http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021
Quote'Oldest' Koran fragments found in Birmingham University
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.ibtimes.co.uk%2Fen%2Ffull%2F1449782%2Fkoran.jpg&hash=5840333de5c7e366c0434e12751e95ff781fac3d)
What may be the world's oldest fragments of the Koran have been found by the University of Birmingham.
Radiocarbon dating found the manuscript to be at least 1,370 years old, making it among the earliest in existence.
The pages of the Muslim holy text had remained unrecognised in the university library for almost a century.
The British Library's expert on such manuscripts, Dr Muhammad Isa Waley, said this "exciting discovery" would make Muslims "rejoice".
The manuscript had been kept with a collection of other Middle Eastern books and documents, without being identified as one of the oldest fragments of the Koran in the world.
Oldest texts
When a PhD researcher, Alba Fedeli, looked more closely at these pages it was decided to carry out a radiocarbon dating test and the results were "startling".
The university's director of special collections, Susan Worrall, said researchers had not expected "in our wildest dreams" that it would be so old.
"Finding out we had one of the oldest fragments of the Koran in the whole world has been fantastically exciting."
The tests, carried out by the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, showed that the fragments, written on sheep or goat skin, were among the very oldest surviving texts of the Koran.
These tests provide a range of dates, showing that, with a probability of more than 95%, the parchment was from between 568 and 645.
"They could well take us back to within a few years of the actual founding of Islam," said David Thomas, the university's professor of Christianity and Islam.
"According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad received the revelations that form the Koran, the scripture of Islam, between the years 610 and 632, the year of his death."
Prof Thomas says the dating of the Birmingham folios would mean it was quite possible that the person who had written them would have been alive at the time of the Prophet Muhammad.
"The person who actually wrote it could well have known the Prophet Muhammad. He would have seen him probably, he would maybe have heard him preach. He may have known him personally - and that really is quite a thought to conjure with," he says.
First-hand witness
Prof Thomas says that some of the passages of the Koran were written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels - and a final version, collected in book form, was completed in about 650.
He says that "the parts of the Koran that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad's death".
"These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed."
The manuscript, written in "Hijazi script", an early form of written Arabic, becomes one of the oldest known fragments of the Koran.
Because radiocarbon dating creates a range of possible ages, there is a handful of other manuscripts in public and private collections which overlap. So this makes it impossible to say that any is definitively the oldest.
But the latest possible date of the Birmingham discovery - 645 - would put it among the very oldest.
'Precious survivor'
Dr Waley, curator for such manuscripts at the British Library, said "these two folios, in a beautiful and surprisingly legible Hijazi hand, almost certainly date from the time of the first three caliphs".
The first three caliphs were leaders in the Muslim community between about 632 and 656.
Dr Waley says that under the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, copies of the "definitive edition" were distributed.
"The Muslim community was not wealthy enough to stockpile animal skins for decades, and to produce a complete Mushaf, or copy, of the Holy Koran required a great many of them."
Dr Waley suggests that the manuscript found by Birmingham is a "precious survivor" of a copy from that era or could be even earlier.
"In any case, this - along with the sheer beauty of the content and the surprisingly clear Hijazi script - is news to rejoice Muslim hearts."
The manuscript is part of the Mingana Collection of more than 3,000 Middle Eastern documents gathered in the 1920s by Alphonse Mingana, a Chaldean priest born near Mosul in modern-day Iraq.
He was sponsored to take collecting trips to the Middle East by Edward Cadbury, who was part of the chocolate-making dynasty.
The local Muslim community has already expressed its delight at the discovery in their city and the university says the manuscript will be put on public display.
"When I saw these pages I was very moved. There were tears of joy and emotion in my eyes. And I'm sure people from all over the UK will come to Birmingham to have a glimpse of these pages," said Muhammad Afzal, chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque.
The university says the Koran fragments will go on display in the Barber Institute in Birmingham in October.
Prof Thomas says it will show people in Birmingham that they have a "treasure that is second to none".
:nerd:
Odd, that this would be discovered in Birmingham. :lol:
(https://winiscoming.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/0065.jpg)
They can put it in the new public library:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bdonline.co.uk%2Fpictures%2F741x405%2F3%2F4%2F6%2F1770346_Birmingham-library_CRichters-web51.jpg&hash=216ba2caafe81583c1732ede318f0282454ed3bd)
That's damn impressive.
That building is ugly as fuck.
Very interesting find; reinforces the traditional account of Quranic reception.
I hope they find discrepancies with later versions
There have been some discrepancies in very old manuscripts but nothing really significant. Probably will be the same with this one.
Will it be sent to Gitmo for flushing?
Quote from: Scipio on July 22, 2015, 06:34:44 AM
That building is ugly as fuck.
What's up with birmingham and hideous public library buildings?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.birminghamroundabout.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2Fbirmingham_central_library.jpg&hash=504868d4abdadcd1d7082bf18c1ef8807fedee98)
Quote from: celedhring on July 22, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
What's up with birmingham and hideous public library buildings?
Fix... no wait
Quote from: celedhring on July 22, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
What's up with birmingham and hideous public library buildings?
Fi...no
Quote from: celedhring on July 22, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
What's up with birmingham and hideousness public library buildings?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01390%2Fjunction_1390281c.jpg&hash=4707153e12517def119c40e233975f1913c7381c)
Quote from: Tamas on July 22, 2015, 05:10:49 AM
They can put it in the new public library:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bdonline.co.uk%2Fpictures%2F741x405%2F3%2F4%2F6%2F1770346_Birmingham-library_CRichters-web51.jpg&hash=216ba2caafe81583c1732ede318f0282454ed3bd)
Floating cake building.
http://visitbirmingham.com/what-to-do/attractions/
QuoteCome and visit the newest, most exciting visitor attraction the Wonderful World of Trains and Planes in the heart of Birmingham, where you can journey by train from the UK to France, Germany, Canada and Japan - with Switzerland, the United States and Italy among the countries coming later. - See more at: http://visitbirmingham.com/what-to-do/attractions/#sthash.In3xFweC.dpuf
Ok ...
https://wonderfulworldtrainsplanes.co.uk
(Not bad, but nowhere near the Hamburg model train diorama)
But:
QuoteFancy piloting a Cessna over Las Vegas?
Or landing a sea plane on the ocean?
You can at Birmingham's newest family attraction Wonderful World of Trains & Planes without the need for your passport!
Our expertly programmed and realistic flight simulators allow you to fly a number of planes (even a sea plane!) over a number of famous cities, airports and runways...even our very own BHX Birmingham International Airport.
Can you hold your nerve in the cockpit whilst landing in JFK?
Our friendly and expert 'on-hand' team will give you a quick rundown to get the best out of your experience – just don't crash!
Whoa! :w00t:
...
Oh.
(https://wonderfulworldtrainsplanes.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/flight_simulator_1-1600x1200.jpg)
I guess visiting Birmingham is a bit like taking a trip to Duisburg, Dortmund or Bielefeld. :P
Well that is interesting. I figured alot of it was invented later to prove Arab conquest and imperialism was all divinely ordained and all that (Mecca an important trading hub...trade in what going where exactly?) but maybe there is more to it than I thought.
Fucking suck it, "Mohammed was fictional" asshole-scholars.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:17:33 PM
Fucking suck it, "Mohammed was fictional" asshole-scholars.
I thought the argument was that Mohammed was arguing for a Hagarian interpretation of Arabic roots and called for them to help the Jews kick the non-Semites out of the Levant and it escalated from there. I thought the basis for this was fairly strong and does explain some irregularities. Not sure why carefully considering the evidence makes one an asshole.
