Oldest(?) Quran fragments found in Birmingham.

[Razgovory]

Interesting fact:  There were no historical personages until 1477.  Before that people did not have names and they were governed by personifications of cultural and economic trends and talking manifestations of geography and climate.

[The Brain]

Interesting fact:  There were no historical personages until 1477.  Before that people did not have names and they were governed by personifications of cultural and economic trends and talking manifestations of geography and climate.

The founding of Uppsala university was the watershed?

[Razgovory]

Interesting fact:  There were no historical personages until 1477.  Before that people did not have names and they were governed by personifications of cultural and economic trends and talking manifestations of geography and climate.

The founding of Uppsala university was the watershed?

First printing starts to be put on texts.

[jimmy olsen]

Interesting fact:  There were no historical personages until 1477.  Before that people did not have names and they were governed by personifications of cultural and economic trends and talking manifestations of geography and climate.

[crazy canuck]

Raz, it is not a fringe theory to have suggested that the Quran was written well after the time of the Prophet.  What is important about this fragment is that it is the first evidence, other than oral history, to the contrary.  But it is only a fragment.  Just as the old and new testaments were written by many sources over long spans of time, we don't know to what extent the Quran was fully formed at this date - ie whether this is a fragment of one if the early parts or a fragment of the whole text.  If it is the latter then that will give significant support to the oral tradition.

[Razgovory]

Raz, it is not a fringe theory to have suggested that the Quran was written well after the time of the Prophet.  What is important about this fragment is that it is the first evidence, other than oral history, to the contrary.  But it is only a fragment.  Just as the old and new testaments were written by many sources over long spans of time, we don't know to what extent the Quran was fully formed at this date - ie whether this is a fragment of one if the early parts or a fragment of the whole text.  If it is the latter then that will give significant support to the oral tradition.

It is a fringe theory that Mohammed didn't exist, which is what some of the texts you provided claimed.  That it's a matter of "faith" that he existed is a fringe theory.  Do you still hold to this, or are you backing down?  While we are at it, I'll give a list of historical personages and I want you to tell me which ones you have "Faith" in and which ones you don't.

Snefru
Pythagoras
Spartacus
Atilla the Hun
Sun Tzu
Confucius
Alexander the Great
John Ball
Samuel de Champlain
Nat Turner
St. Martin of Tours
Genghis Khan
Roland

[Valmy]

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

When the French Revolution started is a matter of interesting historical debate but I have never seen anybody claim it started in 2014 before

[crazy canuck]

Raz, it is not a fringe theory to have suggested that the Quran was written well after the time of the Prophet.  What is important about this fragment is that it is the first evidence, other than oral history, to the contrary.  But it is only a fragment.  Just as the old and new testaments were written by many sources over long spans of time, we don't know to what extent the Quran was fully formed at this date - ie whether this is a fragment of one if the early parts or a fragment of the whole text.  If it is the latter then that will give significant support to the oral tradition.

It is a fringe theory that Mohammed didn't exist, which is what some of the texts you provided claimed.  That it's a matter of "faith" that he existed is a fringe theory.  Do you still hold to this, or are you backing down?  While we are at it, I'll give a list of historical personages and I want you to tell me which ones you have "Faith" in and which ones you don't.

Snefru
Pythagoras
Spartacus
Atilla the Hun
Sun Tzu
Confucius
Alexander the Great
John Ball
Samuel de Champlain
Nat Turner
St. Martin of Tours
Genghis Khan
Roland

Roland is a very bad example for your argument Raz

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure you understand my argument.  Which figures do you have "faith" in?  And are holding to the Mohammed thing or not?

[crazy canuck]

I'm not sure you understand my argument.  Which figures do you have "faith" in?  And are holding to the Mohammed thing or not?

