قرآن صنعا
Paper:
Sadeghi, Behnam, and Uwe Bergmann. "The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qurān of the Prophet." Arabica 57, no. 4 (2010): 343-436.
--------------------------------------
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_manuscript
The lower text was erased and written over, but due to the presence of metals in the ink, the lower text has resurfaced, and now appears in a light brown color, the visibility of which can be enhanced in ultra-violet light.
The upper text largely conforms to the standard 'Uthmanic' Quran in text and in the standard order of suras; whereas the lower text contains many variations from the standard text, and the sequence of its suras corresponds to no known quranic order.
The upper layer of writing, a standard Qurʾān, could be from the first or second half of the seventh century AD, and possibly even early eighth century. Radiocarbon dating assigns the parchment, and hence the lower writing, to the first half of the seventh century.
From Sadeghi and Bergman
The main significance of the Sạ nʿāʾ 1 manuscript is that its lower text does not belong to this ʿUtm̠ ānic textual tradition. In this sense, it is “non- ʿUtm̠ ānic.” It belongs to some other textual tradition which is designated here as C-1. The C-1 textual tradition is distinct not only from that of ʿUtm̠ ān, which is known from both literary sources and manuscripts, but also from those of Companions Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy b. Kaʿb, whose recensions of the Qurʾān are not attested in manuscripts, being known only from descrip- tions in literary sources. I will argue that C-1 and these others formed parallel textual traditions.
The C-1 textual tradition and the traditions corresponding to other Companion codices must have branched off at some point. It is this branching off that involved semi-orality.
As for the status of non-ʿUtm̠ ānic codices described in Muslim literary sources, I argue that there must be a significant kernel of truth in these reports, and that a particular second-century list of the variants of the Companion Ibn Masʿūd may be a largely reliable represen- tation of an early codex.
Textual criticism aims to determine a prototype on the basis of different
versions of a text.
The first method of textual criticism used is stemmatics, sometimes called the “genealogical method”, a procedure based on how frequently each text agrees with each of the others. This approach is applied to three text types— those of ʿUtm̠ ān, C-1, and Ibn Masʿūd—to construct possible stemmata. The most plausible stemma is shown to be one in which a prototype is the common ancestor of these three Companion codices.
Subsequently, the data suggests that among them, the textual tradition of ʿUtm̠ ān gives the most accurate reproduction of the prototype.
An alternative scenario explains the data equally well: one may envision ʿUtm̠ ān’s codex as a composite formed by comparing a variety of Companion codices and picking the most common version where they differed.
The nature of the differences is taken up in my second approach to textual criticism, polarity analysis of internal evidence: I analyze two texts (the codi- ces of C-1 and ʿUtm̠ ān) to identify statistical asymmetries between them, and determine which text type is likely to be earlier.
The evidence analyzed in this essay indi- cates that the prototype is to be identified with the Prophet Muḥammad.
The most secure conclusion of the present study is that the sequences of verses and sentences were fixed already in the Prophetic prototype. This result is a departure from mainstream traditional views about the date when the pieces of revelation were joined together into fixed sūras.
(This conclusion, however, may be modified in future if the parts of the manuscript not studied here do not support the trends observed thus far.)
Note that “...an ʿUtm̠ ānic manuscript, in the sense I use the term, needs not preserve the original orthography of its ancestor manuscript. It may also differ from the ancestor manuscripts in ways that are more significant...”.
بحث نبود بسمله در اول سوره توبه
(Wikipedia) Visible in the lower text is the beginning of sura 9, which follows on from sura 8 in this text. Sura 9 At-Tawba is the only sura in the standard Qur'an which is not introduced by the basmala formula "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful", the absence of the formula at this place sometimes being stated as indicating that the two suras 8 and 9 are to be considered as a single section of the Qur'an.
Nevertheless, the lower text in the Sana'a palimpsest does introduce sura 9 with the basmala formula (on line 8 of folio 5a), but the following line then begins la taqul bi-smi Allahi ('Do not say "in the name of God"'). This notice therefore represents the intrusion of a non-canonical reading instruction into the body of the canonical text, undifferentiated from that text, and in this respect no parallel is known in the tradition of written Qur'ans.