Seven Torah Passages of Non-Mosaic Origin According to Ibn Ezra and R. Joseph Bonfils

A Source Sheet listing Ibn Ezra’s Six Non-Mosaic Biblical Passages plus his One Counter-Example, with the Complete Text of Ibn Ezra’s Comments and Bonfils’ Glosses on these comments in English and Hebrew

Introduction

Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra (1089-1164) is one of the most celebrated classical Jewish commentaries on the Torah. His commentary is included in virtually every “Rabbinic Bible” (Mikraot Gedolot). In some of his comments, he references a secret that he wishes to hint at but not disclose. Ibn Ezra’s never states his meaning explicitly, but his point and his reasoning were later explained clearly by R. Joseph ben Eliezer (Tuv Elem) Bonfils (late 14^thcent.), in his commentary on ibn Ezra titled Tzafnat Pa’aneach.

In short, Bonfils explains, ibn Ezra believes that certain biblical passages were not written by Moses. In these terse comments, Ibn Ezra refers to six passages of various lengths.

1.   Genesis 12:62.   Genesis 22:143.   Deuteronomy  1:1-54.   Deuteronomy 3:115.   Deuteronomy 31:96.   Deuteronomy 34:1-12

In addition to his discussion of these verses, ibn Ezra also has a harsh criticism of another scholar, called Yitzhaki (not Rashi), who makes a similar suggestion about a seventh passage,Gen. 36:31-39. Given ibn Ezra’s view regarding the possibility of non-Mosaic additions, it is unclear why he reacted so harshly in this case (something Bonfils attempts to explain.)

Below are the seven biblical passages in question, with all relevant comments by ibn Ezra and Bonfils translated into English and with the original Hebrew included. 

---

– A –
“The Canaanites Were Then in the Land” (Genesis 12:6)

The Verse

וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ר אַבְרָם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ עַ֚ד מְק֣וֹם שְׁכֶ֔ם עַ֖ד אֵל֣וֹן מוֹרֶ֑ה וְהַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י אָ֥ז בָּאָֽרֶץ:

Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh. The Canaanites were then in the land.[1]

Ibn Ezra  

“והכנעני אז בארץ” – יתכן שארץ כנען תפשה כנען מיד אחר. ואם איננו כן יש לו סוד. והמשכיל ידום:

“The Canaanites were then in the land” – It would seem that the Canaanites took the land of Canaan from a different group, but if this is not correct, then there is a secret here, and the wise will remain silent.

Bonfils

“‘והכנעני אז בארץ’, יתכן שארץ כנען תפשה כנען מיד אחר” – פירוש : ידוע כי מילת “אז” היא רמז על זמן ידוע לעתיד או לשעבר, והנה פירושה כמו “בעת ההיא”. ועל כן הוצרך לפרש שמלך הכנעני בעת ההיא, כי אז לקחה מיד אחר.	“‘The Canaanites were then in the land’ – It would seem that the Canaanites took the land of Canaan from a different group.” [2] The meaning: It is known that the word “then” implies either a later or an earlier period of time. It has the same basic meaning as “at that time.” Therefore, it is necessary to explain that the Canaanites ruled at that time to mean that the Canaanites took it from a different group [who were there before them].
ואם איננו כן יש לו סוד והמשכיל ידום – פירוש : אם לא באה מלת אז להודיע שאז תפשה מיד אחר יהיה הפירוש קשה וסתום וראוי להעלימו, והוא רמז סודו בתחילת פרשה אלה הדברים (א:ב), ופירושו הוא כי איך אמר בכאן מלת “אז”, שמשמעה אז היה בה אבל עתה אינו בה? הלא משה כתב את התורה ובימיו היתה הארץ ביד הכנעני! ולא יתכן שיאמר משה “אז” כי הדעת נותן שנכתבה מלת “אז” בזמן שלא היה הכנעני בארץ, ואנחנו ידענו כי לא סר הכנעני משם כי אם אחרי מות משה כשכבשה יהושע. ולפי זה נראה שלא כתב משה זאת המלה בכאן, רק יהושע או אחד משאר הנביאים כתבוה,	“But if this is not correct, then there is a secret here, and the wise will remain silent.” The meaning: If the word “then” is not there to teach that [the Canaanites] took the land from a different group, then the other possibility is difficult and veiled and it would be best to hide it. He (Ibn Ezra) hinted to his secret in the opening of Deuteronomy, and the meaning is this: How could [the Torah] use the word “then” in this context, which implies that [the Canaanites were there] then but that they are there now. But didn’t Moses write the Torah and in his time the Canaanites ruled the land? It makes no sense for Moses to write “then,” for reason dictates that the word “then” could only have been written at a time when the Canaanites were not occupying the land, and we know that the Canaanites were not removed from the land until after Moses’ death during the conquest of Joshua. According to this, Moses did not write that word here, rather Joshua or one of the later prophets wrote it.
כאשר מצאנו בספר משלי (כה:א) “גם אלה משלי שלמה אשר העתיקו אנשי חזקיה מלך יהודה.” כי אחר ששלמה חבר הספר למה נזכר שם חזקיה שנולד אחר כמה דורות? רק היה זה קבלה בידם איש מפי איש מפי שלמה, ועל כן כתבוהו ונחשב כאלו שלמה כתבו. וככה בכאן היה קבלה בידי ישראל שבימי אברהם היה הכנעני בארץ וכתב אותו אחד מן הנביאים כאן. ואחר שיש לנו להאמין בדברי קבלה ובדברי נבואה מה לי שכתבו משה או שכתבו נביא אחר, הואיל ודברי כולם אמת והם בנבואה?!	This is similar to what we find in Proverbs (25:1): “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah kind of Judah copied.” If Solomon wrote this book, how could Hezekiah—someone who was born generations later—be mentioned? Rather, the work was passed on among them, person to person, going back to Solomon, and this is why although [Hezekiah’s men] wrote it, it is attributed to Solomon. Similarly, it was a tradition among the Israelites that in the time of Abraham there were Canaanites in the land, and one of the later prophets wrote this down here. Now since we are bound to believe the words of tradition and prophecy, what difference does it make if Moses wrote it or if some other prophet wrote it, since all of their words and true and divinely inspired?!
ואם תאמר: הנה כתוב “לא תוסיף עליו” (דברים יג,א)! התשובה: דע כי ר´ אברהם בעצמו פירש זה בפרשת ואתחנן (דברים ה:ה), כי המילות הם כגופות, והטעמים כנשמות, ועל כן יש פרשיות שנכתבו בתורה פעמים גם שלש, ויש באחת תוספת על האחרת ואינו נחשב התוספת.	And if one were to argue that the Torah said (Deut. 13:1): “Do not add anything.” The answer is that one should know that R. Abraham Ibn Ezra himself explained this in Parashat Vaetchanan (5:5) that words are like bodies and meanings are like souls, and, therefore, there are sections which are repeated two or three times in the Torah, and each has something new relative to the others and this is not considered an addition.
ועוד, כי בפירושו הראשון בפרשת לך לך (יב,ד) אמר כי לא נאמר “לא תוסיף עליו” רק על המצות. כלומר, מה שהזהירה התורה “לא תוסיף עליו”, לא הזהירה כי אם על מספר המצות ועל עיקרם, אבל לא על המלות. על כן אם הוסיף נביא מלה או מלות לבאר הדבר כאשר שמע מפי הקבלה אין זו תוספת. והראיה מן הזקנים כשתרגמו התורה בלשון יוני לתלמי המלך כאשר הזכרתי בפרשת נח, ששינו י”ג דברים, כמו שכתוב במסכת סופרים (פרק א,ט) ובמסכת מגילה (ט ע”א).	Furthermore, in his first comment to Parashat Lech Lecha(12:4) [Ibn Ezra] says that the rule about adding only refers to mitzvot, meaning, the Torah is only warning us not to add to the number of commandments and there overall structure, but this has nothing to do with [adding] words [to the Torah]. Therefore, if a prophet were to add a word or two to explain something known from tradition, this is not an “addition.” A proof to this effect comes from the elders who translated the Torah into Greek during the rule of Ptolemy, as I explained in Parashat Noah, that they adjusted 13 matters, as is described in Tractate Soferim (1:9) and Tractate Megillah (9a).
ואם תאמר: החליפו אבל לא הוסיפו. התשובה: הלא תראה בפסוק “וירכיבם על החמור” (שמות ד:כ) שתרגמוהו על נושא אדם, והנה שתי מלות במקום מילה אחת. וכן “את הארנבת” (דברים יד:ז) תרגמוהו ואת צעירת הרגלים. ואם תאמר: מפני אימת מלכות עשו [עשו] זה. מי נתן להם רשות לשנות ולהוסיף ולגרוע בעבור אימת מלך? ואם המלך היה לומד כתיבתינו, והיה רואה ששינו, הנה היה חלול השם בפרהסיא, ורבותינו ז”ל אמרו כי במקום שיש חילול השם יהרוג ואל יעבור (סנהדרין עד ע”א).	And if you suggest: ‘They changed words but they didn’t add any’ here is a response: Look at the verse (Exod. 4:20): “And he (Moses) placed them on a donkey,” which they translated as “on a transporter of people” – two Hebrew words in place of one word. Similarly, “the hare” they translated as “the short-legged [one].” If one were to retort: They did this to avoid offending the Romans – who gave them the right to change, add or subtract out of fear of the king? And if the king ever learned our language and saw that we had changed [words], this would have been a public shaming of God? Do not our Rabbis say (b. Sanhedrin 74a): “In a situation of desecration of God’s name one should allow oneself to be killed and avoid the violation”?!
ואחר שלא חששו לכל זה, התבאר כי היה בידם כח להוסיף מלות כדי לבאר, וקל וחומר שיש כח ביד נביא להוסיף מלה בדברי נביא לפרש דבריו, ואף כי בדבר שאיננו מצוה רק סיפורי דברים שעברו. על כן לא יקרא תוספת.	Now since they do not seem to have been concerned about this, it seem clear that it was in their power to add words in order to explain [matters]. How much more so would it have been in the power of a prophet to add a word into the speech of another prophet in order to explain his words—assuming that the matter is not a mitzvah but just narrative. Therefore, such should not be referred to as “an addition.”
ואם תאמר עוד: הנה אמרו רבותנו ז”ל בסנהדרין פרק חלק (צט ע”א), שאפילו אמר כל התורה כולה מן השמים חוץ מפסוק זה שלא אמרו הקב”ה, אלא משה מפי עצמו אמרו, עליו הכתוב אמר (במדבר טו:לא) ´כי דבר י’י בזה´! יש להשיב כי זה על ענין המצות כאשר אמרנו למעלה, ולא על הסיפורים.	And if you argue: Our Rabbis in Sanhedrin, Perek Chelek(99a) said that even if a person were to say that the entire Torah is from heaven except for one verse which the Holy One, blessed be He, did not write but rather Moses wrote down his own words – regarding him scripture states (Numbers 15:31): He has insulted the word of the Lord,” – this can be responded to, for this only refers to the commandments, as we stated above. It does not apply to the narrative.
ומה אאריך אחר שר´ יהודה ור´ נחמיה דרשו במסכת מכות בפרק אלו הגולין (יא ע”א), ´ויכתוב יהושע את הדברים האלה בספר תורת א-לוהים´(יהושע כד:כו) חד אמר: “שמנה פסוקים של תורה”, וחד אמר “ערי מקלט, והנה זה מפורש. ובפרק הקומץ רבה (מנחות ל ע”א) צריך עיון שם.	Why go on at length about this, since Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nehemiah offered a derashah, in Makkot (11a) on the verse (Josh. 24:26): ‘And Joshua wrote down these things in the Book of the Torah of God.” One of them said: “[This refers to] the [last] eight verses of the Torah.” The other one said: “[This refers to the passage] about the refuge cities (Josh. 20).” This is explicit. So too, in the 3rd chapter of Menachot (30a), see there.[3]
זה הסוד אין ראוי להודיעו לבני אדם בעבור שלא יזלזלו בתורה, כי מי שאיננו משכיל לא ידע להפריש בין הפסוקים שנכתבו בהם מצות ובין הפסוקים שנכתב בהם סיפור דברים. גם בעבור האומות, שאומרים לנו, “תורתכם הייתה אמת, רק החלפתם אותה ושיניתם בה.” על כן אמר והמשכיל ידום, כי המשכיל יודע כי זה לא יזיק, רק הפתאים יאשימו על ככה.	It would not be appropriate to reveal this secret to average people, lest they make light of the Torah, for anyone who is not sufficiently wise cannot differentiate between verses that contain mitzvot and verses that are simply narrative. Additionally, because of the nations, who tell us, “your Torah was once the truth, but you replaced it and changed it,” for these reasons he says, “the wise will be silent,” for the wise know that this does no damage, only the fools would attack him (ibn Ezra) for this.

