Wednesday, 29 January 2020

Unreliable Hadith about Sunset in the Spring of Warm Water


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Analysis of the reliability of the alleged report about the sun setting in a spring of warm water according to the Holy Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.


There is a Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud that has been brought up by some anti-Islamic polemicists.

The narration:

The narration along with the chain of narrators goes as;

Yazid bin Harun- Sufyan bin Husain- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3991)

Related narrations:

In Musnad Ahmad these words are part of a longer narration reported through same chain of narrators;

Abu Dharr narrated, “Once I was with the Prophet riding a donkey on which there was a saddle or a (piece of) velvet. That was at sunset. He said to me, ‘O Abu Dharr, do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said, ‘It sets in a spring of murky water, (then) it goes and prostrates before its Lord, the Exalted in Might and the Ever-Majestic, under the Throne. And when it is time to go out, Allah allows it to go out and thus it rises. But, when He wants to make it rise where it sets, He locks it up. The sun will then say, “O my Lord, I have a long distance to run.” Allah will say, “Rise where you have set.” That (will take place) when no (disbelieving) soul will get any good by believing then.’” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21459 al-Risala ed.)

This narration is quite similar to the narration found in many hadith works including Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim etc. except the words “It sets in a spring of warm water.”

In Sahih Bukhari it goes as;

Sufyan (al-Thawri)- Al-A’mash- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Narrated Abu Dharr: The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Messenger know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun is quickly proceeding towards its destination. That is the designing of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. " (36.38) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Hadith 421)

The significant difference is of the words “it sets in a spring of warm/murky water.”

Analysis of the chains of narrators:

From Abu Darr, it both ways i.e. with and without the words under consideration, it narrated by Yazid al-Taymi and from him by his son Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi. From Ibrahim it is narrated by six different narrators;
1- Al-A’mash: And from him at least five people narrate it. See Sahih Bukhari etc.

2- Yunus bin ‘Ubaid: And from him at least three narrators report this narration. See Sahih Muslim etc.

3- Musa bin al-Musayyab al-Thaqafi: From him it is narrated by Abdah bin Sulayman, See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1189
4- Abdul A’la al-Taymi: The narrator down from him is Mis’ar, See Hilyah al-Awliya 5/89

5- Harun bin Sa’d: Abdul Ghaffar bin al-Qasim narrates from him. See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1191 and Al-Tabarani’s Mu’jam Al-Awst, Hadith 4470

6- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah: The sole narrator down from him is Sufyan bin Husain, See Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, Mustadrak al-Hakim, Musnad al-Bazzar etc.

Of all these various routes from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, it is only through Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah that these words “It sets in a spring of warm water” are narrated.

In short, there are six narrators reporting the hadith from Ibrahim bin Yazid, and only one of them i.e. Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah quotes the particular words. And to add to the trouble there is again only one narrator down from him and he is Sufyan bin Husain whereas parallel to Sufyan there are at least eleven people narrating the hadith without these words on the authority of five different people narrating from Ibrahim bin Yazid.

Following flow diagram for the above detail gives the pictorial display the strangeness of these words. Down from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi only the narrators with red outline for their names give the words under consideration against loads of other narrators who do not report these words.




The narration is anomalous (shaadh) and defective (mu’allal):

This fact alone is enough to make the narration dubious. No doubt both Al-Hakam and Sufyan are per se trustworthy narrators but because on their respective levels they go against much reliable and numerous narrators. Such a narration reported this way is termed as “shaadh” i.e. anomalous.

Carefully read the definition of anomalous (shaadh) hadith given by Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 A.H.) in his magnus opus, “Kitab Ma’rifat ‘anwa’ ‘ilm al-Hadith” translated under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith”;

“… the anomalous hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, Translated by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, Garnet Publishing Ltd. Berkshire 2006 p.57)

Also see the definition of defective (mu’allal) hadith given by Ibn Salah;

“A defective hadith is one in which a defect impugning its soundness is detected, although it outwardly appears to be free of the defect. That may apply to an isnad made up of reliable transmitters which outwardly seems to fulfill the conditions of soundness. Someone being alone in transmitting the hadith as well as others contradicting him aid in catching the defect.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.67)

And when a report or a part of it becomes “shaadh” it ceases to be a sahih (sound) report. For this the definition of a “Sahih hadith” will help.