Well maybe it does but in that case all historians are professional assholes.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:17:33 PM
Fucking suck it, "Mohammed was fictional" asshole-scholars.
I thought the argument was that Mohammed was arguing for a Hagarian interpretation of Arabic roots and called for them to help the Jews kick the non-Semites out of the Levant and it escalated from there. I thought the basis for this was fairly strong and does explain some irregularities. Not sure why carefully considering the evidence makes one an asshole.
There's an entire, wool-headed tradition of scholarship that argues that Mohammed was basically King Arthur because the first copies of the entire Quran we have are IIRC late Ummayad or Abbasid even.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:26:37 PM
There's an entire, wool-headed tradition of scholarship that argues that Mohammed was basically King Arthur because the first copies of the entire Quran we have are IIRC late Ummayad or Abbasid even.
Well now they wight have to adjust their theories.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:26:37 PM
There's an entire, wool-headed tradition of scholarship that argues that Mohammed was basically King Arthur because the first copies of the entire Quran we have are IIRC late Ummayad or Abbasid even.
Well now they wight have to adjust their theories.
I doubt they will do so.
Quote from: Tyr on July 22, 2015, 09:59:48 AM
I hope they find discrepancies with later versions
Yeah, cause otherwise you'd have to convert.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2015, 01:37:29 PM
I doubt they will do so.
Everybody is evil in Raz's world. Do I have to find ten historians and show they change their theories with new evidence?
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 01:42:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2015, 01:37:29 PM
I doubt they will do so.
Everybody is evil in Raz's world. Do I have to find ten historians and show they change their theories with new evidence?
It's my experience that people who expound theories that offensive to lots of people do so because they are offensive to lots of people not because facts support them. For instance, holocaust deniers.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:26:37 PM
There's an entire, wool-headed tradition of scholarship that argues that Mohammed was basically King Arthur because the first copies of the entire Quran we have are IIRC late Ummayad or Abbasid even.
There was one theory that it was primary composed under rabbinic influence in 8th century Baghdad.
That said the "hagarism" theory Valmy alluded to is IMO just as bonkers, and IIRC one of the co-authors of the original book abandoned it.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:26:37 PM
There's an entire, wool-headed tradition of scholarship that argues that Mohammed was basically King Arthur because the first copies of the entire Quran we have are IIRC late Ummayad or Abbasid even.
Well now they wight have to adjust their theories.
I would wait for a second opinion first. I read something on the BBC about some education high profile guy basically confirming that the report on the attempted muslim radical overtake on the Birmingham education system was legit and spot on.
Odds of this copy miraculously surfacing exactly there must be pretty low.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 03:17:59 PM
There was one theory that it was primary composed under rabbinic influence in 8th century Baghdad.
That said the "hagarism" theory Valmy alluded to is IMO just as bonkers, and IIRC one of the co-authors of the original book abandoned it.
Why is it bonkers? Wasn't that how the Byzantines referred to them for awhile? I mean it may be wrong but I was not aware it was insane.
Quote from: Syt on July 22, 2015, 12:20:38 PM
http://visitbirmingham.com/what-to-do/attractions/
QuoteCome and visit the newest, most exciting visitor attraction the Wonderful World of Trains and Planes in the heart of Birmingham, where you can journey by train from the UK to France, Germany, Canada and Japan - with Switzerland, the United States and Italy among the countries coming later. - See more at: http://visitbirmingham.com/what-to-do/attractions/#sthash.In3xFweC.dpuf
Ok ...
https://wonderfulworldtrainsplanes.co.uk
(Not bad, but nowhere near the Hamburg model train diorama)
But:
QuoteFancy piloting a Cessna over Las Vegas?
Or landing a sea plane on the ocean?
You can at Birmingham's newest family attraction Wonderful World of Trains & Planes without the need for your passport!
Our expertly programmed and realistic flight simulators allow you to fly a number of planes (even a sea plane!) over a number of famous cities, airports and runways...even our very own BHX Birmingham International Airport.
Can you hold your nerve in the cockpit whilst landing in JFK?
Our friendly and expert 'on-hand' team will give you a quick rundown to get the best out of your experience – just don't crash!
Whoa! :w00t:
...
Oh.
(https://wonderfulworldtrainsplanes.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/flight_simulator_1-1600x1200.jpg)
I guess visiting Birmingham is a bit like taking a trip to Duisburg, Dortmund or Bielefeld. :P
Dortmund at least has the big Christmas market going for it. Yes I went their a couple of times for it. I don't think Birmingham has even that
To think - I once considered moving to Birmingham. :weep:
Speaking of which, UAB is getting its football team back :)
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 01:01:07 PM
(Mecca an important trading hub...trade in what going where exactly?)
spice. The spice comes from the worms in the desert, I think. ;)
The more practical routes were affected by piracy and war between Byzance and the Persians, most likely. So spice and other exotic merchandises arrived there by caravan and could then travel safely toward byzance or the persians or elsewhere.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:17:33 PM
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?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2015, 04:45:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:17:33 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2015, 04:45:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:17:33 PM
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?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2015, 04:45:47 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 06:03:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 06:42:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 06:03:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2015, 04:45:47 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 06:03:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2015, 04:45:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 01:17:33 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2015, 04:45:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2015, 07:00:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 06:42:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 06:03:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
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
Doesn't seem to be a big fragment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragments-university-birmingham.html
QuoteConsisting 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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 10:27:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 06:03:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 10:56:12 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2015, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2015, 04:45:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 10:25:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2015, 01:32:52 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 11:19:17 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2015, 10:40:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 10:25:03 PM
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 ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2015, 10:40:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2015, 10:25:03 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 10:50:26 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2015, 11:05:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 10:50:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 10:56:12 PM
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).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2015, 11:24:09 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 10:56:12 PM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 10:48:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2015, 01:32:52 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2015, 11:19:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2015, 11:29:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2015, 11:24:09 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 10:56:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2015, 12:35:02 PM
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.
QuoteObviously 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.
Okay, I'm unclear, are you still defending the Hagarist position or not?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2015, 12:59:39 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2015, 11:05:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 23, 2015, 02:39:44 PM
in any case: Always interesting how fragments of ancient tekst turn up in weirdest of places.
Yeah. Though usually it is in some antique dealers stall in Alexandria.
Ancient texting wasn't much better than today's.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2015, 11:24:09 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 10:56:12 PM
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).
We are not talking about the Christians in the Latin West. Iirc these were the educated Christians who could still read the Gospels in the original Greek and who had a good historical perspective.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2015, 11:24:09 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 10:56:12 PM
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).
7th Century Byzantine Scholars would have been ignorant of Judaism?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2015, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2015, 11:29:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2015, 11:24:09 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2015, 10:56:12 PM
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.
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
I think one of the most interesting topics, and one that we're just now starting to dig in to, is that Islam and contemporary Christianity seem in conversation in a way that we would not have assumed previously. The emergence of Iconclasm in the Empire is just the most famous feature of a revival of Old Testament belief typical of the Empire from the time of the later Byzantine-Sassanid Conflicts. Christianity was growing more Old Testament and martial, and then Islam came in and the two competed to out-Old Testament-martial each other.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:03:10 PM
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
Isn't the term academic generally used for someone who has some sort of affiliation with a university? I suppose there is something to be said regarding some sort of self-made man though that probably doesn't have the same weight and/or distinction of being an academic who has...say teaching functions or other scholarly duties? Or more fiction works to their name than historical ones. :P
Historian, I guess sure - though the book you noted does seem to get a lot of criticism from other historians.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 23, 2015, 04:15:11 PM
I think one of the most interesting topics, and one that we're just now starting to dig in to, is that Islam and contemporary Christianity seem in conversation in a way that we would not have assumed previously. The emergence of Iconclasm in the Empire is just the most famous feature of a revival of Old Testament belief typical of the Empire from the time of the later Byzantine-Sassanid Conflicts. Christianity was growing more Old Testament and martial, and then Islam came in and the two competed to out-Old Testament-martial each other.
