The Qur'an in its historical context (pdf - Islam and Christian-Muslim ...

NOTES ON EMENDATIONS OF THE QUR’AN
quite likely that some features of the text reflect the syntax and other linguistic
features of those underlying texts, as is commonly observed in translations of
sacred texts, such as the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Greek of the New
Testament, or the King James Bible. Thus, Mingana suggested that not only key
words and religious terms in the Qur’an are derived from Syriac, but also that the
syntax of certain passages exhibits underlying Syriac influence. 7 Luxenberg may
be correct, for example, in attributing to the influence of an underlying language
the construction found in the phrases wa-qatta‘nahum ithnatay ‘ashrata asbatan
umaman (7:160) and thalath mi’at sinina wa-zdadu tis‘an (18:25), both of which
violate classical Arabic grammar (and even dialectal usage) in that they use a
plural noun after a number greater than ten. 8 Thus, it is possible to accept some
of Luxenberg’s general points as plausible. Little is new or revolutionary, however,
as the author would claim. The problem with many of Luxenberg’s supposed
Syriacisms is that many are well within the normal range of attested grammatical
possibilities within Arabic itself.
Despite these elements of truth, Luxenberg identifies as the basis for the
theories he proposes the idea that the language in which the Qur’an was recorded
was a mixed language, an Arabic/Aramaic creole of sorts, spoken in Western
Arabia by a community subject to intense Christian influence, is certainly wrong.
Critics are correct to point out that Luxenberg offers no historical evidence to
corroborate his claim that Mecca was actually an “Aramaic” settlement. The
language of the Qur’an was in all probability neither the high language of
pre-Islamic poetry in particular nor simply the spoken Hijazi dialect of the time.
It was a high variety of Arabic, literary in a sense that includes oral literature,
closely related to the Arabic language variety used at the time in speeches and in
texts with religious content, such as prayers, omens, divinations, and the like.
Indignation is the word that most readily describes the majority of reactions
to Luxenberg’s study on the part of scholars in Arabic and Islamic studies in
countless statements on electronic discussion lists and elsewhere. Luxenberg’s
audacity has rankled for three reasons primarily: he makes a radical proposal
about the early history of Islam, he is not a professional scholar of Islam, and
he emends the text of the Qur’an. The following remarks focus on the issue
of emendation.
Four prominent scholars in the field have reviewed Luxenberg’s work: François
de Blois, Claude Gilliot, Simon Hopkins, and Federico Corriente. These reviews
differ in tone, though none is as celebratory as that of Phenix and Horn. De Blois
is most caustic, Hopkins harsh but more restrained, Corriente critical but somewhat
sympathetic, and Gilliot the most sympathetic of the lot. 9 The reviews make
a number of valid points, but even taken together have addressed only a small
fraction of Luxenberg’s specific proposals. Hopkins, for example, characterizes
as outlandish Luxenberg’s claims that Mecca was originally an Aramaic colony
whose inhabitants spoke a “mixed language” composed of elements of Aramaic
(Syriac) and Arabic, that the Qur’an was composed in this mixed language, and
that one-fourth of the text remains undeciphered. He accuses Luxenberg of
227