Carbon Dating Shows Koran May Predate Muhammad 622
HughPickens.com writes: Brian Booker writes at Digital Journal that carbon dating suggests the Koran, or at least portions of it, may actually be older than the prophet Muhammad himself, a finding that if confirmed could rewrite early Islamic history and shed doubt on the "heavenly" origins of the holy text. Scholars believe that a copy of the Koran held by the Birmingham Library was actually written sometime between 568 AD and 645, while the Prophet Mohammad was believed to have been born in 570 AD and to have died in 632 AD. It should be noted, however, that the dating was only conducted on the parchment, rather than the ink, so it is possible that the Koran was simply written on old paper. Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Koran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime, but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda. "This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven," says Keith Small, from the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library. "'It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged," says Historian Tom Holland. "and that in turn has implications for the history of Muhammad and the Companions."
Update: 09/01 17:32 GMT by S : There was a typo in the dates used by the original linked article — in the press release from the University of Birmingham, the date range given for the parchment is between 568 AD and 645 AD, which overlaps more closely with Muhammad's lifetime. The dates and link have been fixed now in the summary. Historians say this new information highlights the uncertainty surrounding the emergence of such religious texts, rather than being a major upheaval.
Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Funny)
Ooops.
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, for years we trusted Carbon Dating, and now they have to trash all results based on it...
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Informative)
This will not shake the faith of the believers a single bit.
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Insightful)
There is really no reason for it to shake their faith.
The margin of error only starts before Mohammed was born, but his whole lifetime is comfortably within the margin of error. And while this is probably not the one he wrote or received, there were definitely early copies, of which there were probably many of by the time he died, considering his eventual position as ruler of a number of united tribes and prophet of an up and coming religion.
So, this is not news at all. It's like saying that Jesus was disproved by saying that the original Bible was written somewhere between 10 BC and 60 AD. Some people need to understand what a "margin of error" is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Similarities ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worse than that. The Koran contains stories that are based on common at the time mis-translations of the Jewish books.
Just like the book of Mormon, it contains proof of being the work of men, by virtue of the mis-translations included.
I'm sure the same would be true of the Jewish and Christian books, but their predecessor books aren't readily available.
Re: (Score:3)
Might want to read up on the council of Nicia. Where the new testament was edited by a politically appointed committee.
Old version of the books aren't common, but they are common enough to see that edits were made for consistency in the four official gospels.
They still haven't released the dead sea scrolls. Because the differences between them and modern versions would cause all kinds of strife.
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:4, Funny)
There are THREE major flaws in this... No FOUR major flaws in this... Among the major flaws in this article are...
I bet nobody expected that.
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, just like how conclusive carbon dating of the shroud of Turin [wikipedia.org] to the medieval period completely eliminated the throngs of faithful who believed in its miraculous origins
Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus [wikipedia.org], which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith.
The faithful will continue to believe, regardless of the scientific evidence. And in this case, as the summary itself mentions, there's a perfect reasonable explanation for the date - the parchment could have been an older parchment that was re-used, which happened often enough in that time period. This will change nothing.
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Funny)
Please, don't jump to conclusions. The Koran is a lie but the Bible is absolutely true. Come on, it just makes sense!
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Insightful)
Small problem with your argument (well, two...)
1) The Shroud of Turin is not central to (or even any part of) scripture, teaching, or dogma. In fact, most Christians believe it to be a medieval construct as well, and it remains a curiosity at best, even among the majority of Catholics.
2) The alleged tomb that Jesus was laid in is probably not the one - that particular spot was picked by Helena of Constantinople nearly 4 centuries later, based on some local legends. She also allegedly found the cross, but that's most likely bunk sold to her by locals who were eager to curry favor. As with #1, it has approximately bupkis to do with scripture, teaching, or dogma (Heck, the Council of Nicaea probably hadn't even convened yet when this alleged tomb was found.) Today, it serves as a nice place to worship, and to meditate on the Passion and Resurrection, but it has no real significance otherwise.
Meanwhile... the Quran is the actual scripture of Islam; if it was found to have existed *before* the founder existed (let alone wrote it, received it from Heaven, whatever)? That's kind of like kicking the pillars out from under a rather delicate tower... it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.
All that said, here's the fun part: the calendar we use is rather error-prone and isn't fully accurate. Most scientists and archaeologists know this, and correct for it. This is why Jesus' actual life may have begun as early as 6-10 BCE. I'm hoping these guys in TFA have managed to do those calculations for correction, and more important, did them correctly... because they're about to buy themselves a rather nasty shit-storm if they didn't. Even if they're right, I'm willing to bet that the very first counter-argument will point right to our calendar's not-so-perfect history.
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile... the Quran is the actual scripture of Islam; if it was found to have existed *before* the founder existed (let alone wrote it, received it from Heaven, whatever)? That's kind of like kicking the pillars out from under a rather delicate tower... it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.
Faith, in all religions, is designed to shake off facts that don't fit; that's they are religions, not science. There are many ways to work an earlier date into the doctrine, if needed, don't you worry. Just look at how Jehovah's Witnesses have handled the repeated failure of the end of the world to manifest itself; and they are by no means the only ones. So spare your glee; and any way, I think it is poor form, trying to make your own religion look better by pointing to potential weaknesses in others. You wouldn't need to gloat, if you really believed that what you stand for is better.
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Interesting)
Your points about the shroud of Turin and the alleged tomb are spot-on.
As for the Qur'an, it would indeed be a major problem for Islam intellectually if it were found to preexist Mohammed. However, even though I don't have any desire to defend Islam, from a critical standpoint I think that these findings are really too weak to even imply such a claim.
In the first place, the fact that the dating belongs to the parchment and not necessarily the ink is huge. Since parchment was relatively rare and expensive, it was a common practice (even among Christians) to re-use old parchment, e.g. blank pages in other manuscripts or even at times writing over other texts. In fact, the manuscript in question seems to be a copy of the Qur'an, and no claim seems to have been made that it was the original copy penned by Mohammed himself, and so this opens up seemingly endless possible scenarios where somebody found an older piece of parchment and copied the Qur'an onto it.
Secondly, the real and obvious character of the Qur'an is not so much that it plagiarizes other written texts but that it borrows explicit elements from Judaism, Christianity, and local religious thought, and reshapes all of this material through a particular lens that services Mohammed's political and social agenda. This is clear even without any specific manuscript dating, as it is a process that is more internal and subtle than merely taking a page from one book and inserting it into a another. Understanding this, it actually makes even more sense to suppose that a copyist reused an older parchment, because it fits with the spirit of Islam, a spirit that is evident in ISIS's systematic destruction of antiquities, even if a substantial portion of Muslims may be horrified by this action as well. Islam is in many ways a white-washing and concealment of history; Allah's transcendence breaks into history as an external and alien power and provides the Qur'an as a kind of divine text without history. Hence the Qur'an cannot be translated or critically examined because to do so would be to submit the text to historical forces. (If anyone reading this sees a resemblance between this kind of thinking and Christian fundamentalism, this is not at all surprising.)
Christianity in contrast, despite significant variations and particular groups that lean more in the direction of Islam, is like Judaism a deeply historical religion. By breaking into history in the Incarnation, God takes on our history as his very own, in such a way that the history of human beings becomes transcendently meaningful. Hence the Bible is written by human authors in human language (not a divine dialect of Arabic), but mysteriously transmits the Word of God. Hence it really would be no problem for Christianity (except for a few particular groups) if it were found that certain of Jesus' famous sayings had already been said verbatim by someone else. The divine authority of the Qur'an is premised upon a denial of any human element, but the divine authority of the Bible is premised upon a divine acceptance of human language.
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:4, Interesting)
it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.
Even an account from 30-40 *AD* would likely be faith-shaking. Everything we have was written by people who never met Jesus, most of it long after his death by anonymous authors. (No, the gospels were not written by the disciples with whose names they are traditionally associated.)
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Insightful)
As you say, lack of evidence has bupkis to do with people's faith. They believe despite the total lack of evidence, not because evidence exists.
There are so many historical holes in the Bible that Christian apologists have spent more than a millennium trying to explain them away. And people still believe.
A certain percentage of the population has an innate need to believe what cannot be proven. I think this is a feature of humanity, not a bug.
No. That is not a feature. It is definitely a bug.
And before anybody assumes so: I don't expect my humble opinion to settle that issue :-)
Re: (Score:3)
As you say, lack of evidence has bupkis to do with people's faith. They believe despite the total lack of evidence, not because evidence exists.
This is generally not true... Yea, there are those who swallow anything... But for Christianity the evidence for it's truth does exist if you carefully consider what is being actually claimed.
There is an excellent book written back in the 80's by Josh McDowell where the question of the historical Jesus and the claims of Christianity are systematically evaluated from the considerable evidence we have. "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" was his first volume. He started very much the skeptic, and set forth t
Re: (Score:3)
Uhh, because it's the lynchpin of the entire religion?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well, just like how conclusive carbon dating of the shroud of Turin [wikipedia.org] to the medieval period completely eliminated the throngs of faithful who believed in its miraculous origins"
Interestingly, the shroud of Turin isn't exactly mentioned in the Bible as being the lynchpin of the Christian faith.
"Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus [wikipedia.org], which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith."
U
Nothing to see here (Score:4, Insightful)
Most scholars don't think that the Talpiot Tomb has anything to do with Jesus. For exampel, Géza Vermes says the arguments for the Talpiot tomb are not "just unconvincing but insignificant" (see the Wikipedia page). Also, Christian theology does not depend on whether or not the shroud of Turin is real.
I'm not muslim, but even the summary notes a perfectly reasonable explanation - the parchment could be an old one. And frankly, I'm skeptical that the carbon dating is that precise; carbon dating depends on a lot of assumptions that can easily be false in specific circumstances. (Yes, radioactivity decreases at a fixed rate... but you have to make BIG assumptions about its starting value.) So while this article makes for a good headline, the current actual evidence is rather worthless.
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is most Christians shrugged their shoulders and ignored it
Muslims will kill all the researchers their families and threaten anyone who dares to not believe their version. I really can't wait for Muslims to get out of this phase.
Re: Well, that's embarrassing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus [wikipedia.org], which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith.
It only appears to do that if you assume it does. Where it may be the tomb of the family, there is no real way to know that for sure. If you assume it's the family, then there is little evidence that the body of the biblical Jesus is there. Most of the argument on this is based on how common the names found IN the tomb are and how likely the combination of names might find their way into a single tomb as a family. It also makes some assumptions about who is in the tomb, including the inclusion of Joseph
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:4)
Wikipedia is a convenient starting point, please see the 59 references on the page [wikipedia.org]. /. poster to paste dozens of links to satisfy your arbitrary sourcing requirements.
Feel free to read every one of those linked papers instead of expecting every
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because they should be learning to do original research by reading the sources Wikipedia cites, and then also finding their own sources. Since Slashdot is not (yet) a university, we don't have to be experts in the field (FSM forbid)
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Jesus sends a secret message to his followers to "prove" that he existed in a bizarre inverse image on a piece of cloth that appears to have originated long, long after he died in radiometric testing. This is the Alpha and the Omega, creator of the Universe itself, all powerful, who rose from the dead multiple times (according to Saul/Paul, and of course Saints cannot lie about something important like that) and who could easily save the souls of all the unbelievers in the world at any time by manifesting himself to them as he did to Saul/Paul and "hundreds of others".
He could, in fact, save my soul, as I am very, very certain that Jesus Was Not Magic, and that's if a single Jesus corresponding to the one in the inconsistent Gospels even existed and isn't a synthesis of a number of apocalyptic preachers of the time, dressed up with added myths and legends so that the religion itself could hold its own with the other prevailing "world" religions of the day (virgin birth, raised from the dead, raises the dead, sundry other miracles). There is, after all, absolutely nothing that any objective scientist would consider believable evidence to support the preposterous allegations of miracles of this or any other religion. So according to the Gospels, I am damned. According to Mark, Jesus deliberately set things up that way because I am preordained to be damned. Of course elsewhere in the Gospels, it is asserted that Jesus loves me, and still other places I would no doubt be identified as a "dog begging scraps from the master's table" as a Gentile and not a Jew.
But no matter. If Jesus is God, if God is all-powerful and all-loving, Jesus/God doesn't want to damn me or any other sentient being to hell. Of course as all-powerful all-loving Jesus/God, he/it can easily prevent it by just not doing it, but even if he/it establishes a rule that non-believers have to go to hell, he established a clear precedent with Saul that he can and at a whim will appear in person before them to take a Christian-persecuting wicked zealot sinner and convince him that he is real and thereby not only save them from damnation but convert them into a saint. It is an obvious theorem of these not too stringent observations and assumptions that either:
* Jesus is God, but is evil, and deliberately refrains from actions that would save sentient beings he presumably loves and who are capable of suffering from an easily preventable eternity of suffering.
* Jesus is God, but is not all powerful (which some would argue disqualifies him from being God, but whatever) and would love to appear before each sinner and demonstrate his reality and compassion and miraculous abilities, but lacks the time-sharing capabilities to do so.
* Jesus existed but was just a man who was born, lived for a while, perhaps made a bit of heavily mythologized and utterly non-supernatural ruckus, and then died, possibly by crucifixion, possibly of old age or disease.
* Jesus is a syncretic myth composed perhaps of John the Baptist legends and legends of some of the other apocalyptic con men/preachers of the age who went around preaching for a living and salted the crowd with shills to increase their following and donation/support stream. It is, not at all unreasonable that any such preacher would be named or even just titled Yeshua, which simply means god-redeemer, which happens to be the meaning of the word Christ as well which happens to be pretty much the meaning of Messiah (annointed savior). Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is "Annointed/Holy Savior" in three languages, Romanized Hebrew, Greek, and Hebrew. It seems perfectly reasonable that none of these terms is an actual name of the individual(s) involved (including, by the way, "Emmanuel", which comes from a completely irrelevant prophecy to King Ahaz and means "God is with us" and which nobody records as being one of his names but Matthew seeking desperately to tie Jesus to some kind of "official" prophecy).
If I am mi
Re: (Score:3)
In order to be sentient beings that are truly free, one must be given a choice.
It would be interesting to discuss precisely what you mean by this, since in one sense I have a near infinity of choices I make instant to instant -- to strike the letter "*" in between the previous quotes, for example (where I had to think for a second about just which key would best make my point and so I involved my true sentient freedom, I suppose) and in another if the laws of physics are actually what they appear to be,
Re: Well, that's embarrassing (Score:4, Interesting)
You might want to read something like Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus", or look at some historical examples of the game of "telephone" and how easily it can generate spurious information, as opposed to church propaganda. I agree that it is probably more likely than not that a unitary Jesus existed, but it isn't more likely than not as in 99% likely, it is more likely than not maybe 60-40 or 70-30, and it is certain that we know nothing reliable about Jesus' life outside of -- maybe -- his sayings. Luke and Matthew disagree categorically about his birth and don't even have it occurring during the same decade or the reign of the same Herod. Mark (the oldest synoptic and likely source for the material in the other two) starts with Jesus fully grown, appearing more or less out of nowhere (and ends, in the earliest extant manuscripts, with Jesus dead and in the tomb and with no resurrection -- the last 16 verses of Mark are later additions). None of the synoptics were written by eyewitnesses (obviously), all were written (probably) after the fall of the temple, and there is a clear progression in "miraculousness" with their probable age, as one would expect from people embellishing and adding new myths and legends to support a newborn cult against all of its competitors. And we have nothing like original source material. The Bible you know is the result of copies of copies of copies of... copies of manuscripts ultimately leading to some poor mistranslations that were transformed into dogma once the printing press was invented. Ehrman began as a born again Christian who studied the New Testament because he wanted to learn the word of God as it was actually written down, and is now an agnostic who ultimately concluded that there is no such thing in this world, that its original content is lost forever and is irretrievable. Which is inconsistent with the usual "true believer" belief in its infallibility, in the idea that it is a gift from God to guide us, that it is a reliable guide to life or even merely a true account of the Jesus who might or might not be documented there.
As for Josephus -- quite aside from the fact that he is not an eyewitness, writing in the mid-90's CE, he mentions Jesus three times. All three are subject to very serious doubt. For one thing, we have nothing like a reliable chain of transmission for Josephus any more than we do the Bible. Do you have any idea at all what the oldest copy of Josephus extant is dated back to? Let's guess that the answer is no. The answer is (IIRC) the twelfth century for the Cyriac copy. Again, we have copies of copies of copies, usually written in languages that aren't even the original language of the manuscript, copies of translations of the manuscript that were copied and preserved by the very church that post-Constantine found it useful. Nearly all scholars who study Josephus agree that at least part of the references to Jesus in Antiquities are insertions. But which ones? There is widespread belief in there being an "authentic kernel" that was his original text, but the problem with extracting it is (aside from the fact that it is literally impossible to do because we cannot at this time differentiate forgery from original by anything but guesswork and cannot even be certain there IS any original left) that at best, the result of such a process is open to considerable doubt. It is a matter of guessing, and of course any guess would be subject to enormous personal bias on the part of the guesser -- there is no objective way to determine the truth.
I would suggest that you read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
and note that there is pretty good reason to think that all of the references to Jesus in Antiquities are insertions, or at least have been corrupted irretrievably, and there is at least some reason to think that the entire Testimonium is a forgery deliberately inserted by Eusebius. It
Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect they will just opt to not believe it. It's easier than tearing a whole religion down because science has shown it to be faulty. I mean, one of the main points of Islam is that Muhammad wrote the Koran and that it was done in a very specific order. I don't think they'll accept this. It will be seen as Western propaganda and a fatwa or three issued because of it. Sad, too, the Arabic peoples have a very rich scientific heritage.
I've met Christians who are hell bent on insisting that carbon dating is wrong. I expect this to be the same. Religion makes some people willing to deny evidence and believe all sorts of strange things. I'm a Buddhist, also an atheist, and have wanted to believe all sorts of things that just don't have any evidence to support them. I can understand.
