Larry Hurdato كتب مقال على مدونته على تاثيرات النقد النصى على القران والعهد الجديد وقال ما نقوله بالحرف هلخصه اى سطور
متاب كيث سمول عن النقد النصى للقران لخص مرحلة الانتقال النصى للقران لفترتين رئسيتين فترة ما قبل عثمان وفترة ما بعد عثمان
فترة ما قبل عثمان عرفت بفترة " اضطراب نصى " فترة تميزت بالتدمير مش بالحفاظ على النص وواضح من الفترة دى ان مكنش فى اصلا نص اصلى واحد للقران
بعكس العهد الجديد ، العهد الجديد انتقل بحرية الى القرن الرابع وقت اعلان الامبراطور المسيحية ديانة رسميه وحتى وقت اعلانه موضعتش الكنيسة قيود لتاسيس نص موحد وانتقل النص بحرية تماما ولم توجد اى محاولة لاخفاء اى قراءات او محوها او حرقها.
طيب بالنسبة للناقد النصى لدينا نصين
ظ،- احدهما تم حرق كل شواهده النصية المخالفة لنص تم تجميعه بامر سياسى
ظ¢- الثانى انتقل بحرية ولدينا شواهد على كل القراءات اللى ظهرت طول فترة انتقاله بدون ادنى دليل على اى مؤامرة تمت لاخفاء اى قراءة
فى الاول استحالة الوصول لنص اصلى واحد لان فى الاغلب هذا النص لم يوجد اصلا
وفى الحالة يمكن معرفة كل القراءات اللى ظهرت اثناء الانتقال النصى ومعرفة اقدمهم
Small observes, “the history of the transmission of the text of the Qur’an is at least as much a testament to the destruction of Qur’an material as it is to its preservation . . . It is also testimony to the fact that there never was one original text of the Qur’an” (p. 180).
Comparisions and contrasts with the textual history of the New Testament spring to mind. Most immediately, there is the obvious contrast in the textual diversity reflected in early NT manuscripts. This contrast seems to reflect historical differences in the two religious traditions. Even after Christianity was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire (late 4th century CE), there was no equivalent state or ecclesiastically sponsored project to create a standard NT text. NT manuscripts continue to exhibit significant (sometimes quite striking) variants all down through the first six centuries or more especially; and only by sometime after the eighth century CE do we see emerging the clear preponderance of the text-form called variously the “Byzantine”, “Ecclesiastical” or “Medieval” text, the type of text reflected in the great mass of NT manuscripts thereafter.
Because there was no equivalent early attempt to suppress the variation in NT, we can see the variation amply in the early manuscripts (from the first six centuries). As noted, differences in the history of Christianity and Islam are factors. Christianity did not obtain state sponsorship until its fourth century, whereas Islam became a religio-political phenomenon well within its earliest years. And, as indicated, even after receiving state sponsorship, there wasn’t the same concern to fix the scriptural text in Christian circles. Instead, perhaps one might see an analogy in the efforts in the 4th century CE and thereafter (promoted by the Emperor) to fix belief/doctrine, e.g., in the Councils of Nicaea and Constaninople.
Indisputably, in Christianity as well as Islam the scriptural texts were and remain crucial and unique in significance. But for ancient Christianity it appears that it was more the message of the scriptural texts that was the focus, not so much the wording of the texts. So, in ancient Christianity there wasn’t the same sort of effort to suppress textual variation and enforce one textual tradition. That’s fortunate for textual criticism, giving us lots of early manuscript evidence with which to work.