That is a good point. Also, I don't think the conversation between Islamic and Jewish scholars should be downplayed either. As odd as that sounds in today's context. Iirc Holland makes a point that two major centres for both during that period of time were less than 30 miles apart.
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2015, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:03:10 PM
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
Isn't the term academic generally used for someone who has some sort of affiliation with a university? I suppose there is something to be said regarding some sort of self-made man though that probably doesn't have the same weight and/or distinction of being an academic who has...say teaching functions or other scholarly duties? Or more fiction works to their name than historical ones. :P
Historian, I guess sure - though the book you noted does seem to get a lot of criticism from other historians.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2015, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:03:10 PM
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
Isn't the term academic generally used for someone who has some sort of affiliation with a university? I suppose there is something to be said regarding some sort of self-made man though that probably doesn't have the same weight and/or distinction of being an academic who has...say teaching functions or other scholarly duties? Or more fiction works to their name than historical ones. :P
Historian, I guess sure - though the book you noted does seem to get a lot of criticism from other historians.
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.
Well again, I'm not sure why we would call him an academic. I'm also not sure why someone would bring him up as a refutation that serious scholars have backed away from such approaches for reasons beyond simple fear of Muslim retribution.
Maybe serious scholars haven't but your evidence is...flimsy.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2015, 12:35:02 PM
Unlike Jesus, Samuel, or Pythagoras
There are people doubt that Pythagoras lived? :wacko:
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2015, 05:00:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2015, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:03:10 PM
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
Isn't the term academic generally used for someone who has some sort of affiliation with a university? I suppose there is something to be said regarding some sort of self-made man though that probably doesn't have the same weight and/or distinction of being an academic who has...say teaching functions or other scholarly duties? Or more fiction works to their name than historical ones. :P
Historian, I guess sure - though the book you noted does seem to get a lot of criticism from other historians.
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.
Well again, I'm not sure why we would call him an academic. I'm also not sure why someone would bring him up as a refutation that serious scholars have backed away from such approaches for reasons beyond simple fear of Muslim retribution.
Maybe serious scholars haven't but your evidence is...flimsy.
Or, I am busy and he is the first one that came to mind. ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2015, 05:48:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2015, 12:35:02 PM
Unlike Jesus, Samuel, or Pythagoras
There are people doubt that Pythagoras lived? :wacko:
Everybody dies. Not everyone lives.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:03:10 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350)
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2015, 01:33:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2015, 12:59:39 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 23, 2015, 04:02:02 PM
7th Century Byzantine Scholars would have been ignorant of Judaism?
Yes.
At least I don't know of any such scholars who studied Talmud.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2015, 11:35:07 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 23, 2015, 04:02:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2015, 01:22:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 24, 2015, 11:57:38 AM
I just started Citizens. Simon Schama is fucking woooooooonderful.
:yes:
Whoops thought this was the books thread for a second.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 24, 2015, 12:37:10 PM
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 :cool:
Quote from: Queequeg on July 24, 2015, 11:57:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2015, 12:41:02 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 24, 2015, 12:37:10 PM
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 :cool:
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2015, 01:14:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:03:10 PM
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 (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.
QuoteI 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
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2015, 07:55:45 AM
But the texts are very much influenced by the necessities of when they are written.
No fucking way! :lol:
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2015, 08:29:50 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2015, 07:55:45 AM
But the texts are very much influenced by the necessities of when they are written.
No fucking way! :lol:
Yeah, I know. Obvious but one could hardly tell by reading the forums on Languish. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2015, 07:55:45 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2015, 07:55:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2015, 01:14:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:03:10 PM
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 (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.
QuoteI 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 (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?
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 26, 2015, 04:05:22 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2015, 04:22:14 PM
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?
Quote from: The Brain on July 26, 2015, 04:25:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2015, 04:22:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2015, 04:22:14 PM
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.
:lol:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 26, 2015, 07:44:21 PM
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
Quote from: Queequeg on July 24, 2015, 12:55:29 PMActually 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 :P
Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2015, 08:20:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 26, 2015, 07:44:21 PM
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 ;)
I'm not sure you understand my argument. Which figures do you have "faith" in? And are holding to the Mohammed thing or not?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 09:40:50 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 10:55:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 09:40:50 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 26, 2015, 04:05:22 PM
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. :tinfoil:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 27, 2015, 12:12:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 26, 2015, 04:05:22 PM
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. :tinfoil:
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
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 ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:39:11 PM
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.
that would be a valid argument for the existence of Jesus if we could trace every single individual who existed in that time period. I don't think we have record for every execution either, especially in a Roman protectorate.
Rather than go at length, I'm gonna give you the link to Wikipedia on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Existence
There is a huge difference between accepting an historical character and accepting without proof (or plausability) every action he is supposed to have taken.
I could, for example, accept that there was a "British" king at some point following the Roman Withdrawal of the provinces who united the people and fought against some invader without believing in a magical sword and a powerful court wizard by the name of Merlin.
Such stories aren't unheard of. A leader rises somewhere to fight against an invader and manages to beat them for a while.
Quote from: viper37 on July 27, 2015, 02:47:29 PM
There is a huge difference between accepting an historical character and accepting without proof (or plausability) every action he is supposed to have taken.
I agree. The fact that the story of George Washington and the cherry tree is considered fictional by almost everyone with a decent education doesn't mean that George Washington didn't exist.
The problem is that in this thread, crazy canuck seems to be coming dangerously close to arguing that since Mohammed didn't do everything that he is purported to have done, then Mohammed didn't actually exist (and I think I can state with a reasonable degree of confidence that none of us think that he did do everything that he is purported to have done, because I don't see how you could believe that and not become a Moslem--and none of our current posters are Moslems AFAIK).
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
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 ;)
Okay, let me rephrase that. People more knowledgeable then you could make arguments that none of these people exist (except for Champlain, I threw him in for a laugh).
Quote from: viper37 on July 27, 2015, 02:47:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:39:11 PM
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.
that would be a valid argument for the existence of Jesus if we could trace every single individual who existed in that time period. I don't think we have record for every execution either, especially in a Roman protectorate.
It is true that we don't have a record of every peasant who lived. But this is someone who it is claimed drew thousands to come hear him and who was well known to the authorities. Yet no record exists. There may well have been a Rabbi named Jesus who did teach a particular interpretation of Jewish belief. There were many similar. But that is something quite different from what is described in what became the New Testament.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
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 ;)
Okay, let me rephrase that. People more knowledgeable then you could make arguments that none of these people exist (except for Champlain, I threw him in for a laugh).
If they did they wouldn't be very knowledgeable now would they. Didn't take you long to get to the personal attacks did it ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:39:11 PM
The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society.
I wouldn't call the Galilee "highly literate" at the time. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is actually pretty decent; applying a higher standard I think fairly leads to Raz's critique that lots of historical figures whose existence was generally accepted would fail. To be clear it certainly can be questioned whether Jesus did all the things attributed to them in the Gospels (literally impossible given the contradictions) and thus it could be said that the existence of the "Jesus of the Bible" cannot be demonstrated. But denial of the existence of any historical Jesus is, IMO, not a very strong argument.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2015, 05:48:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:39:11 PM
The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society.
