Things were quite different. It would take a remarkably parochial Eurocentrism to imagine that the contemporaneous Islamic Middle East was also in the Dark Ages.
In 653, Caliph ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān ordered the compilation of an authoritative proof text, based on a redaction by a committee of the manuscripts then extant. By bringing together manuscripts from all over, they were able to catch the variants that had crept in over the 40-some years the text had been in existence.
At that time the Islamic empire extended from Afghanistan in the east to Tunisia in the west, all of which was connected to the seat of power in Medina by regular communications systems (roads, ports, couriers). Once the official text was set, ‘Uthmān had copies made for every province in the empire, and ordered the official recension to replace all existing copies, which were to be destroyed. The variant texts found in Yemen were a few that had escaped this destruction.
Since then, there has been no change in the Qur’an’s text. The massive simultaneous distribution over such a wide area, combined with enforcement of the official text, had the effect of immunizing the text from alterations. There are variant “readings,” depending on how vowels are placed in the consonantal text, but today only two of those “readings” are still in use, one in NW Africa and the other in the rest of the world, and the different readings don’t affect the meaning very much, because in Semitic languages semantic clusters are encoded in the consonantal roots, so that the same grouping of consonants will have roughly the same meaning, though different meanings can occur within a limited semantic range.
I am well aware that Islamic civilization was flourishing when Europe was in its dark ages, thank you very much. Dark ages are not the issue. The issue is the technology of textual reproduction: hand copying, one copy at a time, by fallible human beings who are virtually certain to introduce errors with every single copy they make.
This concerns canonization. I have already pointed out why canonization is not the issue either.
This may be what Muslims like to believe, as some Christians like to believe that the King James version of the Bible is the direct word of God, but it is absurd to suggest that every single copy of the Qur’an in the far flung (and, often, conflict riven) Muslim empire could have been checked against every other, and that is what you would need to do to get perfect accuracy of transmission when dealing with hand copies (and even then, there would be doubts and arguments over which version was authentic). It is pretty much impossible, indeed, that every single copy of the original canonical version produced for ‘Uthma-n ibn ‘Affa-n could have been exactly the same, let alone copies of those copies, and copies of copies of copies … of those copies. (So even if some of those original copies physically survive, the problem does not go away altogether.)
I do not doubt that, because of its relatively late date of composition, its early canonization, and the relatively wide distribution of copies of the canonical version that you point to, the text of the Qur’an is in better shape than the text of the Bible, but this is a relative matter. Inevitably (unless you want to invoke the hand of God) texts that survive through copying get degraded over time.
But it wasn’t all in writing. The entire text was committed to memorization, and those who had memorized it would recite it aloud all the way through (mostly in Ramadan). Others who were present would listen and speak up to correct any mistake they heard. People checked one another’s memorizations against each other and the written texts, and vice versa. The system was built for self-correction. So if there are variant texts that occurred after, or despite, ‘Uthman’s recension, bring a few and let’s see 'em.
No, he actually is an expert. He has a degree in Biblical Studies. He just also has an overinflated opinion of his own infallibility, which mimics a lack of expertise when he’s caught in the occasional mistake.
I believe the OPs question is answered. Is it possible? Yes.
Most of you are now focusing on the question of, “Is it likely?”, and coming up with different responses. And you’ve chosen two texts to debate this that IMO are far more likely subject to change than any others. Because of their religious appeal, different groups are going to interpret them in different ways, and some of them will take it upon themselves to reprint the book with linguistic changes to better reflect their interpretations.
I see claims that hasn’t happened with the Koran. I doubt it, though I have no particular evidence. It seems more likely that versions with such changes have been “caught” and suppressed, or haven’t been caught yet because they’re not widely known. But that’s not in any way similar to saying it hasn’t happened.
My question would be, “If there are changes, is it the same book just because it has the same title and purports to address the same material?”
He claims to have one. But since he can only cite (the few times he ever bothers to cite) and parrot various Atheist sites such as Infidels, I see no expertise at all, other than some skills in Ancient Greek.
I don’t think we need discusion of another poster’s qualifications or personality when he hasn’t even posted to the thread. Let’s get back to the subject of the OP.
