No Mention of Nails

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by Secret Alias »

Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baari (6/650):

With regard to what has been narrated about it being like the mark of a cupping glass, or like a black or green mole, or that the words “Muhammad Rasool Allaah (Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah)” or “Sir fa anta’l-mansoor (Go forth for you have Divine support)” etc were written on it, none of these reports have been proven. Do not be deceived by what was narrated in Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan because he was mistaken when he classed that as saheeh. And Allaah knows best.

There follow some of the ahaadeeth that have been narrated concerning the Seal of Prophethood:

1 – Muslim (2344) narrated that Jaabir ibn Samurah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “I saw the Seal by his shoulder, like a pigeon’s egg, resembling his body” i.e., its colour was like the rest of his body.

2 – Muslim (2346) also narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Sarjis said: “I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and I ate bread and meat with him (or he said, thareed – a meat dish)… then I went behind him and I looked at the Seal of Prophethood between his shoulders, near the top of his left shoulder, the shape of a hand with the fingers together (but smaller in size, the size of a pigeon’s egg), with moles on it.”

See Sharh Muslim by al-Nawawi.

3 – al-Tirmidhi narrated in al-Shamaa’il that Abu Zayd ‘Amr ibn Akhtab al-Ansaari said: “I touched his back, and my fingers touched the Seal.” He was asked, “What is the Seal?” He said, “A number of hairs growing together.”

Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Mukhtasar al-Shamaa’il, p. 31
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by Secret Alias »

ABU'L KASIM MUHAMMAD AL MAHDI. This person, concerning whom the Orientals entertain some extraordinary beliefs, was born at Samra in the year of the Hijra era 255 (A.D. 868). His birth, so it is proclaimed, was accompanied with preternatural signs and peculiarities, while certain marks on his body testified that no ordinary mortal had been sent into the world.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by Secret Alias »

On another journey to Damascus, Abu Talib says that the wisest of the wise came to Muhammad and one called Hestoor stayed for three days and nights without speaking a word. Finally he too asked to see Muhammad's shoulder, and on spotting the birthmark promptly kissed him. At that time Muhammad was about nine years old, and according to some scribes the opening of his breast and the purifying of his heart actually took place at this time.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by Secret Alias »

Muhammad's recognition as 'the one who is to come' in the Samaritan chronicle. The brief account in Levy-Rubin’s 2002 translation (Darwin Press p 46 – 48)

At that time there were three men astrologers who used to foretell coming events: the first Sarmasa, a Samaritan from Askar; the second, Ka’n al-Achbar a Jew; and the third, ‘Abd Allah, a Christian from Lydda (Ludd). These three were aware of each other’s skill, and they saw in their dreams that the rule of Byzantium had ended, that the rule of Isma’il was beginning, and that a leader (qa’im) was arising for them from amongst the descendants of Hashim. His sign would be found on his back [in the form of] a yellow mole the size of a palm, and the first thing to occur would be that he would emerge from a city called “the city of the messenger.” The three men met together and said: “Let us go and see whether it is he or not; if it is he, we shall contemplate what we should do, [so that] we will not be hurt [by him like we were] by those who preceded [hinm].” The three departed and arrived at his city, where he was staying. When they approached him and saw him they said: “Who could overcome him?” They decided that Ka’b al-Achbar should approach him. So [Ka’b] approached him and greeted him, and Muhammed asked him “Who are you?” He answered: “I am one of the Jewish dignitaries, and I found in my Torah that [one] of the descendants of Isma’il will arise, who will rule and conquer the world and no one will stand in his way.” [Then] ‘Abd Allah said likewise “I found this same in the Gospel,” and they did not recognize any authority but him. When Sarmasa, the Samaritan approached him he said to him: “You will be the one to profess the faith and law; with it you will subdue the necks of the infidels and you will rule the world through it. We were told that there is a sign between your shoulders.” [Mohammed] stood up and revealed his back, and they saw the mole on his back. When Ka’b al Achbar heard Sarmasa’s words he became a hypocrite in his religion; ‘Abd al-Salam too became a hypocrite.

footnote: The following story presents another version of the famous story of Bahira, the Christian monk who met Mohammed in his youth and identified him as the future prophet by finding on him the stigmata of prophesy in the form of a mole between his shoulders. See al-Tabari, Ta’rikh al-rusul wa-l-muluk, ed. M.J. de Goeje et al. (Leiden, 1879 – 1901), I, 1123ff; EI2, s.v. “Bahira” … ‘Abd Allah ibn Salam, Ka’b al-Achbar and Bahira appear together in Muslim tradition along with several other figures from the ahl al-kitab who joined Islam, bringing with them certain written traditions of the faith. See Ibn al-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrst, ed. G Fluegel (Leipzig, 1871 -72) I. 22. ‘Abd Allah ibn Salam was in fact a converted Jew

https://books.google.com/books?id=iXVwz ... 22&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by Secret Alias »

The Bahira (= Arab. 'chosen one') legend:

" the Christian [Bahira] discovered on the boys back the prophetic markings described in the Christian holy book ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=yHiTZ ... gs&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by Secret Alias »

Ben Stada source material - https://books.google.com/books?id=n3x46 ... 22&f=false
Thus in the Palestinian Gemara we read: "He who scratches on the skin in the fashion of writing is guilty, but he who makes marks on the skin in the fashion of writing, is exempt from punishment. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: But has not Ben Stada brought (magic) spells out of Egypt just in this way?