---

– B –
“Whence the Present Saying” (Genesis 22:14)

The Verse

וַיִּקְרָ֧א אַבְרָהָ֛ם שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא יְ-הֹוָ֣ה׀ יִרְאֶ֑ה אֲשֶׁר֙ יֵאָמֵ֣ר הַיּ֔וֹם בְּהַ֥ר יְ-הֹוָ֖ה יֵרָאֶֽה:

And Abraham named that site Adonai-yireh, whence the present saying, “On the mount of YHWH there is vision.”

Ibn Ezra:

וטעם בהר ד’ יראה באלה הדברים.

The meaning of “on the mount of the Lord there is vision” is explained in Parashat Devarim.

Bonfils

“וטעם ‘בהר יי’ יראה’ באלה הדברים” – פירוש: בתחילת הפרשה (דברים א:ב). ודעתו היא כי הר י”י הוא הר המוריה שנבנה בו בית המקדש, כמו שכתוב בדברי הימים (ב’ ג’ א’).	“The meaning of ‘on the mount of the Lord there is vision’ is explained in Parashat Devarim.” The meaning: At the beginning of the parasha (Deut. 1:2). His opinion is that “the Mount of the Lord” is Mount Moriah, upon which the Temple was built, as is written in Chronicles (2 Chron. 3:1).
ומשה לא כתב בתורה אי זה הר הוא, רק כתב “המקום אשר יבחר י”י” (דברים יב:יא) משמע שהוא לא ידע אי זה הר הוא, כי לא גלהו השם עד ימי דוד, ואיך אמר בכאן “בהר י”י יראה”, שמשמע שידעו משה.	Now Moses never wrote in the Torah which mountain [the Temple would be built on], he only wrote “the place which the Lord will choose” (Deut. 12:11). This implies that Moses did not know which mountain it would be, since [God] did not reveal its name until the days of David. So how could [Moses] say here that “on the Mount of the Lord there is vision”, which implies that Moses knew [that this was the mountain.]
ועוד שאמר “אשר יאמר היום” שמשמע כאלו אמר, “זה הוא מה שאומרים עתה בדורנו כשעולים לרגל, ‘בהר י”י יראה’.” כלומר, הוא עולה לעשות המועד בירושלם ולהשתחוות בהר י”י. ולא יתכן שיאמרו כן בימי משה.	Furthermore, he says here “whence the present saying,” the meaning of which is “this is what people say nowadays in our generation when they go up for the festival, that on the Mount of the Lord there is vision.” In other words, he is going up to celebrate the holiday in Jerusalem and to do obeisance on the Mount of God. It is impossible that people would have said this in the time of Moses.
ולפי זה לא כתב משה זה הפסוק רק כתבוהו הנביאים האחרונים, כאשר פירשתי בפסוק “והכנעני אז בארץ” בפרשת לך לך (ברא’ יב:ו), ומשם תבין זה.	Therefore, Moses could not have written this verse. Instead the later prophets wrote it, as I explained on the verse, “the Canaanites were then in the land” in Parashat Lech Lecha (Gen. 12:6). Look there and you will understand this.

---

– C –
“On the Other Side of the Jordan” (Deuteronomy 1:1-5)

The Verses

א אֵ֣לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּעֵ֖בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֑ן בַּמִּדְבָּ֡ר בָּֽעֲרָבָה֩ מ֨וֹל ס֜וּף בֵּֽין פָּארָ֧ן וּבֵֽין תֹּ֛פֶל וְלָבָ֥ן וַחֲצֵרֹ֖ת וְדִ֥י זָהָֽב: ב אַחַ֨ד עָשָׂ֥ר יוֹם֙ מֵֽחֹרֵ֔ב דֶּ֖רֶךְ הַר שֵׂעִ֑יר עַ֖ד קָדֵ֥שׁ בַּרְנֵֽעַ: ג וַיְהִי֙ בְּאַרְבָּעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה בְּעַשְׁתֵּֽי עָשָׂ֥ר חֹ֖דֶשׁ בְּאֶחָ֣ד לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ דִּבֶּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כְּ֠כֹל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְ-הֹוָ֛ה אֹת֖וֹ אֲלֵהֶֽם: ד אַחֲרֵ֣י הַכֹּת֗וֹ אֵ֚ת סִיחֹן֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר יוֹשֵׁ֖ב בְּחֶשְׁבּ֑וֹן וְאֵ֗ת ע֚וֹג מֶ֣לֶךְ הַבָּשָׁ֔ן אֲשֶׁר יוֹשֵׁ֥ב בְּעַשְׁתָּרֹ֖ת בְּאֶדְרֶֽעִי: ה בְּעֵ֥בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מוֹאָ֑ב הוֹאִ֣יל מֹשֶׁ֔ה בֵּאֵ֛ר אֶת־הַתּוֹרָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את לֵאמֹֽר:

1 These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel on the other side of the Jordan.—  Through the wilderness, in the Arabah near Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di-zahab, 2 it is eleven days from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea by the Mount Seir route.— 3 It was in the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, that Moses addressed the Israelites in accordance with the instructions that the Lord had given him for them, 4 after he had defeated Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon, and King Og of Bashan, who dwelt at Ashtaroth [and] Edrei. 5 On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound this Teaching. He said:

Ibn Ezra

“בעבר הירדן, במדבר, בערבה” – ואם תבין סוד [השנים] עשר, גם “ויכתוב משה” (דברים לא:כב), “והכנעני אז בארץ” (ברא’ יב:ו), “בהר ד’ יראה” (שם כב:יד), “והנה ערשו ערש ברזל”,(דברים ג:יא) תכיר האמת.

