Post by penguinfan on Dec 15, 2009 16:53:55 GMT
Not really sure if this type of post belongs on this forum since it seems to be mainly about Christianity, but I thought I would give it a shot.
The Sana'a manuscripts were copies of Korans - I believe some of them in whole and many others only fragments - found in Sana'a Yemen back in the early 1970s.
The Muslim claim of the Koran or, rather, the Koran's own claim, is that the Koran will never be altered or 'corrupted', something Muslims believe has happened to both the Hebrew Bible and Christian New Testament (even though the Koran only says the Hebrew Bible was corrupted AFAIK).
The manuscripts in Sana'a are thought to have been written at the beginning of the 8th century ce, although some copies may be been written at the end of the 7th century. Carbon dating also dates the parchment as early as the middle of the seventh century, but that only reveals at what time the organism died, not necessarily when the parchment was actually used. (The Korans are dated to around the year 715 ce because of the calligraphy used and drawings of the mosque before it was expanded on the manuscripts)
To my knowledge, Puin, the German Koranic scholar in charge of examining the Sana’a manuscripts, has maintained that there are some slight textual differences between the Sana’a manuscript and Korans used throughout the world today. He also said there were differences in the order of verses and chapters are not ordered as they are in modern Korans.
However, these claims were made many years ago, with the most recent article I have read on the Sana’a manuscript comes from 1999. Is anyone aware of what Puin has currently said involving the Koran and why is research on these manuscripts so incredibly slow?
Also interesting, is how these discoveries will affect the official Muslim story of how the Koran was developed. From my reading, most Muslim websites seem to dismiss Puin’s claims by maintaining the differences were based on the vowels and diacritical markings used or something to that extent. In other words, Muslims contend these differences are ‘no big deal’.
Additionally, this raises another big issue I have had with the history of the Koran. Scholars say that the hijazi script in Muhammad’s time had no vowels or diacritical markings. It was only later that Muslim scholars placed these vowels and diacritics into the Koran. To me, that seems like too much human involvement to be comfortable with believing that the Koran was not therefore susceptible to human alteration, especially considering the nuances of the Arabic language where a single vowel change or diacritical mark can change the entire meaning of a word.
Anyways, I am curious if anyone here has taken an interest to this and can shed some light on modern, Western Koranic scholarship along with any new developments of the Sana’a manuscripts. The current theory that is gaining some traction – that the lingua franca of Muhammad’s day was actually a blend of Syriac and Arabic is deserves its own entire thread.
The Sana'a manuscripts were copies of Korans - I believe some of them in whole and many others only fragments - found in Sana'a Yemen back in the early 1970s.
The Muslim claim of the Koran or, rather, the Koran's own claim, is that the Koran will never be altered or 'corrupted', something Muslims believe has happened to both the Hebrew Bible and Christian New Testament (even though the Koran only says the Hebrew Bible was corrupted AFAIK).
The manuscripts in Sana'a are thought to have been written at the beginning of the 8th century ce, although some copies may be been written at the end of the 7th century. Carbon dating also dates the parchment as early as the middle of the seventh century, but that only reveals at what time the organism died, not necessarily when the parchment was actually used. (The Korans are dated to around the year 715 ce because of the calligraphy used and drawings of the mosque before it was expanded on the manuscripts)
To my knowledge, Puin, the German Koranic scholar in charge of examining the Sana’a manuscripts, has maintained that there are some slight textual differences between the Sana’a manuscript and Korans used throughout the world today. He also said there were differences in the order of verses and chapters are not ordered as they are in modern Korans.
However, these claims were made many years ago, with the most recent article I have read on the Sana’a manuscript comes from 1999. Is anyone aware of what Puin has currently said involving the Koran and why is research on these manuscripts so incredibly slow?
Also interesting, is how these discoveries will affect the official Muslim story of how the Koran was developed. From my reading, most Muslim websites seem to dismiss Puin’s claims by maintaining the differences were based on the vowels and diacritical markings used or something to that extent. In other words, Muslims contend these differences are ‘no big deal’.
Additionally, this raises another big issue I have had with the history of the Koran. Scholars say that the hijazi script in Muhammad’s time had no vowels or diacritical markings. It was only later that Muslim scholars placed these vowels and diacritics into the Koran. To me, that seems like too much human involvement to be comfortable with believing that the Koran was not therefore susceptible to human alteration, especially considering the nuances of the Arabic language where a single vowel change or diacritical mark can change the entire meaning of a word.
Anyways, I am curious if anyone here has taken an interest to this and can shed some light on modern, Western Koranic scholarship along with any new developments of the Sana’a manuscripts. The current theory that is gaining some traction – that the lingua franca of Muhammad’s day was actually a blend of Syriac and Arabic is deserves its own entire thread.
