Tuesday, 28 July 2026

Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey To Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa - The Farthest Mosque

 

Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey To Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa - The Farthest Mosque

Islamic Awareness

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Published: 5th February 2001

Last Modified: 8th December 2005


Assalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night
from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, 
whose precincts We did bless,
- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs:
for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). [Qur'an 17:1]

Figure 1: An aerial view of Haram al-Sharif

Many Christian missionaries point to an alleged difficulty concerning the above passage. They claim that :

The Farthest Mosque (Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a) was built many years after the death of Muhammad. It is utterly impossible that Muhammad visited it on his Night Journey.

They further add :

The Temple of Solomon had been completely destroyed in 70 AD, i.e. 550 years before the alleged time of the Miraj in 622 AD, the twelfth year of Muhammad's mission. A Temple that didn't exist anymore does not provide any better solution to this problem than a Mosque which wasn't built yet.

Similarly, the Christian apologist `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi says:

Moreover, the Further [sic!] Mosque was not in existence at the time of Muhammad, but was built about a hundred years after his death! How could he have prayed in it, then, or described its gates and windows?[1]

Firstly, al-Aqsa mosque was built not "about a hundred years" after the death of the Prophet in 11 AH / 632 CE. In 49-50 AH / 670 CE, Bishop Arculfus, a Christian visitor in Jerusalem, reported:

On the famous place where once stood the temple, the Saracens worship at a square house of prayer, which they have built with little art, of boards and large beams on the remains of some ruins...[2]

By the time Bishop Arculfus was in Jerusalem, some 40 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad, the al-Aqsa mosque was already being used as a place of worship by Muslims. Secondly, as usual, the solution to such a "difficulty" lies in part in an elementary knowledge of the Arabic language as well as an understanding of basic Islamic concepts relating to the word "masjid".

2. What Is A Masjid?

We will begin by dealing with the word masjid from both the linguistic and legal points of view. The Arabic word for "mosque" is masjid. Discussing with the word masjid from a linguistic point of view al-Zarkashi says:

Masjid from a linguistic point of view

Linguistically, it comes on the scheme of maf`il with a kasrah [i.e. the 'i' of masjid] which is ism makan [i.e., name of location] for prostration, while with a fathah [i.e., masjad] it is a masdar.

Abu Zakariyya al-Farra' [a famous grammarian] said: Every verb coming on the scheme of fa`ala [in the past form] yaf`ulu [in the present form] like dakhala yadkhulu [which means "to enter"] admits the form maf`al with a fathah as a noun or masdar without distinction like in dakhala madkhalan. There are some nouns that were bound to take a kasrah on the second letter of its root like masjidmatli`maghribmashriq and others, thus making the kasrah a sign of the noun, and some Arabs may say it with a fathah.

Indeed, masjid and masjad, and matli` and matla` were all narrated.

He said: Putting a fathah in all these forms is admissible even if we did not hear it before.

He said in Al-SihahMasjad with a fathah refers to one's forehead which is the place involved in prostration.[3]

The Arab grammarians classify masjid as "ism makan", i.e., "name of location"; it indicates the place where an action takes place. Masjid being derived from the root sa-ja-da (to prostrate), it means "place of prostration". Since a place of worship is a place where believers prostrate to God, "masjid" is a general term to designate any place of worship without any religious distinction. Later, this word was used to designate Islamic places of worship in particular, i.e., the mosques.

The Prophet's night journey was from "the inviolable place of worship" (al-Masjid al-Haram) to "the farthest place of worship" (al-Masjid al-Aqsa). The former is certainly located in Makkah, but what about the latter? The reference to Allah blessing its surroundings (... whose precincts We did bless) suggests a location in the "Holy Land" (cf. 21:81; 7:137; 34:18). Neal Robinson states:

The [Muslim] tradition which identifies it [i.e., al-Masjid al-Aqsa] with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem makes admirable sense in view of the fact that the 'place of worship' (masjid) whose destruction is evoked in v. 7 [i.e., 17:7] is clearly the Temple.[4]

This view is also shared by many western scholars.[5]

As it was mentioned earlier that masjid refers to a place of prostration without any religious distinction; an excellent example of the usage of the word "masjid" referring to a non-Islamic sanctuary can be seen in the verse 17:7. The verse describes briefly the destruction of the masjid in Jerusalem (i.e., the Temple) by the enemies of Children of Israel. Allah says in the Qur'an that the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem was a punishment was inflicted upon the Children of Israel for their tyranny and arrogance.

Now that the linguistic issues are clarified, let us now turn to the legal issues (i.e., Islamic Law) concerning the word masjid. Al-Zarkashi says:

Masjid from a legal point of view

From a legal point of view it refers to every place on earth since the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: "The earth was made a masjid for me" which is a particularity of this ummah. This was said by the Qadi `Iyad because the previous nations used not to pray except in the places they were sure of their pureness whereas we were allowed to perform the prayers in any place not known to be impure.[6]

Further he emphasizes:

Since prostration is the most honourable act in prayer because of the nearness of the servant to his Lord, the name of the location was derived from it. This is why we call it masjid [location of sujud / prostration] and not marka` [place of ruku` / inclination].[7]

In summary, masjid from a linguistic point of view means a "place of prostration" without any religious distinction. From a legal point of view the word masjid in shari`ah constitutes every place on earth that is fit for prostration. In other words masjid does not designate a building but only a "place of prostration"; the place may or may not have the building. In support of the argument, we quote hadith #323 in Sahih al-Bukhari that has already been mentioned by al-Zarkashi:

Muhammad Ibn Sinan, i.e., al-`Awqi told us, Hushaym told us; and Sa`id Ibn an-Nadr told me, Hushaym informed us that Sayyar informed us, Yazid, i.e., Ibn Suhayb al-Faqir told us, Jabir Ibn `Abd Allah told us:

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are:

1. Allah made me victorious by awe [by His frightening of my enemies] for a distance of one month's journey.

2. The earth has been made for me [and for my followers] a "masjid" [Arabic: a place for prostration] and a means of purification.  Therefore, my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

3. The booty has been made halal [lawful] for me [and was not made so for anyone else].

4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind.

5. I have been given the right of intercession [on the Day of Resurrection].[8]

So, according to this hadith, any place on the earth is a masjid for Muslims. Therefore, whether there was a building or not when the Prophet made his heavenly trip, it is the location of the "Farthest Mosque" that is intended by the verse and not a building per se because the location where it lies was blessed by God as mentioned in verse 17:1 "the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless". Therefore, no one can claim that the word "masjid" in the Islamic terminology refers necessarily to a building. Imam Ibn Hajar confirms this opinion in Fath al-Bari (his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari) :

(the earth has been made for me a "masjid")
means a place for prostration, i.e., prostration is not restricted to any particular place of the earth. It may also be a metaphor of a construction built for prayer. This is due to the fact that once prayer is authorized everywhere on earth it becomes like a mosque for that purpose. Ibn al-Tin said: "The earth has been made for me a masjid and a means of purification" both were given to the Prophet, peace be upon him, while it was only a place for worship for others and was not a means of purification, because Jesus used to walk around and pray whenever prayer was due. Al-Dawudi said likewise before him. It was also said that they [the previous generations] were authorized to perform prayer in places known for sure to be pure, whereas this ummah is authorized to pray anywhere on earth except in the places known for sure to be impure. The strongest opinion is that of al-Khattabi who says that earlier nations were authorized to perform prayer in special places like synagogues and churches. This is confirmed by the wording of the narration of Ibn Shu`ayb "And before me people prayed in their churches." This is a controversial[?] wording but the specificity was established [??]. This is supported by the narration of al-Bazzar from the hadith of Ibn `Abbas similar to the present hadith which includes "Prophets did not pray until they reached their chamber".[9]

Before we close this issue, one should realize that verse 17:1 also speaks of "The Sacred Mosque" which is in Makkah around the Ka`bah. Did a building for the mosque exist there in the time of the Prophet? The answer is that the Ka`bah was there but there was no building for the mosque. This further adds to the argument that the word masjid in this verse refers to a place of performing the prostration and does not imply the presence of a "building" in the modern understanding.

