Bad News Reporting in Religion
ConversazioniLet's Talk Religion
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1prosfilaes
Fragments Of Ancient Quran Could Be Older Than Muhammad says Huffington Post, apparently basing it off The Times, which is behind a paywall.
"The test used a piece of the ancient parchment, which was discovered in Birmingham University Library in July, with scientists dating the tome from between 568 and 645AD.
Islamic scholars believe Muhammad lived between 570 and 632AD, meaning the text was compiled either before the Prophet’s birth or during his childhood."
This isn't hard. 645 AD is after 632 AD. This could easily be an extraordinarily important manuscript, one of the earliest Quran manuscripts, possibly with world-shaking variations, additions or omissions. This could possibly be a manuscript contemporaneous with Muhammad's life! But if you have a work believed to be composed between 609 and 632, and a manuscript on parchment made between 568 - 645, assuming it's not a fraud, you have a probably important copy written between 609 and 645. You don't have any justification to claim that you have a pre-609 copy; that's an extraordinary claim, and you don't have the type of extraordinary evidence to back it up.
(Again, that assumes the work is as old as the parchment. If it's not a fraud, then that's probably true. If it is, it could easily be a 20th century work of little interest.)
In any case, feel free to use this thread to complain about your own picks of Bad News Reporting in Religion.
"The test used a piece of the ancient parchment, which was discovered in Birmingham University Library in July, with scientists dating the tome from between 568 and 645AD.
Islamic scholars believe Muhammad lived between 570 and 632AD, meaning the text was compiled either before the Prophet’s birth or during his childhood."
This isn't hard. 645 AD is after 632 AD. This could easily be an extraordinarily important manuscript, one of the earliest Quran manuscripts, possibly with world-shaking variations, additions or omissions. This could possibly be a manuscript contemporaneous with Muhammad's life! But if you have a work believed to be composed between 609 and 632, and a manuscript on parchment made between 568 - 645, assuming it's not a fraud, you have a probably important copy written between 609 and 645. You don't have any justification to claim that you have a pre-609 copy; that's an extraordinary claim, and you don't have the type of extraordinary evidence to back it up.
(Again, that assumes the work is as old as the parchment. If it's not a fraud, then that's probably true. If it is, it could easily be a 20th century work of little interest.)
In any case, feel free to use this thread to complain about your own picks of Bad News Reporting in Religion.
2timspalding
Yes, absurd.
Also, let's remember, the carbon date of a piece of parchment is not the date it was written on. Indeed, I believe it's the date the calf died.
Also, let's remember, the carbon date of a piece of parchment is not the date it was written on. Indeed, I believe it's the date the calf died.
3MarthaJeanne
>2 timspalding: That was my thought as well. Parchment could be stored, and was often reused.
This is actually exciting news as it gives access to the text very near the time it was written. Something we don't have for Bible texts.
This is actually exciting news as it gives access to the text very near the time it was written. Something we don't have for Bible texts.
