Institutional resistance to textual variation often comes down to a desire for authority and social cohesion; a single, standardized canon creates a unified community, whereas variation is seen as a threat to that unity.
What makes the Sana'a palimpsest so fascinating to scholars isn't just that it shows variants, but that it reveals the actual human process of early textual transmission, scribal practice, and canonization. Rather than erasing history, these manuscripts give us a rare window into how texts were organized, preserved, and eventually standardized over time.
I would add that if you claim that something is infallible and unchanging; and that is your basis for looking down on other beliefs; even if other People of The Book; evidence that your claim is false; destroys your claim of superiority; which is why you claim the right to kill unbelievers
I agree with you, but one correction: the "verses" circulating that call for killing "infidels" aren't from the Quran — they're from the Hadiths, collections of Muhammad's alleged words and deeds compiled 150 to 250 years after his death.
There are passages such as Surah- at Tawbah 9:5 and 9:29 that call for killing unbelievers; I guess I don't see much difference between calling them infidels or unbelievers; or those who don't believe; at some point it was realized that paying a religious tax put upon Jews and Christians was a good way to finance government and keep taxes low or none on Muslims.
Then when The Crusades happened; there were many more forced conversions or death.
The word "palimpsest" has about been my favorite since I came across it in Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum 30 or so years ago.
My understanding is that the first palimpsests didn't await X-rays, ultraviolet light, or other modern tools in order to be discovered. The pigments that were originally applied were not "erased." Rather, they coaterd the parchment and were not absorbed deep within. They were scraped off, rather imperfectly, and, in many cases, would have been visible to the discerning eye immediately after reuse.
I don't doubt that new technologies may make more palimpsests legible than was the case previously, but people have been unlocking the secrets for centuries.
Great point! Chemical agents like oak gall tincture were used as early as the 18th and 19th centuries to bring back faded underlying text—well before multispectral imaging came along.
And evolution will find a way to make it known that our ‘truth,’ may have undergone many changes prior to its current state of being. But maybe to the believer it matters not, as long as the original message has stayed pretty much the same, touched but not destroyed.
True. For many believers, admitting historical shifts feels like undermining the whole foundation, leading to immediate defensiveness. Islam is particularly rigid here: questioning core tenets is often seen as total rejection rather than honest inquiry.
Maybe the faithful of all religions ought to lighten up a bit, accept some tweaking here and there to their scripture, and as long as the original message isn’t corrupted, just enjoy the end result.
It is not a matter of modifying a position like Mohammed switching the direction of praying from Jerusalem to Mecca; a new view because of an updated situation needing a new revelation; this change challenges the basis for your claim of spiritual and religious state superiority; you have an uncorrupted book; thus statements and commands cannot be interpreted away as possible errors in understanding. If your book is no better than the Hebrew or Christian books; then there is no need for jihad.
I get what you mean, and I’m sure Muslims see their book as superior. But jihad today often feels like an extension of the political tension between the oil-hungry West and the Arab world since World War I. Many Muslim Arabs portray it as the West not just opposing Arabs, but opposing Islam itself, to rally more supporters beyond Arabia.
Yet many Arab communities allied with Christians, --Britain and France-- against fellow Muslims --the Ottoman Empire-- during the Great War. So what's happening today can't simply be reduced to "Arabs need Islam in order to hate the West." The hostility has political roots that predate and run alongside the religious propaganda.
The Arabs wanted to be free of The Ottomans; and the oil was without much value without Western partners; it was not sharing enough of that income; and Western values like democracy; women's rights; the redistribution of religious clans lands to the poor that turned Iran against the West. The Wahabi movement in Saudi Arabia thought The Ottomans were degenerate Muslims; so they were happy to accept aid from The West to break away from The Ottomans; but that didn't mean they were going to accept Western values in religious tolerance .
Ain't it something that "the privilege to kill unbelievers" allows us to sleep better at night. For example, ask around: "If in a room alone with Stephen Miller, would you plunge a dagger into his fetid heart - no consequences?" The we-they rush is something - no?
People get a little crazy about their religion. Each believe they are following the only ”correct” version. Every religion has evolved.
Precisely. And the more a belief relies on faith over evidence, the easier it is to offend someone by questioning it.
Tanner,
It's curious - no? What animates the need of Faith to be unquestioned? What (writhing) insecurity is it that seems to squelch heresy?
