Loading...My high school debate colleague (who later became a national debate champion as a sophomore in college…) used to always say: “Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” Boy did he ever get that right. Here’s another post connected with the Quran. The post is NOT dealing with anything at all negative with Islam or the Quran itself. It’s about horrible arguments that people make about it. They are right down there on the ridiculousness-scale as those fundamentalists sometimes make about Christianity and the New Testament. As I point out in this republished post from years ago.
******************************
I’m always puzzled about why smart people make (and believe) such stupid arguments. We see this all the time, of course, in political discourse and family disagreements, not to mention department meetings, but since my field is religious studies I hear it the most in connection with the great religions of the world. Actually, I guess I find it less puzzling than aggravating.
A lot of conservative Christians
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Good post. Thanks
My favorite response is “we can only understand God’s word when we have God’s spirit in our hearts”. Not quite as good as “the Bible is true because it says it is true” but close.
Over two million dollars this blog has generated for those in need and your kitchen needs renovation. Don’t tell me you are not one of God’s own!
Well, I hope God’s on your side with that one… 🙂
You can find all sort of bizarre arguments in all different communities in all different times. For example, one of my teachers in school believed that the water of Zamzam (the well in Mecca) is coming miraculously from heaven. Also, there were many Westerners who thought that injecting disinfectants could cure covid-19. So, this is a cross-boundary problem.
However, this problem can be solved (or softened) by the awareness and training on recognizing the main-used logical fallacies; because bizarre arguments are actually based on clear vivid logical fallacies.
The reason for some Muslims thinking that the preservation of the Quran is miraculous is due to Quran 15:9 where there was a promise to preserve the Quran, and some people “thought” that this preservation requires a miraculous intervention. But this is not in the text, and the preservation of the Quran could be explained logically.
The recognized Scholars (ancient and current) never used the argument {The Quran is preserved therefore the Quran is the word of God}. There were many other arguments for the Quran, but the previous one is not among them.
I would like to ask about the 500k difference in the 5k Greek Manuscripts, which is a subject that was mentioned here in this post.
Let us suppose we have 5k Greek NT Books and all of them are Identical except in the Gospel of Matthew.
Let us suppose the difference between each book and the other book is just 100 unique words (which are located in the Gospel of Matthew). Therefore, the count of differences in these books is 500k. This value might seems gigantic but if we realized that the % of agreement for these books is more than 90% (1 – 18346/184600), then the 500k difference is actually misleading.
So, my questions here:
1# What is the % of agreement (if this is an accurate term) for these 5k Greek Manuscripts?
2# What terms/parameters (other than the word difference) do Scholars count in their statistical analysis of these Manuscripts?
3# I did search the net for articles about the statistical methodology and findings related to these 5k Manuscripts, but couldn’t find any, So, where could we find these articles?
It will be great if you can shed some light on this subject.
% agreement, as it turns out, is a hugely subjective question. It all depends on how you count. Those 100 words might be recorded in 800 different ways, and they may involve phrases as well as words, along with verb tenses, missing letters, reorderings and so on in various phrases etc. etc.. So is it 100 or 800 or something else?? Different answers are all possible and all possibly right.
As a Muslim myself, I completely agree with you here. That brother needs to chill out.
Hi bart
There was a study done by Colin Humphreys, where he analysed possible dates of the crucifiction on the bases of lunar eclipses. He analysed diffrent possiblities and found out that the crucifiction happened on 3 aprill 33AD friday 14 Nissan. Could he predict the jewish calander that well that he could say that 3 aprill was 14 Nissan and if so could he say that there was a visible lunar eclipse, there was one eclipse acording to nasa. He also said that the lunar eclipse happened at the rising of the moon at 6.20 pm and ended 6.40. How could he know that?
Here is the study https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265114769_The_Jewish_Calendar_A_Lunar_Eclipse_and_the_Date_of_Christ's_Crucifixion
It must have been solar eclipses? In any event, yes, all that is completely hopeless for scores of reasons, among them the idea that the world really did go dark when Jesus died.
Forgive me, Bart, for making a comment not directly related to the topic of this post. I was wondering whether you’re aware of the recent book God’s Ghostwriters by Candida Moss? I learned of it through Brent Nongbri’s blog: see https://brentnongbri.com/2024/04/28/moss-gods-ghostwriters/.
I haven’t read the book, but from Brent’s review (which is highly complimentary) it seems quite relevant to issues of authorship, authenticity, pseudepigraphy, textual variation, etc., about which you’ve written a lot.
Yes, I did a recent podcast with her about it. (see my Misquoting Jesus Podcast if you’re not familiar with it)
Cool, I’ll check it out. Thanks.
I haven’t missed an episode!
> there are millions of copies of Das Kapital, and Mein Kampf, and The Wealth of Nations, and The Art of
> the Deal, and and and. Would any sane person argue that the fact we have copies that are all the
> same is evidence that each and every one of them must therefore be true?
No, but “The Wealth of Nations”, published in 1776, is surely one of the most insightful books that has ever been written. Who can read sentences like
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
and not see parallels in today’s world? An odd choice to wedge between “Mein Kampf” and “The Art of the Deal”. Incidentally, the Wealth of Nations went through many editions, five during Smith’s life time, and many copies were not the same.
True, and very helpful, Bart.
Though, if the accurate transmission of the Qur’an is not a ‘living miracle’ but due to ‘careful copying practices’, the question remains; how had Islamic scribes shortly following the death of Muhammad learned these practices? And how did they get so much better at them than Christian contemporaries? Partly – as other posters have indicated – this may be due to the text being easier to memorise; and maybe also a wider circle of persons who had memorised the entire text.
Nevertheless I take Marijn van Putten as giving the best summary of the current state of research: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/grace-of-god-as-evidence-for-a-written-uthmanic-archetype-the-importance-of-shared-orthographic-idiosyncrasies/23C45AC7BC649A5228E0DA6F6BA15C06 ; in which he analyses 14 manuscript Qur’ans that can plausibly be dated very early.