Instead, for example, I choose to believe that my atoms will return and be the substance known as stars eventually. I don't imagine those atoms will have any memory of me. Karma? Well, sure... We call it human nature and awareness. It's obviously not going to follow me into a new life, I don't see how a star can be subjected to karma anyhow.
Ah well... Let's hope these people doing this work are not subjected to too many death threats or terrorist attacks because of their findings. Some folks work really hard to keep other people in line and some folks are willing to die for their religious beliefs. Hopefully that does not happen here.
So you believe the Koran predates the Prophet? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
A bigger oops? That the article's wrong about the dates in the first place.
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ne... [birmingham.ac.uk] :
Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632.
In before (Score:4, Insightful)
Death threats.
Re:In before (Score:4, Funny)
From the "religion of peace"?!? Preposterous!
Re: (Score:3)
Really? To date, how many people have they beheaded?
I hate the jackasses of WBC just as much as anyone, but you're a fucking moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I hope that these guys were smart enough not to publish their Koran dating results under their real names. Otherwise, they're going to end up on some ISIS hit list for blasphemy or something equally stupid.
really... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime..."
My brain died a little bit just from reading that.
Re:really... (Score:5, Funny)
"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime..."
My brain died a little bit just from reading that.
Me too. I mean how could he claim it after his lifetime?
Re:really... (Score:5, Insightful)
It could have been claimed on his behalf after his death. After all, what we know about the subject is what people have written about it, not necessarily what actually happened....
Re:really... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah...it's not just "some scholars". Most sensible people also believe he did not receive it from heaven, but rather he pulled it out of his ass.
Re:really... (Score:5, Funny)
First real proper reason for using "Anonymous Coward" I've seen on /.
Re: (Score:2)
If its the "duh, obvious!" aspect you are going for, do you want to know how many people my wife see's as a GP who have entire religious texts that they have "received from their deity" and written down? Its not uncommon for people to write significant texts down that they believe have been gifted to them by a "god".
So the possibilities we have here are:
1. The text is older than thought and it was co-opted to form the basis of Islam
2. The timelines are screwed up and everything actually fits together as un
Re:really... (Score:5, Funny)
Next up, Joseph Smith got Mormon tablets from guy named Steve, not actual angel! Film at eleven!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why anyone thinks the Christian Bible is any different, a far as I'm aware the early church was inundated with testaments and apocalypses, prophets running around willy-nilly and whatnot, they just picked the ones they liked best.
Re:really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:really... (Score:4, Informative)
The Christian faith claims that the bible is the word of god (lots of bibles actually say that on the front), transcribed by particular men upon holy revelation. The church does indeed claim that the bible was merely transcribed, although they do admit that it was transcribed in chunks.
Re: (Score:3)
There are those who claim that those who wrote the Bible were merely copying words dictated to them by God. They are a minority.
Re: (Score:3)
The LDS claim is that their scripture was translated from an ancient record, written by men, found buried in a hill in rural New York by Joseph smith. Although not a part of the official history taught in Sunday school, Mormons now also affirm that Joseph Smith did not even look at the plates while translating them. Like the later "Abrahamic" papyrus, the plates seemed to be little more than a prop to provide, perhaps, some form of inspiration. In fact, Joseph Smith received his "translation" through a seer
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure why anyone thinks the Christian Bible is any different, a far as I'm aware the early church was inundated with testaments and apocalypses, prophets running around willy-nilly and whatnot, they just picked the ones they liked best.
Yes, but that is the official church story of the bible. It was written after the life of Jesus and assembled from many different sources, BY the Church a few centuries AD. The origin story of the bible is matter of history, no one claims it is the literal word of God or appeared through mysteries means.
Re:really... (Score:5, Interesting)
"no one claims it is the literal word of God"
Like most absolute statements, this is false. It might be that most Christians don't believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, but there is definitely a vocal sub group that do claim it is exactly that. Additionally, despite knowing that the Bible was assembled into its various forms by groups of religious leaders centuries after the constituent parts were supposedly written, many people I have talked to believe that the form we have today is what God intended all along.
While we know a lot about the history of The New Testament, the Old Testament is far more obscured. The last I heard it looked like the author attributed as Moses had written the first few books. Which is troubling when you think of all the Christian mythology that comes out of those books. For instance the Exodus appears to be completely unsupported by archaeological evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:really... (Score:5, Informative)
A scholar is just someone who studies something, it doesn't imply scientific method or intelligence. Scholars of theology are often deeply religious and spend much of their time trying to reconcile conflicting statements on holy texts, or apply ancient and poorly worded ideas to the modern world.
There you have it (Score:5, Funny)
Science debunks religion once again.
I am sure that this time those religious folks will come around...
Re:There you have it (Score:4, Funny)
Yup, it's science alright. Muhammad likely just plagiarized his paper, like many.
thats entirely bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
ok first off, i am not islamist, fuck muhammed and fuck allah.
however, a. carbon dating is not that precise. as much as koran and muhammed is bullshit, this report is also bullshit. the shit could have been written in old paper, or simply the carbon dating maybe was not that precise.
we all know all the prophets including mohammed and jesus and david, ate some schrooms and climbed on the mountain and thought they were downloading some shit from god, but not true.
be modern, and dont believe in all this bullsh
Nope. Typo. (Score:5, Informative)
"545 AD and 568"
1) This was a typo. It was between 568 and 645 AD.
Here's the original article:
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ne... [birmingham.ac.uk]
2) They dated the paper, not the ink. It was common to scrape and reuse paper. It also only dates the time the plant or animal died.
Re: (Score:2)
Accuracy (Score:5, Informative)
"545 AD and 568"
Can carbon dating be that precise?
The Daily Mail link has "Carbon dating found the pages were produced between 568AD and 654AD" which seems like a more reasonable range.
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Interesting)
645.
Typo (hopefully, as opposed to willful disinformation) in TFS. The actual range is 568 to 645. Which conveniently spans the Prophet's lifetime.
Which means it might have predated the Prophet. Or it might not.
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Informative)
Which scholars really believe it's divine source? (Score:2)
Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime
So are there actual scholars, I mean people who put facts before belief, who DO believe the divine inspiration story?
Are are those "scholars" merely religious functionaries whose "scholarship" is really just a form of theology?
Re:Which scholars really believe it's divine sourc (Score:4, Funny)
So they set up double-blind studies where half the group is given a placebo prayer and the other half is given a real prayer?
Good luck to those who made this finding (Score:4, Insightful)
Hope you don't get shot or blown up by followers of the "religion of peace" for your work.
Like the Bible (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's more like the Bible, then?
Re:Like the Bible (Score:4, Insightful)
Some believe in burning bushes, some believe in the Jewish zombie, some believe in a rock in the desert, some believe in magic underpants, some believe in cows and elephants, some believe in aliens in volcanoes, some believe they were previously an ant, some believe in pasta.
I believe I'll have a beer, but...
NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!
Re:Like the Bible (Score:5, Interesting)
Muhammed was illiterate. He had friends who could read, but he himself could not. So in the original story God dictated the Koran to him, and he recited it to his friend who wrote it down. The more you think about this the less it makes sense.
As such the Koran is supposed to be the literal word of God. I mean, it clearly isn't, because even if you accept that there might be a deity, the book itself is very poorly written. It's very obviously a product of the minds of the time, and you don't need a language degree to see that.
This finding is a huge problem for people who believe that the Koran is the literal word of God, dictated to Muhammed. Unlike the Bible, where it is accepted that there are many authors and many of them were not alive at the time of the events depicted, and each had their own agendas etc, the Koran is supposed to be perfect. Any flaw would be a flaw in God's work.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not known whether Muhammad was illiterate or not.
See:
Gerhard Boewering (2008) "Recent research on the construction of the Qur'an" in Gabriel Said-Reynolds (ed.), The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, Routledge: p. 70-87.
and:
Sebastian Guenther (2002), "Muhammad, the Illiterate Prophet: An Islamic Creed in the Qur'an and Qur'anic Exegesis" Journal of Qur'anic Studies. Volume 4, Issue 1, Page 1-26
Changes Nothing (Score:3)
People believe what they want to believe – this will make no difference. While the carbon dating is somewhat ambiguous (and gives more than enough wiggle room for believers), this will similarly give those who don’t believe in Islam, the complete certainty this completely disproves Islam without any further consideration.
I myself do not believe in Sky-Faeries, and many here will rush to blame Religion for most of mankind’s woes (or perhaps more specifically Islam more than most) but the real problem is adherence to any ideological Dogma and cherry picking or distorting facts to fit your Dogma.
Don’t be expect to win any friends or converts by trying to push this down Islam throat as proof Mohammad is not divine. It will be seen as a Zionist/Christian/American plot to deceive the faithful.
Muslims will find this offensive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Muslims will find this offensive... (Score:4, Informative)
Pretty sure Muslims worldwide will claim these findings are offensive and disrespectful to Islam and as such we will put them aside and pretend they don't exist. Which is pretty much the modus operandi from the West for anything that might offend Muslims.