For me, the story of these parchments - one that is still unfolding- is institutional fright. Which shows up in so many other places, contexts, times.
In short, another great pixel in the grand mural of the human condition.
Take care,
Alan
Institutional resistance to textual variation often comes down to a desire for authority and social cohesion; a single, standardized canon creates a unified community, whereas variation is seen as a threat to that unity.
What makes the Sana'a palimpsest so fascinating to scholars isn't just that it shows variants, but that it reveals the actual human process of early textual transmission, scribal practice, and canonization. Rather than erasing history, these manuscripts give us a rare window into how texts were organized, preserved, and eventually standardized over time.
I would add that if you claim that something is infallible and unchanging; and that is your basis for looking down on other beliefs; even if other People of The Book; evidence that your claim is false; destroys your claim of superiority; which is why you claim the right to kill unbelievers
I agree with you, but one correction: the "verses" circulating that call for killing "infidels" aren't from the Quran — they're from the Hadiths, collections of Muhammad's alleged words and deeds compiled 150 to 250 years after his death.
There are passages such as Surah- at Tawbah 9:5 and 9:29 that call for killing unbelievers; I guess I don't see much difference between calling them infidels or unbelievers; or those who don't believe; at some point it was realized that paying a religious tax put upon Jews and Christians was a good way to finance government and keep taxes low or none on Muslims.
Then when The Crusades happened; there were many more forced conversions or death.
excellent
Thank you Mark!
The word "palimpsest" has about been my favorite since I came across it in Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum 30 or so years ago.
My understanding is that the first palimpsests didn't await X-rays, ultraviolet light, or other modern tools in order to be discovered. The pigments that were originally applied were not "erased." Rather, they coaterd the parchment and were not absorbed deep within. They were scraped off, rather imperfectly, and, in many cases, would have been visible to the discerning eye immediately after reuse.
I don't doubt that new technologies may make more palimpsests legible than was the case previously, but people have been unlocking the secrets for centuries.
Great point! Chemical agents like oak gall tincture were used as early as the 18th and 19th centuries to bring back faded underlying text—well before multispectral imaging came along.
Really interesting read!
Thank you!
And evolution will find a way to make it known that our ‘truth,’ may have undergone many changes prior to its current state of being. But maybe to the believer it matters not, as long as the original message has stayed pretty much the same, touched but not destroyed.
True. For many believers, admitting historical shifts feels like undermining the whole foundation, leading to immediate defensiveness. Islam is particularly rigid here: questioning core tenets is often seen as total rejection rather than honest inquiry.
Maybe the faithful of all religions ought to lighten up a bit, accept some tweaking here and there to their scripture, and as long as the original message isn’t corrupted, just enjoy the end result.
It is not a matter of modifying a position like Mohammed switching the direction of praying from Jerusalem to Mecca; a new view because of an updated situation needing a new revelation; this change challenges the basis for your claim of spiritual and religious state superiority; you have an uncorrupted book; thus statements and commands cannot be interpreted away as possible errors in understanding. If your book is no better than the Hebrew or Christian books; then there is no need for jihad.
I get what you mean, and I’m sure Muslims see their book as superior. But jihad today often feels like an extension of the political tension between the oil-hungry West and the Arab world since World War I. Many Muslim Arabs portray it as the West not just opposing Arabs, but opposing Islam itself, to rally more supporters beyond Arabia.
Yet many Arab communities allied with Christians, --Britain and France-- against fellow Muslims --the Ottoman Empire-- during the Great War. So what's happening today can't simply be reduced to "Arabs need Islam in order to hate the West." The hostility has political roots that predate and run alongside the religious propaganda.
The Arabs wanted to be free of The Ottomans; and the oil was without much value without Western partners; it was not sharing enough of that income; and Western values like democracy; women's rights; the redistribution of religious clans lands to the poor that turned Iran against the West. The Wahabi movement in Saudi Arabia thought The Ottomans were degenerate Muslims; so they were happy to accept aid from The West to break away from The Ottomans; but that didn't mean they were going to accept Western values in religious tolerance .
Ain't it something that "the privilege to kill unbelievers" allows us to sleep better at night. For example, ask around: "If in a room alone with Stephen Miller, would you plunge a dagger into his fetid heart - no consequences?" The we-they rush is something - no?