He says: “Such consistency can only be explained by assuming that all these manuscripts come from a single written archetype, meaning there must have been a codification project sometime in the first century. The results also imply that these manuscripts, and by extension, Quran manuscripts in general, were copied from written exemplars since the earliest days.”. ” ..the data is absolutely consistent with the traditional (Muslim) account”.
Might it be that early Muslims learned how to copy from Jews?
I”ve long wondered, in general and in particular about Masoretic and Islamic preactices, and about how they achieved such careful control and why the Christians didn’t even try!
As it happens Bart, I have come across a story in one of the Islamic collections of anecdotes about the companions of the Prophet; concerning Zayd ibn Thabit, who in the tradition was the one subsequently chosen to collect and assemble the standardised Qur’an text. Which annoyed Ubayy ibn Ka’b, a much older Companion; who then said; “I was reciting the Qur’an when this Zayd was still a boy with two hair braids (or ringlets), playing with the Jewish boys in the literacy school” (in Medina).
Clearly this story is a lot later; but maybe there could be substance to it?
The quranic traditoin is very complicated (when it comes to the transmission of the revelations), so I’m not able to say much about it.
The reason might not be that from the start Muslims believed in the divine origin of these texts, while for Christians it took a while for the followers to come to a more or less common understanding of who Jesus was? They were sharing stories, it seems, more than passing on divine literature.
The problem is that many changes were made long after Christians recognized these were sacred texts. I’m not sure how to explain that….
Hi Tom,
I truly appreciate your input here, and the link for Marijn’s article. Actually, It took me a while to understand this article; as there were new terminologies for me (eg: stemmata, stemmatics, etc.), and it took me a while to recognize the Arabic equivalent of “Orthographic idiosyncrasies”. I didn’t yet go through your other link for Hythem Sidky’s article.
Now … the process of analysis used by Cook & Marijn was very smart, and I actually can utilize their results to clarify the origin of these “Orthographic idiosyncrasies”.
However, the discussion of this matter requires many comments, therefore, I preferred to put them in one pdf file and to provide the link here:
https://omr-mhmd.yolasite.com/resources/R6-Tom-Script-4.pdf
Omar: many thanks for the kind words.
I’m afraid I have no specialist expertise in Qur’anic studies, but was rather seeking to point other blog users towards up-to–date text-critical studies from those who do.
Your summary responses to van Putten’s study look good to me; and I think you may well find Hythem Sidky equally illuminating.
Where van Putten might take issue with your note, is your statement; “Othman has standardized the script (i.e. how the words are written) but he didn’t standardize the readings. There are about 10 known readings for the Quran.. “. This would appear to collapse a process which van Putten sees as extending over several centuries; which is that the later 10 recognized regional Qur’anic readings-sets derive (likely) from four different ‘Uthmanic’ copies, but that each of these traditions had by then acquired multiple further changes over time, though not by much.
“.. these patterns clearly continue in later times, only markedly deviating from it, and using classicized spellings, in the Ottoman period. The Cairo edition is an intentional and quite successful return to the form of the original ‘rasm’.”
No extensive manuscript will reproduce *exactly* its exemplar; which is the fundamental principle underlying stemmatics.
Bart-Eleison, while I agree that there’s a certain ‘stupidity’ in some arguments , I believe it/they often comes from the very protective/apologetic Islamic circles that defend verses like Surah 15:9. This verse emphasizes the Quran’s divine safeguarding from any alterations. However, it’s at the same time intriguing to see that there are actually several versions of the Quran, each with differences that go beyond mere dialects, but scholars also claim that some of these differences could alter the meaning of the text, and rather recent scholarship has revealed a historically (even theological) complicated and uncertain origin of the Quran. One out of many examples could be the ancient Sana’a manuscript with a whole lot of textual differences between the upper and lower text of some of the same verses clearly show textual alterations.
Even Islamic tradition, according to a highly regarded Hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari 4987, describes a situation where multiple Quranic manuscripts existed, and the third Caliph, Uthman, had to step in to standardize the text, resulting in many original materials being destroyed/burned.
Despite these historical and even theological complexities, it seems that many followers still uphold the Quran’s special, uncorrupted, non-altered status, often celebrating what they see as its perfect preservation as a ‘living miracle. This seems to be a tool for discouraging deep scrutiny of the texts, particularly the Quran, and questioning its divine origin is often viewed as disrespectful or even blasphemous. Well, given this backdrop, it’s understandable why such “stupid” arguments may occure.
Hi Kt,
I think we have thoroughly discussed this subject in the 3 posts of Dr. Shoemaker. The versions of the Quran are not new-news. They have been discussed thoroughly by the ancient Muslim Scholars.
The dominant version of the Quran in the Middle East is “Aasim reading” and the dominant in North Africa is “Nafia’ reading” and there are 8 more readings available.
However, the differences in all of these readings is less than 3% (i.e. less than 2000 words) and these differences are not contradictory but complementary. So, taking all the metaphysics out, we can say that the Quran was 100% preserved by the meaning with 97% of its exact wording.
For the lower text of Sana’a manuscript (according to Sadeghi & Goudarzi), there are 60 points of differences to Aasim reading, which represent less than 180 words. The readable portion of this manuscript is about 10259 words. Therefore, we have about 10079 words (98.25%) that agree with the current Aasim reading. I would like to think that this ratio does support the notion that the Quran was preserved though time, but this is my opinion.
I have discussed this subject in more details in section 3 in the following short article:
https://omr-mhmd.yolasite.com/resources/59-Notes-About-NobleQuran-19.pdf
Omar, many thanks for the link to your article; very interesting.
One specific caution, in respect of discussing the lower text of the Sana’a palimpsest; is that the 2012 reconstruction by Sadeghi & Goudarzi is *extensively* conjectural. Where they cannot clearly read the lower text, they infer the missing words from the Cairo edition of the Qur’an, supplemented from ancient reports of readings in the 10 qira’at and the two known ‘companion codices’. Asma Hilali has published, in 2017, a much more cautious reconstruction; ‘ The Sanaa Palimpsest: The Transmission of the Qur’an in the First Centuries AH’ which shows only the lower text that can established from visible remains.
