Twitter | Search | |
Guillaume Dye Jan 24
Dear Daniel, I am not sure to understand what you mean but I tend to disagree. If there is one thing multiple authorship theories explain, itis precisely the text as we have it
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel A. Beck Jan 24
The tweet is admittedly unclear. What I mean is that they tend not to resolve specific interpretive problems. They do tend to explain problems of textual production. It’s possible, I think, that quranic composition already became ‘collaborative’ while the prophet was alive.
Reply Retweet Like
Guillaume Dye Jan 24
Possible, of course, in some cases. Impossible for others
Reply Retweet Like
Guillaume Dye Jan 24
and "possible in some cases" does not imply that other explanations are ruled out, or that this explanation is the best one
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel A. Beck Jan 24
I agree, and by no means would say that contribution by multiple authors should be excluded. But there are many ways that could have happened. To take a favorite example, how could something like Q 74:31 have been added? It is like a sledgehammer was applied to the old recitation
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel A. Beck Jan 24
This might suggest a different author. But it also might trace back to a genuine prophetic expression of hostility towards an old oracle that had become a ‘stumbling block.’ The ‘corrected’ recitation would reflect a sort of hybrid or collaborative authorship.
Reply Retweet Like
Guillaume Dye Jan 24
especially when there is a later addition for the simple reason that the interpolator did not understand anymore the text before him and tried (unsuccessfully) to explain it. and there is at least one wonderful example of this
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel A. Beck Jan 24
I agree that is the best proof (along with any historical anachronisms). For example, I take Q 4:176 to be a good example that looks like a later attempt by another person to explain a cryptic preceding term that was not well understood. But how prevalent are such examples?
Reply Retweet Like
Guillaume Dye Jan 24
for example, idem in Q 70); and in some cases (like the one I mentioned without giving the reference, but i might soon upload the text of the lecture on academia), there is a gap inside the genesis of the Qur'anic corpus, with a later author/editor who did not understand anymore
Reply Retweet Like
Juan Cole Jan 24
I have an open mind on a few later scribal emendations getting swept up into the text. I wouldn’t call that multiple authorship. I see 73:20 eg as Muhammad’s comment explaining to remarkably literal-minded Medinans that they don’t have to stay up praying when fighting a battle
Reply Retweet Like
Guillaume Dye
I think it goes much deeper - making the profile of the authors of some texts, for example, makes a "Muhammedian" or "Hijazi" authorship extremely unlikely. And maybe we should stop simply assuming that all of the Qur'an is simply a record of Muhammad's preaching.
Reply Retweet Like More
Juan Cole Jan 24
I’m sorry, but the Medina rock inscriptions blow this trope of displacing the Qur’an from the Hijaz out of the water. See also Suleyman Dost’s work, which uses inscriptions & mix of foreign vocabulary to argue for Hijaz
Reply Retweet Like
Guillaume Dye Jan 24
I never said I displaced all of the Qur'an from the Hijaz. But there are layers which do not fit with the Hijaz. I know Dost's work, of course
Reply Retweet Like
ܒܪ ܐܢܫܐ Jan 24
Possible example: Q 18:86. If the spring refers to the 'fons solis' in Ammonium known from classical sources (absent in the Alexander Romance recesions?), then from a historical-critical point of view the Hijaz would be a rather unlikely place to know such things.
Reply Retweet Like
orbi Jan 24
The author(s) can come from outside Hijaz, but the setting of the action (=emergence of the new belief with Mohammed as leader) could still be there, no?
Reply Retweet Like
Guillaume Dye Jan 24
For many layers of the text, of course
Reply Retweet Like
Khalil Andani Jan 24
Also Ockam’s Razor comes in. If a single author theory can account for the examples you identify & has corroborating evidence for it then there’s no need to posit multiple authorship, which doesn’t have corroboration.
Reply Retweet Like
Guillaume Dye Jan 24
A single can't. Simply
Reply Retweet Like
Khalil Andani Jan 24
A lot of scholars and historians seem to think single author is the best explanation. You seem quite certain of the opposite however. Why’s this the case? What rules it out.
Reply Retweet Like
orbi Jan 24
Nothing suggests to me this is about muslims and how to pray in battle. Amateur's guess: it is rather about monastic life?
Reply Retweet Like