I wouldn't call the Galilee "highly literate" at the time. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is actually pretty decent; applying a higher standard I think fairly leads to Raz's critique that lots of historical figures whose existence was generally accepted would fail. To be clear it certainly can be questioned whether Jesus did all the things attributed to them in the Gospels (literally impossible given the contradictions) and thus it could be said that the existence of the "Jesus of the Bible" cannot be demonstrated. But denial of the existence of any historical Jesus is, IMO, not a very strong argument.
I'd argue that insistence
on the existence of any historical Jesus is equally not a strong argument.
Of the existence of a Mohammed, leader of the Arabs around 630 CE, there doesn't seem to be any question. There are contemporaneous records of his existence. He isn't a figure like Arthur or Jesus that has to be explained away as just falling through the cracks of an imperfect historical record. As far as him being a prophet or the founder of a new religion, yeah, that's certainly debatable. But he can't be conflated with otherwise-mythological figures like Roland and whatnot simply because he has had legends grow up about him.
Jesus may well have been Some Dude in Palestine around the turn of the zeroeth millennium, but he kept himself well-hidden from his contemporaries if he was the Son of God (though, who'd blame him, what with all the splitters?).
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2015, 12:05:05 PM
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?
All pre-modern history is based on accepting the sort of records CC pretends to be highly skeptical of. If one were to apply the sort of criticism to the rest history that CC applies figures in extant religions then history, particularly ancient history, rapidly becomes devoid of people and events. To apply this sort of criticism in a biased way (at Muhammad but not Spartacus), is either hypocritical, dishonest or ignorant. Because he caught on about Roland, but not about the others then I think he's simply ignorant. The sad truth is that most historical personages do not have photo IDs. The people we accept as real have remarkably little primary sources to back them up. Our knowledge of say a Roman Emperor's reign may rely on only two or three sources which disagree. This is pretty standard.
Quote from: grumbler on July 27, 2015, 05:58:05 PM
Jesus may well have been Some Dude in Palestine around the turn of the zeroeth millennium, but he kept himself well-hidden from his contemporaries if he was the Son of God (though, who'd blame him, what with all the splitters?).
Jesus did not claim divine status in the synoptic gospels. Without getting deep into the detail, bottom line is that his followers appear to have claimed that he was the Jewish Messiah and that Jesus either was ambiguous about the claim or did not discourage it. (BTW "son of god" was a contemporary designation of a messianic or Davidic claim and not a literal son-ship). Claims to messianic status were probably not unusual in the period and would not necessarily attract massive attention and comment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 05:05:35 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 27, 2015, 02:47:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:39:11 PM
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.
that would be a valid argument for the existence of Jesus if we could trace every single individual who existed in that time period. I don't think we have record for every execution either, especially in a Roman protectorate.
It is true that we don't have a record of every peasant who lived. But this is someone who it is claimed drew thousands to come hear him and who was well known to the authorities. Yet no record exists. There may well have been a Rabbi named Jesus who did teach a particular interpretation of Jewish belief. There were many similar. But that is something quite different from what is described in what became the New Testament.
You vastly overstate the historical record. And I think this the source of your misunderstanding. The names and actions of Roman
Governors are lost. Large scale rebellions are sometimes mention only by one person. It is likely that there are rebellions that are simply forgotten. There aren't exactly a lot of extant Roman tax rolls sitting around but presumably Romans collected taxes.
Prior to an archeological find the existence of Pontius Pilate is not as well attested to as Jesus of Nazareth. He's mentioned off handed by a few historians and mentioned in the bible but beyond that, nothing. There is no tax role, or edict, or marriage certificate, or recall notice, or private letter or anything. That's just the way history is from that period. You have very little to go on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 05:06:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
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 ;)
Okay, let me rephrase that. People more knowledgeable then you could make arguments that none of these people exist (except for Champlain, I threw him in for a laugh).
If they did they wouldn't be very knowledgeable now would they. Didn't take you long to get to the personal attacks did it ;)
After 100 posts in this thread with you continuously dodging questions and promoting fringe theories then sometimes a bit more direct approach is required.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2015, 06:27:50 PM
Jesus did not claim divine status in the synoptic gospels. Without getting deep into the detail, bottom line is that his followers appear to have claimed that he was the Jewish Messiah and that Jesus either was ambiguous about the claim or did not discourage it.
Or he was safely dead and/or the fact that he didn't exist was safely forgotten by the time such claims were made.
Given the non-centrality of Jesus to Christianity, I suppose it doesn't matter all that much the Jesus himself may not have existed. I don't think you can quite say that about Muhammad.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 05:05:35 PM
It is true that we don't have a record of every peasant who lived. But this is someone who it is claimed drew thousands to come hear him and who was well known to the authorities. Yet no record exists. There may well have been a Rabbi named Jesus who did teach a particular interpretation of Jewish belief. There were many similar. But that is something quite different from what is described in what became the New Testament.
he was considered heretic, and he was excuted for that. We don't have a record of every single heretic executed during the middle ages, or even during the Inquistion much later on.
We're talking of a place in perpetual conflict since the time of his assumed existence. Romans vs Parthians, Byzantines vs Persians, various civil wars&independance movement, muslim conquest, crusades, re-conquests, near-abandonment of the area at some point during Ottoman rule, re-settling by Jews and Arabs closer to our time and since then perpetual conflict.
I'm not surprised an heretic wasn't given more than a footnote among other preaching rabbis of the time. And to the Romans, he was about the same as a common thief, again no surprise there.
What purpose would talking of this weird jewish sect on the rise serve the Romans? Did they accomplish a huge military victory that could be inflated for political purpose by a tribune? Not really... just one guy, preaching to the mass, like others, but this one possibly a little too unorthodox and he got wacked at the first occasion the joint rulers of the land found.
And I've bolded the part where we are in agreement: As I said, I believe there was a Jesus guy sometime around 0-33, but that doesn't mean I believe eveything that was written about him. That is a huge difference and totally not the same thing.
Quote from: grumbler on July 27, 2015, 05:58:05 PM
Jesus may well have been Some Dude in Palestine around the turn of the zeroeth millennium, but he kept himself well-hidden from his contemporaries if he was the Son of God (though, who'd blame him, what with all the splitters?).
the original Gospels don't even mention hi resurection after 3 days... IIRC, one of the actual Gospel, in its original form, simply stopped at his death, the rest was added later.
Quote from: viper37 on July 27, 2015, 07:46:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 27, 2015, 05:58:05 PM
Jesus may well have been Some Dude in Palestine around the turn of the zeroeth millennium, but he kept himself well-hidden from his contemporaries if he was the Son of God (though, who'd blame him, what with all the splitters?).
the original Gospels don't even mention hi resurection after 3 days... IIRC, one of the actual Gospel, in its original form, simply stopped at his death, the rest was added later.
Close. The Gospel of Marc ends right after the resurrection. They find an empty tomb then freak out.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 06:16:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2015, 12:05:05 PM
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?
All pre-modern history is based on accepting the sort of records CC pretends to be highly skeptical of. If one were to apply the sort of criticism to the rest history that CC applies figures in extant religions then history, particularly ancient history, rapidly becomes devoid of people and events. To apply this sort of criticism in a biased way (at Muhammad but not Spartacus), is either hypocritical, dishonest or ignorant. Because he caught on about Roland, but not about the others then I think he's simply ignorant. The sad truth is that most historical personages do not have photo IDs. The people we accept as real have remarkably little primary sources to back them up. Our knowledge of say a Roman Emperor's reign may rely on only two or three sources which disagree. This is pretty standard.
