Was St John of Damascus' passage on the Ishmaelites an "interpolation"? Yes.

0:00 Welcome back. Today I'm going to be looking at the question of did St. John of Damascus write the section on the heresy of the Ishimalites which is found in his book covering the whole range of heresies or was it a later interpolation? Now we should say at the outset that this reference to Islam is hugely beneficial to us because it is a pyic against Islam. However, there are signs that this isn't from the time. And actually, the fact that it's

0:45 Hersy 101 is kind of strange because for someone who's so systematic, uh, finishing on 101 just seems a bit odd. But if this was a new addition, then it would make more sense. But that's not in itself a strong enough argument. Now to to do this research, I've used AI and I'll put my hand up uh on this one. So take that as it be. Uh but I I've also added my own um interpretations and knowledge to this as well. Um I was first m made aware of the idea that St. John of Damascus may contain interpolations by Professor

1:31 Robert Kerr about a year ago. And this was quite a shock. Um, and so this is my attempt to evaluate it in light of that. And I do think Robert Kerr is in fact right. When things are anacronistic, uh, things don't quite fit. There's there's kind of like quirks in the chronology that doesn't fit so neatly. um and it leads us to have to kind of bend over backwards to try and make things fit. But if we accept that interpolations happen, in fact, it's quite a common thing um from probably from a modern perspective, it seems in

2:17 highly um unethical to add to someone else's work. In fact, even the Bible at least says that those that copy the the Bible are not to add or take away anything from it. Uh so it's it's a bit of a scourge and it it certainly doesn't help us when we're trying to figure out what the the truth of the history of of Islam's origins is. which is why I tend to prefer inscriptions and coins because at least um where they are buried it's there's less possibility for manipulation and so on and interpolation. So with that out of the way let's look

3:03 into this. So St. John of Damascus's treattoise on the heresy of the Israelites found in his concerning heresies part of the font of knowledge is one of the earliest Christian pimics against Islam. It stands out in tone, content and structure from much of his other theological work which has led some scholars to question whether it might contain interpolations or later editions. Of course, if he didn't write it and it was added later by a later Christian, it has huge implications. It means that either he chose not to or there simply wasn't anything yet

3:49 there distinctive enough to identify as a heresy. So, let's think about this. Would we expect John of Damascus to write about the heresy of Islam? Yes, we would. But if he didn't write about the Hersia of Islam, what does that tell us? It tells us that things were still in flux and a distinct religion hadn't yet emerged and an awful lot of the vocabulary that you find in Islam has got roots in Christianity. Um, so it may not have been obvious

4:36 that you were dealing with not only a separate religion but even a heresy at that stage even in the 730s. That's that's quite a statement to kind of wrap our heads around. If you think back to the seventh century, there were coins with mcmed on it and a cross uh and didn't seem to raise any eyebrows because it could be seen as reference to the Messiah. So that that's the fact that if he didn't choose to write about Islam, that's huge. Okay. Um, and it it it will definitely

5:24 lead us to question all the more what exactly did exist in the seventh and early 8th century. Was it still just an underground um theological school that hadn't yet fully formed and took over? So in terms of content then it characterizes Islam as a Christian heresy. Okay, this this is St. John of Damascus's writing the with the question mark over it. So it characterizes Islam as a Christian hery focusing on denial of Christ's divinity and crucifixion, the nature of Muhammad's prophethood

6:12 and critique of the Quran and Islamic practices. Okay. So if St. John was writing in the 7:30s and included all this. It's pretty much suggesting Islam is more or less fully formed. At least the central themes are there. Um but if he didn't write it, then those things are not yet there. Um, I suppose that there's a danger with a logical fallacy there, but broadly speaking, um, if those things were in play, you'd expect St. John of Damascus to to raise, um, his his uh, his word on that to

7:03 raise attention to the dangers of of this new heresy. Now the second thing to focus on is tone. The section on Islam is highly polyical, mocking and rhetorically aggressive unlike his more measured theological treatises. So I say his writing, the supposed writing that's included as his. So it stands out with a quite a different tone from the rest of his writing which is tends to be more highbrow and measured and calm and so forth. So let's look at the the bird's eye view

7:49 then in every way the evidence points to it being the work of a different author. So let's look at the headings. So we have features the titles. So for example on the heresy of the Israelites the exact exposition of the orthodox faith three treatises on the divine images. So so we're comparing a section that is said to be his work and comparing it with the rest of his work to see how it lines up. So in terms of genre, the the work on the Ishelites is Pyic and it's uh heresology. In other words, it's it's a look at heresy.

8:36 The rest of his material, it's systematic theology and apologetics. So it's a very different um approach terms of tone. Then the work on Ishelites is satirical and compive whereas typically in the other writings of his it's scholarly pastoral and philosophical in terms of the Ishites again it's structure it's brief anecdotal and it lacks citations whereas with the rest of St. John's writings is typically structured with references to scripture and fathers the church fathers terms of language then

9:23 the heresy of the ishelites tends to be simplified colloquial in parts whereas in the rest of the work it's technical philosophical Greek so it's quite a contrast in terms of the audience Then uh the work on the heresy of the Israelites the audience is likely lay Christians under Islamic rule whereas with the rest of his work it's educated clergy and theologians. So, as you can see, this is a huge departure from his typical writing. And while it's not beyond the possibility of

10:10 a person changing the tone of their work, like particularly when trying to combat Islam, it's very hard to see how he he could dumb it down from technical philosophical Greek to colloquial Greek. Um that's seems hard to imagine. And also for a writer that's used to writing in a structured way with plentiful citations from scripture and the church fathers to have a very unstructured uh piece that lacks citations and it's

10:56 quite anecdotal. It's a it does come across as from a different writer entirely. So in terms of evidence of interpolation uh these are in four different varieties. First of all there's stylistic discrepancies. The Ishmaelite section is unusually long compared to other heresy entries in concerning heresies which are often just a few lines. Now you could argue that the reason for that is it's a contemporary one. So therefore he has a lot more to say. That's that's fair enough, but it seems quite a departure from his usual approach. Secondly, anacronisms.

11:41 Some references to Islamic practices and beliefs may reflect later developments in Islam suggesting posthumous additions. So he obviously hasn't got a crystal ball writing into the future. So those anacronisms are a telltale sign of interpolations. Big one is manuscript variance. Some manuscripts of concerning heresies emit or abbreviate the Ishmalite section raising questions about its originality. In other words, there are some manuscripts that don't contain this section entirely and then there's others that contain some of it and then others that contain more of it which suggests

12:27 the the developing addition of a section on on Islam to St. John's work. And number four, then theological inconsistencies. The mocking tone and lack of theological nuance contrast sharply with John's otherwise ironic and philosophical approach. So let's look at the stylistic discrepancies and the theological inconsistencies together here. So again, what we're talking about is the mocking tone and lack of theological nuance, which contrast sharply with John's otherwise ironic and philosophical approach. Okay. So a philosophical approach

13:14 doesn't need to um use emotive language or mocking tones or anything like that. It it it stands on the strength of the argument alone. Now bear in mind that the period of of iconoclasm that he lived through um which was from the 720s and he wrote his major work in the 730s. The topic of icons was highly emotive and current at the time of St. John. Yet he stayed scholarly, pastoral, and philosophical, and didn't indulge in

14:00 satire or a combative style other than the the piece that's said to have been his about Islam. So that stands out. And he keeps this sort of approach despite being referred to by Constantine as manzer, which means bastard, instead of Mansour. Uh you'll find this in the introduction to St. John of Damascus's um book on the heresies. Theophanus tells how Constantine called him instead of Mansor Manser which in Hebrew means bastard and how he ordered him to be anatomized once a year.

14:46 I think it's fair to say that if St. John um is uh not showing any response to that. He's not uh biting the bait with that. Then it's hard to explain why in the section on Islam he completely changes structure, tone, content, etc. when he's dealing with Islam. So an example of this in comparison is the apologia against those who decry holy images. So here is the passage. And in terms of what it's like, it's

15:33 systematic theology, apologetics, scholarly, pastoral, philosophical. uh there's a lot of emotive uh stuff going on in society at the time, but he he stays above the fray. He's using technical philosophical Greek, okay? And you can see there's lots of biblical citations all over the place. You can read that yourselves, but it's very even keel. Okay? He's not indulging in any um bombastics or mocking or satire or anything like that. And in this one, it's pyic. It is satirical. It is anecdotal and so forth. It's it's

16:19 all it's basically everything that the other one is not. So let's just have a a look at sort of things that he says. Um there's also the superstition of the Ishelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in being a forerunner of the antichrist. They're descended from Ishmamail who was born to Abraham of Aar. And for this reason they're called both Agarines and Ishelites. They're also called Sarissens which is derived from Saras Canoi or destitute of Sarah because of what Aar said to the angel. Sarah had sent me away destitute. These used to be adulterers and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite whom in their own language called Kabar which means great.

17:04 And so down to the time of Heraclas they were were very great adulterers. From that time to the present a false prophet named should be Mmed actually in the Greek has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments, and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an earing monk, devised his own heresy, then having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in his book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration. Um

17:50 so you see the use of the word uh ridiculous. Okay. Um now you were going to see other examples of this writing using the word ridiculous. This is not the the the calm philosophical language that is typical of St. John of Damascus. Okay. So, next paragraph he says that there is one God creator of all things who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. He says that the Christ is the word of God and his spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that he was begotten without seed of Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron. For

18:35 he says, "The word and God and the spirit entered into Mary, and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God." And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify him in violation of the law and that they had seized his shadow and crucified this. But the Christ himself was not crucified. He says, nor did he die for God out of his love for him, took him to himself into heaven. And he says this that when the Christ had ascended into heaven, God asked him, "Oh Jesus, did thou say I am the son of God and God?" And Jesus, he says, answered, "Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knows that I did not say this, and that I did not scorn to be thy servant, but sinful men have written that I made this statement,

19:23 and they have lied about me, and have fallen into error." And God answered and said to him, "I know that thou did not say this word." There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book, which he boast was sent down to him from God. You see the use of the word ridiculous there. But when we ask and who is there to testify that God gave him the book and which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up, they're at a loss. And we remark that Moses received the law on Mount Si with God appearing in the sight of all the people in a cloud and fire and darkness and storm. And we say that all the prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ God and incarnate

20:10 son of God was to come and be crucified and die and rise again. Now he was to be the judge of the living and the dead. Then when we say, "How is it that this prophet of yours did not come the same way with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer even as he gave the law to Moses with the people looking on and the mountain smoking so that you too might have certainty." The answer that God does as he pleases. This we say we know but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet. Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that as

20:58 long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him which runs your spinning me dreams. So you can see there's there's kind of argumentation that's polymical there talking about uh the things of Muhammad being ridiculous and spinning dreams and so forth. So I think it's clear that this looks very much like a different author from the other sections. So anacronisms then John describes a scene where God asks Jesus in heaven whether he claimed to be divine and Jesus denies it. We we read it actually in that last passage. This

21:43 resembles postQuranic hadith or theological elaborations rather than direct Quranic text. It may reflect later doctrinal developments in Islamic theology about Jesus's role. And this we would expect would have taken decades and decades and not be fully formed in the 730s. So it indicates a later development. Um and that's the passage again. I'm not going to read it again but you can have a look at it yourselves. Now there's also this bit here. They further more accuse us of being adulterers because we venerate the cross which they abominate. Okay. Now why is

22:30 that a problem? Well, St. John is very unlikely to say that the um abominated the cross. His father held a high hereditary public office with duties of chief financial officer for the kale of Abdul al- Malik as head of the tax department for Syria. So his father and himself he St. John also took part in this. They would have been well aware that crosses had been put on the coins under Muawia. And even as we found out recently on Abdal Malik's coin, there's great reverence shown to the cross in Jerusalem. And um

23:18 there's clearly a christoologgical theme going on on the coins as well. So the idea that um the um abominated the cross is highly dubious. It is highly unlikely that that he would have made a blank statement that they abominated the cross. He'd at the very least have qualified it. He he might have said well up to Kale of Wed they venerated the cross but after that they abominated it. but he's saying it, you know, broadly and blankly without without any nuance or qualification. And that doesn't sound right to me.

