Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[outhouse]

Just asking questions

Ask away. I enjoy helping when possible.

 

[Milton Platt]

The piece dated was animal skin.

And papyrus was used and reused, but we ca see the ink underlying. Animal skin, even more so.

Okay. Went to the top of the thread and found the article and read it. I see it was not papyrus......Would we have access to the paper written by the scientists who did the dating instead of an article in a popular magazine? I noticed the author of the article hedged his bets with the phrase "could have".

 

[outhouse]

"could have".

That is the whole point, it could have been before his time.


But as you read you will find it does not change anything to what we already know took place. It only gives us details of what we already knew.

All religious text existed in tradition before they were written down, and in this case the text did not originate with muahammad, he was the salesmen who spread the message by sword.

 

[Milton Platt]

That is the whole point, it could have been before his time.


But as you read you will find it does not change anything to what we already know took place. It only gives us details of what we already knew.

All religious text existed in tradition before they were written down, and in this case the text did not originate with muahammad, he was the salesmen who spread the message by sword.

Yes, I agree with all of that. My point was that some on the thread were turning could habe into absolutely did. I am an atheist, so I don't give a rat's behind about Islam....just was trying to say "could" should not be turned into "absolutely did" in the discussion. And that was on regards to the writings, not the stories contained in them.

 

[Augustus]

The dating range is correct to the stated 95.4%

This figure is wildly misleading, and you shouldn't uncritically accept it. The mainstream media is really not very good at reporting scientific data, so you shouldn't be suckered into thinking it must be true.

Even the person who discovered the fragments is very sceptical of the dating and she has the most to gain if it actually is correct as it would be a great career boost. She understands that radiocarbon dating isn't this magical tool that some think it is.

It is accurate to 95.4% assuming calibration is correct and ignoring an analysis of the text, orthography, structure, etc. It ignores the potential of the dating process to be flawed, which evidence shows it often is. Several Quran fragments have been dated almost impossibly early before. A statistical analysis which took in all potential factors would be very different.

The figure is probably closer to 10% than 95.4%, and the likelihood of it being towards the lower end of the scale is even less. The text contains features that are considered to only have been developed later.

Highly regarded scholar Stephen Shoemaker said the following:

Particularly enticing in regard to this project are a number of supposedly early Qur’an manuscripts that have recently made sensational headlines in the popular media. The discovery of ancient manuscripts could certainly aid in this endeavor. Nevertheless, the dating of these manuscripts has proven to be highly problematic and controversial. Suffice to say that the process of radiocarbon dating does not seem to be working accurately on these materials. For instance, one such manuscript, now in Birmingham, England, has been given a date range that places it before Muhammad began his religious movement.4 While the possibility that the Qur’an actually predated Muhammad is not entirely out of the question, the dating of this manuscript is most likely inaccurate, as are the early datings of the manuscripts in Tübingen, Leiden, and Yemen.5

The problem, it would seem, is that radiocarbon dating in the medieval period is only accurate when it can be calibrated by tree ring data, particularly from oak trees. Such data is wanting for the medieval Mediterranean or Near East, and the data from the northern hemisphere that has been used to calibrate these tests was taken from Ireland and North America. If one were to instead use the data from the southern hemisphere (and we are talking about Arabia here), I am told by those more expert in this procedure than me that very different datings would result. For the time being, then, we must remain skeptical of these sensationalist findings and their often uncritical dissemination in the popular media.

It's most likely a late 7thC + text, although there is a small chance it is earlier.

The 95.4% figure is headline friendly media fodder rather than the actual likelihood of it being correct.

 

[outhouse]

The figure is probably closer to 10% than 95.4%

Your not substantiating that.

And shoemaker is commenting without every have seen the research or done any work on the fragments what so ever.

Its an off hand comment, sorry people with possession and who have done the testing have more credibility here.

 

[outhouse]

This figure is wildly misleading, and you shouldn't uncritically accept it.

Why?

It changes nothing. If early it fits in with what we already know. Its not really a missing piece of the puzzle that changes anything.

 

[Augustus]

Your not substantiating that.

Multiple reasons from a probabilistic perspective, such as:

The figure does not take into account the possibility of incorrect calibration. Based on the numerous incorrect datings of things in the past, the chance of incorrect calibration is significant (as the quote explains)

This is made even more likely as the text has characteristics of what would be expected from the late 7th C. This previous scholarly consensus on structure, etc. would have to be incorrect.

The probability of any given text being the oldest is very small, much smaller than the probability of incorrect dating.


