The lower layer is indeed problematic

DISCOVERED IN SANA’A, YEMEN

This was the manuscript which is considered the oldest manuscript in existence today

Two pages from the Sana’a Manuscript collection

THE SANA’A PALIMPSEST

Under closer scrutiny they found another layer of text

An Ultraviolet light photograph of the parchment on the right ->

‧            Note the lower (lighter) text underneath

‧            The lower text is dated from 671 AD – 705 AD

‧            The Upper text is dated from 705 AD ->

SANA’A MANUSCRIPT DAM 01-27-1

From the Dar al-Makhtutat, Sana’a, Yemen

‧       38 leaves

‧       The Lower text has been dated to the latter 7th century, and contains 63 verses

‧       The upper text to the early 8th century

Questions about the Lower text

WHY WAS THE LOWER TEXT ERASED?

‧                   Possibly the text had faded, and was illegible

‧                   Possibly the text was inaccurate, and needed correcting

‧                   Possibly the text was obsolete, and needed updating (p12)

‧                   Possibly the text was a ‘nascent’ form of the later upper text

Scholar’s Opinions*

Taken from Dr Asma Hilali’s ‘The Sanaa Palimpsest’

‧       Dr Gerd Puin, Dr Elizabeth Puin and B. Sadeghi & M. Goudarzi all consider: “the palimpsest to be part of a complete Qur’an codex that is a vestige of a non-canonical reading” (p15)

‧       Sadeghi & M. Goudarzi, and E. Puin believe “the lower text constitutes in itself documentary evidence of a non-canonical Qur’an” (p16)

‧       Sadeghi & M. Goudarzi believe the lower text is related to the Qur’an codex of ‘Abd allah Ibn Mas’ud (652 AD). They believe that the variants fit within the reports by early sources about the companion codices. (p15)

‧       Dr Elizabeth Puin disagrees, and believes it is not Uthmanic, and not from Ibn Mas’ud’s codex, but suggests that the “lower text was in the process of being corrected and made more precisely canonical” (p15). She “considers the two layers as stages in a process of canonization” (p16) and explains that “the various categories of corrections as attempts to ‘standardize’ the lower text” (p17)

‧       They all agree that there are more variants in the lower text than in the upper text. (p16)

Asma Hilali’s Opinions

From her book: ‘The Sanaa Palimpsest’

‧       Hilali admits that the RC14 dating of two samples of the Sana’a Parchment date between: 543-643 AD and 433-599 AD (p20)

‧       Note that the median half way point (known as the ‘Bell curve’) of the first date is 593 AD, which is earlier than the first Qur’anic revelations (in 610 AD)

‧       Note that the entire second date (433 AD – 599 AD) precedes not only most of Muhammad’s life (570 AD – 632 AD), but precedes the beginning of the Qur’anic revelation itself (610 AD)

‧       Hilali also admits that there are no similarities between the lower text “and the Qur’anic variants available to us following the Sunni as well as the Shi’a compilations” (p22)

Hilali’s conclusions*

Note: these conclusions all fall within the ‘Classical Narrative’

‧                   There are deviations (as E. Puin calls them) or variants (as Sadeghi and Goudarzi call them) in the lower layer of the Palimpsest

‧                   The 63 verses found in the lower text contain 70 variants from the 1924 canonical text we use today

‧                   Hilali believes the lower text was a product of a ‘reading circle’

‧                   The upper (or the later) text of the Palimpsest contains variants as well (we will note these later)

‧                   Therefore, both the lower and the upper texts were corrected significantly

Dr Elizabeth Puin’s conclusions*

Note: these conclusions all fall outside the ‘Classical Narrative’

‧       The lower text is neither Uthmanic, nor from Ibn Mas’ud’s codex, so she concludes that the “lower text was in the process of being corrected and made more precisely canonical”

‧       Thus, the two layers were “stages in a process of canonization”

‧       She suggests that the corrections pre-date the Upper text, and “were so many that at some stage the corrector abandoned the corrections and the text was palimpsested”

LOWER/UPPER TEXTUAL DIFFERENCES

Comparing the Sana’a Lower Text with the 1924 ‘Hafs’ Canonical Text

WHICH SURAHS DO WE HAVE?

LOWER TEXT VARIANTS*

63 VERSES WITH 70 VARIANTS

‧       Verbs and nouns (25 times)

‧       Article differences

‧       Participle differences

‧       Conjunction differences

‧       Preposition differences

‧       Isolated letters (29 times)

‧       Expression differences

‧       Entire sentences (16 times) [note: some overlap within the same verses]

‧       Let us look at some examples…

‧Sentences that are different

‧Expressions that are different

‧Verbs that are different

‧Nouns which are different

‧Prepositions that are different

‧Pronouns that are different

SURAH 2:88 (PAGE 2A)*

SURAH 8:74 (PAGE 5A)

SURAH 9:2 (PAGE 5A)

SURAH 9:9 (PAGE 5B)

SURAH 9:13 (5B)

SURAH 9:17 (PAGE 6A)

SURAH 9:18 (PAGE 6A)*

SURAH 9:80 (PAGE 21A)*

SURAH 24:27 (PAGE 11A)

SURAH 24:28 (PAGE 11A)

UPPER TEXT VARIANTS

CONCLUSIONS*

The lower text is dated to the late 7th century, and there is a 50 year gap between the two layers

This could suggest that the upper text is a later correction of the lower text

Or, one could question the dating of the lower text; since ink cannot be dated; only the skin of the animal can.

There are variants in the Upper text as well

This suggests that a standard text had not been canonized even in the early 8th century.

The view that these texts are results of ‘reading circles’ (Hilali’s argument) is fallacious because:

Parchments are very expensive, and would not be wasted on ‘reading circles’.

Muslims would not have preserved ‘reading circle’ texts for 1400 years, but would have thrown them away, and would have certainly preserved the more important canonical text.

MORE CONCLUSIONS*

The scholars (E. Puin, Sadeghi & M. Goudarzi and Hilali) all agree that there are many variants in the Lower text (70 variants within 63 verses)

This proves that this is not a standard Qur’anic text

But, as E. Puin suggests, this is a pre-Qur’anic text which does not correspond with any 8th – 10th century narratives

All of the lower text variants change the meaning of the text (see the examples above)

A niggling problem*

‧            The biggest difficulty with these two layers of a palimpsest are:

‧            They are the oldest Qur’anic fragments in existence today

‧            All the other extant manuscripts are more recent

‧            So, why are these layered palimpsests the earliest ones?

‧            Where is the original Qur’an from which these supposed ‘reading texts’ were derived?

AND FINALLY*

‧            Can we conclude that these two Palimpsest layers are an example of the nascent Qur’an in its early formation?

‧            Are either of these two layers parallel to the eternal tablets in heaven?

‧            Since these are so different from the Qur’an we are using today, then where is the original manuscript for the 1924 Hafs text used around the world?

‧            …we are still waiting…

‧            Now, on to the Carbon dating fiasco introduced in 2015 with the 2 Birmingham folios…