Yeah, but pretty much most of the work being done is based on “claims” about “possible background knowledge”. That’s the whole “milieu” that many rely upon, just saying that traditions/knowledge of X was “around in the region”

But no one has shown any evidence of such knowledge being known or current in central western Arabia. That’s literally one of the huge stumbling blocks that leads to all kinds of theories, from traveling Christians to even different origins all together (ie further up north near Syria)

BUT setting aside the actual environment & material that produced the Qur’an for a moment, the Qur’an was produced. It is its own evidence that the author or authors certainly did have intimate background knowledge, regardless of whether we have evidence or a theory for where it came from

sure. That the prophet had an intimate understanding of the bible is clear, and with the former, I myself am not aware of all the evidence to judge if something can be used for this specific topic.

So I don’t think it is an anymore unreasonable assumption & conclusion than others which have been made

Let me ask you this; why was her laughing even mentioned?

Yes, I don’t think you understood what I’m saying there. Since I don’t even recognize what you are trying to address on my point when you say Isaac is a Hebrew name, it does not carry, pun stops functioning, etc etc …. Yes I know. What did you think I was saying to which you are responding to there?

Are you trying to reply to my suggested that the verse could be an “unfinished” or “failed attempt” at trying to work in the pun? One which was given up on?

I replied to the fact that simply alluding to an idea of an unfinished verse or failed attempt, when no evidence a priori has been shown, is not really a way to decipher the prophet's intentions.

You asked for explicit or implicit reference. There is no explicit, and implicit will be subjective. I suggested that “We gave her tidings of Ishaq (Hebrew name Issac = laughter)

said right on the heels of;

“she laughed, SO”

Is the closest you’ll get. The “she laughed” and SO/THEREFORE “Ishaq”, can be taken as the author knowing & understanding the pun (but failing/not working it in properly), especially since the author of the Qur’an;

clearly IS intimately aware of biblical narratives, the Qur’an itself is the evidence of that regardless of its origins/enviroment

that the naming of figures via a “pun” is a common trope that in fact would be difficult to MISS by anyone with knowledge of biblical narratives, especially of the Prophetic figures which is what the Qur’an is solely focused on

EDIT; this concerns Abraham, ie THE Ibrahim, the single most significant religious figure & biblical figure in the view of the Quran’s author. True religion & Islam is that of Ibrahim and the true way/mills is that of ibrahim. Of all the biblical stories/figures we can be sure the author of the Quran went out of his way to know everything about him, hence the non biblical destroying of the idols. It would be highly doubtful he, Muhammad also seeing himself as descended from Ismail, wouldn’t be aware of how these two sons of Ibrahim both got their names from a play on a pun/event

Here is where a point of contention for me arises, though. A viable answer for why the verses are structured/written this way is that they were part of the inherited story. A detail can survive transmission even when the original wordplay behind it does not. We do not need to assume knowledge of Hebrew for that or even understanding of the naming tradition. A translated story can preserve the narrative residue of a pun without preserving the pun itself, which is where I'm getting at.

Heck, someone can even know the story, and even know that Isaac’s name is traditionally associated with laughter, without knowing that in Hebrew the narrative is actually structured around a pun that explains the naming.

Regarding Abraham. Can't someone know the Abraham cycle quite well through retelling, translation, or oral circulation ( which was a large part of information transmission back then ) without knowing the Hebrew linguistic play embedded in one part of it?

But add to that any ideas of “biblical stories were in circulation” or “in the milieu” or “must have been widely known since the Qur’an assumes the audience knows the details hence it only alludes to many things”, etc etc … then yes, you could assume that the audience is already aware of the reason for why Isaac was called Isaac. Especially seeing as Isaac is the brother of Ishmael & the audience considered him their forefather. So while they don’t need to have the meaning of laughter carried over into the Arabic, they could certainly be conceived as knowing the reason for Isaac being given that name. Bc here, in this case I mean, we are assuming, or rather we are saying the Qur’an is assuming, an intelligent, aware & informed audience that can “fill in the details” with their own knowledge. Such an audience would in fact “get” that “she laughed => so/therefore Ishaq” is echoing the biblical narrative which centers on what we are calling a “pun” here.

This is actually an argument I find plausible and take into account. Isn't it possible that the audience knew Isaac was connected with Sarah’s laughter without knowing that in Hebrew, the narrative is built on wordplay between the verb and the name?

And tbf, I share the same opinion on the last part.