Maybe it all points to a discontinuity between the religious and scribal milieu where the Qur'an was written and compiled and the Islamic scholarship that developed a few generations later.
Yes, it's seems quite logic.
If you looked at the transmission of knowledge, ideas and beliefs over the same period in Christian monastic communities or Rabbinic Judaism I expect you'd find a lot more continuity, presumably in part because of institutional continuity.
Idem.
The Qur'an seems to be addressed to people very familiar with stories from Christian literature of one kind or another, but I get the impression that most of that knowledge has disappeared by the time recognisable Islamic scholarship develops.
Do we have any example of this, namely, of such an oblivion, in the history of humanity ?
The response, as far as I know, is quite clear : we do not. It is plausible then to set aside this explication : there's no oblivion.
Maybe there wasn't much real continuity between the (probably quite small) scribal communities where the Qur'an was put together, and the Islamic scholars who came later when Arabic had become the administrative language of empire and the need for Arabic literacy, scribal ability and literary production had vastly increased.
But the Islamic scholars claim this continuity .In the case of an oblivion, they would have forgotten this 'oblivion' ?
The Islamic scholars claim this continuity.More, it is this sole continuity (and I insist... ) from Muhammad to them which explains to them where do they come from and who they are as Muslims. It is their
raison d'être this continuity. To tell what they say about themselves they rely on this unique assertion : continuity.
How does that claim fit with what you wrote, then :
Maybe it all points to a discontinuity between the religious and scribal milieu where the Qur'an was written and compiled and the Islamic scholarship that developed a few generations later.
It simply cannot fit. It cannot have continuity and the reverse. We are reasonable people here. We cannot have something "true" and the opposite "true" in the same time. If yes, one of the assertion is erroneous, wrong, invalid, whatever you call it.
Yours ?
I do not think so. Then it is a plot by the Muslims, recounting something which have never existed ? I do not think so as well. Then what ? The continuity they recount and on which they rely to define themselves, their origin and what they are is 'salvation history'. Meaning that they
believe in it because it explains the existence of the most important object for them : the Quran, and the fact that they are Muslims.'salvation history' is a belief, a dogma, nothing else. It is a part of the religion.
'salvation history' is the continuity they claim. But there's no continuity, it is what our reason tells us. Then, the 'salvation history' has to be set aside as the explication of the existence of the Quran.
Then, all have to be reconstructed.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today