I’ve been toying with the idea for this thread since an offhand remark from Rayaan during one exchange in which he made an oblique reference to The Doctrina Jacobi (henceforth DJ) in a discussion on Mohammed.  Now, no muslim in his right mind would try to use the DJ as support for a historical Mohammed for reasons which will become apparent shortly and certainly Rayaan didn’t.  But it did get me thinking and that is always dangerous.  Here is the relevant passage from the DJ:
 

Quote:When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.

 
The earlier parts of the DJ put this comment into context as re-capped here:

Quote:[Jacob, himself a convert, wrote to encourage Christian faith in Jews of Carthage, forcibly converted in 632, in a tract that was completed before "the thirteenth of July in the seventh indiction," i.e. 634, when Jacob left Carthage. In it his cousin Justus appears telling how he heard of the killing of a member of the imperial guard, or candidatus, in a letter from his brother Abraham in Caesarea, in which the following appears.

So, Jacob is writing what he was told by his cousin (hearsay)  who heard of it from his brother (hearsay x 2) who does not say how he came by the information (hearsay x 3).  Anyhow he reports that “they” were saying a prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens.  Some muslims would be happy if you stopped reading at that point so they could say “Yup!  There’s Mohammed,” but the smarter ones see the trap.  Their stories have Mohammed dying before the move on Palestine so they cannot embrace the DJ without tossing the Koran out the window and you know they won’t do that.

Further, the DJ claims that this Saracen (the term derives from a Roman reference to inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula ) prophet was proclaiming the advent of the “anointed one, the Christ who was to come.”  Well that sure as shit isn’t going to be in any muslim treatise on the subject so as noted earlier, they tend to stay away from it.  By the way, this was part of Spencer’s concept of marginalized xtian sects suddenly taking advantage of the power vacuum which developed when the Persians and Byzantines tore each other to shreds and advanced into the vacated areas.  It had nothing to do with islam which came later.

But here is the thing and this is why this is in the Religion section instead of Islam.  As utterly worthless as the DJ is for giving any useful evidence it still tells us that some people at the time thought that there was a religious element to the arrival of the Saracens, be it islam or some exotic variant of xtianity which had grown up in Arabia after being chased out of the Roman Empire by the nutty Byzantines.  It is hearsay to the third degree and mainly a throw-in to the overall story being told of the treatment of Jews in Carthage by the Byzantines.  And, AS BAD AS IT IS, we have absolutely nothing like it from the first century for any figure remotely resembling jesus.  Nothing.  No one so much as mentions a rumor or outlandish story of an executed criminal coming back from the dead. If we had something it would not be evidence that any of that silly shit happened but it would be evidence that at least some people believed it had and, as we all know, even today, people believe lots of stupid shit.  Instead, all we get are later writings of believers which amount to pious prattle which seems to have made no impact outside their own tiny little circles.  The Roman world seems to have officially ignored the xtians until Diocletian took notice of them….and decided he didn’t like them in 303.
 
One offhand remark would be all it would take.  You’d think the jesus freaks could manage that, eh?

(April 22, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I’ve been toying with the idea for this thread since an offhand remark from Rayaan during one exchange in which he made an oblique reference to The Doctrina Jacobi (henceforth DJ) in a discussion on Mohammed.  Now, no muslim in his right mind would try to use the DJ as support for a historical Mohammed for reasons which will become apparent shortly and certainly Rayaan didn’t.  But it did get me thinking and that is always dangerous.  Here is the relevant passage from the DJ:

That can't be true because, prior to reading this thread, I didn't even know what "The Doctrina Jacobi" is. I just googled that and only now I know what it is.

So, if anything, this was either a mistake on your part or it's a lie. You might have just inadvertently thought that I mentioned The Doctrina Jacobi somewhere, although I didn't, and I couldn't have. Or maybe it was someone else who said that. I even did a search on this forum and I didn't find it being mentioned anywhere in my posts, as I expected. What I did do was quote was a passage that was attributed to Seboes, which you already posted a response to. But that has nothing to do with The Doctrina Jacobi. Clearly, those are two different things.

I would have instead preferred you toying with my actual comments: http://atheistforums.org/thread-30930-po...#pid846039

or these comments: http://atheistforums.org/thread-30887-po...#pid866432


Also, much to my delight, I think CapnAwesome schooled you pretty well on how historical figures are established by historians (and on why Robert Spencer's method is rejected):

(March 23, 2015 at 8:25 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I listened to a number of his debates and read a good deal on his site. He ignores so much evidence that counters his points. Loads of it. Then presents some of the shittiest evidence that no historian would accept as true. (Coins with crosses and the misuse of the name Muhammad) and then makes wild speculation about it that he presents as fact. His argument is garbage. People just don't understand how we establish historical figures. Again, I'm to reiterate my point about Ghenghis Khan having no primary sources about him. Ghenghis Khan has less written about him, and much later too than Muhammad does. If someone wrote that Ghenghis Khan didn't exist no historian would take them seriously. Ancient peoples didn't keep records like we did and applying the standard that we have for modern figures to ancient ones just doesn't make sense historically. I'd be shocked if any credible historian took him seriously.

Um, wrong thread, Rayaan.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-30887-po...#pid846750

Quote:So all those references of an army general named Muhammad and start from the year 634 CE is actually Abd al-Malik, even though he was born in 646 CE?

To which I replied:

Quote:But seriously, Rayaan. You aren't going to trot out the Doctrina Jocobi, are you?