For example, Sadeghi & Goudarzi identify the verse Q:85 as absent from the lower text – which they propose as being due to parablepsis as Q:84 and Q:85 are of much the same length, and have identical endings. But this is wholly conjecture; the line count shows that a verse must be missing here, but almost nothing of the lower text from verse 80 to 86 can be distinguished in Hilali’s images.
Nevertheless, a theory of Qur’anic transmission must allow that, on occasion, a verse dropped.
Hi Tom,
I couldn’t find a copy for Dr. Asma’s article, but it is in the “list-to-read”. However, you can help me clarify the following:
My understanding that the statistics provided by Sadeghi/Goudarzi were not contested. And I was only interested in two parameters from these statistics: the number of different words and the number of readable words.
I took the first parameter from the list of Sadeghi/Goudarzi where they identified the points of difference between lower-Sana’a and Aasim. There were 60 points, and many of the points included one-word difference, some included two-words, and in occasions it included three-words. For safety margin, I regarded all points to have 3 words, therefore the 180 words of difference.
For the second parameter, they didn’t put the count of readable words, but they highlighted the readable portions. They have identified the pages with 100% readability, 75% readability, etc. I looked at some copies and counted the average lines per page and the average words per line, therefore, reached the count of 10079 words.
So, Did Asma drastically contested the list of 60-points or did she drastically contested the readable portions?
If she didn’t, then Sadeghi/Goudarzi still apply in the parameters of my interest.
“Did Asma drastically contested the list of 60-points or did she drastically contested the readable portions?”
Both I think Omar.
In the upper text, Hilali reads around 6,000 words and finds 17 variants; of which 5 are also reported in the qira’at literature.
In the lower text, Hilali reads around 2,000 words and finds 61 variations; none also reported in the qira’at literature or ‘companion codices’. She classifies these as 29 variations in articles, particles, conjuntions and prepositions; 25 as single whole words – dropped, added, transposed, or substuted with a synonym; and 16 involving adding or losing extended text. Some of these variations coincide in the same word.
Variations in the lower text she reports as ‘specific qur’anic formulae’ – so, the changed text mostly corresponds to phrases observed elsewhere in the Qur’an; or otherwise the changes enhance meaning or precision with glossed additions. None substantially changes that meaning, or adds matter not otherwise found.
The ‘Uthmanic text’ is commonly understood as standardised across two domains; both as written consonantal skeleton, and as publicly recitated. I would suggest a further standardised domain; as strict rules for transmission with which this lower text does not correspond.
Tom, your answer was confusing. So, I went and researched more, and found a useful review for Dr. Asma’s article:
https://www.academia.edu/40665225/RQR_Review_of_Qur_anic_Research_Vol_5_no_9_Hilali_A_The_Sanaa_palimpsest
Then I went back to Sadeghi/Goudarzi’s article and there are some notes that need to be highlighted:
1# My methodology/assumptions for the quick counting for Sadeghi/Goudarzi’s variants turned to be inaccurate. However, I did include a good safety-margin, which did compensate for this error. My previous methodology counted about 180 variants (with a safety margin). However, I did go to the article again and counted the variants in the 60 points “one-by-one” (using the standard text) and it turned out to be 135 variants. Therefore, there is about 45 words as a safety-margin, and if I knew this before, then I would have made the mark-line to be 200 words (thus adding 65 words for safety). The safety-margin is important for me because it would incorporate any new discovered variants without the need to change the mark-line.
So, the discussion with you here was fruitful.
2# The review has clarified that Asma used limited folios than Sadeghi/Goudarzi, and she also used a more cautious approach.
—–>
—–>
Therefore, the readable portions of the lower-text with Asma was smaller than Sadeghi/Goudarzi, and her identified variants were also smaller than them, in which she identified 61 variants.
I would assume that if Asma’s variants were totally different than Sadeghi/Goudarzi then this would be highlighted with lots of criticism. So, I am assuming here that there is a good agreement between their variants. But there might be some minor differences, and this would be included in the safety-margin of the 180 words.
3# According to the trusted Islamic sources, it is a fact that Othman didn’t standardize the reciting. If he wanted to do so, then he would have to send official reciters to the main cities, which he didn’t. Furthermore, the marks for short vowels and the dots for differentiating between some characters were not invented yet. The problem at the time of Othman was the script, and the solution was for this particular problem.
If there are some Western-Scholars who claim that Othman standardize the reciting, then I really want to see their data/evidences. If this was just their opinion, then it doesn’t count, because an opinion-without-data cannot stand against an opinion-with-data.
Omar
thanks for the link to Eléonore Cellard’s review of Hilali’s monograph.
Cellard has subsequently published a very highly regarded study of the codicology of both upper and lower texts in the Sana’a palimpsest:
https://www.academia.edu/68162838/the_San%CA%BFa%CA%BE_Palimpsest_Materializing_the_Codices
This is based on photographs; with the war in Yemen it is likely the best that can be done.
Chiefly, she refutes Hilali’s speculation that the lower text comprised teaching materials, demonstrating that it must rather have been a complete codex Qur’an.
” It appears highly probable that the primary codex—which had perhaps already lost its bindings and become fragmented—was re-used quire by quire. Its status as a codex is now described and can thus be compared to other codices in order to situate it in the history of the written transmission of the Qurʾan.”
I read the work of Sidky and van Putten as confirming the Islamic tradition of a dissemination of a standardised Qur’an to four regional centres at an early date – either by Uthman or earlier. Nevertheless the data does *not* confirm these disseminations as corresponding overall with the later 20 qira’at readings-sets. Most variants in early Qur’ans are not qira’at, and most qira’at are not found early.
“I would assume that if Asma’s variants were totally different than Sadeghi/Goudarzi then this would be highlighted with lots of criticism.”
Sadeghi/Goudarzi reconstruct a few variants in the lower text corresponding with those reported for the ‘companion codices’ of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb or reported in the qira’at literature, none of which are accepted by Hilali. Other commentators appear inclined to admit one or two of these readings.
