We do not have an exemplar which shows the modification of Hajjaj.
We do: Mingana 1572a.
What you say is build only by the affirmations of the narrative.
Nope. My argument is based on the manuscript evidence as well as literary evidence.
Ironically, it is the narrative (i.e. the Arab sources) that mention ʿAbd al-Malik’s involvement with the Qurʾān.
Utman has never existed as recounted by the narrative.
Fine. Although I beleive that ʿUthmān existed and that he standardized the text of the Qurʾān.
Same situation as "Mecca"/Zem Zem/Abu Bakr/Kaba, etc.
Irrelevant to the question.
I'm convinced of the early dating of the Quranic corpus but I have no scientific validation of that.
There are a plethora of evidences for an early dating of the Quranic corpus. Some have been mentioned in our discussion, such as the manuscripts, and I could mention plenty more if you are interested. Several scholars have published on this very topic and the latest contribution is going to be by Marijn van Putten, who, based on the extant manuscripts, is going to demonstrate that the quranic text was closed to further additions already by the year 650, i.e. the mid-seventh century.
I think we have only ʿAbd al-Malik/Hajjaj and Sanaa palimpsest as witness.
Does not the Arabic sources mention ʿAbd al-Malik’s involvement with the Qurʾān? How do you know that ʿAbd al-Malik had anything to do with the Qurʾān? Apart from Sanaa, we have most notably CPP, and a few others as well.
That there was an exemplar before ʿAbd al-Malik/Hajjaj, of course. But I doubt that we have it now and I do not think that it is related to what recount the narrative since we have no sources about the characters whose it recounts the story.
We do. The Sanaa palimpsest and CPP. The latter has the same identical vulgate, completely standardized, as the Cairo edition.
Nope. We scientifically do not know where comes from the Sanaa palimpsest. We scientifically do not know what is a "Companion" : The only Arab chiefs we know who have existed between 630 and 700 are Muawiya, Zubayr, and Abd al-Malik. None Ummayad or external sources in Ummayad place (Damascus) attests the existence of a "Companion". All of this has no scientific validation ; as such they have to be set aside.
All I am saying is that some of the variants found in the Sanaa palimpsest correspond with variants attributed the codices of Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy. That is all. Shows that some details in the Arab sources are accurate. And there much more to be said in regards to that point.
See my first point.
By looking at the manuscripts, we can see that changes after 690 CE were due improvement of the text through the addition of diacritics and vowelings. Has nothing to do with blind trust.
Sorry for my somewhat dismissive responses. My intent was not disrespect but I am simply very tired at the moment, having traveled and all. I recommend that you read more about this particular topic, dear Altara. You are very knowledgeable, indeed, but it seems that you have not read enough about this. I say this as an friendly advice, and not as condescending remark. Best regards.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today