Posted: Oct 03, 2015 2:09 pm
I'm cuirous: why would The Rationaliser expect a slightly earlier dating to invalidate Luxenberg's Syriac argument? Does anyone know?
I'd also be interested to know where that graph came from: I;ve seen it beore as an ornamentation on the Birmingham site but not in useable detail. As it is, I'd disagree slightly with Tom holland about the centre date being 610 - the curve is skewed and 605 looks a better estimate or even a year or two earlier. Not a lot, but a few years could move verses brom Mecca to Medina or vice versa.
Anyway, the conversation shows that apologists will apologise!
I'd also be interested to know where that graph came from: I;ve seen it beore as an ornamentation on the Birmingham site but not in useable detail. As it is, I'd disagree slightly with Tom holland about the centre date being 610 - the curve is skewed and 605 looks a better estimate or even a year or two earlier. Not a lot, but a few years could move verses brom Mecca to Medina or vice versa.
Anyway, the conversation shows that apologists will apologise!
Those ranges are given in the diagram as 585-631 and 563-644 respectively. In 585 Well, in 585 Mohammed was only 15 and in 563 he hadn't even been born! At the peak date of say 605 he hadn't gone into the cave yet - that was on Tom Hollan's reading of the peak, 610. So perhaps Shrunk was right in suggesting it's actually Allah's crib sheet!IslamQA wrote:sigma 1 range, puts it well into thetime of traditional Islamic history. Sigma 2 curve, agrees.