“According to the trusted Islamic sources, it is a fact that Othman didn’t standardize the reciting. If he wanted to do so, then he would have to send official reciters to the main cities, which he didn’t. Furthermore, the marks for short vowels and the dots for differentiating between some characters were not invented yet.”
My understanding is that all known early Qur’ans *do* include diacritical marks for lengthened consonants – but selectively (possibly at the discretion of the scribe) to reduce ambiguities.
Both manuscript copying and transmissions of recitation will have some elements ‘controlled’ and others ‘discretionary’. With the ‘Uthmanic text’, the findings of van Putten suggest that, in subsequent transmission within regional centres, elements moved from being ‘discretionary’ to ‘controlled’, both within text *and* recitation.
1# Tom, I think you are missing my point here:
# Sadeghi/Goudarzi identified 135 variants, I added 45 extra for safety-margin, so we have 180 mark-line; meaning that Sana’a has less than 180 variants.
# Asma has used a cautious approach and identified 61 variants. And it is obvious that Asma didn’t accept some of the variants of Sadeghi/Goudarzi, and It is possible that some of Sadeghi/Goudarzi variants were false, but this need to be confirmed by many peers.
# However, if most of Asma’s variants were included in Sadeghi/Goudarzi then we still have the current mark-line (i.e. Sana’a has less than 180 variants). But if you are telling me that most of Asma’s variants are totally different that Sadeghi/Goudarzi [and I will be very skeptic to this] then it is not a serious problem: we have an academic possibilities that the variants would be 135 plus 61 equal 196. Rounding it to 200 and adding a 50 extra as a safety-margin and we have a new mark-line, meaning that the Sana’a has less than 250 variants.
But I think it is more likely that many of Asma’s variants were included within Sadeghi/Goudarzi, therefore, the 180 mark-line still stand.
—–>
—–>
2# The available early manuscripts were produced few decades after Othman. But, in his time, there were no consonantal dotting and no short-vowel markings. We know this because the ancient Muslim references did cover this subject in detail: we know the data related to the who, when, where (etc.) for these dots and marks. You can start with this link and its references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_diacritics
To my understanding, no consonantal dotting was seen in any Semitic inscriptions (including Arabic) before Islam. The Semitic people didn’t have a problem with their style, but when many non-Arabs started to learn Arabic, they found it confusing, “therefore”, the dots then marks were invented gradually starting from the time of Ali (the Ruler after Othman). Check this link which represent an early Islamic inscription before the dots and marks:
https://krc.web.ox.ac.uk/article/early-arabic-graffiti-jordan
Putten’s article didn’t discuss the recitation. The article was all about the rasim and text. If Putten stated (in different articles) that “Othman standardized the reciting”, then I don’t think he has enough data sufficient to oppose the valid data of the ancient Muslim references.
“If there are some Western-Scholars who claim that Othman standardize the reciting, then I really want to see their data/evidences. ”
Omar; looks like it may be your lucky day.
Hythem Sidky has published just the data/evidence you so wanted to see:
https://www.academia.edu/111507928/Consonantal_Dotting_and_the_Oral_Quran
“I rely on variation in consonantal dotting to show the existence of early Kufan, Meccan, Basran, and Medinan reading traditions. These independent traditions, despite their differences, still share a lot in common that cannot be explained by chance. A survey of the earliest manuscripts reveals that this information was not transmitted as part of the Quran’s written tradition. Therefore, common elements must have been transmitted orally and belong to an inherited tradition predating any one of the individual readings. This situates the origin of the Quran’s extant oral tradition alongside the Uthmānic recension and among the first generation of the followers of Muhammad.”
Strictly, Sidky’s study cannot prove an ‘Uthmanic’ standardisation of the recited/oral Qur’an exactly contemporary to the written Qur’an; but he does prove that there must have been a single standardised recitation disseminated in the mid first/seventh century. The later contrary Islamic tradition results from a predisposition for labelling all the canonical qira’at readings-sets as ‘original’.
“The available early manuscripts were produced few decades after Othman. But, in his time, there were no consonantal dotting and no short-vowel markings.”
Your are correct there in respect of short-vowel markings, Omar; but not for consonants.
The best recent study is by Adam Bursi.
https://www.academia.edu/40653150/Connecting_the_Dots_Diacritics_Scribal_Culture_and_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_in_the_First_Seventh_Century
Bursi observes:
“Within dated Arabic documents, consonantal diacritics were used already in the early first/mid-seventh century: the earliest surviving examples are two administrative papyri dated to 22/643 and an inscription dated to 24/645, all of which exhibit consonantal diacritics on some letters.”
All dated first/seventh century Arabic writing has consonantal dots; the particular letters selected for dotting varying greatly. Bursi concludes:
“Rather than treating the writing of the Qurʾān as a “special case,” as suggested by both traditional Islamic history and modern scholarship, scribes in the first/seventh century wrote the Qurʾān as they did other Arabic texts: they neither “left out” diacritics to leave the text open, nor “added” more to clarify it, but in most cases simply wrote diacritics where they were accustomed to writing them by habit or convention.”
Each Hidjazi scribe appears to have aquired a menu of lengthened consonants that they regularly dotted; which they then applied irrespective of specific context.
There is an interesting subject in this review about Dr. Asma’s article:
https://www.academia.edu/40665225/RQR_Review_of_Qur_anic_Research_Vol_5_no_9_Hilali_A_The_Sanaa_palimpsest
Asma has presented a theory (page-5) that the lower-text (as well as the upper-text) is not a codex (Mus-haf), but a type of “aide-mémoire”.
If this theory is accurate, then the lower-text could have just been a private document.
Now … It is clear that the scribe of the lower-text wasn’t professional nor organized. So, if the lower-text was proven to be a private document then it probably wouldn’t be regarded a main case-study for the Quranic analysis due to the possible errors of the scribe:
If a scribe was making a codex then the “fear-of-embarrassment” would force him to work carefully, to make many reviews, and highly-likely to make second-party reviews,, before presenting this codex; because it would be very embarrassing for the scribe to be criticized for errors in that codex. But if the document was private then there is no “fear-of-embarrassment” and there is no urgency for reviews. Therefore, the variants in this documents could have just been memory-errors, and these errors weren’t reviewed; because the document was private.
This theory of Asma is really interesting.
—->
Omar; I think you might find Nicolai Sinai’s review of Asma Hilali’s book helpful:
https://www.academia.edu/42333408/_Beyond_the_Cairo_Edition_On_the_Study_of_Early_Quranic_Codices_Journal_of_the_American_Oriental_Society_140_no_1_2020_189_204
As too Eléonore Cellard’s study of the codicology of the upper and lower texts; in which she reviews images of all eighty palimpsest leaves from both the DAM and Eastern Sanaa libraries.
https://www.academia.edu/68162838/the_San%CA%BFa%CA%BE_Palimpsest_Materializing_the_Codices
Cellard observes:
“The codicological analysis of the Codex Ṣanʿāʾ 1 thus supports a codex structure for both secondary and primary folios. In addition to the existing bifolio and traces of stitches, reconstituting the quires, most of which follow the same structure, reveals that both primary and secondary codices were respectively a multigathering codex.”
And concludes:
“The characteristics of the primary codex point to a professional and planned work. The collaboration of two experienced scribes, probably copying from a written exemplar, could reflect the context of a local scriptorium active during the early Umayyad period.”
With these findings, I’am afraid that Hilalis theory of the lower text as a collection of leaves from a “teaching circle” can no longer be sustained. The lower text was a bound volume – most likely of the full Qur’an text – produced by professional scribes for public recitation; and so may be presumed to be a “careful copy” of a previous text.
—->
However, this theory can raise an interesting scenario. Let us suppose (for argument sake) that we discovered a Quranic-codex in Egypt, and it turned out that the variants were not 135, but 10,000. Furthermore, it turned out that they were not complementary to the current-standard but contradictory, with meanings so much opposite to the current-standard.
Let us suppose we carbon-dated this codex and it turned out to be at the same time of Sana’a manuscript.
So, what now?
This codex would be regarded as an anomaly, not a counter-evidence; because we already have many ancient manuscripts with a clear dominant pattern, therefore, when an instance appears totally different than the dominant pattern, then it would be regarded as an anomaly … We need more than one instance to start doubting the dominant pattern.
The explanation for this anomaly is simple: this codex could have been produced by a scribe with clear intentions.
We actually have a good example in Christianity: the Gospel of Barnabas. It is a very interesting large document (the size of the four Gospels combined), which has zero (null, nil, nada) historical value; because this Gospel is almost certainly a hoax that was written in about the 14th century AD.
Indeed Omar;
A direct parallel might be the Qur’an manuscript reportedly found in Bankipore in British India in 1912; containing two additional chapters – Surah al-Walayah and Surah al-Nurayn – which supported Shi’ite religious claims.
As with the Gospel of Barnabas, these chapters are patently late forgeries; and are universally rejected by Shia and Sunni scholars.
But that does prompt empirical comparisons with New Testament text-critical scholarship. The rediscovery of early manuscripts, and the application of text-critical principles, has uncovered early theological ‘tendencies’ in the transmission of manuscript copying in the New Testament – some of which Bart has characterised as “orthodox corruptions of scripture”. But has also enabled publication of new – and clearly superior – critical texts.
The counterpart critical study of the early transmission of the Qur’an is, realistically, only just beginning. The Cairo edition of 1924 was not based on early manuscript witnesses at all; only on medieval studies of ‘quaranic science’. So far though, the critical study of the early Qur’an has not uncovered any clear theological ‘tendencies’. But it could now become possible to recover and publish a better ‘original Uthmanic text’ than in 1924.
But would modern Muslims welcome this?
1# Regarding the two-papyri:
Any new significant “widespread” norm would have a start and a pioneer.
So, let us consider these two groups of Data:
G1: No consonantal-dotting was seen in any Semitic inscriptions before Islam, and we have many early Islamic inscriptions without dotting. The Islamic sources says that “Naser-Ben-Asem” is the one who established the consonantal-dotting about 75H (696AD) and it was widespread by his efforts.
G2: There are two papyri dated on 22H (643AD) and 24H (645AD) with consonantal dotting. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERF_558
###########
So, Western-Scholars are going to ignore G1 for G2. Is this really logic?
I don’t think it is logical to ignore the available bulk of data for just two instances. Therefore, I prefer to go with G1, and to regard G2 as anomalies.
However, there is an explanation for these anomalies: I think the first papyri was written in 122H, but the scribe wrote “two and twenty”, and omitted the “hundred”. This style of abbreviation is still used today: In casual notes, some people would write the date as 24/5/23 instead of 2024/5/23.
Regardless of this explanation, I prefer to go with the bulk of data rather than just two instances. But this is just my opinion.
——>
Omar;
van Putten provides a summary history of Hijazi Arabic writing here:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/mill-2023-0007/html?lang=en
see section 4.3.
As he notes, only a small proportion of early Arabic inscriptions have consonantal dotting; but “It is a bizarre stroke of luck that the very earliest Islamic Arabic inscription, the Zuhayr inscription (24 AH / 644‒45 CE), just so happens to have consonantal dots. ”
And as you know, no Islamic document dated to the first/seventh century has ever been found without consonantal dotting. Contrary Islamic histories appear to have been misled by an identification of the monumental Kufic Qur’ans of the 2nd/3rd centuries AH with the ‘Qur’ans of Uthman’. These manuscripts indeed eschewed any diacritics, but that was then an innovation.
The multiple anecdotes crediting various different scholars as “the first to dot the Qur’an” are reviewed by Adam Bursi here:
https://www.academia.edu/40653150/Connecting_the_Dots_Diacritics_Scribal_Culture_and_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_in_the_First_Seventh_Century
Bursi notes that in none of the numerous early biographical compendia of Islamic scholars, does the entry for Naṣr ben ʿĀṣim credit him with inventing consonantal diacritics.
