Genesis Of A Holy Book

Subsequent Textual Genealogies:

Starting in the 8th century, there are some vague clues as to what may have transpired…then, and THEREAFTER.  As attested by Ibn Mujahid c. 900, there were fourteen known candidates for oral lineages (for the ostensive preservation of the “Recitations”), which of which purportedly began in the 8th century…originating from:

• Nafi of Medina [a.k.a. “Al-Madani”] (according to either Warsh or Qulun)
• Ibn Kathir of Mecca [a.k.a. “Al-Makki”; though he likely operated out of Damascus] (according to either al-Bazzi or Qunbul) {19}
• Ibn Am[i]r of Damascus (according to either Hisham ibn Hamar or Ibn Dhakwan)
• Abu Am[i]r ibn al-Ala of Basra (according to either al-Duri or al-Susi) {20}
• Abu Bakr A[a]sim ibn Abi al-Najud of Kufa [a.k.a. “Asim”] (according to Hafs ibn Sulayman…who, the story goes, somehow had access to a line of transcripts going back to the long-lost “mushaf” of Zayd ibn Thabit!)
• Hamza of Kufa (according to either Khalaf or Khallad)
• Al-Kisai of Kufa (according to either Duri or Abul Harith)

Other candidates were rejected–most notably those of Ibn Miqsam and Ibn Shannabudh.  As one might guess, the “winning” version of the Koran is attributed the (Kufic) textual lineage stemming from Hafs (and thus from “Asim”).  Hafs would have died in the early 9th century.  Lord only knows what that version was ACTUALLY based on.

It’s anyone’s guess how we might get from Al-Hajjaj’s version to whatever “Asim” may have had at his disposal (a span of well over a generation)…and how that was eventually transmitted to Hafs.  But it is to none other than Hafs that the current textual lineage traces itself.

Those sympathetic to Ali’d historiography claim that the Hafs “mushaf” was a faithful reproduction of the “Uthman Koran” (thus: retaining the version compiled by Zayd ibn Thabit…and possibly even some key elements from Ubayy ibn Ka’ab).  How so?  Well, according to Shia legend, the manuscript was transmitted via Abu Abd ar-Rahman.  Others claim that it came from Ibn Masoud HIMSELF (via a man named Zirr ibn Hubaysh)…which makes no sense, as Zayd’s version was NOT Ibn Masoud’s version.

Meanwhile, both Bukhari and Muslim (the preeminent Hadith writers), as well as Al-Nisai and Ibn Hanbal, ended up rejecting the Hafs-based lineage altogether.  So, if we are to take the most vaunted Hadith seriously, the entire discussion is moot anyway. (!)

Well, if not the Hafs version, then who’s?  Nobody really knows.  Because the only versions that survived are those that are traced back to THAT (Kufic) textual lineage.

Islamic apologists today dismiss these discrepant lineages as mere METHODS OF RECITATION–known as “qira’at”; and the conveyers of each as “qari”.  This rationalization rides on the specious contention that each oral lineage (commonly referred to as a “rawi” / “tariq”, meaning “line of transmission”) was simply a STYLISTIC variant; nothing more. {8}

Orality is one thing (where the room for error is massive, as anyone knows who’s played the game of “telephone”); but even WRITTEN records involve a degree of leeway.  There is, of course, an interplay between orthographic (script-oriented) changes and changes in semantics…which invariably has an impact on CONTENT.  That is to say, it is unlikely that WRITING would undergo a significant metamorphosis without somehow influencing the substance of what is written.  Copying errancies are, after all, copying errancies.  And modifications rarely announce themselves as such.  (To reiterate, embellishment has a ratcheting effect.  Subsequent editions do not contain within them a record of previous versions; as doing so would be to concede their derivative nature.)

Scribal tweaks–even if ostensibly stylistic in nature–can’t help but have linguistic repercussions.  Alter wording, and meaning is often altered as well.  This is especially the case if, during this process, the language being used is evolving as well.  It is very difficult to retain a consistent hermeneutic in the midst of orthographic / linguistic transformation.

Such is the nature of re-writes, especially MANY re-writes…over the course of many generations…using different dialects…in different scripts…by different scriveners…under different circumstances…as agendas and sensibilities change.  In sum: This is what happens to stories that are transmitted over long periods of time.

To track the metamorphosis of scripture–and the genealogy of an affiliated creed–the record of modification is not always available to us.  But sometimes it IS available–as with the Christian Gospel accounts of JoN.  The original Gospel (that of “Mark”) did not have anything about a resurrection.  (The Codex Vaticanus is the oldest copy of the New Testament available.  Tellingly, it does not have anything past verse 8 in the last chapter of Mark; as Mark 16:9-20 was not added until c. 400.)  Embellishment does not announce itself AS embellishment; it’s just done.  When confabulation occurs, it does not contain a record of whatever contrivance may have been involved: “That’s what others told us; and here’s the part that WE made up.”  Every account asserts that it is the original account.  Everyone’s version is passed off as authentic.

When it comes to Koranic manuscripts (“qira’at”), the elision of antecedent editions is all the more flagrant.  The fact that a somewhat LIMITED variation of codices survived is easily explained by the fact that the authorities–at each juncture–were adamant about systematically destroying any un-approved version that may have existed at the time.  Whoever was “calling the shots” would have taken measures to prevent alternate versions from being propagated.  Obviously, those in power at any given time selected the version they selected NOT because it was the most “accurate”, but because it was the version they WANTED.

It is no wonder, then, that there aren’t more variations than there are.

Even so, there remain several clues as to the disparate origins of the final edition.  It is to these clues that we now turn.