168


They answered him: On account of one fool we do not ruin a multitude of reasonable men."[l]


The same story is also handed on in the Babylonian Gemara, but with a very striking variant:


"There is a tradition: Rabbi Eliezer said to the wise men, Has not Ben Stada brought magic spells from Egypt in an incision in his body? They answered him, He was a fool, and we do not take proofs from fools."[2]


The Tosephta adds yet another variant of the tradition:


"He who upon the Sabbath cuts letters upon his body is, according to the view of R. Eliezer guilty, according to the view of the wise not guilty. R. Eliezer said to the wise: Ben Stada surely learned sorcery by such writing. They replied to him: Should we in any wise on account of a fool destroy all reasonable men?"[3]


The mention of R. Eliezer and the name Ben Stada indicate that we have here to do with a Lud tradition; the story, however, must be regarded as one of the oldest of this tradition, for it cites R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, the teacher of Akiba, and the founder of the Lud school. The Palestinian Gemara evidently preserves the oldest and more detailed account. In it the academical discussion has to do with a very nice point of Sabbath breaking. Writing of any kind on the Sabbath was strictly forbidden. The question then


[1] "Pal. Shabbath," 13d.


[2] "Bab. Shabbath," 104b.


[3] "Tosephta, Shabbath," xi. (xii.) towards the end (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 126).


169


arises: But what if it be on one's skin and not on parchment? Further is there not a difference between scratching in the form of writing,[1] and making marks (that is in some way other than scratching) in the form of writing (that is presumably resembling writing in some way)?


R. Eliezer meeets the decision of his colleagues with the objection that Ben Stada brought his spells out of Egypt by "marks" on the skin and not by "scratching." These marks on the skin were presumably not letters proper, that is the writing of words in Hebrew, for the discussion is not as to writing, but as to "marks in the fashion of writing." Does it then refer to diagrams or sigils, or drawings of some kind, or to hieroglyphics?


The Tosephta, it will he noticed, makes havoc of this elaborate argument of the Palestinian Gemara, and ascribes to the "wise" a judgment the very reverse of what they had given according to the Gemara; moreover the "scratching" has become "cutting letters upon the body."


While as for the Babylonian Gemara the whole account is still further altered; no longer is it a question with Eliezer of refuting the opinion of his colleagues with a regard to the main point, "marks on the skin in the fashion of writing," no longer is it a question even of "cutting letters upon the body," but we have a totally new and startling gloss, namely the bringing out of Egypt by Ben Stada of spells (presumably written on parchment) in an incision in his body.


[l] Laible (op. cit., p. 46) speaks of this "scratching" as tattooing; but there seems no reason why we should give technical precision to such vague indications.
Also the frequent reports about the heretics that they used needles on children to produce 'markings' or tattoos.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by Giuseppe »

What if the "marks" originally were the Gnosis?

Afterall, the "nails" are a very literalist detail of the "reality" of the crucifixion, against docetical negations.

A similar literalist detail in a Gnostic field is the formulas and key-password to go beyond the celestial gates (and their archons).

So I wonder if we have here an evolution (the same described by prof Price in The Amazing):

The original Gnosis becomes nails/stigmata/marks/the cross for the later proto-Catholics, and magical passwords for the later Gnostics. In both the cases, something that is "carried".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by Giuseppe »

Even the idea that only Paul bears the marks of Christ would be a strong claim.

Just as the idea that "only" Muhammad, "only" Francis, "only" Saint Pio bears the stigmata.

Is it possible that he said so before other Christians of the his time? Or was it a claim by the entire original Church ("to be crucified as the entire body of Christ")?

Show of Literalism is never evidence of real facts in the religions, I think.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by Secret Alias »

Well surely the contemporary claim was that '[ONLY] I bear the marks of Christ' or the equivalent. The idea that EVERYONE has this fucking marking would sort of make my birthmark or mark seem rather irrelevant.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
discipleoftruth
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:36 pm

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by discipleoftruth »

Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn't make it true. For example, the Hunchback of Notre Dame could claim that his condition is a mark of holiness, but to what effect and how is it true ?

There are two factors here that we should look for in a statement/claim:
1) Is it important/pragmatic ? Does or Can the nail mark/stigmata/seal prove that this person is Godly (from God) ?
2) Is it supported by other strong evidence or witness ?

Having evidence of nail or no nail mark only introduces a small part of incoherence into the story, just like how some narrations are existent in one gospel and missing in another. If it's not/less important, one should prioritize looking into the bigger facts: such as "was there evidence of a resurrection ?" or "were the apostles/Paul real people" ? If there were no apostles, that implies a lot more than if there were no nail marks.
Post Reply