24:03 So that's anacronism there. So now we have this other passage where it talks about you rub yourselves against a stone in your cabba and kiss and embrace it. But how could it be not anacronistic given another source claims Mecca was elsewhere? So this here assumes Mecca down in the hedge because of you know the the black stone and uh there's other details about the lack of trees there which fits with um the hedges. But there is a problem. So if this passage was written by St. John in the 730s. Then why do we have in the Byzantine Arabic chronicle of 741 a reference to the location of Mecca being somewhere else? Says there Mecca

24:51 as they consider it the home of Abraham which lies in the desert between Ur of the Calaldanss and Cara the city of Mesopotamia. Now, as I've argued before, the Ur in Iraq was a 19th century suggestion, but prior to that, it's more than likely have been Adessa. So if it's talking about Mecca being between Ur and and Ka there. So if Mecca is between Ur and Haran, that's not the location of Mecca down in the Hijaz. So this here

25:36 uh would not fit with a location here because it's there isn't an issue with trees. Okay. So I don't know if you if you remember this here since scripture says that the the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the holocus and laid it upon Isaac and then he left the asses behind with the two young men. Why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick with trees nor is there a passage for asses. So in other words, this is it's clearly talking about a place where you don't find trees. Okay? So in other words, the hijaz. However, in 741,

26:21 they're assuming a place up in essentially s what would be southern Turkey today. Okay. Northern Syria, that that sort of neck of the woods or even northern um Iraq. All right. where there are trees. Um, so I think that's an anacronism. It was an interpolation that came in much later whenever Mecca was set up. All right. And there's also the issue with manuscript variance. It is possible St. John wrote a treatise on 100 heresies, a round number. The addition throws this out. the addition of 101 or the addition of an extra one.

27:10 Okay. The Ishelite heresy appears as entry 101 in some versions of the Heresa Cibus appended to the end of the list of heresies. This placement has led scholars to question whether it was part of John's original composition or a later interpolation. It just sticks out. Now the earliest complete manuscript dates from the 10th to 11th centuries. Several Greek manuscripts omit the Ishmalite section entirely. Others include it in an abbreviated form suggesting scribal hesitation or later

27:55 editorial additions. The earliest complete manuscripts that include the Ishalite section date from the 10th to the 11th centuries well after John's death in 749. Okay. So sometime maybe from the 900s to the 1000s. Okay, that's when the the full section was there in the banish scripts. So this I think is further proof that the text is uncertain and unlikely to be written by St. John of Damascus. Now that these additions were put in in

28:42 the 10th and 11th centuries fits in with what we would expect. This is when Islam is really uh becoming formed. The Hadits are being written. the sir's being written um the traditions are being put in place whereas prior to that there wasn't much there um so I think that supports the case but it isn't it interesting that if the earliest um complete manuscript the 10th century still uses the word mcmet and not Muhammad okay that suggests that ma the idea of It's been vocalized as Muhammad is noter than the 10th century. That's a

29:28 lot of time has passed by. And that's why if you go into the Latin, you go to the French, you go to Turkey, you find all of these versions of the word Muhammad that ethmologically tie with this idea of Mmed from the 7th century. There was centuries before Muhammad uh as a vocalization got established. There was centuries of time for this other word to be established first in all of these languages. Now um in terms of the interpolation then Zachariah

30:13 M. And Keith in his article John of Damascus Rewriting the Division of Pharisees blah blah blah blah notes that much of the work was compiled from earlier sources and that John's own contributions especially the final entries may reflect later editorial layering. And here is a passage from his book. Um I'm not going to read through it. You can have a look there at it yourself. But he basically goes through all of the different sections and which parts are likely interpolations, which parts he borrowed from Epiphanius around the fifth century there. Um,

31:00 so I I think we're on good ground to think first of all that St. John borrowed and made his own the work of earlier writers. um and later writers added to St. John's work. Um it's a bit like folk music. There wasn't this um individualistic sense that this is the work of one particular person. People added things to to earlier works to improve on it. So in conclusion, in my opinion, based on the evidence, St. John didn't write this. It was added later.

31:45 The fact he didn't write it indicates that Islam hadn't fully emerged in his time, and that's got huge implications. Um, the fact that not only did he not write it, but that the later writers who who wrote it still didn't mention anything about the content of the inscription in the Dome of the Rock is very telling. that would have been a golden opportunity to talk about how um Islam is attacking Christianity, but there's nothing there's no mention of it whatsoever.

32:32 Now, lastly, despite the late edition, it still says MC, which indicates that the change to Muhammad came very late. Um, and I think that's hugely significant. So that's it for now. So talk to you all soon. Bye-bye. [Music]