The Prophet Who Did Not Conquer: Dismantling the Claim That The Prophet Muḥammad Led the Islamic Conquests

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ 

"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."

In the annals of early Islamic historiography, few claims have proven as persistent—and as methodologically flawed—as the revisionist argument that the Prophet Muhammad lived beyond the traditional date of 632 CE and personally led the conquest of Syria and Palestine. This thesis, most forcefully advanced by Stephen Shoemaker in The Death of a Prophet (2012), has gained a hearing in some academic circles, not because of the strength of its evidence, but because of a fundamental misunderstanding of how non-Muslim sources actually work.

Shoemaker's argument is deceptively simple: a handful of early Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan sources—the Doctrina Jacobi (c. 634), the Secrets of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai (8th century), the Khuzistan Chronicle (c. 660), the Chronicle of Zuqnīn (c. 775), and others—appear to suggest that Muhammad was still alive during the first Muslim raids into Palestine. Therefore, Shoemaker concludes, the traditional Islamic chronology must be wrong. Muhammad must have died later. The entire edifice of early Islamic history must be rethought.

But this argument collapses under the weight of its own assumptions.

As the historian Mehdy Shaddel has demonstrated in a devastating critique published in Arabica (2022), the apparent disharmony between non-Muslim and Muslim sources is not a product of historical reality but of modern scholarly periodisation. We have unwittingly imported the rigid chronological framework of ninth-century Islamic historiography—with its neat divisions into "prophetic expeditions" (maghāzī), "wars of apostasy" (ridda), and "conquests" (futūḥ)—and projected it onto sources that never operated within that framework.

The non-Muslim sources, free of this schematic straitjacket, treat the earliest northward Muslim raids under Muhammad and the later, more successful campaigns under the early caliphs as part and parcel of the same venture. They were not claiming that Muhammad personally led the conquest of Jerusalem or the Battle of Yarmūk. They were simply chronicling the emergence of a new power from Arabia, without the theological or historiographical need to distinguish between the Prophet's own raids and those of his successors.

This post will systematically demolish the revisionist thesis, source by source, argument by argument, and methodological assumption by methodological assumption.

We will examine:

The calendrical confusion that led eighth-century Christian chroniclers to equate the epoch of the Hijri calendar with the founding of the Islamic empire—and the solar/lunar miscalculation that produced the erroneous date of AG 930 for Muhammad's "entry into the land."

The schematic telescoping of events in the Chronicle of Zuqnīn, the Chronicle of 775, and the Chronicle of 754, where the conquests are compressed into Muhammad's lifetime not because of historical memory but because of the logic of regnal-era dating.

The ambiguous phrasing of the Khuzistan Chronicle, where "leader" (mdabbranā) can mean spiritual guide, not military commander, and where Muhammad's "reign" is presented as an extension of Sasanian rule—not as evidence of his presence on the battlefield.

The legendary and theologised nature of the Doctrina Jacobi and the Heraclius prophecy, which are not sober historical reports but anti-Jewish polemics shaped by the trauma of the conquests and the desire to explain divine punishment.

The late and embellished character of the Secrets of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai and the Ten Kings Midrash, whose ambiguous pronouns and derivative versions cannot bear the weight of Shoemaker's interpretation.

And most importantly, the silence of the sources where it matters most: not a single non-Muslim source claims that Muhammad personally conquered Jerusalem, Damascus, or Alexandria. Not a single source places him at Yarmūk or Qādisiyyah. The conquest of Syria-Palestine is universally attributed to the years after his death.

The revisionist house of cards collapses not because Shoemaker is wrong about the details, but because he is wrong about the genre, the form, and the redaction history of his sources.

We will demonstrate that the traditional date of Muhammad's death in 632 CE remains the most plausible reconstruction of the evidence—and that the non-Muslim sources, when properly understood, do not contradict it but rather confirm the broad outlines of the Islamic narrative. The Prophet who never waged war against the empires of his age did not need to. His legacy was carried forward by the men he trained, the community he built, and the God he served.

Let us begin the systematic refutation.

Section I: The Calendars of the Chroniclers — How to Read Time in the Seventh Century

Before we can understand what the earliest Christian chroniclers actually said about Muhammad and the Islamic conquests, we must first understand how they measured time. This is not a technical sidebar—it is the key that unlocks the entire revisionist thesis.

To decode the sources, we must first decode their calendars. This section will provide a comprehensive guide to the two most important dating systems used by the seventh- and eighth-century chroniclers: the Seleucid Era (both its Babylonian and Syro-Macedonian forms) and the Spanish Era. We will explain:

• What each calendar was, when it began, and how it was used

• Why the Syriac chroniclers preferred the Syro-Macedonian Seleucid Era

• How the difference between lunar and solar calendars created chronological distortions

• How the Spanish Era originated and why it matters for understanding the Chronicles of 741 and 754

• How to convert dates from these systems into Julian equivalents

By the end of this section, the reader will have the tools to evaluate the non-Muslim sources for themselves—and to see why the revisionist interpretation collapses under the weight of its own methodological assumptions.

---

Part 1: The Seleucid Era (SE) — The Standard of Syriac Chronography

1.1 What Was the Seleucid Era?

The Seleucid Era (abbreviated SE), also known as the "Era of Alexander" (AG — Anno Graecorum, "Year of the Greeks"), was the most widely used dating system in the Near East from the Hellenistic period through the early Islamic centuries. It was used by Jews, Syriac Christians, Zoroastrians, and even early Muslims in some contexts.

The era was named after Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander the Great's generals who founded the Seleucid Empire after Alexander's death in 323 BCE. The Seleucid Era counted years from Seleucus's recapture of Babylon in 311 BCE (or, in its other version, from his proclamation as king in 309 BCE).

Key Fact: The Seleucid Era is not a single calendar. It has two distinct versions: the Babylonian SE (a common era beginning in spring 311 BCE) and the Syro-Macedonian SE (a royal era beginning in mid-309 BCE). Understanding the difference between these two is essential for interpreting Syriac chronicles.

1.2 The Babylonian Seleucid Era (Common Era)

The Babylonian SE was a common era—a dating system that did not depend on the reign of a specific king. It began on Nisannu 1 (approximately 3 April 311 BCE), the Babylonian New Year.

Origin: After Seleucus I recaptured Babylon in the summer of 311 BCE, he antedated his era to the beginning of the Babylonian year in which he reclaimed his satrapy. This was a practical way to create a continuous count of years without reference to a living king.

Calendar: The Babylonian SE used the Babylonian lunisolar calendar, which had 12 lunar months (354 days) with occasional intercalary months to keep it aligned with the solar year.

Evidence: The earliest known tablet dated by the Seleucid Era is from SE 8, Nisannu 3 (16 April 304 BCE). This proves that the era was already in use within a decade of its invention.

Usage: The Babylonian SE was used primarily in Babylonia and the eastern provinces of the Seleucid Empire for administrative, economic, and astronomical records.

Conversion to Julian: For dates in the 7th century CE, the Babylonian SE can be converted to Julian by subtracting 311 from the SE year, with the understanding that the year began in the spring (March/April).

1.3 The Syro-Macedonian Seleucid Era (Royal Era)

The Syro-Macedonian SE was a royal era—a dating system that counted years from the accession of a king. It began in Hyperberetaios (May–June) 309 BCE, the month when Alexander IV (the son of Alexander the Great) was murdered.

Origin: Yehuda Ben-Dor has demonstrated that the Syro-Macedonian SE was not created in 312 BCE (as long assumed) but rather was antedated to the death of Alexander IV. Seleucus I, who had been recognizing Alexander IV as king, proclaimed himself king after learning of the boy's death. He antedated his accession to the actual time of Alexander IV's murder.

Calendar: The Syro-Macedonian SE used the Macedonian lunisolar calendar, which had 12 lunar months (354 days) with intercalation to keep it aligned with the seasons. However, during the chaotic Diadochi Wars, intercalation may have been neglected, causing the calendar to drift.

The Key Difference from the Babylonian SE: The two eras started two years apart but eventually synchronized. Ben-Dor explains: "The Babylonian version of the SE is without question a common era reckoned from the recapture of Babylon in the spring of 311 BCE... However, the Syro-Macedonian SE is a royal era reckoned from the point where Seleucus I believed he succeeded Alexander IV. It seems the only logical starting point would be the month of Alexander IV's death in 309 BCE."

The Synchronization: Although the Syro-Macedonian SE began two years after the Babylonian SE, the two systems eventually aligned. By 291 BCE (SE 21 Babylonian), the calendars had synchronized, and the Syro-Macedonian SE remained one year behind the Babylonian SE thereafter. This explains why 1 Maccabees uses SE 149 (Babylonian) while 2 Maccabees uses SE 148 (Syro-Macedonian) for the same events.

Conversion to Julian: By the 7th century CE, the practical relationship between the Syro-Macedonian SE and the Julian calendar had stabilized. For most purposes, SE (Syro-Macedonian) - 308/309 = CE year.

1.4 Which Calendar Did the Syriac Chroniclers Use?

The Syriac Christian chroniclers of the 7th and 8th centuries—Sebeos, Thomas the Presbyter, the Khuzistan Chronicle, Jacob of Edessa, the Chronicle of 775, and others—overwhelmingly used the Syro-Macedonian Seleucid Era, not the Babylonian.

Why? The Syro-Macedonian SE was the standard dating system of the Roman and post-Roman Near East. It was used in Greek, Syriac, and Armenian chronicles throughout the region. The Babylonian SE, by contrast, was primarily used in cuneiform tablets and had largely fallen out of use by the 7th century.

Evidence: When Syriac chroniclers give a date as "AG 945" (the year of the Battle of Dāthin), they are using the Syro-Macedonian reckoning. When they synchronize events with Roman regnal years, they are using the same system. The difference of one year between the two eras is rarely significant for 7th-century chronology.

Practical Conversion: For the chronicles we will examine in this post, the Julian equivalent can be obtained by subtracting 308 or 309 from the given SE year, with the understanding that the year began in the autumn (October for the Syro-Macedonian calendar).

SE (Syro-Macedonian) Year	Approximate CE Equivalent
900	588/589 CE
930	618/619 CE
933	621/622 CE
939	628/629 CE
940	629/630 CE
942	631/632 CE
945	633/634 CE
947	635/636 CE
956	644/645 CE

Crucial Observation: The Hijra (622 CE) corresponds to SE 933 in the Syro-Macedonian reckoning. This will become important when we examine the chroniclers who dated Muhammad's "entry into the land" to AG 930 or 932.

1.5 The Calendrical Confusion: Lunar Years vs. Solar Years

The single most important methodological point for understanding the non-Muslim sources is this: the chroniclers did not understand that the Hijri calendar was lunar.

The Islamic calendar is a purely lunar calendar: each year has 354.367 days, approximately 11 days shorter than the solar year. The Seleucid calendar (both Babylonian and Syro-Macedonian) was solar or lunisolar: each year had approximately 365 days.

The Consequence: When a Muslim informant told a Syriac chronicler that the Hijra had occurred "31 years ago" (31 AH), the chronicler heard "31 years" and understood this in solar terms. He did not know that he needed to convert lunar years to solar years.

The Math:

Calculation	Result
31 lunar years × 354.367 days	10,985.377 days
10,985.377 days ÷ 365.242 days (solar year)	30.08 solar years

A Muslim speaking in 670 CE (50 AH) would have said "fifty years since the Hijra." A Syriac chronicler, hearing "fifty years," would have subtracted 50 from his present year (AG 982) and arrived at AG 932—five years earlier than the actual Hijra date of AG 933.

This is not an error. It is a calendar conversion problem.

1.6 The Telescoping Effect: How the Conquests Were Compressed

When the Syriac chroniclers attempted to date the beginning of the Islamic conquests, they faced a second problem. They knew that the conquest of Palestine had occurred under Muslim rule. They knew that the Hijra marked the beginning of Muslim rule. They did not know that the conquests began years after Muhammad's death.

The Logic:

1. The Muslim calendar begins in 622 CE (the Hijra)

2. In Roman/Syriac chronography, eras begin with a reign (Seleucus, Diocletian, etc.)

3. Therefore, the beginning of the Muslim calendar must mark the beginning of Muslim rule

4. Therefore, Muhammad must have been the first Muslim king

5. Therefore, the conquests must have begun under Muhammad

6. Therefore, the conquest of Syria must be dated to Muhammad's reign

This is not historical error. This is the inevitable result of applying Roman chronographic conventions to a new, unfamiliar system.

As Mehdy Shaddel has demonstrated, the chroniclers were not claiming that Muhammad personally led the conquest of Jerusalem or Damascus. They were simply placing the conquests within the framework of his "reign" because that was the only chronological framework they had.

---

Part 2: The Spanish Era — The Calendar of the Chronicles of 741 & 754

2.1 What Was the Spanish Era?

The Spanish Era (Latin: Aera Hispanica), also known as the "Era of the Caesars" or the "Era of Augustus," was a dating system used in Christian Spain from the 5th century through the late Middle Ages. It began on 1 January 38 BCE and remained in use until the 14th and 15th centuries, when it was gradually replaced by the Anno Domini system.

Why 38 BCE? The origin of this epoch has puzzled historians for centuries. Unlike the Seleucid Era, which was tied to a clear historical event (Seleucus's recapture of Babylon), the Spanish Era seems to begin with no obvious correlating event in Roman or Spanish history.

The most plausible explanation, as G. Levi Della Vida demonstrated, is that the Spanish Era was linked to a legendary story about Emperor Augustus, a census, and the paving of the Tiber River with bronze plates.

2.2 The Legend of the "Bronze Era"

The Arabic writers of Muslim Spain called the Spanish Era taʾrīh aṣ-ṣufr — "the Era of Bronze" or "the Bronze Era." This name was not derived from the Banū l-Aṣfar ("Sons of the Yellow") epithet for the Romans, as was once thought. Rather, it referred to the legendary paving of the Tiber with bronze.

The Legend in Latin Sources (Pseudo-Isidore):

"Octavianus Caesar reigned fifty-six years and six months. In seven years he subdued the whole world, and in the fourth year of his reign he issued an edict to the whole world to collect bronze, and melted it, making plates out of it, and flattened firmly the valley of the Tiber... This was thirty-eight years before the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and from that time on the Era was named among all peoples."

The Legend in Arabic Sources (al-Maqqarī):

"Some say that it [Cordoba] was built by Octavius the second Caesar of Rome, who conquered the whole earth, and he lined with copper the bed of the Tiber; the same emperor from whom the Roman Aera, which began thirty-eight years before the Messiah, is computed."

The Legend in the Arabic Orosius:

"In the fourth year of his reign he imposed upon the inhabitants of the world through the provinces a tribute in bronze... Having collected a vast amount of it, thick plates and plugs were struck out of it, and he paved with them the river of Rome and its banks for a length of forty miles... And people went so far as to take this as [the beginning of] a new era, which is the era used by the Spaniards to the present time."

The Connection to Augustus's Census: The story connects the beginning of the era to a census ordered by Augustus in his fourth regnal year. According to Isidore of Seville, this census occurred in 38 BCE, exactly the starting point of the Spanish Era.

2.3 Why the Spanish Era Matters for the Chronicle of 754

The Chronicle of 754 was written in Spain under Muslim rule. It is one of the key sources cited by revisionist scholars to argue that Muhammad lived beyond 632 CE and personally led the conquests.

The chronicle uses the Spanish Era for its dates. Understanding this calendar is essential for interpreting its entries.

Conversion to Julian: The Spanish Era began on 1 January 38 BCE. To convert a Spanish Era date to CE, subtract 38.

Spanish Era Year	CE Equivalent
500	462 CE
600	562 CE
700	662 CE
792 (the chronicle's end date)	754 CE

Example: When the Chronicle records an event in the year 792 of the Spanish Era, it is referring to 754 CE. This is the year the chronicle was completed.

2.4 The "Telescoping" Effect in the Chronicle

Like the Syriac chroniclers, the author of the Chronicle telescoped events. He placed the beginning of the Islamic conquests within Muhammad's lifetime because he was working with a regnal-era framework.

The Logic: The chronicler knew that the Hijra (622 CE) marked the beginning of the Muslim calendar. He interpreted this as the beginning of Muslim rule. He therefore placed the conquests within the period immediately following that date—within Muhammad's "reign."

The Result: The chronicle appears to suggest that Muhammad personally led the conquest of Palestine. But this is not a historical claim. It is the inevitable result of applying Spanish chronographic conventions to Islamic history.

Key Fact: The Chronicle was written in Spain, far from the events it describes. The author had no access to detailed Islamic historical sources. His chronology was based on what he was told by Muslim informants, filtered through his own calendrical assumptions.

---

Part 3: How to Use These Calendars — A Practical Guide for the Reader

3.1 Converting Seleucid Dates to Julian

For the Syro-Macedonian Seleucid Era (used by Syriac chroniclers):

Step	Calculation
1	Take the given SE (AG) year
2	Subtract 308 or 309
3	The result is the CE year (approximately)
4	Remember that the year began in autumn (October)

Example: AG 945 → 945 - 308 = 637 CE (approximate). The Battle of Dāthin occurred in February 634 CE, which falls within AG 945 (October 633–October 634).

Important: Because the Seleucid year began in autumn, events in the first half of the CE year (January–September) belong to the previous Seleucid year.

3.2 Converting Spanish Era Dates to Julian

Step	Calculation
1	Take the given Spanish Era year
2	Subtract 38
3	The result is the CE year (approximately)
4	The Spanish Era year began on 1 January

Example: Spanish Era 792 → 792 - 38 = 754 CE.

3.3 The Problem of Lunar vs. Solar Years

When a chronicler writes that an event occurred "X years after the Hijra," he is often converting lunar years to solar years incorrectly—or not converting at all.

Rule of Thumb: 100 lunar years ≈ 97 solar years. A chronicler writing in 750 CE (133 AH) who subtracts 133 from his present year would arrive at a date five years too early.

Application: When a Syriac chronicler writing in AG 1087 (775 CE) subtracts 157 (the number of lunar years from the Hijra to his present) from 1087, he arrives at AG 930—not AG 933. This explains why some chronicles date Muhammad's "entry into the land" to AG 930 rather than AG 933.

3.4 The Regnal Era Assumption

Both the Seleucid Era and the Spanish Era were regnal eras (or were understood as such by later chroniclers). An era began with a king's accession. Year 1 was the first year of his reign.

The Assumption: When the chroniclers encountered the Hijri calendar, they naturally assumed that it, too, was a regnal era—that Year 1 AH corresponded to Year 1 of Muhammad's reign as "king" or "leader."

The Consequence: They placed the beginning of the Islamic conquests immediately after the Hijra, because that was how regnal eras worked. A king's reign was the period of his rule; conquests occurred during his reign. Therefore, the conquests must have occurred during Muhammad's "reign."

This is not a historical claim about Muhammad's lifespan. It is a historiographical assumption about how eras work.

Conclusion: The Calendars Are the Key

The revisionist thesis that Muhammad lived beyond 632 CE and personally led the conquest of Syria-Palestine rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the early Christian chroniclers measured time.

The Syriac chroniclers used the Syro-Macedonian Seleucid Era—a system that counted years from 309 BCE, that began in the autumn, and that was understood as a regnal era. When they encountered the Hijri calendar, they applied their own chronological assumptions to it: they interpreted it as a regnal era, they failed to account for the difference between lunar and solar years, and they telescoped the conquests into Muhammad's "reign."

The Chronicle of 754 used the Spanish Era—a system that began in 38 BCE and was associated with a legend about Augustus's census and the paving of the Tiber with bronze. Its author, writing in Spain far from the events, applied the same regnal-era logic to Islamic history.

None of this constitutes evidence that Muhammad was alive during the conquests. It constitutes evidence that the chroniclers did not understand the Hijri calendar and applied their own chronographic conventions to the reports they received.

When we correct for these calendrical distortions—when we convert Seleucid dates correctly, when we account for the difference between lunar and solar years, when we recognize the regnal-era assumption—the non-Muslim sources do not contradict the traditional Islamic chronology. They confirm it.

The calendars do not lie. But they must be read correctly.

 Section II: The Doctrina Jacobi — A Prophet, A Rumor, and the Persian War That Shapes Perception

In July 634 CE, barely two years after the traditional date of Muhammad's death, a Greek anti-Jewish polemic was composed in Roman North Africa — the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati ("The Teaching of Jacob, the Newly Baptized"). It contains what Stephen Shoemaker calls "the earliest extant text to mention Muhammad," a passage in which a Jewish merchant named Abraham writes from Palestine to his brother Justus in Carthage about "a prophet who has appeared, coming with the Saracens."

Shoemaker argues that this passage proves Muhammad was still alive and personally leading the conquest of Palestine in 634 CE. He claims the Doctrina is a source of "particularly high quality" that "has repeatedly shown itself to be a reliable source." He dismisses the possibility of misunderstanding: "It is highly unlikely that the Doctrina Iacobi, along with the various other non-Islamic sources that will be examined, has falsely represented Muhammad as alive at the time of the Islamic invasion of Palestine."

But Sean Anthony, in a  2014 article, has shown that this interpretation is built on sand. The Doctrina does not claim that Muhammad was personally present in Palestine. It reports what Jews were saying about a prophet who had appeared "with the Saracens." The phrase "coming with the Saracens" (ἐρχόμενος μετὰ τῶν Σαρακηνῶν) does not mean "marching at the head of the army and directing its operations." It means "appearing among them" — a figure whose teachings and authority were believed to guide them.

More fundamentally, Anthony demonstrates that the Doctrina cannot be dated as early as Shoemaker claims. Internal evidence — a statement that the Jews have been "trampled underfoot by the nations for 640 years" — points to the 670s, not 634. The text shows no knowledge that Carthage had been conquered by the Muslims, which happened in the 690s, giving a terminus ante quem of 695 CE. The most plausible date is the 670s — nearly forty years after Muhammad's death.

But the most important context for understanding the Doctrina is not its precise date but the mental framework through which its Jewish informants interpreted the Arab invasions. These Jews had just lived through the Persian conquest of Palestine (614 CE), the Roman reconquest (630 CE), and the chaotic collapse of both empires. They had seen the Persians conquer Jerusalem, carry off the True Cross, and deport tens of thousands of Christians. They had seen the Persians operate not as a single army but as a coordinated force commanded by generals who acted in the name of their distant king, Xusro II, who remained in his capital at Dastagird.

They naturally assumed that the Arabs operated the same way.

---

Part 1: The Text — What the Doctrina Jacobi Actually Says

1.1 The Date and Context

The Doctrina Jacobi is set in Carthage in July 634 CE. The protagonist, Jacob, is a Palestinian Jew who has been forcibly baptized under Emperor Heraclius's decree. The text was most likely written soon after these events, though Anthony's analysis suggests a date in the 670s rather than 634.

But regardless of its precise date of composition, the information it preserves comes from letters written by a Jewish merchant named Abraham, who was in Palestine in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Dāthin (February 634). The core of the report is contemporary with the events it describes.

1.2 The Key Passage

The passage in question is found in Book V, chapter 16. Justus, the unbaptized cousin of one of Jacob's pupils, reads a letter from his brother Abraham:

"And they were saying, 'The candidatus has been killed,' and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying, 'A prophet has appeared, coming with the Saracens [ὁ προφήτης ἀνεφάνη ἐρχόμενος μετὰ τῶν Σαρακηνῶν], and he is preaching the arrival of the anointed one who is to come, the Messiah.'"

Abraham then reports that he went to see an old man learned in the scriptures, who said of this prophet:

"He is false, for prophets do not come with a sword and a war-chariot. Truly the things set in motion today are deeds of anarchy... I fear that somehow the first Christ that came, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God, and instead of him we will receive the Antichrist."

Finally, Abraham reports what he heard from "those who had met him":

"There is no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He also says that he has the keys of paradise."

1.3 What the Passage Actually Says — and Does Not Say

Element	What the Text Says	What It Does NOT Say
The Prophet's Status	"A prophet has appeared"	It does not say he was still alive; a prophet can "appear" and then die
His Location	"Coming with the Saracens"	It does not say he was personally present; he could be "with them" as their leader in absentia
His Activity	"Preaching the arrival of the Messiah"	It does not say he was leading the army
His Claim	"He has the keys of paradise"	This is a theological claim, not a military one
The Source	"Those who had met him"	This is secondhand; we do not know who these informants were

The text says he was a prophet, not a general. It says he was "with the Saracens" — but that phrase could mean he was their spiritual leader, not necessarily their field commander.

---

Part 2: The Persian War as Interpretive Framework

2.1 How the Persians Waged War

To understand how Jews in Palestine in 634 CE would have interpreted the Arab invasions, we must understand how they had just experienced the Persian conquest of the same region (614-628 CE). The Persians did not wage war with their king at the front. Xusro II remained in his capital at Dastagird, issuing commands, while his generals — Shahrbaraz, Shahin, Kardigan — led the campaigns.

The chronicles record this repeatedly. Hoyland's translation of Theophilus of Edessa's Chronicle preserves the pattern:

"Khusrau sent out Kardigan and Romizan and they captured many Roman cities." (Theophanes)

"When he had readied many people he invaded the land of the Romans. In the year AG 915 (603-4) they captured Dara." (Michael the Syrian)

"Khusrau ordered that the marble of the churches... be brought to Ctesiphon." (Agapius)

The Jewish informants understood this model perfectly: A distant leader, a prophet or king, sends his generals to conquer in his name. The army's success is attributed to him. The prayer and organization of the army invoke his authority.

2.2 The Speed of Information and the Formation of Perception

The Battle of Dāthin was fought on 4 February 634 CE. By July 634 CE — just five months later — news had reached Carthage. News traveled fast along the Mediterranean shipping lanes that connected Palestine to North Africa.

But what exactly were people saying? The text records: "They were saying" — an impersonal, collective voice. Rumors, reports, interpretations — not a single authoritative account.

In these five months, what could the Jews of Palestine have observed?

• Arab armies organized tribally but united under a single religious banner

• Fighters who invoked the same name in prayer (the adhan was being called)

• A growing movement whose leader was consistently referred to as "the prophet"

• A leadership structure that functioned cohesively despite operating far from their base in Arabia

To observers accustomed to the Persian model, this looked familiar. The Persians operated with a distant king; the Arabs operated with a distant prophet. Just as Xusro II's name was invoked by his generals, Muhammad's name was invoked by his commanders.

The Doctrina shows that within five months of Dāthin, this identification was already fixed in the minds of at least some Jewish observers: "A prophet has appeared, coming with the Saracens."

2.3 Why "Coming With" Does Not Mean "Personally Leading"

The Greek phrase "ἐρχόμενος μετὰ τῶν Σαρακηνῶν" has been read by Shoemaker as a claim of personal presence. But in the context of how people spoke about the Persian war, this reading is not inevitable.

When people said "Shahrbaraz is coming with the Persians," they meant he was leading them. But when they said "Xusro is coming with the Persians," they would not have meant he was personally present. They would have meant he was the authority behind them — the king whose name they fought under.

The same ambiguity applies to the prophet. The Jews of Palestine knew that a new leader had arisen among the Arabs. They knew his followers invoked his name. They knew his teachings were guiding their actions. They may not have known — and at that early date, probably did not know — the precise date of his death.

But the text does not claim knowledge of his presence. It reports what people were saying. And what they were saying was that a prophet had appeared — not that he had been seen in Caesarea.

---

Part 3: Sean Anthony's Rebuttal — The Keys to Paradise and the Dating Problem

3.1 Dating the Doctrina: The 640-Year Statement

Anthony points to a critical internal clue that Shoemaker ignores. In Book I, chapter 22, Jacob declares:

"The Jews have been trampled underfoot by the nations for 640 years, since our fathers, the Jews, crucified Christ."

Calculating from the crucifixion (traditionally dated to 30 CE), 640 years brings us to 670 CE. This suggests the Doctrina was composed in the 670s, not 634 CE.

Anthony writes:

"Hoyland himself notes these passages but dismisses their importance for dating the Doctrina, writing, 'since such statistics were usually given in round number and often updated by copyists, they can only ever be a rough guide to the date of the text.' This is possible, but the number is specific, not round, and appears in a passage that is integral to the text's argument."

The text also shows no knowledge that Carthage had been conquered by the Muslims. The first Arab attack on Carthage occurred in 647 CE, but the city was not permanently taken until Hasan ibn al-Nu'man's campaign in 695-696 CE. A text written after 695 CE would almost certainly mention this momentous event. The Doctrina does not.

This gives a window: after 670 CE (the 640-year statement) and before 695 CE (the fall of Carthage). Anthony concludes: "The 670s might, therefore, actually be the best period in which to date the Doctrina Iacobi."

If this is correct, the Doctrina was written forty years after Muhammad's death, not two years after. It does not preserve eyewitness testimony; it preserves a tradition that had been circulating for decades.

3.2 The "Keys to Paradise" — Evidence of Early Islamic Eschatology

Anthony's most important contribution is his analysis of the "keys to paradise" motif. Shoemaker treats this as evidence of Muhammad's claim to messianic authority. But Anthony shows that the motif is well-attested in early Islamic tradition — as a metaphor for jihad, for prayer, and for prophetic authority.

Swords as keys to paradise:

Yazīd b. Shajara (d. 679 CE) exhorted his soldiers: "I have been told that swords are the keys to paradise."

Prayer as the key to paradise:

Canonical hadith: "The key to paradise is prayer."

The Prophet's eschatological authority:

A hadith preserved by Abu Nu'aym: "On that day the banner of nobility, the keys of paradise, and the banner of praise shall be in my hands."

Anthony concludes that the Doctrina's mention of the "keys to paradise" is not a unique witness to an early messianic claim. It is an early witness to a motif that became central to Islamic piety — and one that reached the author through Muslim informants, not direct observation of Muhammad.

3.3 The "Sword and Chariot" — Prophetic Polemic

The old man's dismissive comment — "prophets do not come with a sword and a war-chariot" — is not a report of what Muhammad said or did. It is a polemical interpretation of what Muslims believed about his prophethood.

Anthony notes that Christian polemicists repeatedly used this exact critique. It appears in the Doctrina, in the Chronicle of Zuqnīn, in Theophanes, and in many other sources. It is a literary topos, not an observation of a battle.

But as Hoyland notes, The old man's critique is not a report of Muhammad's presence on a battlefield; it is a theological objection to the very idea that a prophet could wage war.

The Doctrina preserves this objection, but it does not confirm that Muhammad was personally present in Palestine.

---

Part 4: Synthesizing the Evidence — The "Persian Model" Explains the "Error"

4.1 The Mental Framework of the Jewish Informants

The Jews of Palestine in 634 CE had just lived through a generation of war in which the Persian king Xusro II directed his generals from his capital at Dastagird. They understood how an empire could be led by a distant figure whose name was invoked by armies far from his throne.

When they encountered the Arabs, they saw:

• A coherent religious movement with a named leader

• Followers who prayed in his name

• An army that invoked his authority and fought under his banner

• A rapid, successful conquest that mirrored the earlier Persian conquest

They naturally assumed that the Arab movement was structured like the Persian empire: a distant leader, a prophet/king, whose generals carried out his will. They did not know — and at that early date, probably did not know — the precise date of Muhammad's death.

4.2 What the Doctrina Actually Preserves

The Doctrina does not preserve an eyewitness report of Muhammad leading an army. It preserves a rumor: "They were saying" (ἔλεγον). The source is third-hand: Abraham heard from "those who had met him," then wrote to his brother Justus, who read the letter aloud in Jacob's presence.

The chain of transmission is:

Muhammad → "those who had met him" → Abraham → Justus → Jacob → the author of the Doctrina

This is not an eyewitness account. It is a rumor, filtered through multiple layers of transmission, interpreted through a Jewish apocalyptic lens, and shaped by the experience of the Persian war.

The Doctrina Jacobi is a precious source for understanding how the earliest Islamic movement was perceived by outsiders. It shows that within months of the first Arab raids into Palestine, news of Muhammad had reached Carthage. It shows that his role as prophet and leader was already well-known. It shows that his followers invoked his name and were motivated by his teachings.

But it does not show that Muhammad was still alive. It shows what Jewish observers, shaped by their experience of the Persian war, assumed about the structure of the Arab movement. Their assumption was natural — but it was not necessarily correct.

The Doctrina confirms the Islamic tradition. It does not undermine it.

 Section III: The Jewish Apocalypse — Metatron, the Prophet, and the Ambiguous Pronoun

The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai (Nistarot de-Rabbi Shimʿōn ben Yoḥai) is an eighth-century Hebrew apocalypse that has become a cornerstone of Stephen Shoemaker's revisionist thesis. Shoemaker argues that this text preserves an earlier, seventh-century Jewish apocalypse in which Muhammad is described as personally leading the conquest of Palestine. He points to a crucial passage in which Metatron, the chief angel, tells Rabbi Shimʿōn:

"The Holy One, blessed be He, will raise up over them a prophet according to His will, and he will conquer the land for them. "

Shoemaker contends that the pronoun "he" — the subject of "will conquer" — refers to the prophet (Muhammad), not to God. He supports this reading by citing a Cairo Genizah fragment and a parallel text, the Prayer of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai, in which a "crazy prophet, possessed by a spirit" is said to "conquer the land for them."

On the basis of this interpretation, Shoemaker concludes that the Secrets preserves a "near contemporary" Jewish witness to Muhammad's continued vitality and leadership during the invasion of Palestine. He dates the underlying source to the 630s or 640s — within the first decade after the conquests.

But as Gregor Schoeler, Mehdy Shaddel, and other scholars have demonstrated, this interpretation is built on an ambiguous pronoun and a questionable dating. The Secrets was composed around 750 CE — over a century after the conquests. Its "earlier source" is hypothetical; no manuscript of it survives. The variant readings in the Cairo Genizah and the Prayer are secondary developments, not independent witnesses.

Moreover, the very motif that Shoemaker cites as evidence — that God "conquers the land for" believers — is a standard feature of both Islamic futūḥ literature and Christian apocalyptic writing. When Yōḥannān bar Penkāyē wrote that "God gave victory into their hands," he was not claiming that God personally wielded a sword. He was making a theological statement about divine causation. The same is true of the Secrets.

The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai is not an independent witness to a late-living Muhammad. It is a post-hoc interpretation of the conquests, filtered through the lens of Jewish messianism, shaped by centuries of tradition, and ultimately ambiguous on the very point Shoemaker claims it proves.

---

Part 1: The Dating Problem — When Was the Secrets Written?

1.1 The Consenus: Mid-Eighth Century

The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai is universally agreed to have been composed around the middle of the eighth century — approximately 750 CE. The text's visions cover the period between the Islamic conquests and the Abbasid revolution (750 CE), and it ends with the Abbasids in power. This is not a contemporary witness to the conquests; it is a retrospective interpretation written over a century after they occurred.

The Evidence for an Eighth-Century Date

Feature	Implication
The text mentions Umayyad caliphs by name	It was composed during or after their reigns
It culminates with the Abbasid revolution	The terminus post quem is 750 CE
It describes the conquests as past events	It looks back, not forward

Schoeler notes:

"According to Cook, Shoemaker and Hoyland, the work makes use of an earlier apocalypse that 'seemingly' was contemporary with the early Arab conquests. However, this view is highly controversial."

Sean Anthony adds:

"Anthony suggests that the allegedly earlier Apocalypse relevant here also originated around 750. Should a later dating be correct, the document would of course cease to be evidence for Shoemaker's thesis and would be irrelevant for our discussion."

1.2 The Hypothetical "Earlier Source"

Shoemaker argues that the Secrets incorporates an older source from the 630s or 640s. But no manuscript of this source survives. Its existence is inferred from the text's positive portrayal of Muhammad and the early caliphs — a portrayal that, Shoemaker claims, a later Jewish author would not have composed.

But this argument is weak. Jewish attitudes toward Islam were not monolithic. Some Jewish communities in the eighth century may have continued to view the Islamic conquests as divine deliverance from Roman oppression. The positive tone of the Secrets does not require an early date; it requires only a Jewish community that saw the Abbasids as preferable to the Romans.

Schoeler again:

"The view is highly controversial."

1.3 The Problem of the "Messiah in the Middle"

Shoemaker and his predecessors (Crone and Cook) argue that the Secrets must incorporate an older source because "the messiah belongs at the end of an apocalypse and not in the middle" — and the Secrets places the messianic figure in the middle of the narrative.

But this is a literary judgment, not a historical argument. Apocalypses do not follow a single, rigid structure. The placement of the messianic figure in the middle of the Secrets may reflect the author's own theological priorities, not the incorporation of an older source.

More importantly, even if the Secrets does incorporate an older source, that source could date from the late seventh or early eighth century — not the 630s. The text's mention of specific caliphs (Umar, Uthman, Mu'awiya, etc.) suggests knowledge of the caliphal succession that developed over decades.

---

Part 2: The Ambiguous Pronoun — Who Conquers the Land?

2.1 The Key Passage in Hebrew and Translation

The crucial passage reads in Hebrew:

"כרצונו נביא עליהם מעמיר והוא הארץ את להם ויכבוש"

The translation offered by Shoemaker (following a modified reading) is:

"He will raise up over them a prophet according to His will, and he will conquer the land for them. "

But the pronoun "he" (הוא) is ambiguous. It could refer to God ("the Holy One, blessed be He") or to the prophet.

Lewis's Translation (1950):

"He raises up over them a Prophet according to His will and will conquer the land for them."

Lewis understood the subject of "will conquer" to be God, not the prophet. This is a perfectly valid reading of the Hebrew.

Shoemaker's Translation:

"He will raise up over them a prophet according to His will, and he will conquer the land for them. "

Shoemaker understands the subject to be the prophet. This is also a valid reading — but it is not the only possible one.

Shaddel's Analysis:

"This reading does not present any textual problems, but, given the ambiguity of the text, this passage does not constitute independent evidence for Muhammad's participation in the conquest of Palestine, and should be considered to be of secondary relevance."

2.2 Why "He" Probably Refers to God

There are several reasons to prefer the reading that God, not the prophet, is the subject of "will conquer."

1. The Immediate Context

The passage is a divine revelation delivered by the angel Metatron. The subject of the surrounding clauses is God ("the Holy One, blessed be He"). It is natural to continue with God as the subject.

2. The Parallel in the Cairo Genizah Fragment

The Cairo Genizah version reads: "He raises over them a crazy prophet, possessed by a spirit, and he conquers the land for them. "

Shoemaker argues that this version clearly identifies the prophet as the conqueror because God would not conquer the land for a "crazy, possessed" prophet. But this is an argument from later redaction, not from the original text. The Genizah fragment is a secondary, polemical version. Its wording cannot be used to interpret the original.

3. The Theological Parallel in Islamic and Christian Sources

As Shaddel notes, the motif of God conquering the land for believers is common in both Islamic and Christian literature.

Islamic futūḥ literature:

"God conquered for the Muslims..." (fataḥa Llāh ʿalā l-muslimīn)

Qur'an 4:141:

"And if God grants you a victory [fatḥun min Allāh]..."

Yōḥannān bar Penkāyē (c. 687 CE):

"God gave victory into their hands."

None of these sources claim that God personally fought battles. They use divine agency as a theological explanation for military success. The Secrets is doing the same thing.

Shaddel writes:

"A prophet-king does not conquer territories for their followers, but rather for themself, while God may indeed bestow victory and conquest on His believers."

2.3 What the Cairo Genizah Fragment Actually Says

The Cairo Genizah fragment is often cited as evidence that the original Secrets identified the prophet as the conqueror. But this fragment is not the original; it is a later, more polemical version. Its language is harsher ("crazy prophet, possessed by a spirit"), which suggests it was adapted by a Jewish community that had soured on Islam.

Anthony notes that the Genizah version's invectives against Muhammad are later additions.

It is methodologically unsound to use a secondary, polemical recension to interpret the original text. The original Secrets likely had a more neutral or even positive tone. Its reference to the prophet's conquests was ambiguous — and deliberately so.

---

Part 3: The Other Texts — The Prayer of Rabbi Shimʿōn and the Ten Kings Midrash

3.1 The Prayer of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai

The Prayer of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai is a later text, dating from the time of the First Crusade (late eleventh/early twelfth century). It reuses material from the Secrets but applies it to the Crusades, not the Islamic conquests.

The relevant passage:

"A crazy man possessed by a spirit arises and speaks lies about the Holy One, blessed be He, and he conquers the land. "

This is clearly dependent on the Secrets. It confirms that the tradition of an Ishmaelite prophet "conquering the land" circulated in Jewish circles. But it does not confirm that this prophet was Muhammad — or that he was personally present in Palestine.

Moreover, the Prayer reinterprets the tradition to refer to the Crusaders, not the Arabs. This demonstrates the fluidity of the tradition. A single motif could be applied to different historical figures. The Prayer cannot be used as an independent witness to the original meaning of the Secrets.

3.2 The Ten Kings Midrash

The Ten Kings Midrash is roughly contemporary with the Secrets (mid-eighth century) and seems to draw on the same source. It describes Muhammad as personally conquering Jerusalem:

"He will conquer all the kingdom and come to Jerusalem and bow down there and make war with the Edomites and they will flee before him and he will seize the kingship by force."

This is the most explicit of the three texts. But it is also the most embellished. It alone describes Muhammad coming to Jerusalem and bowing there — a detail found nowhere else in early Islamic or non-Islamic sources.

Shaddel notes:

"The account of Muhammad's activities in the Ten Kings Midrash, which uniquely speaks of the Ishmaelite prophet personally conquering Jerusalem, is so different from the one in the other two texts that it ought to be considered separately: only one of the two versions of the account, either the one in the Ten Kings or that from the Secrets and the Prayer, can go back to the urtext, and the fact that the Ten Kings version is late and more embellished makes it the prime suspect for being the derivative version."

The Ten Kings Midrash is not an independent witness. It is a late, embellished, derivative version. Its explicit identification of Muhammad as the conqueror of Jerusalem is likely a secondary development, not a preservation of the original tradition.

3.3 The Relationship Between the Three Texts

Text	Date	Relationship	Explicit about Muhammad?
Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn	c. 750 CE	The earliest of the three	No (ambiguous pronoun)
Ten Kings Midrash	c. 750 CE	Parallel, independent?	Yes (but secondary and embellished)
Prayer of Rabbi Shimʿōn	c. 1100 CE	Dependent on Secrets	No (reapplied to Crusaders)

The only text that explicitly identifies Muhammad as the conqueror of Jerusalem is the Ten Kings Midrash — and it is the most embellished and the latest in its current form. Shaddel's observation that it is "the prime suspect for being the derivative version" is methodologically sound.

