In the Nabataean Aramaic script, the <b> and <t> had very distinct signs, quite similar to the shapes we find in the Hebrew script: ב and ת.
The bāʾ takes on the simple hook + horizontal stroke quite early on, but the tāʾ continues to have a distinct two downward strokes.
As the Nabataean script progresses into what Laïla Nehmé has dubbed "transitional Nabataeo-Arabic", the final tāʾ develops a distinctive loop, seen for example in the name ḥāriṯat in JSNab 17 where it stands next to the non-final tāʾ (see also <brt>, <hlkt> and <šnt>).
Eventually the non-final shape develops into a kind of zig-zag shape, where the tāʾ merges with the yāʾ, to then eventually become a simple denticle where it merges with bāʾ and nūn. This is a clear gradual process, and we can basically trace it across the epigraphic record.
There is no good evidence yet for a gradual development of the loopy final tāʾ into the final bāʾ shape as we know it today, and no good explanation for its suddent shift. It's surprising because word-final signs that merge elsewhere tend to remain distinct (ن ب ي; ف ق; ح جـ).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some people seem to confuse the difference between an Archetype and Ur-Text. And believe that the claim that all manuscripts (except for the Sanaa Palimpsest) descend from a single archetype is tantamount to saying that we can access the Quranic Ur-Text. 🧵
An Ur-Text is a hypothetical original composition of a text. This would go back to the original composer of the text.
In (biblical) textual criticism, the concept of an idealized Ur-text has become somewhat unfashionable, and I think also for the Quran we ought to be skeptical.
Assuming that the stories about Muhammad's revelation are historical, this would mean he recited parts of the Quran throughout his career, would sometimes expand earlier revelations etc. At several of these stages throughout his career, scribes would have written parts down.
@CikrikciE Good question. Let me try to unpack.
First, preservation is really poorly defined, so there is a chance of us talking past one another. 1. I would say HC scholarship is not interested in the question of "preservation" per se. It is interested at getting at the most original text.
@CikrikciE Of course, in New Testament studies it is of vital importance to get at what the original text of the different books of the Bible is. In part because it is such a mess. That's lower text critcism. For the Uthmanic text, there's really not much to do: the text is super stable.
@CikrikciE After reconstructing what the most likely original text is, you then proceed to ask: to what extent is this historically "reliable". Maybe that's what you mean by preservation. If you do, then yes HC is interested in it, and as am I :-)
What renders a qirāʾah (Quranic reading tradition) sound, and what renders it šāḏḏ (anomalous). The Islamic science of qirāʾāt has had a clear answer to this question for centuries, but the implications and what it actually disqualifies are frequently misunderstood. 🧵
Everyone who has spent some time learning about the qirāʾāt will have learned about Ibn al-Ǧazarī's tripartite requirement of a sound qirāʾah: 1. ʿArabiyyah (agreement with Arabic grammar) 2. Rasm (agreement with one of ʿUṯmān's codices) 3. Sanad (a sound chain of transmission)
While this explicit formulation is fairly late (Ibn al-Ǧazarī dies 833/1429), it's clear that these three principles always played an important role in evaluating readings, already in the time of Ibn Mujāhid (who canonzied the first seven of the ten canonical readers).
I receive a nice suggestion to do a series of short thread about the "Arabic letter of the Week". Let's see if I can say something interesting and unexpected about all the letters of the Arabic alphabet! Starting today with the ʾalif.
In Pre-Islamic Arabic the letter ʾalif was used to write the hamzah, even in places where Classical Orthography would expect a different seat of the hamzah.
A name like hunayʾ would be spelled هنيا. The modern spelling is due to the loss of Hamzah in Hijazi/Quranic Arabic.
In Early Quranic manuscripts, an outlined ʾalif, usually filled in with a bisected two-tone colour, is used to mark every fifth verse as a 5-verse marker. Presumably it's the ʾalif of ʾāyah آية.
The Basran reciter Sallām (teacher of the canonical Yaʿqūb) has an interesting variant reading at Q6:142. Instead of the quran admonishing people not to follow the footsteps of Satan -- ḫuṭ(u)wāti š-šayṭāni, he instead reads ḫuṭʾāti š-šayṭāni "the mistakes/sins of Satan".
This reading for Sallām is mentioned in al-Ḫuzāʿī's Muntahā, and Ibn Jinnī explains it with this interpretation. This variant is also attested in Q2:168.
The variant interested me, so I had a look if it was marked at all in the Qur'anic manuscripts!
So what are we looking for? In vocalised manuscripts the wāw has no less than 6 positions where a red dot may appear, and all of them have a slightly different meaning. Most notably there is a difference between marking (u)wā (right above) and (u)ʾā (to the left and above).
An interesting discussion about the šaddah sign in Tašlḥiyt Berber manuscripts is a good reminder just how understudied Arabic writing and ESPECIALLY Maghrebi writing is.
I've recently done a little work on these šaddah's, so let's do a little thread! 🧵
The idea of a semi-circular or V shaped shaddah goes really far back. It's already in use in the Palermo Quran (372 AH/982-3CE), but here already in use side-by-side with the "regular" w-shaped shaddah.
It uses an orientation system of the semi-circle...
This system was highlighted by Muehlhaeusler in 2015 who got it from al-Dānī's work on vocalisation (d. 444).
The nice thing about the system is it functions as both a shaddah+vowel: