CHAPTER ONE : THE LANGUAGE OF MOSES AND AARON
(Peace and Blessing Be Upon Them)
Dr. Ahmed Chahlane

 

Foreword

Section One : Information about the Original Message and its Authentication

Section Two : The Texts that are at the Disposal of Humanity, and their Role in Determining the Contours of the Prophetic Mission

Section Three : Criticism of the Torah

_______________________________ _______________________________ 

Foreword

To discuss faith is an undertaking which is fraught with dangers and perils. This is so because its sources and precepts are divine and its examination is the work of humans. This undertaking is more fraught with perils when the scrutinizer studies a faith that is not his own. The reason for this has to do with the fact that he would not know when to cease using his reasoning and at what stage he would stop invoking his beliefs, when to apply the rules of logic and when to submit to his inner inclinations. In this regard, he can not ensure protection for himself against errors and for his pen against slips.

In order to safeguard ourselves against this predicament, we set as a premise for this study that (a) all the Heavenly revealed Messages are true, as concerns their basis, so long as they are free of man’s intervention, (b) the belief in them is an essential part of our faith, and (c) the object of our scrutiny should be the human interventions incorporated into them, whether these latter were made with the intention of distorting the content of the messages or without such an intention.

Thanks to the taking of this intellectual stand, our examination of the Jewish faith does not seek to cast doubt on any of its aspects or precepts. Rather, it is, for us, a true Heavenly revealed faith, the words of which descended upon our Lord Moses (Peace Be Upon Him), a right faith geared to straighten the behavior of mankind during a period of history.

For this reason, we have chosen a method based upon the principle calling for refraining from using the precepts of a particular faith in the study of another faith, or a particular Holy book in the discussion of another Holy book, or drawing upon our Arabic culture and Islamic civilizational heritage. We did this so as to let what relates to faith be in our hearts and what concerns examination be part of our discernment.

In this regard, we have used as bibliographical references for this study Western sources essentially, with the exception of two Islamic references. The first of these is Ibn Hazm’s  book on The Distinction between Religions, Sects, and Creeds, because (a) it is the leading reference in Comparative Religion, (b) its author was the indirect mentor for the Critical Theological Schools, founded after him, and (c) had we not referred to it, we would have left a serious gap in the devising of our method, a method which we did not want to deviate from truth. The second Islamic reference is Ibn An-Nadîm’s Glossary, because it was (a) a compilation for the Religious Sciences, and (b) in it, the author was co-signing valuable information and not writing.

Apart from these two Islamic references, we have chosen only those elements of works that are fully documented and that are part of the scholarly domain, authored by scholars of faiths other than Islam. Of these scholars, we have people whose creeds we do not know. We have also Jews and Christians (who were scholars in Theology, History, Civilization, and Archeology), and the specialists in the intricacies of languages and the secrets of the alphabets. Most of these scholars have examined at length the records of the Old Testament and all the heritage that they contain, with an unselfish motivation and in a thorough study. From their source we have drawn information and upon their efforts we established the foundation for this study; for this latter is drawn from them and is conducted in accordance with their creeds.

We did not wish to rely on an intermediary in examining the Old Testament period. Rather, we stopped at each word of its texts, in the original language, focusing upon its etymological form and its derivatives and scrutinizing it. We did so because many an error in this domain come from using as support an inaccurate intermediary or from taking a superficial and rapid perusal at the texts.

Be this as it may, we do  not claim nor contend that we have reached the end of things or exhausted all that needs exhausting. For this is a subject from the perils of which can be safeguarded only the common people who are able to touch only upon its external part. Indeed, we can even say that can be safeguarded from its perils only someone who says absolutely nothing about it.

Section I

Information about the Original Message and Its Authentication

A Brief Historical Survey of the Life of Moses and Aaron, as Described in the Old Testament

Judaism is among the monotheistic religions the traces of which have been conveyed to us by means of a Sacred Book. This religion had not conferred upon itself the name Judaism until after the split of Israel into two kingdoms, following the death of Solomon: the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. Judaism takes its name from that of the second Kingdom, according to a widespread relation. Judaism was revealed to the Hebrews, the sons of Israel, but who are these Hebrews?

The origin of the name of the Hebrews is mentioned in The Torah(1) (Genesis 10: 21-24). It was by this name that the fourth son of the lineage of Sam, son of Noah, was known. The latter had three sons, namely, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sam had a son, Arpachshad, who, in turn, fathered a son, Chelah, who begot a son, Eber. The name “Eber” (to whom the Hebrews are related) may not be taken to refer to any specific people. It was simply a term used to designate the entire progeny of Shem. The term did not acquire its specificity  until Abraham, who represents the sixth generation in the line of Eber.

Having left the city of Ur in Chaldea(2), Abraham settled in Haran, a city situated between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, before embarking on a long journey which took him to Egypt, by way of Palestine (Genesis 10:13), and from there to the Arab Peninsula (3).

Whilst in Haran, Abraham received from God the  promise that the entire land of Canaan was going to belong to his progeny. It was from this moment that the term “Hebrew” became associated with the descendants of Isaac, son of Abraham, who begot –as God had announced—blessed children. Abraham’s son, Isaac, was graced with Jacob (later on renamed Israel), who, in turn, fathered –through his wives--Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issakar, Zabulun, Gad, Asser, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, and Nephtali(4). These are then the twelve  (Asbat)(5), or the heads of the twelve tribes of the people of Israel.

The Torah (The First Part of the Bible), especially in Genesis (Chapters 38 through 50), provides historical information about the twelve sons of Jacob (Israel), notably, their birth, their movements, their settlement in Egypt, and other particulars up until the death of Joseph. Moses is mentioned only in Exodus, the second book of the Pentateuch.

The Bible does not mention the genealogical tree of Moses –one which would, in the fashion of the twelve sons of Jacob, establish possible links between this Prophet and Adam, Abraham, or any other ancestor. The Bible speaks about Moses, for the first time, in these terms: “And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bare a son.” (Exodus, 2: 1-2)

Moses:

The period spanning from the death of Joseph to the birth of Moses is reckoned to be in the order of four hundred years. Exodus, the second book of the Old Testament, mentions the sons of Jacob who had flocked to Egypt, and stresses their great numbers. The book of exodus, then said : “Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we.” [Exodus, 1: 8-9]

These two biblical verses sum up the most important events taking place during the long span of time alluded to earlier. Under the reign of the Hyksos, Joseph wielded such power that he, and his folk, became mighty and wealthy. This situation lasted up until the demise of the Hyksos’ dynasty.

The Egyptians could not forgive the sons of Israel –and perhaps even other intruders—their solidarity and connivance with the Hyksos. They were afraid that, if they were given the freedom to act another time as they wished, they would in all likelihood ally themselves with another emerging force, and threaten them. Significantly, the Bible informs us that the new King actually addressed his people in these terms: “ Let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us and depart from the land.”  [Exodus, 1: 10].

Here, then, is clear evidence which confirms the solidarity between the Hebrews and the Hyksos. A new era then began when the Pharaoh ordered his men to subjugate the Israelites and to force them to build the cities of Phitom and Rameses. He also decreed that all newborn male Hebrews be killed. It was in this epoch that a Hebrew woman threw her newborn baby into the Nile.

The Bible (The Old Testament) does not provide any clear information about the origins of this baby, other than the fact that his father was a man from the House of Levi who had married a woman from the same clan “Now a man from the house of Levi went and married a daughter of Levi. -And the woman conceived and bore a son; ... [Exodus 2, 2-1]. The name of this baby (Moses) was given by the daughter of the Pharaoh, and not by his own mother. However, the infant was breastfed by his own mother, within the precinct of the palace of the Pharaoh, where he was brought up in luxury. Such luxury did not make him forget his country-folk, though. To exact revenge on the Egyptians, the oppressors of the Hebrews, Moses killed an Egyptian and then fled to Midian, where he wed the daughter of the local priest. Whilst in Midian, Moses worked as a shepherd up until the day when Allah appeared to him on Mount Horeb and commanded him to return to Egypt in order to free the Israelites from bondage. Moses acquiesced, and Allah made him perform miracles in order to convince the Pharaoh, when this latter will address him. The Pharaoh not only closed his ears and remained indifferent, but also kept the people of Israel in bondage. The Egyptians and the Pharaoh were then visited by a number of calamities, which allowed the Israelites to flee. The Pharaoh, regretful about having granted them the opportunity to leave Egypt, decided to give them chase. In the meantime, the sea was parted, allowing Moses and his followers, to pass over dry land. The Pharaoh, and his army, however, were overwhelmed by the waters, and were drowned.

For some forty years, the Israelites wandered in the desert, suffering from famine and thirst. But Allah saved them by providing them with manna and hyssop and water. As they roamed the wilderness, they encountered mighty and fierce people who tried but could not vanquish them. When illnesses plagued them, the Israelites rebelled against Allah. At times, Moses managed to calm them, but at other times, they turned against him, too. He eventually succeeded in organizing them, by drawing work plans for them, and by instructing them in basic hygiene and in illness-prevention. He also taught them how to be prudent and vigilant. He, first, gathered and counted his people in order to allot land to them, and, then, did the same in order to evaluate their force and their ability to wage war and to withstand its demands.

Moses accomplished all of this for the sake of the freedom of his people, but it grieved him to see his folk ever lamenting, or even protesting against having left a land which became in their sight after they had left a veritable paradise, when in reality the life they led therein was hellish. He found peace of mind in patience and revelation which became for him a source of law promulgation and religious precepts ordaining. Each time he encountered some misfortune during his wanderings in the desert, which lasted for four decades, Moses received a message from his Lord. He thus managed to organize all of the rites of the Judaic Cult.

Moses was meticulous in all of his actions, notably in the distribution of lands and the organization of cities and armies. He was endowed with foresight regarding future events. Besides, he was shrewd in planning strategies, whether these be defensive, offensive, or simply evasive. But, in spite of all these positive traits of character, Moses was notorious for his moodiness and his unbearable sudden outbursts. Had he not killed an Egyptian, and was he not ready to repeat his crime? Had he not quarreled with well-water drawers in Midian? Did he not wrathfully break the Tablets upon learning that the Israelites had taken to worshipping the Golden Calf? Did he not severely rebuke his own brother and, indeed, ordered the execution of all the renegades that very day? The last three speeches, delivered towards the end of his life, were doubtlessly expressions of his inner rebellion, and thus probably intended to put an end to his own wanderings, and to those of his people(6).

It is in this manner that the life of Moses has been depicted for us in the Bible. But this life has been glorified by dints of rich imagery and a weave of popular lore –as has been the case with Abraham, Joseph, and, indeed, all of the other Messengers. Even the stories recounted have been embellished in a like manner. This explains why researchers have attempted to find out whether a personality analogous to that of Moses had actually existed in Babylonian literature. Researchers have been able to find some figures bearing resemblance with Moses in some Sumerian tablets, depicting Sargon I of Akkadia, a well-known hero in ancient Mesopotamia. They have also been able to draw some parallels between Moses and the story of Romulus and Remus(7).

Given the striking similitude between these heroes and Moses, some researchers have claimed that Moses was a mere creation of the imagination. Thus, Freud (1948), in a book titled Moses and Monotheism, actually relied on that assumption to advance a theory. This theory has it that Moses is of pure Egyptian origins, that the religion he preached was purely Egyptian which Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (who was to change his name into Akhnaton) vehemently defended. After the death of this Pharaoh, the Egyptian priests re-established the previously upset order, and took their revenge against all those who had received privileges from the Eighteenth Dynasty, in 1350 BC. and all that it bequeathed. Among the people who were faithful to Akhnaton, there was a man called Touthmosis (Touth + Moses), who held an office of great responsibility.

He fled Egypt, along with a group of persons to whom he granted permission to observe their cult, following some modifications which he made, including the interdiction of sun-worship. Because he was strict with his followers regarding the question of education and the observance of cult rituals, they rebelled against him, murdered him, and gave up the worship of Aton (the sun-god), in the fashion of the Egyptians of yore. They then mingled with Midian tribes which were scattered all over the lands lying between Palestine, Sinai, and the Arab Peninsula. They adopted their religion, and worshipped their god, Yahweh (god of volcanoes). They took all the time necessary to develop the idea that they had of Yahweh, because the new generations came to regret what had become of Moses at the hands of their forefathers. Quite by chance, a reformer appeared in the world, with the name of Moses. He was forthwith embraced by them. As time went by, the two Moses (the ancient Moses and the new one) were conflated into one Moses : the Prophet. This, in essence, is Freud’s conception of Moses(8).

To return to the name, Moses, we note that the baptism name initially selected by the daughter of the Pharaoh was actually given him again by his mother when Moses grew older and became adolescent. It is certain that the pronunciation, “Moshe,” bore little, if any, resemblance to the commonly known one in the Jewish tradition, if only because the artificiality of the utterance is evident in that pronunciation. We may even go further and say that, from the point of view of the Hebraic language, the pronunciation is wrong. The form, “Moshe” is that of the active participle, and not of the past passive participle. Moses was thus one who “had been” saved(9). “And she named him Moses, and said, “Because I drew him out of the water” (Exodus; 2:10). In Egyptian, the name comes from “Mouth (Moutho)” (which meant “son,”) as is the case with such names as Amosis, Rameses, …(10).

The fact that Moses was called “Moshe” (the Savior) would suggest that he was considered as the person who had actually saved the Israelites –the one who had freed them, so to speak, from the grips of the Pharaohs. If this interpretation is good, then this means that whoever had given him that name must have been fully cognizant of the whole life story of Moses, from his birth up until the day he freed the people of Israel. The chronicler must have chosen a name which is not only close enough to the name, “Moses,” but one which is also suggestive of the personality of Moses, the wise man who “released”, or “saved” the sons of Israel from the grips of the Pharaohs. If the Hebraic language were actually the language used by the followers of Moses, we would find in that language a name corresponding to “Moses” both in terms of pronunciation, and of meaning –a name which would convey the fact that he was “the Savior” of the Israelites, notably following his triumph over Pharaoh, or at least, following the advent of his prophetic mission.

It is natural for Moses to bear an Egyptian name; for he was raised in the palace of Pharaoh. What is intriguing, however, is that his name was intended to sound Hebrew, in a way which conformed neither to the morphology nor to the syntax of that language, as has been pointed out earlier on. This served only to make the real personality of Moses all the more ambiguous (11), especially if we take into account all of the inherited ancient anecdotes grafted to him, which tended to exaggerate facts and to celebrate the origins of a highly glorious past.

If Joseph actually lived around 1730 BC., and if the sons of Israel stayed in Egypt some four hundred and thirty years after his death, (until their exodus, that is), and if as the Bible asserts, Moses was eighty years old when he met Pharaoh, then his birth must have been around 1370 BC., a date which coincides with the reign of Akhnaton (Amenhotep IV, 1375 – 1364 BC.). By the same token, the exodus of the Israelites must have taken place around 1290 BC., whilst the year 1720 BC. actually coincided with the entry of Jacob into Egypt.

Now if we deduct eighty years,  which Moses  had actually lived prior to the exodus, from the four hundred and thirty years –during which the sons of Israel stayed in Egypt—then the Pharaoh of the period is, without doubt, Rameses II, who governed between 1301 and 1234  BC.(12). As a matter of fact, it was during the reign of that Pharaoh that the exodus took place.

Some researchers, however, put a question mark against the very occurrence of the Exodus itself(13), and consider the son of Rameses II, Meremptah as being the sworn enemy of the Israelites. In fact, Meneptah triumphed over the Israelites, and actually left an epigraph in a temple, dating back to 1230 BC., where it is stated that the people of Israel have been utterly overwhelmed and routed.

Still, we do not really know what the term “Israel” really means. Does it refer to a people or to a region?(14) The distinction between the two is of utmost significance. If we assume that reference is made to the people, then “Israel” designates the people who accompanied Moses. But, as we have pointed out earlier on, this does not coincide at all with the succession of events. If the reference is to the region, then it would be Palestine, after it was conquered by the Israelites.

We personally opt for the second hypothesis, for the exodus took place in 1920 BC, during the reign of Rameses II, while the Temple bears the date 1230 BC. Moreover, while the Temple speaks of the destruction of the Israelites, the miracle performed by Moses resulted in the dismantling of the Pharaoh’s army, and not in the end of the followers of the Prophet. Furthermore, the story, as related by the Bible, confirms that the event actually took place in Egypt. Thus, following the request made by Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh concerning the liberation of the Israelites, the answer of the Pharaoh was as follows: “Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? Get you unto your burdens …Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens.” [Exodus, 5: 4-5]

There is no doubt that the obstinacy of Moses and Aaron had led to a close surveillance of the frontiers between Egypt and Sinai. Nobody could cross them without the prior authorization of the central authorities(15). This explains why the Israelites had headed south, instead of going north, towards Palestine which lay as far as the eye could see.

Equally surprising is the absence of any clues relative to the exodus in all of the Egyptian documents, for we do know that the Pharaohs recorded all events, no matter how insignificant they may be. But this silence may be accounted for: the Pharaohs were not used to recording their defeats. They actually left out from their historical documents all that which unsuited them, notably, the names of their political enemies and those they considered outcasts (the transgressors of their State’s laws)(16).

On the basis of these facts, we reckon that the epigraph of the temple of Meremptah relates events which took place after the entry of the Israelites into Palestine, and after the Pharaoh had taken a decision to subdue the people of Palestine who sought to stay outside his scope of dominion, and by the same token, to take revenge on those who had caused the death of his father, and the annihilation of his hosts(17). This could have taken place only after the elapse of  many years, certainly after the reconstruction by Meneptah of a new army –at least twenty years after the runaway Israelites entered into Palestine, and after the army that Moses had set up during the years of wandering, started to grow feeble.

What corroborates our claims here is that during this era, numerous cities in Palestine were destroyed. The havoc was doubtlessly due to confrontations between Meremptah and the people of Palestine who strove to remain independent and to shake off the yoke of those who held the reins of power in Palestine from among foreigners(18). In all likelihood, these events took place after the demise of Joshua, who had assumed the leadership of the Israelites. The Book of Judges alludes to this event, and attributes it to the failure of the Israelites to fulfill the obligations they had committed themselves to vis-a-vis Yahweh.

It follows, then, that the exodus of Moses is a reality. It took place during the epoch we have mentioned, or at least during an epoch close enough to it. In fact, all the events in question occurred in the presence of, and thanks to, the help of Aaron.

Aaron

Aaron was born three years prior to the birth of Moses, at a time when the command to kill all male Hebrew babies was still not decreed. When Moses left Egypt for Midian, his brother Aaron did not accompany him; he actually remained in Egypt. We do not know whether or not there were any contacts between the two siblings during the forty years that Moses spent in Midian.

As a matter of fact, Aaron was mentioned in the Bible only when Moses attempted to decline the offer of the prophetic mission on the grounds of some speech impediment. The Lord had told him then:

“Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well; And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart

And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.” [Exodus, 4: 14-15-16]

The Bible recounts that Yahweh whispered to Aaron a command to assist his brother, Moses, in his prophetic mission: “Go to the wilderness to meet Moses.” [Exodus, 4: 27] Then God made Aaron Messenger to Pharaoh: “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”[Exodus, 7: 1]

Thereafter, Aaron became the spokesman of Moses to the people and to Pharaoh. It was also thanks to Aaron that Moses managed to work wonders. Moreover, Aaron withstood the misfortunes undergone by Pharaoh and his people. He received the divine words, whilst in the company of his brother, Moses, and in the presence of the latter, addressed the Lord in the tent of meetings. He set out for the wilderness, in the company of his brother, Moses, and of the Israelites, and played a major role in the organization and supervision of the latter during their wandering. Nevertheless, Moses chided him and  reproached him for having failed to prevent the Israelites from worshipping the “Golden Calf”.

Thus, after events started to take their ordinary course, Aaron became the head of the Israelite priests. The priesthood, accordingly, falls to his progeny, and his progeny only. He organized the sundry rites of the Temple in an immaculate and perfect way, leaving nothing to chance. He died while he was only within a stone’s throw from the land of Canaan, for it had been pre-ordained that the generation of the Exodus would not tread on that land.

The Bible remains the only source which provides information about the life of Aaron. The Talmud re-iterates what has been reported by the Bible, with some exaggeration in the portrayal of Aaron and of his activities. To his contemporaries, Aaron was undeniably Egyptian –his name, at least, was Egyptian. Likewise, his descendants bore such Egyptian names as Pinhas. But it should be stated that these names were actually common among the Levites, from whom Moses and Aaron descended.(19)

The Language of Moses: the Language of the Initial Text of The Torah

In the contemporary Torah, there is no indication relative to the language in which the original text of The Torah was written. Nevertheless, it states the fact that what Moses had actually heard from the mouth of Yahweh, during the reception of the Tablets, was neither speech nor language. More explicitly, “The voice of the sound was in crescendo, whilst Moses spoke and God answered him in a voice.” (20)

Clearly, such words as “voice,” “thunder,” and “noise” hold no meaning proper to discursive language. This is undoubtedly what has prompted some Torah experts to put forward the view that rather than receiving a message in a language, per se, Moses actually received ideas which he conveyed in the language of humans.(21)

In which Language did Moses Address People?

The term “Hebrew” which refers to “the Hebraic language” is not mentioned in the Torah. In the Book of Isaiah, it is stated that Egypt will be subdued by Judah: “In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan.” [Isaiah, 19: 18] The language referred to here is by no means the language of the Children of Israel, who would be the victors. This language had no relation whatsoever with the Hebraic language.

When the commander of the Assyrian army besieged the city of Jerusalem, King Hezekiah dispatched some of his servants to the commander, who spoke to them, whereupon the envoys said: “Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and speak not to us in the Jews’ language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall.” [Isaiah, 36: 11](22).

From the historical context just provided, it transpires that the original message of The Torah was addressed to the Pharaoh and to the Israelites. If people had written the message directly, as it was uttered by Moses, the original document of The Torah (which no longer exists) would never have been written in the Hebrew alphabet, as we know it today. Here are the reasons:

Moses had lived in Egypt for some forty years. He was brought up in the Palace of the Pharaoh. His mother tongue could not have been other than Egyptian. It is possible that he learnt another language, for it was customary among monarchs to have their sons learn many languages. He was perhaps conversant with the language of the Israelites. The latter constituted then a minority among Hebrew people. If, besides the local Egyptian language, the Israelites had preserved another language of their own, this could not have been Hebrew, as we know it today. The reason is that the Hebrew language was not truly developed until four hundred years after the death of Moses. It is, therefore, more than probable that the Egyptian language -and no other language- was the vehicle of communication between the peoples, in that epoch because of it being the common language of the inhabitants of Egypt. It is also equally probable that the language of origin of The Torah was the language spoken by the people who had migrated from Palestine to Egypt –and these are made up of diverse races. These people had then allowed themselves to be fully influenced by the mores and customs of Egypt, and learnt Egyptian, and, thereafter, returned to Palestine with their new cultural heritage. To say the least, their language was a mixture of Egyptian and Canaanean. It was, undoubtedly, in that language that they had transcribed The Torah, according to the teachings they had received from Moses. On another level, Moses who had lived some forty years in Egypt prior to migrating to Midian –an Arab, or a non-Hebraic tribe—to reside there for another forty years, must have learnt the language of that tribe before returning to Egypt as a Messenger of Allah.

Yet, the question which still needs to be elucidated is the following: “in what way would it have been useful for Moses to address the Egyptian population (the Pharaohs and the Israelites) in a language other than Egyptian which is the language of the country?” We are thus entitled to conclude that the original document of The Torah, the one in which the divine message has been written in all of its purity and conveyed by Moses, is no longer in existence, and humanity does not have any such text at its disposal.

What has been said about the language of Moses also applies to that of his brother, Aaron, who is from the stock of the Israelites who had remained in Egypt for more than four hundred years. Aaron lived in Egypt all of his life, and helped his brother, Moses tremendously (May Allah’s Peace and Blessing be upon them).

There is no doubt that the rich texts of Shumrah do shed light on the close relationship between the language of the Hebrews and that of the people of Canaan, who had written their history in a novel language –which was a mixture of Egyptian and Canaanean. By so doing, they gradually started to rid themselves of the linguistic corpus borrowed from Egyptian. In fact, such a corpus had acceded into their language to such an extent that the Hittite lexicon had become predominant. This explains why the works unearthed in Phoenicia and Syria (Assyria) --which outstrip, in terms of quantity, those discovered in Palestine-- represent a model of an old language which was going to develop with time, to become ultimately, the Hebraic language. Thanks to this language, then, the ambiguity which affected the lexicon, the syntax, and the style of the Old Testament, was considerably reduced, yielding a text, which clearly presented the events, the historical figures, and the civilizations which had significantly impressed the writers of the Old Testament even if these latter remained somewhat neglectful of the real ordering of the Old Testament, and careless regarding geographical locations.(23)

Linguists are unanimous in their assertion that, of all languages, the language of Canaan, is the closest to the original language of The Torah. To prove this view, they cite the writings discovered in Tell Al-Amarna in Upper Egypt. Dating back to 1400 BC., the letters are written in the Babylonian alphabet. In a way, the letters constitute correspondence penned in a diplomatic style by Canaanean scribes, and addressed to the Egyptian authorities. The scribes sometimes made use of words and structures proper to their mother tongue, which, incidentally, featured striking similarities with the language inscribed on the Hebraic vestiges discovered in Jerusalem (notably, the frescoes of Salwan, which date back to the year 700 BC., and those belonging to King Moab, which date back to the year 850 BC.)(24).

This ancient language, both in its form and in its alphabet, is “Yehudite” which is mentioned in the Torah : “language” (kings II, 18 : 28), a language which was not monolithic, but  was rather divided into diverse dialects(26). Regarding the language in which The Torah (as we now know it) has been written, it is the Modern Hebraic language which developed well after the epoch of Moses. It is reckoned that the Hebraic language was developed during the epoch spanning from the Tenth century to the decline of the Kingdom of Judah in the year 586 BC.

It was in this modern Hebraic language that the Text of the Old Testament, which is now in our hands, was written. Specialists have not been able to write the precise history of that language –a process which would have allowed them to pinpoint the epoch during which it was unified, and, by the same token, determine, with a measure of exactitude, the real language of the original texts of The Torah.

Furthermore, what complicates matters is that the modern Hebraic language has gone through two major stages. Thus, as soon as it had started to take form, the Hebrews abandoned it and took to Aramaic, which they preferred. Thereafter, the language developed to become what it is nowadays. This is what explains the existence of texts of the Old Testament written in Aramaic, though these latter are not among the first texts to have been transcribed or dictated by Moses (PBBUH). This also accounts for the existence of the Targume, or the Aramaic translation, as well as the monumental work, The Talmud –about which we shall be saying a few words, below.

All of this serves to show that the first text of The Torah –as the disciples of Moses had received it directly from him—is missing. Needless to say, the importance of preserving the original (or first) texts of the Sacred Books resides in two essential facts:

Firstly, such books are part of the heritage of mankind, which relates an important period of its history;

Secondly, these are vital documents which allow us not only to detect the modifications and the additions that have been introduced into them, but also to determine the extent of the distortions they have undergone throughout history. Such processes allow us to have a clear and transparent idea about the veritable celestial message.

Section II
The Texts that are at the Disposal of Humanity, and their Role in Determining the Contours of the Prophetic Mission
The Old Testament as it is Nowadays

On the basis of the issues discussed above, we have come to the conclusion that The Torah does in fact represent a truly Divine message. Such a message is set down in the Commandments, but the Testament is written in a language that is radically different from the modern Hebraic language. Along the same lines, we have also drawn some arguments from the Old Testament –in its present version which, as we have shown, is written in a language other than the one in which it was originally recorded—in order to highlight and confirm many of the events which had actually occurred. But is this not contradictory on our part? More explicitly, have we not shown some dubiousness regarding the present text of The Torah, and then relied on it to advance and substantiate some of our arguments?

We do not think that there is any contradiction here; for we still assert that The Torah was written in a language and transcription that are different from the ones used nowadays. This should not be taken to mean that The Old Testament is a pure creation of the imagination which has no relation whatsoever with historical facts, and with the events which were actually lived by the Hebrews, including the emergence of the Jewish religion. We do believe that The Old Testament is an attempt to rewrite the history of the Israelites –an attempt which is based on a cultural heritage transmitted in part by word of mouth, and, in another part, in written form. What is certain is that the collection of the original texts of The Torah were not available to those who transcribed The Old Testament, as humanity now knows it. No wonder, then, if its contents do not accurately reflect numerous historical facts, as they actually occurred. Similarly, the fertile imagination of the Hebrews, and their fascination with aggrandizing the collective consciousness of the Israelites, and asserting its sublimity, contributed to the distortions of the original texts.

The scribes and chroniclers did not relate in The Old Testament but the events they had knowledge of, and of which past occurrence they were sure. They were, thus, forced to limit, in their writings, historical periods marked by overlaps between civilizations. Their aim was to gather facts and to authenticate them; they did not grant much importance to the chronology of events or to the circumstances wherein these latter occurred. In fact, all the critics of the Old Testament are unanimous about this.

In its present form, The Old Testament which is written in Hebrew, consists of twenty four Books, according to the Jewish tradition, and of twenty two, according to the Christian tradition. Some Rabbis think that the entire Old Testament is divine Revelation(27). Others believe that the Revelation conveyed to Moses through the celestial voice, is found only in the first part, and deem that the other parts, which are transmitted by convergence, as Revelation.

Incidentally, the Hebraic tradition issued only approximate dates. The Torah (the Pentateuch which comprises five Books) is believed to have been set down in the 15th century BC., whilst the second part, which is made up of “The First Prophets,” and “The Latter Prophets” is thought to have been committed to writing, respectively, between the 9th and the 5th centuries BC. Concerning the third part, Rabbis have put forward diverse dates. “The Psalms,” which they attribute to David, date back to the 11th century BC. “Proverbs,” and “The Canticle of Canticles,” which they attribute to Solomon, date back to the 10th century BC. The “Books of Isaiah and Jeremiah” date back to the 6th century BC., while the “Book of Daniel” is believed to have been composed during the 5th century BC. The composition of the “Books of Job, Ruth, and Esther,” all attributed to Moses, is thought to have taken place during the 15th century BC. “The Book of Samuel,” dates back to the 11th century BC, while “The Books of Nehemiah, Hosea, and Chronicles I and II,” which are attributed to Hosea, date back to the 4th century BC.(28).