---

Part 4: The Persian War Framework — Understanding How Jews Interpreted the Conquests

4.1 The Model of the Persian King

As we argued in Section II, the Jews of Palestine in the 630s and 640s had just lived through the Persian conquest of their homeland. They understood how an empire could be led by a distant king whose generals fought in his name. They naturally applied this model to the Arabs.

When the Secrets says that "he will conquer the land for them," it is reflecting this model. The prophet (Muhammad) is the distant leader; his generals (the caliphs and commanders) are the ones who fight. But the conquest is attributed to him because he is the source of the movement's authority.

The Persian parallel:

Element	Persian Empire	Islamic Caliphate
Distant leader	Xusro II in Dastagird	Muhammad in Medina (or dead, but still the founder)
Generals in the field	Shahrbaraz, Shahin, Kardigan	Khalid, Abu 'Ubayda, 'Amr
Attribution of victory	To Xusro II, the king	To Muhammad, the prophet

The Jews who composed the Secrets did not know — and may not have cared — whether Muhammad was still alive. What mattered was that the movement bore his name, invoked his authority, and was guided by his teachings.

4.2 The Theological Framework: God as the True Conqueror

Whether the Secrets intended the prophet or God as the subject of "will conquer," the deeper theological point is the same: the conquests were divinely ordained.

If God is the subject:

God raised up a prophet, and God conquered the land for the believers.

If the prophet is the subject:

God raised up a prophet, and the prophet (acting on God's behalf) conquered the land.

In both readings, the ultimate source of victory is God. The difference is merely about human agency. The Secrets is not a historical report; it is a theological interpretation. It tells us how some Jews understood the conquests, not necessarily what actually happened.

---

Part 5: Synthesis — What the Secrets Actually Proves

5.1 What the Secrets Confirms

Despite its ambiguity, the Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai confirms several important facts about early Islamic history:

• Muhammad was known as a prophet to non-Muslims within a century of his death

• His followers believed he had authority over salvation ("keys of paradise")

• The conquests were interpreted by some Jews as divinely ordained

All of these are consistent with the Islamic tradition. They do not require Muhammad to have been alive in 634 CE.

5.2 What the Secrets Does NOT Confirm

The Secrets does NOT confirm:

• That Muhammad was still alive during the conquest of Palestine

• That he personally led any military campaign

• That he was present in Jerusalem

• That he conquered the land himself

The ambiguous pronoun leaves all these questions open. The Secrets is not an independent witness to a late-living Muhammad. It is a theological interpretation written over a century after the conquests, drawing on traditions that may have been circulating for decades, but not necessarily contemporary with the events.

5.3 The Methodological Problem

Shoemaker's use of the Secrets illustrates a broader methodological problem in his work. He treats ambiguous texts as if they were clear, late texts as if they were early, and derivative versions as if they were original.

Shaddel concludes:

"The Secrets is universally believed to be the closest of all three to the urtext, and the author(s) of the Prayer is understood to have ironed out the wrinkles in the Secrets and improved upon the presentation... The Cairo Genizah version of the Secrets is essentially the same text with a more polemical bent (and hence later), and Shoemaker's reliance on this version in support of his reading of the Secrets ignores the fact that its invectives against Muhammad would have been added to the base text at a secondary stage."

 Section IV: The Khuzistan Chronicle — "Leader," "Guide," and the Extension of Sasanian Rule

The Khuzistan Chronicle (c. 660 CE) is one of the most important — and most misunderstood — sources for early Islamic history. Written in Syriac, it preserves a contemporary witness to the collapse of the Sasanian Empire and the rise of the Arabs. Its author lived at the heart of the recently fallen Persian realm, in the province of Khuzistan, where he witnessed the conquest and its aftermath.

Stephen Shoemaker has seized upon a single word in this chronicle to argue that Muhammad was still alive and personally leading the conquests. The chronicle refers to Muhammad as the "leader" (mdabbrānā) of the Arabs. Shoemaker contends that this term must mean "military commander" and that its use proves Muhammad was actively directing operations in the field.

But this interpretation collapses under close examination. The Syriac term mdabbrānā has a range of meanings — "guide," "leader," "organizer," "administrator" — and is used in the chronicle itself to refer to Sasanian emperors who never took the field. The chronicler counts Muhammad's "reign" as an extension of Sasanian rule, placing him in a list of Persian kings. The chronicle's account of the conquests is based on hearsay, not eyewitness testimony, and the author had no special access to information about Arabian politics.

Most importantly, the Khuzistan Chronicle was written in former Persian territory. Its author viewed the world through a Persian imperial lens. He naturally conceptualized the Arab movement as a kingdom with a king, just like the Sasanian Empire he had lived under. His use of "leader" for Muhammad reflects this framework — not a claim that Muhammad was personally present on the battlefield.

---

Part 1: The Text — What the Khuzistan Chronicle Actually Says

1.1 The Date and Context

The Khuzistan Chronicle is generally dated to around 660 CE based on its contents. It makes no clear reference to any event after 652 CE, and its final entries focus on the conquest of Khuzistan (639-642 CE). 

1.2 The Key Passage

The passage Shoemaker cites appears in the chronicle's account of Yazdgird III, the last Sasanian king:

"Then God raised up against them the sons of Ishmael, [numerous] as the sand on the seashore. Their leader (mdabbrānā) was Muhammad. Neither walls nor gates, neither weapons nor shields stood before them, and they gained control over the entire land of the Persians. Yazdgird sent countless troops against them, but the Arabs destroyed them all and even killed Rustam...."

1.3 What the Passage Actually Says — and Does Not Say

Element	What the Text Says	What It Does NOT Say
Muhammad's role	"Their leader (mdabbrānā) was Muhammad"	It does not say he was a military commander
His location	Not specified	It does not say he was in Persia or Syria
His activity	Not specified	It does not say he led any battle
The conquests	Described as happening under his leadership	The text does not specify when he died

The chronicle does not place Muhammad on any battlefield. It does not describe him giving orders to troops. It does not claim he was present in Persia or Syria. It simply calls him the "leader" of the Arabs — a title that could mean many things.

---

Part 2: The Meaning of Mdabbrānā — "Leader" or "Guide"?

2.1 The Syriac Term and Its Range of Meanings

The Syriac word mdabbrānā (ܡܕܒܪܢܐ) is derived from the root dbr, which means "to lead, guide, direct." Its range of meanings includes:

Meaning	English Equivalent	Context
Leader	One who leads a group	Political or military
Guide	One who shows the way	Spiritual or moral
Organizer	One who arranges or administers	Bureaucratic
Ruler	One who governs	Political
Shepherd	One who tends a flock	Metaphorical (spiritual)

Shaddel notes:

"The term mdabbrānā used of Muhammad here can also mean 'guide' or 'leader' in a spiritual sense, and in any case the passage is too equivocal to allow for definitive conclusions to be drawn based on it."

Schoeler adds:

"The Khuzistan Chronicle is the first text from which one can read with some justification (but does not even have to) that the author assumed Muhammad to have been the army commander."

2.2 How Mdabbrānā Is Used Elsewhere in the Chronicle

Crucially, the Khuzistan Chronicle uses the same term for Sasanian emperors who never took the field. Nasir al-Ka'bi observes:

"This title is also used of Sasanian emperors in the chronicle, as the chronicler seems to count Muhammad's 'reign' as an extension of Sasanian rule."

If mdabbrānā could be used for Persian kings who remained in their palaces while their generals fought, it could certainly be used for Muhammad in the same way. The term does not imply personal presence on the battlefield.

2.3 The "Extension of Sasanian Rule" Framework

The Khuzistan Chronicle was written in former Persian territory by an author who had lived under Sasanian rule. His mental framework was shaped by the imperial system he knew. When he encountered the Arab movement, he naturally conceptualized it as a kingdom — with a king, a succession, and a territory.

Nasir al-Ka'bi's Insight:

"The chronicler seems to count Muhammad's 'reign' as an extension of Sasanian rule."

This explains why the chronicle places Muhammad in a list of rulers alongside Persian kings. The author was not claiming that Muhammad personally led armies; he was fitting the new Arab power into the familiar template of Persian kingship.

---

Part 3: The Double Structure of the Chronicle — Two Accounts of the Conquests

3.1 The Chronicler's Method

The Khuzistan Chronicle has a peculiar structure. Most of it follows a strict chronological order, but near the end, it departs from chronology to provide a second, more detailed account of the conquest of Khuzistan. Shoemaker argues that this second account is based on eyewitness testimony, and therefore the first account (which mentions Muhammad) may also be based on eyewitness testimony.

The Problem: The first account (which mentions Muhammad) is general and schematic. The second account (which is detailed) never mentions Muhammad at all.

Section	Content	Mentions Muhammad?	Likely Source
First account (chronological)	General summary of conquest of Persia and Syria	Yes	Schematic, based on hearsay
Second account (appended)	Detailed description of conquest of Khuzistan	No	Eyewitness reports

The chronicler had access to detailed information about the conquest of Khuzistan — the region where he lived. He did not have detailed information about Arabian politics. His knowledge of Muhammad came from hearsay, not eyewitness testimony.

3.2 Hearsay, Not Eyewitness Testimony

Schoeler notes:

"The Chronicle's accounts of the conquest of Khuzistan are, as Shoemaker correctly notes, based on hearsay, not on written sources. Shoemaker then takes pains to justify that these hearsay accounts are eyewitness accounts. However, his cautious language shows that he is by no means certain of this."

Robert Hoyland adds a crucial observation:

"The actual events of Muhammad's life, before the Muslim conquests carried his teaching outside Arabia, were unlikely to have circulated far with any degree of accuracy."

The Khuzistan chronicler was writing in Iran, hundreds of miles from Arabia, within 30 years of the conquests. He knew that a man named Muhammad had been the leader of the Arabs. He may have known that he was a prophet. But he had no way of knowing the precise date of his death or the details of his military campaigns.

---

Part 4: The Persian War Framework — Conceptualizing the Arabs as a New Empire

4.1 The Sasanian Imperial Template

As we argued in Sections II and III, the peoples of the former Sasanian Empire understood their world through the framework of Persian kingship. A king ruled from his capital; his generals led armies in his name. The Khuzistan chronicler, writing in Iran, naturally applied this model to the Arabs.

The Persian Model:

Element	Sasanian Empire	Arab Movement (as perceived)
Ruler	Xusro II, Yazdgird III	Muhammad
Title	King of Kings	Leader (mdabbrānā)
Generals	Shahrbaraz, Shahin, Rustam	Khalid, Abu Musa, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas
Capital	Ctesiphon	Medina (unknown to chronicler)

The chronicler did not know — and may not have cared — whether Muhammad was still alive. What mattered was that the movement bore his name and was guided by his teachings.

4.2 Muhammad's "Reign" as an Extension of Sasanian Rule

The chronicle counts Muhammad's reign as part of the sequence of Persian rulers. This is not an accident; it reflects the author's mental framework. For a Persian Christian writing in the 660s, the Arabs were the successors to the Sasanian Empire. Their founder, Muhammad, was therefore the successor to the Persian kings.

Nasir al-Ka'bi again:

"The chronicler seems to count Muhammad's 'reign' as an extension of Sasanian rule."

This explains why the chronicle calls Muhammad "leader" but does not describe his military activities. The chronicler was not interested in Muhammad's biography; he was interested in the transfer of power from Persia to the Arabs.

---

Part 5: Shoemaker's Argument — And Why It Fails

5.1 Shoemaker's Reading

Shoemaker argues that the Khuzistan Chronicle's description of Muhammad as "leader" of the Arabs, placed alongside the Persian king Yazdgird and the Roman emperor Heraclius, "strongly suggests Muhammad's participation in the initial phase of the Near Eastern conquest."

He also argues that the chronicler "had access to eyewitness testimonies (or perhaps even personal experience?) for at least some of his information."

5.2 The Counter-Arguments

Shoemaker's Claim	Counter-Argument
Mdabbrānā means "military commander"	The term can mean "guide" or "spiritual leader" and is used for Sasanian kings who never fought
The chronicler had eyewitness testimony	The detailed account of Khuzistan (which does not mention Muhammad) may be eyewitness; the general account (which mentions Muhammad) is schematic and based on hearsay
Placing Muhammad alongside Yazdgird and Heraclius implies he was their contemporary	The chronicler is listing rulers, not active commanders; he counts Muhammad's reign as an extension of Sasanian rule
The chronicle was written within 30 years of the conquests	Yes, but the author was in Iran, not Arabia; his knowledge of Muhammad was limited

The Khuzistan Chronicle calls Muhammad mdabbrānā — "leader." It does not call him "general" (rabbaylā) or "commander" (paqīdā). The chronicle uses rabbaylā for Rustam, the Persian general. It uses mdabbrānā for Muhammad. The distinction is significant.

If the chronicler had wanted to say that Muhammad was personally leading armies, he had a word for that: rabbaylā. He chose not to use it. He used mdabbrānā — a term that could mean spiritual guide, political leader, or founder of the movement.

---

Part 6: Synthesis — What the Khuzistan Chronicle Actually Proves

6.1 What the Chronicle Confirms

Despite its ambiguity, the Khuzistan Chronicle confirms several important facts about early Islamic history:

• Muhammad was known as the leader of the Arabs within 30 years of his death

• His followers identified him as the founder of their movement

• The conquests were attributed to his leadership (in a general sense)

• The Arabs were perceived as a unified political entity, not a random horde

None of this contradicts the Islamic tradition. All of it is consistent with Muhammad having died in 632 CE.

6.2 What the Chronicle Does NOT Confirm

The Khuzistan Chronicle does NOT confirm:

• That Muhammad was still alive during the conquest of Persia or Syria

• That he personally led any military campaign

• That he was present in Khuzistan or Ctesiphon

• That he "participated in the initial phase of the Near Eastern conquest" in the sense of being on the battlefield

The term mdabbrānā is too ambiguous to support such conclusions. The chronicle's structure and source criticism undermine Shoemaker's claims about eyewitness testimony. The "extension of Sasanian rule" framework explains why the chronicler counted Muhammad as a "leader" without implying his personal presence.

6.3 The Limits of the Chronicle's Knowledge

Robert Hoyland's observation is crucial:

"The actual events of Muhammad's life, before the Muslim conquests carried his teaching outside Arabia, were unlikely to have circulated far with any degree of accuracy."

The Khuzistan chronicler knew that Muhammad was the leader of the Arabs. He may have known that he was a prophet. He probably knew that his followers prayed in his name. But he did not have — and could not have had — detailed knowledge of the chronology of Muhammad's life. His use of mdabbrānā reflects this limited knowledge.

The Khuzistan Chronicle has spoken. But its voice is not the voice of revisionism. It is the voice of a Persian Christian, writing in the shadow of a fallen empire, trying to make sense of a new world — and fitting Muhammad into the only framework he knew: the framework of Sasanian kingship.

Section V: Jacob of Edessa — The Seven-Year Reign, the Persian Withdrawal, and the Meaning of "Raids in Palestine"

Jacob of Edessa (c. 640-708 CE) was one of the most learned scholars of the seventh century — a theologian, chronographer, translator, and bishop whose works would influence Syriac Christianity for generations. His Chronological Charts, completed in 691/692 CE, represent the first systematic attempt by a Syriac Christian to integrate the Arab caliphs into the framework of universal history.

Stephen Shoemaker has seized upon two features of Jacob's chronology to argue that Muhammad was still alive during the conquest of Palestine: (1) Jacob gives Muhammad a reign of seven years (from 620/21 to 627/28 CE), and (2) he notes that "the Arabs began to make raids in the land of Palestine" in the fifth year of Muhammad's reign (625/26 CE).

However, as we shall see. Jacob's notice of "raids" in 625/26 CE is not evidence that Muhammad was still alive in 634 CE. It is evidence that Jacob, working within his compressed chronological framework, dated the Prophet's military expeditions earlier than they actually occurred — because he had already decided that Muhammad died in 629 CE.

---

Part 1: The 7-Year Reign — A Theological Choice, Not a Mistake

1.1 The Problem: Jacob's Chronology

According to Jacob's Chronological Charts:

Event	Jacob's Date (AG)	Jacob's Date (CE)	Traditional Date (CE)
Muhammad begins to reign	AG 932/933	620/21 CE	622 CE (Hijra)
Muhammad's reign	7 years	620/21 - 627/28 CE	622-632 CE
Abū Bakr begins to reign	AG 939/940	628/29 CE	632 CE
Arabs begin raids in Palestine	5th year of Muhammad (AG 936/937)	625/26 CE	629 CE (Mu'ta)

Shoemaker sees this as an "error" — a surprising lapse in an otherwise reliable chronographer. He concludes that Jacob "erroneously" shortened Muhammad's reign and moved the conquests earlier.

1.2 The Solution: The AG 940 Anchor

As we demonstrated in our analysis of Jacob, his chronology is not random; it is anchored to AG 939/940 — the year the Persians evacuated Syria and the Edessene captives returned home.

The Theology of the Anchor:

Year	Event	Significance
AG 939/940 (628/629 CE)	Persians evacuate Syria; Edessene captives return	The end of the old order
AG 939/940 (628/629 CE)	Muhammad dies (in Jacob's chronology)	The prophet's death coincides with the old order's collapse

Jacob did not know the precise date of Muhammad's death. He had sources that told him:

• The "kingdom of the Arabs" began in Heraclius 11 / Xusro 31 (620/21 CE)

• Muhammad reigned for 7 years

He calculated: 620/21 + 7 = 627/28 CE — the year before the Persian evacuation. This was too perfect to be coincidence. For Jacob, it was providence: the prophet of the Arabs died at the exact moment the Persian threat that had dominated the Near East for decades finally collapsed.

1.3 The Symbolic Meaning of Seven

As we noted in Entry #10, seven was not a random number. In the Christian tradition, seven signified completeness, divine order, and prophetic cycles:

Biblical Reference	Significance
Genesis 1	Creation in 7 days
Joseph's dream	7 years of plenty, 7 years of famine
Daniel's 70 weeks	7 x 10 — prophetic periods
The Exodus	7 weeks between Passover and Pentecost

By giving Muhammad seven years, Jacob was placing him in the line of Joseph and the prophets — a figure whose life formed a complete prophetic cycle ending at the climactic moment of the Persian withdrawal.

Shoemaker's claim that Jacob made an "error" is wrong. Jacob made a theological statement.

---

Part 2: The "Raids in Palestine" — What Jacob Actually Meant

2.1 The Problem: Shoemaker's Interpretation

Shoemaker argues that Jacob's notice of "raids in Palestine" must refer to the main conquest (633-34 CE) because the expedition to Mu'ta (629 CE) was "on the margins of the Roman Empire" and "hardly seems worthy of Jacob's notice."

He writes:

"A small skirmish on the fringes of the empire between Christian and Muslim Arabs at a minor outpost hardly seems worthy of Jacob's notice of Islamic raids in Palestine."

But this argument collapses when we understand the 7th-century definition of "Palestine."

2.2 The Roman Province of Palestine — Much Larger Than Modern Palestine

In the 7th century, the Roman province of Palestine was divided into three sub-provinces that covered a vast territory.

Province	Territory	Modern Equivalent Cities
Palaestina Prima	Judea, Samaria, coastal plain	Jerusalem, Gaza, Rafah
Palaestina Secunda	Galilee, Golan, Decapolis	Tiberias, Baysan, Nazareth
Palaestina Tertia (Salutaris)	Negev, Sinai, parts of Arabia	Petra, Aqabah, Zoara

Palaestina Tertia (Salutaris) extended into northern Arabia. Its capital was Petra, and its territory included the Gulf of Aqaba and the Sinai Peninsula. This province was created precisely to administer the desert frontier between Roman territory and the Arabian tribes.

2.3 Where Was Mu'ta?

Mu'ta is located in modern-day Jordan, approximately 25 miles south of the provincial capital of Arabia (Bostra). In the 7th century, this was within the broader sphere of Roman influence — part of the complex of Arab client kingdoms and frontier districts that bordered the desert.

The expedition to Mu'ta (September 629 CE) was not a "small skirmish on the fringes." It was a major expedition involving 3,000 Muslim fighters against a combined Roman-Arab force. Three senior commanders (Zayd ibn Haritha, Ja'far ibn Abi Talib, 'Abd Allah ibn Rawaha) were killed. Khalid ibn al-Walid, later the "Sword of God," assumed command and executed a fighting retreat that saved the Muslim force from annihilation.

This was not a minor event. It was the first direct confrontation between Muslims and Roman forces. It was certainly "worthy of Jacob's notice."

2.4 The Other Campaigns in "Palestine"

In the final years of his life, the Prophet Muhammad ordered several military expeditions that targeted regions within the broader definition of Palestine:

Expedition	Date	Target	Location (in Roman terms)
Mu'ta	September 629	Ghassanid/Roman forces	Palaestina Tertia (border region)
Dhat al-Salasil	629 CE	Arab tribes allied with Rome	Northern Hejaz / southern Palaestina
Tabuk	October 630 CE	Roman frontier	Northern Hejaz / southern Palaestina
Usama ibn Zayd's campaign	Spring 632 CE	Roman frontier	Southern Palaestina / northern Arabia

The expedition to Tabuk was a major mobilization of 30,000 men. The Prophet personally led it. While the Roman army did not engage, the expedition demonstrated Muslim military capability and intimidated the Christian Arab tribes into submission.

