{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028720626631853787, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036553524804177544, 'mean_word_length': 4.877300613496932, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conquest, Tribute, and Trade: The Quest for Precious Metals and the Birth of Globalization (review)

he seems to accept it faithfully. Similarly, he might have been less eager to accept the traditional idea that Medina was a largely Jewish settlement when not a single inscription or archaeological and suggests that it was. In Peters’ defense, he is dealing with highly problematical sources: The Qur’an has few historical details; later Islamic sources seem to be based on the Qur’an; and no contemporary Christian or Jewish source has anything to say about Muhammad. The sources for the life of Jesus, as Peters himself notes, are less problematical, leaving him on safer ground as he follows the historical scholarship. He describes the hypothetical Q document—which he regards as the oldest source about Jesus—and the Gospel of Mark to be the most valuable documents about Jesus for historians. But he also turns to Matthew, Luke, Paul, and Acts for insights about the execution of Jesus and the rise of the early church. Ultimately, Peters challenges traditional Christian notions about certain points. He argues, for example, that the mission of Jesus was largely conaned to Galilee and almost exclusively focused on Jews. Yet he also notes that the literary evidence does not contradict other Christian notions. He notes that the description of Jesus as a (divine) Lord is found in the oldest material of the New Testament (Philippians 2 and 1 Corinthians 16), as is the claim of his resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15; mentioned also by Josephus). At the end of Jesus and Muhammad, Peters includes a detailed and useful annotated bibliography, organized according to the subdivisions of the book. The entire work, moreover, is marked by Peters’ candid, and often humorous, writing style. Even if Peters could not possibly have “got it right” in this book, few scholars could have done any better.