Oldest(?) Quran fragments found in Birmingham.

[Razgovory]

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.

I think it's entirely possible and even probably that the Koran is the work of one militant preacher.  Impersonal forces of religious syncretism probably didn't lead an army to conquer Arabia.  People get goofy when talking about historical religious figures.  They accept the existence of Spartacus, Snefru, or Socrates, but become hyper-skeptical when a religious figure is brought up.  It's really quite absurd, often based on faulty assumptions of the historical record.  It's a bit like arguing that Joseph Smith didn't exist, and the book of Mormon was put together by joining of various Indian Mythologies, Protestant Christianity and remnants of stone age European Goddess worship.

[The Minsky Moment]

It is natural to use primary sources in history no?

As a general matter yes but with great care, especially as one goes back far in time.  As an example, for a long time it was taken as granted that the history of the Goths could be discerned from the "primary" accounts of Cassiodorus/Jordanes - that view is no longer accepted by many (most?) scholars who take the view those are "court histories" filled with creative invention and distortion.

One also has to take account as to what sources of knowledge the primary sources are drawing on.  It may very well be that a "secondary" source tradition - say the traditional Islamic accounts which claim to be based on oral transmission from the actual principals - is more reliable than a primary source from that time period that is basing its account on travelers' tales, suppositions, or even worse.  Suspicions are raised further when the "primary" source material reflects concepts and ideas that are completely absent from the tradition as received but do find resonance in the primary source's own concerns and preconceptions.

[crazy canuck]

You missed the point

And what is the point?

That we don't know how much of the Quran was actually written at that early date or to what extent the text of that early fragment was accurately reproduced in the version that became the accepted document.

[crazy canuck]

It is natural to use primary sources in history no?

As a general matter yes but with great care, especially as one goes back far in time.  As an example, for a long time it was taken as granted that the history of the Goths could be discerned from the "primary" accounts of Cassiodorus/Jordanes - that view is no longer accepted by many (most?) scholars who take the view those are "court histories" filled with creative invention and distortion.

One also has to take account as to what sources of knowledge the primary sources are drawing on.  It may very well be that a "secondary" source tradition - say the traditional Islamic accounts which claim to be based on oral transmission from the actual principals - is more reliable than a primary source from that time period that is basing its account on travelers' tales, suppositions, or even worse.  Suspicions are raised further when the "primary" source material reflects concepts and ideas that are completely absent from the tradition as received but do find resonance in the primary source's own concerns and preconceptions.

Of course when one relies on oral traditions one can get even more distorted versions of what may have been actual events -  like Noah's flood or the golden age of David and Solomon

[Valmy]

It is natural to use primary sources in history no?

As a general matter yes but with great care, especially as one goes back far in time.  As an example, for a long time it was taken as granted that the history of the Goths could be discerned from the "primary" accounts of Cassiodorus/Jordanes - that view is no longer accepted by many (most?) scholars who take the view those are "court histories" filled with creative invention and distortion.

One also has to take account as to what sources of knowledge the primary sources are drawing on.  It may very well be that a "secondary" source tradition - say the traditional Islamic accounts which claim to be based on oral transmission from the actual principals - is more reliable than a primary source from that time period that is basing its account on travelers' tales, suppositions, or even worse.  Suspicions are raised further when the "primary" source material reflects concepts and ideas that are completely absent from the tradition as received but do find resonance in the primary source's own concerns and preconceptions.

I don't disagree with any of that. I guess I thought it was more like 'isn't it interesting that the contemporary sources said this in the light of other strangeness. Maybe this sheds some light on it.' Than taking for granted those sources were absolutely objective and accurate.

[The Minsky Moment]

Of course when one relies on oral traditions one can get even more distorted versions of what may have been actual events -  like Noah's flood or the golden age of David and Solomon

Yes of course.
Although in the case of Noah's flood the reduction to writing is thousands of years later
In the case of David/Solomon about 300-400 years.

[crazy canuck]

Of course when one relies on oral traditions one can get even more distorted versions of what may have been actual events -  like Noah's flood or the golden age of David and Solomon

Yes of course.
Although in the case of Noah's flood the reduction to writing is thousands of years later
In the case of David/Solomon about 300-400 years.

Fair point.  I wasn't so much commenting on the time the oral tradition existed but on the political, religious and cultural motivations for modifying the story.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

There clearly is a connection to Judaism.  That is clear enough from Sura 2.  I don't think that the Hagarism theory adds much light to this connection.  And it's not like Christians of this period had a coherent understanding of Jewish belief and theology (as they arguably had centuries earlier).

[Valmy]

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.

There clearly is a connection to Judaism.  That is clear enough from Sura 2.  I don't think that the Hagarism theory adds much light to this connection.  And it's not like Christians of this period had a coherent understanding of Jewish belief and theology (as they arguably had centuries earlier).

The Christians could have claimed anything, why did they pick that one out? And some of those guys had been living under Arab occupation for awhile. It has the nice side benefit of providing an ideological motivation for the invasion of the Levant. It also accounts for some weirdness is Arab inscriptions and coinage which suggests it took awhile for Islam to really take form. Or it could be wrong, and this suggests it was.

But then I am not sure what 'shedding light' on it means in this context. The tradition is pretty clear the Mohammed and company had lots of Jewish allies at first no?

[Razgovory]

You missed the point

And what is the point?

That we don't know how much of the Quran was actually written at that early date or to what extent the text of that early fragment was accurately reproduced in the version that became the accepted document.

Ugh, you are still on the Ehrman conspiracy theories aren't you?  This is like skepticism in the gaps.

[Razgovory]

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.

There clearly is a connection to Judaism.  That is clear enough from Sura 2.  I don't think that the Hagarism theory adds much light to this connection.  And it's not like Christians of this period had a coherent understanding of Jewish belief and theology (as they arguably had centuries earlier).

The Christians could have claimed anything, why did they pick that one out? And some of those guys had been living under Arab occupation for awhile. It has the nice side benefit of providing an ideological motivation for the invasion of the Levant. It also accounts for some weirdness is Arab inscriptions and coinage which suggests it took awhile for Islam to really take form. Or it could be wrong, and this suggests it was.

But then I am not sure what 'shedding light' on it means in this context. The tradition is pretty clear the Mohammed and company had lots of Jewish allies at first no?

Monks don't really get out a lot, so their experiences with actual Muslim religous practice is probably minimal.  You should read what Westerns thought of it.  In the song of Roland, Muslims are Polytheist idolators. 

Obviously not all of Islam came out fully formed.  Commentaries on the Koran were compiled over hundreds of years.  Islamic jurisprudence was constantly evolving. I'm not sure any serious academics think Muhammad was not a real person anymore.  Unlike Jesus, Samuel, or Pythagoras he made a big impact on the world in his own day as a conqueror.  I see no reason to believe that Muhammad didn't conquer Arabia, and if he did lots of people would be interested in writing down his sermons both quickly and accurately.

[Valmy]

Monks don't really get out a lot, so their experiences with actual Muslim religous practice is probably minimal.  You should read what Westerns thought of it.  In the song of Roland, Muslims are Polytheist idolators.

These were not exclusively monks and they were people actually living under Arab rule, so I am not really sure if a comparison to westerners is very relevant unless we are talking about Spaniards. They had actually engaged in extensive discussions with Arab leaders in a few cases.

Obviously not all of Islam came out fully formed.  Commentaries on the Koran were compiled over hundreds of years.  Islamic jurisprudence was constantly evolving. I'm not sure any serious academics think Muhammad was not a real person anymore.  Unlike Jesus, Samuel, or Pythagoras he made a big impact on the world in his own day as a conqueror.  I see no reason to believe that Muhammad didn't conquer Arabia, and if he did lots of people would be interested in writing down his sermons both quickly and accurately.

Right so this was a discussion about what it might have looked like in this early era and what Mohammed might have been telling his followers before things became more institutionalized. Many people would have been interested in doing many things with his sermons.

[Razgovory]

Okay, I'm unclear, are you still defending the Hagarist position or not?

[Valmy]

Okay, I'm unclear, are you still defending the Hagarist position or not?

I am not sure what you mean by 'defending' considering I have been saying this manuscript suggests it is not the case. Also I thought the Hagarist case suggested that Mohammed was possibly different than the tradition stated not that he didn't exist at all.

Also you say it was obvious that Islam did not come out fully formed...well if the Quran was complete at this early of a time it kind of suggests it was at least if we are discussing 'come out' as being the pre-Umayyad period.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Although in the case of Noah's flood the reduction to writing is thousands of years later

How sure are we of that given that the version in the Gilgamesh-epos is pretty old itself. That is -of course- assuming that it isn't referring to the flooding of the Black Sea (which would indeed be 1000s of years earlier).

in any case: Always interesting how fragments of ancient tekst turn up in weirdest of places.