“On the other side of the Jordan, through the wilderness, in the Arabah” – If you understand the secret of the twelve—as well as “and Moses wrote” (Deut. 31:9), “and the Canaanites were then in the land” (Gen. 12:6), “on the mountain God will appear” (Gen. 22:14), “here is his bestead, an iron bedstead” (Deut. 3:11)[4] – you will recognize the truth.

Bonfils

“וכן פירושו ‘ככל אשר צוה י”י אותו אליהם בעבר הירדן במדבר בערבה'” – פירוש: דעתו היא כי אלה הפסוקים שהם מראש הפרשה עד פסוק “י”י א-להינו דבר אלינו” (א-ו) הם קשורים זה בזה, כאלו כתוב: “אלה הדברים אשר בפרשיות הבאות כבר אמרם משה לישראל ככל אשר צוה י”י אותו אליהם במקומות הנזכרים שהם במדבר בערבה וגו’.	“And this is also the meaning of ‘in accordance with the instructions that the Lord had given him for them…’[5]‘On the other side of the Jordan, through the wilderness, in the Arabah’” – The meaning: He understands that these verses, starting from the beginning of the parashaand ending with “the Lord our God spoke to us” (vv. 1-6), are connected. It can be paraphrased as, “These words, which will appear in the coming parashiyot, were said by Moses to Israel, in accordance with the instructions the Lord had given him for them in the places mentioned, which are the wilderness, the Arabah…”
“ואם תבין סוד השנים עשר (דברים ל:א-יב) גם ‘ויכתוב משה’ (דברים לא:ט), ‘והכנעני אז בארץ’ (בראשית יב:ו) ‘בהר י”י יראה’ (בראשית כב:יד), ‘הנה ערשו’ (דברים ג:יא) תבין האמת” – פירוש: דע כי השנים עשר הם י”ב פסוקים שבסוף התורה (דברים לד:א-יב), והוא אמר שם (פסוק א גם ו) כי לפי דעתו מפסוק ‘ויעל משה’ עד סוף התורה כתב יהושע, ומזה נבין דעתו על פסוקים האחרים. והנני אבאר טעמי כלם.	“If you understand the secret of the twelve, as well as ‘and Moses wrote,’ ‘and the Canaanites were then in the land,’ ‘on the mountain God will appear,’ ‘here is his bestead, an iron bedstead’ – you will recognize the truth.” – The meaning: Know that the secret of the twelve refers to the final twelve verses of the Torah (Deut. 34:1-12). There [ibn Ezra] says that in his estimation, Joshua wrote the end of the Torah, beginning with the verse “Moses went up.” From this we can extrapolate his opinion about the other verses. I will now explain the reason for each of them.
“סוד השנים עשר” – פירוש: הוא פירש שם כי אחר שעלה משה לא ירד, ועל כן הוצרך לפרש כי יהושע כתבם בנבואה, זה הוא דרך הפשט. ומה שפירשו רבותינו ז”ל כי משה כתבם בדמע, דע כי מחלוקת היא במסכת מכות פרק הגולין (דף יא ע”א), ובמנחות פרק הקומץ רבה (דף ל’ ע”א), ובבבא בתרא פרק ראשון (דף טו ע”א), ויש שם מי שאמר כדברי ר’ אברהם.	“The secret of the twelve” – The meaning: He explains there that after Moses went up he did not come down. Therefore, it is necessary to explain that Joshua wrote them through prophecy. This is the simple (peshat) understanding.  Regarding that which the Rabbis suggested, that Moses wrote them with tears – this is a debate in the second chapter of Makkot (11a), in the third chapter of Menachot (30a), and in the first chapter of Baba Batra (15a), and one of the opinions there aligns with what Rabbi Abraham [ibn Ezra] says.
“גם ‘ויכתוב משה'” – פירוש: בפרשת וילך כתוב “ויכתב משה את התורה הזאת ויתנה אל הכהנים וגו’. (דברים לא:ט).” כי מלת “ויכתב” גם “ויתנה” מעידות שכבר נתנה קודם שנכתב זה הפסוק.	“As well as ‘and Moses wrote’” (Deut. 31:9) – the meaning: In Parashat Vayellech it is written “Moses wrote down this Torah and gave it to the priests…” The words “he wrote” and “he gave” demonstrate that it had already been given by the time this verse was written.
“והכנעני אז בארץ” – פירוש: כבר ביארתיו בפרשת לך לך (בראשית יב:ו).	“The Canaanites were then in the land” (Gen. 12:6) – the meaning: I already explained this in Parashat Lech Lecha.
“בהר י”י יראה” – פירוש: ביארתיו בפרשת וירא אליו (בראשית יב:ו).	“On the mountain God will appear” (Gen. 22:14) – the meaning: I explained this in Parashat Vayera.
“הנה ערשו” – פירוש: “הנה ערשו ערש ברזל הלא היא ברבת בני עמון” – משמעו שהוא מעיד להם שהיא ברבת בני עמון. וידוע כי משה לא נכנס אל ארץ בני עמון, שנאמר “רק אל ארץ בני עמון לא קרבת” (דברים ב:לז). ואחר שלא נכנס שם, מאין ידע שהיתה ערשו של עוג בתוכה?! וידוע כי ישראל לא באו ברבת עד ימי דוד, ששלח את יואב וכבש את ארץ בני עמון, ואז ידעו שהיתה ערש עוג ברבה.	“Here is his bedstead” (Deut. 3:11) – the meaning: “His bedstead, an iron bedstead, is now in Rabbah of the Ammonites” implies that he is attesting to them that it is in Rabbah of the Ammonites. Yet it is known that the Moses never entered the land of the Ammonites, for [the Torah] says (Deut. 2:37): “but you did not encroach upon the land of the Ammonites.” Now since he never entered [Rabbah], how would he know that [Og’s] iron bestead was there? It is also known that Israel did not enter Rabbah until the time of David, who send forth Joab to conquer the land of the Ammonites. At that point they would have learned that Og’s bedstead was there.
וזה ראיה כי אחר כן נכתב זה הפסוק כתורה ולא כתבו משה, רק אחד מהנביאים האחרונים כתבו.	This is a proof that this verse was written into the Torah only after these events. Thus Moses did not write it but rather one of the later prophets must have written it.
“תבין האמת” – פירוש: אם תבין סוד הפסוקים האלה שלא כתבם משה, אז תבין כי הפסוקים, החמשה שהם מתחלת הפרשה הזאת עד תחלת “י”י א-להינו דבר אלינו”, לא כתבם משה, רק אחד מהנביאים האחרונים כתב אותם. ופסוק “י”י א-להינו”, שהוא תחלת הענין, הוא קשור עם פסוק “אלה המצות והמשפטים” שהוא סוף ספר וידבר (במדבר לו:יג).	“You will recognize the truth” – the meaning: If you understand the secret of these verses, i.e. that Moses didn’t write them, then you will understand that these five verses, from the beginning of the parasha until the words “the Lord our God spoke to us” were not written by Moses either, but rather one of the later prophets wrote them. The verse “the Lord our God” is the beginning of the book, which connects with the words “these are the commandments and statutes” that form the end of the book of Numbers (36:11).
ומי שיסתכל היטב בענין הפסוקים האלה יבין האמת, ויעיד על זה כי כל החמשה הפסוקים האלה מדברים בלשון איש אחר, כאלו אחר מגיד הענין. ואם תאמר, כל התורה כלה גם כן מדברת בלשון אחרים? דע כי יש בכאן הפרש כי נתן בהם סימנים על המקומות שנאמרו בהם המצות האלה, והסימנים הם “במדבר, בערבה וגו’.” ואלו כתבם משה לא היה צריך לתת סימנים, כי כל ישראל היו שם והיו יודעים המקומות, ומה צורך היה לו להגיד להם סימני המקומות שהם שם, הואיל והם יודעים אותם?! וזה הכריחו לפרש כן.	Anyone who looks carefully at these verses will understand the truth, and can certify that all five of these verses are speaking in the third person, as if someone else were telling the story. And if one were to respond that the rest of the Torah also speaks as a third person narrator, note that there is a difference. [The author] gives allusions, “in the wilderness,” “in the Arabah,” etc. If Moses had written it, he would not have needed to offer an allusions, since all of Israel had been there and knew these places, so what need would there be for him to give them short-hand cues about places they had been, since they knew about them? This is what forced [ibn Ezra] to explain the passage as he did.[6]
וכבר הקשיתי קושיות עליו בפרשת לך לך, בסוד “והכנעני אז בארץ” (בראשית יב”ו). ונתתי לכלם טעם על דעתו כראוי.	I already posed a number of difficulties with his position in [my comments on] Parashat Lech Lecha (Gen. 12:6), when glossing the secret of “the Canaanite was then in the land.” There I gave fitting answers to each [difficulty] in line with his reasoning.

