Re: New evidence for Quranic Manuscripts?


Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

Hailed as by the earlier keepers of it as "probably the earliest Qur'an
ever brought to Europe", the British Library says that it is the
"oldest
Qur'an manuscript" in their possession. This manuscript is written in
Hijazi (or Ma'il) script. It is usually dated around mid-second century
of hijra.

I am only an amateur paleographer but, in my opinion, this script,
which I called non-Kufic is really quite different from Kufic. I fear
that it depends on what one means by Kufic. If there is a one-to-one
correspondence between the letters of Ma'il script and Kufic script
then it really does make no difference. Is there such a correspondence?


but there are early dated Qur'ans:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html#6

The first century manuscript is dated 94 AH / 712-13 CE and is from
Iran. The two second century hijra copies, dating 102 AH / 720 CE and
107 AH / 725 CE are in Egyptian National Library, Cairo; the latter
we have already discussed above.

also note that these dates are not the date of the writing of the codex
but when the condex came to be in the possesion of the waqf (trust).

I am in no position to have a personal opinion about such matters. But
I have encountered (sorry, I can no longer say where) the statement
that these dates are invalid because they were forged at much later
dates. Obviously such a statement is tendentious. But how can we ever
be sure? Perhaps, if one knew more about the waqfs involved, this could
be answered. But, so far as I know, there is no evidence at all (apart
from these codices) of waqfs at such early dates. What is known about
early wafqs?

If either or both of these manuscripts are agreed to date from Umayyad
times then most of what Wansborough speculated about was wasted effort.
If they are post-Umayyad much of what he discussed is still relevant
even though the cutoff date must be pulled back. Almost nothing in his
arguments depends on the Qur'an being canonized in AH 200 instead of
around AH 150 or anytime thereafter.

Most people these days seem to think Wansborough went too far when he
placed canonization as late as the end of the second century. On the
basis of the manuscript mentioned above the current opinion seems to
place it mid first century. As I mentioned most of Wansborough
arguments depend on very early Abbascide literature and are not
contradicted by a canonization in mid first century.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Beowulf
    ... Donna Richoux wrote: ... manuscript. ... The style of lettering is called the script (or various ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: question?
    ... >> In articles about the film Pathfinder it's said that the manuscript is ... > "A Viking boy is left behind after his clan battles a Native American tribe. ... > The script is by Laeta Kalogridis and Todd Komarnicki. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled
    ... that script went through several revisions. ... >manuscript from a collection of another Trek historian, ... You'd know this- what's the straight poop about the Federation firing ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: question?
    ... > In articles about the film Pathfinder it's said that the manuscript is ... "A Viking boy is left behind after his clan battles a Native American tribe. ... The script is by Laeta Kalogridis and Todd Komarnicki. ...
    (sci.archaeology)