Probabilistically, there is no way you can sustain that 4.6% error possibility which is why most scholars are sceptical, even the scholar who found it. The university on the other hand are more than happy for the publicity so can talk it up.

Do you accept that there is a chance of miscalibration that is not factored into that headline figure? If so, given the other information, do you accept that this chance is reasonably significant?

The dating might be correct, but the degree of certainty is nowhere near 95.6%.

 

[outhouse]

The dating might be correct, but the degree of certainty is nowhere near 95.6%.

You don't get to state such.

Sources for this are required, and one scholar does not cut it. The accuracy set by all academic standards actually stands as being correct.

It also matches exactly what we do know to a T, and it changes nothing as stated. It only gives us details into what we already know took place.

 

[Augustus]

You don't get to state such.

Sources for this are required, and one scholar does not cut it. The accuracy set by all academic standards actually stands as being correct.

Of course I get to state it because it is true. Do you really think there is no chance of a miscalibration given the well known problems of carbon dating manuscripts in general?

Again, if you were familiar with what scholars say beyond media friendly headlines you would understand that it is far from 1 scholar saying this, most are. Go see for yourself.

One more for you:

It is also important to remember that the carbon dating of parchment is an imprecise science (something indicated by the large range of possible dates given for the various fragments). Scholars have long debated, for example, the carbon 14 tests that have been carried out on the Dead Sea scrolls found around Qumran. And indeed, the date ranges for the Scrolls vary widely. For example, the famous Isaiah scroll of Qumran has been dated (with a 95 per cent probability) variously either to 351–295 BC, or 230–53 BC (or, according to another laboratory, 351–296 BC, or 203–48 BC).

Thus the Dead Sea Scrolls dating allows for a range of several hundred years (and even then many scholars argue that the palaeographic dating – that is, dating based on the script – of the Scrolls is more reliable than carbon dating). What is more, the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls might be considered more accurate than the dating of the Qur’an manuscripts, since fragments from many different samples of the scrolls – and even samples from other materials found at Qumran (including a piece of leather and a scrap of linen) have been tested. This allows scientists to calibrate their measurements more precisely. Such calibration has not yet been possible for Qur’an manuscripts. We are not even sure of the precise original location of the manuscripts (the Birmingham manuscript may have been located in Fustat, Egypt at some point, but this does not mean it was written there). http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1589562.ece

You are being suckered by headlines still because you don't really understand the 'academic standards' about which you speak. This is the problem of relying on wikipedia and news reports for academic information. The number is well below 95% because it doesn't factor potential for miscalibration into the equation.

If you choose to pretend this doesn't exist then you are simply wrong. The bold text above should make that abundantly clear.

 

[outhouse]

it is true

You have not substantiated it

Please could you start to supply links so I can view the source

Those were tested roughly 25 years ago. Methods may be better today.


But the key is no matter what the date comes back at, it changes nothing. We already suspect these traditions existed before muhammad

 

[Augustus]

You have not substantiated it

This proves my point, nothing else is needed:

For example, the famous Isaiah scroll of Qumran has been dated (with a 95 per cent probability) variously either to 351–295 BC, or 230–53 BC (or, according to another laboratory, 351–296 BC, or 203–48 BC).

Wildly differing dates, all with 95% probability.

Understand my point now?

 

[outhouse]

Understand my point now?

yes testing from 25 years ago provided different dates. But,,,,,, was the same skin tested or another page? Different scientist did the testing on same parchment / skin?


We cannot use test done 25 years ago to say no testing can be done accurately.

And apologetic scholars always argue dating, it does not mean its not generalized to begin with.

Again the range provided fits in anthropologically speaking to a T or like a glove.

 

[paarsurrey]

Koran dated to before Muhamad birth

It is 100% incorrect. Please
Regards

 

[outhouse]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2382300/th...-shake-the-foundations-of-islam-scholars-say/


Radiocarbon dating of a Koran manuscript found last month at the University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Research Library suggests that it could predate the Prophet Muhammad.


Radiocarbon analysis carried out by experts at the University of Oxford dated the parchment on which the Koran text was written to the period between 568 A.D. and 645 A.D. with an estimated accuracy of 95.4 percent, according to a release by the University of Birmingham.


“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… rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.”

 

[paarsurrey]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2382300/th...-shake-the-foundations-of-islam-scholars-say/
Radiocarbon dating of a Koran manuscript found last month at the University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Research Library suggests that it could predate the Prophet Muhammad.
Radiocarbon analysis carried out by experts at the University of Oxford dated the parchment on which the Koran text was written to the period between 568 A.D. and 645 A.D. with an estimated accuracy of 95.4 percent, according to a release by the University of Birmingham.
“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… rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.”

