Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Qur'anic studies today

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 1494417 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 79 80 8182 83 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2400 - July 05, 2018, 03:03 PM
    Magraye,

    I am always mixing you up with Altara, sorry for that.

    A lot more C14 have been carried out on the already known manuscripts. That is what has changed.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2401 - July 05, 2018, 03:07 PM
    Dear Mundi,

    I updated my previous comment, so please re-read it. Not aware of any new research on the manuscripts. I am aware of the different lab results for the Sanaa palimpsest and Mingana 1572a, the latter of the two was erroneously considered to be the oldest manuscript, possible pre-dating Muhammad. If that manuscript was actually from the time of the three caliphs then you would be correct: the Quran was canonized much earlier than previously thought.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2402 - July 05, 2018, 03:23 PM
    Magraye,

    Where do you put the Birmingham Quran? I know it is part of one of the Paris ones, but it has been dated between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy... Very unlikely it was produced in 645, much more likely it was before. Since we know some of the Quran stories are from the 630's... This indicates that the Quran was canonized right from the start of arab hegemony. Was it a Holy book produced for the conquest purpose? There does not seem to have been time for "organic growth"of the book. From the beginning it was there, but apparently mainly to gather dust...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2403 - July 05, 2018, 03:28 PM
    Dear Mundi,

    Mingana Islamic Arabic 1572a (more commonly known as Birmingham Quran) is from the end of the 1st/7th century and beginning of the 2nd/8th century CE. Alba Fedeli radiocarbon dated it and arrived at a bizarre result, which upon closer examination, does not hold up to scrutiny. I am currently writing something on it, but the evidence is IMO just overwhelming. In sum, the orthography refutes the early dating provided by the C14. Several scholars have also dated it much later than the date you provided.

    Here you are talking about two different issue. That stories in the Quran pre-dates Muhammad or the the year 650 has nothing to do with the actual manuscripts. You ask good questions. It seems that you have read Gallez.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2404 - July 05, 2018, 04:15 PM
    Magraye,

    This has nothing to with Gallez but now you mention him, indeed, very early canonization fits with parts of his scenario.
    How do you compare the orthography? There are hardly and early 7th C sources.
    But if you have evidence, I would be very interested to read why the C14 is wrong. For now, the evidence I have seen shows that there is a very early canonization. Scholars need to bring forward evidence, their opinion is not enough. As I said, we are living in the 21st C, reputation alone isn't evidence.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2405 - July 05, 2018, 04:26 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 05, 2018, 11:43 AM
    The rasm was canonized before ʿAbd al-Malik. That is the story the manuscripts tell.  Ironically, DAM 01-27.1 refutes the mid-Umayyad codification under ʿAbd al-Malik, and so does other manuscripts, such as Codex Parisino-petropolitanus. DAM 01-27.1 contains the ʿUthmānic text.


    Quote
    I heard whispers from the Corpus Coranicum project that they have matched up the ancient Quranic manuscripts dating with other faith manuscripts. There are simply too many early datings coming in.



    1/ Nope, we have no evidence of that. C14 has a big calibration problems. It is not reliable.  The manuscripts tell no story. None scholars (to my knowledge) is agree with you about the MS. All dates them (palaeographically) from 680 minimum. And not before. Abd al Malik is 685-705. The proof is that it is told that Hajjaj b. Yusuf have modified the rasm under the orders of  Abd al Malik. Perforce the rasm since theres is no dots or vowels as witness the MS themselves. If it was already canonized, what is the use of the Hajjaj intervention? Theres no objective reason. You do not intervene in an already canonized text. Therefore Hajjaj did intervene on the text

    2/ Nope, DAM 01-27.1 refutes nothing, it show simply that in the time of ʿAbd al-Malik the Quran was not canonized, since it seems that (palaeographically) the  palimpsest do not date before 680. The superior layer is the canonization of the text. The superior layer is the evidence that there was a canonization at the 680/700 time. Not before.

    Mundi : I want sources and not rumors.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2406 - July 05, 2018, 04:27 PM
    Quote from: mundi on July 05, 2018, 03:03 PM
    Magraye,

    I am always mixing you up with Altara, sorry for that.

    A lot more C14 have been carried out on the already known manuscripts. That is what has changed.


    LOL!
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2407 - July 05, 2018, 04:27 PM
    Quote
    LOL !


    Haha. I thought the very same thing, dear Altara.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2408 - July 05, 2018, 04:29 PM
    Hahaha !
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2409 - July 05, 2018, 04:30 PM
    to the twins Magraye and Altara,

    Glad to make you guys laugh!

    Whispers: can't reveal my sources, I am not an academic...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2410 - July 05, 2018, 04:41 PM
    Magraye,

    Quote
    685-705. The proof is that it is told that Hajjaj b. Yusuf have modified the rasm under the orders of  Abd al Malik.


    Indeed, things like above made scholars think that the manuscripts would be late. But apparently there is credible doubt. The Hajjaj modifications was a intervention attested by different sources, but no trace of it...

    This is why getting clarity from the C14 is so important.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2411 - July 05, 2018, 04:42 PM
    Remember all : I consider (like Reynolds although he never said why, therefore I have my own reasons) that the Quranic text is older than we envisage today. Was written down between 550-600.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2412 - July 05, 2018, 04:44 PM
    Quote from: mundi on July 05, 2018, 04:41 PM
    Magraye,

    Indeed, things like above made scholars think that the manuscripts would be late. But apparently there is credible doubt. The Hajjaj modifications was a intervention attested by different sources, but no trace of it...

    This is why getting clarity from the C14 is so important.


    You have the trace : the difference between the palimpsest and the superior layer of  DAM 01-27.1 .
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2413 - July 05, 2018, 04:47 PM
    Mundi,

    Here is my reasoning and the reasoning of other scholars:

    The orthography. Mingana Islamic Arabic 1572a has words spelled with a medial alif, a feature absent in the earliest “ḥiǧāzī style” manuscripts, and only added to the Quranic text during the reign of the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān [r. 685–705]. And thus, the famous tradition: zāda ʿUbaydu llāhi bnu Ziyādin fī l-muṣḥafi alifay ḥarfin (“ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād inserted two thousand letters in the muṣḥaf”). This project is known as the second masahif project, and was taken up by al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf ath-Thaqafī, who ruled from 75/694 until 95/713. The dates do not correspond with the C14 dating. There is also the issue of the manuscripts variant reading, which follows that of the Syrian. A meticulous analysis made my Lamsiah shows that based on this, the manuscript cannot be from the first generation of codices. I put this together very quickly, as you can see.

    Looking at folio 1 recto, the seventeenth line, the complete spelling of fa-qālū is

    Already in 2009 was Mingana 1572 identified with Arabe 328c and later in 2011, thanks to the brilliant work of A. Fedeli, was this connection confirmed. not only did Mingana 1572a belong to the same codex as Arabe 328c, but it even written by the same scribe! Déroche dates Arabe 328c, on codicological and paleographic grounds, to end of the 7th century and beginning of the 8th century CE. This implies that the former is from the same time, and cannot be earlier, unless the scribe could time travel (just a passing joke). If Mingana 1572a was indeed that early, Déroche would have been the first one to announce it!
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2414 - July 05, 2018, 04:54 PM
    Maygraye,

    So which manuscript(s) is (are)  "pre-medial aliph"? So we have a pre-hajjaj era and a post Hajjaj era (without or with medial aliph).

    Altara,

    Credible that some parts of the Quran are pre-Islam. But canonisation would be hard to do in a non-structured/ dominant state.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2415 - July 05, 2018, 04:56 PM
    DAM 01-27.1  and Codex Parisino-petropolitanus (Arabe 328a-b and Marcel 18) are two examples.


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2416 - July 05, 2018, 04:58 PM
    Magraye,
    Quote
    DAM 01-27.1  and Codex Parisino-petropolitanus (Arabe 328a-b and Marcel 18) are two examples.


    So these contain no medial aliphs?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2417 - July 05, 2018, 04:59 PM
    Nope. There are additional reasons I can give, but I have not prepared anything. Currently refreshing my memory on the subject.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2418 - July 05, 2018, 05:24 PM
    And early papyri (thinking of the bilingual greek-arab early 7th C and maybe others)? No medial aliphs either?

    I know there are graphiti with the meidal aliphs...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2419 - July 05, 2018, 05:26 PM
    That bilingual papyri you allude to is from the year 715 CE. Inscription? Not sure. I am here referring to the Quran manuscripts. This point is not even disputed by any scholar.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2420 - July 05, 2018, 05:42 PM
    No, I am alluding to this 625 papyrus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERF_558

    We cannot assume that the medial aliph was not attested for before Hajjah. Maybe he just standardized the practice? I know some scholars dispute the medial aliph being a late development. Of course they can be wrong...

    Clarity on this point would be welcome.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2421 - July 05, 2018, 05:52 PM
    Ah, I see. This is the Aḥnas papyrus and it is one of the oldest Arabic texts, attesting the early usage of diacritical marks prior to the advent of Islam.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2422 - July 05, 2018, 05:55 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 05, 2018, 04:47 PM
    Mundi,

    Here is my reasoning and the reasoning of other scholars:

    The orthography. Mingana Islamic Arabic 1572a has words spelled with a medial alif, a feature absent in the earliest “ḥiǧāzī style” manuscripts, and only added to the Quranic text during the reign of the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān [r. 685–705]. And thus, the famous tradition: zāda ʿUbaydu llāhi bnu Ziyādin fī l-muṣḥafi alifay ḥarfin (“ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād inserted two thousand letters in the muṣḥaf”). This project is known as the second masahif project, and was taken up by al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf ath-Thaqafī, who ruled from 75/694 until 95/713. The dates do not correspond with the C14 dating. There is also the issue of the manuscripts variant reading, which follows that of the Syrian. A meticulous analysis made my Lamsiah shows that based on this, the manuscript cannot be from the first generation of codices. I put this together very quickly, as you can see.

    Looking at folio 1 recto, the seventeenth line, the complete spelling of fa-qālū is

    Already in 2009 was Mingana 1572 identified with Arabe 328c and later in 2011, thanks to the brilliant work of A. Fedeli, was this connection confirmed. not only did Mingana 1572a belong to the same codex as Arabe 328c, but it even written by the same scribe! Déroche dates Arabe 328c, on codicological and paleographic grounds, to end of the 7th century and beginning of the 8th century CE. This implies that the former is from the same time, and cannot be earlier, unless the scribe could time travel (just a passing joke). If Mingana 1572a was indeed that early, Déroche would have been the first one to announce it!


    Agree with you on this. I'd add that the MS we have do not agree with the narrative : there is no MS before 680, therefore the codex we have today should take the name of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2423 - July 05, 2018, 05:56 PM
    Quote
    the MS we have do not agree with the narrative : there is no MS before 680, therefore the codex we have today should take the name of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān.


    Did not get this. How does it not agree with the narrative?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2424 - July 05, 2018, 05:58 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 05, 2018, 05:52 PM
    Ah, I see. This is the Aḥnas papyrus and it is one of the oldest Arabic texts, attesting the early usage of diacritical marks prior to the advent of Islam.


    PERF 558 is 643 dating. Therefore after Islam according to the narrative. What is interesting is that the earliest Quranic MS have no points.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2425 - July 05, 2018, 05:59 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 05, 2018, 05:56 PM
    Did not get this. How does it not agree with the narrative?


    The narrative speaks of a "Utman" 656 codex. There's no one.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2426 - July 05, 2018, 06:09 PM
    Quote
    Agree with you on this. I'd add that the MS we have do not agree with the narrative : there is no MS before 680, therefore the codex we have today should take the name of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān.


    Quote
    PERF 558 is 643 dating. Therefore after Islam according to the narrative. What is interesting is that the earliest Quranic MS have no points.


    Oh! I thought this was written by Mundi, hahaha.

    Dear Altara,

    First, I am glad that we agree on something.

    Early manuscripts are almost completely undotted. Diacritical marks existed at that time, but were used inconsistently when writing the Quran's. Tradition supports this. 

    There are manuscripts prior to 685 CE: DAM 01-27.1 (650–685 CE) and Codex Parisino-petropolitanus (671–695 CE). The latter is a codex and the former also came from a complete Quran, as every analysis has shown.

    Quote
    The narrative speaks of a "Utman" 656 codex


    But there is. DAM 01-27.1 follows the Uthmanic vulgate and is from the mid-seventh century (650 CE). As noted above, it came from a complete Quran.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2427 - July 05, 2018, 07:19 PM
    Quote
    But there is. DAM 01-27.1 follows the Uthmanic vulgate and is from the mid-seventh century (650 CE). As noted above, it came from a complete Quran.


     DAM 01-27.1 superior layer is an ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān. codex ( the same as we have today) The palimpsest (the inferior layer of the same MS) is older and  is not an Uthmanic codex : the rasm is different, the order of the sura is different, it lacks or add verses, etc.,  It was effaced to be replaced by the rasm of the superior layer. The Utmanic codex is a fiction.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2428 - July 05, 2018, 08:57 PM
    Quote
    The Utmanic codex is a fiction.


    I dont get the logic here. Why cant the superior layer be Uthmanic considering the timetable you use here?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2429 - July 05, 2018, 09:01 PM
    Quote
    DAM 01-27.1 superior layer is an ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān. codex. The palimpsest (the inferior layer of the same MS) is older and  is not an Uthmanic codex: the rasm is different, the order of the sura is different, it lacks or add verses, etc.,  It was effaced to be replaced by the rasm of the superior layer.


    DAM 01-27.1 still came from a complete Quran, which goes against your statement that there was no codex in existence prior to AD 685. The scriptio superior (maybe the lower?) is dated by Déroche between 650 and 685 CE. The scriptio inferior is earlier and is non-ʿUthmānic, true, but the differences are, however, exaggerated, and do not change the fact that it is the same book. Actually, the scriptio inferior confirms parts of the narrative regarding the Companion codices, but that is neither here nor there. Von Bothmer examined the manuscript in question and concluded standard text of the Quran, including the first and the final two chapter, existed in the seventh century. According to von Bothmer, the manuscript includes the ʿUthmānic. What is significant here is that the manuscript includes, as noted before, the two last chapters, typically absent from non-ʿUthmānic codices. Still, this manuscript demonstrated that there was a complete Quran by the mid-seventh century.

    Codex Parisino-petropolitanus was written between AH 50–75. The consonantal skeleton is Uthmanic and is near identical to that of the Cairo edition. But what is of importance here is that this is before the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 685–705) and the reforms carried out by his governor al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf, who ruled from 75/694 until 95/713. The ʿUthmānic vulgate and a complete codex, existed prior to ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Ḥajjāj.

    Two additional manuscripts are also radiocarbon dated before ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Ḥajjāj with 95 % probability.

    However one looks at it, the manuscript evidence does not IMO support a mid-Umayyad codification for the Quran under ʿAbd al-Malik.

  • Previous page 1 ... 79 80 8182 83 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »