if it was found, that means it was lost, right?

A lot of evangelical Christians have an unrealistic and simplistic picture of the continuity  of the Bible. For instance, sometimes you see the claim that it would have been impossible for the text of the Torah  to have changed because there were just too many copies and the text was too spread out. But in reality there were several  moments when the text was incredibly vulnerable  to change. An interesting account can be seen in the Bible itself. 

2Kgs.22

[3] In the eighteenth year of King Josi'ah, the king sent Shaphan the son of Azali'ah, son of Meshul'lam, the secretary, to the house of the LORD, saying,

[4] "Go up to Hilki'ah the high priest, that he may reckon the amount of the money which has been brought into the house of the LORD, which the keepers of the threshold have collected from the people;

[5] and let it be given into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD; and let them give it to the workmen who are at the house of the LORD, repairing the house,

[6] that is, to the carpenters, and to the builders, and to the masons, as well as for buying timber and quarried stone to repair the house.

[7] But no accounting shall be asked from them for the money which is delivered into their hand, for they deal honestly."

[8] And Hilki'ah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilki'ah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

In other words, the Torah was found in the Temple (implying that it was lost before this point). And lest you want to argue that this was just some kind of redundant  copy, consider the way the king and others seem to respond to the Torah as if it were new information. 

         

[9] And Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king, "Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD."

[10] Then Shaphan the secretary told the king, "Hilki'ah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it before the king.

[11] And when the king heard the words of the book of the law, he rent his clothes.

[12] And the king commanded Hilki'ah the priest, and Ahi'kam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micai'ah, and Shaphan the secretary, and Asai'ah the king's servant, saying,

[13] "Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."

In other words, at this time, the children of Israel were at a particularly low point in terms of knowing and obeying the law, so much so that when the king read the book of the law he was genuinely shocked about what it said. 

[...]

2Kgs.23

[1]Then the king sent, and all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem were gathered to him.

[2] And the king went up to the house of the LORD, and with him all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests and the prophets, all the people, both small and great; and he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.

[3] And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people joined in the covenant.

So things got so bad that the king felt a need for the people of Judah to rededicate themselves to following the Torah The next dozen or so verses then go into vivid detail about how deeply entrenched paganism had become in the land and what steps had to be taken to uproot it.

[4] And the king commanded Hilki'ah, the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the threshold, to bring out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels made for Ba'al, for Ashe'rah, and for all the host of heaven; he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel.

[5] And he deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places at the cities of Judah and round about Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Ba'al, to the sun, and the moon, and the constellations, and all the host of the heavens.

[6] And he brought out the Ashe'rah from the house of the LORD, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and beat it to dust and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people.

[7] And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Ashe'rah.

So even in the Temple in Jerusalem there had been idol worship and cult prostitutes! 

[8] And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beer-sheba; and he broke down the

high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on one's left at the gate of the city.

[9] However, the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brethren.

[10] And he defiled To'pheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech.

[11] And he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire.

[12] And the altars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manas'seh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, he pulled down and broke in pieces, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron.

[13] And the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ash'toreth the abomination of the Sido'nians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

[14] And he broke in pieces the pillars, and cut down the Ashe'rim, and filled their places with the bones of men.

[15] Moreover the altar at Bethel, the high place erected by Jerobo'am the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, that altar with the high place he pulled down and he broke in pieces its stones, crushing them to dust; also he burned the Ashe'rah.

[16] And as Josi'ah turned, he saw the tombs there on the mount; and he sent and took the bones out of the tombs, and burned them upon the altar, and defiled it, according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who had predicted these things.

[17] Then he said, "What is yonder monument that I see?" And the men of the city told him, "It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and predicted these things which you have done against the altar at Bethel."

[18] And he said, "Let him be; let no man move his bones." So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet who came out of Sama'ria.

[19] And all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Sama'ria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the LORD to anger, Josi'ah removed; he did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel.

[20] And he slew all the priests of the high places who were there, upon the altars, and burned the bones of men upon them. Then he returned to Jerusalem.

Things had gotten so bad that people had even stopped keeping Passover.

[21] And the king commanded all the people, "Keep the passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant."

[22] For no such passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah;

[23] but in the eighteenth year of King Josi'ah this passover was kept to the LORD in Jerusalem.

[24] Moreover Josi'ah put away the mediums and the wizards and the teraphim and the idols and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might establish the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilki'ah the priest found in the house of the LORD.

[25] Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.

[26] Still the LORD did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manas'seh had provoked him.

[27] And the LORD said, "I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city which I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there."

[28] Now the rest of the acts of Josi'ah, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?

So what am I trying to say here? Maybe we can take the story at face value and the Torah was lost and then found intact. But if we are even just a little bit skeptical, this moment of Josiah's reforms presents a perfect opportunity for the text to have been redacted.

Allahu alim.

michael heiser on mosaic authorship of the torah

Michael S. Heiser is an interesting guy. He is a Christian Bible scholar who believes in a literal resurrection of Christ (as) but he still thoughtfully engages with modern Biblical scholarship in a nuanced way. And while he doesn't believe in the full on Documentary Hypothesis, he still has a pretty radical view when it comes to Mosaic authorship of the Torah: Here is a summary in his own words:

My take is that we don’t have four sources writers with competing agendas. Rather, there was a Mosaic core, patriarchal traditions that began as oral history, a national history, rules for priests and Levites, and a primeval history section. This sounds a bit like sources, but it’s not quite the same. By way of a simplistic summary (this is just a loose description; I haven’t systematized this, since I find so many other things more interesting):

1. Israelites before Moses preserve the patriarchal traditions via oral history.

2. The above traditions pre-date arrival in the land, but got written down after Israel arrived at the land (at some point). That is, I don’t think Moses was writing them down during the trip, as most conservatives think. He had better, more pressing things to do. I don’t think this patriarchal document was written by two writers with competing agendas. I think the patriarchal oral history had “El language” for God since that was the name of God prior to the exodus event. The name of God associated with the exodus (Yahweh) was introduced by God as a way of commemorating the re-creation of the nation (this reflects my agreement with F.M. Cross at Harvard who saw “Yahweh” as meaning “he who causes to be”). Someone who took the Mosaic core (#3 below) and married it to the patriarchal material combined the names in various ways to ensure (and telegraph) theological unity.

3. Moses or someone soon after Moses’ death recorded events in Moses’ life and leadership period, from the exodus, to Sinai, and through the wilderness. I think the law and Sinai episodes were recorded, along with narration of events as the Israelites traveled. Who knows how much?

4. Parts of the above were included and re-purposed in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is therefore a hybrid: parts Mosaic; parts much later adapting Mosaic material and composing new material reflecting occupancy of the land, thereby necessitating adaptations in laws, for example. Same thing for Numbers and Leviticus; the material encompasses times, needs, and customs from the Mosaic period well into the monarchy. Moses, the law, the deliverance from Egypt, and the events at Sinai are constant touchpoints. And so the collective whole is, appropriately, the “law of Moses.” I don’t care what the percentages are of each hand. And I consider many hands played a role, not just four “source hands.”

5. Genesis 1-11 was written during the exile, as it has a Babylonian flavoring in terms of what it seeks to accomplish and respond to theologically (creation epics, flood recounting, Sumerian king list [antediluvian history], Babel. This section gives Israel’s rival understanding of the hand of Yahweh in pre-patriarchal history with specific counter-points to Babylon’s claims and the claims of other ANE religions (that is, in the process of composing Gen 1-11, the opportunity was taken to take aim at other belief systems / theologies besides that of Babylon).

All the above operated under the hand of Providence, regardless of how many hands and what order things were written. As many of you know, I view inspiration as a providential process, not a (small) series of paranormal events.

As a Muslim reading this, what makes the most sense to me is to treat only the original Mosaic core as the Taurat referred to in the Quran. The rest should be taken only VERY tentatively. Some parts may be revealed. Much of it just might be human history, secular tradition and should not be treated as revelation. 

yusuf ali on the taurat

I thought Yusuf Ali's essays on the Taurat and Injil seem like good starting places for Muslim reflection on the Bible. They are found in the appendices of his translation of the Quran. Please forgive any typographical errors. The page I got this from seems oddly edited.

APPENDIX II.

On the Taurat (see v. 47, n. 753)

The Taurat is frequently referred to in the Quran. It is well to have clear ideas as to what it exactly means. Vaguely we may say that it was the Jewish Scripture. It is mentioned with honour as having been, in its purity, a true revelation from God.

To translate it by the words "The Old Testament" is obviously wrong. The " Old Testament " is a Christian term, applied to a body of old Jewish records. The Protestants and the Roman Catholics are not agreed precisely as to the number of records to be included in the canon of the " Old Testament." They use the term in contradistinction to the " New Testament, " whose composition we shall discuss in Appendix III. 

Nor is it correct to translate Taurat as the " Pentateuch, " a Greek term meaning the " Five Books." These are the first five books of the Old Testament, known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They contain a semi -historical and legendary narrative of the history of the world from the Creation to the time of the arrival of the Jews in the Promised Land. There are in them some beautiful idylls but there, are also stories of incest, fraud, cruelty, and treachery, not always disapproved. A great part of the Mosaic Law is embodied in this narrative. The books are traditionally ascribed to Moses, but it is certain that they were not written by Moses or in an age either contemporary with Moses or within an appreciable distance of time from Moses. They were in their present form probably compiled some type after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity. The decree of Cyrus permitting such return was in 536 B.C. Some books now included in the Old Testament, such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were admittedly written after the return from the captivity, Malachi being as late as 420-397 B.C. The compilers of the Pentateuch of course used some ancient material: some of that material is actually named. Egyptian and Chaldsean terms are relics of local colour and contemporary documents.

But there are some ludicrous slips, which show that the compilers did not always understand their material. Modern criticism distinguishes two distinct sources among the documents of different dates used by the editors. For the sake of brevity and convenience they may be called (a) Jehovistic, and (b) Elohistic. Then there ate later miscellaneous interpolations. They sometimes overlap and sometimes contradict each other.

Logically speaking, the Book of Joshua, which describes the entry into the Promised Land, should be bracketed with the Pentateuch, and many writers speak of the six books together as the Hexateuch (Greek term for Six Books).

The Apocrypha contain certain Books which are not admitted as Canonical in the English Bible. But the early Christians received them as part of the Jewish Scriptures, and the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-1563) seems to have recognised the  greater part of them as Canonical. The statement in 2 Esdras (about the first century A.D.) that the law was burnt and Ezra (say, about 458-457 B.C.) was inspired to rewrite it, is probably true as to the historical fact that the law was lost, and that what we have now is no earlier than the time of Ezra, and some of it a good deal later.

So far we have spoken of the Christian view of the Old Testament. What is the Jewish view? The Jews divide their Scripture into three parts- (1) the Law (Torah), \?A the Prophets (Nebiim), and (3) the Writings (Kethubim). The corresponding Arabic words would be : (1) Taurat, (2) Nabtyin, and (3) Kutub. This division was probably current in the time of Jesus. In Luke xxiv. 44 Jesus refers to the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. In other places (e.?., Malt. vii. 12) Jesus refers to the Law and the Prophets as summing up the whole Scripture. In the Old Testament Book, II. Chronicles xxxiv. 30, the reference to the Book of the Covenant must be to the Torah or the original Law. This is interesting, as the Quran frequently refers to the Covenant with reference to the Jews. The modern Christian terms " Old Testament " and " New Testament " are substitutes for the older terms " Old Covenant " and " New Covenant." The Samaritans, who claim to be the real Children of Israel and disavow the Jews as schismatics from their Law of Moses, only recognise the Pentateuch, of which they have their own version slightly different from that in the Old Testament.

