PROBLEMATIKA KRONOLOGI PEWAHYUAN AL-QUR’AN DALAM KESARJANAAN QUR’AN KONTEMPORER (STUDI KOMPARATIF PEMIKIRAN NICOLAI SINAI DAN GABRIEL SAID REYNOLDS)

Reziq Mahfuz.Ma.Iballa, NIM.: 22105030092 (2025) PROBLEMATIKA KRONOLOGI PEWAHYUAN AL-QUR’AN DALAM KESARJANAAN QUR’AN KONTEMPORER (STUDI KOMPARATIF PEMIKIRAN NICOLAI SINAI DAN GABRIEL SAID REYNOLDS). Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (PROBLEMATIKA KRONOLOGI PEWAHYUAN AL-QUR’AN DALAM KESARJANAAN QUR’AN KONTEMPORER (STUDI KOMPARATIF PEMIKIRAN NICOLAI SINAI DAN GABRIEL SAID REYNOLDS)) 22105030092_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (11MB) | Preview
	Text (PROBLEMATIKA KRONOLOGI PEWAHYUAN AL-QUR’AN DALAM KESARJANAAN QUR’AN KONTEMPORER (STUDI KOMPARATIF PEMIKIRAN NICOLAI SINAI DAN GABRIEL SAID REYNOLDS)) 22105030092_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (20MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The chronology of Qur’anic revelation has been a central issue in Qur’anic studies since the nineteenth-century works of Gustav Weil and Theodor Nöldeke. In contemporary scholarship, however, the use of chronology as an analytical tool has generated debates that are not merely technical or methodological, but that also touch on more fundamental epistemological assumptions. This study examines that problem through a comparative analysis of the thought of two contemporary Qur’an scholars, Nicolai and Gabriel Said Reynolds.. Both respond to Nöldeke’s chronological model, yet in divergent directions: Sinai seeks to retain and reformulate a chronological approach, whereas Reynolds openly challenges the epistemological validity of chronological reconstruction. Accordingly, this research advances two questions: (1) how do Sinai and Reynolds understand the function of revelatory chronology in reading the Qur’an, and (2) how do these differences shape the respective trajectories of their contributions to Qur’anic studies? Methodologically, the study employs a qualitative-descriptive design with a comparative approach, drawing on Sinai’s major works (The Qur’an as Process; The Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Introduction) and Reynolds’ key writings (The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext; Le problème de la chronologie du Coran) as primary sources. The findings indicate that the divergence between Nicolai Sinai and Gabriel Said Reynolds is rooted in distinct scholarly orientations. Sinai, formed within traditions of philology and historical textual analysis, approaches the Qur’an as a text unfolding diachronically (the Qur’an as process). For him, the heterogeneity of style, themes, and implied audiences within the Qur’an constitutes evidence of historical development that can be mapped through the convergence of formal, lexical, and thematic criteria. Chronology, in Sinai’s framework, functions as an analytical working tool for tracing theological and linguistic transformations across the span of revelation, supported by the notion of a synoptic interpretive habitus, namely that new revelation is best understood within the horizon of revelations already circulating. Reynolds, by contrast, working from Qur’an–Bible studies and comparative theology, advances a genealogical critique of chronological projects. He identifies a methodological vicious circle in which the Qur’an is used to construct sīra narratives, while the sīra is then used in turn as the basis for arranging a chronology through which the Qur’an is read. Reynolds therefore frames the Qur’an as a homiletic text in dialogue with biblical traditions, arguing that richer understanding is gained not through reconstructing the sequence of revelation, but through intertextual analysis of Jewish and Christian literature within the broader context of Late Antiquity. These differences have direct implications for the interpretive methods each scholar develops. Sinai articulates a historical-critical approach structured in three stages: dating the surahs, analyzing literary structure and coherence, and examining relations between texts (intratextuality and intertextuality). Reynolds, meanwhile, develops a biblical-subtext approach in three steps: close analysis of the Qur’anic text, engagement with classical tafsīr and modern translations, and the tracing of biblical subtexts. When applied to the Abraham narrative, Sinai reads relevant pericopes (Q 51; Q 37) diachronically in order to track theological shifts, from monotheistic-eschatological proclamation to sacrifice narratives and the formation of communal identity. Reynolds, without anchoring his analysis in a chronological scheme, concentrates on the ways the Qur’an disputes and reconfigures Jewish–Christian narratives about Abraham. This study concludes that the debate over chronology is not merely a technical matter but an epistemological problem that decisively shapes how the Qur’an is conceptualized, understood, and read as a text in history, how Muslim tradition is treated as a body of data, and how the pre-Islamic religious milieu is framed in the interpretation of the Qur’an.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item