Pharaoh and His Council: Great Minds Think Alike

It may state two separate claims as one.

The contradiction between Q 7 and Q 26 concerns the speaker of the utterance: in Q 26 Pharaoh speaks, while in Q 7 the malaʾ speak.

“whereas in Q 26 the speaker is Pharaoh, in Q 7 it is his malaʾ”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The Q 7 account is textually problematic, while the Q 26 version is smooth.

“The account in Q 7 is textually problematic, the version of Q 26 is smooth”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

The two synonyms for sending alternate elsewhere in the Quran, and neither is preferable.

“It does alternate elsewhere in the Quran and it seems that neither is preferable”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The two Quranic passages are almost identical in wording but contradict each other.

“two parallel passages in the Quran that, although almost identical in wording, actually contradict each other”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

In Q 20:63 the sorcerers were gathered to compete in sorcery and said to each other that Moses and Aaron are two sorcerers who wish to drive them out of their land.

“Later the sorcerers (referred to with an unspecified plural) were gathered to compete in sorcery and they said to each other that Moses and Aaron are two sorcerers who wish to drive them out of their land (Q 20:63)”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In other instances, the three consonants are interpreted as siḥr.

“In other instances, these three consonants are interpreted in yet another manner: siḥr”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Modern scholars approached the contradiction differently, highlighting it rather than explaining it away.

“our example has attracted the attention of a few modern scholars who approached it in a different manner, highlighting the contradiction between the two passages rather than attempting to explain it away”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Q 23:24 and 33 of the second Meccan period mention the malaʾ with Noah's people and an unnamed people, likely ʿĀd, while Q 10:71-73 and Q 11:50-60 of the third Meccan period do not, even though those suras use the word elsewhere.

“Compare, e .g ., Q 23:24 and 33 of the second Meccan period, which mention the malaʾ in connection with the people of Noah and an unnamed people (likely ʿĀd), with two passages from the third Meccan period, Q 10:71-73 (Noah) and Q 11:50-60 (ʿĀd), which do not, even though those suras use the word elsewhere”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The Quran relates the Moses and Pharaoh episode several times with various departures from the biblical text.

“The Quran relates this episode several times with various departures from the biblical text”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In Q 20:57 Pharaoh responded to the miracles by asking Moses whether he came to drive them out of the land with his sorcery.

“Here Pharaoh responded to the miracles by asking Moses whether he came to drive them out of the land with his sorcery (Q 20:57)”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In Q 7:103 there is no speech; the text simply says God sent Moses to Pharaoh and his malaʾ.

“In Q 7:103 there is no speech; we are simply told that God sent Moses to Pharaoh and his malaʾ”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

In Q 26:25 and 27, Pharaoh again addresses those around him, and they do not respond.

“We do, however, find in Q 26 Pharaoh again addressing those surrounding him (qāla li-man ḥawlahu) in Q 26:25 (and 27) . They do not respond”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Q 10:79, both readings are found, and a series of readers including Ḥamza, al-Kisāʾī, and Khalaf is said to have read saḥḥār.

“In Q 10:79 too, both readings are found-a whole series of readers (including Ḥamza, al-Kisāʾī, and Khalaf) is said to have read saḥḥār”

• cites al-Khaṭīb, Muʿjam al-qirāʾāt, 3: 599-600Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Q 7:103 Moses is sent to Pharaoh and his malaʾ, while in Q 26:16 Moses and Aaron are sent only to Pharaoh.

“Thus, in Q 7:103 Moses is sent to Pharaoh and his malaʾ, whereas in Q 26:16 Moses and Aaron are sent only to Pharaoh”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Many Muslim exegetes posed the problem and offered a harmonizing solution in which both Pharaoh and his malaʾ uttered the same utterance.

“Many Muslim exegetes posed exactly this problem and offered a harmonizing solution, according to which both Pharaoh and his malaʾ uttered the same utterance”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The first two differences are given artificial explanations in al-Gharnāṭī's Milāk al-taʾwīl.

“The first two differences are given artificial explanations in al-Gharnāṭī, Milāk al-taʾwīl, 563-65”

• cites al-Gharnāṭī, Milāk al-taʾwīl, 563-65Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The reformulated dialogue in Q 7 produced incoherence in Q 7 and a contradiction with Q 26 because the same utterance is assigned to different speakers.

“The reformulated dialogue in Q 7 created incoherence in Q 7 as well as a contradiction with Q 26 in that the same utterance is attributed to different speakers in each sura”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Additional words are typical of both intraquranic parallels and variant readings of the same Quranic passages.