Ah yes this. Well I disagree that there is any kind of double standard conspiracy theory here that Jesus or Mohammed are getting singled out like you imply.
Alot of those Roman Emperors DO have their existence doubted. This is the joy of the 3rd Century Roman History after all. Skepticism and careful consideration of events is how we get better history not have it disappear like you imply. Simply bringing up an inquiry does not make it gospel anyway. Just because somebody thought to examine if Mohammed really existed does not make him vanish.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 09:05:19 AM
Roland is a very bad example for your argument Raz ;)
Mentioned by Charlemagne's biographer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland#History
QuoteWhile he was vigorously pursuing the Saxon war, almost without a break, and after he had placed garrisons at selected points along the border, [Charles] marched into Spain [in 778] with as large a force as he could mount. His army passed through the Pyrenees and [Charles] received the surrender of all the towns and fortified places he encountered. He was returning [to Francia] with his army safe and intact, but high in the Pyrenees on that return trip he briefly experienced the Basques. That place is so thoroughly covered with thick forest that it is the perfect spot for an ambush. [Charles's] army was forced by the narrow terrain to proceed in a long line and [it was at that spot], high on the mountain, that the Basques set their ambush. [...] The Basques had the advantage in this skirmish because of the lightness of their weapons and the nature of the terrain, whereas the Franks were disadvantaged by the heaviness of their arms and the unevenness of the land. Eggihard, the overseer of the king's table, Anselm, the count of the palace, and Roland, the lord of the Breton March, along with many others died in that skirmish. But this deed could not be avenged at that time, because the enemy had so dispersed after the attack that there was no indication as to where they could be found.[3]
Quote from: grumbler on July 27, 2015, 07:30:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2015, 06:27:50 PM
Jesus did not claim divine status in the synoptic gospels. Without getting deep into the detail, bottom line is that his followers appear to have claimed that he was the Jewish Messiah and that Jesus either was ambiguous about the claim or did not discourage it.
Or he was safely dead and/or the fact that he didn't exist was safely forgotten by the time such claims were made.
Given the non-centrality of Jesus to Christianity, I suppose it doesn't matter all that much the Jesus himself may not have existed. I don't think you can quite say that about Muhammad.
How is Jesus not central to Christianity?
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2015, 09:42:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 06:16:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2015, 12:05:05 PM
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?
All pre-modern history is based on accepting the sort of records CC pretends to be highly skeptical of. If one were to apply the sort of criticism to the rest history that CC applies figures in extant religions then history, particularly ancient history, rapidly becomes devoid of people and events. To apply this sort of criticism in a biased way (at Muhammad but not Spartacus), is either hypocritical, dishonest or ignorant. Because he caught on about Roland, but not about the others then I think he's simply ignorant. The sad truth is that most historical personages do not have photo IDs. The people we accept as real have remarkably little primary sources to back them up. Our knowledge of say a Roman Emperor's reign may rely on only two or three sources which disagree. This is pretty standard.
Ah yes this. Well I disagree that there is any kind of double standard conspiracy theory here that Jesus or Mohammed are getting singled out like you imply.
Alot of those Roman Emperors DO have their existence doubted. This is the joy of the 3rd Century Roman History after all. Skepticism and careful consideration of events is how we get better history not have it disappear like you imply. Simply bringing up an inquiry does not make it gospel anyway. Just because somebody thought to examine if Mohammed really existed does not make him vanish.
Double conspiracy theory? Explain. I would say that a book that Jesus never existed would sell much better then a book centered around the historicity of Domitanus. Shoddy scholarship, bias, sensational scandal, and smug New Atheism are more then enough to explain why such works exist. In the case of CCs book on Muhammad not existing there is a large public appetite for this kind of Muslim baiting, from angry members of the American Religious right who believe we are fighting a holy war, to the stay at home hero who wants to persevere freedom of speech from ISIS terrorists who might be hiding between the shelves of the local Barnes and Noble.
Are you saying CC is a Muslim baiter, an angry member of the religious right, believes we are fighting a holy war, and is a stay at home hero who wants to fight ISIS in Barnes and Noble? Because the conspiracy is you writing all this off kind of depends on that being true. Generally I do not see him aligning with those people. I was not aware he was a New Atheist type either.
The fact of the matter is that there is scholarship around the historicity of Domitanus and all sorts of other facts about Roman History that for a very long time were just taken for granted. I think what you are claiming is biased is in fact the standard. Like the current doubt the first siege of Constantinople by the Arabs in the 7th century actually happened.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2015, 07:49:52 PM
Close. The Gospel of Marc ends right after the resurrection. They find an empty tomb then freak out.
There's ambiguity.
Mark is great it's like a postmodern mystery novel. If you can set aside all your preconceptions and prior understandings about the various participants its a very interesting read.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2015, 11:05:39 PM
How is Jesus not central to Christianity?
Whatever he was teaching and doing has little to do with what Christianity became as a religion.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2015, 05:48:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:39:11 PM
The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society.
I wouldn't call the Galilee "highly literate" at the time. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is actually pretty decent; applying a higher standard I think fairly leads to Raz's critique that lots of historical figures whose existence was generally accepted would fail. To be clear it certainly can be questioned whether Jesus did all the things attributed to them in the Gospels (literally impossible given the contradictions) and thus it could be said that the existence of the "Jesus of the Bible" cannot be demonstrated. But denial of the existence of any historical Jesus is, IMO, not a very strong argument.
I don't think you get to have it both ways. We only know about Jesus because of Greek writings from that area. Why didn't anyone bother to write about him in prior to that? There is an obvious answer. This Quran fragment tells us at least that there was someone named Mohammad identified as the Prophet from the earliest Islamic period and was not a creation of later writers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2015, 11:31:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2015, 11:05:39 PM
How is Jesus not central to Christianity?
Whatever he was teaching and doing has little to do with what Christianity became as a religion.
but Christianity is about believing in Jesus, the Son of God, in the litteral sense.
If you don't believe Jesus is the Son of God (or one manifestation of God), then you can't be a Christian. The rest of the stuff varies depending on wich Church you pray to and how honest you are with yourself. I suppose it is the same for other big monotheist religion.
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2015, 11:17:00 PM
Are you saying CC is a Muslim baiter, an angry member of the religious right, believes we are fighting a holy war, and is a stay at home hero who wants to fight ISIS in Barnes and Noble? Because the conspiracy is you writing all this off kind of depends on that being true. Generally I do not see him aligning with those people. I was not aware he was a New Atheist type either.
The fact of the matter is that there is scholarship around the historicity of Domitanus and all sorts of other facts about Roman History that for a very long time were just taken for granted. I think what you are claiming is biased is in fact the standard. Like the current doubt the first siege of Constantinople by the Arabs in the 7th century actually happened.
I still don't understand the conspiracy thing. I'm saying there is a public appetite for this sort of nonsense. There is a reason why Dan Brown novels sell well and the History Channel has had like five seasons of Ancient Aliens. People like it. I gave a range of reasons why someone might like read this particular type of bullshit, but it is no means exhaustive. In this thread I asked CC several times why he is attracted to fringe theories concerning religion. He never gave me an answer. Were I to guess I would suggest that he is an atheist, and he likes works that reinforce his views. I think there's something exciting about "secret knowledge". Some information that you know, that the rest of the public doesn't, particularly when it's about something as salacious as religion. It's entirely possible that his bullshit detector is off, he did mistake a novel for a work of non-fiction once. As I have stated it's not the first time he pushed books with bizarre religious fringe theories before.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 11:41:44 PM
Why didn't anyone bother to write about him in prior to that? There is an obvious answer.
there are a lot of texts about Jesus, earlier than the Gospels. Most of them are incomplete, or have different versions of the same text in different languages.