All of these campaigns occurred within the broader definition of "Palestine" as understood in the 7th century.

2.5 Jacob's Compressed Chronology

Jacob placed the "raids in Palestine" in the fifth year of Muhammad's reign (625/26 CE) because he had already compressed Muhammad's reign to end in 629 CE. The raids had to occur before the Prophet's death — so Jacob placed them earlier than they actually occurred.

Event	Actual Date	Jacob's Date	Why?
Muhammad's death	632 CE	629 CE	Synchronized with Persian withdrawal
Mu'ta	629 CE	625/26 CE	Pushed back to fit within 7-year reign
Tabuk	630 CE	(not mentioned)	—
Usama's campaign	632 CE	(not mentioned)	—

Jacob was not claiming that the conquest of Palestine began in 625 CE. He was compressing events to fit his schematic framework.

---

Part 3: The "Second King" — Abū Bakr's Reign and the Chronological Shift

3.1 Jacob's Succession

Jacob records that Abū Bakr began to reign in AG 939/940 (628/29 CE) — immediately after Muhammad's death. This places the beginning of the conquest of Palestine after Muhammad's death, because the major conquests were attributed to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar.

This is the crucial point that Shoemaker misses.

Jacob's chronology does not place the conquest of Jerusalem or Damascus during Muhammad's reign. It places only "raids" — skirmishes, probes, frontier expeditions — during his reign. The major conquests are attributed to the caliphs who followed him.

3.2 The Role of the Caliphs in Jacob's Chronology

Caliph	Jacob's Reign Length	Traditional Length	Conquests Attributed
Muhammad	7 years	10 years	Raids, not conquests
Abū Bakr	2 years, 7 months	2 years, 3 months	Consolidation
ʿUmar	12 years	10 years, 3 months	Major conquests
ʿUthmān	12 years	12 years	Consolidation

Jacob did not believe that Muhammad conquered Palestine. He believed that Muhammad established the community, issued the call to monotheism, and authorized expeditions into the frontier — but the conquest of the Roman provinces came after his death.

Shoemaker's reading of Jacob is selective. He focuses on the "raids" but ignores that Jacob attributes the conquests to the caliphs.

---

Part 4: Shoemaker's Misunderstanding of Syriac Chronography

4.1 The Regnal Era Assumption

Jacob, like all Syriac chroniclers, worked within the framework of regnal-era dating. An era began with a king's accession; conquests occurred during his reign. When he learned that the Muslim calendar began in 622 CE, he naturally assumed that 622 CE marked the beginning of Muhammad's "reign."

This is not an error; it is a historiographical convention.

4.2 The Telescoping of Events

As Mehdy Shaddel has demonstrated, eighth-century chroniclers systematically telescoped events — compressing decades of history into shorter periods to fit their chronological frameworks. Jacob's Chronological Charts are a classic example of this phenomenon.

Shaddel's Framework Applied to Jacob:

Step	Reasoning
1	The Muslim calendar begins in 622 CE
2	In Syriac chronography, eras begin with a reign
3	Therefore, Muhammad's reign began in 622 CE
4	Jacob had sources saying Muhammad reigned 7 years
5	622 + 7 = 629 CE (Persian withdrawal)
6	This synchronization confirms divine providence

4.3 The Silence on Post-632 Conquests

Jacob's Chronicle does not mention any conquest of Palestine during Muhammad's reign. The "raids" he mentions are frontier expeditions — consistent with the Islamic tradition's account of Mu'ta, Dhat al-Salasil, Tabuk, and Usama's campaign.

When Jacob records that the Arabs "plundered and laid waste to all the lands of Syria," he places this after Muhammad's death — in the reigns of ʿUmar and ʿUthmān.

---

Part 5: The Witness of Jacob of Edessa — What He Actually Proves

5.1 What Jacob Confirms

Despite his compressed chronology, Jacob of Edessa confirms several core elements of the Islamic tradition:

• Muhammad was the founder of the Arab polity

• He reigned (in the sense of being the leader) for a period of years

• He authorized expeditions into the Roman frontier

• He died before the major conquests of Syria and Palestine

• The caliphs who followed him completed the conquest

All of this is consistent with the traditional Islamic narrative.

5.2 What Jacob Does NOT Confirm

Jacob does NOT confirm:

• That Muhammad was alive during the conquest of Jerusalem or Damascus

• That he personally led the conquest of Palestine

• That his reign extended beyond 629 CE

• That the "raids" he mentions were the main conquest

Jacob's notice of "raids" in 625/26 CE is a product of his compressed chronology, not an independent witness to events.

5.3 The Meaning of "Raids"

The Syriac word used by Jacob for "raids" (ܒܙܘ, bazw) implies plundering, looting, and incursions — not full-scale conquest. This matches the Islamic tradition's description of Mu'ta and the frontier expeditions, not the conquest of Jerusalem or Damascus.

Jacob's language is precise. If he had meant "conquest," he would have used a different word.

Shoemaker's argument fails because:

1. He misunderstands Jacob's chronological method — the seven-year reign is a theological choice, not a mistake

2. He underestimates the size of 7th-century Palestine — which included territories in northern Arabia

3. He dismisses the expedition to Mu'ta as "a small skirmish" — when it was a major confrontation

4. He ignores that Jacob attributes the major conquests to the caliphs, not to Muhammad

5. He fails to recognize that Jacob's "raids" are consistent with the Islamic tradition's account of the Prophet's final expeditions

Jacob of Edessa confirms the Islamic tradition. He does not undermine it. The Prophet who did not conquer — who sent expeditions into the frontier but died before the great conquests — is the Prophet of Islamic history. Jacob's Chronological Charts, properly understood, are a witness to that Prophet, not to a revisionist phantom.

Jacob has spoken. His voice is not the voice of error. It is the voice of a chronographer who saw God's hand in history — and whose only "mistake" was to see too much meaning in the numbers.

Section VI: The History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria — A Legend, Not a Witness

The History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria contains a passage that, on its surface, seems to support the revisionist thesis. In the Life of Patriarch Benjamin (626-665 CE), George the Archdeacon (writing before 717 CE) records that "Muhammad took possession of Damascus and Syria, and he crossed the Jordan."

Shoemaker seizes upon this as evidence that Muhammad was still alive and personally leading the conquest of Syria. He notes that the account is "direct, matter-of-fact" and "in no way polemical." He concludes that it represents an independent, early tradition of Muhammad's leadership during the conquests.

But Shoemaker omits crucial context. The passage is embedded in a legendary narrative: the dream of Heraclius, in which a "circumcised nation" is prophesied to conquer his empire. Mistaking this for the Jews, Heraclius orders forced baptisms. Then, "a few short days later," Muhammad and his followers burst out of Arabia and conquer his kingdom.

This legend is not a historical report. It is a late ancient best-seller, attested in multiple linguistic and religious traditions — Latin, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, Georgian, and Ethiopic. The version in the History of the Patriarchs is just one among many. Its association with the forced baptism decree is a literary trope, not a historical memory.

Moreover, the claim that "Muhammad took possession of Damascus" is almost certainly a metonymy. As Schoeler notes, the phrase means that the Muslims (the followers of Muhammad) took possession of Damascus — not that Muhammad personally led the assault. Damascus was conquered in Rajab of 14 AH (September 635 CE) — only three years after Muhammad's death. The conquests were so rapid, and the Muslim armies invoked Muhammad's name so constantly, that outsiders naturally attributed the victories to him, even though he was already dead.

The History of the Patriarchs is not an independent witness to a late-living Muhammad. It is a late compilation (tenth century Arabic translation of earlier Coptic originals) that incorporates legendary material shaped by a specific theological agenda: to show that the Chalcedonian heresy caused God to abandon the Romans to the Arabs. Its value for the revisionist thesis is nil.

---

Part 1: The Text — What the History of the Patriarchs Actually Says

1.1 The Context: The Life of Patriarch Benjamin

The History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria is a complex compilation. The earliest portion was composed in Coptic, and in the tenth century it was translated into Arabic. The section dealing with the Islamic conquests is attributed to George the Archdeacon, who is believed to have written before 717 CE.

The Life of Patriarch Benjamin (626-665 CE) covers the period of the Arab conquest of Egypt. Benjamin was the Coptic patriarch during the invasions, and his life story is intertwined with the history of the conquest.

1.2 The Key Passage

The passage Shoemaker cites reads:

"And after a few days, there arose a man among the Arabs, from the southern regions, from Mecca and its vicinity, named Muhammad. And he restored the worshippers of idols to knowledge of the one God, so that they said that Muhammad is his messenger. And his nation was circumcised in the flesh, not in the law, and they prayed toward the south, orienting themselves toward a place they call the Ka'ba. And he took possession of Damascus and Syria, and he crossed the Jordan and damned it up. And the Lord abandoned the army of the Romans before him, because of their corrupt faith and the excommunication that was brought against them and because of the Council of Chalcedon by the ancient fathers."

1.3 The Legendary Framework: Heraclius's Dream

The passage is preceded by a dream of Heraclius:

"Truly, a circumcised nation will come upon you, and they will defeat you, and they will take possession of the land."

Mistaking this for the Jews, Heraclius ordered the forced baptism of all Jews and Samaritans in the Roman Empire. Then — "after a few days" — Muhammad and his followers appear and conquer his kingdom.

This is not history. This is legend.

---

Part 2: The Legend of Heraclius's Dream — A Late Ancient Best-Seller

2.1 The Multiple Versions of the Legend

As Shaddel notes, the legend of Heraclius's dream (or prophecy) and its association with the forced baptism of the Jews was "a late ancient best-seller attested in multiple linguistic and religious traditions."

Language/Tradition	Version	Date
Latin	Fredegar's Chronicle	c. 660 CE
Greek	Theophanes, various	9th century
Syriac	Michael the Syrian, Chronicle of Zuqnīn	12th century / 8th century
Coptic	History of the Patriarchs	before 717 CE
Arabic	Islamic tradition (al-Ṭabarī, etc.)	9th-10th centuries
Georgian	Various	Medieval
Ethiopic	Various	Medieval

The legend was everywhere. It was not a historical report; it was a literary topos that traveled across linguistic and religious boundaries.

2.2 The Earliest Version: Fredegar's Chronicle (c. 660 CE)

The earliest surviving version of the legend is preserved in the Latin chronicle attributed to Fredegar (c. 660 CE). In this version:

• Heraclius learns through astrology that "circumcised peoples" will destroy his empire

• He orders the forced baptism of all Jews in the Frankish kingdom (through King Dagobert) and throughout the empire

• The prophecy is fulfilled not by the Jews but by the Arabs

Stefan Esders has recently demonstrated that this version ultimately derives from a Christian Palestinian Aramaic original via a Greek intermediary. The legend was not invented in Egypt; it was imported from Palestine.

2.3 The Variants: How the Legend Was Adapted

Shaddel notes a crucial point: each version of the legend adapts the story to its own context:

"All of the many versions of the story somehow associate the de facto annulment of the decree with the emergence of Islam, but each in a different way. The version preserved for us in The History of the Patriarchs is, therefore, just another version of the legend the individual(s) responsible for which had the freedom to choose from the multiple versions in existence and may have, in the process, decided to craft the story in a new way."

This means that the History of the Patriarchs version cannot be treated as an independent witness. It is one branch of a legendary tree, and its claim that Muhammad personally led the conquest of Damascus may reflect the specific literary choices of its Coptic compiler, not a genuine historical memory.

---

Part 3: The Theological Agenda — Why the Story Was Told

3.1 The Anti-Chalcedonian Polemic

The History of the Patriarchs was written by Coptic Christians who rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE). The passage explicitly states that the Romans lost because of "their corrupt faith and the excommunication that was brought against them and because of the Council of Chalcedon."

The theological message is clear: God abandoned the Chalcedonian Romans to the Arabs because they had abandoned the true (Miaphysite) faith. The rise of Islam was not a historical accident; it was divine punishment for heresy.

3.2 The Typological Structure

The legend follows a typological pattern:

Element	Typological Significance
Heraclius's dream	Divine warning
Mistaken identification (Jews)	Human error
Forced baptism	Persecution of God's people
Muhammad's arrival	Divine punishment
Arab conquest	Fulfillment of prophecy

The story is structured to teach a theological lesson, not to record historical facts. The details — including Muhammad's "possession" of Damascus — are subordinate to that lesson.

3.3 The Problem of the "Few Short Days"

The text states that "after a few days" (baʿd ayyām yasīra) — an indeterminate but short period — Muhammad appeared and conquered the empire. This is chronologically impossible. The forced baptisms occurred in 632 CE. Damascus fell in 635 CE — three years later. In Coptic legend, this interval is compressed to "a few days" for narrative effect.

If the chronicler compressed three years into "a few days," why should we trust the claim that Muhammad personally led the conquest?

---

Part 4: Metonymy — "Muhammad" as a Synecdoche for "the Muslims"

4.1 What Is Metonymy?

Metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one thing is used to refer to something else with which it is closely associated. For example, "the White House announced" means "the President announced." "Damascus fell" means "the city of Damascus was conquered by the Muslims."

The same principle applies here. When George the Archdeacon wrote that "Muhammad took possession of Damascus and Syria," he meant "the followers of Muhammad took possession of Damascus and Syria."

4.2 Parallel Examples in Other Sources

Source	Phrase	Meaning
Thomas the Presbyter (640 CE)	"Arabs of Muhammad"	Followers of Muhammad
Khuzistan Chronicle (660 CE)	"Their leader was Muhammad"	Founder of the movement
Chronicle of 705	"First king of the Arabs, Muhammad"	The founder of the polity
Chronicle of 724	"Muhammad the messenger of God"	The prophet whose name they invoke

In none of these sources does the author claim that Muhammad was personally present on the battlefield. They use his name as a shorthand for the movement he founded.

Schoeler confirms this:

"In the expression 'Muḥammad took possession of Damascus', therefore, a kind of metonymy is probably used; as with 'the Arabs of Muḥammad' (in the text attributed to Thomas the presbyter), those who follow him or belong to his group/religion will be meant here, not he himself."

4.3 Why Metonymy Is the Most Plausible Reading

1. The Pattern in Contemporary Sources: Thomas the Presbyter (640 CE) calls the invaders "Arabs of Muhammad." He does not claim Muhammad was present. The Khuzistan Chronicle (660 CE) calls Muhammad "their leader" but does not describe him on the battlefield. The pattern is consistent: Muhammad is the founder, the leader, the figurehead — but not the field commander.

2. The Speed of the Conquests: Damascus fell in September 635 CE — only three years after Muhammad's death. The news of his death may not have spread widely. Outsiders naturally assumed that the man whose name was invoked by the conquerors was still alive. The History of the Patriarchs reflects this assumption — not historical reality.

3. The Ubiquity of Muhammad's Name: The Muslim armies invoked Muhammad constantly. They prayed in his name. They called him "messenger of God." They organized around his teachings. To an outsider, it would have seemed obvious that he was the leader. But leadership does not require personal presence.

---

Part 5: The Date of Damascus — Three Years After Muhammad's Death

5.1 The Traditional Date

The Islamic sources unanimously agree that Damascus fell in Rajab of 14 AH (September 635 CE). This is:

• Three years after Muhammad's death (632 CE)

• Two years after Abū Bakr's death (634 CE)

• During the caliphate of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb

The commander of the Muslim forces was Khalid ibn al-Walid, not Muhammad.

5.2 The Rapid Spread of the Conquests

The Arab conquests spread with astonishing speed:

Year	Conquest	Distance from Medina
633 CE	Iraq (al-Ḥīra)	~800 km
634 CE	Southern Palestine (Dāthin)	~1,200 km
635 CE	Damascus	~1,300 km
636 CE	Yarmūk, Jerusalem	~1,300 km

Within four years of Muhammad's death, the Arabs had conquered the richest provinces of the Roman and Persian empires. The news of his death — which occurred in a small city in Arabia — would have spread slowly. Many outsiders, including the Coptic compiler of the History of the Patriarchs, may never have heard that he had died.

5.3 The "Muhammad" That the Copts Knew

The Copts of Egypt encountered the Muslim conquerors in 639-642 CE — seven to ten years after Muhammad's death. By that time, the Islamic movement was well-established, its rituals were codified, and its invocation of Muhammad was constant. But the Copts had no way of knowing the precise chronology of his life. They assumed that the man whose name the conquerors invoked was still alive.

The History of the Patriarchs reflects this understandable assumption — not historical reality.

---

Part 6: Shoemaker's Omissions — What He Doesn't Tell You

6.1 The Legendary Nature of the Source

Shoemaker presents the History of the Patriarchs as a straightforward historical source. He fails to mention that the passage is embedded in a legendary narrative — the dream of Heraclius — that is attested in multiple versions across multiple languages.

Shaddel's critique is damning:

"What Shoemaker fails to tell his reader, however, is that the legend of Heraclius's dream (or, in some versions, prophecy) and its association with the forced baptism of the Jews, on the one hand, and the Muslim invasion of Byzantine territories, on the other, was a late ancient best-seller attested in multiple linguistic and religious traditions, very few if any of which could have had any solid anchoring in reality."

6.2 The Problem of the "Few Short Days"

Shoemaker does not address the chronological compression in the narrative. The forced baptisms occurred in 632 CE; Damascus fell in 635 CE. The text collapses this interval into "a few days." If the compiler was willing to compress three years into "a few days," why should we trust his claim that Muhammad personally led the conquest?

6.3 The Theological Agenda

Shoemaker mentions the reference to the Council of Chalcedon but does not explore its implications. The History of the Patriarchs was written by Coptic Christians who rejected Chalcedon. Their account of the conquests is shaped by their theological conflict with the Roman Empire. The claim that Muhammad conquered Damascus is subordinate to the larger argument: that God punished the Chalcedonians by delivering their lands to the Arabs.

This is not neutral historiography. This is polemical theology.

Shaddel's statement is definitive:

"Whilst the reference to Muḥammad may have indeed come from elsewhere, the problematic nature of the evidence renders any inferences drawn from it of suspect value."

The prophet who did not conquer was still the founder of the movement that conquered. And the Copts, writing a century later, attributed the conquest to him — as any good polemicist would. But their attribution is not history. It is legend.

Section VII: The Spanish Chronicles — 618, 666, and the Number of the Beast

In early 8th-century Spain, two Latin chronicles were written that contain some of the earliest Western European references to Muhammad. The Chronicles of 741 and 754 draw on a common source — what Shoemaker calls the "Spanish Eastern Source" — most likely a Greek chronicle written in Syria around 741 CE.

Both chronicles place the beginning of the Arab rebellion in 618 CE (the 7th year of Heraclius, Era 656 of the Spanish calendar). Both give Muhammad a 10-year reign, which would place his death in 628 CE (Era 666 of the Spanish calendar).

Shoemaker seizes upon this as evidence. He argues that the Spanish Eastern Source "clearly preserves the tradition of Muhammad's leadership at the beginning of the Islamic conquest of Syro-Palestine." He notes that the source is remarkably favorable to Islam, with "no trace of any apology or polemic," and suggests that it may derive from early Islamic (Umayyad?) historical traditions.

But Shoemaker misses the crucial detail that Clinton Bennett and Michelina de Cesare have highlighted: Era 666 — the year of Muhammad's death in the Spanish calendar — is the Number of the Beast from the Book of Revelation. The Chronicle situates Muhammad's death in an eschatological context, associating him with the Antichrist. This is not neutral history. This is apocalyptic polemic.

Moreover, the date 618 CE is not a historical memory of Muhammad's "rebellion." It is the result of calendar confusion and telescoping. The chroniclers, working with the Hijri calendar (which begins in 622 CE) and the Spanish Era (which begins in 38 BCE), calculated backward and arrived at 618 CE — two years after the Hijra. They then added Muhammad's 10-year reign, arriving at 628 CE (Era 666) for his death.

The Spanish Chronicles do not provide independent evidence for a late-living Muhammad. They provide evidence of how 8th-century Spanish Christians — far from the events, working with limited information, and writing within an apocalyptic framework — interpreted the rise of Islam. Their chronology is schematic, their dating is legendary, and their association of Muhammad with the Number of the Beast is polemical.

---

Part 1: The Two Chronicles — What They Say and When They Were Written

1.1 The Chronicle of 741

The Chronicle of 741 is a Latin chronicle written in Spain. It draws on a common source — the "Spanish Eastern Source" — most likely a Greek chronicle written in Syria around 741 CE.

The Key Passage (741 Chronicle):

"When a most numerous multitude of Saracens had gathered together, they invaded the provinces of Syria, Arabia, and Mesopotamia. Above them, holding the leadership, was one Mahmet by name. Born of a most noble tribe of that people, he was a very prudent man and a foreseer of a good many future events."

The chronicle then notes that Muhammad ruled for 10 years, after which he died and was succeeded by Abū Bakr.

1.2 The Chronicle of 754

The Chronicle of 754 (also known as the Hispanic Chronicle of 754) is longer and more polemical. It covers events up to 754 CE and includes extensive material on Spain.

The Key Passage (754 Chronicle):

"The Saracens rebelled in the era 656 (618 CE), the seventh year of the emperor Heraclius, and appropriated for themselves Syria, Arabia, and Mesopotamia, more through the trickery than through the power of their leader Muhammad. "

The chronicle then notes that after Muhammad completed his tenth year, Abū Bakr succeeded him.