It goes without saying that the above dates do not correspond at all to the findings which we mentioned as we were outlining the life of Moses and Aaron. Such findings have been yielded by archeological works, and by historical researches bearing on the origins of The Old Testament.

Traditionally, the compilation of the texts of The Old Testament is attributed to Ezra (the 5th century BC.) Spinoza, however, thinks that Ezra was not the first to have composed the text of The Old Testament, and that his contribution consisted merely in collecting the narratives which had been composed well before him. At times, he contented himself with copying them, without seeking to verify their authenticity or to set their chronology right (29). It stressed  that the fact that “The Book of Daniel” was part of The Old Testament is proof enough that Ezra did not write the text in its entirety, for “The Book of Daniel” was actually composed roughly in 166 BC., three centuries after the gathering by Ezra of the various texts of The Old Testament.

But what were the circumstances in which The Old Testament was actually written, and what was the methodology adopted in this process? What is certain is that the oldest collection of The Old Testament - that is, the texts about which there is unanimity among Jewish scholars - was written in the first Hebraic alphabet, which had developed before Aramaic replaced the ancient Hebraic language. The Old Testament was then composed in cuneifom writing that the Hebrews had inherited from Aramaic, during the Babylonian exile.

Ever since the construction of the second Temple, the task of collecting and comparing The Torah -which was widespread in Judah -with its copy- a model composed on the basis of three close versions, which were stored in the Temple—was undertaken on a yearly basis. It is clear that certain texts, notably the  paragraphs mentioning the sublimity of Transcendence, were altered during the era of the second Temple. Such modifications, which came to be known as “The Assessments of the Scribes,” were attributed to Ezra, and, to a host of rabbis after him. The existing incongruities between the traditional text -the one which is approved by the Massorets - on the one hand, and the Greek translation, the manuscripts of Qumran, and The Torah of the Sumerians, on the other hand, may have been due to assessments undertaken by unknown persons.

The traditional text, which is mentioned above, had remained purely consonant-based (free of vowels) up until the 6th century B.C. The rabbis made use of diacritical signs as clues to understanding the text; they actually used weak letters and the like. Towards the end of the seventh and the beginning of the eight centuries of the Christian era, the “Naqdamins” (diacritical specialists) devised a new graphic system based on diacritical signs. In this, they were influenced by the vocalic system of the Assyrians and of the Arabs. The new system yielded two distinct methods:

1. The Babylonian method, which was elaborated by specialists of Babylonian origins, consisted in putting diacritical signs on letters to indicate short vowels.

2. The Tiberian method (of Palestine) signals short vowels by means of dots or dashes placed either on or under letters. This practice has been replaced by the utilization of weak letters to convey emphatic sounds. This is the method used nowadays.

The Massorets finished The Torah canon formation between the 8th and the 10th centuries of the Christian era. Two traditions marked the endeavor: that of Ben Nepthali, and that of Ben Asher (the tenth century of the Christian era). It is this work which was selected for the setting of the present canon of The Old Testament(30). The Biblical part in that version is divided into verses (bissoquim), which comprise a more or less great number of words. The shortest verse, thus, comprises at least three words.

The division of the texts into chapters is a Christian tradition which first appeared in the Latin translation of the Bible in the 13th century of the Christian era. This method was followed by Rabbi Nathan, who elaborated the first index for The Old Testament towards 1440 of the Christian era. Since then, this method has become a respected Hebraic tradition.

The Torah (especially, the Pentateuch) has been divided into fifty four sections (or parashah), in conformity with the yearly reading exercise. Tradition in Palestine had divided The Torah into one hundred and fifty seven “parashah” so that it could be read over a time span of three years.

The Massorets have also annotated The Torah (small, big, and final massorah) either on the margins of the pages, or at the end of each chapter, or still at the end of The Old Testament(31). Their principal work is limited to the following rule: “Read and write,” a process which entailed the rectification of a word of the corpus, using the margin. This word is accompanied by a sign which means that it has to be read in the corpus in a way that is different from its transcription. Here are some examples:

1. The name of the Lord in the corpus is transcribed as “Yahweh,” but attention is drawn to the fact that it must be pronounced as “Adonay” (my Lord) The transcription of this term actually changes, according to its grammatical function in the sentence.

2. The feminine personal pronoun may be graphically represented by the word representing “he,” but it must be read as that representing “she”.

3. A word such as “na `ara” (child) is read as “na`arah” if it refers to a girl, with the adjunction of a particle which orally signals that it is feminine.

and so forth …

This means that the present texts comprise errors which have been made by the scribes, which the Massorets have attempted to correct(32).

If the work accomplished by the Massorets was useful, in one respect, it was not that useful in another respect; for the Massorets actually destroyed or concealed texts which went counter their traditions. Throughout the centuries, people received but copies of copies, transcribed in such a way as to be utilized in cult areas or in prayers. Such copies had come in the form of leather scrolls, or in tablets, before they were actually written on paper.

Among the most important manuscripts that have been discovered, and which comprise the two parts of the Sacred Book (the Old and the New Testament) are the following:

- The First Manuscript: the manuscript of the Vatican (codex vaticanus), which consists of twenty leaflets of three columns each. The date of the transcription of this manuscript is believed to have been towards the middle of the 4th century of the Christian era.

- The Second Manuscript: the Sinai manuscript (codex sinaiticus). It was named thus because it was discovered in the Monastery of Saint-Catherine, at the foot of Mount Sinai, by the German scientist, Constantin Tchendoff in 1842. It comprised then forty five leaflets. The missing parts (The New Testament, and parts of The Old Testament) were discovered between 1853 and 1859 in a great scroll.

Some put forward the view that this manuscript originally included seven hundred and thirty leaflets, and that, by sheer ignorance of their contents, monks had burnt three hundred and forty leaflets. The remaining leaflets (three hundred and twenty leaflets, in all) are now in the British Museum.

The date of this manuscript is a matter of controversy. Some scholars situate it in the middle of the second century of the Christian era, others situate it  much later: in the sixth century. A third group considers that the document, was actually one of the fifty manuscripts that Constantine I, the Great, had had transcribed so that they could be used in the churches of the city.

- The Third Manuscript is that of Alexandria, which comprised eight hundred and twenty leaflets, of which only seven hundred and seventy three remain. The transcription of this manuscript is believed to have taken place during the fifth century of the Christian era.

-The Fourth Manuscript is that of Ephraim, the Assyrian, who lived in the fourth century of the Christian era. His writing was restored in the twelfth century of the Christian era. It is on the basis of this manuscript that the English translation of the Bible, better known as King James’ Version, was undertaken in 1611 AD.(33)

In 1890, some ancient tablets were discovered at Al-Kanuza (a cave in Cairo), and in 1947, the manuscripts of Qumran were stumbled upon in an area North of the Dead Sea. Searches were then multiplied, and other texts were unearthed; some of the texts found are written in Phoenician letters, and others, like the manuscripts of Wadi Arabat, are in cuneiform. The most ancient of these texts dates back to the year 70 of the Christian era.

It is worth noting that the scroll of Isaiah, which was discovered in Wadi Arabat, features characteristics which bring it closer to the Massoret tradition. It comprises corrections of errors, and points to missing passages. The name of Yahweh does not appear in this manuscript(34).

The most ancient text of the Ten Commandments is written on the papyrus of Nash –a document dating back to the second century BC.(35) The most ancient Masorets manuscript was transcribed between the years 820 and 850 of the Christian era. It comprises only the first part (of the Bible), to wit, The Torah.

The most ancient manuscript of the entire text is presently in Leningrad. It was originally transcribed during the early years of the tenth century of the Christian era. The current editions of The Old Testament have been published on the basis of the manuscript of Jacob Ibn Haim, which dates back to the year 1524 of the Christian era, in Venice.

Editions of the Old Testament

The Massoret Old Testament (which is recognized by the Jewish tradition) was published in 1488 of the Christian era. In Venice, in the year 1494, Martin Luther published The Old Testament, on the basis of the text of Gerson, the son of Moses. In Venice also, Bombric brought forth the text of Jacob Ibn Haim which was originally written in 1524. This edition remained the most reliable  up until the publication of Hebraica Biblica, on the basis of the manuscript of Ben Asher. It is the most widely disseminated version. It includes a preface in German written by Rud Kittel in 1929, and features sundry notes which point to additions and to the passages that have been curtailed in the text. In this same version, we also find a comparison between the original Hebraic text and the Greek and Latin translations(36).

It should be stressed here that the Sumerian Torah (the five Books only), which was composed during the fourth century BC., differs from the authenticated Massoret text in more than six thousand places, as well as in its graphic transcription. The Sumerian Torah is written in the ancient Phoenician alphabet, and a third of its content corresponds to the Septuagint translation. This version might prove useful in the rectification of the official Hebraic text, or at least, in highlighting the differences existing between its own contents and the Hebraic text. There exists also another translation written in Sumerian characters, but it is of no use in the process of filling the gaps in The Torah.

The Translations of the Old Testament

The translation of The Torah (The Old Testament) was undertaken over two major stages:

I. Translations Accomplished during the First Stage:

1. The Septuagint Version

This translation was so named according to an anecdote which has it that Ptolemy II (Philadelphos: 283-247 BC.) requested the Great Rabbi of Jerusalem of the epoch, Eliazer, to send him a copy of The Old Testament, along with some experienced translators capable of translating it into Greek. The Rabbi sent a copy of the Book, and dispatched seventy two translators –six from each of the tribes of Israel—to Alexandria. It is reported that the translators completed their work in seventy two days –hence the name “Septuagint” which was given to their endeavor which was undertaken especially for the Jews of Alexandria.

This version differs, in many of its parts, from the Hebrew Text, which is in use presently: the Books of Isaiah and Daniel are different. One seventh and one fourth of the contents of the Books of Jeremiah and of Job, respectively. The succession of the Books is not the same, and there are even additions and omissions. Moreover, this Greek translation is riddled with ambiguous terms.

It is now believed that all of the differences with the Hebrew text that the translators had adopted in their version –which is older that the Massoret Text, which, nonetheless, became the official Text for the Hebrews—stems from the long translation process. Incidentally, it was confirmed that this version was not completed in seventy two days, as it was claimed. Indeed, the first part, which was actually translated during the third century BC., is of higher quality than the two other parts which were obviously translated much later.

This version actually assumes tremendous importance, for it was founded on a text that is much older  --than that of the Massorets. Moreover, the other ancient translations, had, in turn, made use of it, except the Latin and the Syriac. Nevertheless, this version has not been recognized by the Jewish translation authorities.

In the year 130 of the Christian era, Aquila completed a translation of The Old Testament which was unduly literal. But this version is nowadays unavailable. It should be stressed here that with this translation Rabbis sought to break away with the Christian tradition which had incorporated aspects of the Hellenic culture into the Septuagint version. Aquila’s Greek translation was deemed as purely Hebraic, reflecting the Hebraic tradition.

Around the end of the second century of the Christian era, Theodotion revised the Septuagint version which was also further rectified by three “Symmachuses” at the beginning of the third century of the Christian era.

Between the years 240 and 245 of the Christian era, Origenes elaborated a copy of Hexapla, where he actually compared the six texts; namely, the non-vocalized Hebrew Text, the Hebrew Text written in the Greek alphabet, the Septuagint version, Aquila’s translated version, the revised version of Theodotion, and finally, the version of the “Symmachuses”.

Origenes prepared another copy, known as Tetrapla, where he compared the three translations, after he had set aside the Hebrew Text in the Greek alphabet.

2. The Targume

The Targume is an Aramaic term meaning “translation”. In explaining its origin, it is claimed that, after the exile of Babylon in 539 BC., the Jews neglected the Hebraic language, the language of the people of Palestine, and adopted Aramaic. In their various groupings, Rabbis would read The Torah in Hebrew, and by their side were translators who then conveyed the Biblical message in Aramaic. This is what is claimed, but in reality, the Text of Targume went beyond the mere translation of the original text, to provide commentaries and interpretations which reflected the state of mind of the Rabbis in that epoch. Had the first texts reached us, the historians of the Jewish creed and its sundry doctrines, would have been able to fathom and to elucidate many of the questions which had remained ambiguous.

The oldest of the Targumes (Aramaic translations) to have reached us date back to the first century of the Christian era, and comprise the texts of The Torah, the Prophets, and Chronicles.

The most well-known Targumes include:

* Ancholas’ Targume (which comprises the five Books); it is attributed to Aquila;

* Johnathan’s Targume (which covers the Prophets); it is attributed to Johnathan Ben `Uzeir, the most renowned of the students of Hillel.

The text of the Targume, which is published today, also includes the best known commentaries on The Torah (37).

3. The Latin Translation (or, The Vulgate)

The first Latin translation of The Old Testament was called “Vetus Itala”. Saint Jerome was inspired by this version in order to elaborate his own translation, The Vulgate, a term which means “the widespread text”.

It was in Bethlehem, between 390 and 405 of the Christian era, that Saint Jerome worked on his translation, on the basis of the Hebrew and the Greek texts. This Latin translation became the official version among Catholics. It set the recognized text at thirty nine, even though the order in which they appeared was different from the Hebrew Text. Moreover, the Vulgate also included the Deutero-canonical (the Apocryphal) Books, namely, Tobia, Judith, the Wisdom of Salomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letters of Jeremy, Maccabbees I and II, Additions to Daniel and to Esther. This being the case, the Protestants do not recognize the Deutero-canonical Books.

Gutemberg assumed the task of publishing the Latin translation of the Bible in 1496. Thereafter, many publications of this version were issued. In 1590, the Council of Trent, recognized as official a Latin translation, the text of which was written by Sixte Quint (the Sistine Vulgate). It was amended under Clement VIII (Sixtoclementine Vulgate), and published in 1592. In 1907, Pie X entrusted a commission of Benedictines, living in Rome, with a critical revision of the Saint Jerome’s version(38).

4. The Syriac Translation

There exist two Syriac versions, the first one of which was undertaken and completed between 616 and 617 of the Christian era, by Paul de Tella, on the basis of a Greek translation. The second one is known as “the Peshitto” which means “the simple one” in Syriac. Comprising both The Old Testament and the New, it was elaborated and issued in Edess in the second century of the Christian era.

5. The Coptic Translation

The Coptic translation dates back to the end of the second and the beginning of the third centuries of the Christian era.

6. The Ethiopian Translation

The Ethiopian translation, which covers The Torah solely, dates back to the year 320 of the Christian era.

7. The Text of The Torah in the Arabic Language

In the first chapter of Ibn An-Nadîm’s book, Al-Fihrist, we learn that there existed in the library of Hârûn Ar-Rashîd a copy of The Torah. The servant of Hârûn Ar-Rashîd, Ahmad Abdallah Ibn Sallâm claims that he had translated the main part of this book –i.e., the one in Ar-Rashid’s library-, inter alia , “The Torah, the Gospel, as well as the Book of the Prophets and of the Disciples, from the Hebraic, Greek, and Sabaeen into Arabic. My translation was literal, for I have not sought to beautify my text, lest I should disfigure it. I was objective and neutral, throughout.”

