I'd have loved if more reasons for the case of interpolation were given like maybe different writing styles or different vocabulary usage in the original Greek. Like the Josephus passage on Jesus we're faced with the possibility of partial or complete interpolation.
@@two_tier_gary_rumain I think @Dust is referring to the style of writing meaning the flow of words and not the writing style as in how the words and letters are formed on the manuscript.
@@RSM363 I was thinking the same thing! Just the fact that the text went from "the Arabs were not united" to "then they were united" gives credence to the middle part being authentic, just because these brief lines don't go with a biblical narrative style doesn't mean they were necessarily interpolated. Also the text mentions Muhammad was a merchant which was probably common knowledge shortly after the conquests suggesting the prophet was indeed a merchant in northern Arabia, the Islamic narrative later tried to paint him as a shepherd similar to many biblical prophets but the merchant thing was too popular in the collective memory to completely erase so they made him both a shepherd and a merchant.
Thomas, why is it all chronicles related Muhammad was written by Monophysite monks or Bishops or Monastry be it Syrian, Palestinian or Armenian. Why there was no chronicles from Nestorians of Babylon were the actual events happened or from Chalcedonean Byzantines?
We can only guess. Maybe these legends were easier believed the further away they were from the supposed events. Maybe there was a scribal tradition which was more ready to insert interpolations in cases where they thought they had something of value to add to the original text. Then again, it may well be coincidence. Keep in mind that there are only very few texts in this category. Probably too few to make general assumption based on them.
@@TAlexander Mar Babai the great, head of Nestorian Church of East , who lived and wrote extensively never wrote anything about them. He was living in Babylon. But Monophysites of Syria, Armenia wrote. Is it mear coincidence?
Yes, Chronicler Of Khuzistan, 40’s AH / 660’s CE. mentioned the Arabs and prophet muhmmad by name. It is thesis is about the fall of the sassanid empire by the Muslims followers of prophet muhmmad. But, what is the benefit of talking about it. Sure Thomas will come up with a crazy idea and that the phrase that talks about prophet Muhammad was just later interpolation. Everything that mentioned prophet muhmmad is just interpolation because it simply if I do not say so, then what the Aim of my channel? Then God raised up against them the sons of Ishmael, [numerous] as the sand on the sea shore, whose leader (mdabbrānā) was Muḥammad (mḥmd). Neither walls nor gates, armour or shield, withstood them, and they gained control over the entire land of the Persians. Yazdgird sent against them countless troops, but the Arabs routed them all and even killed Rustam. Yazdgird shut himself up in the walls of Mahoze and finally escaped by flight. He reached the country of the Huzaye and Mrwnaye, where he ended his life. The Arabs gained countrol of Mahoze and all the territory. They also came to Byzantine territory, plundering and ravaging the entire region of Syria. Heraclius, the Byzantine king, sent armies against them, but the Arabs killed more than 100,000 of them
Thanks, Thomas for the lecture - thanks to the notables(Luling, Sawa, Crone...), you & Odon included, what was built on blood of the innocents and lies will eventually come down.
Wait... did I miss something? Why isn't "Rome" the 4th beast of Daniel's vision? Why does he say it's the Arabs? Also, why does he claim that the Jews were seeking an alliance with the Arabs to overthrow the Greeks? Doesn't he know that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) was still considered Rome? (4th beast of Daniel's vision) Seems like he desperately wants to confuse history and scripture for his own agenda...
The daniel 2 prophecy clearly shows that there will be a kingdom that will demolish the 4th kingdom (the romans as all interpretations assert). The only tribe that managed to do that was the tribe of the arabs prophecised to become a great nation in Genesis 17. And yes the byzanites did consider themselves as romans. So when it's prophecised it's prophecised, no need for strawmanning it like this dude in the video.
These "critics" of islam that "doubt" the existence of rhe prophet always always tend to jump over the quran. We have 7th century manuscripts of the quran that alone prove the existence of the prophet. And even I were to take the nonislamic narrative, it's obvious that there is 1 singular style in text and no contradiction in text or in thought. It's consistent for the matter of fact. So who brought it to the arabs?
