Oldest(?) Quran fragments found in Birmingham.

[The Minsky Moment]

Josephus estimated that at least 2.7 million people came to the city for the Passover during his time (somewhat later than Herod).

[Malthus]

Josephus estimated that at least 2.7 million people came to the city for the Passover during his time (somewhat later than Herod).

No doubt they left somewhat lighter in purse - and that much of that coin found its way into Herod's strong box. 

[Queequeg]

1) Herod was not a Hasmonean.  He actually killed off the last of the line, assuming Josephus reports accurately.

2) The development of Jerusalem as a central pilgrimage site came quite late.  The income generated from pilgrims was a important source of income, and also explains why Herod' building program focused on the Temple.  Also Herod benefitted from the fact that his realm - which encompassed several kingdoms and districts - was by his time well-integrated into a Roman organized trading system at or near the peak of its affluence.

1) I knew that, I was just looking it up.  Would that help explain some of the hostility to Herod, though?  It's almost hard to think of someone less Jewish than a half-Hagarian half-Moabite.  Maybe if he ate lobster fried in pigfat every day. 

2) How "Jewish" was the Kingdom then, as opposed to Samaritan?  What would the number of Jews-Samaritans be?  This is one of the big divisions right-Samaritans hold Mount Gerizim more sacred. 

[Valmy]

1) I knew that, I was just looking it up.  Would that help explain some of the hostility to Herod, though?  It's almost hard to think of someone less Jewish than a half-Hagarian half-Moabite.  Maybe if he ate lobster fried in pigfat every day. 

I figured it was almost entirely that he was a hated foreigner who was a client of other hated foreigners.

[Malthus]

Well, there was also the fact that, if histories are to be trusted, he was widely considered to rule like a tyrant, and to display definite "Ivan the Terrible" characteristics - having his kids and wife murdered, that sort of thing - and unlike Russians ( ), Judeans evidently didn't appreciate it.

It is telling that Herod is assigned the "massacre of the innocents" baby-killing role in the NT - clearly legendary, but the sort of legend his actual (alleged) character made plausible.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's hard to penetrate through the thicket of legends that surround Herod.  What does come through pretty clearly was that he was a "tough guy" - talented, energetic, effective, but more than ready and willing to use brutal methods.  It was probably those combination of characteristics that made him so useful to the Romans as a client and explains Octavian willingness to pardon his dalliance with Antony.  But also why he didn't enjoy such great press among his people.

The Idumaean angle has been overdone I think.  Idumaea was conquered and converted around the same time as the Galilee - that is many decades before Herod was born.  He was unquestionably Jewish in religion, if not necessarily a "good" Jew.

[The Brain]

It's hard to penetrate through the thicket of legends that surround Herod.  What does come through pretty clearly was that he was a "tough guy" - talented, energetic, effective, but more than ready and willing to use brutal methods. 

Herod Hardrada?

[jimmy olsen]

Interesting speculation, but I doubt it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0901/Could-this-Quran-fragment-really-be-older-than-Muhammad

Could this Quran fragment really be older than Muhammad?

Radio carbon dating of fragments of the world's oldest Quran, found in Birmingham, England, in July, suggest the document could be older than the prophet Muhammad. Some Islamic scholars challenge the claim.


By Beatrice Gitau, Staff writer  September 1, 2015   

Researchers from the University of Oxford have said that fragments from the oldest discovered the Quran, appear to predate the founding of Islam by the prophet Muhammad, which could reshape early Islamic history, The Times of London reports.

"This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven," Keith Small, a researcher at the University of Oxford, told the Times

In July, England's Birmingham University unveiled parts of the world's oldest fragments of the Quran, with radiocarbon dating projecting the manuscript to be at least 1,370 years old.

But now, Oxford University researchers used carbon dating to find the pages were from about 1,448 to 1,371 years ago.

"It destabilizes, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged – and that in turn has implications for the history of Muhammad and the Companions," historian Tom Holland, told the Times.