“Additional words are typical of both intraquranic parallels and variant readings of the same quranic passages”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Exegetes tried to resolve Q 7's incoherence and harmonize the contradiction, producing new versions in which both Pharaoh and his malaʾ uttered the same words.

“The exegetes attempted to solve the incoherence of Q 7 and offered harmonizing interpretations for the contradiction between the two passages, thus creating new unattested versions in which both Pharaoh and his malaʾ uttered the very same words”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Q 26:34 gives an easier and more original reading than Q 7:109.

“to my mind Q 26:34 supplies an easier and more original reading than Q 7:109”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The malaʾ are a typical feature of several Quranic narratives.

“Though the malaʾ are a typical feature of several quranic narratives”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

This dramatic embellishment may have aimed to give Pharaoh's servants an active role and justify their mention in Exodus 7:10.

“This dramatic embellishment may have sought to give Pharaoh's servants an active role and thus justify their mention in Ex .7:10”

• cites Ex .7:10Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Q 20 contains two stages with two utterances, one by Pharaoh and one by his people, but these cannot be identified with the two utterances as understood by the harmonizing interpretation.

“It should be added that in Q 20 we do find two stages with two utterances, once by Pharaoh and once by his people, but these cannot be identified with the two utterances as understood by the harmonizing interpretation”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The words sāḥir and saḥḥār likely represent different readings of the same consonantal skeleton, because early manuscripts often left medial ā unmarked.

“As for sāḥir and saḥḥār, the two words probably reflect different interpretations of the same consonantal skeleton since medial ā was often not indicated in early manuscripts”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In early Quran manuscripts, medial ā was often not indicated.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

At times these synonym variants appear more original, and at times neither reading has a clear advantage.

“At times they seem more original and at times there is no clear advantage to one reading over the other”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The traditional chronological lists of the suras usually place Q 7 before Q 26.

“The traditional chronological lists of the suras, on the other hand, usually place Q 7 before Q 26”

• cites Nöldeke et al., Geschichte des Qorāns, 1: 58-62Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Tibat Marqe I.40, after Aaron's staff becomes a serpent, Pharaoh is frightened and his faction advises him to summon sages to determine whether the wonder was sorcery.

“which advises him to summon the sages to determine whether or not this was the work of sorcerers”

• cites Tibat Marqe I .40Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Synonym variants attributed to Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy b. Kaʿb often look like secondary improvements of a harder reading, but not always.

“Though the synonym variants attributed to these figures frequently seem like secondary improvements of a more difficult reading, this is not always the case”

Probably not a substantial claim.

A comparable parallel occurs in hadith transmissions, where the same tradition appears in varying formulations that are often different wordings of the same idea.

“Another comparable parallel is found in the various transmissions of the same hadith traditions in varying formulations that are often simply different wordings of the same idea”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Tanḥuma Va-era 5, Pharaoh asks the sages of Egypt whether they have heard of Israel's God, and they give a ridiculous response based on Isaiah 19:11.

“In Tanḥuma Va-era 5 these verses inspire an elaboration on Ex .5:2 in which Pharaoh asks the sages of Egypt whether they have heard of the God of Israel and they give a ridiculous response based on the language of Is .19:11”

• cites Tanḥuma Va-era 5Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The literary context influenced the phrasing of the Moses story in Q 7, creating incoherence in Q 7 and tension between the two parallel versions.

“seem clear, however, that the literary context influenced the phrasing of the Moses story in Q 7 and thus created two problems: incoherence in Q 7 and tension between the two parallel versions”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The case of wa-arsil and wa-bʿath corresponds to the situation where neither reading has a clear advantage.

“The last situation corresponds to our case of wa-arsil and wa-bʿath”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Q 7 the same utterance is attributed to the malaʾ, reflecting the influence of sura 7's wider literary context where the malaʾ have an active speaking role.

“In Q 7 the same utterance is attributed to the malaʾ.This reflects the influence of the wider literary context of sura 7 where the malaʾ have an active role as speakers”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

It is likely, though not necessary, that this transmission was oral.

“It is also likely, though not necessary, that this transmission was oral”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Exodus, Pharaoh's servants do not speak in the staff scene, and the summoning appears to be Pharaoh's own initiative.

“they do not speak in the scene of the staff and the subsequent contest, and in this account the summoning seems to be Pharaoh's sole initiative (Ex .7:11)”

• cites Ex .7:11Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.