"Could predate" does not make it a fact. Right? Please
Regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

Muhammad 570-632AD. The Quran was revealed over a 23 year period and written down on animal skins and anything they could find. This dating is well within the life of the Prophet including the 23 year period of the Revelation of the Quran.

 

[paarsurrey]

Muhammad 570-632AD. The Quran was revealed over a 23 year period and written down on animal skins and anything they could find. This dating is well within the life of the Prophet including the 23 year period of the Revelation of the Quran.

Outhouse insisted that the manuscript was dated before Muhammad , 570-632AD.
Regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

Outhouse insisted that the manuscript was dated before Muhammad , 570-632AD.
Regards

The dates given are within the lifetime of Muhammad. It's the 'range' that proves that the Quran was revealed within 1,400 years ago.

And the tests also confirm that the original Quran is the same one in print today so the test proves the authenticity of the Quran. That is extremely important.

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.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021

These things are very important for our age, things such as the Dead Sea Scrolls because they confirm some of the passages we have now for a reason. In the near future these passages may play a very important role in the contests and battles to come.

 

[Augustus]

The dates given are within the lifetime of Muhammad. It's the 'range' that proves that the Quran was revealed within 1,400 years ago.... These things are very important for our age, things such as the Dead Sea Scrolls because they confirm some of the passages we have now for a reason. In the near future these passages may play a very important role in the contests and battles to come.

It is worth noting that RC dating has a track record of being unreliable for many ME manuscripts due to calibration issues. For example "the famous Isaiah scroll of Qumran has been dated (with a 95 per cent probability) variously either to 351–295 BC, or 230–53 BC (or, according to another laboratory, 351–296 BC, or 203–48 BC)."

With the Sana'a manuscript: one fragment was dated to 543–643 and the other to 433–599. There has been a lot of discussion of these early dates over social media. Some scholars have held that they are so early that the job had been botched. However, still further tests (not yet published) on additional fragments of this manuscript have been done which have also yielded early results. In any case, the Birmingham results suggest that Lyon might not have botched the job after all. Intriguingly, the first date range from Lyon (543–643) corresponds rather closely to the date range given (from a laboratory in Oxford) for the Birmingham manuscript (568–645).

Of course the dating might be accurate, but here is still a reasonable possibility that the Birmingham Quran is actually late 7th C rather than early 7th C (or late 6th C).

And the tests also confirm that the original Quran is the same one in print today so the test proves the authenticity of the Quran. That is extremely important.

The Quran today pretty much resembles the Quran of the 7th C, much more so than early Bibles for example. There have been variants though, which is accepted in the Islamic tradition.

Gabriel Reynolds Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology at Notre Dame University wrote the following:

"throughout most of Islamic history there were open discussions about variant readings of the Qur’an. Things changed only in the early twentieth century. In 1924 a committee organized by the Egyptian ministry of education produced a text of the Qur’an for use within the country (and had competing editions sunk in the Nile River). This Egyptian text (slightly revised later in 1924, and again in 1936, the first year of King Farouk’s reign, for which reason it became known as the King Farouk Qur’an) has now become the standard Qur’an text. Today this text is so widespread it might lead one to conclude that the Qur’an has never had any variants. Yet this reflects the success of the Egyptian project, and not the history of the Qur’anic text.

Nevertheless, while the history of Qur’anic variants has long been a topic of academic discussion, it has also long been thought that at least the Qur’an’s consonantal skeleton was unchanging. Before the Sanaa palimpsest, no early manuscript was known to vary significantly in terms of that skeleton. The basic form of the Qur’anic text, in other words, was thought to have been more or less perfectly preserved. Yet the Sanaa manuscript, which is almost certainly the most ancient Qur’an manuscript known to us, contains a surprising number of variants, including completely different words, and presents the chapters (known as suras) of the Qur’an in a different order...

the Sanaa manuscript has so many variants that one might imagine it is a vestige of an ancient version that somehow survived Uthman’s burning of all versions of the Qur’an except his own. The problem with this idea is that the variants of that manuscript do not match the variants reported in medieval literature for those codices kept by companions of the Prophet. Sadeghi argues that this must have been the codex of some unknown companion. This is an interesting, although speculative, idea. For now all we know is that our most ancient manuscript of the Qur’an does not agree with the standard text read around the world today." (Variant Readings - GS Reynolds)