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-Nadīm’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-Nadīm’s book, Al-Fihrist,
we learn that there existed in the library of Hārūn
Ar-Rashīd a copy of The Torah. The servant of Hārūn
Ar-Rashīd, Ahmad Abdallah Ibn Sallām 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 Sallām 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-Nadīm 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-Nadīm 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-Fayyūmī
(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