The above understanding of the word masjid as a place of worship not building per se is also well supported by archaeological and historic evidence. Below we present a picture of an early mosque in a place called Besor in Occupied Palestine.[10]

Figure 2: Besor masjid

Figure 3: Besor mosque, The Qiblah

Moshe Sharon comments about the Besor mosque. He says:

To the west of the village on the top of the hill, overlooking the valley and the houses of the village, was the threshing floor, and to the south of it a small open mosque with a rectangular mihrab made of 3 blocks of stones [bottom figure]. The mosque was built to a height of probably two layers of stones, no more than 0.5 m., and was almost square, about 3 x 3 m. and could contain no more than 8-10 men at a time.[11]

There are many other examples of early mosques from Negev region that are nothing but a few stones arranged to mark the mihrab.[12,13]

Figure 4: Mosque at Nahal Oded with the upright stone showing the direction of the qibla.

Figure 5: Mosque at Be'er Karkom with a rounded southward-facing mihrab niche.

Figure 6: Mosque at Har Oded facing south-southeast.

Figure 7: Modern Bedouin open mosque in Transjordan

It is clear from the above pictures that a mosque is simply a place where Muslims prostrate in prayer. It does not need an elaborate building to be called a mosque. The open mosques that we have seen above do exist even today in Middle East and North Africa.

Concerning early mosques, Creswell states:

... their [i.e., Muslims'] architectural resources, before they started in their career of conquest, were barely enough to give expression to their needs. In other words Arabia constituted an almost perfect architectural vacuum... The first mosques in the great hiras, or half nomadic encampments of the conquest, such as Basra, Kufa and Fustat, were primitive in the extreme, and in Syria the first mosques were churches that had been converted or merely divided: In fact there is no reason for believing that any mosque was built as such in Syria until the time of al-Walid (705-15) or possibly `Abd al-Malik (685-705), for over a generation the Arabs remained quite untouched by any architectural ambitions...[14]

It is worth noting that the Prophet disliked extravagance and impressive architecture in buildings, especially mosques. The relative simplicity of early mosques is in fact a historical example of how the Prophet's Companions diligently followed his wishes. This is true to a greater extent even today.

3. Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa: A Place Of Prostration For Jews

The Qur'an refers to al-Aqsa as a masjid, a place of prostration. Was this place used for prostration in early times?

Al-Masjid al-Aqsa and the surrounding area (i.e., Dome of the Rock among others) is usually identified with the place where the Temple of Solomon once stood. Bet ha-Miqdash, as the Temple is usually known in Jewish literature, was primarily a place of assembly for the entire people, for purposes of sacrifice, prayer, and thanksgiving. It is in the prayer ritual that prostrations were performed by the priests. Encyclopaedia Judaica provides an interesting account of the prayer ritual by the priests of the Temple.

The priest who had gathered the coals entered the sanctuary first, scattered them over the incense altar, prostrated himself, and departed. Then the priest who was chosen by lot to offer the incense entered, bearing the pan of incense in his hand. He was accompanied by a priest appointed for this task who instructed him in the proper ritual, and he did not offer it until he was told: "Offer the incense!" The officiating priest waited until the space between the hall and the altar was cleared of people, offered up the incense, prostrated himself, and departed (Tam. 6; Kelim end of ch. 1). During the offering of the incense in the sanctuary, the people used to gather in the azarah for prayer, and even outside the Temple these times were set aside for prayer (cf. Luke 1:10; Judith 9:1). After the departure of the priest who had offered the incense, all the priests filed into the sanctuary, prostrated themselves, and went out again.[15]

It is interesting to note that the Temple was considered as the only place of prostration by some Rabbis and that they would refuse to completely prostrate outside the Temple in Jerusalem.[16]

The Jewish concept of worship has extensive vocabulary, out of which hishtahawah, "to prostrate oneself," is the most frequently used in the Hebrew Bible (86 times).[17]

4. Yet Another Problem!

In the same article, the missionaries express another objection:

In Yusuf Ali's commentary on this verse we read: "The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem..." So, it is interpreted to be not the building itself, but only the site, the location where it had been. I might be wrong, but this seems to be contradicted by a hadith and Muhammad's understanding that Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a is something that is built, not just a location. Al-Masjid-ul-Haram after all was a building.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 636:

     Narrated Abu Dhaar:

I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was built first?" He replied, "Al-Masjid-ul-Haram." I asked, "Which (was built) next?" He replied, "Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a (i.e. Jerusalem)." I asked, "What was the period in between them?" He replied, "Forty (years)." He then added, "Wherever the time for the prayer comes upon you, perform the prayer, for all the earth is a place of worshipping for you."

This hadith actually introduces yet another problem. Abraham supposedly (re)built the Kaaba, (and Abraham lived about 2000 BC) and the Temple was built by Solomon in about 958-951 BC, then Muhammad gave another historically false information based on a major confusion about the time when these people lived.

Firstly, we have already shown that the word masjid does not necessarily refer to a building but rather to a location, i.e., the place of prostration. Secondly, the missionaries try to deceive the readers in the above paragraphs. Indeed, they admit the Islamic opinion that Abraham rebuilt the Ka`bah (it was Adam who built it originally according to the Islamic tradition), but for unjustified reason they overlook the Islamic traditions addressing the construction of the farthest mosque, presumably to generate a "contradiction". 

They identify the Farthest Mosque with the Temple of Solomon without further justification, and point out an error that they had invented themselves. Let us for example see what Imam Ibn Hajar says about this hadith in Fath al-Bari:

His saying (40 years)
Ibn al-Jawzi said: It raises a problem since Abraham built the Ka`bah and Solomon built Bayt al-Maqdis 
[another name of al-Masjid al-Aqscf. Hebrew Bet ha-Miqdash] and there are 1,000 years between them. His evidence for saying that it is Solomon - peace be upon him - who built the Farthest Mosque is the narration of al-Nasa'i from the hadith of `Abd Allah Ibn `Amr Ibn al-`As attributed to the Prophet with an authentic isnad that "When Solomon built Bayt al-Maqdis he asked God the Most High for three things etc." and in al-Tabarani from the hadith of Rafi` Ibn `Umayrah that "David - peace be upon him - started building Bayt al-Maqdis but God inspired him: I shall accomplish its building with Solomon" and the hadith has a story. He [Ibn al-Jawzi] said: "The answer to that is that the mention concerns the first construction and the foundation of the mosque and it is not Abraham who built the Ka`bah for the first time nor is it Solomon who built Bayt al-Maqdis for the first time. Indeed, we have narrated that the first one who built the Ka`bah is Adam. Then his progeny spread out on earth. Therefore, it is possible that one of them built Bayt al-Maqdis. Later, Abraham (re)built the Ka`bah according to the Qur'an." Likewise, al-Qurtubi said: The hadith does not indicate that Abraham and Solomon were the first ones to build the two mosques. It was only a renovation of what had been founded by others.[18]

After quoting other opinions, Ibn Hajar insists :

But the possibility mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzi is more pertinent. And I found evidence supporting those who say that it is Adam who founded both mosques. For instance, Ibn Hisham mentioned in "Kitab al-Tijan" that when Adam built the Ka`bah, God ordered him to walk to Bayt al-Maqdis and build it and so he did and offered worship in it. And the construction of the House [Arabic: al-Bayt, i.e., the Ka`bah] is famous and we have mentioned earlier the hadith of `Abd Allah Ibn `Amr that the House was elevated in the time of the flood until God showed Abraham its location. Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from the way of Ma`mar from Qatadah: God founded the House with Adam when he descended. But Adam missed the voices of the Angels and their prayers. Therefore, God told him: I sent down a House around which [people] will revolve like it is revolved around my Throne, so set out to it. Adam set out to Makkah - He had descended in India, and his steps were enlarged until he reached the House and revolved around it. It was also said that when he had prayed at the Ka`bah, he was ordered to set out to Jerusalem where he built a masjid [mosque] and prayed therein so that it became a qiblah to a part of his progeny.[19]

In summary, the verse 17:1 refers to the holy locations in Jerusalem and Makkah because they are blessed regardless of the presence or absence of a building at the time of the heavenly trip of Prophet Muhammad.  From an Islamic point of view, evidence has been given by eminent Muslim scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ibn al-Jawzi showing that it was Adam who built both mosques for the first time and that the job of Abraham and Solomon was only a renovation/reconstruction of these sanctuaries.

