from those who had met him [Καὶ περιεργασάμενος ἐγω Ἀβραάμης ἤκουσα ἀπὸ τῶν συντυχόντων αὐτῷ] that one will find no truth in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of human blood. In fact, he says that he has the keys of paradise, which is impossible.’ These things my brother Abraham has written from the East.”11
What can one make of this passage, which mixes vivid historical detail with obvious polemic? Is its indication that Muhammad was still alive and leading the invading Arabs as they entered Palestine of any historical significance or has the author (or one of his sources) simply made a mistake? To a certain extent, this judgment will depend on whether other independent witnesses also credibly describe Muhammad as alive at the time of the invasion of Palestine, and as this chapter will demonstrate, a number of such sources exist. In its own right, however, the Doctrina Iacobi is a historical source of particularly high quality that was written very close to the events that it describes. Since the Doctrina Iacobi has repeatedly shown itself to be a reliable source with regard to various other matters, perhaps one should initially give its near contemporary report of Muhammad’s involvement in the conquest of Palestine at least the benefit of the doubt.
For example, comparison with other historical texts confirms the accuracy of the Doctrina Iacobi’s reference to a candidatus Sergius of Caesarea who was killed by the Arabs. Two other sources report the death of Sergius the candidatus in combat with the Arabs: the Syriac Common Source, a now lost chronicle from the mid-eighth century discussed below, and a Syriac chronicle from the year 640.12 In the Doctrina Iacobi we seem to have an almost contemporary witness to Sergius’s defeat by the Arab army as described in these later sources.13 While this by no means ensures that the passage is accurate in all of its other details, the verification of this point by independent sources is a testimony in favor of its general reliability as a historical source. Likewise, the Doctrina Iacobi’s report that Muhammad claimed to possess the “keys of paradise” seems to reflect a very early Islamic tradition that was later abandoned. Not only do other Byzantine sources repeat this tradition, but certain Islamic sources preserve it as well, although the latter attempt to soften the audacity of Muhammad’s claim by reducing it to a metaphor.14 Perhaps even more important, however, is the high level of conformity between the Doctrina Iacobi and other witnesses to the social, political, and religious events of the early 630s noted already above. As Olster’s persuasive analysis of this text demonstrates, the Doctrina Iacobi’s accurate representation of its historical circumstances is precisely what makes it so remarkably different from other anti-Jewish writings of the same period. Thus, while one certainly cannot assume that this source is reliable in every detail, we nevertheless may take some confidence in the fact that the Doctrina Iacobi has been shown to be generally trustworthy through comparison with other sources from the period. The fact that it was probably written so close to the time it describes only adds to its credibility.
Particularly significant in this report is the Doctrina Iacobi’s notice that this prophet who arrived in Palestine with a Saracen army was “preaching the arrival of the anointed one who is to come, the Messiah.” As Crone and Cook observe, this earliest witness to Muhammad’s religious message from outside of the Islamic tradition portrays him as preaching Jewish messianism. Although Cook and Crone initially characterize this idea as “hardly a familiar one,” thanks in large part to their own work, it has become much less unfamiliar.15 Most importantly, the seventh-century Jewish apocalypse preserved in the Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn (discussed below) confirms that there were in fact Jews who understood Muhammad and his message as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic expectations. Theophanes’ Chronicle echoes this information at a greater distance, and the report in Sebeos’s Armenian History of Arab and Jewish unity during the assault on Palestine, discussed in the final chapter, may also point indirectly to such beliefs.16 Moreover, the Qurʾān itself would appear to substantiate these reports: as discussed below in Chapter 3, the Qurʾān’s unmistakable eschatological urgency reveals that Muhammad and his early followers believed themselves to have been living in the final moments of history, just before the impending judgment and destruction that would soon arrive with the Hour. In Jewish ears, this forecast of the eschaton’s proximate arrival would inevitably awaken expectation of the messiah’s advent, which was expected to precede the Final Judgment. As will be seen in the final chapter, substantial evidence signals the presence of a significant Jewish element among Muhammad’s earliest followers, and undoubtedly these Jewish “Believers” would have understood his eschatological preaching through the lens of their own traditions. Thus, while Fred Donner is certainly correct to note that the early Islamic sources do not reveal any clear belief in a coming messianic figure, as both he and Suliman Bashear rightly conclude, the Jewish members of the early community of the Believers undoubtedly would have interpreted Muhammad’s eschatological message according to their own messianic expectations.17
Hoyland’s criteria ask that we push beyond these conclusions, however, and scrutinize the source’s source, as it were. In this regard the situation is less than ideal, but it is much better than it might be. In the best possible case, we would have the statement of an eyewitness (or better still, eyewitnesses). In the Doctrina Iacobi, we find instead what essentially amounts to third-hand testimony, although the account is allegedly based on reports from eyewitnesses. Jacob, the author, heard this report of the Arab invasion of Palestine from Abraham’s letter, which Abraham’s brother Justus read aloud in his presence. Abraham, who was living in Palestine, identifies the source of his information in interviews that he had personally conducted with “those who had met him [that is, Muhammad].” Despite these intervening steps, we may take some measure of confidence in Jacob’s report: according to this genealogy, it derives from the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses and was then quickly committed to writing before reaching Jacob. Moreover, the report’s close proximity to the actual events themselves stands further in its favor: mere months seem to have transpired since the invasion. On the whole, these circumstances present a much more credible line of transmission than the pedigrees that accompany the earliest Islamic traditions about Muhammad and the conquest. As will be seen in the following chapter, their chains of transmission (isnāds) are notoriously unreliable and often highly artificial, purporting to document transmission over multiple generations. By comparison, the transmission of Jacob’s report is both immediate and relatively uncomplicated.
Admittedly, there are elements of polemic in this passage, including especially the diatribe against Muhammad as a false prophet. But by and large the details are descriptive and often can be confirmed by other sources, as seen in the case of Sergius the candidatus and the report that Muhammad claimed to hold the keys to paradise: although the latter is potentially polemical, as noted above, later Byzantine and Islamic sources corroborate this characterization. Even the allegation that Muhammad was preaching the advent of the messiah seems to be more or less accurate, reflecting a Jewish understanding of his eschatological message that is evident in other early sources. In similar fashion, the Doctrina Iacobi’s indication that Muhammad was still alive and coming with the Arabs during the Palestinian campaigns of 634 seems to be a descriptive, non-polemical observation that is confirmed by a number of other sources. It is, moreover, information that could have been known to Abraham’s informants, “who had met him,” as he reports, and potentially to others as well who had experienced the Arab invasion of Roman Palestine.
More importantly, there is no obvious apologetic or polemical reason for the Doctrina Iacobi’s author (or his sources) to have invented Muhammad’s leadership during the campaign in order to serve a broader ideological purpose.18 Hoyland suggests, somewhat half-heartedly it seems, that the widespread Christian reports of Muhammad’s participation in the conquest of Palestine may stem from an effort “to emphasize his un-prophetlike behavior.”19 This would certainly fit with the Doctrina Iacobi’s polemic against Muhammad as a false prophet, since, as the “old man” says, “prophets do not come with a sword and a war-chariot.”