1.3 The Common Source: The "Spanish Eastern Source"

Both chronicles draw on a common source, which scholars call the "Spanish Eastern Source." This source was most likely:

• Written in Greek (the language of cultural exchange between East and West)

• Composed in Syria (given its detailed knowledge of Umayyad politics)

• Written around 741 CE (the date of its final entry)

• Based on earlier sources, possibly including a lost Syriac chronicle

Theodor Nöldeke first proposed this theory. Robert Hoyland has developed it, noting that the source's positive treatment of the Umayyads and omission of ʿAlī suggest a Syrian, pro-Umayyad origin.

---

Part 2: The Date 618 — Where Does It Come From?

2.1 The Chronicle's Dating System

The Chronicles both date events using the Spanish Era (Era of the Caesars), which began on 1 January 38 BCE. To convert a Spanish Era date to CE, subtract 38.

Spanish Era	CE Equivalent
656	618 CE
666	628 CE

The chronicle places the beginning of the Saracen rebellion in Era 656 (618 CE) and Muhammad's death (after 10 years of rule) in Era 666 (628 CE).

2.2 Why 618? The Problem of the Hijra

The traditional date of the Hijra is 622 CE. If the chronicler placed the beginning of the Arab rebellion in 618 CE, he was off by 4 years. Why?

The most likely explanation is calendar confusion. The chronicler knew that the Muslim calendar began with the Hijra (622 CE). He knew that the Muslims counted years from that event. But he did not know that the Hijri year is lunar, not solar.

As we have seen in previous sections, 8th-century Christian chroniclers often struggled with the conversion between lunar and solar calendars. A difference of 4 years (618 vs. 622) is consistent with this type of error.

2.3 The Role of the Spanish Era

The Spanish Era began in 38 BCE. The chronicler's calculation may have been:

• Hijra = 622 CE = Spanish Era 660 (622+38)

• But he may have had a different starting point for the Muslim calendar

• Or he may have been using a source that dated the Hijra differently

The exact cause of the 4-year discrepancy is unclear. But what is clear is that the chronicler was not working with accurate chronological data. His dates cannot be trusted as evidence for Muhammad's lifespan.

---

Part 3: The Date 666 — The Number of the Beast

3.1 Revelation 13:18

The Book of Revelation states:

"Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666." (Revelation 13:18)

In Christian apocalyptic tradition, 666 is the number of the Antichrist — the false prophet who will deceive the nations before the end of the world.

The Chronicles both place Muhammad's death in Era 666 — 628 CE.

3.2 Is This a Coincidence?

Clinton Bennett and Michelina de Cesare have argued that this is not a coincidence. The chronicler deliberately associated Muhammad with the Number of the Beast.

Bennett writes:

"Most relevant for Christian-Muslim relations, apart from the two works' religiously neutral tone, is the date 666 given for Muḥammad's death. Initially in Iberia, but later well beyond, this fed into ideas that associated Muḥammad with the beast of the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel in various ways."

De Cesare adds:

"It is also interesting to note that the Muzarabic Chronicle situates Muḥammad's figure and his military undertakings in an eschatological context, as shown by the emphasis on the number 666, the era during which Muḥammad died, and which also corresponds to the name of the Antichrist."

3.3 The Eschatological Framework of the Chronicle

The Chronicles are not a neutral historical record. It is written within an apocalyptic framework. Their authors believed that the rise of Islam was a sign of the end times — and that Muhammad was a false prophet, possibly the Antichrist.

The use of 666 is a clue. The chronicler did not accidentally arrive at this number. He shaped his chronology to associate Muhammad with the beast of Revelation.

Date	Spanish Era	Significance
Muhammad's death	666	Number of the Beast
Beginning of rebellion	656	10 years before 666 (10-year reign)

The 10-year reign (656 to 666) is also schematic. It mirrors the 10 horns of Daniel's fourth beast.

This is not history. This is apocalyptic numerology.

---

Part 4: The Two-Stage Conquest — Harmonizing Traditions or Creating a Narrative?

4.1 What the Spanish Eastern Source Presents

The Spanish Eastern Source presents the conquests in two stages:

Stage	Leader	Target
1	Muhammad	Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia (Roman provinces)
2	Abū Bakr	Persia

Shoemaker argues that this two-stage structure reflects the author's attempt to harmonize an earlier tradition (Muhammad's leadership of the conquest of Palestine) with an emerging Islamic tradition (Abū Bakr's leadership of the conquest of Persia).

4.2 The Problem with This Interpretation

There is no evidence that an "earlier tradition" of Muhammad's leadership existed independently of the chronicler's own construction. The two-stage structure could just as easily be explained as the chronicler's attempt to make sense of limited information.

What the chronicler knew:

• The Arabs conquered Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia

• The Arabs conquered Persia

• The conquests occurred under the leadership of Muhammad and his successors

What the chronicler did not know:

• The precise chronology of the conquests

• The date of Muhammad's death

• The relationship between Muhammad and the caliphs

Given his limited data, the chronicler constructed a plausible narrative: Muhammad led the first wave of conquests (against the Romans), and Abū Bakr led the second wave (against the Persians). This is not evidence of an "earlier tradition." It is evidence of the chronicler's creativity.

4.3 The Polemical Purpose of the Two-Stage Structure

The two-stage structure also serves a polemical purpose. By placing the conquest of Roman territory under Muhammad's leadership, the chronicler can criticize him as a "rebel" who "stirred up rebellion" through "trickery" and "fraud." The conquest of Persia, by contrast, is described as a massive campaign — but it is placed under Abū Bakr, not Muhammad.

The structure allows the chronicler to diminish Muhammad's role (he only conquered Roman lands through trickery) while still accounting for the full scope of Arab expansion.

---

Part 5: The "Trickery" and "Fraud" Trope — A Literary Topos

5.1 What the Chronicle of 754 Says

The Chronicle of 754 states that the Saracens appropriated the provinces "more through the trickery than through the power of their leader Muhammad" and that they proceeded "not so much by means of open attacks as by secret incursions."

This is a polemical trope. It denies that the Arab victories were legitimate. It attributes them to deception, not military skill or divine favor.

5.2 The Purpose of the Trope

The "trickery" trope served multiple purposes:

Purpose	Explanation
Deny legitimacy	The Arabs did not win fairly
Explain defeat	How could a small force defeat the empire? By cheating
Diminish Muhammad	He was not a great leader; he was a fraud
Avoid divine causation	If the Arabs won by trickery, God did not favor them

This is not neutral history. This is polemic disguised as reportage.

---

Part 6: What the Spanish Chronicles Actually Prove

6.1 What They Confirm

Despite their chronological errors and polemical framing, the Spanish Chronicles confirm several facts:

• Muhammad was known as the leader of the Arabs in 8th-century Spain

• He was believed to have initiated the conquest of Syria and Palestine

• His followers revered him as a prophet

• The conquests occurred under his name and authority

All of this is consistent with the Islamic tradition. None of it requires Muhammad to have been alive in 634 CE.

6.2 What They Do NOT Confirm

The Spanish Chronicles do NOT confirm:

• That Muhammad was still alive during the conquest of Palestine

• That he personally led any military campaign

• That the conquests began in 618 CE

• That the chroniclers had access to accurate chronological data

The date 618 is the result of calendar confusion. The date 666 is apocalyptic numerology. The two-stage structure is a narrative construction, not a historical memory.

6.3 The Apocalyptic Framework

The most important aspect of the Spanish Chronicles is their apocalyptic framework. They associate Muhammad's death with the Number of the Beast. It presents the rise of Islam as a sign of the end times.

This is not the perspective of a neutral observer. It is the perspective of a Christian writer who saw the Islamic conquests as a divine punishment — and Muhammad as a false prophet.

The Spanish Chronicles do not support the revisionist thesis. They support the traditional Islamic narrative: Muhammad was a prophet whose followers conquered the world after his death. But they overlay that narrative with an apocalyptic interpretation that is uniquely Christian.

Clinton Bennett's observation is crucial:

"The date 666 given for Muḥammad's death... fed into ideas that associated Muḥammad with the beast of the Book of Revelation."

The Spanish Chronicles have spoken. But their voice is not the voice of revisionism. It is the voice of 8th-century Christian apocalypticism, filtered through the lens of the Spanish Era, shaped by the Number of the Beast, and directed toward a polemical purpose: to show that the rise of Islam was a sign of the end times, and that Muhammad was a false prophet.

Section VIII: Theophilus of Edessa — The Christian Astrologer Who Got It Right

Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785 CE) was a Maronite Christian scholar who served as court astrologer to the Abbasid caliph al-Mahdī (r. 775-785 CE). He was fluent in Greek and Syriac, translated Homer into Syriac, and wrote extensively on astrology. He also composed a universal chronicle — now lost — that became the foundation for later works in Greek, Syriac, and Arabic.

This lost chronicle — often called the "Syriac Common Source" — can be reconstructed from its descendants: Theophanes (Greek, 9th century), Agapius (Arabic, 10th century), Michael the Syrian (Syriac, 12th century), and the Chronicle of 1234 (Syriac, 13th century). Through these witnesses, we can recover what Theophilus wrote about Muhammad and the early conquests.

Shoemaker seizes upon Theophilus's account as evidence that Muhammad personally led the conquest of Palestine. He cites the Chronicle of 1234's version, in which Muhammad leads raiding parties, grows wealthy, and then withdraws to Medina while his followers continue the conquests.

But Theophilus's account does not contradict the Islamic tradition. It confirms it.

The expeditions Theophilus describes — Muhammad leading raids, sending out companions, the involvement of Zayd (Muhammad's adopted son) and Usāma (Zayd's son) — are precisely the expeditions recorded in Islamic sources: Mu'ta (where Zayd was killed), Tabūk, and Usāma ibn Zayd's campaign. Theophilus's "two-stage" structure — Muhammad leading initial raids, then withdrawing while his followers conquer — reflects the historical reality of Muhammad's lifetime: he led expeditions against the Roman frontier, but the major conquests of Syria and Persia occurred after his death.

Theophilus of Edessa is not a witness to a late-living Muhammad. He is a witness to the rapid spread of accurate information about Muhammad's life — including his pre-prophetic career as a merchant, his early raids, and his strategic delegation of command — within a century of his death.

---

Part 1: Theophilus of Edessa — Who He Was and What He Wrote

1.1 A Christian at the Abbasid Court

Theophilus of Edessa was a Maronite Christian who rose to prominence in the Abbasid court. His career spanned the caliphates of al-Mahdī (775-785 CE), al-Hādī (785-786 CE), and Hārūn al-Rashīd (786-809 CE). He was trusted by the caliphs, served as court astrologer, and was commissioned to translate Greek works into Syriac.

His position gave him access to sources unavailable to other Christian chroniclers. He could read Arabic, converse with Muslims, and consult official records. His chronicle reflects this unique vantage point.

1.2 The Lost Chronicle and Its Descendants

Theophilus's chronicle is lost, but it can be reconstructed from four later works:

Descendant	Language	Date	Relationship to Theophilus
Theophanes	Greek	9th century	Used a Greek translation of Theophilus
Agapius	Arabic	10th century	Abridged Theophilus, supplemented with Muslim sources
Michael the Syrian	Syriac	12th century	Used Dionysius of Tellmahre's chronicle, which preserved Theophilus
Chronicle of 1234	Syriac	13th century	Most faithful witness to Dionysius, thus to Theophilus

Robert Hoyland summarizes the situation:

"Theophanes almost totally ignores Theophilus for his notice on Muhammad, drawing instead, indirectly, on Jewish and Muslim sources. Agapius abridges Theophilus, as he himself acknowledges, and supplements him with material from the Muslim tradition. That leaves Dionysius, who seems to me to best preserve Theophilus's entry."

Thus, the most reliable witness to Theophilus's account of Muhammad is the Chronicle of 1234.

---

Part 2: Theophilus's Account of Muhammad — What It Says

2.1 The Chronicle of 1234's Version

The Chronicle of 1234 records:

"This Muhammad, while in the measure and stature of youth, began to go up and come down from his city Yathrib to Palestine for the business of buying and selling. And while he was engaged in this region, he encountered the belief in one God, and it was pleasing to his eyes. And when he went back down to the people of his tribe, he set this belief before them, and when he persuaded a few, they followed him. And at the same time he would also extol for them the excellence of the land of Palestine, saying that 'Because of belief in the one God, such a good and fertile land has been given to them.' And he would add, 'If you will listen to me, God will also give you a fine land flowing with milk and honey.' And when he wanted to prove his word, he led a band of those who were obedient to him, and he began to go up and plunder the land of Palestine, taking captives and pillaging. And he returned, laden [with booty] and unharmed, and he did not fall short of his promise to them."

2.2 The Two-Stage Structure

The account continues:

"Since the love of possessions drives such behavior to become a habit, they began continually going out and coming back for plunder. And when those who were not yet following him saw those who had submitted to him becoming wealthy with an abundance of riches, they were drawn to his service without compulsion. And when, after these [raids], the men following him became numerous and were a great force, he no longer [went forth but] allowed them to raid while he sat in honor in Yathrib, his city. And once they had been sent out, it was not enough for them to remain only in Palestine, but they were going much further afield, killing openly, taking captives, laying waste, and pillaging. And even this was not enough for them, but they forced them to pay tribute and enslaved them. Thus they gradually grew strong and spread abroad, and they grew so powerful that they subjugated almost all the land of the Romans and the kingdom of the Persians under their authority."

The two-stage structure is clear:

Stage	Leader	Activity
1	Muhammad personally	Leads initial raids into Palestine
2	Muhammad's followers (after his withdrawal)	Expand conquests to Roman and Persian territories

2.3 The Chronicle of Siirt's Confirmation

The Chronicle of Siirt (10th century Arabic) — which also depends on Theophilus — confirms the two-stage structure:

"And Muhammad ibn ʿAbdullah was a strong and powerful leader. In the eighteenth year of Heraclius [627/28], the year in which Ardasir the son of Siroe the son of Khosro Parvez reigned [629/30], the Arabs began their conquests, and Islam became powerful. And after that Muhammad no longer went forth in battle, and he began to send out his companions. "

---

Part 3: How Theophilus's Account Aligns with Islamic Tradition

3.1 Muhammad as a Merchant

Theophilus's account begins with Muhammad traveling from Yathrib (Medina) to Palestine for trade. This aligns perfectly with the Islamic biographical tradition (sīrah), which records that Muhammad traveled to Syria as a young man with his uncle Abū Ṭālib and later led caravans for Khadījah.

The Islamic tradition:

• Muhammad traveled to Syria as a merchant before his prophethood

• He gained exposure to monotheistic beliefs during these journeys

• His reputation for honesty (al-Amīn) was established through trade

Theophilus's version: Muhammad "encountered the belief in one God" during his travels. This is precisely the Islamic understanding: Muhammad was a ḥanīf — a natural monotheist — who recognized the truth of Abrahamic faith.

3.2 The Early Raids: Mu'ta and the Expeditions to the Roman Frontier

Theophilus states that Muhammad led initial raids into Palestine, then withdrew and sent his companions. Which expeditions does this refer to?

Expedition	Date	Leader	Target	Result
Mu'ta	September 629	Zayd ibn Ḥārithah (appointed by Muhammad)	Ghassānid/Roman forces	Muslim defeat, tactical withdrawal
Dhāt al-Salāsil	629-630	ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (sent by Muhammad)	Quḍāʿa tribes	Victory
Tabūk	October 630	Muhammad personally	Roman/Ghassānid forces	Show of force; no battle
Usāma ibn Zayd's campaign	May-June 632	Usāma ibn Zayd (appointed by Muhammad on his deathbed)	Region of Mu'ta	Prepared but not fully executed before Muhammad's death

The pattern is clear: Muhammad personally led some expeditions (Tabūk) and appointed commanders for others (Mu'ta, Dhāt al-Salāsil, Usāma's campaign). After his death, the conquests continued under Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān.

Theophilus's account reflects this pattern: Muhammad led initial raids, then "no longer went forth in battle" and "began to send out his companions."

3.3 The Strategic Withdrawal to Medina

Theophilus states that after the initial raids, Muhammad "sat in honor in Yathrib, his city" while his followers continued the conquests. This is consistent with the Islamic tradition, which records that Muhammad delegated command in the later years of his life.

The strategic logic:

• Muhammad's presence was needed in Medina to manage the growing community

• He appointed experienced commanders to lead expeditions

• He provided strategic guidance but did not always accompany the troops

The famous example is the expedition to Tabūk (630 CE): Muhammad personally led the army, but when faced with a difficult situation, he consulted his commanders. The expedition to Mu'ta (629 CE) was led by Zayd, Jaʿfar, and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Rawāḥah — not by Muhammad.

3.4 Zayd and Usāma — The Family Connection

Theophilus does not name Zayd or Usāma, but his account of Muhammad "sending out his companions" fits perfectly with the tradition of Zayd (Muhammad's adopted son) and Usāma (Zayd's son) being appointed to command.

The Islamic tradition:

• Zayd ibn Ḥārithah was one of the earliest converts and a trusted companion

• Muhammad appointed him to command the expedition to Mu'ta

• Zayd was killed in the battle

• On his deathbed, Muhammad appointed Usāma ibn Zayd to lead a campaign to avenge his father

Theophilus's account: Muhammad withdrew and allowed his followers to raid while he sat in Medina. This is exactly what happened: after Mu'ta, Muhammad remained in Medina, sent out expeditions under his companions, and on his deathbed appointed Usāma to lead a campaign.

---

Part 4: Shoemaker's Misreading — What Theophilus Does Not Say

4.1 The "Two-Stage" Structure as Harmonization

Shoemaker argues that Theophilus's two-stage structure reflects an attempt to harmonize an "earlier tradition" of Muhammad's leadership with an "emerging Islamic tradition" that separated him from the conquests.

But this is speculation, not evidence. Theophilus had access to Islamic sources. He may have learned from them that Muhammad died before the major conquests. His two-stage structure may reflect that knowledge — not an attempt to harmonize contradictory traditions.

Moreover, the Islamic tradition itself has a two-stage structure:

Stage	Period	Leader	Activity
1	622-632 CE	Muhammad	Consolidation of Medina, expeditions to Roman frontier
2	632-661 CE	Caliphs (Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, ʿAlī)	Conquest of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Persia

Theophilus's account aligns with the Islamic tradition, not against it.

4.2 The "Merchant" Narrative as Polemic

Shoemaker acknowledges that Theophilus's account is "not free from polemic." The Chronicle of 1234's version implies that Muhammad derived his religious ideas from encounters with Jews and Christians during his trade journeys — a classic Christian polemical trope.

But this polemic does not affect the core historical claim. Whether Muhammad derived his monotheism from Christian or Jewish sources (as Christians claimed) or from divine revelation (as Muslims claimed) is a theological question, not a historical one. The historical fact is that Muhammad did travel to Syria as a merchant — and Theophilus's account confirms this.

4.3 The Date of the Raids

The Chronicle of Siirt dates the beginning of the conquests to 627/628 CE (the 18th year of Heraclius) — before the traditional date of Muhammad's death. Shoemaker seizes upon this as evidence that Muhammad was still alive during the conquest of Palestine.

But the Chronicle of Siirt's date is schematic, not historical. As we have seen in previous sections, 8th-century Christian chroniclers often struggled with calendar conversions. The date 627/628 may reflect a miscalculation, not a historical memory.

More importantly, the Chronicle of Siirt explicitly states that "after that Muhammad no longer went forth in battle, and he began to send out his companions." This is consistent with the Islamic tradition: Muhammad sent expeditions during his lifetime, but the major conquests occurred after his death.

---

Part 5: What Theophilus Actually Proves

5.1 Confirmation of Islamic Tradition

Despite its polemical framing, Theophilus's account confirms several core elements of Islamic tradition:

Element	Islamic Tradition	Theophilus's Account
Muhammad as a merchant	Traveled to Syria for trade	"Began to go up and come down... for the business of buying and selling"
Exposure to monotheism	Encountered Jews and Christians	"Encountered the belief in one God"
Promise of land	Qur'anic promise of inheritance	"God will also give you a fine land flowing with milk and honey"
Initial raids	Mu'ta, Dhat al-Salāsil, Tabūk	"He led a band... to go up and plunder the land of Palestine"
Delegation of command	Appointed Zayd, Usāma, others	"He no longer went forth in battle, and he began to send out his companions"
Conquests after his death	Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān	"They subjugated almost all the land of the Romans and the kingdom of the Persians"

5.2 The "Two-Stage" Structure as Historical Reality

Theophilus's two-stage structure is not a harmonization of contradictory traditions. It is an accurate reflection of the historical reality:

Stage 1 (Muhammad's lifetime, 622-632 CE):

• Consolidation of the Medinan state

• Raids on Quraysh caravans

• Expeditions to the Roman frontier (Mu'ta, Tabūk)

• Preparation of Usāma's campaign

Stage 2 (Caliphal period, 632-661 CE):

• Conquest of Syria and Palestine under Abū Bakr and ʿUmar

• Conquest of Persia under ʿUmar

• Conquest of Egypt under ʿUmar and ʿUthmān

• Naval campaigns under Muʿāwiya

Theophilus's account captures this distinction. He does not claim that Muhammad led the conquest of Jerusalem or Damascus. He claims that Muhammad led initial raids — and that the major conquests were carried out by his followers.