If Oxford's dating is correct, the "Birmingham Koran" was created between 568 AD and 645 AD, while Muhammad is believed to have lived between AD570 to AD632.

"At the very latest, it was made before the first formal text of the Koran is supposed to have been collated at the behest of the caliph Uthman, the third of the Prophet's successors, in 653. At the earliest it could date back to Muhammad's childhood, or possibly even before his birth," the paper reports.

However Muslim scholars have disputed the claims that the ancient fragments predate Islam.

"If anything, the manuscript has consolidated traditional accounts of the Koran's origins," Mustafa Shah, from London's School of Oriental and African Studies, told the Times.

Shady Hekmat Nasser, from the University of Cambridge, told the paper, "We already know from our sources that the Koran was a closed text very early on in Islam, and these discoveries only attest to the accuracy of these sources."

[Martinus]

Well, there was also the fact that, if histories are to be trusted, he was widely considered to rule like a tyrant, and to display definite "Ivan the Terrible" characteristics - having his kids and wife murdered, that sort of thing - and unlike Russians ( ), Judeans evidently didn't appreciate it.

It is telling that Herod is assigned the "massacre of the innocents" baby-killing role in the NT - clearly legendary, but the sort of legend his actual (alleged) character made plausible.

I am not sure the historical plausibility matters, really. The "massacre of the innocents" is just a variant of a classic archetype of a "dangerous child" where an old tyrant wants to get rid of a dangerous saviour/hero/demigod child who is destined to grow up and overthrow him or her, and goes overboard. It's present in the stories of Krishna, Horus, Zoroaster, Bacchus or even Snow White. Christianity just couldn't go without it or would have been mythologically and archetypally unsound.

IMO, the biggest mistake modern Christian theologians have made is to try to prove the story of Jesus as a historical fact. In this they fall short of science, but also deprive it of the power of myth.

[Razgovory]

Christ, not this shit again.  You really need to stop reading outdated texts on comparative religion.

[Martinus]

Christ, not this shit again.  You really need to stop reading outdated texts on comparative religion.

You really need to go back on your meds.

[Queequeg]

Marty, or, "How to be belligerent about an opinion people stopped taking seriously 40 years ago."

[Martinus]

Marty, or, "How to be belligerent about an opinion people stopped taking seriously 40 years ago."

How am I belligerent about it? The opinion that there are common themes in religions and myths is something pretty much accepted - even the Catholic Church recognises that but claims this is just "anticipation of Christ". This does not make Christianity any less "real" either - I think it is simply a mistake of our materialistic times to try to read a religion literally - a religion operates at an entirely different plane and the spiritual importance of Christian doctrine and faith is neither diminished nor strengthened by the answer to the question of historicity of Christ.

[Razgovory]

Marty, or, "How to be belligerent about an opinion people stopped taking seriously 40 years ago."

How am I belligerent about it? The opinion that there are common themes in religions and myths is something pretty much accepted - even the Catholic Church recognises that but claims this is just "anticipation of Christ". This does not make Christianity any less "real" either - I think it is simply a mistake of our materialistic times to try to read a religion literally - a religion operates at an entirely different plane and the spiritual importance of Christian doctrine and faith is neither diminished nor strengthened by the answer to the question of historicity of Christ.

I think he meant you screeching about meds.

[Martinus]

Marty, or, "How to be belligerent about an opinion people stopped taking seriously 40 years ago."

How am I belligerent about it? The opinion that there are common themes in religions and myths is something pretty much accepted - even the Catholic Church recognises that but claims this is just "anticipation of Christ". This does not make Christianity any less "real" either - I think it is simply a mistake of our materialistic times to try to read a religion literally - a religion operates at an entirely different plane and the spiritual importance of Christian doctrine and faith is neither diminished nor strengthened by the answer to the question of historicity of Christ.

I think he meant you screeching about meds.

But you should stop replying to my every post in a most hostile way possible.