Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Dating Shows Koran May Predate Muhammad
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.
"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...
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.
"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.
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.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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).
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
The articles are clear about the fact the parchment is from during life of Mohammad. The writing of the document would have happened *much* later. Makes sense considering scarcity of parchment in the region at the time. This feels like another anti-Islam piece.
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.
I mean, hold on a second. Slashdot links to an article that copies from another article a report of carbon dating of "545-568" for a piece of parchment from a codex of the Qu'ran. People in this thread immediately act all smarmy about religious folks and their crazy beliefs. Some even claim historians will "just give you the facts" or some horsecrap. Here's what a historian does: A. Looks at article. B. Follows link to article they stole that from. C. Follows their link to the article they stole it from. D. Hits a paywall and goes to Wikipedia. E. Finally gets the point: two bifolios of a really old Qu'ran were discovered (by Alba Fedeli) in a Birmingham codex, Radiocarbon analysis (by the University of Oxford's Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit) dated the animal from which the parchment came to between 568-645 with 95.4% confidence -- in other words, there's a 19 chances of out 20 that the animal was alive when Mohammad was. The verses were copied onto it sometime after the animal was killed. This should all be backed up by consulting the sources linked in Wikipedia, but I'm doing this for an internet rant, thank you very much. So, guess what? If you actually study the sources, you find that 1) no "scholar" has produced a coherent argument using this evidence as the key proof that the Koran predated Mohammad, 2) Antetexts are an entirely different matter, 3) plenty of people are willing to blindly follow their faith on this matter. Most of those seem to be those who proclaim the loudest about the superiority of "science" without having any knowledge of what "science" is and a fundamental confusion of what constitutes faith and what constitutes reason. Hint: if you believe it, 'cos you read it on the interwebs and it matches what you think of the world, it ain't reason.
That IS Arabic, a very old form of it that didn't use the dots we use nowadays to denote say a Ba from a Ta or a Nun
I know you jest, but fundamentalists never believed in Carbon Dating, why would they start now?
This will not shake the faith of the believers a single bit.
So say we all
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 and the Nevo-Koren Crossroads to Islam theory are untenable now. This manuscript is earlier than all these theories claim.
It is written in the Hijazi script 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 (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.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
So, you're saying that the most likely Jesus wasn't Jesus?
There were scores of "messiahs" around at the time of the Roman occupation. The zealots had half of them. Their followers all deified them and their disciples and their disciples children all created origin stories for them. It was basically Marvel vs DC, except all the heroes were Jewish.
Look, I'm a big supporter of Christianity. I think faith is a good thing. But there's no historical Jesus and I'm not sure why it even matters.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.