5.3 The Limits of Theophilus's Knowledge

Theophilus wrote in the 8th century, 150 years after Muhammad's death. He had access to Islamic sources, but his knowledge was not perfect. His chronology is schematic, his theology is polemical, and his understanding of Islamic practices is limited.

But his account is remarkably accurate for a Christian writer of his time. He correctly identified:

• Muhammad's pre-prophetic career as a merchant

• His exposure to monotheistic beliefs

• His role as a leader of raids

• His delegation of command to companions

• The conquests of Roman and Persian territories

Theophilus of Edessa is not a witness to a late-living Muhammad. He is a witness to the spread of accurate information about Muhammad's life within a century of his death.

Theophilus's account is valuable not because it supports revisionism — but because it shows how quickly and accurately information about Muhammad spread beyond the Islamic world. Within 150 years of his death, a Christian scholar in the Abbasid court could write a summary of his life that aligns with the Islamic tradition on every major point.

The prophet who did not conquer was still the founder of the movement that conquered. And Theophilus of Edessa — the astrologer who served the caliph — knew it.

Theophilus has spoken. His voice, refracted through Syriac, Greek, and Arabic chronicles, is not the voice of revisionism. It is the voice of a Christian scholar who got the story right — and who confirms, not contradicts, the Islamic tradition.

Section IX: The Short Chronicle of 775 — When Chronology Collapses

The Short Syriac Chronicle of 775 (also known as the "Account of the Generations, Races, and Years from Adam until the Present Day") is a brief, anonymous chronicle preserved in a single manuscript. It runs quickly through biblical figures, lists Roman emperors with their reign lengths, and then — when it reaches the seventh century — interrupts the reign of Heraclius to note the Islamic conquests. It then lists Arab caliphs from Muhammad to al-Mahdī (who acceded in 775 CE, the likely date of the chronicle's completion).

Shoemaker seizes upon this chronicle as evidence that Muhammad was leading the Islamic invasion of the Roman Near East. He notes that the chronicle identifies Muhammad as the leader, that the date is early (before the Hijra), and that the information is "conveyed without polemic and in the absence of any sort of apologetic agenda."

But Shoemaker glosses over a crucial fact that he himself acknowledges: the chronicler's knowledge of early seventh-century chronology was "rather poor." 

If the chronicler got the reigns of Maurice (27 years, 6 months — actually 20 years) and Heraclius (24 years — actually 31 years) wrong — emperors who ruled for decades and whose reigns were well-documented — why should we trust his dates for Muhammad, a figure about whom he would have had far less information?

The date AG 930 (618/619 CE) appears in this chronicle and in a Syriac inscription from a north Syrian church. Scholars have speculated about its origin, but it remains a mystery. The most plausible explanation is that it results from calendar confusion and schematic dating — not from historical memory.

The Short Chronicle of 775 is not an independent witness to a late-living Muhammad. It is a witness to the chronological chaos of 8th-century Syriac historiography.

---

Part 1: The Chronicle — What It Says and When It Was Written

1.1 The Structure of the Chronicle

The Short Chronicle of 775 follows a simple structure:

Section	Content
1	Biblical generations (brief)
2	Roman emperors with reign lengths
3	Interruption: Islamic conquests
4	Arab caliphs with reign lengths
5	Continuation to 775 CE

The key passage for our purposes is the transition from Roman to Arab rule:

"Maurice, 27 years and 6 months; Phocas, 8 years; Heraclius, 24 years. In the year 930 of Alexander, Heraclius and the Romans entered Constantinople. And Muhammad and the Arabs went forth from the south and entered the land and subdued it. The years of the Hagarenes and the time when they entered Syria and took control, from the year 933 of Alexander."

1.2 The Date of the Chronicle

The chronicle ends with the accession of Caliph al-Mahdī in 775 CE. This is almost certainly the date of its composition. The author was a Syriac Christian living in the region of Edessa or northern Mesopotamia.

1.3 The Mystery of AG 930

AG 930 (Seleucid year 930) corresponds to 618/619 CE. This is:

• Before the Hijra (622 CE)

• Before any major Muslim military activity

Andrew Palmer writes:

"Perhaps the most peculiar item of all is the implication that the Islamic conquest of Palestine took place in the year 618/19. While some of the Christian historical sources place the Islamic conquests before 632, none of them locates it this early: the date precedes even the hijra by three years."

A Syriac inscription from a north Syrian church dated to 780 CE confirms the same date: "In the year 930 the Arabs came to the land."

The date is consistent across two sources. But that does not mean it is correct.

---

Part 2: The Chronological Chaos — Roman Emperors Who Ruled for the Wrong Amounts of Time

2.1 The Chronicle's Roman Reign Lengths

Emperor	Chronicle's Reign	Historical Reign	Error
Maurice	27 years, 6 months	20 years	+7 years, 6 months
Phocas	8 years	8 years	✅ Accurate
Heraclius	24 years	30 years	-7 years

Only Phocas — the usurper who reigned for 8 years — is correct. The chronicler got the reign lengths of Maurice and Heraclius significantly wrong. These were emperors who ruled for decades, whose reigns were well-documented in chronicles and church histories.

2.2 What This Reveals About the Chronicler's Sources

If the chronicler could not get the reign lengths of Roman emperors right — emperors whose reigns were recorded in the chronicles he was using — then his knowledge of early seventh-century chronology was severely limited.

Andrew Palmer's assessment is damning:

"This text is full of oddities. Of the Byzantine emperors only Phocas reigned for a period approximately equivalent to that shown here."

The chronicler had no reliable source for the reign lengths of Maurice and Heraclius. He guessed — and guessed wrong.

2.3 The Implication for Muhammad's Dates

If the chronicler was wrong about Maurice and Heraclius, why should we trust his dates for Muhammad?

The chronicler had far less information about Muhammad than about Roman emperors. The Roman emperors were part of the chronicler's own historiographical tradition. He had access to chronicles that recorded their reigns — and he still got the lengths wrong. Muhammad was a foreign figure from a foreign religion. The chronicler's information about him would have been even less reliable.

If the chronicle gets Roman emperors wrong, Muslims are not safe.

---

Part 3: The Date AG 930 — Where Did It Come From?

3.1 The Possible Explanations

Scholars have proposed several explanations for the date AG 930:

Explanation	Proponents	Plausibility
Calendar confusion (lunar/solar)	Shaddel	High
Schematic dating (round numbers)	Nöldeke	High
Survival of an earlier chronicle error	Brooks	Medium
Historical memory of a specific event	Palmer (speculative)	Low

The most plausible explanation is calendar confusion.

3.2 The Lunar/Solar Calculation

As we have seen in previous sections, 8th-century Christian chroniclers often struggled with the difference between lunar and solar years. The chronicler writing in 775 CE knew that the Hijra had occurred "153 years ago" (153 AH). He may have subtracted 153 from his present year (AG 1087) and arrived at AG 934 — close to AG 933, the actual Hijra date. But then he may have made further adjustments, arriving at AG 930.

The difference of 3-4 years is consistent with the type of miscalculation we have seen in other chronicles.

3.3 The Schematic Nature of the Date

AG 930 is a round number. It is 30 years after AG 900, 100 years after AG 830. Chroniclers often used round numbers for events they could not date precisely.

The inscription from the north Syrian church — "In the year 930 the Arabs came to the land" — may reflect the same schematic dating. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of the date; it confirms that this date was circulating in Syriac Christian circles.

---

Part 4: The Chronicle's Caliphal Reign Lengths — More Evidence of Poor Knowledge

4.1 The Chronicle's Caliphal Reign Lengths

Caliph	Chronicle's Reign	Historical Reign	Error
Muhammad	10 years	10 years (post-Hijra)	✅ Accurate
Abū Bakr	1 year	2 years, 3 months	-1 year, 3 months
ʿUmar	12 years	10 years, 3 months	+1 year, 9 months
ʿUthmān	12 years	12 years	✅ Accurate
Fitna	5 years	4 years, 9 months	+3 months
Muʿāwiya	20 years	19 years, 3 months	+9 months
Yazīd I	3 years	3 years, 6 months	-6 months
Marwān I	9 months	9 months	✅ Accurate
ʿAbd al-Malik	21 years	21 years, 1 month	-1 month
Walīd I	9 years	9 years, 8 months	-8 months
Sulaymān	2 years, 7 months	2 years, 8 months	-1 month
ʿUmar II	2 years, 7 months	2 years, 5 months	+2 months
Yazīd II	4 years, 10 months, 10 days	4 years, 1 month	+9 months, 10 days

The chronicler's caliphal reign lengths are a mixed bag. Some are accurate; others are off by significant margins. Abū Bakr is curtailed to 1 year (less than half his actual reign). ʿUmar is prolonged to 12 years (from 10 years, 3 months). Yazīd II is extended to 4 years, 10 months, 10 days (from 4 years, 1 month).

This is not the work of a careful chronographer. This is the work of a compiler working with limited, contradictory sources.

4.2 The Pattern of Errors

The chronicler's errors follow a pattern:

Caliph	Error	Direction
Abū Bakr	-1 year, 3 months	Shortened
ʿUmar	+1 year, 9 months	Lengthened
ʿUthmān	✅ Accurate	—
Muʿāwiya	+9 months	Slightly lengthened
Yazīd II	+9 months, 10 days	Significantly lengthened

Abū Bakr — the caliph who conquered Syria's countryside — is shortened. ʿUmar — the caliph who conquered Jerusalem — is lengthened. This may reflect the chronicler's source material or his own biases. But it also reflects poor knowledge of the actual chronology.

---

Part 5: What the Chronicle Actually Proves

5.1 What It Confirms

Despite its chronological errors, the Short Chronicle of 775 confirms several facts:

• Muhammad was known as the leader of the Arabs

• The conquests began under his leadership (in the chronicler's understanding)

• His followers revered him and propagated his teachings

• The caliphs succeeded him in an unbroken line

All of this is consistent with the Islamic tradition.

5.2 What It Does NOT Confirm

The Short Chronicle of 775 does NOT confirm:

• That the conquests began in 618/619 CE

• That Muhammad was still alive in 618/619 CE

• That the chronicler had accurate chronological data

• That the chronicler's dates are reliable

The date AG 930 is a mystery. Palmer calls it a "peculiar item." The most plausible explanation is calendar confusion and schematic dating — not historical memory.

5.3 The Lesson from the Roman Emperors

The chronicler got the reign lengths of Maurice and Heraclius wrong. These were emperors whose reigns were recorded in chronicles that the chronicler had access to. If he could not get those right, his knowledge of early seventh-century chronology was severely limited.

If the chronicle gets Roman emperors wrong, Muslims are not safe.

The Short Chronicle of 775 has spoken. But its voice is not the voice of revisionism. It is the voice of an 8th-century Syriac Christian who tried to write a universal chronicle with limited sources — and got much of it wrong.

Section X: The Samaritan Chronicle — A Late Legend, Not an Early Witness

The Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī was compiled in 1355 CE — over 700 years after the events it describes. Shoemaker acknowledges this late date but argues that the chronicle preserves "much older material" from earlier sources. He points to a "Continuatio" appended to some manuscripts, which describes the Islamic conquest of Palestine and names Muhammad as a participant.

Milka Levy-Rubin, who has studied this source extensively, praises its "detailed and trustworthy information" about the conquest of Palestine. She notes that its account of the siege of Caesarea shows knowledge of the city's Roman layout, suggesting that the author had access to local eyewitness testimony.

But Levy-Rubin dismisses the claim that Muhammad participated in the conquest as "an error adopted from the Syriac chronicle tradition." Shoemaker disagrees. He argues that the Continuatio is "an independent witness" to the tradition of Muhammad's leadership, and that its favorable portrayal of Muhammad and the early caliphs could not have been invented later.

Shoemaker's argument collapses under scrutiny. The Continuatio is dependent on earlier Christian sources — exactly as Levy-Rubin suggested. Its account of the three astrologers (a Samaritan, a Jew, and a Christian) is a Samaritan adaptation of the famous Baḥīrā legend, which is itself a late literary construction. Its knowledge of the conquest of Caesarea may be local and accurate, but that does not validate its claim about Muhammad's participation. And its favorable portrayal of Muhammad is a diplomatic necessity, not a mark of authenticity.

The Samaritan Chronicle is a late, legendary, derivative source. It cannot bear the weight Shoemaker places on it.

---

Part 1: The Source — Late, Composite, and Legendary

1.1 The Date: 1355 CE

Abū l-Fatḥ's chronicle was compiled in 1355 CE — the 14th century. This is:

• 723 years after the traditional date of Muhammad's death (632 CE)

• 700 years after the conquest of Palestine (634-638 CE)

• 600 years after the earliest non-Muslim sources (Thomas the Presbyter, Sebeos)

The chronicle is late. Very late. It cannot be considered an independent witness to events that occurred seven centuries earlier.

1.2 The Composition: Abū l-Fatḥ's Original and the "Continuatio"

Abū l-Fatḥ's original chronicle ended with the Baḥīrā legend — the story of three astrologers who recognized Muhammad as a prophet. The account of the Islamic conquests was not part of the original compilation. It belongs to an anonymous "Continuatio" appended to some manuscripts.

The Continuatio is itself a composite of unknown date and provenance. Levy-Rubin notes that "almost nothing is known regarding the provenance or date of this nameless chronicle." Its individual reports appear to be "contemporary with the events that they describe," but this is an inference, not a proven fact.

1.3 The Baḥīrā Legend — A Literary Construction

The Baḥīrā legend is a well-known story in which a Christian monk recognizes Muhammad as a prophet by a mark on his back. It appears in Islamic, Christian, and Samaritan versions. It is not history; it is hagiography.

The Samaritan version replaces the Christian monk with three astrologers — a Samaritan, a Jew, and a Christian. This is a literary adaptation, not a historical report. The figure of $armaṣa (the Samaritan) is legendary. The story serves to legitimize the Samaritan community by claiming that their representative was the first to recognize Muhammad.

This is not evidence. This is communal self-fashioning.

---

Part 2: The "Muhammad Led the Conquest" Claim — A Derivative Tradition

2.1 Levy-Rubin's Assessment

Levy-Rubin is unequivocal: the claim that Muhammad participated in the conquest is "an error adopted from the Syriac chronicle tradition." She does not believe the Continuatio is an independent witness.

Shoemaker disputes this. He argues that the Continuatio shows no "significant dependence on Christian historiography" and that its account is "surprisingly free from polemic." He suggests that the Continuatio is "an independent witness to this early tradition."

2.2 The Problem: Samaritan Aramaic and Syriac Access

The Samaritans used a dialect of Aramaic as their primary language in the early Middle Ages. Syriac is also an Aramaic dialect. Any educated Samaritan could read Syriac.

The Syriac chronicle tradition was widely available. The Chronicle of Zuqnīn, the Chronicle of 775, and other Syriac works were circulating in Mesopotamia and Syria. The Samaritan Continuatio could easily have drawn on these sources.

Levy-Rubin's suggestion is plausible. The Samaritan claim that Muhammad led the conquest could have been borrowed from Syriac Christian sources — which themselves were "telescoping" events due to calendar confusion.

Part 3: The Conquest of Caesarea — Local Knowledge Does Not Validate the Whole

3.1 What the Continuatio Gets Right

The Continuatio's account of the conquest of Caesarea includes details that Levy-Rubin finds convincing:

• The description of a "small gate" hidden from view

• The reference to an "upper" and "lower" market

• The six-year siege (matching Islamic sources)

These details suggest that the author had access to local knowledge about Caesarea. But local knowledge about one city does not validate a claim about Muhammad's participation in the conquest of all Palestine.

3.2 The Problem: The Siege of Caesarea Occurred After Muhammad's Death

Caesarea was besieged between 634 and 640 CE. The city fell in 640 CE — eight years after Muhammad's death. The Continuatio places the siege immediately after the general conquest, with Muhammad still alive.

If the author had accurate local knowledge about the siege, why did he get the chronology wrong? The answer is that he was working with a schematic framework that placed Muhammad at the head of the conquest — not with accurate historical data.

---

Part 4: The "Three Astrologers" — The Baḥīrā Legend as Proof of Late Composition

4.1 The Baḥīrā Legend in Islamic Tradition

The Baḥīrā legend is first attested in Islamic sources from the 8th and 9th centuries. It appears in Ibn Isḥāq's Sīra (d. 767 CE) and in later compilations. The story is legendary, not historical. It serves to legitimate Muhammad's prophethood by showing that a Christian monk recognized him.

The Samaritan version adapts the legend for Samaritan purposes. The figure of $armaṣa replaces Baḥīrā. The story serves to legitimate the Samaritan community.

4.2 The "Three Astrologers" — A Samaritan Adaptation

The Samaritan version changes the story significantly:

Islamic Version	Samaritan Version
One Christian monk (Baḥīrā)	Three astrologers (Samaritan, Jew, Christian)
Recognition of prophethood	Recognition of prophethood + political leadership
No treaty	Sarmaṣa secures a treaty for the Samaritans

The Samaritan version is clearly a later adaptation. It serves Samaritan communal interests. It cannot be used as evidence for events in the 630s.

4.3 The "Treaty" as Legend

The Continuatio claims that Sarmaṣa secured a treaty from Muhammad guaranteeing protection for the Samaritans. This treaty is not attested in any other source. It is almost certainly a legendary foundation document, similar to the "Covenant of ʿUmar" and other such documents.

The treaty is not evidence of Muhammad's presence in Palestine. It is evidence of Samaritan self-legitimation.

---

Part 5: The Same Pattern — Like the Persian War, Like the Syriac Chronicles

5.1 The Samaritan Continuatio and the Syriac Chronicle Tradition

The Samaritan Continuatio exhibits the same "telescoping" pattern as the Chronicle of Zuqnīn and the Chronicle of 775. It:

• Places the conquest of Palestine during Muhammad's lifetime

• Calls Muhammad a "leader" (qa'im)

• Compresses events that occurred over decades

This is not independent witness. This is dependence on a common schematic tradition.

5.2 The "Persian War" Analogy

As we argued in previous sections, the Jews and Christians of the 7th century understood the Persian conquest through the framework of a distant king commanding generals in the field. The Samaritan Continuatio reflects the same framework.

The Samaritans, like the Jews and Christians, had lived through the Persian conquest. They understood how an empire could be led by a distant ruler. They naturally applied that model to the Arabs.

Muhammad is the "king" (qa'im) whose generals fight in his name. This does not require him to have been present in Palestine. It only requires that the Samaritans understood Arab authority to derive from him.

---

Part 6: What the Samaritan Chronicle Actually Proves

6.1 What It Confirms

Despite its legendary and derivative nature, the Samaritan Chronicle confirms:

• Muhammad was known as the leader of the Arab movement in later medieval Samaritan tradition

• The conquest of Palestine was traumatic for the Samaritans (many fled)

• Caesarea offered fierce resistance

• The Samaritans sought to legitimate their community through a legendary treaty

None of this is inconsistent with the Islamic tradition. The Islamic tradition also records that Muhammad was the leader of the movement — just not that he personally led the conquest.

6.2 What It Does NOT Confirm

The Samaritan Chronicle does NOT confirm:

• That Muhammad was still alive during the conquest of Palestine

• That he personally led any military campaign

• That the treaty with the Samaritans is historical

• That the Baḥīrā legend is historical

The chronicle is too late, too legendary, and too derivative to be used as independent evidence.

6.3 The Weight of the Evidence

Shoemaker claims that the Samaritan Chronicle is "an independent witness to this early tradition." But he has not demonstrated independence. The Continuatio could easily have drawn on Syriac Christian sources. Its version of the Baḥīrā legend is a late adaptation. Its "local" knowledge of Caesarea does not validate its broader chronology.

When placed in the context of the other sources, the Samaritan Chronicle adds nothing new. It repeats the same schematic pattern: Muhammad as the leader of the conquest, telescoped dates, and a legendary framework. It does not provide independent confirmation of a late-living Muhammad.

The Samaritan Chronicle has spoken. But its voice is not the voice of the 7th century. It is the voice of the 14th century — filtered through Syriac Christian sources, shaped by Samaritan communal interests, and wrapped in the legendary framework of the Baḥīrā story.

The prophet who did not conquer was still the founder of the movement that conquered. But the Samaritan Chronicle — with its astrologers, its legendary treaty, and its telescoped chronology — is not the source that will overturn the traditional narrative. It is a late echo of earlier traditions, not an early witness to historical events.

The Samaritan Chronicle has spoken. But we must not mistake legend for history.

 Section XI: The Letter of ʿUmar II to Leo III — A Theological Pamphlet, Not a Historical Witness

The letter of Caliph ʿUmar II (r. 717-720 CE) to the Emperor Leo III (r. 717-741 CE) is one of Shoemaker's most intriguing sources. Rediscovered in the 20th century from two partial manuscripts — an Arabic fragment from Damascus and an Aljamiado text from Madrid — it appears to be an early Islamic polemical treatise. Shoemaker argues that it preserves an early tradition of Muhammad's leadership during the conquests, stating that "we went off . . . to fight against the largest empires . . . Persia and Rome."

Shoemaker claims that this is "an early Islamic text roughly contemporary with (or at least within a few decades of) Ibn Isḥāq's biography" and that it "vouches for the antiquity and authenticity of the tradition witnessed by these Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan sources."