We do not know exactly which part of The Old Testament was translated by Ahmad Ibn Sallam. It is highly probable that he translated The Torah only. As to the Books of Prophets, of which he speaks, he is not sure that it is the second part of The Old Testament, if only  because the order in which he cites the Books and the language do not correspond to this part.

Similarly, what he has said about the Books of Moses is not clear. Thus, having stated the number of Prophets and Books, he said: “Allah has revealed one hundred and four books in all, one hundred of which were revealed to Prophets, from Adam to Moses. The first of these books, which comprised twenty one leaflets, was revealed to Adam. The second, consisting of nine and twenty leaflets was revealed to Seth. The third Book, which was revealed to Idris, consisted of thirty leaflets. The fourth, which was made up of ten leaflets, was revealed to Abraham. As to the fifth book, which comprised ten leaflets, it was revealed to Moses. There are then five books, and one hundred leaflets, in all.”

“After the leaflets had been conveyed and used for some time, the Most High revealed The Torah to Moses in ten tablets. When Moses descended from Mount Sinai and found his followers, engaged in the adoration of the Calf, he wrathfully threw the tablets, shattering them. Regretful of his act, Moses requested God to restore them to him afresh. God granted him his wish, and sent him two tablets: that of the Covenant and that of the Profession of the Faith. God then revealed to David the Psalms, a collection of  one hundred and fifty prayers, which are still used by the Jews and the Christians nowadays.”(39)

What we retain from the above quotation is that the translation of Ahmad Ibn Sallâm does not go beyond the contents of the two tablets; otherwise he would have commented on the issue. The implication then is that The Torah was augmented by the addition of other texts, throughout the preceding centuries, to constitute the voluminous Old Testament that we now have.

Ibn An-Nadim then, on the basis of what he takes to be reliable sources, mentions the parts which constitute The Old Testament. This is what he says in this respect:

“I have requested a reputable Jew to provide me with some information about The Torah, about the titles of Jewish Books, and about Jewish scholars and chroniclers.” He replied to my query thus: “The Most High has revealed The Torah to Moses. It is composed of five “Sifrin” (or, books), each of which consisting of many “farashat” (or, chapters). In each chapter, there are many “busuqat” (or, verses). Moses had a book which is called The Mishna, from which the Jews derive their laws and precepts. It is a voluminous Book which is written in “Kasdani” (Aramaic) and in Hebrew.”(40)

Among the Books of Prophets (the second part of The Old Testament): the Book of Joshua, the Book of Judges, the Book of Samuel, the Book of Isaiah, the Book of Jeremiah, the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Malachi (the Book of David and his Companions, which is also known as “Malachi, the Kings”(41), and the Book of Prophets, which consists of twelve sections …

They have works which they call “Battarat,” composed on the basis of the eight books of the Prophets. Among these books mention could be made of: the Book of Hosea, the Book of Daniel, the Book of Job, the Book of Serserim (the Canticle of Canticles)(42), the Book of Haggai, the Book of Ruth, Ecclesiastes, the Book of Psalms, the Book of the Proverbs of Salomon, the Book of Chronicles, which relates the biographies of kings and their feats, and the Book of Hashwarash, also called “The Review”(43).

It is impossible to say for sure that the order adopted by Ibn An-Nadîm was really the one in force in that epoch, for we do not know whether the information provided by “the reputable informant” was based on a text learned by heart or simply a text conveyed in its broad lines.

When Ibn An-Nadîm speaks about the Gospels, and the titles of the books composed by Christian scholars and chroniclers, he claims that he has asked a priest to provide him with information about books written by Christians in the Arabic language. The priest, a person known for his rectitude, told him that the Gospel is among the books in question, and that it was available in two forms: the ancient one and the modern one. To clarify this further, he added that the Jewish doctrine was based on the ancient form, while, the Christian doctrine was based on the new form. He then cited for his benefit the Books of The Old Testament thus: first of all, there is the Torah, which comprises five Books, and then other Books, such as Joshua, Shoffetim (the Book of Judges), Samuel, David, Chronicles, Ruth, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, the Book of Prophets, which is made up of four parts: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve Patriarchs, and Ezekiel …(44).

It should be noted that not all of the Books which make up the Old Testament are on the list provided by the priest. We, likewise, do not know the origin of errors and omissions in this enumeration, nor do we actually know the source of the additions that we find in the collection of the texts of the Old Testament available today.

We have tried to find out more about the contents of The Old Testament in the Arabic language, through Ibn Hazm’s Al-Fisal (The Separation …)(45), and we have been able to ascertain that this scholar did actually own a copy of the Rabbinical Torah which, perhaps, consisted of five Books. This is at least what he implies when he speaks about the Sumerian Torah: “we have not consulted the Sumerian Torah because the Jews are not inclined to leave the land of Palestine and Jordan, in the first place”. In reality, Ibn Hazm’s criticism  applies only to the part of the Old Testament which was available to him(46). Incidentally, there exists another version which is believed to have been completed by Hunayn Ibn Isaac (who died in AH 260, circa 873 of the Christian era), on the basis of Greek, presumably. But Ibn An-Nadim does not mention such a version in his own translation(47).

The Translation Effected by Sa‘dia Gaon Al-Fayyumi

Given that the Judeo-Arab culture has become an essential component of Jewish thought in the Islamic world, during the epoch marking the expansion and apogee of Islamic civilization, it was necessary for Arab Jews to undertake a thorough translation of The Torah, or at least a number of texts thereof. This is all the more so because Arabic was widely spoken by Jews. Arabic was also widely used to disseminate certain doctrines. In all likelihood, most of these translations have either been lost, or have not been available to us for consultation --due to the fact that they have been written in the Arabic alphabet, but still kept Hebrew pronunciation—or still, have been altogether neglected by the Jews when they have ceased to be interested in the Arabic language. Arab scholars did not consult these documents because they were completely unaware of the existence of Arab manuscripts written by Jews in the Hebrew alphabet.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the most renowned Arabic translation of The Torah ever attempted was completed by a Jewish scholar, Sa‘dia Gaon Al-Fayyûmî (transliterated Saadia Gaon Al-Fayyumi), who was born and lived in Egypt (882-942 of the Christian era). His Arabic translation and commentaries on The Torah aimed at sensitizing the masses, that is, people who mastered Arabic, and those who knew only dialectal Arabic, to the religious text. He made use of the Arabic alphabet in his commentaries in order to allow even those who did not know the Hebrew alphabet, be they Jewish or non-Jewish, to accede to the text of The Torah (48).

The Translation Effected by Jean, the Bishop of Seville

In the western parts of the Islamic world, the most well-known translation is the one which was effected by Jean, the Bishop of Seville (in the year 750 of the Christian era). It was completed on the basis of the Latin version then authorized and widely diffused.

II. Translations Undertaken During the Second Stage:

This stage, which began with the great religious reforms in western societies, was inaugurated by the translation of the Bible into German –a task accomplished by Martin Luther. This translation had considerable influence, first of all, on the development of the Germanic language, and then on the other translations that were to follow; notably, the Danish, Swedish, and Dutch versions --which were largely inspired by the German version—and finally, on the eviction of the Latin translation, which was the only reference utilized in the translation of The Old Testament into the various European languages. The Lutheran translation achieved the standing enjoyed hitherto by the Latin version, and its influence did not begin to diminish until the publication of the Jerusalem version in 1955.

The most recent and noteworthy French translations of the Sacred Book, include that edited by The Pleiade(49), and The Ecumenical Version which allies the Catholic and Protestant traditions(50).

With the emergence of such translations which have Christian features, the Jews took another path in the translation of The Old Testament. They have linked the issuing of the said version to objectives that could have an impact on the societies where they live, including the use of Arab dialects, and the use of the Massoret heritage. To this effect, three versions appeared: one in Persian, the other in Yiddish (a mixed dialectical variety of German, Hebrew, and Slavic spoken by Jewish communities in Eastern Europe between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries), and the third one in the Spanish Hebrew dialect (developed between the thirteenth and the seventeenth centuries) (51).

Starting from the 18th century, Arab translations of the Bible proliferated. Here are a few versions:

- The translation effected by Ahmed Faris Ash-Shidiyaq, (published in London in 1851). This version had not met with success.

- The American-protestant translation, which was the fruit of the collective work of American missionaries established in Beirut.

- The translation effected by Jesuit Fathers, as stipulated by their Catholic tradition, under the supervision of the Bishop of Beirut. The first part, which comprised parts of The Old Testament, was issued in 1876, while the third, which comprised The New Testament, was brought forth in 1877. The second part which completed The Old Testament appeared in 1879. The three parts were finally issued together is a single edition in 1986 in Beirut.

This version, which was founded on the Hebrew text of The Old Testament and on the Greek text of The New Testament, offers the advantage of having been the work of a group of theologians who availed themselves of their knowledge of previous translations of the sacred books, and associated such eminent specialists in the Arabic language as Ibrahim Al-Yaziji in their endeavor. As it is mentioned on the book-cover of this edition, Al-Yaziji vigorously edited the style and greatly refined the translation.

- The most recent translation, and perhaps the last version to have been issued in Arabic, is titled: “The Practical Explication of the Sacred Book” (52).

The text of this translation is the outcome of the labor of nineteen authors, who have worked in close collaboration with thirteen theologians from several universities. The firm, Master Media (Cairo) undertook the translation of the text into Arabic, under the supervision of William Wahbi, Joseph Maher, Sabri Butrus, `Atef Sami and Adel Kamal, who noted in their preface that : [“It is a group of priests and teachers belonging to diverse Christian sects, and to sundry social works foundations, who have elaborated The Practical Explication of the Sacred Book. Serious efforts were thus deployed over a number of years to complete the version. And a group of theologians from diverse cultural horizons was commissioned to revise the translation.”] This is, therefore, not a translation which is linked to any particular Christian doctrine, as it may be inferred from this preface.

The aim of the translators of the document, and perhaps that of those who have prepared the original document, has been to modernize The Old Testament in such a way as to be a complement to The New Testament. The lessons and the conclusions that the authors have derived from the entire Book (The Old and the New Testaments) constitute a sort of ecclesiastic sermon. This is perhaps the reason which has incited them not only to simplify the language, but also to introduce into the text itself explanations which are not actually part of the text, without making any reference thereto. Readers who have no knowledge of the original Hebrew text will, therefore, be unable to realize that such explanations are actually additions.

While this version is undeniably rich by its indexes, its maps, its biographical notes, and its historical facts, it may not be considered a serious reference in any way by the researcher, the theologian, or the historian. This is so because the dates relative to the events exposed in The Old Testament, as well as the attribution that has been made of the Books, are not in accord with the conclusions reached by modern archeology, and by the textual criticism of The Torah. In fact, the authors have attributed all of the Books of The Torah to Moses, and assigned them dates that no one actually adopted. They thus situate Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers sometimes between 1450 and 1410 BC.; Leviticus between the years 1445 and 1440 BC.; and Deuteronomy in between 1407 and 1407 BC. It should be noted here that the chronology of Books does not actually correspond to the succession of historical events.

Furthermore, they have attributed the writings to Moses, by virtue of his being an author, and not a recipient of the Revelation. For this reason, it becomes impossible for the reader to recall what has been said about the Ten Commandments; to wit, that they in themselves contain the precepts of the divine mission. Similarly, the terms that the translators use in the introduction to each of the books, notably, “the author” (the reference here is to Moses), “Theology,” and so forth, are not precise terms. Besides, they present the Saints, who became known during the era of Malachi, a contemporary of Abraham, as being Jews, and also consider as such, all those who had been circumcised during the era of Abraham. We do know, however, that Judaism emerged only after the death of Moses. Such errors should not be made in a piece of work of such magnitude, for they seriously diminish its value.

This said, what is positive about this version is that it has been conveniently divided into paragraphs, each one of which being preceded by a title which sums up its contents.

The Talmud

According to the majority of Jews, The Talmud comes second only to The Torah in terms of sacredness. Some of them deem that it is even more sacred than The Torah itself, on the grounds that The Talmud was also revealed, except that since its revelation, its transmission was done orally (i.e., by word of mouth). Moses had preached it, and Aaron --along with his sons, and a whole series of patriarchs—followed suit until it was formally written(53). The term “Talmud”, means “teaching”. It is derived from the same root as the Arabic word, “lamada”. It consists of two parts:

1. The Mishna

The term “Mishna” comes from “shanna”, that is “thanna” which means, “doubling” in Arabic. Put another way, The Torah, being the First Book, the Mishna is its supplement (its double, so to speak) which comments on it.

The contents of the Mishna are thus fundamentally linked to those of The Torah, and all that which it comprises in terms of history and divine laws, to which were added events which came to pass after the death of Moses, legal rulings/opinions (fatwas), laws, personal opinions, and the prescriptions emanating from Jewish synods throughout the centuries. All of these items were characterized by their incoherence and by their scattered nature. The act of collecting and harmonizing them was undertaken by Simeon Gamaliel, an eminent and erudite scholar from Tiberiade, who was assisted in the undertaking by a great number of scholars from the same city. In AD 166, these scholars embarked upon the ordering of this mass of dispersed information. They classified, revised, and edited them. Their laborious task was continued, and eventually completed around the year 216 of the Christian era, by Judah Hanasi the Prince and his disciples. The scholars who contributed to the gathering of the Mishna were called the “thannaim” (the teachers), a term which comes from an Aramaic word, meaning “tanna” (to annotate).

It was in refined later Hebrew that the Mishna was set down. It comprises sixty three treaties which are divided into one hundred and twenty four chapters dealing with various themes (history, legislation, sociology, and various commentaries on sundry issues accumulated over time).

The Mishna is divided into six Orders, or “Sedarim”. Each one of the latter is divided into “massekhot,” which is subdivided into “perakim,” which is, in turn,” further subdivided into “mishnyot”. The six orders are as follows:

1. Seeds: the laws relative to agriculture (tilling, cultivation, the sowing of fields, and the like). These laws are introduced by a treaty on daily prayers.

2. Seasons (feast and festivals): laws covering feasts, Sabbath, sacred days, Biblical and extra-Biblical fasting, as well as the regulations pertaining to the Jewish calendar (events commemorating joyful and sad events in the history of the Israelites).

3. Women: laws organizing marriage and divorce, as well as other rules governing marital relationships, and, more generally, the relationships between the sexes.

4. Punishments and Damages: Jewish laws, governing the Personal Code and the Jewish civil and criminal procedures.

5. Sacrosanct Things: order of atonement, the sacrificial cult of the Temple, and all that which appertains thereto, as well as to the officiating priests, and to their duties.

6. Purification: This order deals with the ritual purity or impurity of things (drinking, eating, and so forth), and of persons.

The language of the Mishna underwent a marked influence on the part of the Aramaic style, which made it quite distinct from the Hebrew of the Torah. It is for this reason, the Teachers of the Law have called it “the language of the Rabbis”. These borrowings are due to the political systems under which the persons charged with the codification of laws operated. We thus find borrowings from Aramaic, Latin, Persian, and Greek.