@@Im_Sanenough Birmingham Folios are not a quranic Manuscript, and it only contains 33 verses Sana Mamuscript is neither complete, and is different to the Hafs version Quran that exists today ruclips.net/video/9FIQnDUvBFU/видео.htmlsi=lMGTnZQYq2lmWLNh ruclips.net/video/kXXxeTGus7c/видео.htmlsi=gmCrtYgaciNetztT
With all due respect we need to have some standards for what a scientific approach is here. When we ask the Inarah group for evidence for their Merw thesis or theory, virtually no archeological or textual evidence is given. On the other hand when it comes to the only few textual evidences extant they are so quick in dismissing them all. Sebeos is such an important piece of evidence whose dismissal needs much more work! Are you saying nothing in Sebeos bears any relation to reality because it “could” have been a later interpretation? There are other sources which imply that certain Jews entered Jerusalem with the Arabs. There is the constitution of Medina document which most serious scholar agree is not totally fake, and indicates some coalition b/w Arabs and certain Jewish groups. This idea of a Jewish relation or coalition is not that easily dismissible and I don’t find it in total contradiction with the Merw thesis either, both could bear some levels of truth. Abdl Malik being from Merw doesn’t contradict someone calling himself Mahmad making coalition with some Jewish groups to capture the holy land 60 -70 years earlier.
Of course the Mervan origin is more an educated guess than established fact. Nobody would claim otherwise. When I presented it, I was open about it as well. As for these texts, of course I'm simplifying to a degree. These 3 minute videos are not supposed to be academic deep dives for the experts. For example, I only said that the Doctrina Jacobi fits better into the late 7th century and didn't go into details like specific Apocalyptic tendencies or the fact that it mentions borders in Northern Africa which are inconsistent with the time it was supposedly written in but rather fit into the late 7th century. With Pseudo-Sebeos, textual analysis indicates that the bit about Muhammad was inserted later. It's a different style from the passages before and after and when you take it out, the whole passage becomes more coherent.
We don't really know much about the period of Mohammed since Islamic history started to be written more than 200 years after Muhammed passed away. And we don't have originals of the early writings. As to Sebeos, I agree with Thomas, though many Armenians love to disagree. Armenians also praise other documents allegedly related to Mohammed which have proven to be fakes, like the covenant with the monks of Sinai
My point is that since we are in such shortage of textual or archeological hard evidence dismissing everything that appears “later interpolation” without deeper analysis is not warranted while accepting other speculative theories. Sebeos’s part about Mahmad might be a later interpolation but at the same time is different from the standard Islamic narrative and more importantly agrees somewhat with other sources available and even coins. So while Sebeos’s part about Mahmad might be a later interpretation it doesn’t mean that is totally false or irrelevant (eg It could be a re-writing by a second author with some additions but its core could be intact.) And to dismiss it more analysis and reasoning is needed. BTW it seems to me both Odon’s and Joe’s theories are based on Sebeos. So is Shoemaker’s work. It is interesting that I think shoemaker was who said Sebeos is THE most important evidence we have and he is a revisionist! So I think Sebeos’s dismissal deserves a much more in-depth analysis and reasoning.
Don't get me wrong. Every source is valuable. I'm not dismissing Pseudo-Sebeos as a source. I'm merely saying that it is not 7th century evidence for a historical Muhammad.
@@traveleurope5756 Thomas did not intend to give a full analysis, he just gave a quick opinion. But still even if you take Sebeos seriously, the absence of any documents or inscriptions from Mohammed's era in Arabic is telling. Actually most sources that Muslims cite date back to only a few centuries ago
Are you going to do the chronicle of Khuzestan? It is written in the 650s or 660s and it also mentions Muhammad. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it also mentions the fall of Constantinople, but that didn’t happen until 1453.
A quote: “For the date of the composition of the chronicle, Nautin argued for a terminus ante quern of 657 or 658, the date of Isho'yab Ill's death; he did not date the 'appendix', but much of the evidence cited by Noldeke to date what he called a 'letzten Verfassers' would now apply, apparent allusions to the conquest of Africa and the failed siege of Constantinople taking us to c. 680. Noldeke's argument naturally turns on his understanding of these allusions, and in fact there are grounds for arguing that Nautili's 'appendix' was compiled even earlier, perhaps very soon after the completion of the chronicle. For there are no unambiguous references to events in the 660s and 670s: thus, what Noldeke took to be an allusion to the famous siege of Constantinople of the late 670s ('Over Constantinople He has not yet given them control') may rather allude to obscure events in the 650s. But for our purposes it matters little if Nautili's 'appendix' had been compiled by 660, 670, or 680, and I shall stick with Noldeke's more conservative dating. The material may have been compiled earlier; there is no reason to think that it was compiled later.”