Pretty sure most Muslims wont give a shit.
But people who watch Fox News wont have a clue as they'll only show some obscure cleric out in Bumfuckistan having a big old rant about it.
If Al Jazera was like Fox news, they'd claim a Klansman was the average American.
The average Muslim takes their religions as seriously as the average Christian these days. If you look hard enough, you'll find nutters in every faith.
Re: (Score:3)
The average Muslim takes their religions as seriously as the average Christian these days.
That's actually wrong. Factually wrong, although it's an argument that being repeated all around against all data. As you can see, the "average" Muslim believes in capital punishment for Apostasy (leaving the faith of Islam) and more than the average believes that stoning to the death should be the penalty for adultery.
The data comes from the PEW research centre, not some nut-job right-wing organisation. Should also be noted that the extremist Muslim majority countries couldn't be analysed, so the real situ
Reading is fundamental (Score:2)
Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven... but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda.
Muslims will counter this claim by stating Muhammad was an illiterate, but that's probably not the case [radicaltruth.net].
So to sum up (Score:2, Flamebait)
To sum up: Book of hateful, evil, misogynistic bullshit found to have been copied from an earlier draft of hateful, evil, misogynistic bullshit.
Clearer Origins (Score:3)
I think the fact that the pages of the Koran do not glow with unearthly swirling lights or set fire to the hands of un-believers is a better indicator it did not come from heaven.
Blasphemy! Oh boy. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how many people will die over this revelation?
None, because nobody will give a shit. The same goes for little things that contradict any other religion. Christianity, Mormonism, etc etc. Plenty of evidence to contradict it. In this case, it's not even that contradictory, which is why it's a minor thing, not some Earth-shaking revelation that contradicts all of the teachings of Islam. The dates are still within his lifetime so he still could have received the words from God. Even if you want to take it all at face value, perhaps it means the Koran
Extremely Biased Reporting (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't commented in a long time, but the reporting on this subject is heavily biased to support the pre-determined conclusion that the manuscript predates Mohammed (pbuh). The Daily Mail is guilty of this (shock! horror!) and so is the summary with its strategic "typo".
From the Mail article, Carbon dating places the manuscript between 568 and 645AD, while Mohammed is thought to have lived between 570 and 632AD. Most intelligent persons would take a quick glance at those dates and be able to dismiss the headlines outright. The range on the dating is nowhere near precise enough to make such a bold statement which is obviously meant to be inflammatory.
Also, as others have rightly stated, the dating is for the parchment, not the ink itself. It is perfectly possible for the parchment to have been produced and not been used for a length of time. Writing paraphernalia was extremely precious at that time; they may have been saved for something important.
Finally, while it is correct that the FULL Quran was not compiled in written form until after the prophet's death, and was primarily stored in memory of the followers, that does not preclude writing completely! The discovered script contains only a couple of chapters, and is not a complete version.
tl;dr: inaccurate and sensationalist headline and reporting on results which may actually point to the opposite.
Occam's razor (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, in absence of scientific evidence, if you just read the thing and have to decide between:
- The guy made it up to fit his political agenda
- The guy got it from a superpowered entity
Honestly, there's no way you can find the later simpler and more plausible. Especially after reading that part where men are allowed to marry up to four wives except the prophet who could marry as many as he wanted...
But it is always cool to have scientific evidence when you can get ones.
Obvious explanation (Score:3)
It must be understood ... (Score:3)
Doesn't Predate Mohammed (Score:5, Informative)
One word: (Score:5, Interesting)
Palimpsest.
Even if the carbon dating is right, all we know is the sheep (or goat) on which it was written died before Mohammed was born.
Bad science journalists! No biscuit!
Re: (Score:3)
Koran did pre exist Mohammad (Score:3)
However the written form of Koran known to humans was the revelations as recorded by Abu Bucr. If there were versions of written documents that pre existed Koran it would cause a stir and most Muslims will just ignore the finding and whatever else needed to be ignored.
Sensationalistic (Score:4, Insightful)
First, no, they believe that the parchment may have been made between those times.
Second, this is carbon dating, and we are talking about drama involving a couple decades.
From most to least likely, as best I can tell:
1- The carbon dating is off by a couple years. This is extremely likely, especially given that Islamic events *mostly* take place in the light of history (with the typical religious spin regarding their accuracy, of course). They did not date the ink itself, something that the scientists point out but gets lightly treated in media.
2- The parchment, a very valuable and frequently reused substance, was around a few years before being written on. This assumes that the carbon dating is totally accurate. Remember this isn't the difference between something being ten million years old and some guy claiming the earth is 4k years old- this is not a very long time at all. Nor is it like from 200 AD or anything, either.