Hafiz Ibn Salah writes;

“The sahih (sound) hadith is a “supported” hadith (al-hadith al-musnad), the isnad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its point of termination. The sound hadith can be neither anomalous (shaadh) nor defective (mu’allal),” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.5)

So merely being “sahih al-isnaad” is not enough for the report itself to be sahih.

Therefore, the very fact that Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah’s narrates differently from five other narrators reporting it on the authority of Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, makes the narration “shaadh” (anomalous) which is a kind of weak (da’if) reports.

But the trouble with the narration does not end here. Down from Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah, Sufyan bin Husain is also unique in narrating these words whereas the number of narrators down from narrators other than Al-Hakam narrating it from Ibrahim al-Taymi is at least eleven. There is not a single supporting narrator for Sufyan either.

Hafiz Al-Bazzar (d. 292 A.H.) after giving this narration writes;

“We do not know anyone other than Sufyan bin Husain reporting it through the chain: Al-Hakam bin ‘Utayba –Ibrahim- his father- Abu Dharr, while Yunus bin ‘Ubayd, Suleman Al-A’mash and Harun bin Sa’d have also narrated it from Ibrahim.” 
(Musnad Al-Bazzar- Bahr al-Zakhkhar, under Hadith 4010)

And this is important, not only because it adds more to the oddity of the narration, but also because Sufyan bin Husain though generally considered authentic was also criticized by few scholars. This criticism does not harm his general narrations but becomes significant when he goes out of the way and narrates what other narrators from the same original source do not.

Muhammad ibn Sa’d said about him: “He was reliable (but) he made many mistakes in his narrations.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1990, vol.7 p.227 No. 3417)

Conclusion:

These details make it quite clear that according to rules of reporting it is not right to attribute these words to the Messenger of Allah- on him be the peace and blessings of Allah.

Apparently, the words from Qur’an 18:86 were confused and appended to the hadith that had no link to the ayah whatsoever. The narrator failed to understand the real significance of the verse and the hadith and for apparent semblance he confused the two.

The verse from the Holy Qur’an i.e. surah 18 ayah 86 is simply about how the sunset appeared to Zulqarnain and even the classical Muslim scholars understood it like that. The detailed explanation of it is found HERE.

As to the meanings of the Hadith of Abu Dharr- may Allah be pleased with him- about the sun prostrating under the Throne (‘arsh) of Allah, visit THIS PAGE for explanation.

So the excitement of the missionaries is in vain. Pity!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Thursday, 23 January 2020

Hadith




It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“Once of the things that Allah revealed in the the Qur'an and then abrogated was that nothing makes marriage prohibited except ten breastfeedings or five well-known (breastfeedings).”
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الصَّمَدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ ثُمَّ سَقَطَ لاَ يُحَرِّمُ إِلاَّ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ أَوْ خَمْسٌ مَعْلُومَاتٌ ‏.‏
Grade
: Sahih (Darussalam)
English reference
 : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1942
Arabic reference
 : Book 9, Hadith 2018

From <https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9>



They insinuate that this tradition (which is not even authentic) demonstrates that the reason why the verse for stoning the Adulterer is not with us in the Qur‟an today is because the sheep ate up the paper it was written on. This argument is absurd for the following reasons: · There is no reason to believe that this was the only piece of paper that had this verse written on it. · There are hadiths which show the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) refusing to approve the writing down of that verse, due to it being abrogated from the Qur‟anic text (to be preserved through the Sunnah). Umar (ra) asked "'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity) · The companions already had this verse memorized (ref Saheeh Muslim, Book 017, Number 4194). Unless they want to argue that this sheep also “ate the memories” of the companions who memorized those verses, they have no arguments left to to advance.



If the sheep eat the verse of the Quran, how did Umar Bin Khattab Ra manage to know the verse? Was that the only hard copy that several scribes had written.

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (Peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Sahih Muslim Book 17 Hadith 4194)


Thought you said the verse from the Quran was missing? From the above Hadith The companions already had this verse memorized. Unless they want to argue that this sheep also “ate the memories” of the companions who memorized those verses, they have no arguments left to to advance.



Maybe you can tell us which sheep eat verse from Matthew 18:11 and Acts 8:37




It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“Once of the things that Allah revealed in the the Qur'an and then abrogated was that nothing makes marriage prohibited except ten breastfeedings or five well-known (breastfeedings).”

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الصَّمَدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ ثُمَّ سَقَطَ لاَ يُحَرِّمُ إِلاَّ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ أَوْ خَمْسٌ مَعْلُومَاتٌ ‏.‏
Grade
: Sahih (Darussalam)
English reference
 : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1942
Arabic reference
 : Book 9, Hadith 2018

Tuesday, 21 January 2020

Did the Pharaoh of the Exodus Drown in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:28)?


The most conservative scholarship considers that the pharaoh of Egypt at the time of the Exodus (c. 1446 BC) was Amenhotep II (1450-1424 BC). The overwhelming biblical and historical evidence is that he did not die with his army in pursuit of Israel.

In Psalm 136:15, we find that God "overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea." The Hebrew word translated here as "overthrew" is na'ar, also found in Exodus 14:27. It does not mean "to drown" or "to toss or tumble about as in the water" as some have attempted to assert. It simply means "shook off" as is mentioned in the margins of many Bibles and in the Brown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. (Nehemiah 5:13 illustrates how na'ar should be translated: "Then I shook out the fold of my garment. . . .") Therefore, these verses simply say that God shook off the Egyptians, including Pharaoh, from their pursuit of the Israelites. These scriptures say nothing of who was drowned.

In Exodus 14:28, the waters cover "all the army of Pharaoh," but Pharaoh himself is not mentioned. Exodus 15:19 supports this: "For the horses of Pharaoh went with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them." Naturally, the horses and horsemen of Egypt were considered to be Pharaoh's. But this verse does not say that Pharaoh's personal horse, or that Pharaoh himself, drowned in the sea.

This is significant because the death of such an important person would almost certainly have been given special note in the Bible. The Old Testament contains many clear references to the deaths of enemy kings, most of them much less important than this pharaoh. Archaeology proves that Amenhotep II, if he is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, ruled for about 22 more years.



Daat Zkenim commentary


לא נשאר בהם עד אחד, “not a single one of them remained.” The word עד is sometimes used as inclusive statement whereas other times it is used as exclusion, i.e. in this instance the meaning is that only a single Egyptian survived this drowning. The survivor was Pharaoh himself. We read in Psalms 106,11: אחד מהם לא נותר, “not one of them was left.” How do we reconcile this? The Torah refers to all of Pharaoh’s soldiers having perished. He himself was forced to survive and bear the disgrace of his defeat.



לכל חיל פרעה, “of Pharaoh’s entire army;” according to Rashi these words are superfluous, however, this is not an uncommon occurrence in our Scriptures. Nachmanides writes that in this instance these words are not superfluous, but that the meaning of the words לכל חיל פרעה is that part of the army described thus was the infantry, as opposed to the cavalry who were riding in chariots. The latter Pharaoh had taken with him immediately he heard about the Israelites having made a U turn at Baal Tzefon, whereas the infantry took longer to catch up with the cavalry.

Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 14:28:1
(Exodus 14:28) "And the waters returned and covered the chariot, etc.": even that of Pharaoh. These are the words of R. Yehudah, it being written (Ibid. 15:4) "the chariots of Pharaoh and his host, etc." R. Nechemiah says: except for that of Pharaoh, it being written (Ibid. 9:16) "But, because of this I have preserved you." Others say: Pharaoh descended last and he drowned, viz. (Ibid. 15:19) "For the horse of Pharaoh came with its chariot and its riders into the sea, and the L rd turned back upon them the waters of the sea."



Did Pharaoh accompany his army when they went after the Israelites? If so, did he die with them?
Answer:
We read in Exodus 14 that Pharaoh personally led his army against the Jews.
There are differing opinions in the Midrash1 concerning his fate. Some say that he drowned in the Red Sea together with his army, while others opine that he survived the miraculous event. He survived in order to retell a firsthand account of the miracles and wonders that G‑d performed.
According to one Midrash,2 he made his way to Nineveh, Assyria, where he became king—the same king who when hearing the prophet Jonah's message from G‑d foretelling Nineveh's destruction, encouraged all his subjects to repent in order to avert the divine decree. Apparently he had learned his lesson.
Wishing you a happy and kosher Passover!
Yours truly,
Rabbi Menachem Posner
FOOTNOTES
Mechilta Beshalach 2:6.
Yalkut Shimoni Exodus 176.



yes this is specific In Psalm 136:15, we find that God "overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea." The Hebrew word translated here as "overthrew" is na'ar, also found in Exodus 14:27. It does not mean "to drown" or "to toss or tumble about as in the water" as some have attempted to assert. It simply means "shook off" as is mentioned in the margins of many Bibles and in the Brown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. (Nehemiah 5:13 illustrates how na'ar should be translated: "Then I shook out the fold of my garment. . . .") Therefore, these verses simply say that God shook off the Egyptians, including Pharaoh, from their pursuit of the Israelites. These scriptures say nothing of who was drowned.

 

In Exodus 14:28, the waters cover "all the army of Pharaoh," but Pharaoh himself is not mentioned. Exodus 15:19 supports this: "For the horses of Pharaoh went with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them." Naturally, the horses and horsemen of Egypt were considered to be Pharaoh's. But this verse does not say that Pharaoh's personal horse, or that Pharaoh himself, drowned in the sea.

 


Monday, 20 January 2020

Divorce




Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:3-9)

---------------

The above Passage which abrogates a law from the Old Testament has more to it than you may think. Interestingly, Jesus of the New Testament clearly tells the Pharisees that one of the Mizvot which Jews thought was part of the “613 laws” was actually a command by Moses.

In verse 8 we read Jesus saying “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

MOSES PERMITTED YOU TO DIVORCE YOUR WIVES? How could this be when this command is part of the 613 laws commanded by Yahweh himself?

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, (Deuteronomy 24:1)


According to Jesus, Moses himself permitted this law, which somehow became part of the 613 laws that was spoken by Yahweh. This seems to create a problem when it comes to the law of God as he states all his statues and laws must be obeyed. Jesus goes one to say it’s because of their hard hearts Moses commanded such a ruling.  One wonders what other laws of Moses has blended in with the 613 laws? This shows the Torah laws are from Man and God mixed

Monday, 13 January 2020

Did Polycarp Meet John the Apostle?



The claim comes up a lot that Polycarp met John—the original Apostle, Disciple of Jesus, Brother to James, the “Pillar” of Galatians 2, He of The Twelve. Enough to warrant a response you can bookmark. The short answer to the question, “Did he?” is no. It’s not likely at any rate. Later legends claimed this. But so far as we can tell, Polycarp himself conspicuously never did.

The Claim

Polycarp was a Christian Bishop in what is now Turkey during the mid-2nd century—born around 69 and died around 155 A.D. We have one letter and some quotations from him in other authors, and a ridiculous hagiography. Legend was he studied under John the Disciple and met others who had “seen Jesus.” But there’s no evidence that’s true; and it’s highly unlikely.
We have no text from Polycarp himself making this claim. Nor do any of the letters we have addressed to Polycarp mention it. There’s also no evidence any Apostle was actually alive when Polycarp was even a schoolboy—which would have been the late 70s A.D. at the earliest, when the Apostles would have been in their late 60s or even 80s, if any were even alive at all, and we have no evidence any were. Average lifespan for an adult at that time was 48 (On the Historicity of Jesus, Element 22, Ch. 4). Not even the Martyrdom of Polycarp, which is basically a fawning eulogy of him, makes any mention of his ever knowing any Apostles or tutoring under John.
But the appeal of the legend that Polycarp had met John and other Apostles is that since Polycarp was reputed to be a hard-core historicist pushing the narrative that Jesus really visited earth and the Disciples really sat at his feet, one might try to argue this supports the historicity of Jesus. That’s not so strong an argument as imagined, as either the Apostles or Polycarp may have been party to the transition in dogma from a revelatory to an earthly Christ figure. But still. It’s worth looking into.

