Twitter | Search | |
Marijn van Putten
Éléonore Cellard of Codex Amrensis 1 fame () has just released a very interesting article discussing several vocalised Quranic documents in the Bibliothèque nationale de France collection. There are several intersting observations:
Academia.edu is a platform for academics to share research papers.
Reply Retweet Like More
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
She finds that in one of the documents Arabe 334a the pronominal suffix -hū is also vocalized as such even after bi-, fī, and ʿalay-, i.e. bi-hū, fī-hū, ʿalay-hū. No canonical reading reads these words as such (although there is a lot of variation in the pronominal suffixes).
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
Yasin Dutton had previously argued that the baseline dot did not denote the variants bi-hū, fī-hū and ʿalay-hū, but rather just denoted the length of the vowel. This was, with the data he had not an unreasonable conclusion, but now seems clearly wrong.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
Where in Dutton's sample, the baseline (= u) form was consistently written with a yellow colour, while the subscript (=i) was written with red; He concluded that those were working together to denote bi-hī, fī-hī and ʿalay-hī; Forms attested in, e.g. ibn Kaṯīr's reading.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
In the document Cellard examines, however the form is ONLY marked with a red vocalisation mark and no other colours; In the exact same way as, e.g. the vowel in la-hū, maʿa-kumū, bi-himū etc. Interpreting it as anything other than /u/ seems unlikely.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
So is this a vocalised Quran of a non-canonical reading? This Quran predates the canonization of the 7 by Ibn Mujāhid and the 10 by Ibn al-Jazarī by centuries, most of our vocalized Qurans represnet those 10. Occasionally non-canonical readings are marked with different colours.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
So finding a Quran completely representing a non-canonical reading as the 'Normal' and only one would be rather surprising. So let's dig deeper. Ignoring bi-hū, fī-hū and ʿalay-hū forms for now; What can this document tell us about what reading it is representing?
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
The suffixes of the second/third person masculine plural are spelled HuMu (= humū) and never -hum. This is consistent with only 2 readers: Ibn Kaṯīr of the seven and ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar of the 10. (see below bayna-humū wa-bayna Q34:18).
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
One of the isoglosses between Ibn Kaṯīr's and ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar's reading is that ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar drops the hamza when it's a root initial consonant, and causes lengthening. so muʾminatin becomes mūminatin. We find this in the document. muʾminah would be spelled with dot after wāw
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
Hence, this document (at least in an initial examination) seems perfectly in line with ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar's reading *except* for the reading of bi-hū, fī-hū and ʿalay-hū. However, the canonizer of the 10, Ibn al-Ǧazarī, died in 833 AH perhaps 600 years after this document was vocalised.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
Of course, much could have happened in between ibn al-Ǧazarī and the lifetime of ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar. We should see this document as an important insight into ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar's reading in development; Rabin points out (as observed by Cellard) such readings are attributed to Hijazi readers.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar indeed is a Hijazi reader (Medina). And this document indeed also vocalises -hū after genitive nouns (see AaHLiHu = ʾahlihū). It therefore seems that this (and other?) Hijazi readings have been classicized somewhat over time, generalizing the -i-hī forms.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
It seems to me that examining the vocalization signs in texts that quite clearly on other grounds represent a canonical reading can give us indispensable insights into earlier stages of the reading traditions before they were canonized. This potential almost completely untapped.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn van Putten 30 Apr 18
Replying to @PhDniX
I should have added also Éléonore Cellard of the Coptic/Arabic Palimpsest fame.
Reply Retweet Like