5. Conclusions

The word masjid from a linguistic point of view refers to a place of prostration without any religious distinction. From a legal point of view the word masjid in shari`ah constitutes every place on earth that is fit for prostration, whether or not it is a building.

The verse 17:1 may very well refer to the holy locations in Jerusalem and Makkah because they are blessed regardless of the presence or absence of a building at the time of the heavenly trip of Prophet Muhammad from Makkah to Jerusalem to the Heavens. From an Islamic point of view, evidence has been given by eminent Muslim scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ibn al-Jawzi who have discussed the issue. They have shown that it was Adam who built both mosques for the first time and that the duty of Abraham and Solomon was only a renovation/reconstruction of these sanctuaries.

And Allah knows best!

Further Reading

 Arda Wiraz Namag (Iranian "Divina Commedia") And The Prophet's(P) Night Journey


Appendix: Who Turned The Temple Mount Into A Garbage Dump?

Let's now deal with some side issues. The Christian missionaries tell us that when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount filled with garbage:

"When the Arabs conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount abandoned and filled with refuse. ... `Umar ordered it cleaned and performed a prayer there. The sanctuary [the Dome of the Rock] ... was built by Caliph `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan around 72/691."

Two question now arise, who abandoned the Temple Mount and why was it filled it with rubbish? The facts become clearer when we actually fill in the blanks "..."  in the Christian missionaries' quotation:

When the Arabs conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount abandoned and filled with refuse. The abandonment of the Temple site was in accordance with Jesus' prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another. `Umar ordered it cleaned and performed a prayer there.[20]

So, it was the Christians who abandoned the Temple some 600 years before the Muslims entered it. But who used the Holy place a rubbish dump?

Ever since the Persian occupation, when the Jews had resumed worship on the platform, the Christians had used the place as the city rubbish dump. When `Umar reached the old ruined gates of the Temple, says the Muslim historian Mujir al-Din, he was horrified to see the filth, "which was then all about the holy sanctuary, had settled on the steps of the gates so that it even came out into the streets in which the gate opened, and it had accumulated so greatly as almost to reach up the ceiling of the gateway." The only way to get up to the platform was to crawl on hands and knees. Sophronius went first and the Muslims struggled up behind. When they arrived at the top, the Muslims must have gazed appalled at the vast and desolate expanse of Herod's platform, still covered with piles of fallen masonry and garbage.[21]

It was the Christians!  The Christian attitude towards Jerusalem can be understood by reading the New Testament. Paul's Epistles and the Book of Revelation may have defined a theological framework for the attitude towards Jerusalem, but the two synoptic Gospels of Luke (19:42-44) and Matthew did more than that. They also provided guidelines for political or quaispolitical actions after Christianity became the officially established religion of the Roman Empire. The Gospels relate how Jesus rebuked his disciples when they admired the Temple's beauty from the Mount of Olives: "His disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the Temple. But he answered them, 'You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left any stone upon another.'" (Matthew 24:1-2).

Art historians such as Nuseibah and Grabar have reached a similar conclusion concerning the Christian attitude towards the Temple Mount:

More importantly, not only was the Haram left barren, but that very barrenness was given the Christian significance of fulfilling Christ's prophecy, "There will not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down" (Mark 13:2). The ruins of the Jewish Temple and whatever else had been there were to remains as signs of the triumph of Christianity.[22]

Thus the Christians preferred to leave Temple as it was after its destruction; it was left abandoned and became a place of dumping city garbage. It would not be out of place to cite the attitude towards Jerusalem in the early Christian literature. We will take the examples from the writings of John Chrysostom and Athanasius, both of them contemporaries. John Chrysostom of Antioch was the founding father of Christian anti-semitism, whose writing against Jews are extremely vitriolic and of bad taste (no wonder the Christian Church honoured him!).[23] He lived during the period (4th century CE) when Christian eschatology was being linked to Jerusalem or (euphemistically) the Temple Mount. In the wake of Jewish proselytizing efforts, which he feared would empty the churches, Chrysostom vented unbridled wrath against the Jews of Antioch, levelling various accusations against Jews and Judaism. He censured the Jews for celebrating Passover outside Jerusalem, thereby disobeying their own commandments.[24] Above all, he claimed that Jerusalem's destruction testified the truth of Christianity. Jerusalem has been in ruins and lost to the Jews for three hundred years; why should they await a change?[25] They tried to rebuild the Temple three times - in the time of Hadrian (Bar Kochba revolt), Constantine (an unknown attempt) and Julian. All the attempts failed. It should make amply clear to the Jews that their status will not change. It is true that the prophets referred to an end to exile, but they did not mean the present exile, which is eternal.[26] In this way, Jerusalem's status came to be identified by the Christians with the fate of Jews; the latter's final, eternal defeat.

Like his contemporary John Chrysostom, Athanasius was involved in anti-Jewish polemics but not as bitterly as the former.[27] Athanasius thought that the incorporation of Jerusalem into Christian Empire provides the proof of new religion's truth. According to Jesus' prophecy, the Holy City as well as Temple have been taken from them forever.

The Christian Jerusalem, before of the advent of Islam, had undergone subtle developments. The Christians had appropriated a body of Jewish traditions concerning the Temple Mount (some of them mentioned in the New Testament) and were now applied to the Church of Holy Sepulchre and Church of Resurrection. The process of "consecration" of Jerusalem and making it into a Christian city met with little opposition; the pagans had no opposition, while the Jews had not been permitted to reside in Jerusalem since the time of Hadrian (the Bar Kochba revolt). And as expected the Temple Mount was left in the state of pile of fallen masonry and rubbish.

It was Islam that restored the sanctity of Temple Mount, and made it a place of prostration and prayer.


References

[1] `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Is The Qur'an Infallible?, 1995, Light of Life: Villach (Austria), p. 271.

[2] A. Duncan, The Noble Sanctuary: Portrait Of A Holy Place In Arab Jerusalem, 1972, Middle East Archive: London (UK), p. 24.

[3] Badr al-Din bin Muhammad bin Bahadir al-Zarkashi, I`lam Al-Sajid Bi-Ahkam Al-Masajid, 1995, Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), p. 13.

[4] N. Robinson, Discovering The Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach To A Veiled Text, 1996, SCM Press Ltd.: London, p. 192.

[5] See for example the recent work of Heribert Busse, "The Destruction Of The Temple And Its Reconstruction In The Light Of Muslim Exegesis Of Sura 17:2-8", Jerusalem Studies In Arabic And Islam, 1996, Volume 20, p. 1.

[6] Al-Zarkashi, I`lam Al-Sajid Bi-Ahkam Al-Masajidop. cit., pp. 13-14.

[7] ibid., p. 14.

[8] Sahih al-Bukhari, available online.