The Sources

Our sources for these claims are not renowned for their reliability, but are all infamous apologists and polemicists mainstream scholars tend not to trust as authorities: Irenaeus, writing in the 180s A.D.; Tertullian, writing in the early 200s A.D., and Eusebius, writing in the early 300s A.D. It’s sometimes claimed these guys said Polycarp himself had said he had met actual Disciples of Jesus. Yes, that’s multiple layers of hearsay; but it’s also not even true.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus wrote two passages about Polycarp. The first comes in the context of Irenaeus attempting to claim there’s been an uninterrupted succession of bishops at Rome from the first Apostles to his own day, specifically to combat the contrary claims of heretics. But scholars know such succession lists, which only come late and are never sourced, are precisely the kind of thing propagandists invented for this very purpose. No one really trusts them anymore. Though it’s worth noting that Irenaeus admits “the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the ‘perfected’ apart and privily from the rest” of Christians and so we can be sure “they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves” (Against Heresies 3.3.1). And of these bishops Irenaeus boasts the most about Clement, the author of 1 Clement that conspicuously shows no knowledge of an earthly Jesus or any Gospel narrative at all (On the Historicity of Jesus, Ch. 8.5).
Irenaeus then inexplicably diverges to discuss Polycarp for no clear reason, other than that he just happened to be another bishop, somewhere else, whom Irenaeus was keen to justify as having similar claims to pedigree:
Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.
There are also those who heard from him that John, the Disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, ‘Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.’
…
There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth.
IRENAEUS, AGAINST HERESIES 3.3.4
Note what Irenaeus cagily doesn’t actually say here: he never says Polycarp said he got any of this from any actual Disciple. Irenaeus just “declares” that Polycarp was “instructed by apostles” and “conversed with many who had seen Christ.” But when Irenaeus gets to mentioning having met Polycarp himself and heard him preach, neither claim is there attributed to him. Irenaeus thus never actually says Polycarp said he was “instructed by apostles” and “conversed with many who had seen Christ.” Irenaeus just believes that he did, because it is what “the Asiatic Churches” say about Polycarp, “as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp.” In other words, Irenaeus never heard Polycarp say any of this. Later men, after Polycarp was dead, started saying it. Exactly how legends are made.
Thus when Irenaeus does discuss what he heard Polycarp taught, Irenaeus himself describes it as what Polycarp “had learned from the apostles and which the Church has handed down,” which doesn’t mean Polycarp said he actually spoke to any apostle, only that he taught what he received from the apostles via “what the Church has handed down.” In other words, a supposed apostolic tradition. Not actual conversations with apostles. Everything else Irenaeus says, he says he got not from Polycarp, but others making claims about Polycarp afterward—conveniently unnamed others. The infamous “they” are the ones who said it. (As the totally actually historical Optronix once said, “They say a lot, don’t ‘they’?”)
Irenaeus then says “there are also those who heard from” Polycarp a possibly apocryphal story about John the Disciple. Notably, Irenaeus did not evidently hear any such story from Polycarp himself, despite having attended his lectures and sermons. No, Irenaeus only heard of this from, you know, someone. “Those who heard.” Whoever that is. I’m sure they’re totes reliable. But even as skeptical as we must be of his source, even this unnamed, unvetted source did not say Polycarp learned this story about John from John. They just said Polycarp told that story.
You can see the telephone game already operating here: Polycarp relayed what he claimed to be an apostolic tradition handed down of old, which becomes “Polycarp related what he received from the apostles,” which becomes “Polycarp met the apostles.” Likewise, “Polycarp told stories about John the Disciple” becomes “Polycarp knew John the Disciple,” which becomes “Polycarp was hanging out with John the Disciple once and totes saw him pwn Cerinthus at the baths!”
In the end, the one place we should actually hear any of this, the very letter written by Polycarp that Irenaeus so forcefully recommends, never once relates any of these facts. Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians does not mention having ever met John the Disciple or any Apostles or having received anything directly from any of them. In fact, it pretty much reveals he can’t have; but does reveal how legends he did might have arisen, through a “creative reading” of what he did say.
For Polycarp mentions the apostles only twice in his letter, later as historical examples of sufferers-for-Christ (but no mention of Polycarp himself ever having seen them suffer; a strange opportunity missed in his letter if he had), and before that when he admonishes fellow Christians to continue enduring “as the Lord Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand,” clearly meaning traditions handed down. But one could easily telephone-game this from “preached unto us” to “preached unto me” and thence to “preached unto me directly.” Though that would be no more true of what Polycarp meant than that Polycarp meant he met the prophets of old or Jesus himself. But again, that’s how legends are created. Similarly, Polycarp never mentions knowing John in this letter, but does quote the Epistle 1 John, twice, without attribution—thus easily inspiring the legend that maybe Polycarp was quoting John personally, and not just some revered letters attributed to said John. Again, how legends are made.
We start to see how this legend was growing in Irenaeus’s own hands when elsewhere Irenaeus describes Papias as “the hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp” (in Against Heresies 5.33.4). Not Polycarp was the hearer of John. Moreover, we know from Eusebius (History of the Church 3.39) that the “John” Papias meant was not John the Apostle, but a much later John, John the Elder (Ibid. 4-6). Papias was older than Polycarp. Yet Papias himself never says he met any Apostles—John or otherwise—but only rummaged the earth for rumors others were telling about what the apostles of old had said. Notably, if Papias was an older companion of Polycarp, and Papias never met any Apostles, it’s fair to say Polycarp didn’t either. To the contrary, by confusing which John Papias claimed to have tutored under, the legend grew that Papias had studied under John the Disciple, and as Papias was a companion of Polycarp, this became “Polycarp studied under John the Disciple.”
Of course one could also note that all this being the case, it’s now unclear what was meant by “those who had seen Jesus.” As that could merely be a reference to those who received revelations of the Christ. We therefore cannot extract any means of verifying the historicity of Jesus here, even if we could trust anything after these several, often anonymous layers of hearsay. This is the nature of the Christian legend. And the incompetence and gullibility of its promulgators.