Since the Doctrina Jacobi is usually dated to c. 634 - which is what you specified - I cannot imagine any other document which fits the bill.  So, if you have another explanation I'll be delighted to hear it but the DJ is a fairly well known, if ultimately pointless, writing for your purposes.

The thing is...as bad as it is....the xtians don't even have anything remotely like it which was the point of this thread.

I still don't see any reference to the Doctrina Jacobi in my post, as you claimed in the OP.


The year 634 CE, in the following sentence,

Quote:So all those references of an army general named Muhammad and start from the year 634 CE is actually Abd al-Malik, even though he was born in 646 CE?

was only referring to the documents mentioned in THIS ARTICLE. <- Do you see any mentions of the Doctrina Jacobi in that link, let alone me making an "offhand remark" about it?

Just because i wrote "634 CE" doesn't mean that I made a reference to the JD, specifically. You just wanted to overpaint that into my sentence.

Do you understand what the word "oblique" means?

Indirect.  You rattled off the correct time for the DJ and did not follow up on it - which was wise since any reading of it demolishes islamic claims.  But you referred to historical references beginning in 634 which is, I'm sorry to say, the DJ.  At least I know of no other Byzantine writings from that date.

Yes, I know what "oblique" means. But it wasn't even an indirect reference.

(May 10, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But you referred to historical references beginning in 634 which is, I'm sorry to say, the DJ.

So let's see exactly what those historical references are.

"This much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel accord to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark." <- Is that referring to the DJ?

"The 8th century BL Add. 14,643 was published by Wright who first brought to attention the mention of an early date of 947 AG (635-6 CE)." <- Is that referring to the DJ?

"One of the most interesting accounts of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis." <- Is that referring to the DJ?

And many more documents which all fall around 634 CE (the earliest) to 719 CE ... and yet there's no mention of the DJ at all ...

Not "around" 634.  The DJ dates itself to July, 634.

Quote:[Jacob, himself a convert, wrote to encourage Christian faith in Jews of Carthage, forcibly converted in 632, in a tract that was completed before "the thirteenth of July in the seventh indiction," i.e. 634, when Jacob left Carthage

http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html

There are a couple of late 634 references (allegedly) by Sophronius however he does not do more than mention the Saracens and this is hardly news....unlike the DJ which uses the word "prophet."

Now, whether or not you had ever heard of the DJ is irrelevant.  You correctly cited its date as the earliest Byzantine reference so whatever list you were using obviously knew of it.  But, as I said, you did not follow up on it because there is no way that any muslim would.  Your story is that Mo was dead by the time it was written and I don't expect you to give up your stories for history.

(May 10, 2015 at 11:26 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Not "around" 634.  The DJ dates itself to July, 634.

I can say "around" 634. No problem with that. Why? Because I wasn't even talking about the DJ. You're trying to make it look like I was.

I could have also said that the references started from 634 CE and continues up to 719 CE, as listed in that article. And that wouldn't be incorrect either. Why? Because, again, I'm not even talking about the DJ.


I can so very easily see you hiding behind your word trickery, although to no avail.

I believe that what Min is trying to explain to you, is that while you may not, personally, have been aware of that source....the 634 date -includes- that source, even if it is not credited. Lets say I gave a date for the death of socrates, there are very few sources from which to draw a number like that (and many sources take the word of another source) - and even if I'm unaware as to where those dates come from, I will invariably be referencing one of them, obliquely. I may, for example, be directly referencing a secondary source without realizing that this secondary source draws it's date from an unknown (to me) primary.

(May 11, 2015 at 8:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: I believe that what Min is trying to explain to you, is that while you may not, personally, have been aware of that source....the 634 date -includes- that source, even if it is not credited.

1. "Includes" that source doesn't make it fair to say that I made an oblique reference to it, as Min wrote in the OP.

These are the sources that were known to me. The Doctrina Jacobi was unknown to me. So now, the question is, which is more honest? For someone to claim that I made a direct reference to something that was known to me, or to claim that I made an "oblique" reference to something that was unknown to me? Obviously not the latter. But that's exactly what Min did. He started this thread saying that I made an oblique reference to the Doctrina Jacobi, which was unknown to me, but ironically he didn't say anything about the direct references that I made of all the ones that were known to me. Is that not a self-serving and dishonest way to represent my arguments to others?

2. The 634 date was just the earliest date of the references because the sources range from 634 to 719 CE. The date for them is spread out (in time) and that's why I said that the references only began or started from the year 634 CE, as I did so in the comment below:

Quote:So all those references of an army general named Muhammad and start from the year 634 CE is actually Abd al-Malik, even though he was born in 646 CE?

The DJ, on the other hand, dates itself to 634 CE - when it was already completed - so that doesn't actually fit the bill with the (broader) date that I had in mind.

(May 11, 2015 at 8:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: Lets say I gave a date for the death of socrates, there are very few sources from which to draw a number like that (and many sources take the word of another source) - and even if I'm unaware as to where those dates come from, I will invariably be referencing one of them, obliquely.  I may, for example, be directly referencing a secondary source without realizing that this secondary source draws it's date from an unknown (to me) primary.

But the sources have all been listed in the article that I provided, and I quoted three of them here. So, evidently, there are multiple sources that dates from 634 CE and onwards (to 719 CE). There's a handful of them, not just one or two.

And yet Min argued "I cannot imagine any other document which fits the bill" for the date 634 CE.