Do you know what, I'm stupid. I got mixed up with my own references. In fact, the next video will be on exactly that text. It's just that I know it under a different name (Chronica Minora, Pars Prior). I guess I was also thrown off by you remembering that it referred to Muhammad. It does not. Anyway, I will delete my previous comment to reduce confusion. And I just realised that I didn't even make as strong a case as I could have as I didn't go into the problems of the Appendix vs. the actual chronicle which doesn't mention anything about the Arabs...alas, the case is still strong enough I guess.
I'm not removing your comment, only mine wherein I claimed that I won't cover the text. Because I will. As you will see, there is very good reason to think that the Appendix is much later than 660-680 AD, at least in parts.
This is a pretty crude assessment of Ps.Sebeos, using a german theologian from the revisionist school of Islam's online article (uncited in the video) to declare this passage a later interpolation, instead of using any of the actual 6th-7th century near east historians opinions, like Johnston and Thompson who you cite earlier for the misattribution. I don't understand why we need to deny Muhammad existed to disprove some of the mythology about early Islam? Ps.Sebeos is pretty good evidence that some of the biography of Muhammad was true - he was a merchant, who led the early Islamic movement, and was a prophet of some sort. We can believe that Muhammad was some sort of religious and miltiary leader of the early Islamic movement, without believing he received teachings from gabriel, or that the Quran existed during his lifetime
Hi Thomas, I saw on Sneaker's Corner (or a coworker of his) a video about St John of Demascus saying that Muhammad took the wife of his friend/coworker, but it did not say adopted son. Regardless of whether this is an interpolation, the question is "if the original story was that it was his adopted son's wife then why not write it?" So, it seems that there might have been an earlier story of Muhammad taking the wife of someone else, then this was molded to fit the "seal of the prophets" position. What do you think of this line of argumentation? It supports your thesis from a few videos ago and it avoids the "principle of embarassment" by outsourcing the source of embarassment (adultery) by making an already present story that is now being made simultaneously holier ('God told him so for a reason') and useful ('seal of the prophets').
The textual analysis stems from Karl-Heinz Ohlig, you can find it here: inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-2/hinweise-auf-eine-neue-religion-in-der-christlichen-literatur-unter-islamischer-herrschaft-1-teil/ He concluded that all mentions of Muhammad in chapter 30 of Pseudo-Sebeos' work are later interpolation from a time when Muhammad was already historicised. That is the only may of getting rid of the various disparities in the text.
@@TAlexander Karl Heinz Ohlig is a theologian!!! He is not a Historian!!! Why do you ignore REAL,IMPARTIAL, SECULAR SCHOLARS??!!! What do you expect from a Christian Preacher???
@@aquilam.a2562 The passage does fit in the time period. See Sean W Anthony and Shoemaker. The people this person is citing are not real Scholars!!! They are Theologians or are not considered of Academic Scholar bh mainstream scholarship!!!
What Thomas forgets to tell you is that we have corroboration for Sebeos to confirm that what he reports is true and it's not an apocalyptic text: Maximus the Confessor letter 14 and Chronicle 1234AD.
Thanks Thomas for this video, and each time you come up with newer findings.From Sebeos's account, one gets the impression that as late as 660 the moslems and Jews were spiritual kin and political allies, oddly enough Sebeos makes no mention of the Ishmaelite merchant Mahmet in connection with Muawiyas letter to the Byzantine emperor Constantine the Bearded One.Maybe this mysterious Arabian leader was not as central to the Abrahamic faith as he would later become.In 690 the Nestorian chroniclerJohn bar Penkaye writes of the authority of Muhammed and the Arabian brutality in enforcing that authority, but still knows of no new holy book .However he paints a picture of a new religion closer to Judaism and Christianity than Islam eventually became.Islamists are redactionist and revisionists so anything is possible but eventually the TRUTH must stand out.