But as Mehdy Shaddel has demonstrated, the letter is not a historical record. It is a theological pamphlet designed to prove the truth of Islam by appealing to military success. The author is deploying the common topos of "military supremacy against impossible odds as proof of divine favor." The conquests are presented as the fulfillment of Qur'anic prophecy (Q 9:33, 48:28, 61:9) — that God would make Islam victorious over all other religions.

Crucially, the Arabic text never explicitly states that Muhammad was alive during the conquests. The phrase "we went off with him" (fa-ḫaraǧnā maʿa-hu) is ambiguous. It could mean that the Muslims went off with Muhammad's blessing, or under his leadership as the founder of the movement, or (less likely) with him personally present. Shoemaker assumes the third meaning — but the text does not require it.

Shaddel's observation is decisive: "Nowhere in this brief account is Muḥammad depicted as still leading the Muslims when they defeat the Romans and Persians and settle in their lands." The letter is a theological argument, not a historical report. It cannot be used as evidence for a late-living Muhammad.

---

Part 1: The Source — Date, Provenance, and Genre

1.1 The Rediscovery of the Letter

The letter of ʿUmar II to Leo III was reconstructed from two sources:

Source	Language	Contents	Location
Sourdel's "Anonymous Pamphlet"	Arabic	Second half of the letter	Damascus (Istanbul museum)
Aljamiado text	Romance in Arabic script	First half of the letter	Madrid

Gaudeul identified the two as parts of the same work. The letter is a polemical treatise, not a diplomatic document. It is attributed to ʿUmar II, but this attribution is almost certainly pseudonymous..

1.2 The Genre: Polemical Pamphlet, Not Historical Record

The letter is part of a genre of Christian-Muslim polemical exchanges. Leo's "reply" is preserved in Armenian in Łewond's History. The exchange is literary, not actual. Both sides are making theological arguments, not reporting historical facts.

The letter's purpose is to prove the truth of Islam by appealing to military success. This is a common topos in late antique polemic. Both Christians and Jews used military victory as proof of divine favor. The author of the letter is doing the same.

---

Part 2: The Arabic Text — What It Actually Says

2.1 The Key Passage in Arabic

Sourdel's edition of the Arabic fragment includes the following passage:

"Thus, out of belief and trust in him [scil., Muḥammad], we set out for war alongside him – barefoot and naked, without number and power, without weapon and ration – against the greatest of nations in terms of territory, the mightiest of them in terms of domination, the most multitudinous of them in terms of number, the most valiant of them in terms of people, and the most victorious of them over other nations: the people of Persia and Rome."

The Arabic phrase is: "fa-ḫaraǧnā maʿa-hu taṣdīqan bi-hi wa-īqānan bi-hi"

Translation: "So we went out with him, confirming him and believing in him"

2.2 The Ambiguity of "Maʿa-hu" (with him)

The preposition "maʿa" (with) can mean:

Meaning	Implication
In the company of (physically present)	Shoemaker's reading
Under the leadership of (spiritually or politically)	Alternative reading
With his blessing (as founder)	Alternative reading
In accordance with his teachings	Alternative reading

The text does not specify physical presence. The author could be saying that the Muslims went out with Muhammad's blessing, or under his authority as the founder of the movement. He does not claim that Muhammad was personally present on the battlefield.

2.3 The Theological Context: Fulfillment of Qur'anic Prophecy

The passage immediately follows a citation of Qur'an 9:29, which commands fighting against those who do not believe until they pay the jizya. The author is arguing that the conquests fulfill God's promise to make Islam victorious.

Shaddel writes:

"It is evident from the summary account of the conquests given in this pamphlet, which occurs amidst a dispute over the truth of Muḥammad's message, that the apologist author of the text is trying to score a theological point by deploying the common topos of military supremacy, against impossible odds, as proof of divine favour."

The conquests are presented as a miracle: a small, weak, unarmed group defeats the greatest empires. This proves that God was with them. It does not prove that Muhammad was physically present.

---

Part 3: What the Text Does NOT Say

3.1 No Explicit Claim of Muhammad's Presence

Shaddel's observation is decisive:

"Nowhere in this brief account is Muḥammad depicted as still leading the Muslims when they defeat the Romans and Persians and settle in their lands."

Shoemaker reads the text as if it says "Muhammad led the conquests personally." But the text does not say that. It says "we went out with him." This is ambiguous. In the context of a theological argument about divine favor, it is more likely to mean "with his blessing" or "under his authority."

3.2 The Silence on Chronology

The letter does not specify when the conquests occurred. It does not say that Muhammad was alive during them. It does not give dates. It simply asserts that the conquests happened and that they prove the truth of Islam.

If the author had intended to claim that Muhammad personally led the conquests, he would have said so explicitly. He does not.

3.3 The "Naked and Barefoot" Topos

The description of the Muslims as "barefoot and naked, without number and power, without weapon and ration" is a literary topos. It appears in other early Islamic texts to emphasize the miraculous nature of the conquests. It is not a historical description.

The topos is evidence of the author's rhetorical strategy, not of historical fact.

---

Part 4: The "Conquests as Prophecy Fulfillment" Framework

4.1. Qur'an 9:33, 48:28, 61:9

The letter cites the Qur'anic verses that promise that God will make Islam victorious over all other religions. The author is arguing that the conquests fulfill this prophecy.

The logic is:

Step	Claim
1	God promised to make Islam victorious
2	Islam defeated the Roman and Persian empires
3	Therefore, Islam is the true religion

This is a theological argument, not a historical report. The author is not describing events; he is interpreting them.

4.2 The "Prophet as Initiator" Logic

Shaddel explains the author's logic:

"Only prophets, messengers, and God's righteous servants are capable of such feats, and in order to confirm Muḥammad's status as a true prophet he had to be presented as the initiator of the conquests."

This is the key. The author is not claiming that Muhammad physically led the conquests because he had historical evidence. He is claiming it because he needs to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet. Military success is the proof. Therefore, the conquests must be attributed to him.

4.3 The Theological Frame — Not Historical Memory

Shaddel continues:

"The ultimate supremacy of Islam had already been foretold in the Qurʾān, which promised to make Muḥammad and his religion victorious over other creeds – yet another vindication of the divine origins of Islam."

The letter is not preserving an early historical memory. It is constructing a theological argument. Its attribution of the conquests to Muhammad is a rhetorical device, not a historical claim.

---

Part 5: The Isnād — A Chain of Transmitters, Not a Proof of Authenticity

5.1 What the Isnād Says

The Aljamiado text begins with an isnād (chain of transmitters) naming three scholars active in Ḥimṣ (Homs). The earliest died in 798 CE. The isnād does not claim to go back to ʿUmar II himself — only to the letter.

5.2 The Problem with Isnāds

Shoemaker admits that such chains of transmission "were frequently forged" and are "generally viewed with a high measure of suspicion." He argues that this particular isnād seems "worthy of some historical consideration."

But an isnād is not proof of authenticity. It is a claim by the author. Even if the transmitters are historical figures, the text they transmitted could still be pseudonymous.

5.3 The Significance of Ḥimṣ

The transmitters are from Ḥimṣ (Homs) in western Syria. Shoemaker suggests that this is "precisely the location where one might expect to find such a traditional holdout."

But this is speculation. The letter could have been composed in Ḥimṣ at any time. The isnād does not date the text to the 8th century; it only dates the transmitters. The text could have been composed later and attributed to them.

---

Part 6: What the Letter Actually Proves

6.1 What It Confirms

The letter confirms:

• Early Muslims believed the conquests proved the truth of Islam

• They understood the conquests as fulfillment of Qur'anic prophecy

• They attributed the conquests to Muhammad as their initiator

• They believed that God had favored them with victory

All of this is consistent with the Islamic tradition.

6.2 What It Does NOT Confirm

The letter does NOT confirm:

• That Muhammad was personally present during the conquests

• That he led armies into battle

• That he was still alive when Palestine was conquered

• That the conquests occurred during his lifetime

The ambiguity of the Arabic text, the theological context, and the polemical purpose all undermine Shoemaker's reading.

6.3 The "Initiator," Not the "Commander"

Shaddel is clear:

"Nowhere in this brief account is Muḥammad depicted as still leading the Muslims when they defeat the Romans and Persians and settle in their lands, as this would have been too blatant a departure from contemporary memories of the conquests to be maintainable – after all, even the most polemical and theologised presentations of events should have some basis in reality in order to be acceptable."

The author presents Muhammad as the initiator of the conquests because he is the prophet. But he does not claim that Muhammad was still alive when they occurred. The letter is consistent with the traditional Islamic narrative: Muhammad founded the movement; the caliphs carried out the conquests after his death.

The letter of ʿUmar II is a testament to early Islamic theology, not to a late-living Muhammad. It confirms that Muslims believed the conquests proved the truth of their religion. It does not confirm that Muhammad personally led the armies.

The letter has spoken. But its voice is the voice of the polemicist, not the historian. It tells us about belief, not about chronology. And it cannot bear the weight Shoemaker places on it.

Section XII: The Periodisation Trap — How Ninth-Century Categories Distorted Seventh-Century Perception

The revisionist thesis that Muhammad was still alive during the conquest of Palestine rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how both Muslim and non-Muslim sources periodise early Islamic history. Stephen Shoemaker, Patricia Crone, and Michael Cook have imported the tidy, systematised chronology of ninth-century Islamic historiography — with its neat divisions into prophetic expeditions (maghāzī), wars of apostasy (ridda), conquests (futūḥ), and civil war (fitna) — and projected it onto sources that never operated within that framework.

As Mehdy Shaddel has demonstrated, this periodisation is a later construct. The earliest Muslim biographical works did not stop at Muhammad's death. Maʿmar ibn Rāshid's Kitāb al-Maghāzī (d. 153/770) continues into the conquests and the First Fitna. Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah's (d. 141/758) work does the same. Al-Wāqidī's Kitāb al-Ṣawāʾif (Book of Summer Campaigns) begins with Muhammad's northward raids into Syria and then moves seamlessly into the conquests and annual raids into Anatolia.

The non-Muslim sources are even less concerned with these distinctions. They treat the earliest northward raids under Muhammad and the later, more successful campaigns under the caliphs as part and parcel of the same venture — the emergence of a new power from Arabia. They were not claiming that Muhammad personally led the conquest of Jerusalem. They were simply chronicling the expansion of a movement that he had founded.

This section will demonstrate that the "disharmony" between non-Muslim and Muslim sources is not a product of historical reality but of modern scholarly periodisation. The Perso-Roman war of 602-628 CE had just ended. The Romans had returned to Palestine under Heraclius. The Jews and Christians of the region understood imperial expansion through the lens of a distant king commanding generals in the field. They naturally applied that model to the Arabs. And the later Islamic historians, needing to distinguish between the "prophetic" and "caliphal" periods for theological and tax-related reasons, created a division that the non-Muslim sources never knew.

---

Part 1: The Ninth-Century Periodisation — A Later Construct

1.1 The Six Phases of Early Islamic History

Shaddel outlines the standard periodisation of early Islamic history as it appears in ninth-century Muslim historiography:

Phase	Period	Key Events
1	Meccan period (610-622 CE)	Muhammad's call to prophecy
2	Medinan period (622-632 CE)	Foundation of the first Islamic polity
3	Wars of apostasy (ridda, 632-634 CE)	Suppression of Arabian tribes after Muhammad's death
4	Conquests (futūḥ, 634-656 CE)	Expansion into Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Persia
5	First civil war (fitna, 656-661 CE)	Conflict between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya
6	Umayyad period (661-750 CE)	Dynastic rule from Damascus

This periodisation is not neutral. It is a theological and political construct. As Shaddel notes, "the designation of these events as '[the wars of] apostasy' is (consciously or unconsciously) a tendentious one" — many of the opponents were not apostates but tribes that had never submitted to Muhammad.

1.2 The Late Appearance of the "Rightly-Guided Caliphate"

Antoine Borrut has shown that the concept of the four "rightly-guided caliphs" (al-khulafāʾ al-rāshidūn) appeared very late. There were earlier, competing periodisations that viewed ʿUthmān as the founder of an "Umayyad dynasty" beginning in 644 CE. The now-dominant periodisation was a later attempt to dissociate the Umayyads from ʿUthmān and undermine their claims to legitimacy.

Borrut argues that the periodisations commonly employed by historians today "would certainly be quite surprising if not largely unintelligible to most of the actors of early Islam."

1.3 What This Means for the Non-Muslim Sources

The non-Muslim sources were written before this periodisation crystallised. They had no concept of a rigid division between "prophetic expeditions," "wars of apostasy," and "conquests." They saw a single phenomenon: the rise of a new power from Arabia, beginning with Muhammad and continuing under his successors.

Shoemaker and Crone and Cook have projected a ninth-century framework onto seventh-century sources. The "disharmony" they claim to find is not historical; it is historiographical.

---

Part 2: The Earliest Muslim Sources — No Distinction Between Prophetic and Caliphal Campaigns

2.1 Maʿmar ibn Rāshid's Kitāb al-Maghāzī (d. 153/770)

Maʿmar's work is one of the two oldest extant compositions on the biography of Muhammad. The term maghāzī in its title refers to raids undertaken by Muhammad or at his behest. But Maʿmar's work does not conclude with Muhammad's death. It continues into the conquests and the First Fitna.

Shaddel writes:

"The accounts of the first incursions into Syria-Palestine under Muhammad and the slightly later ones under his first successors appear as one, cohesive narrative in this early biographical work."

2.2 Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah's Kitāb al-Maghāzī (d. 141/758)

Based on quotations in later sources, Mūsā's work also offers a continuous narrative until the beginning of the First Fitna. It does not stop at Muhammad's death.

2.3 Al-Wāqidī's Kitāb al-Ṣawāʾif (Book of Summer Campaigns)

Al-Wāqidī's work is about the annual Arab summertime raids into Anatolia (ṣawāʾif). But he begins his enumeration of these campaigns with Muhammad's northward raids into Syria, then moves into the conquests, and then turns to the annual raids into Anatolia.

Shaddel notes:

"This indicates not only that a distinction between prophetic and caliphal incursions into Byzantine territory had likewise yet to be made, but also that some of the earliest accounts of the conquest of Syria recounted it as part of a chain of events which began with the prophet and continued well into the Umayyad era."

2.4 Ibn Isḥāq's Sīra — Did It Stop at Muhammad's Death?

Even Ibn Isḥāq's (d. 150/768) famous Sīra, in its initial conception, continued into the period of the conquests. The separate "History of the Caliphs" (Taʾrīkh al-Khulafāʾ) may have been part of the same work, not an addendum.

Shaddel argues that "not a single one of the earliest compositions on prophetic biography prior to the age of al-Wāqidī and Ibn Hishām which are extant or about whose scope we can find information in later literature stops at Muhammad's death, but all continue into what we would call 'the conquests.'"

2.5 The Tax Implications — Why the Distinction Mattered

Why did later historians create a rigid division between "prophetic" and "caliphal" conquests? Shaddel proposes a fascinating answer: taxation.

Abū Yūsuf's Kitāb al-Kharāj (the oldest extant Islamic manual on taxation) states that the lands conquered by Muhammad himself cannot have their taxes increased or decreased — they are fixed by prophetic decree. Lands conquered by the caliphs fall under different rules.

If Muhammad had been credited with conquering Syria and Palestine, those lands would have had to pay lower taxes (ʿushr, "tithe") rather than the more burdensome kharāj (land tax) and jizya (poll tax).

Shaddel writes:

"Therefore, Muḥammad having engaged in conquering outside 'Arabia' was out of the question, or else the taxes of those regions would have had to be reduced to the same level as Arabia's."

The theological and fiscal need to distinguish between "prophetic" and "caliphal" conquests drove the periodisation. It was not a neutral historical observation.

---

Part 3: The Non-Muslim Sources — Free of the Schematic Straitjacket

3.1 What the Non-Muslim Sources Saw

The non-Muslim sources — Thomas the Presbyter, the Khuzistan Chronicle, Sebeos, the Chronicle of 775, the Chronicle of Zuqnīn, the Chronicle of 754 — had no stake in the later periodisation. They recorded what they saw and heard: the emergence of a new power from Arabia, led by a man named Muhammad, whose followers invoked his name and fought under his banner.

They did not distinguish between Muhammad's own raids and the later conquests because they had no need to. For them, it was a single phenomenon.

3.2 The "Telescoping" of Events

As Shaddel has demonstrated, the Chronicle of Zuqnīn, the Chronicle of 775, and the Chronicle of 754 exhibit a "highly schematic view of Islamic history" that "telescopes" the events, inadvertently attributing the initiation of the conquests to Muhammad.

The logic is simple:

Step	Reasoning
1	The Muslim calendar begins in 622 CE (Hijra)
2	In Roman/Syriac chronography, eras begin with a reign
3	Therefore, the Hijra must mark the beginning of Muslim rule
4	Therefore, Muhammad must have been the first Muslim king
5	Therefore, the conquests must have begun under Muhammad

This is not historical error. It is the inevitable result of applying Roman chronographic conventions to a foreign calendar.

3.3 The "Leader" (Mdabbrānā) — Spiritual or Military?

The Khuzistan Chronicle calls Muhammad the "leader" (mdabbrānā) of the Arabs. Shoemaker reads this as "military commander." But as we have seen, the term can also mean "guide" or "spiritual leader."

More importantly, the chronicler uses the same term for Sasanian emperors who never took the field. Muhammad is being fitted into the framework of Persian kingship — a distant ruler whose generals fight in his name.

---

Part 4: The Persian War Framework — How Jews and Christians Understood Imperial Expansion

4.1 The Perso-Roman War (602-628 CE)

The Jews and Christians of Palestine had just lived through the Perso-Roman war. They had seen:

• The Persian conquest of Jerusalem (614 CE)

• The removal of the True Cross to Ctesiphon

• The deportation of tens of thousands of Christians

• The return of the Romans under Heraclius (628-630 CE)

• The restoration of the Cross (630 CE)

They understood how empires worked. A distant king (Xusro II) remained in his capital while his generals (Shahrbaraz, Shahin, Kardigan) led the campaigns.

4.2 How the Persians Were Described

Looking at the contemporary sources, we see a pattern:

Source	Description of Persian Campaigns
Theophanes	"Khusrau sent out Kardigan and Romizan and they captured many Roman cities"
Agapius	"Khusrau, son of Hormizd, ordered that the marble of the churches be brought to Ctesiphon"
Chronicle of 1234	"Khusrau, the king of the Persians, ordered that the Edessenes be brought down in captivity to Persia"

The king is the source of authority. The generals are his instruments. The campaign is attributed to the king, even though he remains in his capital.

4.3 How the Arabs Were Described — The Same Pattern

The Jews and Christians naturally applied the same framework to the Arabs:

Source	Description of Arab Campaigns
Thomas the Presbyter	"Arabs of Muhammad"
Khuzistan Chronicle	"Their leader was Muhammad"
Chronicle of Zuqnīn	"Their first king was Muhammad"

This is not a claim of personal presence. It is a claim of authority. Muhammad is the distant king; his generals (Khalid, Abu 'Ubayda, 'Amr) are his instruments.

4.4 The Jewish Apocalypse — The Same Pattern

The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai describes Muhammad as the "king" who conquers the land. Shoemaker reads this as evidence of personal leadership. But given the Jewish experience of the Persian war, it is far more likely that the authors were applying the "distant king" model.

The prophet is the source of authority. The caliphs and generals are his instruments. The conquest is attributed to him, even though he is not physically present.

---

Part 5: Reconstructing the Sequence — A Unified Narrative

5.1 What Actually Happened

Shaddel reconstructs the sequence of events as follows:

Phase	Period	Events
1	ca. 629 CE	Campaigns in southern Palestine (Palaestina Tertia) begin under Muhammad's authority
2	629-632 CE	Continued expeditions to the Roman frontier (Mu'ta, Tabūk, Usāma's campaign)
3	632 CE	Muhammad's death; Medina threatened by Arabian tribes
4	632-634 CE	Suppression of Arabian tribes (the "wars of apostasy")
5	634-638 CE	Resumption of northward expansion; conquest of Syria and Palestine

This sequence is supported by both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. The only difference is that the non-Muslim sources do not distinguish between Phases 1-2 and Phases 5. They see a single, continuous expansion.

5.2 The Convergence of Evidence

Source	Phase 1-2 (under Muhammad)	Phase 5 (under caliphs)
Muslim sources	✅ Mu'ta, Tabūk, Usāma's campaign	✅ Conquests of Syria, Palestine, Persia
Non-Muslim sources	✅ "Raids into Palestine" (Jacob of Edessa)	✅ Conquests of Syria, Palestine, Persia
Sebeos	✅ Muhammad "went forth from the south"	✅ Conquest of Jerusalem, Damascus
Chronicle of Zuqnīn	✅ Muhammad "entered the land"	✅ Conquests after his "reign"

The sources agree on the facts. They only disagree on periodisation.

5.3 What No Source Claims

No source — Muslim or non-Muslim — claims that Muhammad personally conquered Jerusalem, Damascus, or Alexandria.

The non-Muslim sources attribute the conquest of these cities to the Arabs, but they do not specify that Muhammad was present. The references to Muhammad as "leader," "king," or "prophet" refer to his authority as founder, not his presence as commander.

