From: Jochen Katz
Subject: Re: ****Crucifixion in Moses' Time?!*****
Date: 1999/02/24
Message-ID: <7b2hrt$fr8$1@waltz.rahul.net>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
To establish the relevance for the following, here is again the
reason for the whole thread.
Various passages in the Qur'an tell the story that Pharaoh's sorcerers
believe in the signs and message of Moses, and then Pharaoh tries to
threaten them with these words (Shakir's translation):
I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides,
then will I crucify you all together. [Surah 7:124]
Said he: You believe in him before I give you permission;
most surely he is the chief of you who taught you the magic,
so you shall know: certainly I will cut off your hands and
your feet on opposite sides, and certainly I will crucify
you all. [Surah 26:49]
In the story of Joseph, about 400 years earlier we also read of another
crucifixion in this passage:
O my two mates of the prison! as for one of you, he shall give his
lord to drink wine; and as for the other, he shall be crucified,
so that the birds shall eat from his head, the matter is decreed
concerning which you inquired. [Surah 12:41]
The argument has been so far, that crucifixion as a form of capital
punishment was only introduced in about 520 AD, nearly 1000 years
after the time of Moses, and this is an anachronism in the Qur'an.
This should make clear the relevance of the arguments following below.
By the way, one thought just now: On the basis of what Qur'anic
statement would a Muslim be able to DATE the story of Moses or Joseph?
If not from the Qur'an, are there sayings in the Hadith that would help?
I think Muslims would have very little to go on and probably not be able
to date this at all, if they didn't have the Biblical information. But
feel free to show me wrong in this guess. That observation might be part
of the explanation for Saifullah's logical errors below.
In article <7aukk9$lnb$1@waltz.rahul.net>,
"Dr. M S M Saifullah" writes:
} Interestingly, the Encyclopedia Judaica under 'Crucifixion' says:
}
} "There are reports of crucifixions from Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek,
} Punic, and Roman sources."
}
} So, how did the compiler of the article on crucifixion say that there are
} reports of it from Egypt?
}
} Now let us see what Katz has to 'say' about crucifixion in Egypt.
}
} >Until then, there is no record of crucifixion in the time of Moses
} >as claimed by the Qur'an.
}
} If that is the case why do some Judeo-Christian sources talk about reports
} of crucifixion in Egypt?
There was never a denial that there are reports of crucifixion from
Egypt "at some time".
The issue is that the earliest crucifixion reports are around
520 BC, see the Encyclopaedia Britannica quotation that I have
cited. This is nearly 1000 years after the time of Moses.
Egypt came in later times to be Roman province, and so no wonder
that the Roman punishment of crucifixion also will be found in
Egypt. But that is not the issue. The issue is Egyptian
crucifixion in the time of Moses.
Maybe the observation of the Qur'anic "timelessness" of the stories
is the explanation that Saifullah is satisfied with an encyclopaedia
entry stating that there was crucifixion in Egypt "at some time"
because he can't say more about the event in the Qur'an either,
than that it was "at some time"? That might explain this logical
error, and make it understandable that it occured many times
already with several Muslims in this discussion, but it doesn't
make it less of an error.
} >I have had these quotes on my page
} >
} > http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/h005.html
} >
} >for a long time and nothing has been done to show them
} >wrong so far, even though Dr. Saifullah makes a large
} >noise about the topic as usual. But he has not shown these
} >quotations to be wrong. Where is the reference that shows
} >otherwise?
}
} What do the quotes in the above mention page prove? Do they say that
} crucifixion never occured in Egypt?
Your reasoning is so incredibly bad. And I don't know what to do
else but be very sarcastic about this. You have give the same
type of response before. Maybe you should a course on "How to
read an encyclopaedia entry 101". When it is said that the
earliest report of a crucifixion is from 519 AD in Persia, then
this implies that crucifixion reports in Egypt around 1400 are not
known. Simple logic.