[9] Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Fath al-Bari available online.

[10] M. Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarium Palaestinae, 1999, Volume II, Brill: Leiden, see plates P29 and P30.

[11] ibid., p. 172.

[12] G. Avni, "Early Mosques In The Negev Highlands: New Archaeological Evidence On Islamic Penetration Of Southern Palestine", Bulletin Of The American Schools Of Oriental Research, 1994, Volume 294, pp. 83-100. All the pictures are taken from here.

[13] U. Avner & J. Magness, "Early Islamic Settlement In The Southern Negev", Bulletin Of The American Schools Of Oriental Research, 1998, Volume 310, pp. 39-57. This articles throws further light on an early Islamic open mosque and a settlement.

[14] K. A. C. Creswell, A Short Account Of Early Muslim Architecture, 1968, Librairie Du Liban, Beirut, pp. 15-16.

[15] "Temple", Encyclopaedia Judaica (CD-ROM Edition), 1997, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Limited.

[16] "Tahnum", ibid.

[17] "Worship", ibid.

[18] See ref. 4.

[19] ibid.

[20] "Dome Of The Rock" in C. Glassé, The Concise Encyclopaedia Of Islam, 1989, Stacey International: London, p. 102.

[21] K. Armstrong, Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, 1997, Ballantine Books: New York, p. 229.

[22] S. Nuseibah & Oleg Grabar, The Dome Of The Rock, 1996, Thames and Hudson: London (UK), p. 35.

[23] St. John Chrysostom (translated by P. W. Harkins), Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, 1979, The Catholic University Of America Press: Washington, DC.

[24] ibid., See discourse IV: 4.9, 5.1-3, 6.1-5.

[25] ibid., See discourse V: 3.13-15; also 5.10

[26] ibid., See discourse V: 4.5.

[27] St. Athanasius (translated by C. S. M. V.), The Incarnation Of The Word Of God: Being The Treatise Of St. Athanasius De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, 1944, The Centenary Press: London (UK), see the chapter VI, "Refutation Of The Jews", p. 64.



Saturday, 25 July 2026

Ask those who have read the Kitāb ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ

 

The claim that Muslims should turn to the People of the Book and consult them whenever they are in doubt is both untenable and absurd. Although our scholars have explained the meaning of this verse and whom it applies to, I will take a simpler approach by examining it from a different angle. What follows is my personal analysis of the text and is not intended to be a scholarly exegesis.

So if you are in doubt, about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters. [Surah 10:94]

Note that the word "Scripture" is translated as Kitāb (ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ) in Arabic. Now, let's go to Surah 2:79.

So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from God,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. [Surah 2:79]

Again, the Arabic word used for "Scripture" is Kitāb (ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ). When the Qur'an refers to previously revealed Scriptures, it consistently points to the revelations given to the Prophets, which were conveyed to their respective nations and peoples. Hence, Scripture has a purpose to provide guidance for mankind.

Surah 2:79 is speaking about a book that some of the Children of Israel wrote themselves and then falsely claimed was from God. Therefore, this book is not presented as a divine revelation or as Scripture given to a Prophet.

When the Qur'an speaks about the Kitāb, Scripture in Surah 10:94, it is not referring to the book that some of the Children of Israel wrote themselves, as mentioned in Surah 2:79. The two uses of Kitāb are not synonymous; rather, a distinction is made between them. One refers to true divine revelation, while the other refers to a book falsely attributed to God.

Therefore, Surah 10:94 could not be referring to the "Bible" as read by the Jews and Christians, since it is not the revealed Scripture given to the Prophets of the past. In fact, a hadith recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari (7363) explicitly states that the Jews changed the Kitāb "Book" of Allah, "بَدَّلُوا كِتَابَ اللَّهِ وَغَيَّرُوهُ"  "They altered the Book of Allah and changed it.". Therefore, the Kitāb referred to in Surah 10:94 cannot be equated with a text that, according to the Qur’an and  hadith.

Narrated Ubaidullah:

 

Ibn `Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Qur'an) which has been revealed to Allah's Messenger () is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"


 Sahih al-Bukhari 7363

In every instance, the Kitāb is presented either as divine revelation or as a false narrative. In Surah 10:94, the Kitāb refers to divine revelation, whereas in Surah 2:79 it refers to a false narrative that was falsely attributed to God. Therefore, the two references to Kitāb are distinct and should not be treated as synonymous.

The claim made by some Christians that the Qur'an directs believers to seek confirmation from a false, man-made book is absurd. As we have just demonstrated, this cannot be the case.

Surah 2:79: The Children of Israel are described as having written their own book Kitāb, "Scripture" and falsely claimed that it was from God.

 

Surah 10:94: The people are instructed to ask those who have read the Kitāb "Scripture", referring to the divine revelations given to the Prophets of the past.

 

Therefore, the Kitāb mentioned in Surah 10:94 is not the same Kitāb mentioned in Surah 2:79. As demonstrated earlier, the two are not synonymous; they refer to two different books. One refers to divine revelation, while the other refers to a man-made book falsely attributed to God. Likewise, the hadith distinguishes between the revealed Scriptures and man-made writings that were falsely presented as "scripture."

 


Without a doubt, we can conclude that the Qur'an is not instructing those who are in doubt to seek guidance from the people who wrote a book with their own hands and cast the Torah behind their backs. Furthermore, notice that the verse says, "Ask those who have been reading the Scripture," not "Ask the Ahl al-Kitāb (People of the Book)." This distinction is significant and should not be overlooked.

 

"Ask those who have been reading the Scripture," referring to those who possess knowledge of the divine Scriptures revealed to the Prophets. It does not say, "Ask the People of the Book."

Furthermore, this verse is not encouraging Muslims to ask Jews or Christians about a man-made book. Rather, it is addressing the pagan Arabs: if they are in doubt, they are told to ask those who have been reading the revealed Scripture before them. The verse also instructs them not to be among those who doubt. Therefore, this verse is not addressed to Muslims as an instruction for seeking religious guidance.

Nowhere does the Qur’an or ahadith state Moses wrote five books? In fact it’s the contrary, Surah 6:91 recalls the children of Israel copying from the revealed scripture of Moses, i.e. the tablets given to him at mount Sinai, putting it into parchments, scrolls where they would show little, but hide much. The Israelites are the ones to be blamed for such treachery.

 

 

Thursday, 23 July 2026

Did Ezra Reconstruct the Torah or Just Change the Script?



Did Ezra Reconstruct the Torah or Just Change the Script?

In the second century C.E., 4 Ezra and Irenaeus tell a story of how the Torah was burned by Nebuchadnezzar and reconstructed by Ezra through divine inspiration. Rabbinic texts know of this tradition, but in their version, Ezra’s contribution is changing the Torah into Aramaic writing, or even Aramaic language.

Prof.

Rebecca Scharbach Wollenberg

 

 

Porphyry: An Ancient Bible Critic

In the 3rd century C.E., Porphyry of Tyre, a Greco-Roman philosopher, wrote a scathing critique of the Jewish biblical corpus in his (now lost) work Against the Christians[1] He claimed that the Mosaic Pentateuch had been lost to the ravages of war when Nebuchadnezzar II razed Jerusalem (586 B.C.E.), and the loss had been covered up with a pseudepigraphic forgery:

Nothing Moses wrote has been preserved for all his writings are said to have been burnt with the temple. All those written under his name afterwards were composed anew one thousand one hundred and eighty years after Moses’ death by Ezra and his followers.[2]

Porphyry accuses Ezra the Scribe and his followers among the Israelite elite of fabricating the Pentateuch now circulating in the name of Moses to cover up the irretrievable loss of the original Torah.

It would be easy to dismiss Porphyry’s claim as the invention of a well-known pagan polemicist, except that pious Jewish and Christian authorities of the period circulated a strikingly similar story about the Torah’s loss. But they believed that Ezra reconstructed the Torah faithfully through divine inspiration.