“In Ḥamzah al-Iṣfahānī’s text, the innovative scribes who added diacritics go unnamed: only later texts add the aside that “it is said that Naṣr ben ʿĀṣim undertook this”
Likely just adding a famous name.
——>
2# Regarding Cellard’s study:
I have no data to argue with this study. If my memory is accurate, the scribe of the lower-text was regarded as un-professional because of the different number of lines in each page, and because the lines were not straight but curving a bit down.
But still, I have no data to argue against Cellard’s study.
However, I can logically disagree with your conclusion that the lower text {may be presumed to be a “careful copy” of a previous text}, because it might just be a copy of recitation. Therefore, there would be a probable explanation for the variants to be memory errors (from the reciter), and after the document was reviewed, they decided that it need to be erased and produced again. I think this is a valid possibility.
3# You have asked: But would modern Muslims welcome this? [referring to the studies of Quranic manuscripts in order to establish the “original Uthmanic text”].
The answer is clearly “No”.
I did explain this answer, but it will take few comments, therefore, I wrote it in a pdf file, and this is the link for it:
https://omr-mhmd.yolasite.com/resources/R7-Tom-No-8.pdf
Omar;
thanks for your work in the linked document; it is really informative – and a compelling argument.
My question arises out of a point Hythem Sidky makes:
https://www.academia.edu/111507928/Consonantal_Dotting_and_the_Oral_Quran
“In my view, this should give consensus readings significant value when working with the ʿUthmānic text. Indeed, even the single rendition of Hafৢs < Asim has been very productive for intertextual studies. Had the fully vocalized textus receptus so poorly captured the original text, it is doubtful that literary criticism of the Quran, particularly in recent years, would have yielded so much, despite the almost exclusive reliance on just a single transmission of the Quran. Therefore, I contend that if one wishes to adopt an alternative reading of the ʿUthmānic text where all ten canonical readers are in agreement, then the alternative reading must be justified and a mechanism posited for the emergence of the canonical reading."
Sidky – I think – would reckon to be applying what you would categorise as COT; but systematically as 'isnad-cum-matn' analysis (hence ICM), aiming to evaluate the reliability of reported chains of transmission (isnad) from the consistency of the content (matn) ascribed to each named scholar in the chain. Might you then recognise ICM findings?
Omar; apologies for returning here, but I would like to explore further what your paper describes as Qur’an readings identified from ‘unknown sources’.
May I suggest a thought experiment with what could be realistic numbers?
Supposing some 100 ‘early’ Qur’ans are fully accessible in Corpus Coranicum images;
– and through stemmatics and textual critical analyses, some 40 words are identified where the likely source ‘Uthmanic text’ consonantal skeleton differs from Hafs>Asim in the Cairo edition.
Those 40 readings could fall into one of five categories;
1. readings not according to Hafs>Asim, but reported elsewhere as canonical qira’at;
2. readings not in the canonical qira’at, but reported from a ‘companion codex’ (ibn Masud, Ubaay ibn Ka’b);
3. readings reported from one of the 10 eponymous reciters, but other than through their two canonical transmitters;
4. readings reported in the early qur’anic literature, but not from one of the 10 eponymous reciters;
5. readings reported nowhere in the early qur’anic literature.
Category 1 readings would not be a problem.
Category 5 readings would clearly be problematic; but I would expect this to be empty.
Overwhelmingly, I would expect the 40 to be category 3 – from an eponymous reciter via a ‘non-canonical’ transmitter. Would these still be ‘unknown source’?
Hi Tom,
No worries, this discussion is useful, and every round in it did provide new data and new logic. I do acknowledge that this discussion highlighted some information that I wasn’t aware of before.
I will reply to your last 3 comments but in a new thread down below, as this current thread is a bit packed now.
——> [to a new thread down below]
I believe you’re already aware of the growing number of scholars studying the origins of the Quran and Islam. I’ve understand that from a academic and scholarly perspective, this is a complex task which involves understanding the evolution of texts such as the Sira, Hadiths, and Tafsirs, which were written much later. The selection process of the Hadiths, which led to the rejection of most, and the Siras from Ibn Ishaq, now lost but revised and abridged by Ibn Hisham, are key areas of focus.
I can at least think of a few German scholars in Islamic studies can provide a broader perspective, , and definitely also including issues involving the Sana Manuscript. Another interesting and public doctoral dissertation from Daniel Alan Brubaker, Rice University in 2014, titled “Intentional Changes in Qur’an Manuscripts,” offers a scholarly examination of the complexities in the development of this religion and its scriptures. His research addresses not only textual discrepancies but also cultural adjustments and the evolution of the Arabic language from what is known as “defective” script, which lacked diacritics and vowel markings in the early stage of this religion.
Overall, I think the variations and complexities in the historical religious development and of these religious texts are more intricate than you seems to imply.
kt
thanks for your comments; especially the citation of Alan Brubaker.
Brubaker’s book has been reviewed in detail by Hythem Sidky, dowloadable here: https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/rt5w-ef36/download
Brubaker’s response to Sidky’s review is here: https://www.academia.edu/44923907/Corrections_to_Hythem_Sidkys_review_of_Corrections_in_Early_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_Manuscripts_Twenty_Examples
Both papers are a tad over-technical; and both scholars characterise the other at erecting ‘straw men’ for the purpose of argument.
But my summary impression is that Brubaker is seeking to explore whether there may be Qur’anic equivalents to Bart’s category of ‘orthodox corruption of scripture’; specifically whether the critical text of the Qur’an re-established in the Cairo edition of 1924/1342 (reversing the previous domination of Ottoman classicized versions) may have incorporated ‘intentional changes’ arising through a continued “flexibility in the text”- albeit that “the flexibility does not appear to have been great.”
Brubaker rejects Sidky’s characterisations; ” I did not suggest that my survey would challenge traditional assumptions. What I said was that the characteristics of tangible historical objects (manuscripts) do so.” But in my reading this is disengenuous; Brubaker’s labelling of the variants he observes as ‘intentional’ inherently imposes his own theories of scribal tendencies onto manuscript changes. Manuscript ‘characteristics’ do not challenge traditional assumptions; Brubaker’s ‘interpretations’ do.