Tertullian

We then see the legend grow under Tertullian, writing in the early 200s A.D. When likewise trying to defend his sect’s apostolic succession lists invented to combat heresy, he insists the church of Smyrna was claiming in his own day “that Polycarp was placed therein by John,” by analogy to “the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter,” thus implying the John ordaining Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna was John the Disciple (Prescription against Heretics 32.2). But that’s fairly impossible. Indeed, the Clement ordination Tertullian claims analogous would have to have happened a hundred years earlier, as Clement was reporting from his position at Rome that Peter had died before the late 60s A.D., before Polycarp was even born (see OHJ, Ch. 8.5).
Which is why this Polycarp legend, like most Christian legends, is wildly implausible. Polycarp was bishop in Smyrna in the mid-2nd century. John the Apostle would have to be over 100 years old to have installed him. Not likely. But more importantly, as we just saw, decades earlier, Irenaeus, who actually met Polycarp, says he was only appointed bishop there by unnamed “apostles in Asia,” thus not yet having heard the tall tale that it was John in particular. To the contrary, Irenaeus merely thought Polycarp once met John. And as we saw, even that was all decades-later, second-hand, anonymous hearsay, and most definitely wasn’t even true, as even Polycarp’s elder companion had never met John—or any Apostle. It’s possible someone named John ordained Polycarp bishop at Smyrna. But it certainly can’t have been the Disciple.
Thus, by the time this legend percolates all of the way to Jerome in the late 4th century, the legend has become full-on, “Polycarp, disciple of the Apostle John and by him ordained bishop of Smyrna, was chief of all Asia, where he saw and had as teachers some of the Apostles and of those who had seen the Lord.” But when we look earlier in the chain of custody we find none of this is true; though we can see how the telephone game got there.

