In Search of the Original Koran: The True History of the Revealed Text (14 page)

In reality, the changing character of Koranic verses, in their literal meaning or in their very existence-for God reserves the right to change and even abrogate verses (2:106)-does not necessarily put into question their conformity with the original, inasmuch as the revealed text becomes necessarily different from its inspirational source, since what matters is respect for its spirit alone, not for its letter. So the issue is the habitual practices proper to the work of scribes dedicated to the shaping of the divine words. No doubt this work is of the same nature as that performed by "the heavenly scribes" who have in hand the "honored pages" (80:13-15) of the heavenly tablet.

We are in the presence of an ancient and constant Oriental practice that always confides the writing of contracts, correspondence, and literary works (versified or not) to specialists in writing. And this is not only an issue of writing technique, but also of the composition and literary editing of thought according to a style and a phraseology that are both codified. Therefore this scribal function was attributed to a tutelary divinity like Nabu among the Mesopotamians, or Thot among the Egyptians, or al-Kutba among the Nabuteans.13

In one sense, the scribe was "inspired" by the author whose thinking the scribe was reconstructing or even interpreting. The same was true of the prophets and kings whose literary or legal writing was directly inspired by each's tutelary divinity. Ancient reformers like Urukagina of the Mesopotamian town of Larsa 4,500 years ago, or Hammurabi 3,700 years ago, had edited legal codes so as to "restore the Law of God," the former inspired by the god Ningirsu, the latter by the god Shamash. Here, as in the Koran, the key word is "wahy," or "inspiration," not a word-by-word dictation. The celestial kitab as consigned to tablets was first communicated to Gabriel, who inspired it in Muhammad, so that he in turn could communicate it to his scribes charged with putting it into literal form to serve as qur'an and as liturgical recitation.

In this sense, biblical tradition did not proceed otherwise. When God asked Jeremiah to put into writing the revelations he had received from him, the Prophet charged the scribe Baruch with writing under his dictation the divine words (Jeremiah 36:1-4). Sometimes, the prophet was charged not only with writing down "a vision" but also of explaining it, as with Habakkuk: "Write the vision and make it plain on tablets so that a runner may read it" (Habakkuk 2:1-2 NRSV). This form of transmission of divine will by means of a vision corresponds with the aya or Koranic sign that God transmits to his Prophet, in which the inspired word is called on to take form according to the customary usages of the elaboration of sacred texts to serve for recitation/qur'an. Thus, the prophetic technique of Muhammad scarcely differs from that of his biblical homologues, who had hardly any more concern for the literal nature of the inspired statements. Here, fidelity to the message is not reduced to a literal conformity to an original, but only to a respect for its spirit.

This issue of the literal nature of revelation no longer makes sense as soon as the prophetic discourse is subjected to the rhetorical and phraseological norms to which it was asked to conform. John Wansbrough has analyzed the schemas of revelation that served as models for the composition of the Koranic sentence, and that gave it its incomparable stylistic specificity. There are, then, rhetorical conven tions that mark the prophetic discourse and that one may easily identify thanks to the introductory formulas (see the preambles studied above) and the concluding ones, which vary according to the topic of the discourse, such as rewards, signs, exile, the treaty, to mention only some of the themes studied by Wansbrough.14

It is clear that the preponderance of rhetorical formulas-with their syntactical particularities-constitutes a fundamental element in the identification of the particular and incomparable style of the Koran. It is even quite probable that we are in the presence of a scribal school that would have perfected over generations this type of rhetoric and would have contributed to shaping the Koranic discourse, on the basis of the revelations brought by Muhammad-unless he himself was a member of such a body, with which he might have continued to collaborate (or not) during his apostolate.

Wansbrough has studied the variants of the Koranic story about the Arab prophet Shulayb in three surahs: 7:85-93, 11:84-95, and 26:176-90.15 The author concludes that these various compositions of a single story might be imputed to different authors. (Certainly the variants of a single story are intriguing solely by their existence as duplicates.) But it remains to be determined if the variations between these versions really suggest Wansbrough's conclusion. The fact that the three stories have rigorously kept the same overall plan might in effect lead us to think that what we have here are models realized by different people on the basis of a single template. This was an old Oriental practice, like the one touching on the story of the Flood, or the cycle about Adam and Eve in biblical tradition, which gave rise to the genre of the haggadah. Similarly one might consider that this biblical tradition is itself an interpretation and a recomposition of ancient tales out of Oriental antiquity.16 This interpretative practice also bears the name kabbalah, or else midrash, from the root word d&rash (to seek).'? Here the framework of the story is conserved, but different meanings are attributed to it.

Muslim Tradition has merely followed this movement with the " tafsir," the Koranic commentaries. Even the hadith or prophetic sayings belong to the same genre of Koranic interpretation. This is the meaning of the Koranic function of tasdiq ("musaddiqan") that any prophet accomplishes in relation to his precursors: a fidelity that does not exclude difference. The same is true of the Christian doctrine that considers that the New Testament is the "accomplishment" of the Old.

It is perhaps to this interpretative genre that the Koran is alluding when it lays claim to the genre of mathani, which Muslim Tradition has identified rightly with stories. The Koran contrasts this genre with that of muhkam, identified with the Law. We find here again the two biblical poles of the haggadah and the halakah, one complementing the other.

It is important to realize that the production of the Koran partook of this phenomenon of the haggadah throughout the twenty years of the Muhammadan revelation, hence the repetitive and composite character that emanates from this whole work. But it is quite probable also that work on the text was pursued after the death the Prophet, which then could not, in the eyes of the redactors, amount to an act of tahrif (confection of a falsehood), for they were only extending work carried out during Muhammad's lifetime.

The composition of phrases is part of the scribal institution and it constitutes an indispensable complement to revelation. The pair "prophetand-scribe" is the usual original framework of Oriental scriptural practice: each fulfills his function and the product of their collaboration is all the more authentic as a result. If the Prophet is the mouth of God, the scribe is the pen of the Prophet. The scribe is master of the technique of the word, and like any technician, he is inspired by God. The risk inherent in this institution is quite evidently the false, occurring when the scribe breaks with his source.

Such is the sempiternal accusation launched back and forth among rival scribal schools. The polemic reported by Muslim Tradition on the subject of "readings" or codices called pre-Uthmanian is one remarkable illustration of this. Before the proliferation of scribal schools, one had to choose: either decide on a single "reading" and declare all the others henceforth false-and thus literal authenticity becomes the product of political consecration, itself of course "inspired." Or else take the alternative solution of declaring all schools authentic and integrating them into the canon. Such was the fate of the Koran in its primitive phase, if one accepts the idea of multiple oral and written sources developed during the lifetime of the Prophet and well afterward.'8

But there exists another phenomenon that necessitated scribal interventions: this was the change in political attitude after the evolution in power relations between the Prophet and his enemies, whether Quraysh or biblical. Notably this involved an incessant reinterpretation of history and a revision in attitudes. It is just as difficult to believe that the first Koranic texts would not mention the accusations made against certain personages who were enemies of the Prophet and then later converted to the new faith. The fact that the Koran has kept traces of compromising denunciations is far from constituting proof that we have the totality of these denunciations.