2. The Gemara

The Gemara is an Aramaic word meaning “achievement,” that is the precise and detailed achievement of the contents of the Mishna. It was written in a semi-Hebraic, and semi-Aramaic phraseology, by the Teachers of the Law, and students in the Schools and Academies of the Sacred Land, Palestine, and of Babylon between 220 and 500 A.D. Scholars of the Gemara are called “Amoraim,” (or, the commentators), to distinguish them from the scholars of the Mishna (or, the annotating teachers).

The Gemara is defined as being a set of annotations of the Mishna, which was substituted for The Torah during the third and fourth centuries. The Amoraim observed the Orders of the Mishna, but they widened the debate on the questions which it raised, clarified its rules and prescriptions, and applied its laws to unexpected or virtual questions. To explain all of this, they made use of examples and narratives. They compared the different laws bequeathed by the previous generation in order to derive definitive juridical laws therefrom.

- The “Halakha” (Halakka): the term derives from the root “halakha,” which means to go, to proceed. Thus, “Halakka” here means the act of legislating. It deals with Jewish legislation. The object of the Talmud is, naturally, the body of laws relative to the religious and civil life. It is the path that Israel must follow in order to respond to the command of the Lord.

- The “Haggada”: the term is derived from the root “Hagada” meaning “relate,” or “inform”, thus, the act of recounting and informing. It covers all the recorded teachings which is presented under the veil of anecdote. It furnishes narratives and information about the Israelites, as well as the nations and the dynasties which have accompanied and affected their history. All of this is presented in the form of lessons derived from the experiences actually lived by the Jews. This explains why the Talmud encompasses a considerable part of Jewish ethics.

It should be noted here that there exist two versions of the Talmud:

- The Babylonian Talmud: it is the Talmud the broad outlines of which we have just provided. Complete, and comprehensive (hence its being called “the big Tulmud), its impact on Jewish thought and ethics was considerable.

- The Talmud of Jerusalem. This is less voluminous than the Babylonian version, because it comprises only thirty nine themes of the Mishna, but it is clearer, and more concise. Besides, its style is easier. This version was completed at the end of the fourth century of the Christian era(54).

The Talmud, as has been pointed out, enjoyed the same importance as the Torah in the eyes of the Jews. Sometimes, the former book was more important than the latter. Nevertheless, towards the 8th century of the Christian era, there appeared in Iraq a sect, led by Anan Ben David. The sect bore the name, “the Caraites”. The sect simply rejected The Talmud outright. The members of the sect were called “Caraites” because the Jews in the Islamic world called The Torah “Al Mikra”. The influence of the Islamic culture here is evident in as much as the word “mikra” has a semantic and a derivational resemblance with the term “Quran” (55). The “Caraites,” who believed only in “Al Mikra” (the Torah) rejected the Talmud.

There exist numerous commentaries on the Talmud. The best commentary on the Babylonian version has been written by Rabbi Shalomoh Ben Isaac, also known as Rab Ashi. As to the Talmud of Jerusalem, the commentary of Moses Maimonide, known as “mishna torah” (meaning the “strong arm”), is the most renowned, marked as it is by accuracy and conciseness(56).

3. The Midrashim

The term “Midrashim” (from the root “drsh,” that is,  the same basic root as the Arabic “drs”, which means “to study”) refers to all studies relative to the exegesis and to the law of the Bible, as well as all exercises of interpretation and moral laws which are based on the Sacred Text. The authors of  “Midrashim” meticulously analyze the Biblical text, and probe into its depths in order to glean from it any elements which can help them understand all the questions raised by the Sacred Text.

We can distinguish between two exegetical currents:

- The midrash halakah

This is teaching bearing on the exegesis of the Text and its elucidation, as well as on law derivation therefrom. It is possible in this respect to specialize in a given aspect from among the numerous aspects of legislation. This area then deals with the legislative issues, notably, instruction in the juridical aspects of The Torah.

- The midrash haggadah

This is a free commentary on the narrative parts of The Torah. The teachers, referred to as “darshan” (the “preacher” or “the learned”), strive to extract historical narratives, and to provide interpretations which are in accord with the situation in which the Jewish society finds itself at the moment when the instruction is furnished.

The “midrashims” are thus interested in popular narratives, proverbs, and anecdotes. The “midrash Rabbah,” and the “midrash Haggadah” are among the best known in this respect.

The “midrash rabbah” (the greatest exegesis) is premised on narratives to explain the Pentateuch, the Canticle of Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ruth, and Esther. It was common to qualify each Book of The Old Testament, which is subjected to exegesis, by the epithet “Rabbah,” meaning “great, complete, …” The exegesis of Genesis was thus called “Bresheth Rabbah,” that of Exodus was known as “Shmoth Rabbah,” and so forth. Such exegeses were often undertaken in synagogues, in the presence of the faithful. The preachers made use of the texts of The Torah and took their audience to the subject referred to above.

The gathering of the texts of “Roboath,” lasted from the sixth to the twelfth century of the Christian era. Some “midrashims” are attributed to such well-known figures as Tanchuma. A famous haggadist, Tanchuma bar Abba, actually undertook the exegesis of the entire Torah in the fourth century of the Christian era.

In truth, the production of “midrashim” was never interrupted. Wherever Jews resided, “midrashim” were issued by them. As a result, Jewish thought has inherited an immense corpus of literature bequeathed by Rabbis both in the western and the eastern parts of the Islamic world. The importance of “midrashim” has always been linked with the renown enjoyed by their authors.

Furthermore, it is hardly possible now to dissociate the literary and the philosophical contributions of the Caraites, precursors of the Jewish rationalist doctrine, from the contributions made by such Rabbis as Sa‘dia Gaon Al Fayyumi, Yahya Ben Baqudah, Yehuda the Levite, Moses Maimonide, Abraham Ben Maimonide, La Familla Tibbon, Ben Ezra and many others.

The literary and philosophical contributions have actually overlapped because philosophers and writers, alike, participated in the meeting of the synagogues, for their social and political roles required them to address the masses. Their speeches consisted of “midrashim” which were based on the Sacred Text, and took into account the events which affected their society at the time.

This was, then, a succinct summary of the most important Jewish sources. The sheer scientific curiosity and the thirst for knowledge, which inspire us, prompt us to aspire for more. This is why we deem it essential to introduce an important science into theological and religious studies, the textual criticism of The Torah, for we believe that it can allow us to uncover the secrets of many an issue.

Section III

Criticism of The Torah

Due to (a) the nature of the contents of The Torah (in terms of composition, style, and history) (b) the controversy over the attribution of the Books to different Prophets, and (c) the contradictions between the Jewish and Christian doctrines (regarding the chronology and the number of these Books), various schools of Biblical criticism emerged. Some of these schools dwelt on logical analysis and rational comprehension; others concerned themselves with philological analysis; a third group relied on archeological discoveries; and still others adopted all of these methods in its criticism.

Spinoza, Ibn Hazm, and Other Scholars

Spinoza and Ibn Hazm are considered as the best critics of The Torah. In the West, Spinoza is deemed as the leading authority in the field. He relied on reason and the mastery of language as criteria for analysis and understanding(57). However, he never claimed to be a precursor in this respect, for he always quoted his indirect master, Abraham Ezra (d. 1167), who had raised doubts about the very contents of The Torah in his commentaries on Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Nevertheless, facts show that the real master of both Spinoza and his teacher Ibn Ezra was Ibn Hazm the Andalusian, for the connections between the last two thinkers is very clear. Actually, Ibn Ezra was not only from Andalusia but also a student of its Muslim scholars, who helped him acquire a wider knowledge with regard to most fields of learning available then, such as languages, exegesis, sciences, mathematics, astronomy, etc. As a matter of fact, Ibn Hazm was a leading authority in various fields of knowledge at that time, as it is shown by his writings, among which are: Study of Society and People (“Ethics and Conducts”) ; Genealogy ("A compilation of Arab genealogies”); History ("Attawârikh”) ; Innovation in Grammar and Exegesis ("The Dhâhirî doctrine”) ; Literature ("Tawq Al-Hamâma”).  But he excelled most in theology, in comparative religions, and in theological debates. At times, he discussed matters with them in a very tolerant way, especially when they were Christian or Jewish opponents, who shared with him not only the same citizenship, but also the same knowledge. At other times, however, his discussions became somehow violent, particularly when he studied critically religious texts. Indeed, he took to task different biblical issues concerning the history of the universe, of humanity, and of the Prophets. He also criticized the complete confusion found in the texts that deal with the latter, the inappropriate allegations made about them, the nonsensical things said about God, as well as the deviations of the Jews from the right path at the time of Moses, and after, and the alterations that the Scriptures suffered at their hands.

Ibn Hazm used the best philological methods and the most accurate methods in comparative study which are based on the very logic and statistics that are known today. The majority of the latest references, we relied on, which deal with the history of the Jews, and the Old Testament adopt the methodology of Ibn Hazm, without mentioning it, or, more exactly without knowing it, because their authority is Spinoza, who never mentioned Ibn Hazm in his bibliography, but who quotes Ben Ezra, the disciple and fellow citizen of Ibn Hazm.

If we say that Spinoza did not know Ibn Hazm, we are absolutely sure that Abraham Ben Ezra and other Jewish thinkers in Andalusia knew him very well, indeed. Ibn Hazm had many political and scientific debates with them, as it is shown by his “Response to Ibn Naghrila, the Jew”(58) He also had many Jewish friends, a fact illustrated in his book, Tawq Al-Hamama. It should be noted that Ibn Hazm, virulently attacked only the heretics among the Jews whom he considered as having gone astray. His epistolary articles on logic, philosophy, dialectical and historical works attest to this. His major critical study of Judaism is Al-Fisalu fi Al-Ahwa’, Al-Milal wa An-Nihal(59)

We might not be in the wrong to say that Muslim scholars, including the exegetes, the philosophers, and the authorities in the sciences of language, were all teachers for Andalusian Jews in rational criticism of religious texts. It may be said that Maimonid himself, the Ibn Tibbons, Levy Ben Garson, and others, were all forced to revise their approach to the Bible in the light of the methods adopted by Andalusian Muslim scholars who had a lasting influence on them. Although these Jewish thinkers did not go to the extent of doubting the authenticity of the Scriptures altogether, they tried to interpret them –a fact which shows that they refused the logic of the Torah, as it is reflected in the literal meaning of the texts. This is the reason why they are considered as the forerunners of Biblical criticism after Ibn Hazm, but far before Abraham Ben Ezra. Their critical works are part and parcel of the studies carried out by specialists, and not by ordinary authors(60).

However, Ben Ezra is different from these critics, for he adopted methods elaborated by Ibn Hazm, who clearly criticized the Scriptures, without trying to interpret them. Ibn Hazm was, in a way, a great teacher of both Abraham Ben Ezra and Spinoza, for the two did not have recourse to interpretation in order to remove the ambiguities found in the Old Testament. On the contrary, they analyzed the diverse contradictions in the Scriptures and discussed their incompatibility with the actual facts, the chronology of events and omissions which distort the meaning of the divine message. Spinoza and Ben Ezra used a very meticulous linguistic analysis.

Such is the kernel of Ibn Hazm’s critical analysis which ushered in the comparative and critical studies of religion. We hope, one day, to carry out a study of the Jewish writings which Ibn Hazm relied on, particularly the different versions of The Torah. Did he have any opinion about The Talmud and its corollaries? By such an undertaking, we would like to shed light on an aspect that has not been given enough attention by specialists, or that has not been dealt with in an appropriate way, which would show the efforts and authority of this eminent scholar in the field of the comparative study of religions(61).

It is impossible to dwell here on the responses of Spinoza and his criticism of the Scriptures, because such an undertaking is beyond the scope of the present study, but we may give a brief summary of his theory:

1. What those who recorded The Torah deemed as the very “speech of God” delivered to other Prophets, apart from Moses, is completely wrong, for the word “speech” is used metaphorically in this context. It is similar to when a merchant says, “God has given me money”; in fact, it is the merchant who has worked in order to get that money. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that Allah actually spoke directly to any Prophet, without providing evidence in support. The only one whom Allah actually spoke to was Moses.

2. The Divine Law and Commands were intended for the salvation of all humanity, while the Law of The Torah concerns only the Jews, which is unacceptable.

3. The promise of reward in the true religion is a spiritual reward which consists in eternal bliss, while the promise mentioned in The Torah is merely temporal.

4. Language is an essential component that helps us understand the Scriptures, while the Hebrew language which has survived is obscure and ambiguous. The ancient linguists and Torah specialists did not leave any works which deal with the history and evolution of grammar, nor dictionaries which define the meanings of words. As a result, the compilers of The Torah allowed themselves to confer new meanings on certain words and considered others as synonyms, which seems not to have been the case in the original language of the Divine Message delivered by Moses. Furthermore, the Hebrew language has known different stages of shaky development. We may note here that there are similarities in the way the letters of Semitic languages are written. For instance, in each pair such as ‘d’ and ‘r’, ‘b’ and ‘c’, ‘h’ and ‘h’, ‘s’ and ‘m’, the graphemes are similar at the end of a word. Similarly, the ancient Hebrew alphabet was purely consonantal, and did not have any punctuation; hence, the rule termed by the ancient grammarians as “the rule of what is to be read and what is to be written,” which made it possible to read 1350 words in a way that is completely different from how they should be read.(62)

5. Reason confirms that the divine manifestation of truth was completely clear in the original text. The style in which this manifestation was expressed did not contain any ambiguities which would spoil the meanings. But, with the production of a large number of manuscripts and their translation, the Scriptures’meanings were influenced by the motives,  the conditions and the country of citizenship of their authors.

6. The Books bearing the names of the Prophets and the Patriarchs are apocryphal, for they were written much later.

7. In The Torah historical events are muddled and do not have any chronology whatsoever. They are no more than an accumulation of events reported with no reference to their historical context.

8. Many places are given names that were unknown at the time these events took place. These names were pure inventions which referred to events occurring in later periods. What is more, the authors used them at random.

Our intention here is not to focus on all that is dealt with in Spinoza’s book, A Treatise on Theology and Politics, because such an understanding will lead us away from our objective in the present analysis, which consists in mentioning a series of Biblical critical studies that rely on the examination of the Text in the light of logic, statistics, and historical facts, as well as on the analysis of the works of contemporary historians and writers. However, there is a need to sum up the main findings of Spinoza with regard to the first part of the Bible, namely The Torah, which concerns us in this study, along with some other Books of The Old Testament.

- Spinoza thinks that the type of discourse, the quotations and all the Books relating to the story of Moses, as well as to the attributions of The Torah to him indicate that Moses was not the real author of the Scriptures. In fact, these texts were written by somebody else, namely Ezra, many centuries later(63), Thus, the compilation of The Torah took place after a long period of time, in contrast to what classical theologians thought, and was also completely different from Spinoza’s conception of it. For the critics of The Torah consider its original text as being very old, while its present text dates back to the period lying between the eight and the second centuries B.C. Some scholars even think that none of the Books of The Torah was produced before the fifth century B.C.(64)

- Spinoza, with his aforementioned book, as well as Simon Richard (1638-1722), with his polemic writings against Protestantism(65) and J. Astruc paved the way for Biblical criticism not only in France and Holland, but also all over Europe because it coincided with the advent of political, religious, and social reformation movement whose main result was the putting of the Holy Scriptures on equal footing with other texts –namely that it was possible to analyze and criticize the Bible, since the texts were compiled by a large number of people throughout many centuries. Even if the contents of The Torah are generally attributed to Moses, its texts include historical and linguistic elements which preceded the period of Moses, or belonged to later periods.

