I’m suspicious of this. The 95% probability range is usually much wider.
Is it? What do you base that on?
What is it that you find suspicious? The carbon dating? The discovery? Why is this in Great Debates?
What on earth are you suspicious about? The University of Birmingham lying about the results, the Oxford Radiocarbon Lab fiddling their figures, somebody inserting some other 7th century parchment? Can we have a bit more of your thoughts so we can debate them?
Incidentally the university’s own statement unfiltered by the Telegraph is here.
A 95% interval means plus or minus 1.96 standard deviations. That can be quite a broad or quite a narrow range, depending on how big a standard deviation is, and that depends how randomly variable the samples are…
I gather the researchers took multiple samples and the mean result (to the best of the ability to measure) suggested the document was created in 607 CE, with 95% of the samples falling between 570 and 632. Easy-peasy.
Ah, no.
(Bolding mine). From the OP’s link.
What I find even more fascinating is the fact that these fragments of the oldest Koran possibly pre-date the actual writing of the Koran by almost 50 years.
It’s important to nate that all they can know is when the sheep lived; the writing could be somewhat later. Have to be a little later-sheep are not good writing surfaces.
The Quran was written years after he died.
They are using Standard deviation - as the link posted earlier uses the figure 95.4% - which is exactly (when rounded) 2 standard deviations.
I don’t think they actually had to take a bunch of samples and find that 95% were in/out of a certain range. I’m guessing they have some procedures in place for what they are testing - and there is probably some formula they use that indicates the uncertainty from prior testing on known objects.
The only thing that seems remotely suspicious to me is that they (apparently) only tested the parchment. Their theory seems to be that parchment was hard to come by and that it wouldn’t have sat around unwritten on. Seems like a good theory, but not absolute proof.
I have little doubt that the parchment dates from when they say. Whether the actual writing happened at that time - I have no idea, but being that this would make it one of the oldest pieces known - basically they are saying it is much more probable that it was written on around the time the parchment was made vs some possibility that it was not.
I mean isn’t it possible some monk died and no one looked at his belongings for decades? Or they were hidden somewhere and discovered later in construction?
I think it’s interesting - but to me it’s more like there is X% chance (which we don’t know) that someone wrote on parchment that has a 95.4% chance of being produced between the dates listed. If I had to bet - X is high, but the fact that it leads to an extroidanary result seems we should at least question X.
The writers were very clever.
That’s why they call it prophecy.
Extract from the university page:
‘The Muslim community was not wealthy enough to stockpile animal skins for decades. …’
Other reports of this “discovery” talk about how the non-Muslims as well as the Muslims should “celebrate”.
I did hesitste before I posted it here - I expect it will become a Great Debate pretty soon. Now all we need is a NT manuscript dated to the early 1st century.
Tell me, explicitly, what you think is up for debate or this thread will be moved to MPSIMS as simply an observation on current events.
[ /Moderating ]
The debate aspect of this issue isn’t clear to enough people for this thread to remain here. Best move it.
Amongst the snippets of info I’ve come across about early Islam is a tradition that Mohammed"s uncle, who he lived with during his early teens, was a scholar engaged in translating texts from Syriac into Arabic. The Koranic extracts in this ‘Oldest Koran Fragment’ cannot be proven to have been part of a then existing Koran. It was most likely a translation of a Nestorisn ChristIan text.
So moved.
That doesn’t really make any sense. First, I don’t know what Muhammed’s uncle has to do with it, you’re just assuming he wrote this newly found text? And the story says these fragments had been placed within a less old copy of the Koran. Did this Nestorian translation just happen to look so much like the Koran that they decided it was part of the Koran? Seems pretty bizarre.
I think he’s suggesting that Muhammed’s uncle translated a Nestorian Christian text that Muhammed then plagiarized as his own revelation and so Islam as a whole is a fraud.
I do not believe there is much scholarship to support this, nor does this fragment seem to be support this.