---

Part 6: The Periodisation Trap — How Ninth-Century Categories Distorted Seventh-Century Perception

6.1 The Problem Stated

Shoemaker, Crone, and Cook have fallen into what Shaddel calls the "periodisation trap." They have taken the tidy categories of ninth-century Islamic historiography and projected them onto sources that never operated within that framework.

The non-Muslim sources are not "mistaken" about Muhammad's presence during the conquests. They are simply using a different periodisation — one that does not distinguish between "prophetic expeditions" and "caliphal conquests."

6.2 The Non-Muslim Perspective

From the perspective of a Christian or Jewish observer in the 630s-660s:

• A man named Muhammad had founded a new religious movement

• His followers invoked his name as they fought

• They had conquered Palestine and Syria

• Therefore, Muhammad must be their leader

This is not a claim about chronology. It is a claim about authority. The observers did not know — and may not have cared — whether Muhammad was still alive. What mattered was that the movement bore his name.

6.3 The Muslim Perspective

From the perspective of a ninth-century Muslim historian:

• Muhammad's conquests (futūḥ) were only those that occurred during his lifetime

• These were limited to Arabia

• The conquests of Syria and Palestine occurred after his death, under the caliphs

• Therefore, Muhammad could not have conquered Palestine

This is a theological and fiscal distinction, not a historical one. It served to elevate Muhammad's status as a prophet and to justify different tax rates for Arabia and the conquered territories.

6.4 Reconciling the Perspectives

The two perspectives can be reconciled if we understand that:

• Muhammad authorized and initiated expeditions to the Roman frontier

• These expeditions were limited in scope and did not result in permanent conquest

• After his death, the caliphs resumed and expanded these campaigns

• The non-Muslim sources, not distinguishing between the two phases, attributed all to Muhammad

• The Muslim sources, needing to distinguish between the phases, created a rigid periodisation

Neither side is "wrong." They are simply using different frameworks.

Shaddel says clearly:

"It is only through the prism of mediaeval Islamic historiography that these two phases of the same struggle are seen as separate affairs. Breaking free of the schematic yoke of this historiographical tradition makes it possible for us to reconcile the evidence discussed above with the traditional chronology of both Muḥammad's life and the individual battles of 'the Islamic conquests.'"

The non-Muslim sources, free of the schematic straitjacket, treat the earliest northward raids under Muhammad and the later, more successful campaigns under the caliphs as part and parcel of the same venture. They can be said to have some idea of "the Islamic conquests" as an event, but as a period, it was still very amorphous for them.

The Perso-Roman war had just ended. The Romans had returned under Heraclius. The Jews and Christians of the region understood imperial expansion through the lens of a distant king commanding generals in the field. They naturally applied that model to the Arabs.

The later Muslim historians, needing to distinguish between "prophetic" and "caliphal" conquests for theological and tax-related reasons, created a division that the non-Muslim sources never knew.

The "disharmony" between the sources is not historical. It is historiographical.

The prophet who did not conquer was still the founder of the movement that conquered. And the non-Muslim sources, writing before the periodisation trap was set, recorded that fact — without ever claiming that Muhammad was still alive.

The periodisation trap has been sprung. But we have escaped it.

Conclusion — The Taxonomy of Error: Why Every Non-Muslim Source Fails to Support Revisionism

After an exhaustive examination of every non-Muslim source that Stephen Shoemaker and the revisionist school have marshalled as evidence for a late-living Muhammad — from the Doctrina Jacobi (634 CE) to the Samaritan Chronicle (1355 CE) — a clear pattern emerges. The sources do not form a coherent witness to an alternative history. They form a taxonomy of error, misunderstanding, theological polemic, and chronological confusion.

The revisionist thesis collapses not because Shoemaker is wrong about the details, but because he is wrong about the genre, the form, the redaction history, and the chronological framework of his sources. He has mistaken:

• Calendar confusion for historical memory (Group A)

• The Persian war template for eyewitness testimony (Group B)

• Apocalyptic polemic for sober reportage (Group C)

• Late legendary compilations for early witnesses (Group D)

When each source is examined in its proper context — with attention to its genre, its date, its transmission history, and its theological agenda — the "evidence" for a late-living Muhammad evaporates. What remains is a consistent picture: the early Muslims under Muhammad conducted raids into the borderlands of Palestine, but the conquest of Syria, Palestine, and Jerusalem occurred after his death, under the caliphs Abū Bakr and ʿUmar.

---

📊 The Taxonomy of Non-Muslim Sources on Muhammad and the Conquests

Group	Sources	Key Feature	Why They Do Not Support Revisionism
Group A: Calendar Confusion & Telescoping	Chronicle of 775, Chronicle of Zuqnīn, Spanish Chronicles (741, 754)	8th-century chroniclers miscalculated the Hijra due to lunar/solar confusion and telescoped conquests into Muhammad's "reign"	They get Roman emperors wrong; their dates are schematic; they admit weak sources; they place the conquest in 618-621 CE — before the Hijra
Group B: Eyewitness Rumor & Persian War Template	Doctrina Jacobi, Khuzistan Chronicle, Sebeos (on Muhammad), Theophilus of Edessa, Samaritan Chronicle (Continuatio)	Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan observers interpreted the Arab movement through the template of the Persian war (distant king, generals in the field)	They report what people were saying; they never claim Muhammad was physically present; they use ambiguous language ("leader," "with them," "maʿa-hu"); the Samaritan version is a late legendary adaptation of the Baḥīrā story
Group C: Apocalyptic & Polemical Literature	Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai, Prayer of Rabbi Shimʿōn, Ten Kings Midrash, Chronicle of 754 (polemical sections), Letter of ʿUmar II	Jewish and Christian apocalyptic texts interpreted the conquests as messianic events or divine punishment; the Letter of ʿUmar II is a theological pamphlet proving Islam's truth by military success	They are theological, not historical; their chronology is schematic; they associate Muhammad with the Antichrist (666); the ambiguous pronoun in the Secrets allows God, not Muhammad, as the subject of "conquer"; the Letter of ʿUmar II never explicitly states Muhammad was alive
Group D: Late, Derivative, or Legendary Compilations	Samaritan Chronicle (Continuatio), History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria	14th-century compilation (Samaritan); 10th-century Arabic translation of Coptic original (History of the Patriarchs)	Too late; dependent on earlier Syriac sources; legendary (Baḥīrā); the Heraclius dream legend is a late ancient best-seller, not history

Part 1: Group A — Calendar Confusion & Telescoping

1.1 The Problem of Lunar vs. Solar Years

The chroniclers of the 8th century did not understand that the Hijri calendar is lunar. When a Muslim informant told them that the Hijra had occurred "X years ago," they interpreted X as solar years. The result was a systematic miscalculation:

Chronicler	Present Year (CE)	Hijri Years Reported	Calculated Backward	Actual Hijra
Chronicle of 775	775	157	AG 930 (618 CE)	AG 933 (622 CE)
Chronicle of Zuqnīn	775	157	AG 932 (620 CE)	AG 933 (622 CE)

The difference of 3-4 years is consistent across multiple sources. This is not historical memory; it is mathematical error.

1.2 The Roman Emperor Test

The Chronicle of 775 gets the reign lengths of Maurice (27 years, 6 months — actually 20) and Heraclius (24 years — actually 31) wrong. Only Phocas — the usurper — is correct.

If the chronicler could not get the reign lengths of Roman emperors right, why should we trust his dates for Muhammad?

1.3 The Admission of Weak Sources

The Chronicle of Zuqnīn's author explicitly warns his readers:

"From that point (574 CE) up to the present year (775 CE) . . . I have not found [a history] concerning events which is composed on such solid foundations as the former ones."

He knew his sources were weak. He told us so. Shoemaker ignores this warning.

1.4 The Spanish Chronicles and the Number of the Beast

The Chronicle of 754 dates Muhammad's death to Era 666 of the Spanish calendar — the Number of the Beast from the Book of Revelation. This is not an accident. It is apocalyptic numerology.

The chronicler is associating Muhammad with the Antichrist. This is polemic, not history.

---

Part 2: Group B — Eyewitness Rumor & the Persian War Template

2.1 The Doctrina Jacobi — "They Were Saying"

The Doctrina Jacobi reports what people were saying: "They were saying, 'A prophet has appeared, coming with the Saracens.'"

• The source is third-hand: Abraham heard from "those who had met him" → wrote to Justus → Justus read aloud in Jacob's presence

• The date is problematic: internal evidence points to the 670s, not 634

• The phrase "coming with" does not mean "personally leading" — it could mean "appearing among them" or "as their spiritual leader"

The Doctrina is not an eyewitness account. It is a rumor, filtered through multiple layers of transmission, interpreted through a Jewish apocalyptic lens.

2.2 The Khuzistan Chronicle — "Leader" (Mdabbrānā)

The Khuzistan Chronicle calls Muhammad the "leader" (mdabbrānā) of the Arabs. But:

• The same term is used for Sasanian emperors who never took the field

• The chronicler counts Muhammad's "reign" as an extension of Sasanian rule

• The detailed account of the conquest of Khuzistan (the region the author knew) never mentions Muhammad

The chronicle is not claiming military presence. It is fitting Muhammad into the framework of Persian kingship.

2.3 The Persian War Template

The key to understanding all of Group B is the Perso-Roman war (602-628 CE). The Jews and Christians of Palestine had just witnessed:

• Persian conquest of Jerusalem (614)

• Removal of the True Cross

• Deportation of thousands

• Roman return under Heraclius (628-630)

They understood how empires worked: a distant king (Xusro II) remained in his capital while his generals (Shahrbaraz, Shahin, Kardigan) led the campaigns. They naturally applied this model to the Arabs.

2.4 Theophilus of Edessa — A Christian at the Abbasid Court

Theophilus's account aligns perfectly with the Islamic tradition: Muhammad led initial raids (Mu'ta, Tabūk), then withdrew and sent his companions (Zayd, Usāma). The conquests of Syria and Palestine occurred after his death.

Theophilus does not contradict the Islamic tradition. He confirms it.

---

Part 3: Group C — Apocalyptic & Polemical Literature

3.1 The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai — The Ambiguous Pronoun

The crucial passage reads: "He will raise up over them a prophet according to His will, and he will conquer the land for them. "

• The pronoun "he" could refer to God or to the prophet

• Shoemaker chooses the prophet; earlier translators (Lewis) chose God

• The Cairo Genizah fragment is a later, polemical version

• The "messiah in the middle" argument is a literary judgment, not historical proof

The text is ambiguous. Ambiguity is not evidence.

3.2 The Ten Kings Midrash — Late and Embellished

The Ten Kings Midrash explicitly states that Muhammad conquered Jerusalem. But it is:

• The latest of the three related texts

• The most embellished

• Derivative, not original

Only the latest and most embellished version explicitly identifies Muhammad as the conqueror.

3.3 The Letter of ʿUmar II — Theological Polemic, Not History

The key phrase is "fa-ḫaraǧnā maʿa-hu" — "so we went out with him."

• "Maʿa-hu" ("with him") is ambiguous; it does not require physical presence

• The letter is a theological pamphlet proving Islam's truth by military success

• It cites Qur'an 9:33, 48:28, 61:9 — the promise that God will make Islam victorious

• The author is making an argument about divine favor, not reporting a fact about chronology

As Shaddel notes, "Nowhere in this brief account is Muḥammad depicted as still leading the Muslims when they defeat the Romans and Persians."

3.4 The Chronicle of 754 — Apocalyptic Polemic

The Chronicle:

• Dates Muhammad's death to Era 666 — the Number of the Beast

• Describes Muhammad's leadership as "trickery" and "fraud"

• Is openly polemical

This is not neutral history. This is anti-Islamic polemic wrapped in apocalyptic numerology.

---

Part 4: Group D — Late, Derivative, or Legendary Compilations

4.1 The Samaritan Chronicle (Continuatio) — 14th Century

The Samaritan Chronicle was compiled in 1355 CE — over 700 years after the events.

• The Baḥīrā legend is a late literary construction, not history

• The "treaty" with the Samaritans is unattested elsewhere

• The account is dependent on earlier Syriac Christian sources

Levy-Rubin dismisses the claim of Muhammad's involvement as "an error adopted from the Syriac chronicle tradition."

4.2 The History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria — 10th Century

The History of the Patriarchs is a 10th-century Arabic translation of earlier Coptic originals.

• The Heraclius dream legend is a late ancient best-seller, not history

• The "few short days" between the forced baptism and the Arab conquest is chronologically impossible

• The claim that "Muhammad took possession of Damascus" is a metonymy

As Schoeler notes, the expression "Muḥammad took possession of Damascus" probably uses a kind of metonymy: "those who follow him or belong to his group will be meant here, not he himself."

---

Part 5: The Unified Narrative — What the Sources Actually Say

5.1 What the Non-Muslim Sources Confirm

After stripping away the calendar confusion, the Persian war template, the apocalyptic polemic, and the late legendary accretions, what remains is consistent with the Islamic tradition:

Claim	Islamic Tradition	Non-Muslim Confirmation
Muhammad existed	✅	All sources
Muhammad was a merchant	✅	Sebeos, Jacob of Edessa, Theophilus
Muhammad preached monotheism	✅	Sebeos, Doctrina Jacobi
Muhammad established laws	✅	Sebeos, John bar Penkaye
Muhammad led raids into Palestine	✅ (Mu'ta, Tabūk)	Jacob of Edessa, Theophilus
The conquests occurred after his death	✅	All sources (implicitly)
The caliphs succeeded him	✅	All caliphal lists

5.2 What No Non-Muslim Source Claims

• That Muhammad was personally present at Yarmūk

• That he conquered Jerusalem

• That he took Damascus

• That he led the army into Egypt

• That he was alive in 634 CE

The silence is deafening. If Muhammad had still been alive and leading the conquests, we would expect at least one source to explicitly say so. None does.

---

Part 6: The Periodisation Trap — The Root of the Error

6.1 The Ninth-Century Framework

Shoemaker, Crone, and Cook have imported the tidy periodisation of ninth-century Islamic historiography — with its neat divisions into maghāzī, ridda, futūḥ, and fitna — and projected it onto seventh-century sources that never operated within that framework.

As Shaddel writes:

"It is only through the prism of mediaeval Islamic historiography that these two phases of the same struggle are seen as separate affairs."

6.2 The Non-Muslim Perspective

The non-Muslim sources, free of this schematic straitjacket, treat the earliest northward raids under Muhammad and the later, more successful campaigns under the caliphs as part and parcel of the same venture.

They were not claiming that Muhammad personally led the conquest of Jerusalem. They were simply chronicling the emergence of a new power from Arabia.

6.3 The Muslim Perspective

The Muslim sources, needing to distinguish between "prophetic" and "caliphal" conquests for theological and tax-related reasons, created a division that the non-Muslim sources never knew.

Neither side is "wrong." They are using different frameworks.

---

Part 7: Final Synthesis — The Verdict of the Earliest Witnesses

7.1 The Traditional Chronology Stands

The traditional date of Muhammad's death in 632 CE remains the most plausible reconstruction of the evidence. The non-Muslim sources, when properly understood, do not contradict it. They confirm it.

Source	Date	What It Confirms	What It Does Not Say
Thomas the Presbyter	640	"Arabs of Muhammad"	Muhammad was present
Doctrina Jacobi	670s	A prophet appeared among the Saracens	Muhammad was alive
Khuzistan Chronicle	660s	Muhammad was their "leader"	He was a military commander
Sebeos	660s	Muhammad was a merchant and preacher	He led the conquest of Syria
Jacob of Edessa	691/692	Muhammad was the "first king"	He was alive during the raids
Chronicle of 775	775	Muhammad entered the land	The date 618 CE is correct
Chronicle of Zuqnīn	775	Muhammad was the "first king"	The conquest began in 620 CE
Theophilus of Edessa	780s	Muhammad led initial raids, then withdrew	He led the conquest of Syria
Chronicle of 754	754	Muhammad was the leader	He was still alive (dated 666)
Letter of ʿUmar II	late 8th c.	We went out "with him"	He was physically present

But they do not confirm that Muhammad was still alive during the conquest of Palestine. They do not place him at Yarmūk, Jerusalem, or Damascus. They do not claim he was present on any battlefield.

The confusion arises from:

• Calendar confusion — Christian chroniclers did not understand the lunar Hijri calendar and miscalculated dates

• The Persian war template — Jews and Christians interpreted the Arab movement through the lens of a distant king commanding generals in the field

• Apocalyptic expectation — Jewish messianism and Christian eschatology coloured the interpretation of events

• Late legendary development — The Baḥīrā story and other legends accreted over centuries

• Periodisation projection — Modern scholars projected ninth-century categories onto seventh-century sources

Shoemaker's thesis fails not because he is wrong about the details, but because he is wrong about the genre, the form, the redaction history, and the chronological framework of his sources.

The prophet who did not conquer was still the founder of the movement that conquered. The non-Muslim sources, when read in their proper context, confirm the Islamic tradition. They do not undermine it.

The revisionist house of cards has collapsed. The earliest witnesses have spoken. And their voice is not the voice of a late-living Muhammad. It is the voice of a prophet who died in 632 CE, whose followers carried his message to the world, and whose legacy — built by the men he trained, the community he built, and the God he served — changed the course of history.

The Prophet Who Did Not Conquer has spoken. And history is confirmed.

THE END

Works Cited

Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. Kitāb Futūḥ al-Buldān. Translated by Hugh Kennedy as The History of the Arab Invasions, I.B. Tauris, 2022.

Anthony, Sean W. "Muḥammad, the Keys to Paradise, and the Doctrina Iacobi: A Late Antique Puzzle." Der Islam, vol. 91, no. 2, De Gruyter, 2014, pp. 243-65. 

Baca-Winters, Keenan. "To Walk in Royal Ways: The Lives and Legacies of Bōrān and Āzarmīgduxt." Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia, vol. 5, no. 1, 2025, pp. 1-33.

Ben-Dor, Yehuda. "A Note on the Two Seleucid Eras." Tel Aviv, n.d.

Brooks, E.-W., editor. Chronica Minora. Part 2, E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1904. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, no. 3, Scriptores Syri, no. 3.

Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ. Edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ et al., 24 vols., Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 2001.

Di Cesare, Michelina. The Pseudo-Historical Image of the Prophet Muhammad in Medieval Latin Literature: A Repertory. De Gruyter, 2012. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients.

Görke, Andreas, and Gregor Schoeler. The Earliest Writings on the Life of Muḥammad: The ʿUrwa Corpus and the Non-Muslim Sources. Gerlach Press, 2024. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, vol. 27.

Guidi, Ignatius, translator. Chronica Minora. Part 1, E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1903. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, no. 2.

Hächler, Nikolas. "Heraclius Constantine III – Emperor of Byzantium (613–641)." Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 115, no. 1, 2022, pp. 69-116.

Al-Hamawī, Shihāb al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Yāqūt. Muʿjam al-Buldān. 2nd ed., vol. 7, Dār Ṣādir, 1995.

Hassanein, Hamada, and Jens Scheiner, translators and annotators. The Early Muslim Conquest of Syria: An English Translation of al-Azdī’s Futūḥ al-Shām. Routledge, 2020.

Howard-Johnston, James. Witnesses to a World Crisis: Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Gorgias Press, 2019.

Hoyland, Robert G., translator. Theophilus of Edessa's Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 57.

Kaegi, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Al-Kaʿbi, Nasir, editor and translator. A Short Chronicle on the End of the Sasanian Empire and Early Islam 590-660 A.D. Gorgias Press, 2016.

Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ. Taʾrīkh Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ. Edited by Akram Ḍiyāʾ al-ʿUmarī, 2nd ed., Dār al-Qalam and Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1977.

Levi Della Vida, G. "The 'Bronze Era' in Moslem Spain." Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 63, no. 3, American Oriental Society, July-Sept. 1943, pp. 183-91.

Levy-Rubin, Milka, editor. The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī. Translated by Milka Levy-Rubin, Gerlach Press, 2021. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, vol. 10.

Martindale, J.R. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Volume III: AD 527-641. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. By Michael Rabo, Beth Antioch Press, 2014.

Nöldeke, Theodor. "Zur Geschichte der Araber im 1. Jahrh. d. H. aus syrischen Quellen." Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 29, 1875, pp. 76-98.

Palmer, Andrew. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press, 1993.

Penn, Michael Philip. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.

Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400-800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Brill, 2013.

Pratt, Douglas, and Charles Tieszen, editors. Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Volume 15. Thematic Essays (600-1600). With David Thomas and John Chesworth, Brill, 2020.

Sebeos. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated by R.W. Thomson, historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston with assistance from Tim Greenwood, 2 vols., Liverpool University Press, 1999.

Shaddel, Mehdy. "Periodisation and the futūḥ: Making Sense of Muḥammad's Leadership of the Conquests in Non-Muslim Sources." Arabica, vol. 69, Brill, 2022, pp. 96-145.

Shoemaker, Stephen J. The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad's Life and the Beginnings of Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion.

Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. Taʾrīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk. Translated by various scholars as The History of al-Ṭabarī, 39 vols., State University of New York Press, 1985-2007.

Theophanes the Confessor. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. Translated and edited by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex, Clarendon Press, 1997.

Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., editor and translator. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with its Continuations. Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1960.

Wolf, Kenneth Baxter, translator. Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain. 2nd ed., Liverpool University Press, 2011. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 9.