2,743
edits
Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
==Scribal errors in Uthman's codices== | ==Scribal errors in Uthman's codices== | ||
Academic scholars generally believe that the above mentioned regional variants were scribal errors made when the original copies of Uthman's consonantal text were produced. These feature also in the canonical readings (qira'at) of those regions, which were required to keep within the scope of the Uthmanic text | Academic scholars generally believe that the above mentioned regional variants were scribal errors made when the original copies of Uthman's consonantal text were produced. These feature also in the canonical readings (qira'at) of those regions, which were required to keep within the scope of the Uthmanic text. These scribal errors in the original Uthmanic copies have been inherited by all subsquent copies of the Quran that exist in the world, as distinct from isolated mistakes in individual manuscripts. For example, Qurans in North Africa which typically have the reading of Warsh from Nafi will have the text of the Uthmanic copy given to Medina. | ||
The strongest tradition holds that four copies were made, one each for Medina in the Hijaz, Syria (Hims, or less likely, Damascus<ref name="Sidky2020">Sidky, H. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/49523638/ On the Regionality of Qurʾānic Codices] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, 5(1) doi:10.5913/jiqsa.5.2020.a005</ref>), Basra and Kufa in modern day Iraq. As mentioned above, Michael Cook identified that these 40 or so variants form a stemmatic relationship that indicates a written copying process between the four codices.<ref name="Cook"/> His list was based on al-Dani's work (d. 444 AH) and can also be read online in a paper by van Putten.<ref>See the Appendix in Van Putten, M. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/41712793/Hi%C5%A1a_ms_%CA%BEIbra_ha_m_Evidence_for_a_Canonical_Quranic_Reading_Based_on_the_Rasm Hišām's ʾIbrāhām: Evidence for a Canonical Quranic Reading Based on the Rasm] Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 30(2), 231-250. doi:10.1017/S1356186319000518</ref> Compiling a similar but improved list of the regional variants widely attested by Muslim scholars, Hythem Sidky reconstructed the same stemma as found by Cook for what must have been four regional exemplar codices.<ref name="Sidky2020" /> This is mainly derived due to the twelve variants shared by Syria and Medina to the exclusion of Basra and Kufa, fifteen isolated Syrian variants and three isolated Kufan variants.<ref>ibid. p. 143</ref> Sidky also found an "excellent agreement" between these reports and the earliest manuscripts. In additon, Sidky was able to reproduce the stemmatic result by means of a phylogenetic analysis of these regional differences within the earliest manuscripts (except that Kufa did not achieve a separate node since only one early Kufan manuscript is available). Sidky also found that "a comparison of literary reports against the earliest manuscripts reveals that knowledge of the regional variants does not date back to the time of canonization but was accumulated over time through careful scrutiny of regional muṣḥafs". This indicates that the Uthmanic committee were unaware or did not share information about these differences. He has also commented separately on this topic that further reasons for believing them to be scribal errors are that they are so few in number in what were obviously and reportedly intended to be identical copies, and that they are so insignificant, looking like typical scribal errors that occur in later copying, especially compared to the kinds of more meaningful variants found in companion readings (see earlier section on these above).<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210723202034/https://twitter.com/therealsidky/status/1418667335251075075 Archived Twitter thread] - "How do we know that the variants between the Uthmanic codices are scribal errors?", Hythem Sidky, 23 July 2021</ref> | The strongest tradition holds that four copies were made, one each for Medina in the Hijaz, Syria (Hims, or less likely, Damascus<ref name="Sidky2020">Sidky, H. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/49523638/ On the Regionality of Qurʾānic Codices] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, 5(1) doi:10.5913/jiqsa.5.2020.a005</ref>), Basra and Kufa in modern day Iraq. As mentioned above, Michael Cook identified that these 40 or so variants form a stemmatic relationship that indicates a written copying process between the four codices.<ref name="Cook"/> His list was based on al-Dani's work (d. 444 AH) and can also be read online in a paper by van Putten.<ref>See the Appendix in Van Putten, M. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/41712793/Hi%C5%A1a_ms_%CA%BEIbra_ha_m_Evidence_for_a_Canonical_Quranic_Reading_Based_on_the_Rasm Hišām's ʾIbrāhām: Evidence for a Canonical Quranic Reading Based on the Rasm] Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 30(2), 231-250. doi:10.1017/S1356186319000518</ref> Compiling a similar but improved list of the regional variants widely attested by Muslim scholars, Hythem Sidky reconstructed the same stemma as found by Cook for what must have been four regional exemplar codices.<ref name="Sidky2020" /> This is mainly derived due to the twelve variants shared by Syria and Medina to the exclusion of Basra and Kufa, fifteen isolated Syrian variants and three isolated Kufan variants.<ref>ibid. p. 143</ref> Sidky also found an "excellent agreement" between these reports and the earliest manuscripts. In additon, Sidky was able to reproduce the stemmatic result by means of a phylogenetic analysis of these regional differences within the earliest manuscripts (except that Kufa did not achieve a separate node since only one early Kufan manuscript is available). Sidky also found that "a comparison of literary reports against the earliest manuscripts reveals that knowledge of the regional variants does not date back to the time of canonization but was accumulated over time through careful scrutiny of regional muṣḥafs". This indicates that the Uthmanic committee were unaware or did not share information about these differences. He has also commented separately on this topic that further reasons for believing them to be scribal errors are that they are so few in number in what were obviously and reportedly intended to be identical copies, and that they are so insignificant, looking like typical scribal errors that occur in later copying, especially compared to the kinds of more meaningful variants found in companion readings (see earlier section on these above).<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210723202034/https://twitter.com/therealsidky/status/1418667335251075075 Archived Twitter thread] - "How do we know that the variants between the Uthmanic codices are scribal errors?", Hythem Sidky, 23 July 2021</ref> | ||
| Line 671: | Line 671: | ||
scriptio plena that the historical sources suggest was al-Ḥajjāj’s intended goal. There is some manuscript evidence for the introduction of short vowel markers into the Qurʾān in this period, but this development is not associated with the introduction of diacritics as our literary sources suggest." [i.e. they wrongly suggest both consonantal and vowel marks were introduced at the same time] Bursi concludes that "While ʿAbd al-Malik and/or al-Ḥajjāj do appear to have played a role in the evolution of the qurʾānic text, the initial introduction of diacritics into the text was not part of this process and it is unclear what development in the usage of diacritics took place at their instigation."<ref>Bursi, Adam. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005 Connecting the Dots: Diacritics, Scribal Culture, and the Qurʾān in the First/Seventh Century.] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 3, International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2018, pp. 111–157 (see pp. 116-126), https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005.</ref> | scriptio plena that the historical sources suggest was al-Ḥajjāj’s intended goal. There is some manuscript evidence for the introduction of short vowel markers into the Qurʾān in this period, but this development is not associated with the introduction of diacritics as our literary sources suggest." [i.e. they wrongly suggest both consonantal and vowel marks were introduced at the same time] Bursi concludes that "While ʿAbd al-Malik and/or al-Ḥajjāj do appear to have played a role in the evolution of the qurʾānic text, the initial introduction of diacritics into the text was not part of this process and it is unclear what development in the usage of diacritics took place at their instigation."<ref>Bursi, Adam. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005 Connecting the Dots: Diacritics, Scribal Culture, and the Qurʾān in the First/Seventh Century.] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 3, International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2018, pp. 111–157 (see pp. 116-126), https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005.</ref> | ||
Similar to Bursi, Nicolai Sinai is skeptical of detailed reports about the contribution of al-Hajjaj, and of Omar Hamdan's acceptance of reports that al-Hajjaj replaced existing mushafs with his own version (the so-called "second masahif project"), though Sinai does find more convincing the reports that al-Hijjaj sought to enforce the Uthmanic rasm standard under the Caliphate of 'Abu al-Malik b. Marwan and particularly, to suppress the continued use of the non-Uthmanic reading of Ibn Mas'ud in Kufa.<ref>Sinai, Nicolai. [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, 2014, pp. 273–92 (see pp. 279-285)</ref> | Similar to Bursi, Nicolai Sinai is skeptical of detailed reports about the contribution of al-Hajjaj, and of Omar Hamdan's acceptance of reports that al-Hajjaj replaced existing mushafs with his own version (the so-called "second masahif project"), though Sinai does find more convincing the reports that al-Hijjaj sought to enforce the Uthmanic rasm standard under the Caliphate of 'Abu al-Malik b. Marwan and, particularly, to suppress the continued use of the non-Uthmanic reading of Ibn Mas'ud in Kufa.<ref>Sinai, Nicolai. [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, 2014, pp. 273–92 (see pp. 279-285)</ref> | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||