Old Koran fragment discovered

[Dioltach]

The fragment discovered in Birmingham might be the oldest piece of the Koran in existence. Carbon dating indicates that it was written in 645 at the latest, and possibly much earlier.

In another thread we were discussing the astounding age of architectural remains, but how about this? It could have been written by a contempary of Muhammed in the earliest days of his revelations (CE 610-632). That, more than the actual age, is what blows my mind here.

(Of course the article doesn't mention the possibility that the parchment was reused: in Europe it was common practice in the Middle Ages to scrape the writing off a parchment or vellum and reuse it for something else. Presumably this would leave some trace that would be visible on close inspection.)

 

[Dog Moon]

I like how the article title is "Oldest Koran fragments found" and then later within the article says that while it might not be the oldest, it is among the oldest.

Anyway, I thought it was cool that looking at it and comparing it to the versions that we have to day, it is essentially the same thing. The style might be slightly different, but it is so similar to show that in the 1400 hundred years since then the Koran has not changed at all. Sadly, the Bible is unable to say the same thing and from my understanding it is changed in little ways virtually every single year.

 

[Dioltach]

To be fair, it says 'oldest' in quotation marks to indicate an unconfirmed claim.

I think one important difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Bible had already been translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and then into Latin before an 'official' version was established.

 

[Dog Moon]

To be fair, it says 'oldest' in quotation marks to indicate an unconfirmed claim.

And "one of the oldest" doesn't quite have the same feel to it. Really, I totally understand why they did that, I just found it a little humorous is all.

I think one important difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Bible had already been translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and then into Latin before an 'official' version was established.

Well, it's not just that though. Some people [note, I'm not saying all and I'm not trying to make general assumptions about EVERYONE] feel like the Bible isn't a Holy enough book that protects it from people fiddling around with it. For instance I heard about the Queen James Bible that basically changes passages in the Bible to make it so that no longer are the passages condemning homosexuality. Regardless of my own personal issues regarding homosexuality, I think changing a holy book to fit your own personal desires is wrong.

Changing it because of learning of an error in translation is a completely different matter. I know of several different English translations that read quite differently. However, while the English reads somewhat differently due to translation [such as you versus thou, for instance - not adding, removing or completely changing the meaning of passages], the Arabic is still the same.