https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59txpioPYJI
Recently, I wrote about revisionist theories of Islamic origins. Ironically, this weekend I started to read Bart Ehrman’s new book. I’m about halfway done so expect a review soon. Ehrman’s book got me thinking more about Islamic revisionist history. Why is that? Doesn’t Ehrman only attack the Christian faith? In the intro of the book, Ehrman talks about how Christians in the late fourth Century destroyed the Temple of Allat in Palmyra, which is in modern day Syria.
Allat was a goddess worshipped in Palmyra. Allat was also worshipped in Petra, as one of the gods of the Nabateans. While Allah is the word for God in Arabic, Allat is the Arabic word for goddess. In Islam, Allat is a false god(or goddess) mentioned in Surah 53. It is also one of the three false gods connected with the story of the Satanic Verses along with Al-Uzza and Manat who are also mentioned in Surah 53. I won’t get into the whole story about the Satanic Verses now, but it should be known that Muhammad had opponents who worshipped these false deities.
This is one of the reasons that some revisionists think that Islam originated further north. The cult of Allat was in Palmyra, Petra, and probably other places of close proximity. We have no archeological evidence of Allat being worshipped in Mecca. This doesn’t mean that Allat wasn’t worshipped in Mecca, but there is no archeological evidence that I’m aware of that this is the case.
When one reads the Quran, it’s not like the Bible. It doesn’t say that Muhammad was in a certain city, and he preached to Mr. X about Y and Z. The Quran is the revelations of Allah to Muhammad. Since Muhammad would know who his opponents were and where he was located, this would not have been a problem for him. However as historians, it’s a problem for us since we don’t have Muhammad here to question.
The false gods of Muhammad’s opponents are not the only thing that revisionists use when evaluating the Quran. Later Islamic tradition speaks of Mecca as a big trading hub, however Mecca doesn’t appear on any trade maps prior to the time of Muhammad, while other cities in Arabia were mentioned. The Quran also mentions certain tribes which were obviously in its vicinity. Many people think that these tribes weren’t located around Mecca but further north in the region around Petra and Palmyra. Again, this would give credence to an origin further north.
As I previously mentioned, I wouldn’t use this in a dialogue with a Muslim. At least not yet. However, I do see potential in these theories. I think that we will know more about them in the upcoming years. I can usually tell when someone is stretching a theory or if they’re simply following the evidence where it leads.
So yeah, Ehrman got me thinking about these theories again. I don’t think he meant to do that as the video above indicates. Regardless, I think that these revisionist theories will either be debunked or vindicated within our lifetimes. Archeology is the key.
It is my pet mission to tout Dan Gibson’s work whenever I can.
https://www.patreon.com/dangibson
He is criminally underrepresented – to date out of the usual widely known apologists, only Jay Smith even cites his name! Robert Spencer at least confirmed via Twitter reply that he is aware of Gibson’s work, and it fits his own Did Mo Exist? book findings.
The more Dan Gibson’s name gets out there, the more his theory will be either challenged or accepted.
The sooner it gets out there, the sooner we’ll know the answer as to whether it’s legit or not.
Speaking of ‘revisionist’ historians… Any views of David Rohl’s work?
His revised Egyptian chronology causes Biblical history to become 300 years earlier, causing archaeological evidence for Solomon’s constructions, the fall of Jericho, the Amarna letters, and the Israelites in Goshen to fall nearly into the period excavated.
(Not that this is anything amazing to Bible believers who accept the Biblical account over secular mis-assumptions by e.g. Kathleen Kenyon)