Episode 205: Introducing the Qur’an Part III: Qur’ānic Texts vs. the Qur’ān

Comments

1. 

   Zak El Fassi
   May 8, 2025

   Excellent episode (and series). I was particularly struck by the discussion of the Sanaa manuscript and its “palimpsest” nature. Your exploration of the textual history reminded me of how Quranic education traditionally worked – students would often practice writing verses on erasable surfaces like wooden tablets or chalkboards, erasing and rewriting as they learned.

   I later (somewhat algori-randomly) came across a YouTube analysis of the same Sanaa manuscripts that offered an interesting counterpoint. The video suggested that the C1 manuscript with the differing undertext was likely just one student’s learning tool among 925 other manuscripts found at the same site that matched the standard text. The erased undertext showed clear signs of learning mistakes – incorrect words being corrected, notes between lines, synonyms being used then fixed – consistent with how Quranic education still happens today. Some obvious ones (the use of Basmala in 19 is a typical learner’s mistake.)

   What struck me was how these different interpretations of the same manuscript reflect broader approaches to textual analysis. Your episode wonderfully explores the esoteric implications of textual fluidity, while traditional Islamic scholarship sees the oral transmission chain as primary and these manuscripts as secondary learning aids.

   Either way, the glimpse into this “dark age” of early Quranic development is fascinating. Looking forward to the next episode!!

   Log in to Reply
   • 

     Zak El Fassi
     May 8, 2025

     The video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZe_qREjNYI

     Log in to Reply
     • 

       Earl Fontainelle
       May 8, 2025

       Thanks! I hadn’t come across this ‘school exercise’ theory. One potential problem with it, off the top of my head (not that this proves anything, it’s just something to stir into the pot), is that it’s really hard to imagine anyone devoting a vellum codex to practice-writing; in modern terms, this would be something like, I don’t know, giving a kid an original Shakespeare first folio to draw on with crayons or something, the point being that parchment was really, really expensive (one animal slaughtered per two folia, or thereabouts).

       Also, I believe it’s unclear whether the corrections found in the undertext were done at the time of writing or by a later hand. In other words, you could have at least 3 events: 1: writing. 2: someone (else) reads it and says, ‘This is wrong, I’ll just correct it real quick’. 3: someone erases the entire text.

       Log in to Reply
       • 

         Zak El Fassi
         May 8, 2025

         You raise an excellent point about parchment economics that made me pause; however, I think the context of early Islamic education might make it more plausible than it first appears. Quranic education wasn’t just one subject among many, it was the foundation of all education and a central societal priority as you might know. Communities invested tremendous resources in Quranic transmission (as much as we’re inevsting in, say, AI today…), and the yearly sacrifice practiced by Muslim families would have created a regular supply of potential parchment material.
         While certainly valuable, using parchment for teaching the Quran might have been seen as its highest purpose rather than a wasteful practice; giving an additional purpose to the animal’s slaughter, other than gift to God/community donation/family food. Educational institutions were often supported by religious endowments specifically for this purpose.
         The manuscript’s characteristics—inconsistent handwriting quality, multiple corrections, synonym substitutions later fixed—align remarkably well with teaching practices documented throughout Islamic history. And the very fact that it was a palimpsest demonstrates that reusing parchment was an accepted practice.
         I appreciate the Shakespeare folio analogy, but wonder if a better modern comparison might be expensive textbooks or educational technology that schools invest in despite the cost, because of the fundamental importance of their educational mission.
         Your point about the timeline of corrections is fascinating and opens multiple interpretative possibilities I hadn’t considered. Thanks for taking the time to respond!

         Log in to Reply
2. 

   Shalom Leaf
   May 9, 2025

   Earl – Thank you for a terrific episode — as usual!

   Have you encountered Stephen Shoemaker’s work?

   I’ve read his “Creating the Qu’ran,” which is available (open access) here: https://www.ucpress.edu/books/creating-the-quran/paper. He largely discounts the radiocarbon data and locates the early recension of the Qu’ran in the reign of ‘Abd al-Malik (685-705), rather than that of ‘Uthman. I don’t have the background to evaluate his claims, but found the book well written and fascinating, including his introductory account of prior university scholarship and his charge of undue scholarly deference to traditional Islamic views of the Qu’ran.

   Log in to Reply
   • 

     Earl Fontainelle
     May 12, 2025

     Hiya! I haven’t had the pleasure of actually reading Shoemaker, but he is one of the authors cited by Sinai in the state-of-play review article we used in this episode as an example of the ’emergent canon model’:

     @Article{Sinai2014,
     author = {Sinai, Nicolai},
     title = {When did the Consonantal Skeleton of the Quran Reach Closure? Part I},
     journal = {Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies},
     volume = {77},
     number = {2},
     year = {2014},
     pages = {273–92},
     }

     So, to put this into context with the episode, we now know, from the Sanaa Palimpsest, that Wansbrough and proponents of the model of redaction over two to three hundred years cannot have been right. Nevertheless, to quote Sinai, p. 276,

     ‘… scholars such as Robinson or Shoemaker would probably still insist on the possibility that the full standard rasm of the Qur’ān might only have emerged in the second half of the seventh century, possibly as a result of a state-sponsored revision of pre-existent recensions involving a last bout of editorial activity.’

     Log in to Reply
     • 

       Shalom Leaf
       May 12, 2025

       Thanks much, Earl. Will check out the Sinai article.

       Log in to Reply