Thank you for your links which I read. I can agree with a critique of Brubaker’s potential over-interpretation/misinterpretation of the variations from whom he argues well in his defence. I think it is equally or more important to bring attention to variations in early Quran(ic) manuscripts. However, applying greater methodological transparency and contextual analysis are in my mind itself a good conctribution and will just add to the quality of, what I understtand this to be, an “emerging” topic to present a clearer picture of the historical development of the Quran.
I guess they both accnowledge the existence of variances in the quranic materials which by the way was also mentioned in “sahih” hadiths such as Sahih al-Bukhari 4987 and Sahih Muslim 818a (who was written by islamic scholars centuries after Muhammed died).
Can you highlight the solid data/logic in your comment, because it seems you have presented a rhetoric-filler!
1# You highlighted the growing number of [Western] Scholars studying Quran. However, there are many Scholars now with so many opposite conclusions.
2# You highlighted a Scholar work (without discussing it). However, presenting “The-Scholar-Card” on the table can be replied by presenting other Scholars with their opposite conclusions (see 1#). So, this is not really a solid data/logic.
For example: The Muslims went through a miraculous expansion, east and west, in less than 20 years, then came the civil wars and the fragmentation. But still, Muslims (east-to-west) have the same Quran (as discussed before). This is a “solid logic” (from common data) for the Quran being preserved.
The “solid data” is the appearance of ancient Quranic Manuscripts that are not very different from the current Manuscript.
What are Rhetoric-Fillers?
They are parts of data which sometimes are combined with logical fallacies that are all “glued” together by rhetoric expressions. You can see this style of presentation in Fox News.
Probably the most talented Politician in Rhetoric-Fillers is Marjorie Taylor Greene; she can break all laws of logic and still stand firmly on the Political arena.
—–>
—–>
With rhetoric-fillers, people can prove both opposite views at the same time. The reason is that there are no solid data/logic in their presentation, but they make the effort to give the sense that their presentation is valid and strong.
Now … I have no grudge or negative feelings for your opinion about the Quran [that the Quran today is different than the Quran of the past, as you have implied many times now]. I would present an opposite option and I would discuss the related data/logic, but I prefer to keep away from rhetoric-fillers; because they are just counterproductive, and if this happened then I prefer to “agree-to-disagree” and move on.
For example, I have a friend who truly believe that the Earth is flat, and the Sun is orbiting around it [and It seems that there are many people cross-cultures that have the same belief].
Now … his belief on Earth is probably more irritating than your opinion about the Quran, specially that all his arguments are rhetoric-fillers, therefore, we stopped discussing this matter. However, he is a good friend, and as long as he doesn’t say nasty things about “Newton”, he will continue to be a friend.
Apolgies; the Quranice verse references are to Q. 9:84, and Q .9:85.
Unfortunately, I have seen worse examples coming from a faculty member of the theology department of a Turkish university. One example: A theology professor claimed that the fact that the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story similar to the Noah’s flood in the Quran proves that the Sumerians were originally Muslims. And that later they must have lost their faith and become idolaters.
Yowser!! That’s a good ‘un!
A mentor once taught me:
(1) There is no cure for stupid
(2) You can’t teach common sense
“OK, OK. We all know why.”
We do? I haven’t been able to figure it out. The strict fundamentalist sect in which I was raised included members who were medical doctors, mathematicians, engineers, etc., reasonably intelligent people one would assume. Yet, as far as they were concerned that ole King James came down from Heaven, the inerrant Word of God, not to be questioned.
Maybe it’s a need for certainty with regard to life and the afterlife.
Hello Bart,
I wanted to express my gratitude for your insightful blog post. As a newcomer to your blog, I have been learning a lot from your articles.
I have a question about a topic that is somewhat related. Have you ever discussed Dr. David H. Sorensen’s argument regarding the falsification of Tischendorf’s discovery of Codex Sinaiticus by Constantine Simonides? Dr. Sorensen claims that Simonides disputed the dating of the Codex Sinaiticus. I am curious to know your thoughts on this matter.
Thank you.
Oh yes, there’s a lot of information on that. If you look it up online you’ll see. Simonides was an amazingly talented and even more amazingly unsrupulous forger of texts, wh claimed he produced Sinaiticus. He was irrefutably shown to be lying through his teeth (some of which Tischendorf may have been inclined to remove forcibly, had he not been such a Christian man….)
I see there is a controversy regarding the authenticity and dating of the document. Does this mean that the Codex Sinaiticus is unreliable?
No, there’s not much controversy at all about Sinaiticus. It is an authentic later fourth century manuscxript, dating to around 375 CE.
There are many people who I agree with often or most of the time on non-religious subjects, but when it comes to their beliefs about Christianity, I am just amazed at how they can believe such nonsense. It is as if they, and virtually all other religious people, have a Logic On/Off switch that gets switched to the Off position whenever the subject is Christianity. The reason I specify Christianity is that their analysis of other religions if often very good. They often correctly assess the faults, inconsistencies and impossibilities of those other religions, but don’t understand that those faults, inconsistencies and impossibilities usually apply equally well to Christianity.
The Quran makes the statement:
‘We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).’
https://quran.com/15/9
The Bible however:
‘Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared!’
https://biblehub.com/luke/24-25.htm
‘How can you say, “We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us,” when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie? NRSV
https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/8-8.htm
Based on surviving manuscripts, what they both say is correct !
——> [From a previous thread above]
Hi Tom,
There are 3 parts in my reply:
Part-1, which is a reply to your comment (May 23, 2024 at 3:50 pm) regarding the consonantal dotting.
Part-2, which is a reply to your comment (May 23, 2024 at 8:11 pm) regarding a quotation from Hythem Sidky.
Part-3, which is a reply to your comment (May 24, 2024 at 8:11 am) regarding a hypothetical situation.
