Oldest(?) Quran fragments found in Birmingham.

[The Minsky Moment]

7th Century Byzantine Scholars would have been ignorant of Judaism?

Yes.
At least I don't know of any such scholars who studied Talmud.

[Queequeg]

7th Century Byzantine Scholars would have been ignorant of Judaism?

Yes.
At least I don't know of any such scholars who studied Talmud.

IDK.  I'm not even sure what Late Antique Judaism would look like, to be honest. The Byzantines were quite intolerant in some respects, but the Jewish response to the Sassanid capture of Jerusalem seems to indicate that at the time there was enough of a Jewish presence in the Holy Land for them to be a threat to Byzantine power. 

I'm not sure Judaism would have been as foreign to the Byzantines as it was to, say, the French in 1240.  I think there was enough of a blurred line between Judaism and Christianity still in the Near East that the average Christian theologian or thinker would have been familiar with most of the Mosaic laws.  The great Jewish intellectuals are either in the past (Flavius) or to come in the Muslim world or Toulouse. 

I also think Byzantine Antisemitism was substantially different.  Jews were frequently force converted in a time of crisis, but I can't think of many obvious examples of Plague-era style pogroms.  I'm not sure they had the same role as moneylenders.  During the crisis period there probably wasn't that much money to lend, and during the Komnenian period Italian penetration was so intense that the mid-range and private loans Ashkenazim populations specialized in during the High Middle Ages would have been covered by the Genovese or the motherfucking, cocksucking Venetians.  IDK.  Surprisingly Romaniote Jewish history is kind of blank spot for me. 

I just started Citizens.  Simon Schama is fucking woooooooonderful.

[Valmy]

I was sketchy on what exactly you were arguing.  When I say it did not come out fully formed I'm talking about the state it is today.  Naturally Averroes works are not going to be found in a stone tablet dating to same period the Quran was written.

What is sketchy about it? I found the evidence from that era interesting because it differed from the classic features of Islam from the periods just a bit later. Not mentioning Mohammed in dedications, as would soon be customary, crosses and other things appearing on coins and inscriptions for a bit. A suggestion that Christianity had some influence for a bit and then was firmly rejected. There was never an explicit request to Heraclius to accept Mohammed, just to reject Jesus as God. And then you have apparent confusion from theologians who had debated the Arabs and lived among them on what they believed. So it seemed plausible that maybe Islam as existed during most of the Umayyad Caliphate and later took awhile to get fully conceptualized and institutionalized.

It might have even been true that Mohammed had first directed his people to invade the Holy Land for this Hagar business. The tradition says Jews were quite important in the early days.

So I found it interesting if not conclusive. I didn't think it deserved the anger and contempt I was seeing here. This discovery of an early Quran is certainly a powerful piece of the puzzle that now must be considered when reviewing the other evidence. It may be that the traditional story is accurate but if there is other evidence to consider I think it should. There is no horrible harm in reading evidence and forming theories is there?

I mean with communications and so forth as it was back then it may even be true that many of the Arab tribes still didn't really know what the deal was for awhile until the institutions of the Caliphate were really coming together and confusion resulted.

I do not really know why you thought I was saying that 7th century Islam was 21st century Islam. I hope it was obvious I meant 'fully formed' as in classical Islam from that period because duh.

What is my opinion? I don't know. I just assumed the traditional version was true, then I was exposed to this stuff and just though...eh...maybe it is not so simple. I understand to literalist theologians it is vitally important but to me it is just historical curiosity.

[Valmy]

I just started Citizens.  Simon Schama is fucking woooooooonderful.

[Queequeg]

Whoops thought this was the books thread for a second. 

[Valmy]

Whoops thought this was the books thread for a second. 

Never a bad place to mention French Revolution books

By the way make sure to check out the Revolutions podcast these days. The crazy times of Le Directoire are underway

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not sure Judaism would have been as foreign to the Byzantines as it was to, say, the French in 1240.  I think there was enough of a blurred line between Judaism and Christianity still in the Near East that the average Christian theologian or thinker would have been familiar with most of the Mosaic laws. 

Most likely their understanding of Judaism would have been filtered through the Patristic texts - Justin Martyr and the like. So both anachronistic and distorted by polemical Christological views.

But of course they were literate and had the Pentateuch so familiarity with the basics is a given.

[Queequeg]

Whoops thought this was the books thread for a second. 

Never a bad place to mention French Revolution books

By the way make sure to check out the Revolutions podcast these days. The crazy times of Le Directoire are underway

Kind of why I started it.  Actually I think the French Revolution started around the time I read A Place of Greater Safety last year.

[crazy canuck]

You will have to explain to Tom Holland that he is not a serious academic.  This isn't a particular safe view to hold these days so I am not surprised a lot of Academics are not eager to go public with their views given that people are being killed over cartoons.  You may have no reason to disbelieve, but the reasons some academic do doubt the story is true is well explained in Holland's book.

http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350

Try reading this Raz.  T
If you introduce me to him, I'll be sure to explain it to him.  Just as explained to you that Tom Harpur was hack when you demanded I read his books about similar nonsense.  You seem very susceptible to this sort of historical baloney.  Is there are reason why?

Often being political incorrect means you have to be factually incorrect as well.

I am not so sure one should be critical of an academic who went on to private commercial success writing about history.  And I am not sure why it is surprising that people might take issue with his view.

The guy who wrote the 1421 had lots of commercial success and not surprising lots of people had taken issue with his views.  People often take issue with nonsense presented as history.  I do for instance.

Try reading this Raz.  It may also interest JR regarding the difficulty of relying on Islamic oral traditions.  Despite the fact that less time elapsed than the Jewish experience of reducing oral history to writing it Islamic writings experienced exactly the same problems of the writings becoming influenced by the political, religious and cultural concerns of the time of the writing.  Unless one subscribes to the theory that God really did write all of this, I am not sure how one avoids the obvious conclusion that writers of sacred texts are necessarily influenced by their own experiences.  The probably think they are doing God's work.  But the texts are very much influenced by the necessities of when they are written.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=BrPCUtkOKMUC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=princeton+university+scholars+of+early+islam&source=bl&ots=FsODiNHU2V&sig=8uD2cd11K6Vd9k3rnksnghFN9oM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBWoVChMIuvKxjaX2xgIVVxSSCh1yDg-8#v=onepage&q=princeton%20university%20scholars%20of%20early%20islam&f=false

[garbon]

But the texts are very much influenced by the necessities of when they are written.

No fucking way!

[crazy canuck]

But the texts are very much influenced by the necessities of when they are written.

No fucking way!

Yeah, I know.  Obvious but one could hardly tell by reading the forums on Languish.

[The Minsky Moment]

Try reading this Raz.  It may also interest JR regarding the difficulty of relying on Islamic oral traditions.

I agree with all of this.  Oral traditions are problematic.  It's very dangerous to draw historical conclusions for them.

That's one of the reasons this find is interesting. Before this I would have guessed it unlikely that the Qur'an was not written down in anything like current form until the 650s.  While far from conclusive this is evidence to the contrary.

[Razgovory]

You will have to explain to Tom Holland that he is not a serious academic.  This isn't a particular safe view to hold these days so I am not surprised a lot of Academics are not eager to go public with their views given that people are being killed over cartoons.  You may have no reason to disbelieve, but the reasons some academic do doubt the story is true is well explained in Holland's book.

http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350

Try reading this Raz.  T
If you introduce me to him, I'll be sure to explain it to him.  Just as explained to you that Tom Harpur was hack when you demanded I read his books about similar nonsense.  You seem very susceptible to this sort of historical baloney.  Is there are reason why?

Often being political incorrect means you have to be factually incorrect as well.

I am not so sure one should be critical of an academic who went on to private commercial success writing about history.  And I am not sure why it is surprising that people might take issue with his view.

The guy who wrote the 1421 had lots of commercial success and not surprising lots of people had taken issue with his views.  People often take issue with nonsense presented as history.  I do for instance.

Try reading this Raz.  It may also interest JR regarding the difficulty of relying on Islamic oral traditions.  Despite the fact that less time elapsed than the Jewish experience of reducing oral history to writing it Islamic writings experienced exactly the same problems of the writings becoming influenced by the political, religious and cultural concerns of the time of the writing.  Unless one subscribes to the theory that God really did write all of this, I am not sure how one avoids the obvious conclusion that writers of sacred texts are necessarily influenced by their own experiences.  The probably think they are doing God's work.  But the texts are very much influenced by the necessities of when they are written.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=BrPCUtkOKMUC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=princeton+university+scholars+of+early+islam&source=bl&ots=FsODiNHU2V&sig=8uD2cd11K6Vd9k3rnksnghFN9oM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBWoVChMIuvKxjaX2xgIVVxSSCh1yDg-8#v=onepage&q=princeton%20university%20scholars%20of%20early%20islam&f=false

No one denies that accounts are influenced by the time exist in, and no I do not think the Koran is divinely inspired.  This doesn't mean I accept the fringe account that Muhammad was a literary invention.  I know Muslim baiting is all the rage these days, what with the clash of civilizations and all of Europe having fallen under Islamic law last year, but that doesn't mean you should just accept any anti-Muslim nonsense you come across.  It won't let me read your new book.  All I can tell it is that is not the book you initially touted by Mr. Holland.  Your history of thrusting books on the rest of us is very poor.  I think we all remember when you got a historical fiction book confused with a first person account.  So I ask again, why are you so drawn to fringe accounts?

[crazy canuck]

Sorry for offending your sensibilities Raz but there is even less evidence of a historical Mohammad then there is for a historical Jesus.  It is a matter of faith.  Which is, I suppose, why you are so touchy about this.

[Razgovory]

Sorry for offending your sensibilities Raz but there is even less evidence of a historical Mohammad then there is for a historical Jesus.  It is a matter of faith.  Which is, I suppose, why you are so touchy about this.

Because what you said was simply not true.  The fragments found talked about in the OP is a stake through the heart of such fringe theories (and lets be clear, they are fringe theories they are in the same category as the Chinese discovering America and Socrates not existing).  I have "Faith" in Mohammad, in the same way I have "faith" in Socrates.  I'd really like to know why such popular nonsense is so appealing to you.  So appealing that you would accept a book that claims that say, there is historical writings of Christ from 18,000 BC, over 10,000 year before there was any writing what so ever.