explains what we have is on the ground and in the history we have.
CW