} Well, that is anyone's guess. *None* of
} the quotes say that the crucifixion did not take place in Egypt during the
} time of the Pharaoh.
So you would actually propose to the Encyclopaedia Britannica
and other encyclopaedias to write one volume on each entry and
structure for example the entry on crucifixion such:
crucifixion did not take place in Egypt in the year 2000 - 1992 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Egypt in the year 1992 - 1963 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Egypt in the year 1962 - 1932 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Egypt in the year 1932 - 1899 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Egypt in the year 1899 - 1873 BC
...
crucifixion did not take place in Japan in the year 2000 - 1992 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Japan in the year 1992 - 1963 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Japan in the year 1962 - 1932 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Japan in the year 1932 - 1899 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Japan in the year 1899 - 1873 BC
...
crucifixion did not take place in Australia in the year 2000 - 1992 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Australia in the year 1992 - 1963 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Australia in the year 1962 - 1932 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Australia in the year 1932 - 1899 BC
crucifixion did not take place in Australia in the year 1899 - 1873 BC
...
or whatever other countries and regions and times of reigns of kings
there might have been. What riveting and informative articles
these would be. And everybody would rush to buy such an encyclopaedia.
Examples of excellent data compression. Actually, one should mainly
write about things that have not taken place and forget about what
did take place altogether, how about that?
To you your way of looking at it and to me the way it is usually
done. They say the earliest report was in 519 BC in Persia and
that is an easy step of reading comprehension that no crucifixion
was known in Egypt in 1400 BC. At least it is easy to most people
who know how to read an Encyclopaedia.
} But the quote that we have provided at:
}
} http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/crucify.html
}
} say that the crucifixion was a part of punishment in Egypt.
It is not only the place, it is the TIME. I have had to say so
now half a dozen times already. It is about THE TIME OF MOSES,
not any later time. Your web page does not give any evidence
for crucifixion at a time anywhere near that.
The Genesis reference is not sufficient since that refers to the
putting to public exposure a DEAD BODY, somebody who was killed
by another method, not putting to death on a cross.
} So, it is Katz
} who is making noise about the topic. Has Katz shown that Encyclopedia
} Judaica is wrong in saying that "There are reports of crucifixions from
} Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Punic, and Roman sources."?
No. And I have no need to. It is an issue of TIME as much as of place.
WHEN does the EJ say were those reports about crucifixions in Egypt?
} Katz says Bible is an amazingly accurate book.
I was not discussing this here at all. Now comes your strawman
argument again.
} Of course, this statement is
} to be taken without proof. Everything taken without proof is amazingly
} accurate; therefore the story of Joseph's dream is amazingly accurate in
} the Bible. Now what if we ask him to show some of the historical evidence,
} i.e., extra-Biblical evidence for the details in that story? Katz, of
} course, has *none* to show. The Bible is amazingly accurate because the
} Katz says so and hence we have to accept it!
I never made any argument by appeal to authority, and certainly
not by appeal to my authority. You are only mocking in lieu of
giving an argument in response to what I actually say. Rather
pitiful.
} As I said do not expect Katz to bring evidence to show the historical
} reliability of the Bible. This is because if he gets into those issues
} every error in the Bible would be classified as either error from the
} scribe due to faulty eye-sight or slip of the tongue or the pen or whatever
} cheap excuse one can think of. And then boast that the Bible is inerrant
} word of God!
Silly again. Where have I ever boasted that that Bible is the
inerrant word of God? I don't think I have ever made that claim
here on this newsgroup, let alone "boasting" this issue. You are
again inventing arguments so that you then can ridicule them.
In particular, you love to give everything an emotional touch.
One does not "claim" one "boasts". Maybe you do. I don't. I prefer
to discuss factually.
So: Why don't you stick to the issues discussed?
Should I add this to the long lists of claim from you
about what I supposedly said and for which you never brought
any evidence? Believe me, it is a very long list by now.
Jochen Katz