I intended to paraphrase the good points and correct the bad ones
in Efim A.Rezvan's "A History of Printed Editions of the Qur’an"
in The Oxford Handbook of QUR’ANIC STUDIES.
Unfortunately the first part is about manuscripts and other non-print matters.
The part about the St.Petersburg and Kazan Qurʾāns is fine ‒ but not new.
The section on prints after Kazan (pp 268-270) is all wrong, not worth a critique.
picture: https://mnaber.org/img/cache/thumbnail/pZEanzZW1ilzNgi4DQVqO0vo96q0wLpj1lIKFzY0
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
وملاىه II
إذا اتخذنا الآية الرابعة من سورة إبراهيم (١٤:٤) منطلقاً ﴿وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ﴾، يتضح...
-
40 years ago Adrian Alan Brockett submitted his Ph.D. to the University of St.Andrews: Studies in Two Transmissions of the Qurʾān . Now...
-
Many things experts present as remarkable about the 1924 Egyptian Government print of the Qurʾān, the King Fuʾād Edition, are wrong: it w...
-
It is common knowledge that the King Fuʾād Edition of the Ḥafṣ qirāʾa was an immediate success in the Muslim world. Common knowledge, but...
No comments:
Post a Comment