The view of the school of Higher Criticism is radically destructive. According to Renan it is doubtful whether Moses was not a myth. Two versions of Sacred History existed, different in language, style, and spirit, and they were combined together into a narrative in the reign of Hezekiah (B.C. 727-697). This forms the greater part of the Pentateuch as it exists to-day, excluding the greater part of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. In the reign of Josiah about 622 B.C., certain priests and scribes (with Jeremiah the prophet) promulgated a new code, pretending that they had found it in the Temple (II. Kings, xxii. 8). This Law {Torah— Taurat) was the basis of Judaism, the new religion then founded in Palestine. This was further completed by the sacerdotal and Levitical Torah, compiled under the inspiration of Ezekiel, say, about 575 B.C., and contained mainly in the Book of Leviticus, with scattered fragments in Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua. We are entitled to accept the general results of a scientific examination of documents, probabilities, and dates, even though we reject the premise which we believe to be false, viz., that God does not send inspired Books through inspired Prophets. We believe that Moses existed ; that he was an inspired man of God ; that he gave a message which was afterwards distorted or lost ; that attempts were made by Israel at various times to reconstruct that message ; and that the Taurat as we have it is (in view of the statement in 2 Esdras) no earlier than the middle of the fifth century B.C.

The primitive Torah must have been in old Hebrew, but there is no Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament which can be dated with certainty earlier than 916 A.D. Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language with the Jews during or -after the Captivity, and by the time we come to the period of Jesus, most cultivated Hebrews used the Greek language, and others used Aramaic (including Syriac and Chaldee), Latin, or local dialects. There were also Arabic versions. For historical purposes the most important versions were the Greek version, known as the Septuagint, and fhe Latin version, known as the Vulgate. The Septuagint was supposed to have been prepared by 70 or 72 Jews (Latin, septuaginta=seventy) working independently and at different times, the earliest portion dating from about 284 B.C. This version was used by the Jews of Alexandria and the Hellenized Jews who were spread over all parts of the Roman Empire. The Vulgate was a Latin translation made by the celebrated Father of the Christian Church, St. Jerome, from Hebrew, early in the fifth century A.D., superseding the older Latin versions. Neither the Septuagint nor the Vulgate have an absolutely fixed or certain text. The present standard text of the Vulgate as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church was issued by Pope Clement VIII (A.D. 1592-1605). 

 It will be seen therefore that there is no standard text of the Old Testament in its Hebrew form. The versions differ from each other frequently in minor parti- culars and sometimes in important particulars. The Pentateuch itself is only a small portion of the Old Testament. It is in narrative form, and includes the laws and regulations associated with the name of Moses, but probably compiled and edited from elder sources by Ezra (or Esdras Arabic, 'Uzair) in the 5th century B.C. As Renan remarks in the preface to his History of the People of Israel, the " definite constitution of Judaism " may be dated only from the time of Ezra. The very early Christians were divided into two parties. One was a Judaizing party, which wished to remain in adherence to the Jewish laws and customs while recognising the mission of Jesus. The other, led by Paul, broke away from Jewish customs and traditions. Ultimately Pauline Christianity won. But both parties recognised the Old Testa- ment in its present form (in one or another of its varying versions) as Scripture. It was the merit of Islam that it pointed out that as scripture it was of no value, although it recognised Moses as an inspired apostle and his original Law as having validity in his period until it was superseded. In its criticism of the Jewish position it said in effect : " You have lost your original Law ; even what you have now as its substitute, you do not honestly follow ; is it not better, now that an inspired Teacher is living among you, that you should follow him rather than quibble over uncertain texts ? " 

 But the Jews in the Apostle's time (and since) went a great deal by the Talmud, or a body of oral exposition, reduced to writing in different Schools of doctors and learned men. " Talmud " in Hebrew is connected with the Arabic root in Talmlz, " disciple " or " student. " The Talmudists took the divergent texts of the Old Testament and in interpreting them by a mass of traditional commentary and legendary lore, evolved a standard body of teaching. The Talmudists are of special interest to us, as, in the sixth century A.D., just before the preaching of Islam, they evolved the Massorah, which may be regarded as the body of authorita- tive Jewish Hadlth, to which references are to be found in passages addressed to the Jews in the Quran. 

 The first part of the Talmud is called the Mishna,— a. collection of traditions and decisions prepared by the Rabbi Judah about 150 A.D. He summed up the results of a great mass of previous rabbinical writings. The Mishna is the " Second Law " : 285 ( Appendix it. Cf. the Arabic 77ja/i-m = second. " It bound heavy burdens, grievous to be borne, and laid them on men's shoulders " : Matt, xxiii. 4. 

