(November 2, 2014 at 4:18 am)genkaus Wrote:(November 2, 2014 at 1:56 am)Minimalist Wrote: The evidence that any 'mohammad' existed at all is at least as problematical as the evidence for any 'jesus.'
Or 'moses.'
Is it?
http://books.google.com/books?id=VdXMK4C...61&f=false
Scroll to pages 2 and 3 for an example of what this text actually looks like, and pay attention to the footnotes. Remember that the letters within brackets are not actually legible but are guesstimates by translators. Those guesstimates can cause a lot of trouble as we have learned with the Tel Dan stele.
Also the word muhammad is taken from the root MHMD ( you have to fill in the vowels). It means 'praiseworthy' or 'honored' in both Syriac and the later Arabic...both of which are derivations of Aramaic. Were that a name it would be evidence of the prescience of his parents since he did not name himself. But were it a title....it can be bestowed by anybody. Hell. "Arthur" became a king by pulling a sword out of a stone according to that myth.
If you don't have time to read the book, here's a fairly detailed review of Spencer's Did Muhammad Exist? Compelling work.
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/04/23/boo...epage=true
