The Forging of a Tradition: The Hebrew Bible, Ezra the Scribe, and the Corruption of Jewish Monotheism According to the Writings of Al-Tabari, Al-Thalabi, and Ibn Hazm

Steven Donnelly Hebrew University 777132200 Classical Islamic Texts Dr. Ayala Meyer Eliyahu 19-08-2012 The Forging of a Tradition: The Hebrew Bible, Ezra the Scribe, and the Corruption of Jewish Monotheism According to the Writings of Al-Tabari, Al-Thalabi, and Ibn Hazm Islamic writings from the medieval period preserve formative challenges to the monotheistic claims of Judaism. These claims are often grounded in response to a legendary redrafting process of the Hebrew Bible described by one author as an act of forgery. While not all medieval Islamic writers find fault with the process of scribal transmission, most of the records maintain that a compromise in Jewish monotheism beset the religion of Israel a short time after the Babylonian exile. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh notes that “the accusation that Jews and Christians had falsified their Scriptures (Tahrif) is the most basic Muslim argument against both Old and New Testaments.” Furthermore, tahrif is a “central theme” to the Qur’an, “used mainly to explain away the contradictions between the Bible and the Qur’an, and to establish that the coming of Muhammad and the rise of Islam had indeed been predicted in the uncorrupted ‘true’ Bible.” Intertwined Worlds (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992), p. 19. The Islamic allegation that the Hebrew Bible had been corrupted is not primarily an innovation external to the Qur’an. Indeed, a precedent appears to be embedded within Qur’an S. 6.91 which states, ‘And they did not appraise Allah with true appraisal when they said, ‘Allah did not reveal to a human being anything.’ Say, ‘Who revealed the Scripture that Moses brought as light and guidance to the people? You [Jews] make it into pages, disclosing [some of] it and concealing much. And you were taught that which you knew not – neither you nor your fathers.’ Say, ‘Allah [revealed it].’ Then leave them in their [empty] discourse, amusing themselves.” The notion that the Scriptures were “concealed much” seems to imply that, according to the Qur’an, an act of tampering or obfuscation of the text had presumably taken place. For further insight and examples cf. Qur’an S. 5.13, 41; Lazarus-Yafeh, pp. 20-2. The object of this paper is to provide a brief overview of challenges confronting both the transmission process of the biblical text as well as the consistency of Jewish monotheism in view of the writings of select medieval Islamic authors. Prominent Medieval Islamic Writers and their Works within this Study: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, for the purpose of this study hereafter simply identified as Al-Tabari, was born in 839 C.E. at Amul, the capital of Tabaristan, a region of northern Iran. As with the earlier Ibn Rabban al-Tabari (b. 810 C.E.), the appendage “al-Tabari” to his larger name is derived by association with the region of Tabaristan Al-Tabari. Commentary on the Qur’an, vol. 1 (Abridged), trans. by J. Cooper (Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1987), Introduction p. ix; Adang, p. 40. At twelve years old his father provided means for him to leave for Raiy, near modern Tehran, to study for five years. Al-Tabari, Commentary on the Qur’an, p. ix; Adang, p. 40. Eventually he made hajj in Mecca before leaving for Baghdad with intentions of engaging in further study under the tutelage of Ahmad b. Hanbal who was notorious for his grasp of hadith. Al-Tabari, Commentary on the Qur’an, p. ix; Adang, p. 40. However, it is uncertain as to whether Al-Tabari actually followed through with this opportunity as Hanbal died in 855, presumably near the time of Al-Tabari’s arrival in Baghdad. Al-Tabari, Commentary on the Qur’an, p. ix. While Al-Tabari eventually settled in Baghdad, his studies of hadith led him to visit key locations of Islamic learning including both Kufa and Basra in southern Iraq and eventually Syria and Egypt in order to interview renowned transmitters of hadith. Al-Tabari, Commentary on the Qur’an, pp. x-xi; Adang, p. 40-1. Adang notes that names of scholars in Kufa and Basra are frequently included among isnads recorded in Al-Tabari’s material. In addition to his efforts at mastering Islamic tradition Al-Tabari was esteemed as a distinguished historian who compiled a history of the world from the time of Adam until his own era. Al-Tabari, Commentary on the Qur’an, p. x. Brinner notes that Al-Tabari’s Ta’rikh al-rusul wal-muluk (The History of Messengers and Kings [The History of Al-Tabari]) is comprised of forty volumes. The first four of these volumes exhibit features of qisas literature, a genre that Al-Thalabi employed in Qisas Al-Anbiya about a century later. Al-Thalabi, Qisas Al-Anbiya (Lives of the Prophets) trans. by W. M. Brinner (Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. xx. Evidently Al-Tabari had no family; possibly this helps to account for his sizable literary contribution as a medieval writer. Adang, p. 41. Al-Tabari died in 923 C.E. Abu Ishaq Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Tha’labi al-Nisaburi al-Shafi’i, hereafter referred to as Al-Thalabi, was born in Nishapur, Iran. Al-Thalabi, Qisas Al-Anbiya, p. xxiv. While the date of his birth remains unmentioned among scholars, Al-Thalabi died in 1036 C.E. The year of his birth is presumably uncertain. Ibid., p. xxiv. Cf. Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 56. Similar to the regionally associated extension linked to the names of both Ibn Rabban [al-Tabari] and [Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir] al-Tabari, the two closing appendages to Al-Thalabi’s name (i.e. al-Nisaburi and al-Shafi'i) disclose that Al-Thalabi was originally from Nishapur, Iran and held to Shafi'ite Islamic jurisprudence. Al-Thalabi, Qisas Al-Anbiya, p. xxiv. Substantial correspondence exists between segments of Al-Thalabi’s Qisas Al-Anbiya (Lives of the Prophets) and select material within the prior work of Al-Tabari (e.g. segments of the qisas genre; Ezra traditions). The larger title of Al-Thalabi’s work is ‘Ara’is Al-Majalis Fi Qisas Al-Anbiya (The Brides of the Sessions about the Tales of the Prophets). Ibid., p. xxiv. As the title suggests, the text may be classified as ‘qisas’, a genre of literature dealing with biblical legend. Adang suggests that the narrative style known as “qisas al-anbiya” (i.e. “tales of the Prophets”—not to be confused with the title of Al-Thalabi’s work) may more specifically refer to “three different categories: a) legends about the creation (bad’, mabda’, mubtada’); b) legends about the prophets (the qisas al-anbiya proper); and c) the Isra’iliyyat, stories that specifically deal with the Israelite people and their rulers from the death of Moses and their entry into the promised land. See p. 9. The present paper interacts with these subjects as a whole under the general title of the qisas genre. This style of literature was not an innovation of the medieval writers referenced within the current work. Al-Thalabi, Qisas Al-Anbiya, p. xx. Brinner notes that a feature detectible in Al-Tabari’s use of biblical legend, yet particular to him, was a Persianizing style that drew from “history of Jewish origin, but because of his Iranian origins and knowledge of its traditions, he attempts to coordinate the history of ancient Iran and the lives of certain of its rulers, many of them legendary figures, with the biblical figures in the qisas”. Additionally, a practice as Al-Tabari’s re-contextualizing of biblical legend was atypical opposed to examples more readily drawn from Al-Thalabi’s later work. Brinner suggests that the standard practice appears via “the adaptation by the early Muslim writers of material based on Jewish scriptures and midrashic literature, as well as on Christian tradition, early Arab tales, and other sources.” He notes that material from Jewish sources “seems to have been transmitted by Jewish residents of Arabia, several of whom converted to Islam and were often portrayed by Muslims as experts in Jewish lore.” Having assessed the material, Brinner relays that scholars conclude that the stories were rooted in an oral (rather than written) source of tradition. p. xx. The present study surveys a segment of Al-Thalabi’s Qisas al-anbiya wherein a series of Islamic traditions posit varying construals of “The One Who had Passed by a City which had Fallen into Utter Ruin” (cf. Qur’an 2.259). The storyline suggests that a man whom some traditions presume to be Jeremiah the prophet or Ezra (among several other suggestions) died and remained dead for one hundred years before being raised back to life. Al-Thalabi, Qisas Al-Anbiya, pp. 576-80, esp. 577. Among the several distinctions between variant accounts, one rendering suggests that Jeremiah was the man who died as the city of Jerusalem was leveled and the people exiled to Babylon. The text calls upon imagery from Ezekiel’s "Valley of Dry Bones" (Ezek. 37). Within an alternate tradition the narrative structure is recast with Ezra as the central figure. Al-Thalabi, Qisas Al-Anbiya, pp. 578-79. The tale is further developed within Al-Thalabi’s next chapter which presents traditions corresponding to Qur’an S. 9.30 wherein one anecdote suggests that Ezra died for a hundred years before resurrecting and redrafting the text of the Hebrew Bible. Ibid., pp. 580-83, esp. 582-83. As noted below, the literary device known as an inclusio (also present in the Hebrew Bible) serves as bookends or brackets emphasizing the focus of the narrative as a prominent feature built-in to the structure of Al-Thalabi’s chapter. Ibid,. pp. 580-83. An example of inclusio within the biblical text is found in Ps. 118:1 and v. 29. In this case the inclusio consists of the identical phrase as the Psalm begins and ends with the words “Give thanks to the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endures forever” (Heb. ‎הוֹדוּ לַיהוָה כִּי-טוֹב: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ). Born in 994 C.E. in Cordoba, Ibn Hazm’s background as a medieval Islamic polemicist from the Spanish west is unique among writers reviewed within this paper. Cordoba was “the capital of the Umayyad caliphate in Spain.” Adang, p. 60. Lazarus-Yafeh suggests that “he came from a family of Christian origins” and that this was a fact he attempted to obscure. Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 136. Ibn Hazm is esteemed as a prolific author whose compositions interacted with a wide array of subjects including autobiographical works, religious tradition and polemics, law, logic, ethics, history, and even romantic poetry. Adang, pp. 61, 63; Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 26. His involvement with the religious-political dynamics of Andalusia included imprisonment on two occasions as well as a brief (six week) position in 1023 serving as the designated vizier (i.e. viceroy) to the presiding caliph. Adang, p. 62. Eventually he joined the literalist faction of the Zahirites of Andalusia among whom he ascended to a leadership role in 1034. Ibid., p. 95. The Zahirites are a 9th century Islamic society who “advocate the literal interpretation of the revealed sources” which include “the Koran and the Sunna of the Prophet.” Adang notes that “they also recognize a restricted form of ijma (consensus), namely of the Prophet’s Companions, as an additional source of Islamic law.” Ibid., p. 62. Possibly his interpretive literalism developed in part through interaction with Andalusian Karaites. The termination of Umayyad rule in Andalusia and surrounding regions effected social change which served as a catalyst to bring Ibn Hazm before the king of Seville (a notable larger power structure of the region). Ibid., p. 63. Ibn Hazm challenged the integrity of the king who responded with a mandate to burn all of Ibn Hazm’s books. Ibid., pp. 63-4. Ibn Hazm retreated to his family quarters, apparently discouraged by his unwelcome reception; nevertheless, he continued to disseminate his ideas through the printed page and taught more students before dying in 1064. Adang records that “according to his former student, Sa’id al-Andalusi, who had it from Ibn Hazm’s son al-Fadl Abu Rafi‘, he left some 400 works, totaling about 800,000 pages—a feat Sa’id adds, that had hitherto only been achieved by al-Tabari.” Not many of these works are currently extant. Ibid., p. 64. Although Ibn Hazm was geographically dislocated from Al-Thalabi, both men generated their works during the eleventh century. Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 17. In addition, Ibn Hazm’s Kitab al-fisal publishes sentiment that concurs with claims of Qur’an S. 9.30, Al-Tabari, and Al-Thalabi as reviewed within the current study. On the other hand, Ibn Hazm displays a less reserved polemical style than do either of the other two writers. Adang notes, his work is “almost invariably of a polemical nature, and an objective remark is rarely found”, p. 94. A concentration upon Jewish “beliefs and practices” is typical of his work. Ibid., p. 94. Within two of his writings, Al-usul wa’ l-furu and Kitab al-fisal, Ibn Hazm describes five sects (which he considers Jewish) by name: the Rabbanites (i.e. Ash‘aniyya), the Karaites (i.e. ‘Ananites), the ‘Isawiyya (followers of ‘Isa al-Isbahani and his views), the Samaritans, and the Saduqiyya (from Yemen). Adang observes that a Karaite source plausibly accounts for Ibn Hazm’s suggestion that the movement existed in the first century B.C.E. This makes sense considering his mention that Karaites were present “in two cities in al-Andalus: Talavera and Toledo.” Ibn Hazm discloses that his source for the ‘Isawiyya was Yusuf b. Harun (presumably a medieval reworking of Josephus’ Antiquites [called Yosippon] according to his description). He describes an additional anonymous group adhering to notions that Elijah, Pinhas, Eliezer (i.e. Abraham’s servant), and Melchizedek were still living. Adang, pp. 95-8. A literary link to al-Maqdisi’s 10th century work Kitab al-bad’ wa’ l-ta’rikh (Book of Creation and History) is plausible as al-Maqdisi’s work features descriptions of fourteen different Jewish sects. Ibid., p. 48. As Adang notes that “Like al-Mas’udi, al-Maqdisi, and al-Biruni, Ibn Hazm knows of the existence of three different versions of the Torah”; his awareness of text critical matters may imply familiarity with any or all of these previous writers’ work. Ibid., p. 137. It is also plausible that Ibn Hazm became familiar with the anti-Christian polemical works of al-Muqammis who returned to Judaism after professing Christianity for a time. Ibn Hazm identifies al-Muqammis, Sa‘adya, and Ibrahim al-Baghdadi (i.e. “Sa‘adya’s master”) as “speculative theologians” (mutakallimun). His identifying them by such a title implies that he had encountered their material on some level. It seems probable that Ibn Hazm would have interacted with the aforesaid thinkers by way of al-Mas‘udi’s 10th century work (Adang notes that Masudi “was acquainted with al-Tabari”), pp. 44-5; 107-08. Transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures: The eleventh century writings of Ibn Hazm contend that the Hebrew Bible lacks divinely-inspired credibility on account of Ezra the scribe’s instrumentality in handling the text. Although other medieval Muslim authors prior to Ibn Hazm affirm Ezra’s agency in reissuing the scriptural records, the theory that the biblical text was largely subject to Ezra’s influence is not a development unique to Islam. Irenaeus of Lyon, a late second century C.E. Christian bishop in Lyons, reveals a similar tradition within his lengthy work Against Heresies. Within chapter 21 of book 3 he relays a tradition (possibly hinging on 4 Ezra) that “during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes the king of the Persians” […] God “inspired Esdras the priest [i.e. Ezra], of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.2) See Roberts, A. and J. Donaldson, Eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publ. Inc., 1994) Jewish tradition maintains that during the Babylonian exile all the Scriptures were lost and the biblical text was eventually reproduced by Ezra the scribe. Porphyry, Plotinus’ third century C.E. student, affirms the existence of this tradition in his Adversus Christianos, noting that “nothing has been preserved of Moses, as all of his writings are said to have been burnt together with the Temple. And all those which were written under his name afterwards were composed inaccurately one thousand one hundred and eighty years after Moses’ death by Ezra and his followers” (Porphyry, Adv. Christianos, 465e). See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), p. 480; cf. pp. 423, 427-428. An anonymous medieval Jewish commentary on Ps. 137 from Northern France states that “Ezra went up [to the land of Israel] from Babylonia and wrote all of the [biblical] books” [...] English trans. from Dr. Eran Viezel, Reading Medieval Jewish Exegesis notes, Hebrew University, 2012. The Hebrew reads: וכשעלה עזרא מבבל וכתב כל הספרים This exegete writing in Northern France during the medieval period (possibly Rashbam) credits Ezra with having edited the Psalms as well as arranging them into their current sequence (see Ps. 137 [ms. Hamburg 32]). The text suggests that Ezra personally added Psalm 137 (composed by Jeremiah), a chapter not previously included within the order of Psalms. While this text may post-date Ibn Hazm’s era (Rashbam lived late 11th-early 12th century), the text upholds the tradition among medieval Jewry that Ezra rewrote Scripture. This statement concurs with an earlier account recorded in the post 70 C.E. Jewish apocalyptic work of 4 Ezra (sometimes referred to as 2 Esdras or Apocalypse of Ezra) that was composed amid the recent aftermath of the Roman siege. M. E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 28, 412. Stone suggests that a dating of the book that ranges between 95-100 C.E. deduced by reference to symbols associated with “Flavian emperors”, p. 412. Although disputed, Stone states that “the strongest contender” for the composition’s original language is Hebrew, p. 414. 4 Ezra “often conforms to traditional rabbinic exegesis and views” (cf. p. 414 n. 172), Stone notes resemblance between 6:7-10 and Gen. Rab. 63.8 (Note: Presumably Gen. Rab. 63.10 was here in view as textual segments from both sources imply that Jacob’s grasp upon Esau’s heel disclose foresight into a future age when Israel would assume power after Rome’s demise.) Ibid., p. 414 n. 172. The structure of 4 Ezra is comprised of seven successive visions which culminate in a narrative account briefly describing Ezra’s revelation and written reproduction of the material delivered to him throughout a forty day period of consecration (4 Ezra 14:20-48). Ibid., pp. 412-414. The text suggests that Ezra’s contemporaries were bereft of the law as a result of its having been incinerated (14:21). Ezra received the commission to rewrite the law of God with the assistance of five companions (vv. 22-25). Upon completion of the forty days of rigorous scribal work a total of ninety-four books were produced (v. 44). The mss. consulted by the AV translators suggest two-hundred-four books instead of ninety-four in the RSV. As the first twenty-four books were to be made indiscriminately available to all people, presumably these texts corresponded with those comprising the Tanakh (v. 45). Stone notes that “this is the oldest source for the number twenty-four for the biblical books”, Ibid., p. 414 n. 169. Thus, portions of these texts were available for publishing in the public domain while the final compositions were reserved exclusively for “the wise among” Ezra’s people (vv. 26, 45-46). Among medieval Islamic writers, Al-Tabari’s Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa-l-Muluk (Annales) relays a tradition which includes a number of features previously witnessed in the early post-destruction text of 4 Ezra. This report draws upon the English translation of Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, pp. 54-5. The likelihood of a direct link in tradition between Al-Tabari’s text and 4 Ezra seems highly probable in view of the broad distribution of Arabic translations of the book during the medieval period. Lazarus-Yafeh notes that “the Jewish apocalyptic book The Vision of Ezra (or the Apocalypse of Ezra, usually referred to as the ‘Fourth Ezra’)”, […] “was widely disseminated during the Middle Ages in Arabic translations that were apparently based on the Christian Greek translation from the Hebrew and on Syriac and Coptic versions of the book.” Intertwined Worlds, p. 56. The observable presence of the following four shared components among both accounts implies that Al-Tabari was familiar with a synonymous source of tradition if not 4 Ezra in particular. Material held in common with 4 Ezra includes: The notion that the Torah was destroyed by fire in response to the transgressions of the Israelites who were subsequently exiled from their land (4 Ezra 14.21, 31-33). Al-Tabari notes the particular historical timeframe as prior to the Israelites return from Babylonian captivity. A dialogical encounter accompanied by instructions given (by either God or man) to engage in efforts to recover the text on the following day (4 Ezra 14.27, 38). 4 Ezra suggests that the communication was between Ezra and the Almighty (cf. 14.2, esp. v. 20) while Annales describes that Ezra simply spoke with “a man”. If the record of 4 Ezra served as a source for the later record of Al-Tabari, possibly the medieval Islamic rendition took deliberate effort to avoid prophetic implications associated with communicating with Allah by altering the earlier tradition on this point. The drinking of a cup of liquid delivered to Ezra which precipitated a sudden awakening of his memory to the contents of the Torah in their entirety (4 Ezra 14.39-41). Ezra’s acquisition and restoration of the biblical text to his people (4 Ezra 14.42-48; also cf. 15:1-3). While both compositions (i.e. 4 Ezra and Al-Tabari’s Annales) share these same four basic ingredients, Al-Thalabi’s ‘Ara’is Al-Majalis Fi Qisas al-Anbiya (Lives of the Prophets) also displays a handful of common features in accord with 4 Ezra, specifically within the context of Al-Thalabi’s references to Qur’an S. 9.30. Points of congruency with 4 Ezra include: The loss and destruction of the Torah as a result of unfaithfulness that led to captivity (4 Ezra 14.21, 31-33). Al-Thalabi, Lives of the Prophets, trans. by W. M. Brinner, p. 582. Apart from the commentary on Qur’an S. 9.30, Al-Thalabi includes this same historical fact in a segment regarding “The Story of Daniel”. Ibid., p. 580. Instructions given to Ezra as prompting the eventual recovery of the Hebrew Bible or teaching (4 Ezra 14.23, 27, 38-39). Ibid., pp. 581-3. The recording of the text by either five companions (4 Ezra 14.42-43) or Ezra’s five fingers. Ibid., p. 582. Restoration of the Torah to Israel (4 Ezra 14.42-48). Ibid., pp. 581-3. The renewal and returning of the Torah “through the tongue of Ezra” is also given brief mention within “The Story of Daniel”. Ibid., p. 580. Observing that material from 4 Ezra reappears in both Al-Tabari’s Annales and Al-Thalabi’s Lives of the Prophets, one also recognizes shared elements exclusive to the two medieval texts themselves. Lazarus-Yafeh notes similarity in structure in addition to other “basic elements: the loss of the Torah scroll through (the Jews’) sins and troubled times, its miraculous return by Ezra-‘Uzayr, complete and precise conformity between the lost version (also miraculously returned) and the one supplied by Ezra, the joy of the children of Israel, and their admiration of Ezra, exaggerated to the point of worship.” Intertwined Worlds, p. 56. Though composed during the eleventh century (when Ibn Hazm wrote Al-Fisal), Al-Thalabi’s text also exhibits a favorable response towards Ezra’s work. That is, while Ibn Hazm took issue with Ezra’s portrayal of the biblical text, Al-Thalabi exhibits a very different attitude towards the authenticity of Ezra’s composition. In