I think it is more that you don't understand the argument that texts which purport to be historically accurate when they are recounting oral histories more often then not have very little historical validity.  One only accepts their historical validity on faith.  That is why your choice of Roland is so ironic.  Roland's historical opponents at Roncesvalles, if he in fact existed, where Christian Basque separatists but the legend of Roland has him and his companions being cut down by an army of Moors.  The same problem with religious texts being edited, compiled and written for the political and religious purposes of whoever is doing the editing, compiling and writing.  We see the same thing happen in the Jewish texts, the compiling and editing of the New Testament and, the theory goes, the Quran. 

As stated about 4 times now.  If this fragment is part of a fully formed Quranic text that dates from the period of the purported creation of Islam then that would be very strong evidence that the Islamic religious text is an exception to the rule.  That the text we now know as the Quran is in the same form as it was from its creation.  But we don't yet know enough to make that conclusion. 

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure you understand my argument.  Which figures do you have "faith" in?  And are holding to the Mohammed thing or not?

I think it is more that you don't understand the argument that texts which purport to be historically accurate when they are recounting oral histories more often then not have very little historical validity.  One only accepts their historical validity on faith.  That is why your choice of Roland is so ironic.  Roland's historical opponents at Roncesvalles, if he in fact existed, where Christian Basque separatists but the legend of Roland has him and his companions being cut down by an army of Moors.  The same problem with religious texts being edited, compiled and written for the political and religious purposes of whoever is doing the editing, compiling and writing.  We see the same thing happen in the Jewish texts, the compiling and editing of the New Testament and, the theory goes, the Quran. 

As stated about 4 times now.  If this fragment is part of a fully formed Quranic text that dates from the period of the purported creation of Islam then that would be very strong evidence that the Islamic religious text is an exception to the rule.  That the text we now know as the Quran is in the same form as it was from its creation.  But we don't yet know enough to make that conclusion.

I guess you aren't going to answer my questions.   You picked up a little on Roland, but failed to see the broader pattern.  You could make arguments that none of these people exist.  If one were to apply this form of hyper-skepticism most historical figures become myths.  Snefru, Pythagoras, Alexander the Great, and St. martin are religious figures in one sense or another.  Often there are claims made about them that we know can't be true.  For Instance, Pythagoras was probably not born with a golden thigh, Alexander the Great didn't build a wall to keep out giants and Snefru probably wasn't a god.  The texts concerning Alexander the Great were edited, compiled and written for political and religious purposes but there is no school of thought that he was fictitious and conceived after a Greek conquest of the Persian empire.  There is no skepticism about Attila the Hun despite the fact that we don't know what language he spoke, who the Huns really were, or even if Attila was actual his name.

What you completely failed to grasp is that the processes that resulted in the Koran and the historical biographies of Mohammed (or the collection of documents that make up the Bible) are the same processes that make up almost all of our pre-modern history.  They are very often codified oral histories, refer to sources long lost, include blatant propaganda, copied and edited numerous times and make references to either supernatural or physically impossible events.  These religious texts are not the exception, they are the norm in how history is written.  If you are to are to be skeptical about the existence of Mohammed, then you must in good faith be skeptical of the existence of Attila the Hun or Alexander the Great.  Of Course, that would be insane, and that is why Mohammed skepticism is a fringe position.  You must accept the historicity of these figures or reject history altogether.

[Valmy]

Why would it be insane to doubt the historicity of a figure if you have evidence to support your case exactly? Why is all of history dependent on Atilla the Hun existing?

[Eddie Teach]

Sorry for offending your sensibilities Raz but there is even less evidence of a historical Mohammad then there is for a historical Jesus. 

You say that like Jesus wasn't a real person.

[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. 

You say that like Jesus wasn't a real person.

It is the same problem for both Mohammad and Jesus.  Their existence is known only from the sacred religious texts which founds the religion in their name.  The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society.  At least Islam can take some comfort in the fact that Mohammad did not come from a society which had the same degree of literacy.

[crazy canuck]

You could make arguments that none of these people exist.

No, I couldn't.  And the fact you are making this strawman argument shows a lack of understanding of the point I am making