---

– D –
“Now in Rabbah of the Ammonites” (Deuteronomy 3:11)

The Verse

כִּ֣י רַק ע֞וֹג מֶ֣לֶךְ הַבָּשָׁ֗ן נִשְׁאַר֘ מִיֶּ֣תֶר הָרְפָאִים֒ הִנֵּ֤ה עַרְשׂוֹ֙ עֶ֣רֶשׂ בַּרְזֶ֔ל הֲלֹ֣ה הִ֔וא בְּרַבַּ֖ת בְּנֵ֣י עַמּ֑וֹן תֵּ֧שַׁע אַמּ֣וֹת אָרְכָּ֗הּ וְאַרְבַּ֥ע אַמּ֛וֹת רָחְבָּ֖הּ בְּאַמַּת־אִֽישׁ:

Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remaining Rephaim. His bedstead, an iron bedstead, is now in Rabbah of the Ammonites; it is nine cubits long and four cubits wide, by the standard cubit!

Ibn Ezra makes no comment on this verse, despite his reference to it in his gloss on Deut. 1:2.

---

– E –
“Moses Wrote Down this Torah” (Deuteronomy 31:9)

The Verse

וַיִּכְתֹּ֣ב מֹשֶׁה֘ אֶת־הַתּוֹרָ֣ה הַזֹּאת֒ וַֽיִּתְּנָ֗הּ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים֙ בְּנֵ֣י לֵוִ֔י הַנֹּ֣שְׂאִ֔ים אֶת אֲר֖וֹן בְּרִ֣ית יְ-הֹוָ֑ה וְאֶל כָּל זִקְנֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:

Moses wrote down this Torah and gave it to the priests, sons of Levi, who carried the Ark of YHWH’s Covenant, and to all the elders of Israel.

Ibn Ezra makes no comment on this verse, despite his reference to it in his gloss on Deut. 1:2.

---

– F –
“Moses Went Up” (Deuteronomy 34:1-12)

The Verses

א וַיַּ֨עַל מֹשֶׁ֜ה מֵֽעַרְבֹ֤ת מוֹאָב֙ אֶל הַ֣ר נְב֔וֹ רֹ֚אשׁ הַפִּסְגָּ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל פְּנֵ֣י יְרֵח֑וֹ וַיַּרְאֵ֨הוּ יְ-הֹוָ֧ה אֶת כָּל הָאָ֛רֶץ אֶת הַגִּלְעָ֖ד עַד־דָּֽן:ב וְאֵת֙ כָּל נַפְתָּלִ֔י וְאֶת אֶ֥רֶץ אֶפְרַ֖יִם וּמְנַשֶּׁ֑ה וְאֵת֙ כָּל אֶ֣רֶץ יְהוּדָ֔ה עַ֖ד הַיָּ֥ם הָאַחֲרֽוֹן: ג וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֗גֶב וְֽאֶת הַכִּכָּ֞ר בִּקְעַ֧ת יְרֵח֛וֹ עִ֥יר הַתְּמָרִ֖ים עַד־צֹֽעַר: ד וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְ-הֹוָ֜ה אֵלָ֗יו זֹ֤את הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נִ֠שְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָ֨ם לְיִצְחָ֤ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹב֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לְזַרְעֲךָ֖ אֶתְּנֶ֑נָּה הֶרְאִיתִ֣יךָ בְעֵינֶ֔יךָ וְשָׁ֖מָּה לֹ֥א תַעֲבֹֽר: ה וַיָּ֨מָת שָׁ֜ם מֹשֶׁ֧ה עֶֽבֶד־יְ-הֹוָ֛ה בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מוֹאָ֖ב עַל־פִּ֥י יְ-הֹוָֽה: ו וַיִּקְבֹּ֨ר אֹת֤וֹ בַגַּיְ֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מוֹאָ֔ב מ֖וּל בֵּ֣ית פְּע֑וֹר וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֥ע אִישׁ֙ אֶת־קְבֻ֣רָת֔וֹ עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה: ז וּמֹשֶׁ֗ה בֶּן מֵאָ֧ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֛ים שָׁנָ֖ה בְּמֹת֑וֹ לֹֽא כָהֲתָ֥ה עֵינ֖וֹ וְלֹא נָ֥ס לֵחֹֽה: חוַיִּבְכּוּ֩ בְנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֧ל אֶת מֹשֶׁ֛ה בְּעַֽרְבֹ֥ת מוֹאָ֖ב שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים י֑וֹם וַֽיִּתְּמ֔וּ יְמֵ֥י בְכִ֖י אֵ֥בֶל מֹשֶֽׁה: ט וִֽיהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ בִּן־נ֗וּן מָלֵא֙ ר֣וּחַ חָכְמָ֔ה כִּֽי סָמַ֥ךְ מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת יָדָ֖יו עָלָ֑יו וַיִּשְׁמְע֨וּ אֵלָ֤יו בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וַֽיַּעֲשׂ֔וּ כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְ-הֹוָ֖ה אֶת מֹשֶֽׁה:י וְלֹֽא קָ֨ם נָבִ֥יא ע֛וֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל כְּמֹשֶׁ֑ה אֲשֶׁר֙ יְדָע֣וֹ יְ-הֹוָ֔ה פָּנִ֖ים אֶל פָּנִֽים:יא לְכָל הָ֨אֹתֹ֜ת וְהַמּוֹפְתִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר שְׁלָחוֹ֙ יְ-הֹוָ֔ה לַעֲשׂ֖וֹת בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפַרְעֹ֥ה וּלְכָל עֲבָדָ֖יו וּלְכָל אַרְצֽוֹ: יב וּלְכֹל֙ הַיָּ֣ד הַחֲזָקָ֔ה וּלְכֹ֖ל הַמּוֹרָ֣א הַגָּד֑וֹל אֲשֶׁר֙ עָשָׂ֣ה מֹשֶׁ֔ה לְעֵינֵ֖י כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:

1 Moses went up from the steppes of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the summit of Pisgah, opposite Jericho, and YHWH showed him the whole land Gilead as far as Dan; 2 all Naphtali; the land of Ephraim and Manasseh; the whole land of Judah as far as the Western Sea; 3 the Negeb; and the Plain—the Valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees—as far as Zoar. 4 And YHWH said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ‘I will assign it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your own eyes, but you shall not cross there.” 5 So Moses the servant of YHWH died there, in the land of Moab, at the command of YHWH. 6 He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, near Beth-peor; and no one knows his burial place to this day. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated. 8And the Israelites bewailed Moses in the steppes of Moab for thirty days. The period of wailing and mourning for Moses came to an end. 9 Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands upon him; and the Israelites heeded him, doing as YHWH had commanded Moses. 10 Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses—whom YHWH singled out, face to face, 11 for the various signs and portents that YHWH sent him to display in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his courtiers and his whole country, 12 and for all the great might and awesome power that Moses displayed before all Israel.

 Ibn Ezra

“ויעל משה” – לפי דעתי, כי מזה הפסוק כתב יהושע, כי אחר שעלה משה לא כתב, ובדרך נבואה כתבו.

“Moses went up” – in my opinion, from this verse and on Joshua was the author, for after Moses went up he was no longer writing, [and Joshua] wrote the passage through prophecy.

Bonfils does not gloss this comment.

---

– G –
“Before Any King Reigned Over the Israelites” (Genesis 36:31-39)

(A Counter Example)

The Verses

לא וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַמְּלָכִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מָלְכ֖וּ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ אֱד֑וֹם לִפְנֵ֥י מְלָךְ־מֶ֖לֶךְ לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:לב וַיִּמְלֹ֣ךְ בֶּאֱד֔וֹם בֶּ֖לַע בֶּן־בְּע֑וֹר וְשֵׁ֥ם עִיר֖וֹ דִּנְהָֽבָה: לג וַיָּ֖מָת בָּ֑לַע וַיִּמְלֹ֣ךְ תַּחְתָּ֔יו יוֹבָ֥ב בֶּן־זֶ֖רַח מִבָּצְרָֽה: לד וַיָּ֖מָת יוֹבָ֑ב וַיִּמְלֹ֣ךְ תַּחְתָּ֔יו חֻשָׁ֖ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ הַתֵּימָנִֽי: לה וַיָּ֖מָת חֻשָׁ֑ם וַיִּמְלֹ֨ךְ תַּחְתָּ֜יו הֲדַ֣ד בֶּן־בְּדַ֗ד הַמַּכֶּ֤ה אֶת מִדְיָן֙ בִּשְׂדֵ֣ה מוֹאָ֔ב וְשֵׁ֥ם עִיר֖וֹ עֲוִֽית:לו וַיָּ֖מָת הֲדָ֑ד וַיִּמְלֹ֣ךְ תַּחְתָּ֔יו שַׂמְלָ֖ה מִמַּשְׂרֵקָֽה:לז וַיָּ֖מָת שַׂמְלָ֑ה וַיִּמְלֹ֣ךְ תַּחְתָּ֔יו שָׁא֖וּל מֵרְחֹב֥וֹת הַנָּהָֽר: לחוַיָּ֖מָת שָׁא֑וּל וַיִּמְלֹ֣ךְ תַּחְתָּ֔יו בַּ֥עַל חָנָ֖ן בֶּן עַכְבּֽוֹר:לט וַיָּמָת֘ בַּ֣עַל חָנָ֣ן בֶּן עַכְבּוֹר֒ וַיִּמְלֹ֤ךְ תַּחְתָּיו֙ הֲדַ֔ר וְשֵׁ֥ם עִיר֖וֹ פָּ֑עוּ וְשֵׁ֨ם אִשְׁתּ֤וֹ מְהֵֽיטַבְאֵל֙ בַּת מַטְרֵ֔ד בַּ֖ת מֵ֥י זָהָֽב:

31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites. 32 Bela son of Beor reigned in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah. 33 When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah, from Bozrah, succeeded him as king. 34 When Jobab died, Husham of the land of the Temanites succeeded him as king. 35 When Husham died, Hadad son of Bedad, who defeated the Midianites in the country of Moab, succeeded him as king; the name of his city was Avith. 36 When Hadad died, Samlah of Masrekah succeeded him as king. 37 When Samlah died, Saul of Rehoboth-on-the-river succeeded him as king. 38 When Saul died, Baal-hanan son of Achbor succeeded him as king.39 And when Baal-hanan son of Achbor died, Hadar succeeded him as king; the name of his city was Pau, and his wife’s name was Mehetabel daughter of Matred daughter of Me-zahab.

 Ibn Ezra

“ואלה המלכים” – י[ש] א[ומרים] כי בדרך נבואה נכתבה זאת הפרשה. ויצחקי אמר בספרו, כי בימי יהושפט נכתבה זאת הפרשה, ופירש הדורות כרצונו. הכי קרא שמו יצחק, כל השומע יצחק לו, כי אמר כי הדד הוא הדד האדומי, ואמר כי מהיטבאל אחות תחפנ(ח)ס. וחלילה חלילה שהדבר כמו שדבר על ימי יהושפט, וספרו ראוי להשרף.	“These are the kings” – there are those who say that this section was written with prophecy. Yitzchaki[7] wrote in his book that this section was written during the time of Jehoshaphat, and he proceeds to interpret the generations as he sees fit. This is why his name is Yitzchak, for anyone who hears him will laugh at him.[8] For he said that Hadad (v. 35) is Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11:14), and that Mehetabel is the sister of Tahpenes[9] (1 Kings 11:19-20). God forbid that the matter would be as he suggested about the time of Jehoshaphat. His book is fit for burning.
ולמה תמה על שמונה מלכים שמלכו שהם רבים. והנה מלכי ישראל כפלים במספר, ושני אלה המלכים קרובים לשני מלכי ישראל, גם מלכי יהודה רבים הם ממלכי אדום עד ימי משה.	Why would he be surprised about these eight kings having ruled, as if that were so many. There were double as many kings of Israel than this, and the [amount of] years these kings reigned is similar to the [amount of] years the kings of Israel reigned. Also the kings of Judah were much more numerous than the kings of Edom up until Moses.
והאמת שפירוש לפני מלך מלך על משה מלך ישראל, וכן כתוב ויהי בישורון מלך (דבר’ לג:ה).	The truth is that the meaning of “before any king reigned over the Israelites’ is a reference to Moses, King of Israel. And thus [the Torah] states (Deut. 33:5): “There was a king in Jeshurun.”

 Bonfils

“יש אומרים כי בדרך נבואה נכתבה זאת הפרשה” – פירוש: בעבור כי כתוב בה “לפני מלך מלך לבני ישראל”, והם סוברים כי הראשון שמלך על ישראל הוא שאול, ולא יכול משה לדעת מה שהיה עתיד להיות עד ימי שאול כי אם בנבואה.	“There are those who say that this section was written with prophecy” – the meaning: Since it says “before any king reigned over the Israelites,” and these [commentators] believe the first person to reign as king of Israel was Saul. Thus, Moses could only have known what would occur (i.e. who would rule over Edom) until the reign of Saul by way of prophecy.[10]
“כי בימי יהושפט נכתבה” – פירוש: כי דעתו היתה שהראשון היה שאול, כאשר אמר, וסובר כרש”י שאלו המלכים היו שמנה וכנגדם העמיד יעקב ונטל מלכות מעשו כל ימיהם. ואלו הם: שאול, ואיש בושת, דוד, ושלמה, רחבעם, אביה, אסא, יהושפט. ובימי[ו] (שאול) כתיב: “אין מלך באדום נצב מלך (מ”א כב,מח). ובימי יורם פשע אדום מתחת יד יהודה וימליכו עליהם מלך (מ”ב ח,כ). וכן נדרש בבראשית רבה (פרש’ פג, אות ב).	“This section was written during the time of Jehoshaphat”– the meaning: His opinion is that the first king was Saul, as explained, and he agrees with Rashi, that there were eight [Edomite] kings, and as a counter to them, Jacob (=Israel) appointed eight kings, during whose time Esau (=Edom) had no king of its own. These were: Saul, Ish Boshet, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Aviha, Asa, and Jehoshaphat. In [his] days,[11] it says (1 Kings 22:48): “There was no king in Edom; a viceroy acted as king.” It was in the days of Joram that Edom rebelled against Judah and appointed a king over themselves (2 Kings 8:20). This also appears as a derashain Genesis Rabba (83:2).
“כי אמר הדד הוא הדד האדומי” – פירוש: שהיה שטן לשלמה, כדכתיב במלכים (א יא,יד). ולפי זה צריך לפרש שהיתה מלכותו קודם שאול והוסר ממלכותו כל ימי שאול ואיש בושת ודוד ושלמה עד זקנתו של שלמה, והנה חיה שנים רבות! וכל צריך כל האחרים לפרש.	“For he said that Hadad is Hadad the Edomite” – the meaning: He was the enemy of Solomon, as is written in Kings (1 Kings 11:14). According to this, [Yitzchaki] would have to explain that [Hadad] ruled before Saul, lost his thrown for the entire time Saul, David and Solomon ruled until Solomon’s old age. This would have been very many years. He would need to offer this interpretation about the others as well.[12]
“ואמר כי מהיטבאל אחות תחפנ(ח)ס” – פירוש: כן היתה נקראת אשת הדד האדומי, ותחפנ(ח)ס אשת פרעה מלך מצרים שהיה חותנו של שלמה, ומהיטבאל היתה אחותה, והוא סובר כי אותה הכתובה בזאת הפרשה, כי בימי יהושפט נכתבה בכאן.	“And he said that Mehetabel is the sister of Tahpenes” – the meaning: That (=Mehetabel) was the name of Hadad the Edomite’s wife. Tahpenes was the wife of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who was Solomon’s father-in-law, and Mehetabel was her sister. [Yitzchaki] believes that this is the person referred to in this parasha. Thus, that which was written here must have been written in the time of Jehoshaphat.
“וספרו ראוי להשרף” – פירוש, לפי דעתי אמר ככה בעבור כי אם נכתבה בימי יהושפט הנה הוספו על התורה פרשה שלימה, והתורה אמרה “לא תוסיף עליו (דברים ד:ב).	“His book is fit for burning” – the meaning: In my opinion, he said this because if it had been written in the days of Jehoshaphat, that means that an entire parasha was added to the Torah. But the Torah warns not to add to it (Deut. 4:2).
ואם יטעון טוען, “הלא ר’ אברהם בעצמו רמז בתחלת ספר אלה הדברים (א,ב) שהוסיפו הנביאים האחרונים מלות גם פסוקים בתורה!” התשובה: כי המוסיף מלה או פסוק לפרש מה שכתב משה, להוסיף בו ביאור, אין זה דומה למוסיף פרשה שלימה, כי מלה או פסוק הוא פירוש, אבל פרשה שלמה היא תוספת.	Now if someone were to argue, “But did Rabbi Abraham [ibn Ezra] himself hint towards the beginning of Deuteronomy (1:2) that later prophets added phrases, even verses into the Torah?!” The answer: Adding a phrase or a verse to explain that which Moses said, or to add a clarification is not the same as adding an entire parasha. A phrase or a verse is an explanation, but an entire parasha is an addition.[13]
והנה מלכי ישראל כפלים במספר – פירוש: מירבעם והלאה הם י”ח: ירבעם, נדב, בעשא, אלה, זמרי, עמרי, אחאב, אחזיהו, יורם, יהוא, יהואחז, יואש, ירבעם, זכריה, שלום, מנחם, פקחיה, פקח, הושע. ובעבור כי זמרי לא מלך רק ז’ ימים (מ”א טז,טו) גם שלום לא מלך רק ירח ימים (מ”ב טו:יג), על כן לא הכניסם במספר, והנה נשארו י”ו.	There were double as many kings of Israel than this – the meaning: From Jeroboam and on there were 18: Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Ella, Zimri, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Joash, Jeroboam, Zechariah, Shalom, Menachem, Pekahiah, Pekah, Hoshea. Since Zimri only reigned seven days (1 Kings 16:15)  and Shalom only reigned a month (2 Kings 15:13), he didn’t include them in his calculation, leaving 16.
“ושני אלה המלכים” – פירוש: שנותיהם של אלה המלכים מלכי אדום.	“And the [amount of] years these kings reigned” – the meaning: the years of these kings refers to the Edomite kings.
“קרובים לשני מלכי ישראל” – כי ארבע מאות שנה של גלות מצרים החלו מלידת יצחק, ויצחק בן ששים שנה כשנולד עשו (בראשית כה:כו). ורבותינו ז”ל דרשו (במסכת סוטה יג ע”א) שיעקב ועשו ביום אחד מתו. והנה היה עשו קמ”ז שנה, ולא מלכו בניו רק אחר מותו, והנה קמ”ז וס’ הם ר”ז בחסרם מת’ שנים של גלות מצרים ישארו קצ”ג מעת שמת עשו עד יציאת מצרים, שהיא עד ימי משה כאשר יפרש.	“Is similar to the [amount of] years the kings of Israel reigned” – the meaning: The four hundred years of exile began with the birth of Isaac, and Isaac was 60 years old when he Esau was born (Gen. 25:26). Our Rabbis offered a derasha (b. Sotah 13a) that Jacob and Esau both died on the same day.” Thus Esau was 147 [when he died] and his sons did not reign [as kings] until after his death. Now 147 plus 60 is 207. Subtract this from the 400 years of Egyptian exile and there is 193 remaining from the time Esau dies until the exodus from Egypt, which is until the time of Moses, as [ibn Ezra] will explain.
ושנות מלכי ישראל שהם מלכי שומרון עלו ר”ן שנה, והנה אף על פי שהיו י”ו מלכים לא עלו שנותיהם רק ר”ן. ומלכי אדום שלא היו אלא חציים אלו שנותיהם קרוב מר’ שנה, וכמעט יהיו ר”ן שנה.	Now the years of the kings of Israel, that is those who ruled in Samaria, add up to 250 years. Thus, even though there were 16 kings, the only reigned a total of 250 years. Yet the kings of Edom, who were only half as many, reigned almost 200 years, which is not much less than 250 years.
“גם מלכי יהודה” – פירוש: דוד, ושלמה, רחבעם, אביה, אסא, יהושפט, יהורם, אחזיה, יהואש, אמציה, עוזיהו, יותם, אחז, חזקיה, מנשה, אמון, יאשיה, יהואחז, יהויקים, יהויכין, צדקיהו–הם כ”א מלכים.	“Also the kings of Judah” – the meaning: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Aviha, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah – altogether 21 kings.