There were also many Targums or paraphrases of the Law among the Jews. " Targum " is connected in root with the Arabic word Tarjama, "he translated." There were many Targums, mostly in Aramaic, and they constituted the teaching of the Law to the masses of the Jewish people. 

The correct translation of the Taurat is therefore " The Law. " In its original form it was promulgated by Moses, and is recognised in Islam as having been an inspired Book. But it was lost before Islam was preached. What passed as " The Law " with the Jews in the Apostle's time was the mass of traditional writing which I have tried to review in this Appendix. 

 Authorities: Encyclopaedia Brilannica, "Bible"; Helps to the Study of the Bible, Oxford University Press; A. F. Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the Old Testament; C. E. Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism; E Renan, History of Israel; G. F. Moore. Literature of the Old Testament, and the bibliography therein (Home University Library); Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Story of the Bible, 1936 * * • * * 

what is the zabur?

وَرَبُّكَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۗ وَلَقَدْ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَ النَّبِيِّينَ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۖ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا 

And it is your Lord that knoweth best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth: We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others: and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms. (17:55)

I've been thinking about ways to respond to Christians who want to insist that the Quran is telling Muslims to essentially affirm the Bible as valid with little to no qualification or criticism. InshaAllah, I will make a series of posts containing some modest reflections on the subject. The current post is on the Zabur.

As we can see above, the Quran describes the Zabur as a revelation which was given to David (as). But as we will see, we cannot simplistically identify the Zabur with the book of Psalms in the Bible. First of all, by its own admission, only some of the Psalms in the Bible are attributed to David, while others are attributed to other people (Asaph, the sons of Korah, Solomon, Korah, Moses, Ethan the Ezrahite, Herman the Ezrahite, Haggai, Zechariah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah).

Secondly, most modern Biblical scholarship assigns very late dates to final completion of the Biblical book of Psalms. Parts of the book were not even written until after Solomon's Temple was destroyed and rebuilt. So the Biblical book was only arranged in its final form hundreds of years after David (as) lived. So even if there is a Davidic core, other layers of text have certainly been added to it.

And finally there seems to have been some significant variations in the text over the years. For example as part of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran, archeologists found The Great Psalms Scroll or 11Q5.

The reason this manuscript is of such great interest to scholars is due to its major deviance from the Masoretic Psalter. Its textual makeup is that of “apocryphal compositions interspersed with canonical psalms in a radically different order”. It contains approximately fifty compositions, forty of which are found in the Masoretic text. While some maintain the masoretic order, such as some of the Psalms of Ascent, others are scattered throughout in a different order.

11Q5 has generated a lot of interest in scholars due to its large difference from the Masoretic Psalter, “both in ordering of contents and in the presence of additional compositions.”[ It contains several compositions that are not present in the Masoretic Psalter of 150 hymns and prayers and therefore, “challenges traditional ideas concerning the shape and finalization of the book of Psalms.” There are eight non-Masoretic compositions with an additional prose composition that is not formatted like a psalm. Three highlighted compositions include “The Apostrophe to Zion”, “Plea for Deliverance”, and Psalm 151; in addition, the prose composition is researched to be known as “David’s Compositions.” While these are non-Masoretic, some of them, Psalm 151, was known in the Septuagint.

[...]

The additional prose composition is also known as David's Compositions. It references many Psalms associated with David, including 364 songs for each day of the year, conforming to calendars found in distinctively sectarian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These songs were hymns attributed to King David, praising him for composing the Psalms, classifying the hymns and prayers he wrote. According to this list, David composed 3,600 psalms, 364 songs to be performed each day of the year during regular sacrifices, another 52 songs for the weekly Sabbath sacrifice, 30 songs for sacrifices of annual festivals and the new moon, and 4 songs for the sick. Therefore, 11Q5 concludes with the bold statement that David was an avid sage and hymnist, crafting upwards of 4,050 psalms.

In other words, the Dead Sea Scrolls seems to show at least one "book of Psalms" with a great number of non-trivial differences from the Masoretic Psalter found in the the Western Bible. Perhaps this is the true Zabur? Furthermore, if there are thousands of Psalms written by David, then perhaps those texts, not found in the Bible is where we might identify the Zabur of David to which the Quran refers.

