Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Marijn van Putten

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
For Q. 2:132 we are almost certainly dealing with a later addition of the denticle for the 7, as the ductus is much thinner than other instances of the denticle, see Fig. 1. Q. 2:125, the ductus is similar to the word, but the connection of the denticle to the ¢ is different than in other parts of the manuscript, compare Figs. 2 and 3. eT @ |. ee - rd oi es . 4 gees: get 1

Figure 1 For Q. 2:132 we are almost certainly dealing with a later addition of the denticle for the 7, as the ductus is much thinner than other instances of the denticle, see Fig. 1. Q. 2:125, the ductus is similar to the word, but the connection of the denticle to the ¢ is different than in other parts of the manuscript, compare Figs. 2 and 3. eT @ |. ee - rd oi es . 4 gees: get 1

Related Figures (15)

Table 1. The readings of ‘Ibrahim by Hi8am from ibn ‘Amir. The Medinese codices that only write e&v:! in Siirat al-Baqarah correspond exactly in this orthographic idiosyncrasy to what we find in the Cairo edition. This then obviously causes one to wonder whether it is the case that also the Syrian distribution, as described by ibn al-Gazari, shows up in old quranic codices.
Table 1. The readings of ‘Ibrahim by Hi8am from ibn ‘Amir. The Medinese codices that only write e&v:! in Siirat al-Baqarah correspond exactly in this orthographic idiosyncrasy to what we find in the Cairo edition. This then obviously causes one to wonder whether it is the case that also the Syrian distribution, as described by ibn al-Gazari, shows up in old quranic codices.
Kairo, al-Maktabah al-Markaziyyah li-l-Mahtitat al-Islamiyyah: GroBer Korankodex
Kairo, al-Maktabah al-Markaziyyah li-l-Mahtitat al-Islamiyyah: GroBer Korankodex
Fig. 4. ao) with the mistaken w partially removed in Q. 29:31. Ma VI 165 has four attestations of as! (Q. 19:41, 46, 58; Q. 29:31) and nine attestations of adv! (Q. 21:51, 60, 62, 69; Q. 22:26, 43, 78; Q. 26:69; Q. 29:16), these match perfectly with HiSam. Interestingly, we can see in Q. 29:31 was originally spelled es +! and the denticle has been purposely removed to represent e&!, corresponding to Hisam’s ‘Ibraham (see Fig. 4). The correspondence is highly significant correlation (p = 0.0014). Assuming that Q. 29:31 represents av:!, the correlation is still significant (p = 0.014).
Fig. 4. ao) with the mistaken w partially removed in Q. 29:31. Ma VI 165 has four attestations of as! (Q. 19:41, 46, 58; Q. 29:31) and nine attestations of adv! (Q. 21:51, 60, 62, 69; Q. 22:26, 43, 78; Q. 26:69; Q. 29:16), these match perfectly with HiSam. Interestingly, we can see in Q. 29:31 was originally spelled es +! and the denticle has been purposely removed to represent e&!, corresponding to Hisam’s ‘Ibraham (see Fig. 4). The correspondence is highly significant correlation (p = 0.0014). Assuming that Q. 29:31 represents av:!, the correlation is still significant (p = 0.014).
Table 2. Distribution in the GroBer Korankodex.
Table 2. Distribution in the GroBer Korankodex.
Codex Parisino-Petropolitanus
Codex Parisino-Petropolitanus
Table 3. Distribution in the Kodex Samarkand. The Samarkand Codex attests quite a few instances of @[+]-_:!. Surprisingly, the last four attestations of “Ibrahim in Strat al-Baqarah are written e&v:|, disagreeing both with the Cairo edition and the tradition of Hisam. Despite this, the correlation is highly significant both including Sirat al-Baqarah (p = 0.0000083) and excluding it (p = 0.001).
Table 3. Distribution in the Kodex Samarkand. The Samarkand Codex attests quite a few instances of @[+]-_:!. Surprisingly, the last four attestations of “Ibrahim in Strat al-Baqarah are written e&v:|, disagreeing both with the Cairo edition and the tradition of Hisam. Despite this, the correlation is highly significant both including Sirat al-Baqarah (p = 0.0000083) and excluding it (p = 0.001).
Fig. 11. Q.3:33 e&»! with erased as! below.
Fig. 11. Q.3:33 e&»! with erased as! below.
Table 4. Distribution in the CPP.
Table 4. Distribution in the CPP.
Fig. 12. ad! with o clearly added in Q. 2:258 (second) Table 5. Distribution in Saray Medina Ia.
Fig. 12. ad! with o clearly added in Q. 2:258 (second) Table 5. Distribution in Saray Medina Ia.
Fig. 13. a! with possibly an added & in Q. 2:135
Fig. 13. a! with possibly an added & in Q. 2:135
Table 6. Distribution in Wetzstein II 1913. Fig. 14. Example of genuine e& :! spelling in Q. 6:75.
Table 6. Distribution in Wetzstein II 1913. Fig. 14. Example of genuine e& :! spelling in Q. 6:75.
Table 7. Overview of the regional codex variants. eee ee ee eee ee See ee 45 a: . ~~ 46 Cook™ which in turn summarizes al-Dani."” The first table gives an overview of the different rasm features. As can be seen, the features marked by S, are features unique to the Syrian codices; those marked with M are shared by the Syrian and Medinese codex; The one marked by B is unique to the Basran codex, and those marked with K are unique to the Kufan codex.
Table 7. Overview of the regional codex variants. eee ee ee eee ee See ee 45 a: . ~~ 46 Cook™ which in turn summarizes al-Dani."” The first table gives an overview of the different rasm features. As can be seen, the features marked by S, are features unique to the Syrian codices; those marked with M are shared by the Syrian and Medinese codex; The one marked by B is unique to the Basran codex, and those marked with K are unique to the Kufan codex.
Table 8. Identification of the codices examined by their rasm variants.
Table 8. Identification of the codices examined by their rasm variants.
Related topics:
Textual CriticismManuscript StudiesQur'anic StudiesQuranic StudiesQuranic and Islamic StudiesQur'an manuscriptsQur'anic ManuscriptsQuran and Tafsir StudiesQur'anic and Hadith sciencesQuran Manuscripts
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved