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
* * • * *