The obvious answer as to why there wasn't a definitive biography of Jesus published in 34 or our era could be explained by various possibilities:
- There were some early texts, they were destroyed while the early Christians tried to hide from Jewish and Roman authorities
- There weren't any early texts since being caught with that meant certain death at the hands of the Romans and likely ostracization from fellow Jews, therefore, it was confined to oral tradition.
- Any text about Jesus written by his contemporaies, Jews, Chrisitans, Romans could have been destroyed during one of the numerous rebellion or wars in the area. It's not like the Roman Empire was totally stable for a 1000 years, after all.
- Roman and Greek Pagans, would not have been really interested in writing about "The Son of God" wich they didn't see as such, wich they considered a weakling for dying like a thief and wich to them looked like some kind of fringe Jewish movement. The Romans were great in many way, but I wouldn't say they demonstrated openness to other cultures, not int the way we would refer to it in our times, at least. By the time Romans and Greeks would show interest in Jesus, he would be long dead. It's not like a Jewish guy preaching in Judea around 33AC would attract attention in Rome's higher circles. Honestly, if some weird dude started preaching a new form of religion in a remote corner of Africa, and he got executed within a few years of starting his preachings, we would probably not hear about it until there was some form of genocide. Or until someone convinced a Hollywood producer to make a movie about him and his tragic death. And then, his life would likely be embellished for the sake of making a good movie. Kinda like the Gospels...
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 11:41:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2015, 05:48:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 12:39:11 PM
The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society.
I wouldn't call the Galilee "highly literate" at the time. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is actually pretty decent; applying a higher standard I think fairly leads to Raz's critique that lots of historical figures whose existence was generally accepted would fail. To be clear it certainly can be questioned whether Jesus did all the things attributed to them in the Gospels (literally impossible given the contradictions) and thus it could be said that the existence of the "Jesus of the Bible" cannot be demonstrated. But denial of the existence of any historical Jesus is, IMO, not a very strong argument.
I don't think you get to have it both ways. We only know about Jesus because of Greek writings from that area. Why didn't anyone bother to write about him in prior to that? There is an obvious answer. This Quran fragment tells us at least that there was someone named Mohammad identified as the Prophet from the earliest Islamic period and was not a creation of later writers.
Have you ever heard of the Elephantine papyri? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri) It's a collection of old documents somebody dug out the ground. Of particular interest is a marriage contract and further contracts dealing with property. Now it dates back to before Roman rule, but presumably the well to do had similar contracts in Roman times. Over the centuries hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of such documents were created. Can you identify one such document from the whole of Judea between 20AD and 40AD? How about in whole of Greece? The question is not, "why is there no documents about Christ prior to the Greek ones", the question is "why are there any at all".
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 12:48:58 AM
he did mistake a novel for a work of non-fiction once.
what was the novel?
Quote from: viper37 on July 28, 2015, 01:01:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 12:48:58 AM
he did mistake a novel for a work of non-fiction once.
what was the novel?
Slave Girl of Gor. No wait, that was someone else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 11:41:44 PM
I don't think you get to have it both ways. We only know about Jesus because of Greek writings from that area. \
No the Greek writings come later, and after the Jesus movement shifts from being a tiny Jewish messianic cult to an organization focused on proselytizing gentiles in the Greek-speaking world. Paul spoke Greek but he was from Tarsus - a commercial city on the Med where Greek would be widely spoken - and not the Galilee. The Gospels were not actually written by the evangelists they are ascribed to; thus, e.g., it is extremely unlikely Matthew or any apostle spoke Greek, much less were able to write it.
Josephus, who was active about a generation after Jesus, could speak and write Greek, but he was unusually well educated and points out in his writings that his knowledge of Greek was rare among his people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2015, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 11:41:44 PM
I don't think you get to have it both ways. We only know about Jesus because of Greek writings from that area. \
No the Greek writings come later, and after the Jesus movement shifts from being a tiny Jewish messianic cult to an organization focused on proselytizing gentiles in the Greek-speaking world. Paul spoke Greek but he was from Tarsus - a commercial city on the Med where Greek would be widely spoken - and not the Galilee. The Gospels were not actually written by the evangelists they are ascribed to; thus, e.g., it is extremely unlikely Matthew or any apostle spoke Greek, much less were able to write it.
Josephus, who was active about a generation after Jesus, could speak and write Greek, but he was unusually well educated and points out in his writings that his knowledge of Greek was rare among his people.
Yeah, that is my point. The Gospels, written in Greek, came much later. But there were Greek speakers and writers alive and well in the area at the time of Jesus. Why no mention of this person who did such momentous things in any earlier Greek, Latin or other text? The answer is as you state. The Gospels are a creation of a later period and reflect a different view then what would have been proposed by a Jewish holy man named Jesus. I think we actually agree with one another. There may well have been a person named Jesus who preached at the beginning of the Common Era. But that man has very little to do with the Jesus of the New Testament writings which were compiled and edited into what we now know as the Bible.
For Raz and Viper. It is very unlikely that a Rabbi Jesus would have proclaimed himself to be God. He may have proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, but that word had a very different meaning in the pre-Christian era.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 28, 2015, 11:55:31 AM
But there were Greek speakers and writers alive and well in the area at the time of Jesus. Why no mention of this person who did such momentous things in any earlier Greek, Latin or other text? The answer is as you state.
Two reasons:
1. As per above, there were few Greek speakers and very few Greeks writers in the area at the time of Jesus.
2. He would not have been perceived to have done momentous things. Messianic claims or speculations were not that unusual. Getting crucified as a criminal was nothing to write home about either.
QuoteThere may well have been a person named Jesus who preached at the beginning of the Common Era. But that man has very little to do with the Jesus of the New Testament writings which were compiled and edited into what we now know as the Bible.
For Raz and Viper. It is very unlikely that a Rabbi Jesus would have proclaimed himself to be God. He may have proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, but that word had a very different meaning in the pre-Christian era.
I mostly agree with that. IMO there is probably a decent amount of stuff in the synoptic gospels that could reflect authentic traditions but the "spin" in the gospels themselves and the subsequent interpretation is distortive.
Quote from: viper37 on July 28, 2015, 01:01:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 12:48:58 AM
he did mistake a novel for a work of non-fiction once.
what was the novel?
Some book on Operation Compass. Despite the fact the book was labeled fiction and put in the fiction category by online sellers CC kept defending it. A man's pride can be blinding.
I don't remember the specifics but that was an amazing thread. One of the top 10 threads about Operation Compass in internet history.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2015, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2015, 11:41:44 PM
I don't think you get to have it both ways. We only know about Jesus because of Greek writings from that area. \
No the Greek writings come later, and after the Jesus movement shifts from being a tiny Jewish messianic cult to an organization focused on proselytizing gentiles in the Greek-speaking world. Paul spoke Greek but he was from Tarsus - a commercial city on the Med where Greek would be widely spoken - and not the Galilee. The Gospels were not actually written by the evangelists they are ascribed to; thus, e.g., it is extremely unlikely Matthew or any apostle spoke Greek, much less were able to write it.
Josephus, who was active about a generation after Jesus, could speak and write Greek, but he was unusually well educated and points out in his writings that his knowledge of Greek was rare among his people.
