Oldest Qur'an in the world is discovered in Birmingham university

[bigdaddy1204]

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33436021

Personally, I find this news interesting as it appears to suggest the Qur'an has not changed significantly in over 1,370 years. It appears that the person who wrote these particular fragments of text may have known the Prophet Muhammad personally.

This would make it closer to the actual events than the Bible's New Testament (for example), some of which was written up to 120 years later.

Thoughts?

[Aymer de Valence]

Birmingham? Now there's a surprise....

[Big War Bird]

Thoughts?

Imperialism, blessed be thy name.

[Hobbes]

If this isn't evidence of the islamification of Europe, I don't know what is.

[sumskilz]

The radiocarbon dates the parchment, not the text. It should also be dated paleographically. Sometimes the paleographic dating can be pretty far off from the carbon dating, as in the text is much later than the radiocarbon dating would indicate, sometimes by hundreds of years. This is because parchment can be cleaned and reused. Some of the oldest known Quran manuscripts have evidence of preexisting text on the parchment that was erased before reuse, so they should look for that as well.

[Roma_Victrix]

The radiocarbon dates the parchment, not the text. It should also be dated paleographically. Sometimes the paleographic dating can be pretty far off from the carbon dating, as in the text is much later than the radiocarbon dating would indicate, sometimes by hundreds of years. This is because parchment can be cleaned and reused. Some of the oldest known Quran manuscripts have evidence of preexisting text on the parchment that was erased before reuse, so they should look for that as well.

That's a fantastic point. How does one separately radiocarbon date the ink? Wait...is that even possible?

Sorry, I don't know much about how this works.

In either case this is a cool find. Birmingham of all places! Better watch out guys; it'll become the new hotspot for pilgrims.

[DaniCatBurger]

How does one separately radiocarbon date the ink?

It might be possible to date the ink physically, too but maybe not on the base of C 14 because the necessary amount of ink might be insufficient.

What sumzkliz refers to is palaeographic dating. That means to determine the age of a text by characteristic stylistic features of the scripture.

[sumskilz]

How does one separately radiocarbon date the ink? Wait...is that even possible?

It's theoretically possible, but unlikely to be feasible for the reason DaniCatBurger pointed out. The difficulty is how do you separate enough ink from the parchment without getting any of the parchment in there or messing it up chemically. So if you just had ink in a bottle you could radiocarbon date it, but off the parchment it's not likely. Chemical analysis of the ink can sometimes be used to determine whether something is a forgery, but as far as dating there isn't a method more accurate than paleographic analysis at this point.

In either case this is a cool find.

Yeah, and it could in fact turn out to be the oldest or one of the oldest Qurans, but making that assessment by the radiocarbon date of the parchment is a bit premature.

[bigdaddy1204]

The radiocarbon dates the parchment, not the text. It should also be dated paleographically. Sometimes the paleographic dating can be pretty far off from the carbon dating, as in the text is much later than the radiocarbon dating would indicate, sometimes by hundreds of years. This is because parchment can be cleaned and reused. Some of the oldest known Quran manuscripts have evidence of preexisting text on the parchment that was erased before reuse, so they should look for that as well.

Interesting post, thanks for sharing.

[Papay]

What a provocative thread

[Mangalore]

So can we change some questionable passages? That seems to me the most critical aspect. Just a jew sentences and half sentences, maybe a couple of negations... etc.

[Hobbes]

What a provocative thread

How the hell is this a provocative thread?

[Winston Smith]

How the hell is this a provocative thread?

Good question.

[bigdaddy1204]

How the hell is this a provocative thread?

Perhaps he took offense at my original post?

I'm just guessing it has something to do with the fact that I mentioned the Quran being closer to the event than some of the passages in the New Testament? While not meant to be provocative, that's the only bit that I can possibly imagine someone might refer to as 'provocative'.

[Sir Adrian]

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33436021

Personally, I find this news interesting as it appears to suggest the Qur'an has not changed significantly in over 1,370 years. It appears that the person who wrote these particular fragments of text may have known the Prophet Muhammad personally.

This would make it closer to the actual events than the Bible's New Testament (for example), some of which was written up to 120 years later.

Thoughts?

That is inevitable given that the writers of the Quran had 600 years of experience with the New Testament to use when organizing their work, so they knew to start ewarly and avoid the Paul vs Joseph bickering which underlined the writing of the books of the new testament as well as the politics behind the selection of said books. Most of the new testament was written several decades after the ascension of Christ. The Quran started being written during Muhhamad's lifetime

[PointOfViewGun]

That is inevitable given that the writers of the Quran had 600 years of experience with the New Testament to use when organizing their work, so they knew to start ewarly and avoid the Paul vs Joseph bickering which underlined the writing of the books of the new testament as well as the politics behind the selection of said books. Most of the new testament was written several decades after the ascension of Christ. The Quran started being written during Muhhamad's lifetime

I don't see much logic there nor any supportive substance.

[Hobbes]

Dontcha worry, Setekh, the Quran is still the word of God no matter what he says.

[Hobbes]

It was many centuries ago that a member of the Banu-Hashim clan of the Quraysh tribe revealed that God spoke to him, but it turns out the words that were recited to him by God (according to him) may have predated his birth, making his entire project look even sillier now.

Carbon dating of a fragment from a Koran stored at a Birmingham library suggests that the book was produced between 568 and 545 A.D., said scientists at the University of Oxford, but Islamic scholars generally believe Muhammad lived between 570 and 632 A.D.

More here

Ofc this does not necessarily mean that these are not the words of God, but it's kinda bad for the guy's followers. Do you think they'll have to change their beliefs, now? I would appreciate a response from the Mohammedans of the forum, although I guess shouldn't really call them that anymore.

[Basil II the B.S]

So, he plagiarized everything?

[PointOfViewGun]

It was many centuries ago that a member of the Banu-Hashim clan of the Quraysh tribe revealed that God spoke to him, but it turns out the words that were recited to him by God (according to him) may have predated his birth, making his entire project look even sillier now.

More here

Ofc this does not necessarily mean that these are not the words of God, but it's kinda bad for the guy's followers. Do you think they'll have to change their beliefs, now? I would appreciate a response from the Mohammedans of the forum, although I guess shouldn't really call them that anymore.

You do realize we already have a thread on this? That the actual timeline is between 568 and 645, not 545? Which is from Birmingham's own website? That even the video in your link supports that dating and not the one in the article? Seriously, who s up that badly?

Plus, and I'm sure sumskilz will right away point out..., the paper being old doesn't mean it's last usage is that old. People back then often utilized paper from older books as paper was not something you could buy off of the corner Staples store...