You are right. Thomas and Inarah must logically reject these sources to believe what they believe. This just shows that they are rigorous. To make them desperate, their rejection must be unconvincing. Thomas is bringing to us sources that do not support his thesis, rather than hiding them. That would be desperate. Instead, he is sharing scholarship that brings into question the few sources that would seem to corroborate the Islamic narrative. He is showing that they actually do not provide that corroboration.
Your work is extremely important. We must learn the truth. Thank you for your work. New subscriber now. God bless y'all!!
Another fabulous and easy to follow video, and certainly the best commentary/examination on Sebeos I've seen on RUclips, once again thank you Thomas
Thomas is talking nonsense. See Stephen Shoemaker's interview here ruclips.net/video/_jOAhI6oP80/видео.html
@@inquisitivemind007
😂
@@simonhengle8316 Not to forget the Robert Hoyland interview titled Was Umar the Messiah?
Thanks for sharing Thomas! 🙏🏽💕
I'd have loved if more reasons for the case of interpolation were given like maybe different writing styles or different vocabulary usage in the original Greek.
Like the Josephus passage on Jesus we're faced with the possibility of partial or complete interpolation.
Since the existing text is a copy of an earlier one, the writing style would be the same throughout it, don't you think?
@@two_tier_gary_rumain I think @Dust is referring to the style of writing meaning the flow of words and not the writing style as in how the words and letters are formed on the manuscript.
@@RSM363 I was thinking the same thing! Just the fact that the text went from "the Arabs were not united" to "then they were united" gives credence to the middle part being authentic, just because these brief lines don't go with a biblical narrative style doesn't mean they were necessarily interpolated.
Also the text mentions Muhammad was a merchant which was probably common knowledge shortly after the conquests suggesting the prophet was indeed a merchant in northern Arabia, the Islamic narrative later tried to paint him as a shepherd similar to many biblical prophets but the merchant thing was too popular in the collective memory to completely erase so they made him both a shepherd and a merchant.
very interesting, as always! Thanks a lot! Grüße aus Wien
Thomas, why is it all chronicles related Muhammad was written by Monophysite monks or Bishops or Monastry be it Syrian, Palestinian or Armenian.
Why there was no chronicles from Nestorians of Babylon were the actual events happened or from Chalcedonean Byzantines?
We can only guess. Maybe these legends were easier believed the further away they were from the supposed events.
Maybe there was a scribal tradition which was more ready to insert interpolations in cases where they thought they had something of value to add to the original text.
Then again, it may well be coincidence. Keep in mind that there are only very few texts in this category. Probably too few to make general assumption based on them.
@@TAlexander Mar Babai the great, head of Nestorian Church of East , who lived and wrote extensively never wrote anything about them. He was living in Babylon. But Monophysites of Syria, Armenia wrote. Is it mear coincidence?
What about Khuzistan Chronicle by Nestorians. Does it mention about Mohamad or new faith?
Yes, Chronicler Of Khuzistan, 40’s AH / 660’s CE. mentioned the Arabs and prophet muhmmad by name. It is thesis is about the fall of the sassanid empire by the Muslims followers of prophet muhmmad. But, what is the benefit of talking about it. Sure Thomas will come up with a crazy idea and that the phrase that talks about prophet Muhammad was just later interpolation. Everything that mentioned prophet muhmmad is just interpolation because it simply if I do not say so, then what the Aim of my channel?
Then God raised up against them the sons of Ishmael, [numerous] as the sand on the sea shore, whose leader (mdabbrānā) was Muḥammad (mḥmd). Neither walls nor gates, armour or shield, withstood them, and they gained control over the entire land of the Persians. Yazdgird sent against them countless troops, but the Arabs routed them all and even killed Rustam. Yazdgird shut himself up in the walls of Mahoze and finally escaped by flight. He reached the country of the Huzaye and Mrwnaye, where he ended his life. The Arabs gained countrol of Mahoze and all the territory. They also came to Byzantine territory, plundering and ravaging the entire region of Syria. Heraclius, the Byzantine king, sent armies against them, but the Arabs killed more than 100,000 of them
@@mahmoodali1533 Whose leader was 'blessed' not mohammed as a person.