fact, Al-Thalabi includes several anecdotal narratives that appear to commend Ezra’s historical image. Al-Thalabi, Lives of the Prophets, pp. 573, 576-83. Among competing Islamic traditions, Al-Thalabi notes that Ezra was viewed by some as the subject of Qur’an S. 2.259 who died and came back to life after one hundred years as a proof of the resurrection of the dead. Ibid., pp. 576-79. Additionally, Ezra is esteemed as one whose prayers for the afflicted were answered with the result of a miraculous recovery. Ibid., pp. 579-80. Monotheistic Compromise: The sole mention of Ezra’s name within the Qur’an indicates that Ezra was shown uncommon reverence by the Jews. Lazarus-Yafeh notes that Ezra’s name in Arabic is pronounced ‘Uzayr. While this identification “is generally accepted in Arabic literature,” there is not a perfect consensus among “Muslim authors” or scholarship as a whole. Intertwined Worlds, p. 51. The segment of text from Qur’an S. 9.30-31 affords an emblematic statement by which medieval Islamic commentators and polemicists engendered a sense of caution against alleged corruptions intrinsic to the monotheisms of both Judaism and Christianity. Meanwhile, related medieval Islamic commentary served to bolster the claims of Islam as a uniquely monotheistic religion. The English translation of S. 9.30-31 reads: Qur’an translation from http://quran.com The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. Referring back to the Ezra legend from Al-Tabari’s Annales described previously in relationship to 4 Ezra, one readily senses the positive outlook towards Ezra’s portrayal as both the one who grieves the loss of the Torah as well as the celebrated human vessel through whom the text is restored to the children of Israel. On the other hand, the festive occasion with which the tale concludes is interrupted with a final startling report, “After that, events resumed, until they [the Israelites] called ‘Uzayr [Ezra] son of Allah, and Allah once again sent them a prophet, as was his way, in order to mend their ways and command them to observe the Torah and what is in it.” Annales translation of Lazarus-Yafeh. Ibid., pp. 54-5; also cf. Adang, pp. 229-231, despite Al-Tabari’s report that Ezra reproduced an accurate Torah, Al-Tabari may suggest that the Torah in use during his day lacked authenticity. Although Al-Tabari displays a generally favorable disposition towards Ezra and his efforts to reclaim the Torah for his people, the text of Annales attributes a glaring defect to the monotheistic claims of Judaism. Gauging from the positive image that Al-Tabari grants to Ezra, one may conclude that Al-Tabari’s commentary of Qur’an S. 2.79 which accuses the Jews of forgery was a reference to corruptions to the text at a time period after Ezra’s work of redrafting the Hebrew Bible. Al Tabari applies a phrase from 2.79—describing a severe judgment—to “the Jews who wrote falsehood with their hands and then said: ‘this is from God.’” Additionally. Al-Tabari clarifies that 2.79 is referring to “the Jews of the Children of Israel who altered God’s scripture and wrote a scripture according to their own interpretations, against what God had sent down to his prophet, Moses”. Al-Tabari, Commentary on the Qur’an, vol. 1, trans. by J. Cooper, p. 413. According to Al-Tabari, Ezra’s heroic act in restoring the Torah to Israel grants occasion for national compromise as the people begin to call Ezra the son of God. The charge leveled in Qur’an S. 9.30, namely that “the Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah’” is here embodied in narrative form within Al-Tabari’s text. The indictment is obvious as the successive Qur’anic verse includes the admonition to worship only one God. Al-Thalabi’s eleventh century work Lives of the Prophets displays features congruent with those of the previous segment from Al-Tabari’s Annales. As suggested earlier, a portion of Al-Thalabi’s text provides a sort of anthology of Islamic lore linking Ezra to Qur’an S. 9.30. See Al Thalabi, Lives of the Prophets, pp. 580-83. The chapter in focus furnishes a series of legends that affirm the claim of S. 9.30, viz. “the Jews say: Ezra is the son of God”. The basis for the statement is difficult to determine. As noted by H. Z. Hirschberg, “These words are an enigma because no such opinion is to be found among the Jews” […] Enc. Jud. (2nd Ed.) “Ezra: In Islam”, vol. 6, p. 653. Placed at the head of the chapter of Al-Thalabi’s work, the indicting remark about “the Jews” from the Qur’an appears to function as an initial inclusio or a highlighted, open bookend prompting each of the three colorful vignettes which successively follow. Al Thalabi, Lives of the Prophets, p. 580. As described above, each narrative sketch relays a tale wherein the tragedy of Israel’s loss of the Torah is neutralized by Ezra’s remarkable recovery of the sacred text. The pivotal statement from the Qur’an, “the Jews say: Ezra is the son of God” is endorsed within the closing sentence of each tradition by a concluding statement that attests to the authenticity of S. 9.30. Surah 9.30 is supported by the content of each respective account. Thus, the strategic conclusion of each successive episode strongly infers that the material comprising each story was selected and arranged with intentions of endorsing (one might say promoting) the initial supposition; namely, “the Jews say: Ezra is the son of God.” The chapter ends with a summary sentence which functions as the closing inclusio marking the structural bookend of the chapter. An additional attempt to illustrate the previous description may add clarity: The chapter is set in motion with an opening inclusio statement gleaned from Qur’an S. 9.30, “God has said, ‘And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of God’”. Ibid., p. 580. The first tradition, ascribed to ‘Atiyah al-‘Awfi from Ibn Abbas, reaches a point of resolve with a concluding exclamation attributed to the Israelites which exhibits a sense of deep awe in response to Ezra’s accurate reception of the Torah, viz. “Ezra would not have been