As these replies would take many comments, therefore, I wrote them in a pdf file in this link:
https://omr-mhmd.yolasite.com/resources/R8-Tom-3N-9.pdf
Omar;
thanks for your had work in putting together a detailed response.
I’m afraid I won’t be able to respond in detail on your second part – relating to Hythem Sidky’s application of isnad-cum-matn methods to the transmission of the Qur’an – as I cannot speak for him. He does post regularly on X/Twitter though; so you might interact with him directly.
In respect of your first part; you should be aware that your speculative redating of the (dotted) papyrus receipt of Jabir ibn Abd Allah from 22AH to 122AH can’t work.
– it is dated both in Arabic (22AH), and Greek (indiction-year 1); a date of 122AH would be indiction-year 11 in Greek.
– Jabir ibn Abd Allah died in 72AH.
This receipt is securely dated to 643CE. https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/papyri/perf558
On your third part; I quite agree there is no immediate need yet to press the issue.
Of the 77,000 words in the Qur’an, something like a third have variants recorded in qur’anic traditions from the first three Islamic centuries – which are now accessible on line. https://erquran.org/pages/about/about
Sometime in the not-too-distant future, this ongoing work will result in a critical edition of the ‘Uthmanic text’.
1# The interpretation from islamic-awareness.org is a bit different than wiki and others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERF_558
However, there is no Sahabi or known military leader at 22H in Egypt by the name “Abdullāh bin Jābir”, The governor of Egypt from 19H until 24H was “Amr”. There is a Sahabi with the name “Jabir bin Abd Allah”, but he didn’t have any military or governing responsibilities in Egypt.
The papyrus has the Arabic month and year, without an Arabic day. Also, it has the Coptic day, the Coptic month and the Coptic “tax-year” (i.e. 1st indiction). The tax-year is a cycle of 15 years, but it has sometimes been regarded as 5 or 14 years.
You cannot deduct the Coptic year from the tax-year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiction
So, if we are going to regard this papyrus as an anomaly then this papyrus can easily be explain in favor of the numerous data in G1, by saying that it was written in 122H, but the scribe omitted the “hundred”. This type of abbreviation is still practiced in current days for casual notes, as I have explained in my previous pdf file.
——->
——->
2# The second part of my reply was related to your quote from Sidky. This quote has two opinions that some Western-Scholars do have them and do regard them in high value, but I think they are false as I have explained in my pdf reply. So, I am not arguing here with Sidky; I am just responding to a quote from Sidky that I think it is false.
3# You said: “Of the 77,000 words in the Qur’an, something like a third have variants recorded …”.
So, your claim here is that there are about 25,000 variants. But to my understanding, this is totally false. Van Putten in one of his interviews in MythVision has guessed the variants to be about 2000, and it does fit with my estimate except that in my estimate, there is a good margin for safety.
The Harvard website that you have presented didn’t highlight any estimates, but the “Readings” page didn’t seem to exceed the two-hundred variants.
Omar
Your estimate of 25,000 recorded qur’anic variants looks about correct – the standard compendium – Mu’jam al-qirā’āt (11 v.) by Khaṭīb, ‘Abd al-Laṭīf Muḥammad (2002) – has 6,000 pages with around 5 variants on each page.
Though it does seem out of print at present :
https://www.arabicbookshop.net/mujam-al-qiraat/120-424
van Putten estimates the ‘canonical’ variants as around 2,000; that is the variants recorded for the ‘seven’, ‘ten’ and ‘fourteen’ eponymous reciters through either of their two designated canonical transmitters. But then you need to add to these, all the non-canonical variants – those reported for the eponymous Uthmanic reciters through other early Islamic transmitters (around seventy transmitters in the first three centuries are reported in all); plus all the variants reported for ‘companion codices’, and the variants reported for other early reciters.
Looking on the Harvard website, I counted well over a hundred variants, just in the seven verses of the first Surah; though that is exceptional.
Once all these ‘shādhdh’ (non-canonical) variants – Uthmanic and non-Uthmanic – are added in; then the total is ten times larger.
Tom,
1# Is this a recognized Scholar opinion that third of the Quran have variants (i.e. 25k), or is it yours?
You should have clarified this before presenting it as though it was an academic fact.
2# There are tens of thousands of “Anonymous-Oral-Tradition” (AOT) and weak “Chain-Oral-Tradition” (COT) narratives that have been claimed to be from the Prophet, and they were all rejected and regarded as not authentic. So, do you really think we will consider the AOT variants!
The considered variants were based on Consensus-Transmission or trusted COT. This is what Van Putten and others were considering. Therefore, if you want to consider the non-authentic variants, then at least you need to clarify that.
For example, if Simon (a Scholar) is saying with confidence that Jesus had killed some children when he was a teen, then Simon is dishonest, because he was referring to a story that is regarded by most to be apocryphal. Therefore, he should have clarified this matter first.
3# The book you mentioned (Mu’jam al-qirā’āt) was written in 2000AD and includes the authentic and non-authentic variants. It is similar to some current encyclopedias for hadith that include all trusted and rejected hadith.
——>
——>
4# As I said before, the Harvard website that you have presented didn’t seem to exceed the 200 variants. I will also add that it only covers 10 A4-pages (without the empty lines). So, yes, it doesn’t seem to exceed the 200 variants.
Furthermore, I did check the “first Surah” (Q. 1:) in:
https://erquran.org/pages/encyclopedia/readings
And it didn’t count 100, but “28”!
5# You are losing the big picture here!
If there were non-authentic narratives about an event, then these narratives were probably invented after the event, and this is an interesting history to analyze.
However, if we want to analyze the event itself, then we will consider the authentic narratives.
So, the Muslims claim that the Quran they have, which is based on the known “10-Readings” (2 main + 8 others) is presented from Muhammed.
So, is this claim accurate or not?
So, if we found that these 10 readings are spread in different locations and the differences between them is much less than 2000 words, therefore the % of agreement is much more than 97%.. therefore, the claim does have solid ground.
This is the main discussion [did the current available Quran came from Muhammed?] and this is the big picture here.