Ezra Dictates the Bible from Scratch: 4 Ezra

4 Ezra is an apocalyptic Jewish text dating to anywhere between the generation after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. to somewhere in the second century C.E.[3] The text is believed to have been written in Hebrew—though we have no textual evidence of this—and then translated into Greek. The full text, however, survives only in Latin and Syriac translations.

The book is written as a first-person account of Ezra the Scribe, who receives several visions from God.[4] It opens with Ezra lamenting the sad state of the Jews in the exilic period, including the loss of the written Torah. Ezra asks God:

4 Ezra 4:23 …why Israel has been given over to the Gentiles in disgrace; why the people whom you loved has been given over to godless tribes, and the law of our ancestors has been brought to destruction and the written covenants no longer exist.[5]

This theme is continued in the seventh and final vision of the book, whose literary framing makes the parallel to Moses patently obvious:

4 Ezra 14:1 On the third day, while I was sitting under an oak, suddenly a voice came out of a bush opposite me and said, “Ezra, Ezra!” 14:2 And I answered, “Here I am, LORD,” and I rose to my feet.

God tells Ezra that Moses received secret revelations at Mount Sinai, which Ezra will now receive as well, but with permission to make them public. Ezra agrees to communicate all this to the people, and to admonish them to keep God’s laws, but he notes the problem that they no longer have a written Torah, since all copies of it were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar:

4 Ezra 4:19 …For the world lies in darkness, and its inhabitants are without light. 4:21 For your law has been burned, and so no one knows the things which have been done or will be done by you.

4:22 If then I have found favor with you, send the holy spirit into me, and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things that were written in your law, so that people may be able to find the path, and that those who want to live in the last days may do so.[6]

God agrees to this proposal and tells Ezra to take a 40-day break from the people, the number of days Moses spends on Mount Sinai (Exod 24:18, 34:28).[7] Ezra should also bring along five scribes who write quickly, plus many tablets, and Ezra does so. To be able to receive this revelation, Ezra must undergo a mystical/physical transformation, similar to what Ezekiel undergoes (Ezek 3:1–3), when he is told to eat a scroll:

4 Ezra 14:38 And on the next day a voice called me, saying, “Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to drink.” 14:39 So I opened my mouth, and a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color was like fire. 14:40 I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory, 14:41 and my mouth was opened and was no longer closed.

With this power, Ezra begins to recite the revelation and the men write it down:

4 Ezra 14:42 Moreover, the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, using characters that they did not know. They sat forty days; they wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night. 14:43 But as for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night. 14:44 So during the forty days, ninety-four books were written.

The number 94 includes the 24 canonical books of the Bible plus 70—a symbolic number—secret books that Moses was apparently taught but never published.

4 Ezra 14:45 And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, “Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; 14:46 but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. 14:47 For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.” 14:48 And I did so.

Not only was the Mosaic Pentateuch lost, but all twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible were lost as well,[8] until they were recreated by a divinely inspired Ezra dictating to five scribes decades after the originals were destroyed. Thus, Porphyry did not invent the claim that the Bible was lost and only later reconstructed by Ezra. He inherited this idea from the Jews (and Christians), but instead of marveling at Ezra’s mystical prowess as they do, he used the story as an attack on the Bible’s validity, claiming that the Torah was a forgery and the original Mosaic revelation lost to history.

A Christian Version of the Ezra Story: Irenaeus

Christian authorities also had the tradition of Ezra recreating scripture through revelation.[9] In the 2nd century C.E., the bishop Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, discusses the debate amongst early Christian interpreters of Isaiah 7:14, which declares a sign for the birth of the promised redeemer: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן “behold the ʿalmah will become pregnant and give birth to a son.” Some interpreters in the 2nd century C.E. understood the term ʿalmah as “young woman,” but the Greek LXX (Septuagint) translates it as parthenos (παρθένος) virgin.

Iraneaus claims that the LXX—an early Jewish translation into Greek—must be trusted because God performed a miracle during the translation process, and all seventy translators, working separately, came up with the same translation for all of scripture.[10] If so, it is certain the LXX is correct, and those who revert to the Hebrew are just being polemical in denying that almah can mean virgin.

Irenaeus continues that it should not be surprising that God would miraculously ensure that all translations of the Bible come out the same, since God did an even greater miracle earlier in history: During the Babylonian exile, he writes, scripture had become totally corrupted, or “maculated” to use David Weiss Halivni’s preferred term, until Ezra, through a divine inspiration, restored the lost Mosaic Pentateuch:

Iraneaus, Against Heresies, 3.21.2 During the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar the Scriptures had been destroyed by corruption… But when seventy years later[11] the Jews had returned to their own land in the times of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, Ezra the priest of the tribe of Levi was inspired to order in his mind all the words of the former prophets and to reestablish the Mosaic legislation for the people.[12]

While maculation of the text is a different claim than 4 Ezra’s physical destruction, both sources assume that the pristine Mosaic revelation was lost until Ezra the scribe.

Classical rabbinic sources also claim that Ezra the Scribe repaired, replaced, or changed the Pentateuch after the destruction of the First Temple. However, some rabbinic sources soften the story from recreating a whole lost or corrupted text to simply changing an existing text’s script or language.

Ezra Is Like Moses

Like 4 Ezra, the Tosefta has Rabbi Jose [ben Halafta] (2nd cent. C.E.)[13] describing Ezra as a second Moses:

תוספתא סנהדרין [וינה] ד:ה(*ז) ר' יוסה אומ[ר]: "ראוי היה עזרא שתנתן תורה על ידו אילמלא קידמו משה...."[14]

 

t. Sanhedrin 4:5(*7) Rabbi Jose says: “Ezra was worthy that the Torah should have been given at his hand, if it hadn’t been that Moses preceded him…”[15]

Taken on its own, Rabbi Jose could merely be communicating Ezra’s great piety, but the Tosefta continues by claiming that Ezra did, in fact, write the Torah, its script and even its language:

תוספתא סנהדרין [וינה] ד:ה(*ח) ואף הוא ניתן על ידיו כתב ולשון.

 

t. Sanhedrin 4:5(*8) Indeed the writing and language was given at [Ezra’s] hand.

The Talmud backs up this bold statement with glosses on three verses, all based on word play (the bolded words, translated in the English), with loose attention to the original context, but the effect is only clear when we look at all three together.[16] The verses are translated according to the midrashic understanding, not according to the peshat/simple meaning in context):

שנאמר (עזרא ד:ז) "וּכְתָב הַנִּשְׁתְּוָן כָּתוּב אֲרָמִית וּמְתֻרְגָּם אֲרָמִית "—מה תרגומו ארמית אף כתבו ארמית.

 

As it is said (Ezra 4:7): “The writing changed (nishtavan) into Aramaic and translated into Aramaic.”[17] Just as the translation (=language) was Aramaic, so too was the writing (=script) in Aramaic.

 

ואומ[ר]: (דניאל ד:ח) ולא כהלין כתבא למקרי[18] וגו', מלמד שבאותו היום נוּתן.

 

And it says (Dan 5:8), “They could not [read] the writing of scripture (miqrei)”[19]—which teaches that it (=the new version) was only given on that very day.

 

ואומ[ר]: (דברים יז:יג) "וכתב לו את משנה התורה הזאת," תורה[20] העתידה לשתנות.

 

And it says (Deut 17:18): “He shall write for himself this changed form (mishneh) of the Torah”[21]—a Torah that is destined to change (lishtanot).