Eusebius

On the road to that full blown legend is Eusebius, writing half way in between Tertullian and Jerome, and almost a century and a half after Irenaeus. Eusebius quotes a letter that he claims to be by Irenaeus against the heretic Florinus, in which Irenaeus is made to say:
I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.
EUSEBIUS, HISTORY OF THE CHURCH 5.20.6
You can see that this letter contradicts what we know Irenaeus himself said, yet clearly builds on what he said, exaggerating and embellishing it into a full-blown legend that Irenaeus himself actually heard Polycarp say all these things as a boy, the very thing Irenaeus conspicuously did not say in his own actual writings—as we just saw. What Irenaeus only heard as misinterpreted rumors decades after Polycarp died has now become “Irenaeus the direct eyewitness” to Polycarp himself saying them! Such is how legends grow.
It’s all the more telling that though we have extensive anti-heretical writings from Irenaeus, nowhere in them is any mention of a Florinus. Tertullian likewise had no knowledge of such a letter either when he wrote against Florinus decades after the time of Irenaeus. Eusebius similarly cites another dubious letter attributed to Irenaeus against a certain Victor saying much the same thing—mentioning Polycarp having “always observed” Christian rites “with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated” (History of the Church, 5.24.16). There is no Victor in the actual anti-heretical writings of Irenaeus either.

Conclusion

Of course many people, perhaps even Polycarp, could have lied about having been tutored by the original Apostles simply to establish their authority. Or met them once decades ago and simply altered what they really taught. But even when Irenaeus says Polycarp taught creeds from and legends about the Apostle John, he does not say Polycarp received those creeds or stories from John. And when we look at Polycarp’s own writings and those of his elder friend Papias, it becomes fairly certain he did not. Instead, we get a telephone game that only becomes a later legend that Polycarp met “John and the Apostle” and “those who saw Jesus.”

Friday, 10 January 2020

Egypt Papyrus

We punished the people of Pharaoh with drought, and shortage of crops, that they might take heed. (7- The Purgatory, 130)
So We sent on them; the flood, the locusts, the lice, the frogs and the blood. How many different signs! But they still remained arrogant, for they were a people full of sin. (7- The Purgatory, 133)
So We expelled them from gardens, springs.Treasures and every kind of honorable position.Thus it was made the children of Israel inheritors of such things.(26- The Poets, 57- 59)
The accounts given by the Quran about the punishment inflicted upon the Pharaoh and his followers, like drought and other disasters, and the accounts of the Ipuwer Papyrus are perfectly in tune with each other. As an evidence of the offense committed by the dynasty of the Pharaoh in its denial of Moses’ prophethood, the Quran says that blood was foreseen (the same thing holds true for the proliferation of the locusts, the lice, etc.). In the Ipuwer Papyrus it is said that blood ran in riverbeds, everywhere was smeared with blood. (Studies conducted to this day seem to explain the red coloration of rivers by the existence of protozoa, zooplanktons, sea and fresh water planktons or dinoflagellates. All these organisms would deplete the oxygen in water, giving rise to rapid growth of toxic substances, killing the living organisms and rendering the stream water undrinkable.)
Researchers have devised a course of events that might have taken place in relation to the disasters described in the Quran. According to this fictive account, “The fish in the Nile perished as a consequence of the intoxication of the river, leaving the Egyptians deprived of sustenance. Frogs, whose eggs multiplied in the meantime, invaded the surroundings before they themselves succumbed to poisoning. Decomposition of fish and frogs coupled with the poisonous water of the Nile polluted the fertile land around. Annihilation of the frogs caused the pests like locusts and grain moths to proliferate:” All these are but the product of imagination, surely. We do not know exactly how things happened since we have no available data in hand to make valid deductions. Yet, this account may give us an idea of them.
The Ipuwer Papyrus records the curse of blood, drought and disasters to which the Pharaoh’s dynasty fell victim, and the situation of the slaves, who later were to inherit the former’s possessions almost literally as described in the Quran.
IPUWER PAPYRUS
10: 3-6 Lower Egypt is devastated. The court came to a standstill. Whatever was stored, wheat, rye, geese and fish, perished.
10: 6-3 Crops wasted everywhere
2: 5-6 Disasters and blood everywhere
2:10 Blood flows in rivers
there was no exit from the palace and no one could see the face of his fellow Towns were destroyed by mighty tides Upper Egypt suffered devastation blood everywhere pestilence throughout the country No one really sails north to Byblos today. What shall we do for cedar for our mummies? Gold is lacking 210
3: 2 Gold and lapis lazuli, silver and malachite, carnelian and bronze decorate the necks of slaves
Ipuwer Papyrus-Leidon 344


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  This is not merely an epistemological maxim ; it is also a logical principle of inference . In other words, the mere absence of evidence ...