given this were he not the son of God!” Ibid., pp. 580-81. The second segment, ascribed to Al-Suddi and Ibn Abbas from ‘Ammar, bears essentially the same sentiments as the first story, concluding with a statement (presumably linked to the scholars who compared Ezra’s work with the text returned to them in the Ark), “God gave this to him only because he is His son.” Ibid., pp. 581-82. The third and final narrative, simply attributed to Al-Kalbi, closes with a final indicting comment (as do both of the preceding stories) that is compounded by its emphasis within the previous two anecdotes and further amplified by the closing sentence (the closing bookend). In accord with the two previous episodes, the third story ends with an incredulous response from the Israelites after comparing Ezra’s reproduction of the Torah, “God would not have sent down the Torah into the heart of one of us after it had departed from our hearts, except if he were His son.” Finally, to amplify the point, the chapter culminates with the closing inclusio, “Whereupon the Jews said that Ezra is the son of God.” Ibid., pp. 582-83. Ibn Hazm’s attitude towards Ezra’s role in the process of textual transmission was less charitable than the optimism countenanced among the works of either his distant contemporary Al-Thalabi or Al-Tabari a century earlier. Lazarus-Yafeh notes that both Al-Tabari and Al-Thalabi were at harmony with “most Jewish and Christian writers” who also viewed Ezra as “a positive figure”, p. 59. Cf. (works previously cited): 4 Ez.; Iren., Against Heresies v. 3.21.2; anon. med. Rabbinic com. from N. France on Ps. 137 [ms. Hamburg 32]; also b. Sanh. 21b. Contrary to Al-Thalabi who managed to produce an artful defense (grounded in Islamic tradition) for the integrity of Ezra’s biblical replica, Ibn Hazm launched criticisms towards both the text and the moral integrity of Ezra the Scribe himself—Ezra is accused of having deliberately falsified the Scriptures. Lazarus-Yafeh writes: “following earlier pre-Islamic sources, he accused Ezra the Scribe of having purposely corrupted the Biblical text”, p. 45. Although during the tenth century Al-Maqdisi advanced the first claim that textual distortions existed, the main sources undergirding Ibn Hazm’s charges were likely of a pre-Islamic nature. Ibid., p. 45; Adang, p. 233, 251. Possibly Al-Maqdisi’s Kitab al-bad’ shaped Ibn Hazm’s view of the text; despite the fact that Al-Maqdisi claimed the distortions took place at Sinai, Ibn Hazm blames Ezra as the scribal instigator. Apart from an argument that Apocryphal literature intends to convey silent disapproval towards the figure of Ezra by omitting his name from the roster of select compositions, Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 60. the earliest explicitly negative press assigned to Ezra appears to surface during the third century C.E. from the pen of Porphyry. Noted previously, his Adversus Christianos contends that all of Moses’ texts were reduced to ashes when the first temple was destroyed, “and all those which were written under his name afterwards were composed inaccurately one thousand one hundred and eighty years after Moses’ death by Ezra and his followers”. Porphyry, Adv. Chr., 465e. See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, v. 2, p. 480. Cf. Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 63. Conceivably, Ibn Hazm was acquainted with this statement as he expressed personal interest in translating Porphyry’s work. Rif’at notes that in Ibn Hazm’s kitab al-Taqrib li bad al-Mantiq (p. 8) he mentioned a plans to translate material from both Aristotle and Porphyry related to logic. Rif’at, “Ibn Hazm on Jews and Judaism”, vol. 2, p. 296. Although Lazarus-Yafeh mentions Justin Martyr’s second century Dialogue with Trypho with regards to corruption of the biblical text, no disrespect is shown towards the person of Ezra within Justin’s work. Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 63; Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho” 72.1; also cf. 120.1. See The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho” However, Justin does address the subject of omissions from the Scriptures as having taken place “only a short time [ago]” by the calculated efforts of Trypho’s teachers. Trypho was allegedly a practicing religious Jew who was Justin’s interlocutor throughout the Dialogue. Among the books Justin claims were modified was the book of Ezra. Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho” 71.1-72.1. Possibly Justin’s claims contributed to Ibn Hazm’s overall criticism of the biblical text, viz. “the transmission is corrupt, interrupted, and unsound.” Ibn Hazm, Kitab al-fisal trans. by Rif’at, “Ibn Hazm on Jews and Judaism” vol 3, p. 485 (Appendix). Note: Although Justin’s claim (i.e. passages were removed from the books of Ezra and Jeremiah) and Ibn Hazm’s later allegation (i.e. the transmitted text is “unsound”) took place nearly nine hundred years apart, the context of both statements included a discussion concerning the validity of the Hebrew Bible in comparison with the Greek Septuagint. For further statements contained in Kitab al-Fisal regarding corruptions cf. pp. 452-53, 461, 463. Notwithstanding, pre-Nicene Christian texts seem to grant little to no basis for dishonoring Ezra as a forger of false tradition. To the contrary, Irenaeus, Justin’s contemporary in the west, relays a tradition similar to 4 Ezra (also cf. the later traditions recorded by Al-Tabari and Al-Thalabi which probably pivoted on 4 Ezra) wherein Ezra “recast all the words of the former prophets” after returning from Babylon. Irenaeus records that “Scriptures had been corrupted” prior to this point. As noted above, Irenaeus, Against Heresies v.3.21.2. Rabbinic sources which may have contributed to Ibn Hazm’s negative image of Ezra also appear scarce. Ambiguity regarding scribal details in the content of the Masoretic Text are on rare occasion offset by scribal ‘dots’ which signify uncertainty regarding fifteen brief textual segments. The following passages offset by these scribal ‘dots’: Gen. 16:5, 18:9, 19:33, 33:4, 37:12; Num. 3:39, 9:10, 21:30, 29:15; Deut. 29:28; 2 Sam. 19:20; Isa. 44:9; Ezek. 41:20, 46:22; Ps. 27:13 (while the ‘dots’ are usually above the text, they appear beneath the passage exclusively within this verse). Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 55-7. Avot d’Rabbi Natan (7th-10th century C.E.) preserves an account wherein the inconclusive nature of such marked excerpts of the biblical record is elaborated. The English translation of Avot d’Rabbi Natan reads as follows: “Why are all these letters dotted? This is what Ezra said : If Elijah comes and says : Why did you write this, I will say to him : I already dotted them; and if he says : You have written it well, I will remove the dots from the letters.” A segment of chapter 37 reads, “Why are all these letters dotted? This is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says: Why did you write this, I will say to him: I already dotted them; and if he says: You have written it well, I will remove the dots from the letters.” Avot d’Rabbi Natan English trans. from The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, trans. by A. J. Saldarini (Leiden: Brill, 1975), p. 224; cf. Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 59. Saldarini’s commentary notes that “the rabbis were unsure of the readings.” Saldarini, p. 224 n. 56. One promptly recognizes how the apparent lack of certainty on Ezra’s part (implied within the rabbinic sketch), as represented by this portrayal, could readily invite occasion for Ibn Hazm to embrace its content (questioning the authenticity of the Scriptures) as supporting evidence that Ezra corrupted the biblical text. Ibn Hazm’s leanings as a Zahiri theologian would necessarily require a literal if not ultra-literal view of the text. Links to Samaritan tradition and general worldview may commend themselves as further sources tapped by Ibn Hazm by which he either derived or supplemented his distaste for Ezra and his reproduction of the biblical text. Lazarus-Yafeh, pp. 60-3. Al Mas’udi’s tenth century Muruj al-dhahab relays that the Samaritans claimed that “the Torah of Moses” had been “forged, altered and changed” and produced by Zeubbabel based on “what certain Israelites had remembered”. Adang, pp. 47, 232. Already having dismissed the Hebrew Bible as a counterfeit—in favor of their own Pentateuch—one expects that Samaritans would naturally stand averse to Ezra in light of Talmudic tradition stating that “even though the Torah was not given through him, its writing was changed through him”. b. Sanh. 21b trans. Isidore Epstein. The Soncino Edition (London: Soncino Press, 1935). If the script was indeed changed “from Hebrew to Assyrian characters” in order “to build a greater barrier between the Samaritans and the Jews” one might expect the Samaritan community to display a measure of contempt towards the person of Ezra. Textual note culled from b. Sanh. 21b, The Soncino Edition, n. 49. In spite of the fact that Ibn Hazm divulges that he had never encountered the Samaritans, possibly the contents of a liturgical Samaritan Yom Kippur prayer contributed to the formulation (or reinforcement) of his polemical posture towards Ezra’s role in the process of scriptural transmission. Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 60; cf. esp. n. 31. Within the context of the prayer a short imprecation is directed towards Ezra and his text. The brief line of text reads, “Cursed be Ezra and his evil words he wrote [ארור עזרה ודבריו דכתב בבישאתו].” Aramaic text from A.E. Cowley, Samaritan Liturgy, vol. 2 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1909), p. 514, line 2. The imprecation said towards a priest (i.e. Ezra) amid a Yom Kippur prayer is particularly striking, plausibly such animosity within the Samaritan community fueled additional anti-Ezra polemic among their other traditions or texts. Ibn Hazm takes issue with monotheistic claims of Judaism on the basis of a text cited by Al-Mas‘udi a century earlier. Adang, pp. 99-101. He implicates a story wherein God was depicted as mourning “as the dove moans” and saying, “Woe unto Me, that I destroyed My house, that I divided My sons and daughters from each other. My stature shall be bent until I build up My house and bring My sons and daughters back to it.” Ibn Hazm, Kitab al-fisal trans. by Rif’at, “Ibn Hazm on Jews and Judaism”, vol. 3, p. 476; cf. Adang, pp. 99-101. The episode appears as a reworked narrative located in b. Ber. 3a wherein the Almighty mourns after the destruction of the Second Temple. The version recorded by Ibn Hazm’s Kitab al-fisal differs in details and contextual placement; however, length requirements for the present work permit for only a brief treatment of the text. Contextually, the voice is associated with God. Ibn Hazm criticizes the ascription of anthropomorphic expressions to deity, particularly finding fault with notions of God expressing sorrow for his own continued action in chastising the people. Further criticism is advanced by recounting a similar narrative sketch associated with Yom Kippur wherein Metatron allegedly simulates similar dramatic expressions corresponding to those attributed to God within the previous illustration. Ibn Hazm contends that “the word ‘Metatron’ according to them [the Jews] means ‘the little god’”; in addition, he states that “these Jews” petition “another god, in addition to Allah” which Ibn Hazm indicts as “sheer polytheism.” Ibn Hazm, Kitab al-fisal trans. by Rif’at, vol. 3, p. 478. A note within b. Sanh. 38b (n. 55) notes that the name מטטרון maintains the identical numerical value as שדי. Both have a value of 314. Cf. Adang, p. 101. Meanwhile, the charge that “the Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah” is exclusively relegated to the Saduqiyya (i.e. Sadducees), a “politico-religious” sect that Ibn Hazm considers distinct from other Jewish communities, due to this point. Rif’at, “Ibn Hazm on Jews and Judaism”, vol. 2.4, p. 306. Cf. Lazarus-Yafeh, p. 52 n. 7, 68; Adang, p. 