3:08 Many Scholars think.
Which many Scholars?
You didn't even mention one.
Thanks Tom!
Thanks, Thomas for the lecture - thanks to the notables(Luling, Sawa, Crone...), you & Odon included, what was built on blood of the innocents and lies will eventually come down.
Amazing Thomas. Looks like Islam is like a House of Cards, Remove One and Everything Collapses.
Indeed
Why Capitalize Every First Letter? 🤔
@@rossmanmagnus ahhahahahahahahahahah
I think Umar is this Muhammad, thx again T.A
Is there any plan of Thomas to do Live videos, to clear many doubts.
Wait... did I miss something? Why isn't "Rome" the 4th beast of Daniel's vision? Why does he say it's the Arabs? Also, why does he claim that the Jews were seeking an alliance with the Arabs to overthrow the Greeks?
Doesn't he know that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) was still considered Rome? (4th beast of Daniel's vision)
Seems like he desperately wants to confuse history and scripture for his own agenda...
The daniel 2 prophecy clearly shows that there will be a kingdom that will demolish the 4th kingdom (the romans as all interpretations assert). The only tribe that managed to do that was the tribe of the arabs prophecised to become a great nation in Genesis 17.
And yes the byzanites did consider themselves as romans.
So when it's prophecised it's prophecised, no need for strawmanning it like this dude in the video.
These "critics" of islam that "doubt" the existence of rhe prophet always always tend to jump over the quran. We have 7th century manuscripts of the quran that alone prove the existence of the prophet.
And even I were to take the nonislamic narrative, it's obvious that there is 1 singular style in text and no contradiction in text or in thought. It's consistent for the matter of fact.
So who brought it to the arabs?
@@Im_Sanenough Which 7th century manuscripts of the Quran do you have?
Provide the names.
@@valentino3228 from the top of my head
Birningham manuscript
Sana' manuscript
@@Im_Sanenough Birmingham Folios are not a quranic Manuscript, and it only contains 33 verses
Sana Mamuscript is neither complete, and is different to the Hafs version Quran that exists today
ruclips.net/video/9FIQnDUvBFU/видео.htmlsi=lMGTnZQYq2lmWLNh
ruclips.net/video/kXXxeTGus7c/видео.htmlsi=gmCrtYgaciNetztT
What about the letter from Muhammad to Heraclius? Is it real and in existence?
With all due respect we need to have some standards for what a scientific approach is here. When we ask the Inarah group for evidence for their Merw thesis or theory, virtually no archeological or textual evidence is given. On the other hand when it comes to the only few textual evidences extant they are so quick in dismissing them all. Sebeos is such an important piece of evidence whose dismissal needs much more work! Are you saying nothing in Sebeos bears any relation to reality because it “could” have been a later interpretation? There are other sources which imply that certain Jews entered Jerusalem with the Arabs. There is the constitution of Medina document which most serious scholar agree is not totally fake, and indicates some coalition b/w Arabs and certain Jewish groups. This idea of a Jewish relation or coalition is not that easily dismissible and I don’t find it in total contradiction with the Merw thesis either, both could bear some levels of truth. Abdl Malik being from Merw doesn’t contradict someone calling himself Mahmad making coalition with some Jewish groups to capture the holy land 60 -70 years earlier.
Of course the Mervan origin is more an educated guess than established fact. Nobody would claim otherwise. When I presented it, I was open about it as well.
As for these texts, of course I'm simplifying to a degree. These 3 minute videos are not supposed to be academic deep dives for the experts. For example, I only said that the Doctrina Jacobi fits better into the late 7th century and didn't go into details like specific Apocalyptic tendencies or the fact that it mentions borders in Northern Africa which are inconsistent with the time it was supposedly written in but rather fit into the late 7th century.
With Pseudo-Sebeos, textual analysis indicates that the bit about Muhammad was inserted later. It's a different style from the passages before and after and when you take it out, the whole passage becomes more coherent.
We don't really know much about the period of Mohammed since Islamic history started to be written more than 200 years after Muhammed passed away. And we don't have originals of the early writings. As to Sebeos, I agree with Thomas, though many Armenians love to disagree. Armenians also praise other documents allegedly related to Mohammed which have proven to be fakes, like the covenant with the monks of Sinai
My point is that since we are in such shortage of textual or archeological hard evidence dismissing everything that appears “later interpolation” without deeper analysis is not warranted while accepting other speculative theories. Sebeos’s part about Mahmad might be a later interpolation but at the same time is different from the standard Islamic narrative and more importantly agrees somewhat with other sources available and even coins. So while Sebeos’s part about Mahmad might be a later interpretation it doesn’t mean that is totally false or irrelevant (eg It could be a re-writing by a second author with some additions but its core could be intact.) And to dismiss it more analysis and reasoning is needed. BTW it seems to me both Odon’s and Joe’s theories are based on Sebeos. So is Shoemaker’s work. It is interesting that I think shoemaker was who said Sebeos is THE most important evidence we have and he is a revisionist! So I think Sebeos’s dismissal deserves a much more in-depth analysis and reasoning.
Don't get me wrong. Every source is valuable. I'm not dismissing Pseudo-Sebeos as a source. I'm merely saying that it is not 7th century evidence for a historical Muhammad.
@@traveleurope5756 Thomas did not intend to give a full analysis, he just gave a quick opinion. But still even if you take Sebeos seriously, the absence of any documents or inscriptions from Mohammed's era in Arabic is telling. Actually most sources that Muslims cite date back to only a few centuries ago
Are you going to do the chronicle of Khuzestan? It is written in the 650s or 660s and it also mentions Muhammad. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it also mentions the fall of Constantinople, but that didn’t happen until 1453.
@@TAlexander okay
A quote: “For the date of the composition of the chronicle, Nautin argued for a terminus ante quern of 657 or 658, the date of Isho'yab Ill's death; he did not date the 'appendix', but much of the evidence cited by Noldeke to date what he called a 'letzten Verfassers' would now apply, apparent allusions to the conquest of Africa and the failed siege of Constantinople taking us to c. 680. Noldeke's argument naturally turns on his understanding of these allusions, and in fact there are grounds for arguing that Nautili's 'appendix' was compiled even earlier, perhaps very soon after the completion of the chronicle. For there are no unambiguous references to events in the 660s and 670s: thus, what Noldeke took to be an allusion to the famous siege of Constantinople of the late 670s ('Over Constantinople He has not yet given them control') may rather allude to obscure events in the 650s. But for our purposes it matters little if Nautili's 'appendix' had been compiled by 660, 670, or 680, and I shall stick with Noldeke's more conservative dating. The material may have been compiled earlier; there is no reason to think that it was compiled later.”
Do you know what, I'm stupid. I got mixed up with my own references. In fact, the next video will be on exactly that text. It's just that I know it under a different name (Chronica Minora, Pars Prior). I guess I was also thrown off by you remembering that it referred to Muhammad. It does not. Anyway, I will delete my previous comment to reduce confusion. And I just realised that I didn't even make as strong a case as I could have as I didn't go into the problems of the Appendix vs. the actual chronicle which doesn't mention anything about the Arabs...alas, the case is still strong enough I guess.
@@TAlexander no, don’t remove it! I took much effort in quoting from Robinson’s text.
I'm not removing your comment, only mine wherein I claimed that I won't cover the text. Because I will.
As you will see, there is very good reason to think that the Appendix is much later than 660-680 AD, at least in parts.
This is a pretty crude assessment of Ps.Sebeos, using a german theologian from the revisionist school of Islam's online article (uncited in the video) to declare this passage a later interpolation, instead of using any of the actual 6th-7th century near east historians opinions, like Johnston and Thompson who you cite earlier for the misattribution.
I don't understand why we need to deny Muhammad existed to disprove some of the mythology about early Islam? Ps.Sebeos is pretty good evidence that some of the biography of Muhammad was true - he was a merchant, who led the early Islamic movement, and was a prophet of some sort. We can believe that Muhammad was some sort of religious and miltiary leader of the early Islamic movement, without believing he received teachings from gabriel, or that the Quran existed during his lifetime
Hi Thomas,
I saw on Sneaker's Corner (or a coworker of his) a video about St John of Demascus saying that Muhammad took the wife of his friend/coworker, but it did not say adopted son.
Regardless of whether this is an interpolation, the question is "if the original story was that it was his adopted son's wife then why not write it?"
