Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Textual History of the Qur'an (view source)

Revision as of 22:52, 1 July 2022

39 bytes added ,  1 July 2022
no edit summary
[checked revision][checked revision]
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 155: Line 155:
In the early 20th century, a few academic scholars proposed that the consonantal text of the Quran reached its final form not under Uthman, but rather half a century later under 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan and his enforcer, al-Hajjaj around 700 CE. Going further, in the 1970s John Wansbrough advocated a late 8th century CE compilation. Subsequent insights such as Motzki's work on the al-Zuhri hadiths and the radio carbon dating of early manuscripts including Sanaa 1 (both discussed above) have eliminated Wansbrough's more extreme view, though a debate continues between those arguing that the Quranic consonantal text as we know it was standardised under Uthman and those skeptical that this could have happened, instead dating it to the Caliphate of 'Abd al-Malik. This debate and evidence drawn by each side is best exemplified in a two part 2014 article by Nicolai Sinai (both open access with a free Jstor account),<ref>Nicolai Sinai (2014) [http://www.jstor.org/stable/24692711 When Did the Consonantal Skeleton of the Quran Reach Closure? Part I]. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 77, no. 2, Cambridge University Press, School of Oriental and African Studies<BR />And [http://www.jstor.org/stable/24692364 Part II]</ref> siding with the Uthmanic viewpoint, and an open access book published in 2022 by Stephen Shoemaker advancing the 'Abd al-Malik theory, and which also responds to Sinai's articles.<ref>Stephen J. Shoemaker (2022) [https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780520389045/html?lang=en Creating the Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Study], USA: University of California Press, doi:10.1515/9780520389045</ref> Shoemaker interprets some Muslim as well as Christian accounts about 'Abd al Malik and al-Hajjaj in support of his view, with the Uthmanic story (traced as far back as al-Zuhri, as discussed above) being a back-projection to lend a more credible lineage to the project. Sinai instead interprets accounts about al-Hajjaj such that he was enforcing Uthman's standard (see the section on al-Hajjaj below). The 'Abd al-Malik camp also contend that their theory is the best explanation for various other strands of evidence.
In the early 20th century, a few academic scholars proposed that the consonantal text of the Quran reached its final form not under Uthman, but rather half a century later under 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan and his enforcer, al-Hajjaj around 700 CE. Going further, in the 1970s John Wansbrough advocated a late 8th century CE compilation. Subsequent insights such as Motzki's work on the al-Zuhri hadiths and the radio carbon dating of early manuscripts including Sanaa 1 (both discussed above) have eliminated Wansbrough's more extreme view, though a debate continues between those arguing that the Quranic consonantal text as we know it was standardised under Uthman and those skeptical that this could have happened, instead dating it to the Caliphate of 'Abd al-Malik. This debate and evidence drawn by each side is best exemplified in a two part 2014 article by Nicolai Sinai (both open access with a free Jstor account),<ref>Nicolai Sinai (2014) [http://www.jstor.org/stable/24692711 When Did the Consonantal Skeleton of the Quran Reach Closure? Part I]. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 77, no. 2, Cambridge University Press, School of Oriental and African Studies<BR />And [http://www.jstor.org/stable/24692364 Part II]</ref> siding with the Uthmanic viewpoint, and an open access book published in 2022 by Stephen Shoemaker advancing the 'Abd al-Malik theory, and which also responds to Sinai's articles.<ref>Stephen J. Shoemaker (2022) [https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780520389045/html?lang=en Creating the Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Study], USA: University of California Press, doi:10.1515/9780520389045</ref> Shoemaker interprets some Muslim as well as Christian accounts about 'Abd al Malik and al-Hajjaj in support of his view, with the Uthmanic story (traced as far back as al-Zuhri, as discussed above) being a back-projection to lend a more credible lineage to the project. Sinai instead interprets accounts about al-Hajjaj such that he was enforcing Uthman's standard (see the section on al-Hajjaj below). The 'Abd al-Malik camp also contend that their theory is the best explanation for various other strands of evidence.