Bottom line, while its certainly possible that the original Zabur of David overlap a great deal with the Biblical book of Psalms, it would be a mistake to claim the two were perfectly identical. Allahu alim.

the king's torah and the roots (and branches) of jewish violence

What follows is mostly from Coteret with a few passages from Haaretz. But to make a long story short, Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur wrote a legal text called The King's Torah which discusses the circumstances, according to Jewish law, when it is permissible to kill non-Jews. The book is apparently a bestseller in Israel. Personally I don't find it all that shocking. Don't get me wrong, based on the excerpts, the book is definitely evil and racist and offensive. But it isn't particularly surprising. Even among mainstream rabbinic Judaism's traditional enumeration of the 613 commandments of the Torah you will find:

596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
597. Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16
598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19
599. Remember what Amalek did to the Jewish people Deut. 25:17

The above-listed commandments from Deuteronomy are clearly genocidal. And in the book of Joshua one can read about how they were implemented by the armies of the children of Israel who went from city to city "killing everything that had breath" in the "Promised land". And as far as the Old Testament is concerned those laws are still valid. Do I think all Jews and Christians are genocidal maniacs? Of course not. Christians typically teach that Jesus (as) abrogated those commandments (although I would argue it is still problematic to accept God would reveal such commandments in the first place) while many Jews today find creative ways to read those texts non-violently (e.g. saying that the Canaanite nations don't exist in the present-day, treating Amalek as a metaphor for the evil inclinations inside of everyone). Although in Israel today you definitely have more hawkish voices (like Netanyahu) who rhetorically invoke the label of "Amalek" to refer to the enemy of the day (Saddam Hussein, Iran, the PLO, Hammas, etc.)

So while the authors of the King's Torah are clearly extremists, they generally don't seem to be disavowed by the rabbinical establishment which makes it hard not to conclude that the apple isn't falling very far from the tree.

Something else which should be mentioned is that apparently US taxpayer money is being used to help support Rabbi Shapira's organization which definitely needs to be fixed.


[modified article begins]

The marble-patterned, hardcover book embossed with gold Hebrew letters looks like any other religious commentary you'd find in an Orthodox Judaica bookstore - but reads like a rabbinic instruction manual outlining acceptable scenarios for killing non-Jewish babies, children and adults.

The prohibition 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' applies only "to a Jew who kills a Jew," write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and attacks on them "curb their evil inclination," while babies and children of Israel's enemies may be killed since "it is clear that they will grow to harm us."

When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.

Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.

Throughout the book, the authors deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authors are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.

The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts]

“When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated,” states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a “proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments.”

The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created,” the authors state. “When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed.”

One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the “pursuer,” according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. “The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly,” the book states. “Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.”

Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are “hindrances.” The rabbis write as follows: “Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. “It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others,” the authors state.

In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directly mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.

Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. “In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure,” they state. “Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror.”

In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.

“A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom,” the rabbis write. “Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them.”

Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book’s conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: “In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents.”

Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term “non-Jews,” there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the “non-Jews” who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet “The Jewish Voice,” which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: “It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directly only to the ancient non-Jews.” The leaflet’s editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. “The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel’s security to the authors,” the leaflet states, “who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book.”

One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. “The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law,” the yeshiva student said. “In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah.”

Coteret: Settler Rabbi publishes “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” — UPDATED
Haaretz: The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?
AlJazeera: The King's Torah
Pakalert Press: FALSE FLAG NUKE ATTACK ON U.S. JUSTIFIED….”KING’S TORAH”
Alternet: How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense
of Killing Non-Jews (with Video)
MyJewishLearning: Genocide in the Torah: The existential threat of Amalek by Shmuly Yanklowitz
City of Brass: Iran as Amalek: Netanyahu pulls an Ahmadinejad

the book of eli

I recently saw The Book of Eli on the Friday it opened. Personally, I really liked the setting and look of the film. The filmmakers managed to depict a really intriguing vision of a post-apocalyptic (some might even say post-Rapture) world. And Washington's character, Eli, is compelling as a sort of Christian Samurai who has been entrusted with a mission to take the last copy of the King James Bible out to the "West" in order to catalyze the rebirth of civilization.