- As a result of this, polemics broke out among different Christian sects. Many critical and theological texts were thus published –parts of them were devoted to philosophy, meditation, and polemics. A look at the texts written during this period will enable the reader to have an idea about the movement of religious ideas then(66).

In this atmosphere of theological controversy, J. Astruc published his book: Conjectures on the Original Records that Might have been used by Moses in his Compilation of Genesis, with Remarks which Support or Clarify these Conjectures. This work was a landmark in the history of Biblical criticism, for it was characterized by great audacity on the part of its author who analyzed these conjectures in depth, to such an extent that he had to use a pseudonym in order to publish it and to substitute the name of an imaginary Belgian publishing house to that of the Parisian one(67).

The thesis of Astruc had as a starting point a very simple observation. While reading “Genesis” and “Exodus”, he noticed that God was referred to by the name of “Elohim,” at times, and “Jahveh,” at others. He began to separate passages containing the first appellation from those containing the second. This division resulted in the constitution of two distinctive texts which are different but coherent. Furthermore, he noticed that the repetition which abounds in the original Text, as well as the confusion of historical events had completely disappeared. This repetition and confusion were and still are disturbing elements for the reader of the Holy Book. Then Astruc went on to take out the parts of the Text where the name of God is not mentioned at all (which is very rare), as well as the parts dealing with foreign peoples. The latter parts consist of : eight short documents, one document focusing on the conquest of the four Kings (Genesis, 14), one document dealing with the descendants of Ishmael (Genesis, 25: 12-18) and two documents containing a list of Edom’s descendants (Genesis, 36). Astruc thinks that Moses had collected these twelve original documents, which he wrote separately in four columns, which the copyists (scribes) combined into one text because they read the four columns horizontally, without realizing that the columns were independent of each other and needed to be read vertically. This was at the root of the interference among the  documents. After discovering such conflation, Astruc realized the difficult task that awaits any researcher in his study of the documents of the Holy Book(68).

Astruc, thus, paved the way for two centuries of research in the field of Biblical criticism which focused on the Pentateuch. He was the first scholar to adopt the thesis of intermingled texts, but his work does not differ much from that of Welhausen(69), in terms of the division of the Holy Book. From then onwards, the difference resulting from the use of two distinctive names when referring to Allah has been accepted as a criterion to divide the Text into two separate ones.

The reactions to this thesis were ambivalent. While it was received with absolute indifference in France, opinions were divided about it in Germany. In his Introduction to the Old Testament (published in 1781), Eichhorn fully supports the thesis of Astruc(70). In addition to the criterion of the name of Allah, Eichhorn reinforces Astruc’s thesis by proposing other elements such as the sources, the genres, and religious concepts. He also separated the intermingled documents and tried to reconstruct the original Text by isolating the additions and pointing out the errors.

In 1853, Hupfelt published a book on the sources of Genesis(71), where he showed that the source which Astruc has identified by the name of “Elohim” consists, in fact, of two sources, versions, or documents which differ from each other in terms of form and contents. He called the first source: “Sacerdotal Law,” while he retained the name of “Elohim” for the second one. A year later, Reihm published a book, entitled The Law of Moses in Moabite Country(72), where he examined “Deuteronomy” as an independent text.

This is how the thesis of the four sources –the “Jahvist,” “Elohist,” “Sacerdotal,” and “Deuteronomy” texts became complete and central to Biblical criticism, though it was sharply criticized, too. Some scholars had refuted it altogether, while others pointed out its deficiency, as well as its inability to determine all the elements which went into the constitution of the original Holy Book, the exact dates, etc.

The Effects of the Critical Study of the Holy Book

The criticism of the Holy Book has resulted in the following effects:

1. The increase of skepticism among the adherents of Christianity, all doctrines confounded, with regard to the attribution of all The Torah to Moses. It also confirmed for them the kind of perplexity which they felt, when examining the narration and the presentation of events in the Holy Book;

2. The urging of Christian theologians to examine the weaknesses in the Holy Book and try to find their causes so as to preserve the Christian faith and defend the Church’s dogmas, far from any passionate and sterile discussions.

It is worth noting, in this context, the view of Albert Lagrange (1855-1938), a French Catholic theologian, who did not reject this criticism since the Bible contains elements that are part of the Divine Message and others which are merely human inventions. But he insisted on examining the Scriptures by relying on unshakable faith and meticulous analysis rather than on philological and historical criticism alone, or on doctrinal disputes. For him, the analysis and exegesis of the Holy Book should not be incompatible with theology; on the contrary, they should converge on true scientific facts. He also felt that theological studies and researches needed an institution which would combine both unshakable faith and the rules of true science. On October 15, 1890, he founded the “School for Practical Biblical Studies,” and in 1892, he launched the School’s review, “La Revue Biblique”. Lagrange spent thirty years teaching in this school, until his death, and striving to train his students to acquire scientific objectivity; meanwhile, he continued to regularly publish his articles in the Revue.

In 1900 Lagrange launched his thorough exegesis of the Holy Book and called upon specialists to partake in the endeavor.

It is worth noting here that the famous theologian, De Vaux, devoted parts of his book, The Orient and the Holy Book,(74) to Lagrange and Biblical criticism, as a movement, particularly in the two chapters: “A Look at the State of Biblical Criticism Today,” and “Could we Write on the Theology of The Old Testament?” Similarly, De Vaux dealt in his book with the major critics of the Holy Book and their writings, whether they be supporters of the diverse sources thesis or its opponents. De Vaux himself hesitated before definitely adhering to the diverse source thesis. He thought that the formulation of The Torah (the first five or six Books)(75) could not be conceived of except as a text that had been compiled from references, accounts, or documents which really existed and had been preserved in the Synagogues where the Jews met in order to listen to sermons or accounts related by narrators, describing events which had taken place during the days of their ancestors. These narrators inserted in their accounts references to Divine Acts reserved only for the Chosen People. Later on, the narrators indulged in recording the rituals of the religious celebrations in an attempt to prove Allah’s favoring of the Jewish people.

De Vaux considered the legal writings as the work of the rabbis who set up, for their life and profession, regulations in the form of a constitution which defined their rights and duties. Similarly, they elaborated rules which governed the practice of religion by the faithful. More than that, these rabbis were the authors of precepts and judicial decisions and viewed themselves as the model of ethical behavior that the Jews ought to follow. This is what is meant by The Torah,or teaching of the law.

De Vaux thinks that if we are capable of deducing that all of these actions were the fruit of the work performed in the synagogues, we are unable to infer anything about these synagogues and their location.

It seems that the birthplace of the Jahvist text (or the source) was the Kingdom of Judah, and that the origin of the Elohist document was Ephraim. “Deuteronomy” has similarities with the traditions of the north. The Levites had preserved it after the fall of the Kingdom of Israel, and added some of their beliefs to it after they had settled in Jerusalem. As to the rabbinical tradition, it is associated with the Temple, the rabbis and Jerusalem.

Later on, historical events were mingled with these accounts and had finally become part of them. All that was related to legislation was recorded separately. Likewise, the stories and events were composed separately, but at a later stage, all these parts were interpolated, thus resulting in an accumulation of laws specific to worship, to institutions (rabbinical system, state laws), and to historical narratives. Oral accounts interacted with the written traditions for many centuries in different places.

We do not know precisely the evolution of the oral tradition which was finally inserted in the records that preceded it –for a specific purpose, that is to preserve the spirit of the recorded text and the way it was written, without taking into account the chronological order and the credibility of the events which took place within its context(76).

The components of The Torah, as we have it today, in terms of language, writing, content, traditions, customs, and manners were largely inspired from ancient civilization and literature, as well as beliefs which had prevailed a long time before the advent of Moses. The chroniclers had formulated them in the form of continuous history, starting with the Creation, then turning to the story of the Jews in Egypt, their exodus under the leadership of Moses, and finally, the death of this great Prophet.

Such, then, is the composition of The Torah in its simple form. It is possible to reconstruct its first elements in the light of the findings of archeology and theological criticism. Each Book consists of elements whose origin goes back to previous books dealing with historical events and with laws. These elements were reformulated later, though in a defective way so as to go into the making of what we term today as The Torah or the “Pentateuch”. The sources of The Torah are thus intermingled, including:

1. The “Jahivist” source in which Allah is given the name “Jahveh”;

2. The “Elohist” source where Allah is called “Elohim”.

It should be recalled here that the main elements of these two sources were compiled at the beginning of the reign of Solomon.

3. “Deuteronomy” which dates back to the end of the period of the Kingdom, is, in essence, a reformulation of the Laws Moses had used in order to organize the life of the Jews in the Moabite region, and in the mountains along the eastern border of Palestine. It is also a reconsideration of all the laws which the Jews made use of in Sinai and the oasis of Kadesh;

4. The “Sacerdotal” source which includes all the laws relating to religious affairs, to the Temple, and to historical events seen from a ritualistic point of view. This source did not take its final form until the Babylonian captivity period.

To further simplify matters so as to understand the intermingling of these different sources, we may imagine that a scribe separately recorded the account of certain events to which he refers by the letter “J” (Jahivist), that another scribe did the same to another narrative (different from the first, but dealing with the same subject), which he refers to by “E” (Elohist); that a third scribe did the same to another account to which he refers by the letter “D” (Deuteronomy); and finally that a fourth scribe did the same to another relation which he refers to by the letter “S” (Sacerdotal). All these accounts deal with the same events and subjects. After a period of time a scribe or a group of historians intermingled the contents of the four accounts, thus combining in one chapter a section from the “J” account, a passage from the “E” account, a paragraph from “D” and another from “S” for reasons that may be personal, cultural, political, and so forth.

It is from this amalgam that The Torah we have today is made –an amalgam which is lacking in the transparency necessary for the elucidation of the Mosaic Message. For the source of this message did not exceed the account of writing that two plates tablets could contain. The composition of The Torah place much later when the memory of the scribes was confronted by a mass of events, a confusion of dates, the resemblance of historical facts whose chronology was utterly chaotic. The texts suffered from additions, omissions, and contradictions, so much so that the text contained what reason cannot accept such as the anthropomorphism of certain qualities attributed to the ancestors and the Prophets(77).

This is how Biblical criticism arrived at this truth which Ibn Hazm was the first to analyze; he was followed by his disciple Ben Ezra, along with a number of Andalusian Jewish thinkers, and all those who followed their path later. Then came Spinoza, Welhausen, Astruc, Eichhorn, Reihm, Lagrange, and De Vaux. The archeological discoveries of Tel Al-Amarna, Ras Shumrah, the Dead Sea, Sinai, and other sites reinforced it as well. All of this proves that the amount of the original Mosaic Message preserved in the present Torah consists only of small bits that are of little importance.

The large number of discoveries which have shed light on traditions, customs and people who had existed much earlier than the age of Moses have perplexed theologians. However, the Christian tradition deemed it obligatory to express its views on the issue, once and for all. The following passage sums up this view:

Jewish and Christian traditions attribute The Torah to Moses. The Commission for the Holy Book in Rome considers the arguments that have been provided by nineteenth century criticism which specifies that the first texts of The Torah date back to the period of the Kingdom of Israel (8th and 9th centuries B.C.), as not convincing so as to modify what the Catholic Church has always believed about this issue. For these dates are no more than suppositions. Yet the Commission acknowledges that it may be thought that the composition of the Torah was carried out by different groups of scribes under the supervision of Moses, that the work of each group was supervised on a separate basis, and that, later, all the works of the different groups were probably amalgamated and rewritten anew, so as to produce “the Pentateuch” which seems to have been undertaken in later periods?”

P.Brucker thinks that it is probable that these three or four sources might have remained separate for a long period. Nothing could have prevented the postponing of their final and complete assemblage until the Babylonian captivity or until the time of Ezra.(78)

The Cuneiform Texts

The succession of historical  events, along with the language data we have dealt with, seem to confirm the absence of any such thing as the original Torah.  Nevertheless, researchers set out to investigate and to sift through the ancient archeological remains in the hope of finding evidence likely to help them identify and elucidate the popular heritage that was incorporated into the texts of the Torah, the Code  that is now available to  us. It is worth asking in this connection whether the cuneiform texts actually confirm the Torah or rather invalidate it.

The Cuneiform texts are tablets with Cuneiform transcriptions that date back to an ancient era, preceding the mission of Moses and Aaron. E. Chiera postulates that the contents of these Cuneiform texts are, in fact, in accord with the contents of the Torah.

The latter, it should be noted, is not a single book, but rather a combination of  books penned by a number of authors. Moreover, the contents of the Torah do not refer to a given era but rather to several eras, as evidenced by the various religions, historical, cosmic, poetic, philosophical, and other literary themes it deals with. These diverse themes actually raise the same question that has been put previously. The fact established by the investigation, rather than confirm the Torah, suggests that the book, as we know it today is actually a collection of Assyrian writings and other writings bequeathed by ancient people(80). The contents of the Torah are actually drawn from ‘The Canaan Torah’, argues H.E. Del Medico(81), in a book bearing the same title. Notwithstanding its metaphoric implications, the latter carry some truth, as we shall see.

But, first, what is the story behind the Cuneiform Texts?

In Raas Shamrah elevation, which lies some 12 km from Antaka, on the Syrian Coastline, a peasant stumbled on the mouth of a cave, which  constituted a site, the human heritage of which was  going to change people’s knowledge of the history and the belief system of the area, and even to change the views of the researchers about the Torah, which was deemed as the oldest and most influential book ever. During the 1929 excavations in the site, under the supervision of George Chenet and MM. Claude Schaeffer, some tablets with Cuneiform transcriptions, up until then unknown, were unearthed.

Many specialists in Semitic languages focussed on these texts in an attempt to unravel them. Among such experts mention should be made of Charles Virdleand who brought forth the first Ugaritic text, so-named after the old city of Ugarit near which the tablets were unearthed. There then followed a number of translations and studies effected by Hans Bauer(83) E. Dhorne (84), Del Medico (85), and C. Gordow(86).

Ever since the tablets were discovered in Ras As-Ashamrah, the Ugaritic texts have become associated with the Torah and the Hebrew language. In fact, Scholars who undertook to decode that ancient language relied on the Hebrew language and on Hebrew dictionaries. It was natural then that, as they were collating the two languages, they should find striking similarities in the concepts used and in the personalities and events described, as well as in the belief systems. The old Cuneiform texts turned out to be an ancient religious book which scholars came to view as one of the most important sources of the Old Testament. A. E Del Medico actually considered it a Canaan Torah, literally and not figuratively : “ The book has been called the Canaan Torah, not so much  because the constituents of Ras-As-Shamra’s stories are recurrent in the Hebrew Old Testament, but rather because these texts were known to its Canaan authors as the Torah …”.

While the Researcher is ready to refer to any book whose contents bears some resemblance with what is recorded in the Old Testament, it should be stressed that the source of the revealed books is the same; Almighty Allah does not admit of any conflation contradictions. The research has merely sought to trace the origin of the Torah by virtue of its status as the Message revealed to Moses and Aaron, and  none other than them(94).

The  texts unearthed as Ras-As-Shamra comprise myths, news, psalms, prayers, and legal codes the like of which have also been found in the Old Testament. In fact, not a translation of the said text fails to point to the striking parallels between the two. It is worth pointing here that the translation effected by A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, and A. Herdner, and titled, “The Ugaritic Texts : Epics and Myths”, is one of the most important French translation in as much as it was based on the most reliable and serious studies. Additionally, the scholars deployed tremendous efforts in philological work in order to trace the origins of worlds and to establish links between the Torah text and the Ugaritic Text(96). The close links between the two actually drew the attention of researchers and culminated in the establishment of “the Ugaritic and Hebrew Parallels Project” which tasked itself with looking further the comparisons between the Ugaritic and the Torah heritage. What is striking is that all of the studies, translations, and dictionaries pertaining to Ugaritic which were issued all substantiated and confirmed the overlaps between Ugaritic, on the one hand, and Hebrew and the Torah, on the other hand. The Ugaritic Texts are truly some of the major sources of the Torah. Such close relations between the two are by no means fortuitous : Ugaritic influences are seen not solely in the concepts and the language used but also in the belief system. This actually accounts for the keen academic interest manifested by archeologists and scholars in such important finds.

Let us by way conclusion quote from the book, Littérature : “The novel aspect about the Code of the Lord is its stress on unicity, its insistence on the ethical dimension - which actually changed the very spirit of the previous laws altogether - its emphasis on charity, and compassion toward the poor, from among one’s Kith and Kin. This, indeed, is the novelty; Otherwise the code would have amounted to a mere set of laws devoid of any revolutionary dimension. This, in essence, is the Divine Inspiration.”(98) [N.B. : translation from the Arabic text]

 

NOTES

1. The Book of Genesis, Chap. 10: 21 and 41. In the remainder of the present study, we will use the first number to refer to the Book and the number that follows the colon to refer to the verse.

2. The term “Ur” means “city”. What is generally known is that the term was originally pronounced [‘ûr]. The name of the city in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Hebrew is / ‘îr / (pronounced [‘îr]. It is probable that the voiced pharyngeal [ ‘ ] was changed into an “alif”, as it was written with it in the Sumerian writing used by the Akkadian language. It is well known that the letter / ‘în / (i.e. the voiced pharyngeal consonant) had no corresponding letter in the cuneiform alphabet.

3. The Torah did not mention the voyage of Abraham and Ishmael to the Arabic Peninsula.

4. See the meanings and the reference of these words in our study: “Asmâ’ Al-A‘lâm wa dalâlatuhâ fî At-Tawrât” (Proper names and and their meanings in the Old Testament). In  Proceedings of  the Conference “Histoire et Linguistique”. Faculty of Letters Publications, Rabat, 1992, pp. 44-66.

5. The meaning of “Al-bast” in Arabic is “tribe”. Thus, the term can not be used to refer to Prophet Josef or his brother Benjamin, for example. This is so because they are sons to Jacob (Israel) only. The term “Al-Bast” began to be used only when they begot offsprings who in their turn begot others: i.e they multiplied into two tribes.

6. The details of this can be found in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.

7. See Histoire des Religions, T.1, p. 376; et Emran (Adolphe),  L’Egypte des Pharaons, (Translated by Henry Wild ), Payot, Paris, (1952), p. 224.

8. Freud (Sigmund), Moise et le Monothéisme, (Translated from German by Anne Berman), Gallimard (1948), Part One etc.

Freud’s book was translated into Arabic at least twice . It was translated by Abdel Mun‘im Al-Hanafi from the English version and published by Ad-Dar Al-Misriyyah. It was also translated by George Tarâbishî from the French version, in 1979. We elected to use the French translation because it was made directly from German (the original language in which the book was written). It should be pointed out that Freud attempted a psychological analysis predominantly based on his personal views. This is why the book’ s style is that of a dialogue between Freud and his own self in which he presents hypotheses and discuss them. He does not stop at Judaism; he goes on to Islam even though he does not dwell on it, hence there is a kind of imbalance in Freud’s discussion. In any case, Freud states in his book that what he does is to use the historical documents in order to fill the gaps observed in the Torah. See the hypotheses related to the influence of Ammi Moses “Yetron”/Jethron (his father-in-law) on the religious observance of the Israelites. H. Ringgren, La religion d’Israel, Payot, Paris, (1966), p. 42.

9. The Torah would want the noun to come from the root / m. sh. h /, which means in Arabic  / intashala /  and / anqada / - in English “extracted” and “saved”. The  known pattern of  the passive participle (“nomen patientis”) in Hebrew is “ nimshah “ (the “extracted”) and not “ mushih ”. This pattern is that of the active participle (“nomen agentis”) –in English the “extractor” . It is more appropriate for this latter appellation to be given to Pharaoh’s daughter and to Moses; because she was the one who “extracted” and “saved”.

10. See Werner-Keller,  La Bible arrachée aux sables , p. 98.

11. See H. Ringgren, p. 43.

12. The researchers’ views were confused  about all that concerns Moses’ life and the dates marking the events he lived. Thus, they have taken different directions with respect to the Pharaohs who were his contemporaries and who have exploited the Israelites. Some considered Seti I (1398 – 1312 B.C.) as being the Pharaoh of the exploitation of the Israelites, as he built ramparts and strongholds at the eastern borders, in order to protect the delta from invasions. The same researchers claim that Set’s son, Rameses II (1301-1234 B.C) was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This was the view of Raymond and Alain Bloch, see their book: Les conquêtes de l’Archéologie,

Hachette, 1968.The writers of the book on the “Practical explanation on the Holy Book” gave the history of the events lived by Moses as follows: his birth was set in 1520 B.C. ; the Exodus dates to 1446 B.C.. Their view was based on what was said in the Book of Kings I, in which it was mentioned that Solomon started the building of the Temple in 480 B.C, after the Exodus. Most biblical scholars agree that Solomon started the building of the Temple in 966 B.C.; thus, the Exodus took place in 1446 B.C. It appears that the writers of the “Practical explanation..” do not agree with this view, because they have also hypothesized that the Exodus took place in 1290 B.C. (see the “Practical explanation..”, p. 227). On his part, Pirenne mentions, in his book titled  La société hébraique d’après la Bible, Ed. Albin Michel, Paris, (1965),  most of the hypothese relative to the Pharaoh of the Exodus. He wondered whether Mornaptah could not be the Pharaoh in question, especially that he had a statue on which was inscribed his victory on the Israelites. May be it is Amonphos II (1447 – 1420 B.C.). He agrees with the hypotheses purporting that Moses appeared during the reign of Ramses II  and that the Exodus occurred during the reign of Morenptah, who met with the Israelites in the desert  (p. 34).

13. Erman (Adolphe), L’Egypte des Pharaons, (Translattion by Henry Wild),  Payot, Paris, (1952), p. 224.

14. History of the Israelites, Vol. 1, pp. 47-48.

15. History of Israelites, p. 48, p. 378

16. Erman (Adophe), pp. 201-202

17. This hypothesis asserting that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Rameses II, to which we adhere, confronts a historical truth to the effect that the Exodus took place in 1290 B.C., and that Rameses II died only in 1235. This means that Rameses II did not drown as he was following the Israelites. The researchers did pay attention to this precision, perhaps because they do not take into account the drowning of Rameses and the miracle that occurred at that time (see Bloch, p. 97; Werner-Keller, p. 204). We think that the matter can be explained in one of three ways. Either the history of Pharaoh in not known in any precise way, and we have seen differences of opinion regarding this fact, or  the Exodus took place over a long period of time through a successive waves of emigrants and that these emigrants were heading towards Moses’ camp in the  desert where they were going to form an organized army. Indeed, this army was organized on the basis of the best Egyptian ways. The news of these military preparations reached Pharaoh, who set out to suppress the danger, when he drowned. The other explanation may be that the calendar of those times differed somewhat from our present calendar, especially that time measuring based on lunar months leave out few days in a year.

18. See Histoire des Religions, T. 1, p. 397

19. See Histoire des Religions, T. 1, p. 377

20. The term for “sound” in Hebrew is the same as that for “word” or “utterance”, which has a number of meanings, among which we have “sound”, “noise” and “thunder”. For this reason, the translations differed greatly on how to render it. However, this in no way means a clear language with a clear pronunciation and logic.

21. “The personalities of the Old Testament”, p. 293.

22. See also the “Book of Kings II”, 18:26; the “Book of Isaiah”, 36: 11 and 13; the “Book of Nehemiah”, 14:24.

23. See P.P. Dhorme, O. P. Langues et écritures Sémitiques. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, (1930), pp. 24-25 and Note 1 (25); Avi-Yonah (Michael), La vraie histoire de la Bible, pp. 159-160.

24. See Note 73; see also the engravings of Salwân and  Mîsha‘  and their translation into Arabic in the book by Israel Wolfson, pp. 106-110.

25. See Naville (Edward), L’évolution de la langue égyptienne et les langues sémitiques, Paris, (1920), pp. 159-160.

26. See G. Bergesterser, Towards a Hebrew Language, Edit Sephrim, Jerusalem, (1972), pp. 16-17 (In Arabic).

27. The Talmudic Rabbi provided an explanation for the following verse “The Lord said to Moses: Climb to the mountain and stay here until I give you stone tablets, the law and the precepts which confirm it so that you may teach them (to people)”. They said the following: what is meant by the two stone tablets is the Ten Commandments;  the law refers to the Torah (the five books);  the precepts refer to the Prophets and the written versions of the second and third parts of the Old Testament (according to “The personalities of the Old Testament”, p. 295).

28. The most recent Arabic edition of the Old Testament appeared in 1997. In spite of the fact that its authors provided a history of the text and of the events, as concerns the history of the Bible Books, they included in their account only those facts that were known before the later archeological finds and before the critical analyses of the Holy Book. This is what has been included in it concerning this matter:

 

List of Events: 2000 - 1800 B.C.

For the discrepancies observed in the dates of the Books, between the Hebrew Text and the Translation (Septuagint), see La Bible (Ed. La Pléiade), T.1, pp. xv – xvi.

29. Spinoza, “Treatise in theology and politics”, [Translted by Hasan Hanafi], Dâr At-Talî ‘ah , Beyrouth, 1994, p. 283.

30. The term “masorah” means  “ tradition” or the “chain transmission” through which the Torah and related works were transmitted throughout time. See  Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Histoire de la langue hébraique, Publications Orientales de France, (1977), pp. 59-61. See also P. Paul Jouon S.J. Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, pp. 18-46. 

31. “Nahw al-lugha al-‘ibriyah “ (Grammar of the Hebrew language), pp. 80-96.

32. There are many errors in the Text of the Old Testament that are due to several causes, among which mention should be made of the following:

1- In copying the text, the scribes did the work for themselves, before anything else. They were the most capable of reading their own hand- writing. Thus, when people after them undertook the task of reading the copied texts, they were unable to decipher a great number of expressions and words, and hence to read them correctly .

2- The writing materials were expensive, which forced the scribes to write on all the available space, within the text and on the margins. The authors were able to distinguish between the original texts and the additions.

However, their successors could not do that; so they mixed the two elements.

3- Some of the scribes used to comment on the original text, inside this latter, without indicating this. People who came after them took those comments to be a part of the original text.

4- Some of the scribes modified things that they did not like, for whatever reason..

5- The original text contained some empty spaces; so the scribes filled those spaces with their own ideas. See Del Medico, p. 12).

33.“Stones speak”, pp. 126-131.

34. The American School for Oriental Studies published this text, in 1950. The scroll was 7 m long. The writing was in Old Hebrew (Canaanite). It was probably copied in the Second century B.C., based on an original text (?).

35. See Avi-Yonah (p. 52) and Albright (p. 24). They contain a detailed discussion on the writing of the Torah and on recent discoveries. For more detail, see:   

- H.E. Del Medico, Deux manuscrits hébreux de la Mer morte, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris, (1951).

- Vincent (Albert), Les manuscrits hébreux du désert de Juda, Librairie Arthem Fayard, (1955).

- Burrows (Millar), Les manuscrits de la Mer morte, Bibliothèque des grandes énigmes, Paris, (1970).

36. Kittel (Rud), (Ed.), Biblia Hebraica, Textum masoreticum curarvit P.Kahle Wurttembergische Biblanstalt, Stuttgart, (1973).

37. See the Introduction to the “Big Readings: the Pentateuch”, Rabbi Benjamin, Publ. Shefrim, Jerusalem, 1974. The texts of Ancholas and Johnatan are on the margins of the Hebrew text, Five volumes) in Hebrew and Aramaic.

38. See the articles devoted to each translation, in Encyclopedia Universalis – France… CD 1995.

39. See Ibn An-Nadîm, Al-Fihrist (The Glossary),  Edited by Yousef Ali Tawil, Dâr Al-Kutub Al-‘ilmiyya , Beyrouth, (1996), p. 35 ff.

40. Mujîb Ibn An-Nadîm means here the Talmud, which  we will discuss below. The surprising thing is that he mention it right after the Torah ( i.e the First Part). Is this order due to Ibn An-Nadîm? See p. 36 of the Fihrist .

41. The authenticator did pay attention to the words which Ibn An-Nadîm left in their original language (i.e. Hebrew). He did not explain them either. Ibn An-Nadîm’s use of the expression “malakhî mulûk” indicates that he is explaining the Hebrew term “malachi”, that is the “kings”. It should be noted also that the authenticator did not “Arabize” the term “suftî” [shuftî], which refers to the Book of Judges. The parentheses are ours; they are geared to explain the words appearing originally in Hebrew or in an altered way.

42. The “Canticle of Canticles” in Hebrew is “shîr hashsshîrîm”. The authenticator did take the trouble to search for the original name (p. 37).

43. See Ibn An-Nadîm (p. 37). What is meant by the Book of “Hashwârewh” is the “Book of Ester”.

44. We have summarized this paragraph, which contains a great deal of distortion: e.g. “as-Sûrah” (the image), which may be actually “as-Sîghah”

(the morphological shape or form), from Latin “Forma” (i.e the structure). In the Book of “Al-Absât”, the word is read in a distorted way; for what was meant by the word was “shoffetim”, that is “judges”. There is no relation between this book and the “Absât”(descendants or tribal leaders). As for the expression “the question of David”, we have not reached the truth about it. The phrase “sîr sîrîm” is the “Canticle of the canticles”. “Hûsa” son of “sîrîn”  is Hoseah son of Sirakh. We do not think that Ibn An-Nadîm is the one to have fallen into these errors. They are most probably those of the scribes. However, the authenticator ought to have taken seriously into account what is meant by authentication.

45. We will return to Ibn Hazm and to his book “Al-Fâsil”, below.

46. We hope to devote a study to the sources that Ibn Hazm used and to the Copies that he had in his possession. Indeed, we have started this work through our lectures to the students of the  Research and Training Unit on the “Religious debates”, in the Department of Islamic Studies at the Faculty of Letters, Rabat.

47. See Ibn An-Nadîm, pp. 463-464.

48. The complete works devoted to the Torah have not been published. A starter is the work owed to J. and H. Derembourg: Œuvres complètes de Saadia Ben Iosef Al-Fayyoumi, Paris, 1893. The initial project comprised twelve volumes, of which only Volumes I, II, V, VI, and IX have appeared. Moreover, J. Derembourg and Lambert translated the “Proverbs” and “Job” into French. Paris: Vol. V, 1889 ; Vol VI, 1894. 

A Research Unit belonging to the French Research Center (CNRS) – URA 1078 – supervised by Prof. Zafrani, put forward a project for the publication of the works of Saadia on the Torah.. Indeed the first volume apperaed, under the supervision of Zafrani and Caquot; it concerned Saadia’s commentaries on two books. “Asceticism” and “The Ecclesiastes”. The URA Research unit is concerned with the theme: “Judaism in the Land of Islam – Written and Oral Literature, and the Languages of the Jews in this Land”. 

H. Zafrani & A. Caquot, La version arabe de la Bible de Saadiya Gaon. L’Ecclésiate et son commentaire “le livre de l’Ascèse”, Maisonneuve et Larose, Paris, (1989)

49. La Bible, Ancien Testament, Traduction Edouard Dhorm et autres, Bibliothèque la Pléiade, Tome I. 1956; Tome II. 1959.

50. La Bible, Ancien Testament, A. T (Old Testament) T. I-II, 1975;  N..T. (New Testament) 1972. Oecumenical translation (Ed. Livre de Poche), 1977.

51. See Note 100.

52. The “Practical Explanation to the Holy Book” – Master Media, Cairo. Printed in Great Britain. The number of pages (for the Old Testament, New Testament, Commentaries, and Indices) is 3038 pages.

53.“Personalities of the Old Testament”,  p. 291.

54. The Talmud was published hundreds of times in more than twenty huge volumes. Some editions are popular, others are special. Some editions appeared in Christian countries afterwards, but they comprise only a few original paragraphs.

55. Many Jewish exegetes of the Torah who wrote in Arabic, whether in the Islamic West or East, used to call the Torah “Al-Qur’ân”. This was particularly true of the “ Qarrâ’în ”  (i.e  the “Readers”) scholars.

56. Ibn Maimoun called his exegesis “The strong Hand” because it comprised 14 Chapters. In Hebrew the latter “y” is worth 10 and the “d” is worth 4, hence the number 14.  It corresponds to the word “hand” in both Hebrew and Arabic. The “Mishnah Torah” is the only book to be written in Hebrew. Ibn Maimoun’s exegesis was published many times. It gained a very good reputation among the Jews because it allied between the philosophical perspective and the intellectual initiative of the erudite religious scholar.

57. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) is a famous Dutch philosopher. He took good advantage of  Jewish culture and his philosophical knowledge to lay the foundations the modern criticism of the Torah.

58.“Ar-Radd ‘alâ Ibn An-Nu‘aylah Al-Yahûdî” (The Answer to Ibn An-Nughayla the Jew),  Authenticated Edition by Ihsan Abbas, Maktabah Dâr Al-‘Urûbah, Cairo, 1960.

59. See “ Al-Fasl fî Al-Milal wa Al-Ahwâ’ wa An-Nihal”, written by The Imam Abû Muhammad Ibn Ahmad, well-known by the name Ibn Hazm At-Tâhirî [Authenticated by Mohammed Ibrahim Nasr and Adberrahman Amara], Dâr Al-Jayl , Beyrouth, Volumes. We have used here the first Volume.

60. See our Doctoral Thesis: “Ibn Roshd and his influence on the Hebraic thought during the Middle Ages”, The National Publishing House, Marrakesh, 1999.

61. Dr Hanafi referred in the preface to his translation of “A Treatise on Theology and Politics” (p. 27, fn 1) to the work of Ibn Hazm. However, he did not link him to the chain that we have mentioned.

62. The script of the Torah was considered sacred. Thus, any modification, even that concerning grammar, was strictly forbidden. For example, the referent may be masculine and the pronoun referring to it may be feminine (Arabic “hiyya”, “she”); even so the pronoun must be left alone and not changed into the masculine form (Arabic “huwwa”). In this regard, application should be made of the rule stipulating what should be “read” and what should be written.

63. See the book “A treatise…”, Chaps. 8 and 9 cf. fn. 61, above).

64. Israel Welvenson is of the opinion that most of the Books of the Old Testament were  recorded in writing during the era of the “Judges” and that of the “Kings” until the Exile to Babylon (586 B.C.). They were completed during the era of the Maccabees (140 – 36 B.C.). It is also during this era that the book of “Job” was written. The “Ecclesiates” was written under the Greek rule approx. The third century B.C.). It is during the era of the Maccabees that the sect of the “Pirosheim” appeared. They were the first to have assigned the name of “Hibr” to any learned Jewish person; they were credited with the gathering of the books of the Old Testament (Isreal Welvenson,  “The History of the Semitic Languages, 88-97).

65. Among the works of Simon Richard (1638 – 1722), we have the following:

- Histoire critique du texte du Vieux Testament, 1978

- Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament, 1689

- Histoire critique des Versions du Nouveau Testament, 1690.

66. A.H. Amack.,  Histoire des dogmes (1886 – 1889);

 Histoire de l’Ancienne littérature chrétienne jusqu’à Eusèbe (1906 – 1916),

Etudes sur le Nouveau Testament  (1906 – 1916),

A. Loisy (19857-1940). Revue de l’Enseignement Biblique.

Histoire du Canon de l’Ancien Testament (1890).

Histoire du Canon du Nouveau Testament (1891).

Histoire critique du texte et des Versions de l’Ancien Testament (1892).

L’Evangile et l’Eglise (1902), Traductions critiques des Livres Saints.

67. Conjectures sur les mémoires originax dont il paraît que Moise s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Génèse avec des Remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces conjectures” (Conjectures on the original sources that Moses used to compose the Book of Genesis, with Remarks supporting and clarifying these conjectures). In this book, it is mentioned that it was published in Belgium: Bruxelles, chez Fricx, Imprimeries de Sa Majesté, vis-àvis l’Eglise de la Madeleine,  MDCCLIII, in 12°, 525 pages.

68. A. Lods, “ Jean Astruc et la critique Biblique au XVIIIè s..” (Cahiers de la Revue d’histoire de philologie religieuse, N° 11. Strasbourg et Paris, (1924).  R. de Vaux, p. 42.

69. See R. de Vaux, p. 43.

70. J.G. Eichhorn, Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Einleitung in das Alte testament) II §410.

71. H. Hupfelt, Die Qullen der Genesis und die Art iher Zusammensetz ung, Berlin, (1853)

72. E. Riehm , Die Gesetzebung, Mosis im Lande Moab. Goatha.

73. R. de Vaux, pp. 14-15.

74. See the publications and the works of Lagrange and one of its translations in the book by R. de Vaux, Bible et Orient, Les Editions du Cerf, (1967),   pp. 9-22.

75. The “Pentateuch”, according to those who considered  “Deuteronomy” to be the end of the Torah .  Yet, the book continues after Moses’ death. There are those who claim that the Book of Hosea as the end of the Torah , because it is an end to the contents of the Torah mission, especially that a part of the “Pentateuch” is included in the Book of “Deuteronomy”.

76. R. de Vaux, p. 54.

77. See the details of these sources and how they intermingle in the Book “La littérature religieuse”, (Hebrew sources), p. 22, fn. 1. The “Elohist” source, p. 42, fn. The source of “Deuteronomy”, p. 54. The “Sacerdotal” source, p. 66.

78. Littérature religieuse (p. 22, fn. 1)

REFERENCES

1. Foreign References

-  La Bible, Ancien Testament, Trad. Edouard Dhorm et autres. Bibliothèque la Pléiade. Tome 1, 1956. Tome II, 1959.

- La Bible, Ancien Testament, (A.T) T. I-II, 1975, (N.T), 1972, Traduction oecuménique, (Le Livre de Poche).

- La Sainte Bible, version établie par les Moines de Maredsous, Brepols. Paris Turnbout (1968).

- Albright (William Foxwell), L'archéologie de la Palestine, (Traduit de l'anglais par R. Alapetit), Les éditions du cerf, 1955.

- Avi-Yonab (Michael), La vraie histoire de la Bible, ed. Mouton, 1962.

-  Bloch (Raymond et Alain), Les Conquêtes de I'archéologie, ed. Hachette, 1968.

- Botte (Luce), Encyclopédie de la Bible, ed. Sequoia-Elsevier, Paris-Bruxelles, 1961-1967.

- Bottero (Jean), Le problème des Habiru, ed. à l'lmprimerie nationale, rencontre assyriologique internationale, MDCCCCLIV, Paris. 

- Burrows (Millar), Les manuscrits de la Mer morte, Bibliothèque des grandes énigmes. I Paris, 1970. I.

- Caquot (Andre), Maurice Szyncer, Andre Herdner, Textes ouagaritiques, Tome I. Mythes I et légendes, (Introduction, Traduction, Commentaire), Les éditions du cerf, 197 I.

- Cazelles (Henry),  “Hebreu, Ubru, Hapiru,” (Extrait de la Revue Syria XXXV c.3-4 (Librairie Orientaliste, Paul Geutbner, Paris, 1958. !

- Chaine (Joseph), René Grousset Littérature religieuse, Librairie Armand Colin. Paris, 1949.

- G.L Della Vida, Les Sémites et leur rôle dans I’histoire religieuse, Librairie Orientaliste, Paul Geutbner.Paris, 1938.

- Le P.P. Dborme, O.P., Langues et écritures sémitiques, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1930.

- H.E Del Medico, La Bible canaanéenne (Découverte dans les textes de Ras-Shamra), Payot, Paris, 1950.

- H.E Del Medico, Deux manuscrits hébreux de la Mer morte, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris, 1951.

-  R.De Vaux, Bible et Orient, Les éditions du cerf, 1967.

-  Dussaud (René), “Nouveaux textes égyptiens d'exécration contre les peuples syriens” (extrait de la revue Syria, 1940, fasc .2) (1940) la Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1940.

-  Erman (Adolphe), L'Egypte des Pharaons, (Traduction de Henry Wild), Payot, Paris, 1952.

-  Fleg (Edmond), Anthologie juive des origines à nos jours, Flammarion Paris, 1951.

- Freud (Sigmund), Moïse et le Monothéisme, (Traduit de l'allemand par Anne Berman), Gallimard,1948.

- Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Histoire de la Langue hébraïque, Publications Orientalistes de France, 1977.

- Charles-F Jean, La littérature des babyloniens et des assyriens, Librairie Orientaliste, Paul Geuthner, 1924.

- P. Paul Joüon S.J, Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique, Institut biblique pontifical, Rome, 1923.

- Werner-Keller, La Bible arrachée aux sables, Les presses de la Cité, Paris, 1962.

- Kittel (Rud), Biblia Hebraica, Textum masoreticum curarvit P. Kahle, Wurttembergische Biblanstalt Stuttgart, 1937.

- Adolphe Lods, Israel des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle, ed. Albin Michel, 1949.

- Adolphe Lods, Les prophètes d'Israel et les débuts du Judaisme, ed. Albin Michel, 1950.

- Mathieu-Rosay, Dictionnaire éthymologique, Les nouvelles éditions Marabout, Belgique, 1985.

-  S. Moscati, Histoire et Civilisation des peuples sémitiques, Payot. Paris, 1955.

- Naville (Edouard), L’évolution de la langue égyptienne et les Langues sémitiques, Paris, 1920.

- P. Pevimeux, Essai sur les procédés littéraires dont il parait que Moïse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse. Fascicule I (les onzes premiers chapitres ou les neuf premiers poèmes), Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1922.

- Pirenne (Jacques), La société hébraïque d'après la Bible, ed. Albin Michel. Paris, 1965.

- Puech (Henri-Charles) (Sous la direction...), Histoire des Religions, Encyclopédie de la Pléiade ed.Gallimard, 1970.

-  Renan (Ernest), Histoire du peuple d'Israel. Calman Levy. Paris (Tome I et tome II) Ancienne maison Levy Frères, 1889.

-  H. Ringgren, La religion d'Israel, Payot, Paris, 1966.

- Sollberger (Edmond), Kupper (Jean-Robert), Inscriptions royales Sumeriennes et Akkadiennes, Les éditions du cerf, 1971.

- Touati (Charles), La pensée philosophique et théologique de Gersonide, les éditions de minuit, 1973.

-  C. Toussaint, Les origines de la religion d'Israel (l’ancien Jahvisme), Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1931.

- Touzard J., Grammaire hébraique abrégée précédée de premiers éléments, Librairie Le coffre, Paris, 1905.

-  Touzard J., Grammaire hébraique abrégée, Librairie Le coffre, Paris, 1969.

- Maurice (Vernes), Les emprunts de la Bible hébraique au grec et au latin, Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1914.

- Vincent (Albert), Les manuscrits hébreux du desert de Juda, Librairie Arthem Fayard, 1955.

2. References in Arabic

- At-Tafsîr At-Tabaqî lî Al-Kitâb Al-Muqaddas (“The practical explanation of the Holy Book”). Definition, Filming, etc.: Master Media, Cairo, 1977. Printed in Great Britain. (Number of pages for the Old Testament, the New Testament, Exegesis, Indices: 3038).

- Al-Kitâb Al-Muqaddas: Al-‘Ahd Al-qadîm (“The Holy Book: the Old Testament). Aghnatius Ziyadah (Archbishop of Beyrouth), Maktabah Dâr Al-Mashriq, Beyrouth, 1986.

-  Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fî Al-Milal wa Al-Ahwâ’ wa An-Nihal (“On the distinction between Religions, Sects, and Creeds”). Critical Edition by Mohammed Ibrahim Misr and Adberrahman Amara. Dâr Al-Jayl, Beyrouth.

- Chehlane, Ahmed, “Asmâ’ Al-A‘lâm wa dalâlatihâ At-Târikhiyya fî At-Tawrât , (“Proper names and their historical meanings”). In Proceedings of the Conference on “History and Linguistics”. Publications of the Faculty of Letters, Rabat, 1992.

- Izzat Zakî, (Translation): John Elder, Al-Ahjâr tatakallam : ‘Ilm Al-athâr yu’ayyidu Al-Kitâb Al-Muqaddas (“Stones talk: Archeology supports the Holy Book” ; N.B.: Our Transl. –J.S). Dâr At-Ta’lîf wa An-Nashr, Cairo.

- Ibn An-Nadîm, Al-Fihrast (“The Glossary”). Critical Edition by Yûsuf Alî Tawîl. Dâr Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beyrouth, 1996.

-          Israel Welvenson (Abû Ayyûb), Târikh Al-Lughât As-Sâmiyyah (“The History of Semitic Languages”; N.B.: Our Transl.: J.S.), Dâr Al-Qalam, Beyrouth, 1980.