Concepts and Methods in the Study of the Qur’ān

Guillaume Dye

doi:10.3390/rel12080599

Abstract

This paper addresses methodological issues in Qur’anic studies. At first, it intends to explain, through historiographical analysis, why methods proved fruitful in biblical and New Testament studies, such as form criticism and redaction criticism, have been disregarded in Qur’anic studies; secondly, it vindicates the application of such methods to the Qur’anic corpus; thirdly, it tries to exemplify the relevance of redaction criticism through examples. Two main issues are then discussed: the best way to account for the “synoptic problem” (the presence, in the Qur’ān, of variant parallel narratives), through an examination of some aspects of the Adam-Iblīs narratives (more precisely the composition of Q 2:30–38 and the nature of the relations between Q 38:71–85 and Q 15:26–43); and the beginning of Q 55. Two main conclusions are reached: first, the later versions of a parallel story are, in the examples discussed here, rewritings of earlier stories (namely, re-compositions based on a written version); second, sura 55 features the intervention of different authors, with two different profiles.

Highlights

Concepts and Methods in the StudyRemarkably enough, methods commonly employed in Old Testament and New Testament studies, such as form criticism and redaction criticism, have only occasionally been employed in Qur’anic studies1
Enough, methods commonly employed in Old Testament and New Testament studies, such as form criticism and redaction criticism, have only occasionally been employed in Qur’anic studies1
On our original assumption that Muhammad is the source of the work, what is found in the Qur’an is not being reported but recorded; modern Form criticism amounts to little more than the classification of the various ways in which the Prophet chose to express himself”

Summary

Concepts and Methods in the Study

Enough, methods commonly employed in Old Testament and New Testament studies (and in the study of the Apocrypha as well), such as form criticism and redaction criticism, have only occasionally been employed in Qur’anic studies. On our original assumption that Muhammad is the source of the work, what is found in the Qur’an is not being reported but recorded; modern Form criticism amounts to little more than the classification of the various ways in which the Prophet chose to express himself”.3. If Muh.ammad is the sole author of the Qur’ān, and if the Qur’ān is nothing more than the record of his ipsissima verba, applying the methods of biblical criticism to the. Qur’ān is seen as a bare collection of Muh.ammad’s proclamations, transmitted without alteration; redaction criticism would be nothing more than a search for Medinan insertions in Meccan suras.

A Few Questions

Some Historiography

The Synoptic Problem

Q 2:30–38

Q 38:71–85 and Q 15:26–43

Q 55:5–13