Oldest(?) Quran fragments found in Birmingham.

[jimmy olsen]

Fucking suck it, "Mohammed was fictional" asshole-scholars. 

I thought the argument was that Mohammed was arguing for a Hagarian interpretation

What's  a Hagarian interpretation mean exactly?

[The Brain]

Fucking suck it, "Mohammed was fictional" asshole-scholars. 

I thought the argument was that Mohammed was arguing for a Hagarian interpretation

What's  a Hagarian interpretation mean exactly?

It's horrible.

[garbon]

Fucking suck it, "Mohammed was fictional" asshole-scholars. 

I thought the argument was that Mohammed was arguing for a Hagarian interpretation

What's  a Hagarian interpretation mean exactly?

How about imprecisely?

[The Minsky Moment]

What's  a Hagarian interpretation mean exactly?

Back in the 70s there was a book published by 2 scholars that took the approach that the Islamic/Arab historical tradition was not reliable and thus the best way to understand the origins of Islam was to look at what the earliest *non-Islamic* sources had to say.  So they dug up a bunch of accounts of early Islam written by Byzantine monks and the like.  Not entirely surprisingly, these sources tended to view this strange new faith as some sort of Jewish heresy.  The flaws in this methodology should be obvious - i.e. why would one expect to get reliable information from poorly informed observers with polemical motivations of their own?  But it enjoyed some vogue for a time before the authors fell out with each other and one of them renounced the work.

[The Minsky Moment]

Very interesting find; reinforces the traditional account of Quranic reception.

Perhaps.  The find, if authenticated by independent researchers, is also consistent with the theory that the Quran was a creation of many authors and sources over time and that this fragment forms part of that tradition.

Oh sure.  But it supports the theory that the Qur'an was put in written form fairly early in the timeline.

[crazy canuck]

Very interesting find; reinforces the traditional account of Quranic reception.

Perhaps.  The find, if authenticated by independent researchers, is also consistent with the theory that the Quran was a creation of many authors and sources over time and that this fragment forms part of that tradition.

Oh sure.  But it supports the theory that the Qur'an was put in written form fairly early in the timeline.

Again, perhaps.  It is unclear how much of the text is contained in the fragment.  I could be that some of what came to be compiled as the Quran was written early on while other parts were written later and then the whole was compiled and edited at a even later date.  If however the fragment is substantially complete then the theory that the Quran was in a written form early on would seem to be the more persuasive view.

[Razgovory]

Very interesting find; reinforces the traditional account of Quranic reception.

Perhaps.  The find, if authenticated by independent researchers, is also consistent with the theory that the Quran was a creation of many authors and sources over time and that this fragment forms part of that tradition.

Oh sure.  But it supports the theory that the Qur'an was put in written form fairly early in the timeline.

Again, perhaps.  It is unclear how much of the text is contained in the fragment.  I could be that some of what came to be compiled as the Quran was written early on while other parts were written later and then the whole was compiled and edited at a even later date.  If however the fragment is substantially complete then the theory that the Quran was in a written form early on would seem to be the more persuasive view.

Perhaps?  I'm not sure what evidence you have for your theory.  It could mean that other parts not part of this fragment were written much later, but there's no evidence of this.  It could also have been written by the Chinese, but there's no reason to believe that either.  What this is evidence of is that at least part of the text, (the part recovered), went from oral  to the written stage very rapidly, if there was indeed an oral stage at all.

[Valmy]

What's  a Hagarian interpretation mean exactly?

Back in the 70s there was a book published by 2 scholars that took the approach that the Islamic/Arab historical tradition was not reliable and thus the best way to understand the origins of Islam was to look at what the earliest *non-Islamic* sources had to say.  So they dug up a bunch of accounts of early Islam written by Byzantine monks and the like.  Not entirely surprisingly, these sources tended to view this strange new faith as some sort of Jewish heresy.  The flaws in this methodology should be obvious - i.e. why would one expect to get reliable information from poorly informed observers with polemical motivations of their own?  But it enjoyed some vogue for a time before the authors fell out with each other and one of them renounced the work.

Well this has gone on since then and it stems from the lack of contemporary Islamic sources. It is natural to use primary sources in history no? Any early primary sources are going to have biases and issues so I do not get the sneering assumptions that sources are all automatically wrong and/or poorly informed. I don't think the assumption was that they were 100% correct only it was interesting what their misconception was in the light of other evidence, inscriptions and numismatics and the like. I don't think your characterization of it being a short fad in the 70s is entirely accurate, I guess I have seen it as rather recent work.

I also do not think studying primary sources is woolen-headed and I don't think doing so here is necessary an announcement that anything is any more or less reliable than any other historical tradition.

This is a pretty remarkable find. I look forward to hearing about future developments.

[Valmy]

Very interesting find; reinforces the traditional account of Quranic reception.

Perhaps.  The find, if authenticated by independent researchers, is also consistent with the theory that the Quran was a creation of many authors and sources over time and that this fragment forms part of that tradition.

Oh sure.  But it supports the theory that the Qur'an was put in written form fairly early in the timeline.

Yes it does. I wonder how it ended up in Birmingham of all places.

[Valmy]

Fucking suck it, "Mohammed was fictional" asshole-scholars. 

I thought the argument was that Mohammed was arguing for a Hagarian interpretation

What's  a Hagarian interpretation mean exactly?

Arabs being the sons of Hagar.

[Queequeg]

What's  a Hagarian interpretation mean exactly?

Back in the 70s there was a book published by 2 scholars that took the approach that the Islamic/Arab historical tradition was not reliable and thus the best way to understand the origins of Islam was to look at what the earliest *non-Islamic* sources had to say.  So they dug up a bunch of accounts of early Islam written by Byzantine monks and the like.  Not entirely surprisingly, these sources tended to view this strange new faith as some sort of Jewish heresy.  The flaws in this methodology should be obvious - i.e. why would one expect to get reliable information from poorly informed observers with polemical motivations of their own?  But it enjoyed some vogue for a time before the authors fell out with each other and one of them renounced the work.

IDK how wrong that theory is, TBH, and it's probably more right that "Islam emerged Athena-like as a fully formed new Abrahamic tradition".  I think the Monks would have rightly recognized a lot of similarities with Judaism, especially as the lines between Christianity and Judaism were still a bit iffy at this point.

[crazy canuck]

Very interesting find; reinforces the traditional account of Quranic reception.

Perhaps.  The find, if authenticated by independent researchers, is also consistent with the theory that the Quran was a creation of many authors and sources over time and that this fragment forms part of that tradition.

Oh sure.  But it supports the theory that the Qur'an was put in written form fairly early in the timeline.

Again, perhaps.  It is unclear how much of the text is contained in the fragment.  I could be that some of what came to be compiled as the Quran was written early on while other parts were written later and then the whole was compiled and edited at a even later date.  If however the fragment is substantially complete then the theory that the Quran was in a written form early on would seem to be the more persuasive view.

Perhaps?  I'm not sure what evidence you have for your theory.  It could mean that other parts not part of this fragment were written much later, but there's no evidence of this.  It could also have been written by the Chinese, but there's no reason to believe that either.  What this is evidence of is that at least part of the text, (the part recovered), went from oral  to the written stage very rapidly, if there was indeed an oral stage at all.

You missed the point

[jimmy olsen]

Doesn't seem to be a big fragment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragments-university-birmingham.html

Consisting of two parchment leaves, the manuscript in Birmingham contains parts of what are now Chapters 18 to 20. For years, the manuscript had been mistakenly bound with leaves of a similar Quran manuscript.

[garbon]

Very interesting find; reinforces the traditional account of Quranic reception.

Perhaps.  The find, if authenticated by independent researchers, is also consistent with the theory that the Quran was a creation of many authors and sources over time and that this fragment forms part of that tradition.

Oh sure.  But it supports the theory that the Qur'an was put in written form fairly early in the timeline.

Yes it does. I wonder how it ended up in Birmingham of all places.

It was brought there by someone who was a collector of artifacts for one of the Cadburys in the early 20th century.

[Razgovory]

You missed the point

And what is the point?