69 million page views

The Qur'an and Wansbrough: Quranic pericopes and logias v. the canonized copy of the Qur'an part three

Reader comment on item: Uncovering Early Islam
in response to reader comment: The Sana'a Quran from c. 650 A.D.

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 21, 2012 at 07:46

Hi ianus

I'm sure you agree with me that it is axiomatic that holy books cannot be canonized before the stabilization of the text through the masoritic activity which in the case of Islam took place in the 3rd century of Islam

This time I will be using one very early inscription from al-masjid al-aqsa circa 692CE

Now this is what the inscription says والسلم عليه يوم ولد ويوم يموت ويوم يبعث حيا

Or: and greetings upon him the day he (Jesus) was born and the day he dies and the day he is sent (back) alive (read this as resurrected)

So what Abd al-Malik the builder of al-Masjid al-Aqsa is saying is that Jesus was born and he lived and he died and he was resurrected which is very much against what we are told by Muslims now and that is that Jesus did not die and there was no resurrection

Well if we turn to the Qur'an we will find in Q19:34 والسلم علي يوم ولدت ويوم ي اموت ويوم ابعث حيا and this is what it says now this time it is Jesus who is speaking and he says and the greetings be upon me the day i was born and the day i die and the day i will be sent back alive (read this as resurrected)

Forget the theological implications of this verse but it still very clear that what Muslims tell us that the Qur'an does not say that Jesus did not die and was not resurrected is bogus but I more interested in the evolution of the Qur'an as in these two literary transmissions are very close the speaker is not the same but the second version is what was canonized and why is that?

This is a clear case of what Wansbrough called variant traditions or the transmission of the logias and pericopes in different literary forms which really means the following

1. That we have two different authors here

2. It also means that the first version was the version used early on at the time of Abd al-Malik's building of his masjid because how could he not use Allah's words in the Qur'an if canonized copy of the Qur'an existed this early on but he elected to use the version which is not used in the final canonized Qur'an and why is that? the reason is very obvious the Qur'an was not canonized this early on otherwise he would have used the Quranic version

3. This really means that this early on the Qur'an could not have been canonized or existed in the form we have in the 1923-1924 Cairo Qur'an otherwise Abd al-Malik would have been using the second form and not the first

So the presence of early logias and pericopes albeit very different as in this case does not mean that the Qur'an was even recognized as an authoritative text and could not have been canonized that early except as a qeryana (Syriac) or lectionary


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)