Since Sinai's articles, further evidence in support of an Uthmanic standardisation has been identified by van Putten proving that all known Quranic manuscripts  (except Sanaa 1) must descend from a single archetype (see above). Shoemaker notes van Putten's evidence could fit either theory. However, the archetype necessarily would have to be older still than the earliest surviving manuscripts or fragments. Thus, while Shoemaker and others are very critical of the reliability of manuscript radio carbon dating, the paleographic dating (study of handwriting, ornamentation) would also have to be well off the mark. Defenders of radio-carbon dating would point out that the three most reputable testing laboratories in the world (Arizona, Zurich and Oxford) concur on a first half of the 7th century date for the Sanaa 1 palimpsest, the most repeatedly tested Quranic manuscript. Another subsequent consideration must be van Putten's work on the Hijazi dialect of the QCT (see below), which fits al-Zuhri's account. Hythem Sidky's work published in 2021 (see above) confirms that four regional exemplar codices were sent out and found that the Syrian codex was likely sent to Hims (modern day Homs) rather than Damascus (as sometimes assumed, with virtually no evidence). Among other evidence he notes that a Hims copy fits a version of the Uthmanic codification account recorded by Sayf b. ʿUmar al-Tamīmī (d. ca. 180/796). It could also perhaps be argued that an Umayyad standardisation would have first ensured that one of the few exemplar copies would go to Damascus had it occured under their reign since this had been their power base since Mu'awiya (661 CE). Also of likely relevance is that in 2006, Fred Leemhuis noted that the Dome of the Rock (built 692 CE) exhibits a probably short-lived orthographic convention in which the letter qaf was distinguised by a dot below the line, and that this convention is also found in four of the oldest Quran manuscripts.<ref>Fred Leemhuis (2006) 'From Palm Leaves to the Internet' in McAuliffe J. D. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-48</ref>
Since Sinai's articles, further evidence in support of an Uthmanic standardisation has been identified by van Putten proving that all known Quranic manuscripts  (except Sanaa 1) must descend from a single archetype (see above). Shoemaker notes van Putten's evidence could fit either theory. However, the archetype necessarily would have to be earlier still than the earliest surviving manuscripts or fragments. This seems to favour an Uthmanic codification, since while Shoemaker and others are very critical of the reliability of manuscript radio carbon dating, the paleographic dating (study of handwriting and ornamentation) would also have to be later than supposed to allow time for a c. 700 CE archetype. Defenders of radio-carbon dating would point out that the three most reputable testing laboratories in the world (Arizona, Zurich and Oxford) concur on a first half of the 7th century date for the Sanaa 1 palimpsest, the most repeatedly tested Quranic manuscript. Another subsequent consideration must be van Putten's work on the Hijazi dialect of the QCT (see below), which fits al-Zuhri's account. Hythem Sidky's work published in 2021 (see above) confirms that four regional exemplar codices were sent out and found that the Syrian codex was likely sent to Hims (modern day Homs) rather than Damascus (as sometimes assumed, with virtually no evidence). Among other evidence he notes that a Hims copy fits a version of the Uthmanic codification account recorded by Sayf b. ʿUmar al-Tamīmī (d. ca. 180/796). It could also perhaps be argued that an Umayyad standardisation would have first ensured that one of the few exemplar copies would go to Damascus had it occured under their reign since this had been their power base since Mu'awiya (661 CE). Also of likely relevance is that in 2006, Fred Leemhuis noted that the Dome of the Rock (built 692 CE) exhibits a probably short-lived orthographic convention in which the letter qaf was distinguised by a dot below the line, and that this convention is also found in four of the oldest Quran manuscripts.<ref>Fred Leemhuis (2006) 'From Palm Leaves to the Internet' in McAuliffe J. D. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-48</ref>


==Lost Verses and Surahs from the Qur'an==
==Lost Verses and Surahs from the Qur'an==
Line 652: Line 652:


These findings are summarised in chapter 7 of van Putten's book published in 2022 ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'' (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />
These findings are summarised in chapter 7 of van Putten's book published in 2022 ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'' (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />
<ref>For a twitter thread by van Putten summarising this chapter, see [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1500955045755604994 Twitter.com] - 7 March 2022 [https://web.archive.org/web/20220307220749/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1500955045755604994 archive] It also includes a link to threads summarising other chapters of his book.</ref> In the book he further marshals many additional lines of evidence, all supporting that the QCT was composed in Hijazi Arabic and that it lacked ʾIʿrab (grammatical case vowel endings) as well as tanwin present in "classical" Arabic and the canonical readings. Other features in this reduced grammatical case system, pragmatic considerations, and extra-linguist hints would have resolved to a large extent the resulting ambiguities. Nevertheless, "to the Quranic reciters, placement of ʔiʕrāb and tanwīn was a highly theoretical undertaking, not one that unambiguously stemmed from its prototypical recitation and composition."<ref>Ibid. pp. 153-154.</ref> Chapter 8 usefully puts the findings of the book in the context of the historical development of the reading traditions.
<ref>For a twitter thread by van Putten summarising this chapter, see [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1500955045755604994 Twitter.com] - 7 March 2022 [https://web.archive.org/web/20220307220749/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1500955045755604994 archive] It also includes a link to threads summarising other chapters of his book.</ref> In the book he further marshals many additional lines of evidence, all supporting that the QCT was composed in Hijazi Arabic and that it lacked ʾIʿrab (grammatical case vowel endings) as well as tanwin present in "classical" Arabic and the canonical readings. Pragmatic considerations and extra-linguistic hints would have resolved to a large extent the resulting ambiguities. Nevertheless, "to the Quranic reciters, placement of ʔiʕrāb and tanwīn was a highly theoretical undertaking, not one that unambiguously stemmed from its prototypical recitation and composition."<ref>Ibid. pp. 153-154.</ref> Chapter 8 usefully puts the findings of the book in the context of the historical development of the reading traditions.


==Reports about Al Hajjaj and the Uthmanic Qur'an==  
==Reports about Al Hajjaj and the Uthmanic Qur'an==  
Lightyears
Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
2,743

edits

Retrieved from "http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/135481"

Navigation menu