Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Hitit Theology Journal, cilt.24, sa.1, ss.245-267, 2025 (ESCI)
Muḳātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767), the author of the earliest complete tafsīr that has survived to the present day, remains an influential figure in exegetical studies despite the severe criticisms directed at him. From the fourth century AH onwards, his name began to appear more frequently in tafsīr works, accompanied by a noticeable increase in citations from his interpretations. Although some studies have identified this phenomenon, the transmission journey of direct and indirect quotations from Muḳātil has not been thoroughly examined. Notably, certain pieces of information attributed to Muḳātil in both classical and modern tafsīr works do not correspond to the printed editions of his tafsīr. It is known that Muḳātil’s narrations were transmitted through two different recensions, one from Baghdad and the other from Merv. The critical editions of his tafsīr available today are based on manuscripts that have survived from the Baghdad recension. According to the introduction of al-Kashf wa’l-Bayān by al-Tha‘labī (d. 427/1035), reports from the Merv recension were incorporated into al-Kashf but have not survived as an independent work. Researchers interested in this issue argue that the presence of narrations in various tafsīr works that do not align with the existing recension of Muḳātil’s tafsīr is due to the transmission of his commentary through two different recensions, with possible alterations in one of them. Some have even suggested that these modifications may have been made by Muḳātil himself. While there is evidence supporting these possibilities, one overlooked aspect is that narrations attributed to Muḳātil, which differ from his extant tafsīr, have been repeatedly cited in various tafsīr works. Some of these narrations exhibit variations as they appear across different commentaries. It is plausible that those narrations that are inconsistent with the existing recension but widely cited in tafsīr works originate from the other recension of Muḳātil’s tafsīr. However, in some cases, a particular narration has undergone gradual modifications over centuries. Moreover, exegetes who incorporated these narrations—sometimes with minor alterations—did not disclose their own involvement in the transmission process, and the revised narrations continued to be attributed to Muḳātil. This phenomenon highlights one of the problematic aspects of the tafsīr transmission tradition—namely, the issue of attribution. Additionally, certain interpretations found in Muḳātil’s tafsīr have been transmitted by some exegetes without citing their source. These interpretations were not previously attributed to any other exegete in the works compiling early tafsīr reports. The fact that this exegetical material was not assigned to another mufassir suggests that Muḳātil played a crucial role in transmitting some of this material from oral culture and lost exegetical treatises into the written sources available today. The tendency of some mufassirs to omit Muḳātil’s name when transmitting his interpretations implies that they may have felt the need to conceal their reliance on his work. The frequency of such cases indicates that the negative perception of Muḳātil persisted among exegetes for a long time. However, the fact that these narrations were included—albeit with distancing phrases—demonstrates that exegetes could not ignore Muḳātil’s authority in tafsīr. These findings are significant in revealing Muḳātil’s implicit influence on tafsīr literature. Another noteworthy observation is that even those exegetes who frequently mention Muḳātil’s name —such as al-Tha‘labī— sometimes incorporate his narrations without explicitly citing him. This inconsistency suggests that mufassirs did not adhere to a standard approach in citing tafsīr narrations. The alignment of quotations from Muḳātil found in various tafsīr works with the critical editions of al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr, along with the modifications they underwent, has been determined using document analysis, textual analysis, and comparative methods. The research employed the al-Maktaba al-Shamela program for intra-textual searches and identifying textual discrepancies, focusing exclusively on the sources available in the program. Additionally, for the citation of certain works, editions that are not available in Shamela were also consulted.