So, it seems that there might have been an earlier story of Muhammad taking the wife of someone else, then this was molded to fit the "seal of the prophets" position.
What do you think of this line of argumentation?
It supports your thesis from a few videos ago and it avoids the "principle of embarassment" by outsourcing the source of embarassment (adultery) by making an already present story that is now being made simultaneously holier ('God told him so for a reason') and useful ('seal of the prophets').
Does anyone have a reference to the textual criticism of the manuscript? 📖
Edit: Sorry, I pasted a reference, but I mixed up the video. I'm not sure what you're referring to. What exactly are you asking for?
@@TAlexander I can understand the passage about muhammad doesn't fit into the time period. But is the passage about muhammad on a seperate page?
The textual analysis stems from Karl-Heinz Ohlig, you can find it here: inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-2/hinweise-auf-eine-neue-religion-in-der-christlichen-literatur-unter-islamischer-herrschaft-1-teil/
He concluded that all mentions of Muhammad in chapter 30 of Pseudo-Sebeos' work are later interpolation from a time when Muhammad was already historicised. That is the only may of getting rid of the various disparities in the text.
@@TAlexander Karl Heinz Ohlig is a theologian!!!
He is not a Historian!!!
Why do you ignore REAL,IMPARTIAL, SECULAR SCHOLARS??!!!
What do you expect from a Christian Preacher???
@@aquilam.a2562 The passage does fit in the time period.
See Sean W Anthony and Shoemaker.
The people this person is citing are not real Scholars!!!
They are Theologians or are not considered of Academic Scholar bh mainstream scholarship!!!
L affiliation of Ismael if news. No Muslim claim this few centuries ago
Tomas, the Spanish, and Portuguese mails are spam.
And sometimes they send it in Napolitan dialect aswell.
Yes, I try to remove these posts as soon as I see them.
Fascinating. Didn't know abot that.
What Thomas forgets to tell you is that we have corroboration for Sebeos to confirm that what he reports is true and it's not an apocalyptic text: Maximus the Confessor letter 14 and Chronicle 1234AD.
Ni9cely debunked!
Thomas is talking nonsense. See Stephen Shoemaker's interview here ruclips.net/video/_jOAhI6oP80/видео.html
Where is original
Without Lies Islam Dies!
Christian to see philipians 1:18 romans 3:7😂🤣
You didn't even give a single reference about your LIES.
A SINGLE.
Everything is your thinking.
Thanks Thomas for this video, and each time you come up with newer findings.From Sebeos's account, one gets the impression that as late as 660 the moslems and Jews were spiritual kin and political allies, oddly enough Sebeos makes no mention of the Ishmaelite merchant Mahmet in connection with Muawiyas letter to the Byzantine emperor Constantine the Bearded One.Maybe this mysterious Arabian leader was not as central to the Abrahamic faith as he would later become.In 690 the Nestorian chroniclerJohn bar Penkaye writes of the authority of Muhammed and the Arabian brutality in enforcing that authority, but still knows of no new holy book .However he paints a picture of a new religion closer to Judaism and Christianity than Islam eventually became.Islamists are redactionist and revisionists so anything is possible but eventually the TRUTH must stand out.
Thomas is talking nonsense. See Stephen Shoemaker's interview here ruclips.net/video/_jOAhI6oP80/видео.html
Every source that doesn't suit Thomas must be rejected.
This is very desperate.
Alonzo Harris worships Muhammed (PBRB).
You are right. Thomas and Inarah must logically reject these sources to believe what they believe. This just shows that they are rigorous.
To make them desperate, their rejection must be unconvincing.
Thomas is bringing to us sources that do not support his thesis, rather than hiding them. That would be desperate.
Instead, he is sharing scholarship that brings into question the few sources that would seem to corroborate the Islamic narrative. He is showing that they actually do not provide that corroboration.
@mysotiras 011
Alonzo uses shia sources in his arguments and he even used ibn fibbin's masaha argument 😂
@mysotiras 011
Alonzo pretends to know arabic, truth is he doesn't, he did not know masaha is not the plural of masih 😂
Most of these videos follow the same pattern (copyist might have made an error, interpolation, Islamic conspiracy, conjecture, etc.)