3- Some parts of the Koran predate Mohammad Since this is just a very small part of the Koran, this is the most interesting claim, but neither is it as the headline is spinning it. While Muslim fundamentalists will fight this conclusion, they have a pretty reasonable leg to stand on- so far, at least. Even if they are wrong and parts of the Koran were repurposed to back some new militant religion, is that really that surprising to the rest of us?
Certainly interesting, but nowhere near as impactful as the headlines sound on this.
Also note, their p is that 5% thing- they are 94.5% sure, meaning they are wrong 1/20th of the time. That means that out of all the 95% confidence claims, 1/20 are wrong- and those would always be the most sensational.
Hey, speaking of sensational, why is the link to daily mail? This is all over the net, is that the best source?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07... [nytimes.com]
Also, I'm still not sure what dates are being claimed- each article seems to have slightly different ranges?
Wrong dates, and more info ... (Score:5, Informative)
The article and summary are bogus.
The parchment carbon dating gives a range on when the animal (sheep, goat, camel) died, not when the actual writing was done. But it does establishe an "parchment made no later than X" and a "writing can't be earlier than Y" scenario.
Muhammed died in 632 AD, and the parchment is dated up to 645 AD (latest). So it is most likely a copy written by a companion of Muhammed, possibly in his lifetime, or shortly after.
What this dating refutes beyond a doubt are the now discredited theories about Muhammed being a mythical figure, and the Quran invented in the late 7th century. For example, the Hagarene theory by Crone and Cook [wikipedia.org] and the Nevo-Koren Crossroads to Islam theory [wikipedia.org] are untenable now. This manuscript is earlier than all these theories claim.
It is written in the Hijazi script [wikipedia.org] with no dots or diacritics. This script originated in Hijaz (Arabian Peninsula west coast), and was dominant in the few decades following the death of Muhammed, before the Kufic script dominated (from Iraq). The amazing thing is that I can read most of it, almost 14 centuries later!
By the way, I contacted Dr. David Thomas, one of the researchers, to ask if the ink was carbon dated, or just the parchment. He said just the parchment, so as not to affect the writing. I also asked if this was a palimpsest [wikipedia.org] (older parchment that was washed and written over at a later date), and he said that it is not, since there are markings that show in that case.
So, this is as early a written copy as can be.
The interesting part is that the 645 AD date pre-dates the standardization of the Quran that was done around 650 AD by the 3rd successor to Muhammed, Caliph Uthman. Research shows minor variations, but nothing significant.
Here is his full reply:
In later emails he says that Fedeli's thesis is due to be published soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most all religions are adapted from the beliefs that came before them, some more so than others. Christianity took parts of pretty much every religion around and cobbled itself together... then voted on which dogma it should use as a public face; its no real surprise that Islam did as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Go ahead, show me that a plurality of Christians believed that all non-believers should be put to death.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Chop off Hands.
Kill atheists.
Overtax Jews and Christians, then kill them.
Kill Buddhists.
Kill Hinduists.
All the "relgion of peace".
It seems the Media have done their job and you are appropriately terrified of the Other.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did the GP claim some other religion was better? What does the truthfulness of any religion have to do with the points GP made?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Historically, it's very likely that Christianity has caused the most harm to human beings and humanity as a whole thus far.
If you think about the dark ages, witch hunts, torture during the inquisition, crusades, sanctions against unbelievers, such as expulsions and acquisitions of their assets, forced conversions, colonization, abuse and culture shock of natives...
Most of this bad Karma was accumulated in the early to late middle ages, until the age of enlightenment finally put a stop to most of it. Of cour
Re:Chop Off Heads (Score:4, Insightful)
Caused? This was the religion of their time. I highly doubt whoever was in power would of behaved well if they were following another religion. Also your comment shows a poor understanding of other cultures and religious beliefs and how they were used to manipulate people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Old testament (Score:4, Funny)
Which is why the Orthodox Christian (e.g. Catholic) Old testament contains more books than the Hebrew Bible.
I thought it was because their signal-to-noise ratio was lower.
Re: Old testament (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Old testament (Score:5, Informative)
Dead Sea Scrolls. Ever heard of them? They include a fair chunk of the Tanakh ("Old Testament" to Christians) written down as much as 400 BCE (before the birth of Jesus). The Ketef Hinnom silver scroll from Jerusalem dates from 600 BCE, and is clearly part of a long established written tradition. The Israelites/Jews were writing down their religious history for a thousand years before the Christians (we have religious inscriptions in Hebrew that are that old).
Re:also also (Score:4, Informative)