---

 Translated by Rabbi Dr. Zev Farber 

[1]  All English translations from biblical verses come from the NJPS Tanakh translation, with some adjustments.

[2] Ibn Ezra’s and Bonfils’ comments on this passage were also translated by Rabbi Elli Fischer on his On The Contrary blog, see translation and discussion here. 

[3] The debate about whether Moses or Joshua wrote the last eight verses of the Torah appears here, as well as in Baba Batra 15a.

[4] In my TABS essay, “Ibn Ezra’s Secret: Late Editorial Comments in the Opening Chapters of Deuteronomy,” I discuss two other examples: the reference to Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land in the past tense (Deut. 2:10-12), and the reference to the founding of Havvot Yair (3:14), which is also dated to the time of the Judges (Judg. 10:3-4). I remain surprised that ibn Ezra didn’t catch these, as they are more obvious than some of his examples. Perhaps he did catch them and only meant for the list here to be a partial list to get the point across.  

[5] I understand this line as the end of ibn Ezra’s previous comment where he clarified that the Torah which God taught, to which Moses refers, are the laws which he will list later on in the book. But Bonfils interprets this line as part of the next ibn Ezra, as can be seen above.

[6] I would have suggested something else forced ibn Ezra’s hand. Since Deuteronomy is written in 1^st person (as opposed to the other four books) parts where it speaks in the 3^rdperson betray an editorial insertion. This is the same point Rashbam makes at the beginning and end of his commentary on Ecclesiastes, where he says that the opening two verses and the closing seven verses were not by the author but were editorial summaries written in afterwards. His reasoning is also because of the switch to 3^rd person narration.

[7] Some theorize that Yitzhaki was a Karaite scholar (ibn Ezra certainly read Karaite commentaries, such as that of Yephet ben Ali). As far as I am aware, Yitzhaki’s identity is still unknown.

[8] Playing off of Sarah’s comment about the birth of Isaac (Gen. 21:6).

[9] The text says “Tahpanhes” but this appears to be a mistake, since Tahpanhes is a city not a person.

[10] In other words, this is a list of kings who hadn’t yet ruled, or even been born, when Moses wrote this section.

[11] The text says “in the days of Saul” but this appears to be a mistake, since the verse is clearly speaking about Jehoshaphat.

[12] All this assumes that Yitzchaki believes this to be a list of kings from before Saul. Unfortunately, as we do not have Yitzchaki’s text extant (as far as I am aware), we do not know if this assumption is correct or not. On the surface, I would imagine that Yitzchaki did not read the text this way, but if so, we don’t know how he interpreted the phrase “before any king reigned over the Israelites.” 

[13] One problematic matter regarding this suggestion is that ibn Ezra believes that the last chapter of the Torah, which is an entire parasha, was added. I am not sure this is the best explanation for what troubled ibn Ezra here.

A SMALL ISRAELITE EXODUS POPULATION

.

 by James Bishop · in Articles, Bible, Old Testament. ·

The number of Israelites escaping from Egypt and venturing forth to the Promised Land has, for many, been a topic of contention. This has caused doubt for some as we’d expect 600 000 men (which would equate to over two million people in total if women and children were included) to leave some trace of their presence. However, as I’d like to argue, it wasn’t actually that many people in the first place. And if my argument follows then people have been looking for evidence that was never there in the first place.

1. Verses hinting at a smaller Exodus population.

Some verses seem to hint that the total number Israelites fleeing was not two million.

Deuteronomy 7:1 – “When Jehovah your God shall bring you into the land where you go to possess it, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you.”

Deuteronomy 11:23 – “then Jehovah will drive out all these nations from before you, and you shall possess greater and mightier nations than you.”

If the Israelites really had 600 000 men to build an army it would have been unlikely that these other nations would be “greater” and “mightier.” The actual territories occupied by these tribes were actually rather small. Each tribe seemed to own less than 1000 square miles of land. For them to have over two million population would require a density of over 2000 people per square mile and the present density of modern Israel is less than 1000 per square mile.

Deuteronomy 7:7 – “Jehovah did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people, for you were the fewest of all people.”

Over two million people is a large number and wouldn’t be analogous to the “the fewest of all people.” If, as Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones note, the world population was about 50 million at that time then the exodus would constitute almost 5% of the total world population. That wouldn’t be a small number.

Numbers 13 – “But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” And, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.  We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

The Israelite spies were afraid of these men “of great size,” but no matter how big anyone is an army of 600 000 would hardly panic. It was probably the case that the spies returned realizing that they’d need more manpower if they were to be successful against the enemy.

Exodus 18:13 – “The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.”

If we took this verse at face value then Moses acted as the sole judge for a population that was the equivalent of a large city. This would surely not be possible.

2. Archaeological Non-Confirmation.

Just because archaeology does not support the claim of two million people leaving Egypt it doesn’t go as far as to “disprove it.” But the point is that it still doesn’t support it, which is odd given the huge number. However we never know what may be discovered by archaeologists over the next hill (or sand dune).

3. A Baby Problem. 

The numbers in the book of Numbers appears to be internally inconsistent. Numbers 3:43 states that the number of firstborn males, a month or more old, was 22 273. However, if the number of males over twenty years old was 603 550, this implies a total number of males, a month or older, of about one million. If so the ratio of all males to firstborn males was about 50 to 1. The average mother must then have had about 100 children (50 sons and 50 daughters). This, one would do well to argue, is highly unlikely.

4. The Jericho conquest.

If the Israelite army of fighting men really did number 600 000, or close to that number, then we might run into difficulties with the conquest narrative. In Joshua 6:3 the instruction is that “you shall go around the city, all the men of war.”

This means that the city would have been surrounded by some 600 000 men, granted it wasn’t many kilometers in circumference (which would make it an enormous city for the times). And marching these 600 000 men around it 7 times in one day would seem an unlikely task. This chasm is further widened when one considers that archaeologists have discovered the area of Jericho to be about 8.5 acres (1).

5. An Entire Congregation.

In various places we read that the whole congregation of Israel listening to Moses or Aaron (Exodus 16:10, 35:1, Leviticus 19:2, Numbers 20:8, Joshua 8:35) or gazing at Moses (Exodus 33:8), or assembling at the doorway of the tent of meeting (Numbers 16:19). This is hard to fathom for a population of around two million, but probably plausible for a population numbering into the thousands.

6. Golden Calf Executions.  

In the incident of the golden calf Moses instructed “every man” of the Levites to execute God’s vengeance with the sword (Exodus 32:27). This they did (Exodus 32:28-29), and they ended up killing a total of 3000 people. If the tribe of Levi consisted of tens of thousands of men of fighting age this would seem like a rather small total assuming “every man” of them really did as he was told. But if the tribe of Levi consisted of only a few hundred men of fighting age to begin with then it makes reasonable sense.

7. Requesting Passage.

In Numbers 20:17 we see the Israelites asking for permission to “pass through your country. We will not go through any field or vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the King’s Highway and not turn to the right or to the left until we have passed through your territory.”

Israel was requesting permission from the Edomites to travel through their land, promising to stay on a certain highway, and away from their resources. The same request is made to the Amorites in Numbers 21:22. The problem seems to be that if the population of Israel was around two million, then how could they possibly travel through on a single highway (them with all their possessions)? Granted that they ventured 10 abreast with only 10 feet between groups, the line would stretch out for nearly 400 miles! This would seem unlikely.

8. Not a Enough Israelites.

In Exodus 23:29-30 God says that he “will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.”

It is quite clear that there were too few Israelites to occupy the Promised Land. However, it would have been likely that two million Israelites would be enough to have filled the land.

9. Only Two Midwives.

In Exodus 15 we find just two Hebrew midwives catering for the entire fleeing Israelite population. If the population really was some two million then we’d expect there to be a few more midwives mentioned.

10. The Scary Egyptians.

In Exodus 13:18 we read that “The Israelites went up out of Egypt armed for battle.” 600 000 Israelite men would have been an exceptional and incredibly powerful army, and perhaps quite unparalleled. Such a force would have outnumbered the Egyptian army itself. Granted this then why would the fleeing Israelites be “terrified”? After all, their own army outnumbered the Egyptian forces. Exodus 14:10 concedes that “They were terrified and cried out to the Lord” as the Egyptian army approached. Clearly the Israelites, and their few thousand fighting men, were expecting to be clobbered.

11. An Intense Struggle.

In Exodus 17:8 a battle ensues between the Israelites and the Amalekites. However, a 600 000 strong Israelite army struggles to defeat them. In other words, an enormous army failed to overcome a group of tribesmen. According to the text “As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning.” The image one gets, and that the author probably intends to show, is that this was an even battle. It produces a good question as to why such a large army would struggle against a far smaller one.

12. Common Sense.

Keeping track of such an incredible number of people would be near impossible. Given a population of over two million it would have been like moving an entire city. In all likeliness large groups would have branched off from the main body and formed independent communities, something we have no evidence for.

Granted the reliability of the tradition concerning the Red Sea crossing (and its miracle, of course), how would some two million people, producing a line over 400 miles long, cross? Especially just in time for God to close it on the approaching Egyptian forces? It doesn’t seem likely.

13. The Matter of a “Thousand.”

The used Hebrew word “elep” can mean a ‘thousand’, ‘troop’, or ‘leader’, according to the context. Many Hebrew words seem to have multiple meanings, for example, “yom” could designate a long period of time,  a shorter 24 hour period of time, or even be figurative (as in my “fathers or grandfathers day”). For “elep” Judges 6:15 uses it to denote “family.” It has also been noted that since the original Hebrew manuscripts consisted only of consonants, and no vowels, the same spelling could also be the word “allup” which could mean “leader” or “chief.” Similarly, the word can also be used of a military unit or troop under a leader or captain. The most frequently suggested explanation is that the Hebrew word for “thousand” in the population refers to an indeterminate clan size or troop.

14. Drawing Conclusions.

1. The Hebrew word translated “thousand” (“elep”) has been mistranslated and should have been translated as ‘family’, ‘group’, or ‘troop’. This of course was not the fault of the initial author but of the translator. This seems to be the most probable explanation.
2. Copy error crept in without notice by a scribe. Christians argue that the original autographs are error free although small errors crept in as they were passed down over time.
3. The author simply made a mistake because of an unreliable tradition he inherited.

References.

1. Unger, M. 1966. The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary. p. 672.

forged Surah

Surah al-Walayah & Surah al-Nurayn: Their Authenticity & Literary Style

Islamic Awareness

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 17th March 1998

Last Updated: 8th December 2005

---

Assalamu-`alaykum wa rahamtullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

It has been claimed by Christian missionaries at their website that some Shi'ite's have two more chapters in their Qur'an called Surah al-Nurayn and Surah al-Walayah. Regarding the Surah al-Walayah, they used to say [obviously deleted now!]:

Source: The Sura was taken from the book "ALThWRh AL'YARANYh FY MYzAN AL'sLAM" (The Iranian revolution in the balance of Islam), published in Egypt. This is a Sunni book attacking the Shia. The author claims he has taken it from the Shia Qur'an. Only problem is that the Sunni author didn't realize that he was digging his own grave with publishing this sura.

Such views are also echoed by Steven Masood, a well-known Christian writer. He says:

Among the writings of Shia scholarship, we find two Surahs al-Wilayah and an-Nurain which are believed by some to be the part of the Qur'an but which have been rejected by Sunni Ulema. The style and oration is similar to that of the Qur'an.^[1]

The Christian apologist Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi after quoting Surah al-Nurayn claims that this surah is "similar to the Qur'an and in perfect harmony with it" and refutes the "Qur'an's allegation that no one can "bring a sura like it"."^[2]

Our methodology is to check the Shi'ite sources and see what they say about the status of the Qur'an. After that check what the Western scholars say about the two Surahs allegedly from Shi'ite sources and their stylistic features.

2. The Shi'ite Sources

In the section "The Belief Concerning The Extent (Mablagh) Of The Qur'an" Abu Ja`far, the well-known Shi'ite theologian of 4th century of hijra says:

Says the Shaykh Abu Ja`far: Our belief is that the Qur'an, which Allah revealed to his Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two boards (daffatayn). And it is that which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater extent than that. The number of suras as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen.^[3]

And again:

And he who asserts that we say it is greater in extent than this (the present text) is a liar.^[4]

This would have been a proof good enough to stop here and dismiss what the missionaries are claiming about the "Qur'an" which Shi'ites have. But let us go further and expose the deceptive methodology. Momen, talking about the two surahs mentioned above, says:

A small minority of Shi'is have attempted to get much larger passages (and even the whole suras) accepted as being missing portions of the Qur'an but without success.^[5]

Quoting the history of the Shi'ite belief regarding the Qur'an, Momen says:

With regards to the question of the text of the Qur'an, it has already been noted that the early Shi'is believed that the Qur'an has been altered and parts of it has been suppressed. The Nawbakhtis are said to have adhered to this view although it went against their usual position of agreeing with Mu'tazili thought. The compiler of the earliest, authoritative collection of Twelver Traditions, al-Kulyani, seems to have given some substance to this view in several of the Traditions that he relates. Ibn Babuya, however, takes the position that the text of the Qur'an is complete and unaltered. Al-Mufid appears to have wavered somewhat on this point during his lifetime. He seems to have accepted the fact that parts of the Qur'an had been excised by the enemies of the Imams in some of his early writings, although he refused even then to state that anything had been added. In his later writings, however, al-Mufid had reinterpreted the concept of omissions from the text of the Qur'an to mean that the text of the Qur'an is complete (although he does allow that the order needs to be changed) but that what has been omitted is the authoritative interpretation of the text by `Ali. In this manner, al-Mufid and most subsequent Shi'i writers were able to fall into line with the rest of the Islamic world in accepting the text of the Qur'an as contained in the recension of `Uthman.^[6]

Now we have said enough about the Shi'ite sources. Let us now discuss the view of the orientalists.

3. Surah al-Walayah & al-Nurayn: Their History & Studies On Them

Between 1055 / 1645 and 1068 /1658, there appeared in India, during the time of Mughal rule, an anonymous book written in Persian called Dabistan-i Madhahib or "Schools of Religious Doctrines". In this book, two additional surahs and verses are mentioned that are not to be found in the official text of the Qur'an. The two surahs bearing the names "Surah al-Walayah" and "Surah al-Nurayn". The Dabistan attracted considerable attention in the West. Dabistan-i Madhahib had been published for the first time in 1809 in Calcutta, India.^[7] The book describes life under Mughal rule in India in existing religious communities. It consists of twelve chapters, each of them dedicated to a different group. Surprisingly, the author starts with the Parsis and continues with the accounts of Hindus, Tibetans, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Philosophers and Sufis. The account of the Parsis seems to be the most comphrehensive of the whole book.

In 1842, these two surahs from Dabistan-i Madhahib were for the first time fully translated into a European language by the French orientalist Garcin de Tassy.^[8] Only a year after Mirza Alexandre Kazem-Beg, wrote a commentary on this translation.^[9] Interesting in this regard is the publication and the translation of the manuscript which came into light in 1912 in the Indian city of Bankipore. Although it is said to contain the same surahs and other additions, no further information on the manuscript is provided. The translation of the surahs was published by St. Clare Tisdall in the journal The Moslem World in 1913. The manuscript is said to be some 200-300 years old, at least.

Figure 1: Surah al-Walayah in the Bankipore Manuscript of the Qur'an [See Tisdall's work].

THE NATURE AND STYLISTIC FEATURES OF THE SURAHS

Surah al-Walayah and Surah al-Nurayn are considered forgeries and their stylistic features are poor imitation of the Qur'an riddled with grammatical errors. St. Clare Tisdall writes:

The reader (of the original Arabic especially) is irresistibly led to the conclusion that the whole of these additions, - with the possible exception of Sura al-Nurain, - are forgeries. The style is imitated from the Koran, but not always very successfully. There are some grammatical errors, unless these are due to the transcriber. Occasionally the meaning which the context shews to be that in which a word is used is later than the time to which the Koran belongs. The verses are largely, however, centos of Koranic passages taken from their context. The amount of repetition shews the writer's determination to prove what he wished to prove at all costs.^[10]

And talking about the nature of these two surahs, St. Clare Tisdall says:

We notice also that some, - or, perhaps, only one person, - among the Shi'ites decided to forge the passages which we are considering. Doubtless he thought the end justified the means. He certainly must have determined to insert these forgeries in the Koran and to get his own sect to adopt them. But, although it was so greatly to their apparent interest to accept these additional passages, yet the Shi'ites did not do so. The forger found it impossible to introduce a single such altered verse into the Koran. This, we may again say in passing , is highly to the credit of the Shi'ah community in general. Although they think that they are staking their eternal happiness on the truth of their contention that `Ali and his family are the true and Divinely commissioned inheritors of Mohammad's spiritual rights, so far as these could be handed down to others, yet they have never permitted a single one of these forgeries to become incorporated into their copies of the Koran.^[11]

He went on to say:

So, far as we know, the manuscript which we are now concerned with is the only one in existence which, together with the genuine surahs of the Koran, also contains these Alterations and Additions. To get them generally accepted, even by Shi'ites, proved impossible. The attempt to Sunnites to adopt them was probably never made, for its hopelessness must have been evident even to the forger himself.^[12]

Commenting on the two surahs, von Grunebaum says:

The only two Shi'ite surahs which have come to light are obvious forgeries; the other omissions that would have been dictated mostly by dogmatic considerations foreign to the 'Uthmanic period can not be substantiated, and the Shi'ites themselves have never been able to agree on the alleged distortion of the sacred text of their adversaries.^[13]

Therefore, the Shi'ite and the Western scholars are in agreement that these two surahs are forgeries. The Shi'ites also agree on the text of the Qur'an which is same as that used by Sunni Muslims. Mahmoud Ayoub says:

Hence Muslims. and especially Shi'i Muslims, have insisted that God revealed to Muhammad both the Qur'an and its exegesis. The sacred text of the Qur'an, or what is contained 'between the two covers', is what Muhammad taught the generality of faithful.^[14]

Let us now turn our attention to the author of these two forged surahs.

AUTHOR OF THE TWO FORGED SURAHS

The discovery of the Dabistan had been ascribed to a Shi'ite, however, without any specification of name of denomination as suggested by Tisdall and others.^[15] However, this view has been criticized by Joseph Eliash. Concerning the text from Bankipore and Dabistan-i-Madhahib, he says:

Concerning the Bankipore text, its only connection with the Imami Shi'a is the claim that the manuscript was brought from the Nawwab in Lucknow which was a centre of Imami learning in India. This alone does not constitute it into an authoritative Qur'an for the Imami Shi'a... As to the Dabistan-i-Madhahib, it is significant to note that the author does not identify himself with the Shi'a. He discusses twelve different religions practised in his time in India and devotes just a few pages to the Shi'a which he entitles "Statements about the second sect of Muslims who are known as Shi'a" and prefaces his remarks by phrases such as "the author of this book relates what he learned from Mulla Muhammad Ma'sum, Muhammad Mu'min and Mulla Ibrahim, who in the year of 1053 (AD 1643) were in Lahore and from others" and the like. He precedes the 'Surah al-Nurayn" by the following statement: "Some of them (the Shi'a) say the `Uthman burnt the copies of the Qur'an and excluded (rejected) some of the surahs which were on the dignity of `Ali and his excellence, on of the surahs is this." The Dabistan-i-Madahib was critically edited and translated into english in the year 1843, the editors are not certain of the identity of the author. The give the date of the death of the supposed author, Muhsin Fani, as probably 1081/1670, and state that he was "of the philosophic sect of Sufis", "a native of Kachmir, a learned man and respectable poet, a scholar of Mulla Yakub, Sufi of Kachmir", but make no mention whatsoever that he was Shi'a authority. Hence Dabistan cannot be referred to as an Imami Shi'a source and nor can its author be called Imami-Shi'i.^[16]

This is in line with the recent research that has shown that the author of Dabistan was, in fact, not a Shi'ite at all, but rather a Parsi.^[17]

4. Do These Surahs Exist In The Early "Codices Of The Companions"?

This is a very interesting exercise. Even if one assumes what some Shi'ites says is true concerning `Uthman, its authenticity can easily be verified by the work of Arthur Jeffery on the "early companion Codices". Jeffery collected some 'variant' readings attributed to `Ali as well as Zaid bin `Ali. It is interesting to note that none of these Codices have either of these surahs. The Codex of `Ali can be found in Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices^[18] and the Codex of Zaid bin `Ali can be found in "The Qur'an Readings Of Zaid bin `Ali".^[19]

5. Conclusions

Surah al-Walayah and Surah al-Nurayn are considered forgeries by both Shi'ite and Western scholars. This is further confirmed by their absence in Jeffery's studies on "variants" attributed to `Ali as well as Zaid bin `Ali. The stylistic features of Surah al-Walayah and Surah al-Nurayn are a poor imitation of the Qur'an and riddled with grammatical errors. Contrary to the expectation that they are a Shi'ite forgery, modern research has shown that the composer of the two forged surahs is a Parsi.

And Allah knows best!

---

References

[1] S. Masood, The Bible And The Qur'an: A Question Of Integrity, 2001, OM Publication: Carlisle (UK), pp. 191-192.

[2] `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Is The Qur'an Infallible?, 1995, Light of Life: Villach (Austria), p. 139.

[3] Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Babwayh al-Qummi, I'tiqadatu'l Imamiyyah (The Beliefs of Imamiyyah), English translation: A Shi'ite Creed, 1982 (Revised) Asaf A. A. Fyzee, World Organization of Islamic Services: Tehran (Iran), p. 77.

[4] ibid.

[5] M. Momen, An Introduction To Shi'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism, 1985, George Ronald: Oxford, p. 173.

[6] ibid., p. 81.

[7] "Dabestan-E-Madaheb", Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1993, Volume VI, Mazda Publishers: Costa Mesa (CA), p. 532. Also see "Dabistan al-Madahib", Encyclopaedia Of Islam (New Edition), 1965, Volume II, E. J. Brill: Leiden and Luzac & Co.: London, p. 74.

[8] G. de Tassy, "Chapitre inconnu du Coran", Journal Asiatique, 1842, Volume XIII, pp. 431-439.

[9] M. Kazembeg, "Observations sur Chapitre inconnu du Coran", Journal Asiatique, 1843, Volume XIV, pp. 371-429.

[10] W. St. Clair Tisdall, "Shi'ah Additions To The Koran", The Moslem World, 1913, Volume III, p. 229.

[11] ibid., pp. 229-230.

[12] ibid., p. 230.

[13] G. E. von Grunebaum, Islam: Essays In The Nature And Growth Of A Cultural Tradition, 1961, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.: London, p. 80; For a similar statement see also B. Todd Lawson, "Note For The Study Of A Shi'i Qur'an", Journal of Semitic Studies, 1991, p. 282.

[14] M. Ayoub, "The Speaking Qur'an and The Silent Qur'an: A Study of The Principles and Development of Imami Shi'i Tafsir", in A. Rippin (Ed.), Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an, 1988, Clarendon Press: Oxford, p. 178.

[15] W. St. Clair Tisdall, "Shi'ah Additions To The Koran", The Moslem World, 1913, op. cit., pp. 229-230; "Dabistan al-Madahib", Encyclopaedia Of Islam, 1965, Volume II, op. cit., p. 74.

[16] J. Eliash, "The Shi'ite Qur'an: A Reconsideration Of Goldziher's Interpretation", Arabica, 1969, Volume XVI, p. 19.

[17] "Dabestan-E-Madaheb", Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1993, op. cit., pp. 533-534; Also see M. M. Marcinkowski, "Some Reflections On Alleged Twelver Shi`ite Attitude Towards The Integrity Of The Qur'an", The Muslim World, 2001, Volume 91, p. 142.

[18] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, 1937, E. J. Brill: Leiden, pp. 182-192.

[19] A. Jeffery, "The Qur'an Readings Of Zaid bin `Ali", Rivista Degli Studi Orientali, 1936, Volume XVI, pp. 249-289.