98. He notes that the Saduqiyya at one time lived in Yemen, yet by his own era the group had vanished. Rif’at, “Ibn Hazm on Jews and Judaism”, vol. 2.4, p. 306. Also cf. the content of Al-Radd ‘ala Ibn al-Naghrila, written in opposition to his opponent, Ibn al-Nagrilah as reproduced (English) in Lazarus-Yafeh, pp. 67-8. Rif’at notes that a similar claim was introduced in the ninth century by Al-Jahiz’s Risalat al-Radd ‘Ala Nasara which stated that a particular group “exaggerated” Ezra’s “importance and called him the son of God, and this is well known about them. A remnant of this group survived in Yemen, Syria and inside the Roman countries.” Al Jahiz, Risalat al-Rad trans. by Rif’at, “Ibn Hazm on Jews and Judaism”, vol. 2.4, p. 309. Al-Jahiz adds that Ezra was awarded this title “as a token of his obedience to God and of the respect in which the people hold him, because he is one of Israel’s sons.” Al Jahiz, Risalat al-Rad trans. by Rif’at, “Ibn Hazm on Jews and Judaism”, vol. 2.4, p. 309. It appears that Al-Jahiz suggests that two categories existed, one group responding to Ezra’s miraculous restoration of the Scriptures overstated his importance as the exclusive son of God while another group esteemed every Jew of Israel as bearing the title son of God. The texts of Al Tarabi (Annales) and Al-Thalabi (Lives of the Prophets) appear to represent the former example. Cf. Rif’at, vol. 2.4, pp. 309-10 who notes that Al-Tabari knew of two explanations, some Muslims suggesting that Finhas alone made the claim, while others held that a group of Jews considered Ezra to be the son of Allah. Conclusion: To conclude, despite the fact that current evidence grants no support for the claim of Qur’an S. 9.30 that the Jews say the Ezra is the son of God, the idea gained currency among the works of medieval Islamic writers. No consensus exists among the writers reviewed in this study as concerns Ezra’s personal integrity or his reproduction of the biblical text. The accounts of Al-Tabari and Al-Thalabi both commend the reputation of Ezra and his transmission of the biblical text as a miraculous feat while Ibn Hazm rejects the work as the byproduct of a fraudulent process grounded in compromised scribal agency. Presumably he relies upon pre-Islamic sources to establish this as a fact (cf. Porphyry; Samaritan tradition). Ibn Hazm’s polemical tone wears no disguise, yet his condemnation of the Jews as holding Ezra to be the son of God appears tempered in some measure, possibly by his familiarity with Judaism. Perhaps paradoxical to their respective narratives recounting the recovery of the Bible, Al-Tabari and Al-Thalabi exert no effort to qualify which particular Jews may actually deify Ezra. Ibn Hazm specifies the Jews of Yemen as the culprits while yet charging at least some Jews with polytheistic practices involving Metatron during traditional Yom Kippur ceremonies. In brief, the authors consulted provide support for the claim of Qur’an S. 9.30 concerning Ezra. Ibn Hazm relegates these claims to the Saduqiyya of Yemen previous to his own day, instead placing a higher premium upon faulting Ezra’s transmission of the biblical text. Yet, widespread compromise of Jewish monotheism remains a point of controversy with Metatron as a second power. Al-Tabari and Al-Thalabi lay no fault to Ezra, yet the traditions they cite impute blame to the Jewish collective response to his recovery of the Scriptures (cf. 4 Ezra). To close, presuppositional interests which promote Islamic ideology seem to permeate these texts. Bibliography: Adang, Camillia, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Al Jahiz, Risalat al-Rad trans. by Nurshif ‘Abd Al-Rahim Mustafa Rif’at, “Ibn Hazm on Jews and Judaism”, vol. 2 Al-Tabari, Commentary on the Qur’an, vol. 1 (Abridged), trans. J. Cooper (Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1987). Al-Tabari, Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa-l-Muluk (Annales), trans. from Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds. Al-Thalabi, ‘Ara’is Al-Majalis Fi Qisas Al-Anbiya ([The Brides of the Sessions about the] Lives of the Prophets) trans. by W. M. Brinner (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Avot d’Rabbi Natan, from The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, trans. by A. J. Saldarini (Leiden: Brill, 1975) Berenbaum, Michael, Ex. Ed. Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., vol. 6, H. Z. Hirschberg “Ezra: In Islam” (Jerusalem: Keter Publ. House, 2007) Fourth Ezra AV: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/2esdras.html RSV: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3652195 Genesis Rabbah vol. 2, trans. by J. Neusner (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985) Ibn Hazm, Kitab al-fisal fi’ l-milal wa’ l-ahwa’ wa’ l-nihal (Book of Opinions on Religions, Sects, and Heresies) trans. by Nurshif ‘Abd Al-Rahim Mustafa Rif’at, “Ibn Hazm on Jews and Judaism” (PhD. Thesis, Univ. of Exeter, 1988). Ibn Qutayba’s Dala’il al-nubuwwa (Proofs of Prophethood) trans. provided by Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. Ibn Rabban al-Tabari, The Book of Religion and Empire, trans. by Alphonse Mingana (Manchester, University Press, 1922). Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava, Intertwined Worlds (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992). Porphyry, Adversus Christianos, trans. by M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980). Ps. 137 [ms. Hamburg 32]), composed by Anonymous Jewish exegete from Northern France. Roberts, A. and J. Donaldson, Eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho” (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publ. Inc., 1994) ________. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publ. Inc., 1994) Stone, M.E., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1984). Tov, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 55-57. Qur’an, translation in English from www.quran.com Bavli, b. Sanh. 21b, trans. by Isidore Epstein. The Soncino Edition (London: Soncino Press, 1935)