Wasn't The Galilee itself poor but quite mixed? I listened to an iTunes U Stanford course on the historical Jesus and they talked quite a bit about how odd Galilee was compared to the rest of Israel.
I might have listened to that one as well. It is amazing what they can determine from limited evidence.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 12:52:27 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 28, 2015, 01:01:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 12:48:58 AM
he did mistake a novel for a work of non-fiction once.
what was the novel?
Some book on Operation Compass. Despite the fact the book was labeled fiction and put in the fiction category by online sellers CC kept defending it. A man's pride can be blinding.
I don't think it was the Compass thread - I thought he'd considered this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gates-Fire-Novel-Battle-Thermopylae/dp/0553812165/ref=la_B000AQ8R8Q_1_2_bnp_2_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438111700&sr=1-2 a valid source in another thread.
I think the Compass thread predates 2009 so it's no longer on record, but I did remind him of it in 2010, cause I'm an asshole. Don't know about the Thermopylae book. Might have missed. There was another one where he insisted that Gibbon's Decline and Fall is still used by researchers.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 28, 2015, 02:16:16 PM
Wasn't The Galilee itself poor but quite mixed? I listened to an iTunes U Stanford course on the historical Jesus and they talked quite a bit about how odd Galilee was compared to the rest of Israel.
It was odd - it wasn't a traditional Israelite area. It was conquered by one the Hasmoneans and converted. That was about 150 years earlier but still significant. There was a big city - Tiberias. There was another lesser city not far from Nazareth. Nazareth itself though was a dinky village. Jesus was a laborer. His followers were simple people. He seems to have focused on simple people. Capernaum is the most significant settlement that he seems to have been active in. It was basically a fishing village.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 28, 2015, 02:26:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 12:52:27 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 28, 2015, 01:01:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 12:48:58 AM
he did mistake a novel for a work of non-fiction once.
what was the novel?
Some book on Operation Compass. Despite the fact the book was labeled fiction and put in the fiction category by online sellers CC kept defending it. A man's pride can be blinding.
I don't think it was the Compass thread - I thought he'd considered this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gates-Fire-Novel-Battle-Thermopylae/dp/0553812165/ref=la_B000AQ8R8Q_1_2_bnp_2_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438111700&sr=1-2 a valid source in another thread.
I can stand being attacked by Raz but really?
CC claimed that a book supported his contention (which I contested) that the British were preparing to evacuate Cairo when the Italians invaded in 1940. Turns out the book he was referencing was a novel "based on real events." It wasn't a biggie, and AIR he conceded the point at that juncture.
Quote from: grumbler on July 28, 2015, 04:12:15 PM
CC claimed that a book supported his contention (which I contested) that the British were preparing to evacuate Cairo when the Italians invaded in 1940. Turns out the book he was referencing was a novel "based on real events." It wasn't a biggie, and AIR he conceded the point at that juncture.
:yes:
Quote from: grumbler on July 28, 2015, 04:12:15 PM
CC claimed that a book supported his contention (which I contested) that the British were preparing to evacuate Cairo when the Italians invaded in 1940. Turns out the book he was referencing was a novel "based on real events." It wasn't a biggie, and AIR he conceded the point at that juncture.
grumbler coming to CC's defence?
Well now I have seen everything.
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 04:29:21 PM
grumbler coming to CC's defence?
Well now I have seen everything.
I am not attacking anyone or defending anyone. Just stating the facts as I remember them.
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 28, 2015, 04:12:15 PM
CC claimed that a book supported his contention (which I contested) that the British were preparing to evacuate Cairo when the Italians invaded in 1940. Turns out the book he was referencing was a novel "based on real events." It wasn't a biggie, and AIR he conceded the point at that juncture.
grumbler coming to CC's defence?
Well now I have seen everything.
Grumbler balances his grudges. A chance to let CC off the hook and make me look bad is one he can't pass up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:03:10 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350)
Well, since you seem to be in a better mood of admitting mistakes, do you endorse the idea that Muhammad was fictional as forwarded in this book you linked. This is a yes or no question. I do not require, nor desire anything else in response to this post.
Holland popularises history and writes well. As long as you keep some critical sense when reading his works, I'd say he is one of the best storytellers alive.
"Milennium" was a great read.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2015, 04:03:10 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350)
Well, since you seem to be in a better mood of admitting mistakes, do you endorse the idea that Muhammad was fictional as forwarded in this book you linked. This is a yes or no question. I require, nor desire nothing else in response to this post.
Raz, it must be nice to live in a world where everything is black and white. There may well have been a person named Muhammad. The oral history of Islam certainly says he did exist and that he dictated/wrote the Quran. To what extent that oral tradition or which oral tradition is correct is the subject of much scholarly debate. Go visit any university website that has a decent department of near eastern studies and you will see that is so.
If you cant accept that just because a religious text says something happened doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen that way then there is not much that can be done.
I live in a world where a question: "Do you endorse an idea?", can be answered in one word. It has absolutely nothing to do with the text of a religion I am not an adherent of. It has to do with fringe theories proposed by a novelist. It also has to do with being honest with yourself and others, because at the end of the day, "do I think this?" is a yes or no question. It is always a yes or no question. If you think it's possible but not certain, then the answer is "no".
I won't be back for a while. I have to go to Indiana.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 06:17:56 PM
I won't be back for a while. I have to go to Indiana.
You could just stop posting a few days, no need to go to such extremes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2015, 06:21:24 PM
You could just stop posting a few days, no need to go to such extremes.
Penance is good for the soul.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2015, 06:57:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2015, 06:21:24 PM
You could just stop posting a few days, no need to go to such extremes.
Penance is good for the soul.
Penance, Indiana? Never heard of it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 06:17:56 PM
I won't be back for a while. I have to go to Indiana.
I'm fairly sure they have internet there.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 06:17:56 PM
I live in a world where a question: "Do you endorse an idea?", can be answered in one word.
There are many questions that can be answered with a yes or no.
I don't think this is one of them.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 06:17:56 PM
I live in a world where a question: "Do you endorse an idea?", can be answered in one word.
"Maybe"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2015, 03:25:57 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 28, 2015, 02:16:16 PM
Wasn't The Galilee itself poor but quite mixed? I listened to an iTunes U Stanford course on the historical Jesus and they talked quite a bit about how odd Galilee was compared to the rest of Israel.
It was odd - it wasn't a traditional Israelite area. It was conquered by one the Hasmoneans and converted. That was about 150 years earlier but still significant. There was a big city - Tiberias. There was another lesser city not far from Nazareth. Nazareth itself though was a dinky village. Jesus was a laborer. His followers were simple people. He seems to have focused on simple people. Capernaum is the most significant settlement that he seems to have been active in. It was basically a fishing village.
I hadn't realized how expansionary the Hasamonean Kingdom was. Herod was apparently half-Arab, half-Edomite (!!!!!!!!!!!) which just blew my mind.
How wealthy and well educated was the Kingdom? I hadn't really even thought of it much before. I know the Artaxiad Dynasty in Armenia had an incredibly mixed culture-court Aramaic, personal ties to the old Persian nobility, a complex semi-Monotheistic Zoroastrianism that blended with local cults, appreciation of Greek culture-and the Hasamoneans seem quite similar.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 29, 2015, 12:35:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2015, 03:25:57 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 28, 2015, 02:16:16 PM
Wasn't The Galilee itself poor but quite mixed? I listened to an iTunes U Stanford course on the historical Jesus and they talked quite a bit about how odd Galilee was compared to the rest of Israel.