Starting at the end and working backwards, we learn that the Torah was destined to be changed by translating mishneh “copy” as lishtanot “changing.” When this change happened is clarified in the middle verse, which describes how scripture (miqra)—originally a reference to reading (miqre) the writing on the wall in Daniel—was unreadable. From the first verse we learn why scripture suddenly became unreadable: because it changed nishtavan—playing off an obscure Persian loanword that means “decree” or “letter.” In short, the midrash claims that in the time of Ezra the Scribe, the Torah was suddenly written in Aramaic, language and script. This was a new development, and thus, Ezra did, in fact, write the Torah—or at least a Torah.

This means that Ezra’s Torah is not the same as the original Torah of Moses, which was written in Hebrew and in Paleo-Hebrew script[22]—the Iron Age writing found on ancient ostraca and preserved in a derivative form by the Samaritans.[23] But Ezra cannot be blamed for introducing changes into the text of the Torah, since the Torah itself already predicted it; Ezra simply fulfills Moses’ charge to change the form of the Torah.[24] This version of the midrash does not explain how, if Ezra’s Torah is in Aramaic, rabbinic Jews use a Hebrew Torah, albeit in Aramaic script—a problem the Babylonian Talmud will take up.

Ezra Returns to Torah to the Original Aramaic Script

The Tosefta continues with a second version of the Ezra tradition, quoted in the name of R. Judah HaNasi, according to which the Torah we have today—written in Hebrew but in square Aramaic script—is the same as what was given to Moses on Sinai, and that it changed (somehow) into Paleo-Hebrew as a consequence of sin, but that eventually Ezra the scribe recreated the original:

תוספתא סנהדרין [וינה] ד:ה(*ח) ר[בי] אומר: "בכתב אשורי נתנה תורה לישראל וכשחטאו נהפכה להן לדחץ[25] וכשזכו בימי עזרא חזרה להן אשורית, שנ[אמר] (זכריה ט:יב) 'שׁוּבוּ לְבִצָּרוֹן [אֲסִירֵי הַתִּקְוָה גַּם הַיּוֹם מַגִּיד מִשְׁנֶה אָשִׁיב לָךְ].'"

 

t. Sanhedrin 4:5(*8) Rabbi (Judah HaNasi) says: “The Torah was [originally] given to Israel in Assyrian (=Aramaic) script but when they sinned it changed for them into Paleo-Hebrew. Then when they merited it in the days of Ezra, it returned for them into Aramaic writing. As it is said (Zech 9:12): ‘Return to the stronghold, [prisoners of hope, lo today I tell you I will restore to you the [original] copy (mishneh)].’”

The rabbinic exposition is again on the word mishneh, which appears in both Deuteronomy and Zechariah. In this case, understanding Zechariah to say that when the Judeans return to their land, God will restore the original copy of Moses’ Torah, which is what Ezra does. This version is more conservative than the previous one, since it presents Ezra’s Torah as identical to that of Moses, and only discusses change in script as opposed to language. At the same time, the midrash grants Ezra powers akin to what we saw in 4 Ezra, since he is restoring a lost version.[26]

Aramaic Writing Is Prettier: Jerusalem Talmud

Mishnah Megillah (1:8) states that while Torah scrolls can be written in any language, mezuzot and tefillin must be written only in Ashurit (Aramaic script). In its discussion of the Mishnah, the Jerusalem Talmud notes that Hebrew is beautiful to speak and Ashurit is an especially nice script, and follows this up with:

ירושלמי מגילה א:ט אֲשׁוּרִי יֵשׁ לוֹ כְתָב וְאֵין לוֹ לָשׁוֹן. עִבְרִי יֵשׁ לוֹ לָשׁוֹן וְאֵין לוֹ כְתָב. בָּחֲרוּ לָהֶם כְּתָב אֲשׁוּרִי וְלָשׁוֹן עִבְרִי.

 

j. Megillah 1:9 Assyrian has a written script but does not have a spoken form (i.e., a single spoken form, since it is used for multiple languages).[27] Hebrew has a spoken form (i.e., it was still spoken) but does not have a written script (anymore, since everyone wrote in Aramaic). [So] they (the Jews) chose [to render the Torah in] Assyrian writing (=Aramaic square script) but Hebrew language.[28]

Here the hybrid nature of the Torah’s writing is dealt with in a prosaic manner, based on aesthetic and cultural concerns: Hebrew no longer has its own script, so the Jews chose to write in imperial Aramaic script, a professional scribal script that was pleasant to write, easy to transcribe, and attractive in its final form.

This explanation for why the Torah is written in Aramaic script does not even mention Ezra. No miraculous intervention or midrashic proof is necessary; Aramaic script is simply prettier. Only after this prosaic explanation does the Jerusalem Talmud quote a version of the same Ezra midrash found in the Tosefta,[29] thus presenting his intervention as less significant, it is merely one possible way the Torah’s writing became what it did.

Ezra’s Torah Is Not Our Torah: Babylonian Talmud

A version of the Jerusalem Talmud’s “the people chose the language and script” explanation appears in the Babylonian Talmud, which presents the shift in how the Torah was written as having gone through three “historical” phases. In this version, Ezra’s Torah is actually written in the Aramaic language, like the first opinion in the Tosefta, but this is only the middle stage:

בבלי סנהדרין [קרלסרוהה רוכלין 2] כא: אמ[ר] רב חסדא[30] אמ[ר] מר עוקבא: "בתחילה ניתנה תורה לישר[אל] בכתב עבר[י] ולשון הקודש, חזרה ונתנה לה[ם] בימי עזרא בכתב אשורי ולשון ארמי, וביררו להן כתב אשורי ולשון הקוד[ש], והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברי ולשון ארמי."

 

b. Sanhedrin 21b Rav Hisda said that Mar Ukva said: “Originally, the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew writing and Hebrew language. Then it was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Assyrian script and Aramaic language. [In the end,] Israel chose for themselves the Aramaic script and Hebrew language, and they left the layfolks with Hebrew writing and Aramaic language.”

Mar Ukva claims that Ezra did produce a version of the Torah, but not the one we use. Eventually, the Jews—on their own—chose to keep Ezra’s preferred script but went back to the Hebrew language original, while the layfolks kept Ezra’s preferred language but the original Paleo-Hebrew script. The Talmud understands the term “layfolks” (hedyotot) as a reference to Samaritans:

בבלי סנהדרין [קרלסרוהה רוכלין 2] כא: מאן הדיוטות? אמ[ר] רב חסדא: "כותאי." ומא[י] כתב עברי? אמ[ר] רב חסד[א]: "כתבה ליבונאה."

 

b. Sanhedrin 21b Who are the layfolks [who kept the Hebrew script]? Rav Hisda said: they are the Samaritans. What is Hebrew script? Rav Hisda said it is brick writing [the writing of the ostraca].

Ancient Paleo-Hebrew was still visible throughout the land of Israel in the ostraca and other ancient archeological remains that survived into late antiquity, so the rabbis knew that the Samaritans didn’t just invent it and needed to account for how it was that they made use of the more ancient script.[31]

In short, the Babylonian Talmud here repurposed the story of Ezra’s recreating the Torah as way of explaining why Jews and Samaritans have different Torah texts. In this version, Ezra represents a middle phase in the Torah’s transformation—an entirely Aramaic text lost to history![32]

The Disappearance of the Ezra Tradition

While Jewish and Christian religious authorities would never entirely cease to claim that human hands had influenced the final form of the Pentateuch,[33] the story of an Ezran edition of the Pentateuch would not remain popular in Jewish or Christian circles beyond late antiquity. An important reason for this is the rise of Islam.

Islamic scholars brought with them the claim of tahrif (corruption or falsification), i.e., accusations that Jewish and Christian scriptures were falsified versions of an ancient pristine revelation that was finally fixed in the Quran. Many of these polemics mentioned stories about Ezra as proof for the corruption of the Hebrew Bible.[34]

In such an environment, late antique tales of an Ezran edition of the Bible became an embarrassment that Jewish and Christian authors would rather deny,[35] and the story largely disappeared from circulation.

View Footnotes

Published

February 2, 2024

|

Last Updated

July 11, 2026

  1. This article presents sources previously treated in my articles “The Book that Changed: Tales of Ezran Authorship as a Form of Late Antique Biblical Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature 138.1 (2019): 143­–160 and “A King and a Scribe like Moses: The Reception of Deuteronomy 34:10 and a Rabbinic Theory of Collective Biblical Authorship,” Hebrew Union College Annual 90 (2020): 207–224, and in my book The Closed Book: How the Rabbis Taught the Jews (Not) the Read the Bible (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2023), 26-58. These sources have been explored as historical evidence in David Weiss Halivni, Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses (New York: Avalon, 1998), 16ff, Shlomo Naeh, “על כתב התורה בדברי חז"ל (א): המסורת על החלפת הכתב בידי עזרא” [Script of the Torah in Rabbinic Thought (A): The Traditions concerning Ezra’s Changing of the Script], Leshonenu (2008): 125–143; Mark Leuchter, “The Aramaic Transition and the Redaction of the Pentateuch,” Journal of Biblical Literature 136.2 (2017): 249–268. The topic is also explored in Mira Balberg’s recent Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Antique Rabbinic Cultures (Berkeley: University of California Press: 2023), 208–221.
  2. Frag. 465e as reproduced in Marcarius Magnes, Apokritikos 3.3. Adapted here from the translation of Robert M. Berchman trans., Porphyry Against the Christians (Brill: 2005), 198. Greek interpolations are taken from Makarios Magnus, Apokritikos: Kritische Ausgabe mit deutscher Uebersetzung, edited by Ulrich Volp (De Gruyter: 2013), 108.
  3. The earliest reference to 4 Ezra appears in Clement of Alexandria’s late 2nd cent. C.E. Stromateis, who quotes from the Greek version of the text. For a basic introduction to 4 Ezra, and theories of when and why it was composed, see, Michael E. Stone, 4 Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 1–47; Karina Martin Hogan, “4 Ezra,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Writings Related to Scripture, eds. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Philadelphia, PA/Lincoln, NE: Jewish Publication Society/University of Nebraska], 2013), 2.1607–1668 [1607–1608]; Andy Wong, with Ken M. Penner and David M. Miller, eds., “4 Ezra: Introduction,” Edition 1.0 The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha, ed., Ken M. Penner and Ian W. Scott (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). See also, Michael Stone and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013).
  4. Confusingly, the book starts in chapter 3, since it was preserved as part of what the Latin calls 2 Esdras, which is actually a combination of multiple works: chs. 1–2 (5 Ezra), chs. 3–14 (4 Ezra); chs. 15–16 (6 Ezra).
  5. Translation follows NRSV as quoted (and modified) by Hogan in Outside the Bible.
  6. A close reading of this text in relation to the idea of ongoing revelation is found in Eva Mroczek, Jewish Literary Imagination in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 169-171. Hindy Najman points out that the textual cue for this narrative may be the scene in which Ezra and Nehemiah attribute laws that do not occur in the Pentateuch to Moses. See, Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 112.
  7. For texts that make use of the forty-day period to describe an ideal time for fasting, see Herbert Basser, “Ascetic Fasting and the Dangers of Piety,” TheTorah (2023).
  8. This is an especially interesting claim since one of the 24 books that Ezra recreates is the biblical book of Ezra-Nehemiah, which is largely about him. In any event, none of the books from the Persian period on—I refer here to traditional ascription, not to when they were actually composed—would have been burned by Nebuchadnezzar, since they weren’t yet written. This highlights how the numbers here are typological, and only loosely tied to the historical claim about loss due to destruction and exile.
  9. See, for instance, Willian Adler, “The Jews as Falsifiers: Charges of Tendentious Emendation in Anti-Jewish Christian Polemic” in Translation of Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute (Jewish Quarterly Review Supplement: 1990), 1–27, Lisbeth S. Fried, Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition, Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2014), 118–147, Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 50–74.
  10. The story is told in detail in The Letter of Aristeas. See Benjamin G. Wright, III, The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015); Francis Borchardt, “What Do You Do When a Text is Failing? The Letter of Aristeas and the Need for a New Pentateuch,” JSJ 48 (2017): 1–21.
  11. Historically speaking, Artaxerxes was not king 70 years after the destruction, but, like the rabbis, early Christian authors were not always working with precise historical knowledge, but numbers derived from biblical texts.
  12. Iraneaus, Against Heresies, 3.21.2, translation my own. Greek and Latin taken from William Wigan Harvey ed., Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis Libros quinque adversus haereses (Typis Academicis:1857), 2.114.
  13. As we do not know whether references to tradents (i.e., specific quoted rabbis) have a real historical connection to the person or are more of a literary feature of the text, I prefer to phrase things in this cautious manner.
  14. The MS has not been published, but I follow here Naeh’s transcription (“Script of the Torah in Rabbinic Thought [A],” 130-131).
  15. The text continues by offering a midrashic proof for this.
  16. See Naeh “Script of the Torah in Rabbinic Thought [A],” 130-131, for a different understanding of what the Tosefta is claiming in this first derasha, which takes the original context of the verses as directly relevant to the word plays.
  17. In context, the verse means “The decree was written in Aramaic script and Aramaic language”—a reference to the letter sent to king Artaxerxes about Jerusalem.
  18. The Erfurt MS (the basis of the Zuckermandel edition) has an error here, reading: כתוב במקרא. The MT verse actually reads like neither of the MSS, למקרא.
  19. In context, the verse means “they could not read the writing” a reference to the writing on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast in Daniel, which only Daniel could understand.
  20. Erfurt [Zuckermandel] has כתב “writing.”
  21. In context this means “he should write for himself a copy of the Torah,” referring to the future king who thus shows his loyalty to YHWH.
  22. The Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 1:9), in its rendition of this midrash, quotes Rabbi Nathan at this point who says this explicitly.
  23. For an introduction to this ancient Western Semitic script, see Joseph Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997 [1st ed., 1982])
  24. The midrash ends by noting that this is why the Hebrew writing of the day is called Assyrian script:

תוספתא סנהדרין [וינה] ד:ה(*ח) למה נקרא שמו אשורי? על שם שעלה עמהן מאשור.

 

t. Sanhedrin 4:5(*8) Why is [square Hebrew script] it called “Assyrian” (i.e., Aramaic)? Because it came back with them from [the exile in] Assyria (i.e., Babylonia, where they write in this script).

  1. Erfurt has רועץ and the Yerushalmi has רעץ and דעץ as alternatives. The etymology of this word is unclear though the referent is certainly Paleo-Hebrew or Samaritan script.
  2. The third position in the text, that of Elazar HaModai, defends the idea that the Torah was given in Ashurit (Aramaic script), but says nothing at all about Ezra.
  3. This is one reading of the text. Another possible reading is to connect this with the previous passage and explain that Aramaic has a beautiful written script but an unattractive sound, and that Hebrew has an attractive sound but an unattractive script, and the Jews chose the best of both worlds for the Torah, Hebrew language but Aramaic script.
  4. Again, the same two possibilities for why it is called Assyrian script are mentioned—the first based on a word-play, the second based on history:

ירושלמי מגילה א:ט וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אֲשׁוּרִי. שֶׁהוּא מְאוֹשָּׁר בְּכָתְבוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לֵוִי. עַל שֵׁם שֶׁעָלָה בְיָדָם מֵאַשּׁוּר.

 

j. Megillah 1:9 And why is it called Assyrian (Ashuri)? Because it is pleasant (meʾushar) in its writing. R. Levi said: “Because they brought it back from Assyria (=Babylon).”

  1. The text reads:

ירושלמי מגילה א:ט תַּנּי. רִבִּי יוֹסִי אוֹמֵר. רָאוּיּ הָיָה עֶזְרָה שֶׁתִּינָּתֵן תּוֹרָה עַל יָדוֹ אְלָּא שֶׁקְּדָמוֹ דוֹר מֹשֵׁה.

 

Rabbi Jose says: “Ezra was worthy that the Torah should have been given at his hand, if it hadn’t been that Moses preceded him.”

 

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְנה הַתּוֹרָה עַל יָדָיו אַף הוּא נִיתַּן כְּתָב וְלָשׁוֹן עַל יָדוֹ. וּכְתָב הַנִּשְׁתְּווָן כָּתוּב אֲרָמִית וּמְתוֹרְגָּם אֲרָמִית. וְלָא כָהֲלִין כְּתָבָא לְמִיקְרֵי. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבּוֹ בַיּוֹם נִיתַּן.

 

Even though the Torah was not given at his hands, the writing and language was given at [Ezra’s] hand. (Ezra 4:7): “The letter was written in Aramaic and translated in Aramaic.” (Dan 5:8), “They could not read the writing”—which teaches that [this new script] was only given on that very day.

 

רִבִּי נַתָן אוֹמֵר. בְּדַעַץ נִיתְנָה הַתּוֹרָה. וְאַתְייָא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה.

 

Rabbi Nathan says: “The Torah was given in Paleo-Hebrew”—this follows Rabbi Jose.

 

רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אֲשׁוּרִית נִיתְנָה הַתּוֹרָה. וּכְשֶׁחָטְאוּ נֶהְפַּךְ לָהֶן לְרַעַץ. וּכְשֶׁזָּכוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרַא נֶהְפַּךְ לָהֶן אֲשׁוּרִית. גַּם הַיּוֹם מַגִּיד מִשְׁנֶה אָשִׁיב לָךְ. וְכָתַב לוֹ אֶת מִשְׁנֵה הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת עַל סֵפֶר. כְּתָב שֶׁהוּא עָשׂוּי לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת.

 

Rabbi (=Judah HaNasi) says: “The Torah was [originally] given to Israel in Ashurit (Aramaic script) but when they sinned it changed for them into Paleo-Hebrew. Then when they merited it in the days of Ezra, it returned for them into Aramaic script. (Zech 9:12): ‘lo today I tell you I will restore to you double (mishneh)].’ (Deut 17:18): ‘He shall write for himself this copy (mishneh) of the Torah on a scroll’—a Torah that is destined to change [its form].”

Like the Tosefta, the text moves on here to the third position of R. Elazar HaModai.

  1. All the MSS have Rav Hisda (Florence 8-9 has “Mar Hisda,” a strange hybrid). As Mar Ukva is a first generation amora and Rav Hisda a second/third, this makes sense (narratively or historically). The printed versions have the sixth generation Mar Zutra instead of Rav Hisda, which seems to be an error influenced by the name Mar Ukva.
  2. Of course, the Samaritan Pentateuch differs from the Masoretic Torah in many more ways than just script, but the rabbis are either unaware of this or purposefully ignoring it here.
  3. Like the Jerusalem Talmud, the Babylonian also proceeds to quote the same text as in the Tosefta, but again, Ezra’s position has been neutralized by the preamble. In this case, Rabbi Judah HaNasi’s position appears in the name of Rabbi Meir:

בבלי סנהדרין [קרלסרוהה רוכלין 2] כא: תניא א'ר' יוסי ראוי היה עזרא ש[תינת]ן תורה לישר[אל] על ידו אילמלא קדמו משה...

 

b. Sanhedrin 21b Rabbi Jose says: “Ezra was worthy that the Torah should have been given at his hand, if it hadn’t been that Moses preceded him.…”

 

וא'ע'פ'י' שלא ניתנה תורה על ידו נישתנה כתב על ידו שנ' [כב.] וכתב הנישתוון כתוב ארמית ומתורגם ארמית ואו' לא כ[הלי]ן [כתבא למקרי] ופ[שר]א להודעא למלכ' ואו' וכתב לו את משנה התורה הזאת על ספ[ר כתב] הראוי להישתנות

 

Even though the Torah was not given at his hands, the writing and language was given at [Ezra’s] hand. As it says (Ezra 4:7): [22a] “The letter was written in Aramaic and translated in Aramaic.” And it says (Dan 5:8): “They could not read the writing to inform the king.” And it says (Deut 17:18): ‘He shall write for himself this copy (mishneh) of the Torah on a scroll’—a Torah that is destined to change [its form].”

 

למה נקרא שמ[ו] אשורי? שעלה מן אשור עמהם.

 

And why is it called Assyrian (Ashuri)? Because it came up with them from Assyria (=Babylon).

 

תני ר' מאיר או[מר]: בתחילה בכתב זה ניתנה תורה לישר[אל] וכיון שחטאו נהפך להם לרועץ וכיון שחזרו בהן החזי[רו] להן שנ[אמר] שובו לביצרון אסירי הת[קוה] גם היום מגיד משנה אשיב לך

 

It was taught: Rabbi Meir says: “The Torah was originally given to Israel in this (Aramaic) script, but when they sinned it changed for them into Paleo-Hebrew. Then when they repented, it returned for them into Aramaic script. As it says: (Zech 9:12): ): ‘Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope, lo today I tell you I will restore to you double (mishneh).’”

 

למה נקרא שמו אשורי שמאושר בכתב(ו).

 

And why is it called Assyrian (Ashuri)? Because it is pleasant (meʾushar) in its writing.

  1. Benjamin Sommer’s Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), for instance, correctly argues that not all premodern Jewish authorities opposed the notion that the biblical text had been formed in some measure by human hands. He proposed instead that some biblical authors and rabbinic authorities found theological grounds to embrace a “participatory theory of revelation” that acknowledged, and even celebrated, the role that human beings were understood to have played as agents in scriptural revelation.
  2. As Hava Lazarus-Yafeh (Intertwined Worlds, 19–20) puts it, for instance, in a much-quoted passage: “[The accusation of textual corruption or falsification] was a widespread polemical motif in pre-Islamic times, often connected with the translations and quotations of scriptures, and used by sectarians and traditional authors, including Samaritans and Christians, to discredit various opponents and Scriptures.” For extensive discussions of early Muslim accusations of Ezran falsification see, for instance, Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Willian Adler, “The Jews as Falsifiers: Charges of Tendentious Emendation in Anti-Jewish Christian Polemic” in Translation of Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Anneberg Research Institute, Jewish Quarterly Review Supplement Series 1990, 1–27; Mark R. Cohen, Under Cross and Crescent: The Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 145-154; Gordon Nickel, Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’an (Leiden: Brill, 2010); Norman Roth, “Forgery and Abrogation of the Torah: A Theme on Muslim and Christian Polemic in Spain,” in Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 54 (1987), 203–236; Gabriel Said Reynolds, “On the Qur’anic Accusation of Scriptural Falsification (tahrif) and Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic,” Journal of the American Society 130.2 (2010), 189­–202.
  3. See, for instance, Eve Krakowski’s discussion of Al-Qirqisani’s treatment of this issue: “‘Many Days Without the God of Truth’: Loss and Recovery of Religious Knowledge in Early Karaite Thought” in Pesher Nahum: Texts and Studies in Jewish Literature from Antiquity through the Middle Ages Presented to Norman Golb, Joel Kraemer and Michael Wechsler, eds. (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Press, 2011), 122.



Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey To Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa - The Farthest Mosque

  Prophet Mu h ammad's Night Journey To Al-Masjid Al-Aq s a - The Farthest Mosque Islamic Awareness © Islamic Awareness, All Rights Rese...