One hole in the plot lies in the motivations of Gary Oldman's character, Carnegie (named perhaps after Dale Carnegie, author of the bestselling How to Win Friends and Influence People?) Carnegie is in charge of an unnamed desert town and is looking for the Bible as a tool and a weapon which will allow him greater control over the people around him. But what is surprising is that given Carnegie is so cynical, and given the widespread illiteracy, blindness and lack of memory in this post-apocalyptic world, why couldn't Carnegie simply make up a new religion? Or why wouldn't we see new religions fill-in the void left behind by the absence of the older faiths (along the lines of Octavia Butler's Parable of the Talents or Parable of the Sower)?

The other feature of the film which detracted from me enjoying it fully was the fact that it was ultimately too preachy. The film takes place in a world where some form of Christianity is evidently true. What is ironic is that the narrowness and exclusiveness of the film's perspective is actually most evident in a scene which was probably intended to be a PC "fig leaf" on the movie. At the end of the film we see a Bible being placed on a bookshelf among copies of the Tanakh and Torah (which are essentially already contained in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible) and a Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran. On the surface this seems to suggest that the Bible is one great book among other great books. But on further reflection a subtle criticism is implied; after all those other books were apparently not sufficient to properly restart civilization. Which is why God found it necessary to supernaturally guide and protect Eli on his mission to preserve the King James version of the Bible.

Interview with Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis by Sara Shereen Bakhshian
Is Book of Eli A Christian Movie? An Interview with the Hughes Brothers

love is stronger than death

A few days ago a Christian friend of mine asked me to help translate a Bible verse into Spanish for him. He wanted to have a phrase from the Song of Songs (aka Song of Solomon aka Canticles) engraved on the inside of his wedding rings.

For those who don't know, the book is essentially a love poem. Some view it as a model of romantic love between a man and a woman while others view it allegorically as being about the relationship between God and Israel or God and the Church.

In any case, in the process of looking at different English translations I ended up reading different statements about the Song of Songs from a range of perspectives. For a while now I've had the general impression that the Song of Songs' status in the Biblical canon was questionable. For example, an uncle of mine who is a pastor once said something to the effect that that it wasn't fully the word of God (obviously due to the sensual content).

On the other hand I was intrigued and surprised by a comment made by Rabbi Akiva, a first century C.E. Jewish scholar: "Heaven forbid that any man in Israel ever disputed that the Song of Songs is holy. For the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy and the Song of Songs is holy of holies." In other words, the Song of Songs is not just the neglected stepchild of the Bible but an essential central text. It is reminiscent of the prominent role that love poetry has for Sufis such as Rumi and Hafeez.

the year of living biblically

A few weeks ago I finished A.J. Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically. Judging from the jacket, the premise was interesting enough for me to want to buy the book, but after I read it I was a bit disappointed by the execution. The basic subject of the book is the author's attempt to spend an entire year following every rule in the Bible literally. Unfortunately, I don't think that he spent much of the year taking the Bible seriously. Admittedly, he grew a beard, wore white, avoided mixed fibers, refrained from eating pork, and went through some effort to follow certain obscure rules. But at times his rule-observance comes off as merely a gimick to legitimize his religious views. Jacobs is a secular agnostic Jew (as he puts it, he is Jewish in the same way that the Olive Garden is Italian) and he actually wanted to underscore the defects of literalism through this project. So he didn't try very hard to be a thoughtful or sympathetic representative of Biblical literalism.

In fact, the most enjoyable sections of the book describe how he went out to spend time with other "literalist" communities; the Amish, Hassidic Jews, Samaritans, Snake-handlers, Creationists, "red-letter" Christians, along with a "cult" in Israel led by Jacobs' weird ex-uncle Gil. A much more interesting project would have been produced if Jacobs could have cut out the gimicky beard and robe and simply had gone to the various communities for an extended period of time and had allowed them to speak for themselves (a la Jesus Camp.)

Bible and Grenada
encyclopedia of biblical errancy
interview with a christmas card
"i've seen ethiopians knocking out rome" (part two)
"i've seen ethiopians knocking out rome"
"god gave noah the rainbow sign..." (part one)
the number of the beast
the reason for the season
the wise men