It was odd - it wasn't a traditional Israelite area. It was conquered by one the Hasmoneans and converted. That was about 150 years earlier but still significant. There was a big city - Tiberias. There was another lesser city not far from Nazareth. Nazareth itself though was a dinky village. Jesus was a laborer. His followers were simple people. He seems to have focused on simple people. Capernaum is the most significant settlement that he seems to have been active in. It was basically a fishing village.
I hadn't realized how expansionary the Hasamonean Kingdom was. Herod was apparently half-Arab, half-Edomite (!!!!!!!!!!!) which just blew my mind.
How wealthy and well educated was the Kingdom? I hadn't really even thought of it much before. I know the Artaxiad Dynasty in Armenia had an incredibly mixed culture-court Aramaic, personal ties to the old Persian nobility, a complex semi-Monotheistic Zoroastrianism that blended with local cults, appreciation of Greek culture-and the Hasamoneans seem quite similar.
Judging by the truly enormous scale of Herod's building-projects (that still litter the landscape in those parts), he must have had cash a-plenty. Not sure of his sources of income, though.
What would it have looked like militarily? Would there have been Hasamonean phalangists? I'd never thought of this for some reason.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2015, 01:38:02 PM
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.
Herod's chief building accomplishment was the reno'd Temple, but he built stuff all over his kingdom - from a first-rate new harbour in Caesarea to his spiffy mountaintop bolt-hole fortress of Masada. It is incredible how much sheer stuff he built, he must have been rolling in coin from the pilgrim trade and other sources.
Josephus estimated that at least 2.7 million people came to the city for the Passover during his time (somewhat later than Herod).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2015, 01:57:54 PM
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. :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2015, 01:38:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 29, 2015, 02:08:33 PM
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.
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 ( :P ), 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.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2015, 02:50:22 PM
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?
Interesting speculation, but I doubt it.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0901/Could-this-Quran-fragment-really-be-older-than-Muhammad
QuoteCould 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."
Quote from: Malthus on July 29, 2015, 02:15:02 PM
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 ( :P ), 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.
Christ, not this shit again. You really need to stop reading outdated texts on comparative religion.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2015, 03:28:29 AM
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.
Marty, or, "How to be belligerent about an opinion people stopped taking seriously 40 years ago."
Quote from: Queequeg on September 02, 2015, 04:27:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2015, 04:31:23 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 02, 2015, 04:27:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2015, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2015, 04:31:23 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 02, 2015, 04:27:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2015, 11:45:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 29, 2015, 02:15:02 PM
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 ( :P ), 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.
Agreed it is a common archetype of myth - the best example, and obvious parallel, comes from the same mythological background, namely Moses in Egypt:
QuotePharaoh had commanded that all male Hebrew children born be drowned in the river Nile, but Moses' mother placed him in an ark and concealed the ark in the bulrushes by the riverbank, where the baby was discovered and adopted by Pharaoh's daughter.
This story would of course be familiar to every Jew. In the Jesus myth, Herod takes the place of "Pharaoh" - who, in Judaism, is the very pattern of the evil autocrat.
My only point is that, while of course the stories of Herod in the NT are mythology, there were sound reasons for casting him into that role, based on his actual historical characteristics.
Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2015, 08:45:59 AM
My only point is that, while of course the stories of Herod in the NT are mythology, there were sound reasons for casting him into that role, based on his actual historical characteristics.
I think the main reason he was cast in that role is there wasn't another option. Even by the time the Gospel of Matthew was written people in the area would have known that the massacre didn't actually happen. The readers of the Gospel would have understood that the story of the Magi and the Massacre were written to tie the story of Jesus into the well known stories of the Torah symbolically. To keep the same story structure the writer of Matthew needed to cast Herod as Pharaoh. Herod was really the only choice to fill that role whether or not his actual historical characteristics fit. But I agree the historical Herod was likely good fit for the role. But then anyone in his position likely would have also been a good candidate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2015, 10:17:33 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2015, 08:45:59 AM
My only point is that, while of course the stories of Herod in the NT are mythology, there were sound reasons for casting him into that role, based on his actual historical characteristics.
I think the main reason he was cast in that role is there wasn't another option. Even by the time the Gospel of Matthew was written people in the area would have known that the massacre didn't actually happen. The readers of the Gospel would have understood that the story of the Magi and the Massacre were written to tie the story of Jesus into the well known stories of the Torah symbolically. To keep the same story structure the writer of Matthew needed to cast Herod as Pharaoh. Herod was really the only choice to fill that role whether or not his actual historical characteristics fit. But I agree the historical Herod was likely good fit for the role. But then anyone in his position likely would have also been a good candidate.
I guess being Mr. Nice Guy wasn't exactly a winning prescription for success as a Roman client king. :D
Indeed kings in general get a bad rap in the OT tradition - even the "best" of them, like David and Solomon, are held up as monsters of violence, vanity, oppression and bad faith. And those are the
good ones!
I always found this aspect of the OT interesting. No doubt in part because it was written down by priests, but still - there is a lot of criticism of the powers that be. Samuel's response when the people of Israel ask for a king was interesting - basically, "okay, I'll find a king, but you will regret it - a lot".
Quote10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day."
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
Agreed. In setting up an argument for why Kings should be godly men (ie do what the Priests want) they gave a good critique of what Kings actually do.
Let's assume that Samuel and Kings was written at the earliest during the reign of Josiah and not completed until the exilic or Persian periods. That provides a helpful context for looking at both the anti-monarchical and pro-Davidic elements of the text.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2015, 11:16:16 AM
Let's assume that Samuel and Kings was written at the earliest during the reign of Josiah and not completed until the exilic or Persian periods. That provides a helpful context for looking at both the anti-monarchical and pro-Davidic elements of the text.
Not sure the text is wholly pro-Davidic - like other kings, he's protrayed as slightly monsterous ... that whole Bathsheba incident, not to mention his dying advice to Solomon that was suitable for a mafia don (basically, 'take care of all my enemies that I couldn't kill for various reasons').
Hence the theory of multi-author contributions.
There is also a literary-political trope of the greatness of the youthful king being disappointed as he ages and falls into sin and error: same thing happens with Solomon.
Quote from: Malthus on September 03, 2015, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2015, 11:16:16 AM
Let's assume that Samuel and Kings was written at the earliest during the reign of Josiah and not completed until the exilic or Persian periods. That provides a helpful context for looking at both the anti-monarchical and pro-Davidic elements of the text.
Not sure the text is wholly pro-Davidic - like other kings, he's protrayed as slightly monsterous ... that whole Bathsheba incident, not to mention his dying advice to Solomon that was suitable for a mafia don (basically, 'take care of all my enemies that I couldn't kill for various reasons').
Yeah, it is not surprising that the Priest wrote an account of a golden David and Solomon who walked with God but then when they veered off the Priestly path bad things happened. Its part of the narrative from those particular authors.
There is also this - the Biblical portraits of these kings may simply be a fairly realistic one of leaders at the time the stories were composed or redacted (not, of course, realistic portraits of the actual kings David and Solomon, so much as of kings of the day when the stories were written down). David's advice to Solomon certainly smacks of gritty realism.
There is reason these stories resonate - like the Greek myths, the heroes they portray are flawed and complex characters, not one-note stainless heroes, or mighty cyphers like other ME monarchs tend to portray themselves in their propaganda.
Its an interesting paradox for biblical literalists. If David and Solomon had been has powerful as they are described then they would have created their own story in the same way as other ME monarchs. But then the Priestly class would not have had the ability it had to write the story and we wouldn't have the wonderful literature they handed down to tell us about how wonderful that age was.