who are the sabians?

Those who believe (in the Qur’an) those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures) and the Sabians and the Christians any who believe in God and the Last Day and work righteousness on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve. (5:69)

Who are the Sabians? Their identity is an interesting mystery. The Muslim scholar Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi (d. 786–787 CE), who was in Basra before his death, wrote: “The Sabians believe they belong to the prophet Noah, they read Zabur, and their religion looks like Christianity.”

This description makes me think a lot of the Noachides and makes me wonder if some pre-modern version of the group existed in Arabia in the time of the prophet. 

For those who aren't familiar, the Noachides are basically Gentiles who strive to follow the way of life which Orthodox Judaism teaches is universally binding on all human beings (i.e. the children of Noah). This is usually summed up as seven laws.

1. No idolatry.

2. No blasphemy.

3. No murder.

4. No eating the limb of a living animal.

5. No theft.

6. No sexual immorality.

7. Establish courts / governments to enforce the previous laws (the only positive commandment).

Each of the seven commandments can be broken down further into smaller components (in one breakdown, 66 commandments and in another, 30 commandments)  so perhaps it is best to think of these as seven categories of commandments. And there are other principles which don't necessarily fall neatly into a single category. 

I've been interested in the Noachides for almost as long as I've been Muslim. And there is an interesting resonance between the Noachide faith and Islam. Noachides are monotheists. They believe in a universal law largely consistent with the shariah. Depending on ones exact definitions, you could almost argue that Muslims are naturally Noachides. (Both the Noachide Faith and Islam are monotheistic Abrahamic religion. And the seven laws are, broadly speaking, already a part of the shariah. Among the points of controversy would be that according to some sources, to be a proper Noachide you have to follow the 7 laws ONLY because they were found in the Torah of Moses, not because of reason and not because they were given by some other prophet.).

One thing which makes the Noachides less attractive as a path is that they don't seem very fleshed out. Just consider, the overwhelming mass of Jewish effort would lie in determining how Jews can connect to the Creator. Figuring out how Gentiles can and should connect would necessarily be an afterthought. And in fact, modern-day Noachides seem to be struggling a bit in terms of how to practice the day-to-day elements of their religion. What is a Noachide funeral like? A Noachide wedding? Noachide birth celebrations or rites of passage? Noachide prayers? They aren't Jewish so simply copying Jewish rituals probably wouldn't be appropriate but then what is left? There have been some attempts to fill in those gaps but there is still a lot of work left.

The modern Noachide movement is one thing but there have also been evidence of earlier analogues. In the Bible there have been mentions of God-fearers, Gentiles sympathetic to Judaism without actually converting.

In Genesis 8-9 we can read:

[20] Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.[21] And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.

[22] While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

Gen.9

[1] And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[2] The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.

[3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

[4] Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

[5] For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man's brother I will require the life of man.

[6] Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

[7] And you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it."

[8] Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him,

[9] "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you,

[10] and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark.

[11] I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."

[12] And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations:

[13] I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

[14] When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds,

[15] I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

[16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth."

[17] God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."

So according to the Bible, before God makes a covenant with the Children of Israel at Sinai, and before he made a covenant with Abraham (as), there was a covenant made between God and Noah (and his descendants... i.e. all human beings, and all living things). 

Another significant passage where the Bible seems to connect to the Noachide covenant is Acts 15. One of the first conflicts faced by the early Church was the issue of what to do about Gentile believers in Christ. Some insisted Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism entirely, while others seemed to think that none of the Torah was binding on Gentiles. To resolve the contract Paul and others went to James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church who gave his decision:

[19] Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

[20] but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

If we look at James' instructions, they correspond well to the Noachide commandments. First of all, consider that the secular government would already enforce the rules about murder, theft and setting up courts. The rule against "what is strangled and from blood" corresponds to the rule against tearing a limb of a live animal (and the commandments in Genesis 9 regarding blood). "Unchastity" corresponds to the rule against sexual immorality. Rules against "the pollutions of idols" would correspond to the rules against idolatry and blasphemy. So essentially, James is telling the Gentile Christians to follow the Noachide law. 

So again, I wonder  if the "the Sabians" which Al-Farahidi knew were, in fact, some other permutation of Noachide.

Tablet Mag: The Gentiles Who Act Like Jews

50 reasons to never quote paul again

Bustin Jest (I think he formerly went by Christian Truther) is an ex-Christian YouTuber. Part of his path (to agnosticism) was a growing awareness of the problematic role of St. Paul in distorting the Christian message. He made several videos rounding up a large collection of arguments:

50 Reasons to Never Quote Paul Again Part 1

50 Reasons to Never Quote Paul Again Part 2

He makes some interesting points. Somewhere down the line I might revisit some of these arguments in a later post. 

modern day ebionites

Round up of interesting modern-day Ebionites (or Christians who seem somewhat critical of Paul)

The Ebionite Home Page

Yahhorai Ben YHWH

Essene Church of Christ

Early Hebrew Christian Resources List

Bet Emet Ministries

Talmidi Israelite Community (World Fellowship of Followers of the Way)

David H'Notsari

imam james the just

If Islam is true, then what does that mean about early Christian origins? According to the Quran, Jesus (as) is neither God nor the son of God and "they neither killed him nor crucified him" while most Christians generally believe something very different about Christ.

So a natural question would be where the mainstream Christians came from. And where did the original authentic Christians go?

The basic answer which most Muslims give for the first part is to blame Paul. Mainstream Christianity is "Pauline" and largely originates in Paul's distortions of Christian doctrine.

A tricky part is the second question. Can we point to which group or groups form the "real" authentic tradition of Christianity?

I'm not Ismaili, but one of the interesting perspectives I've seen on this question can be found in an article on the Ismaili Gnosis website:  The Imamat of James: Brother of Jesus, Successor of Christ & Leader of Early Christianity The article brings together a couple different ideas I've seen elsewhere. Basically, the author(s) locate the authentic non-Pauline Christian tradition in the Jewish Christian (Ebionite) tradition led by James. It is a really nice round-up of texts arguing for the high status of James in the early Church. For example: 

The disciples said to Jesus, ‘We know you will leave us. Who is going to be our leader then?’ Jesus said to them, ‘No matter where you go, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.’

Gospel of Thomas Saying 12

The article also presents evidence outlining the conflict between James and Paul which is there lurking in the Biblical texts, but also in some of the non-canonical writings such as the Clementine literature. Much of this is interpreted by scholars James D. G. Dunn and Robert Eisenman:

“Paul had in effect been disowned by the church which had first commissioned him as a missionary. Since Paul continued to believe passionately in the truth of the gospel which in effect had been rejected at Antioch, the relationship could not continue as before. It is not surprising, then, that in his continuing mission, as we shall see, Paul seems to have worked much more as an independent missionary… It would further follow that Paul saw the outcome as constituting an effective breach with the mother church in Jerusalem.” 

– James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making

I don't think I'd go along with some of the more Ismaili-specific concepts, but these days I'd definitely lean towards some of how they navigate through these controversies.

hadith about hanafi / maturidi / naqshbandi ruler and a larger perspective on islam / iman / ihsan

 Prophecy has been on my mind lately. I'm reluctant to use scripture to "decode" history but this is an interesting example since I would think of the Hanafi-Maturidi tradition along with the Naqshbandis as my "home base" as far as Islam is concerned.

what are the suhuf of abraham?

But those will prosper who purify themselves, And glorify the name of their Guardian-Lord, and (lift their hearts) in prayer. Day (behold), ye prefer the life of this world; But the Hereafter is better and more enduring. And this is in the Books of the earliest (Revelation),- The Books of Abraham and Moses.  (87:14-19)

 Evangelical missionaries like to insist that the Quran simplistically affirms the Bible. For example they tend to claim that the Injil refers to the first four books of the New Testament and the Taurat refers to the first five books of the Old Testament. But I've never seen any of them give any kind of explanation (Compelling or otherwise) of what is meant by the Suhuf of Abraham mentioned in the 87th chapter of the Quran. One theory is that it refers to the Testament of Abraham which is considered scripture by Ethiopian Jews. Another is that it refers to the Sefer Yetzirah which is a mystical Jewish text related to Kabbalah.Either text suggests really provocative possibilities in terms of where Muslims can go to find possible past revelation.

New Advent: The Testament of Abraham

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. 

many rabbis agree that ezra changed the torah text

It blew my mind the first time I learned that even many Orthodox Jews admit that there have been alterations in the Torah text.

Haaretz: Many Rabbis agree that Ezra changed the Torah text

Many, if not most, rabbis, even ultra-Orthodox rabbis, recognize that as Judaism evolved, changes were introduced into the Torah wording for a myriad of reasons. Tikkunei Soferim, which can be translated as “corrections by the scribes,” refers to at least eighteen changes, and probably many more, that were made in the original wording of the Hebrew Bible during the Second Temple period, perhaps sometime between 450 and 350 BCE.

yusuf ali on the injil

APPENDIX III. On the Injll 

(see v. 49, n. 757) 

 Just as the Taurat is not the Old Testament, or the Pentateuch, as now received by the Jews and Christians, so the Injil mentioned in the Quran is certainly not the New Testament, and it is not the four Gospels as now received by the Christian Church, but an original Gospel which was promulgated by Jesus, as the Taurat was promulgated by Moses and the Quran by Muhammad Mustafa. 

The New Testament as now received consists of (a) four Gospels with varying contents {Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John); and other miscellaneous matter; viz., (6) the Acts of the Apostles (probably written by Luke and purporting to describe the progress of the Christian Church under St. Peter and St. Paul from the supposed Crucifixion of Jesus to about 61 A.D.) ; (c) twenty-one Letters or Epistles (the majority written by St. Paul to various churches or individuals, but a few written by other Disciples, and of a general nature) ; and (d) the Book of Revelation or Apocalypse (ascribed to St. John, and containing mystic visions and prophecies, of which it is difficult to understand the meaning). 

 As Prof. F. C Burkitt remarks (Canon of the New Testament), it is an odd miscellany. "The four biographies of Jesus Christ .... are not all independent of each other, and neither of them was intended by its writer to form one of a quartet. But they are all put side by side, unharmonised, one of them being actually imperfect at the end, and one being only the first volume of a larger work. " All this body of unmethodical literature was casual in its nature. No wonder, because the early Christians expected the end of the world very soon. The four canonical Gospels were only four out of many, and some others besides the four have survived. Each writer just wrote down some odd sayings of the Master that he recollected. Among the miracles described there is only one which is described in all the four Gospels, and others were described and believed in in other Gospels, which are not mentioned in any of the four canonical Gospels. Some of the Epistles contain expositions of doctrine, but this has been interpreted differently by different Churches. There must have been hundreds of such Epistles, and not all the Epistles now received as canonical were always so received or intended to be so received. The Apocalypse also was not the only one in the field. There were others. They were prophecies of "things which must shortly come to pass " ; they could not have been meant for long preservation, " for the time is at hand. "

When were these four Gospels written ? By the end of the second century A.D. they were in existence, but it does not follow that they had been selected by that date to form a canon. They were merely pious productions comparable to Dean Farrar's Life of Christ. There were other Gospels besides. And further, the writers of two of them, Mark and Luke, were not among the Twelve Disciples "called" by Jesus. About the Gospel of St. John there is much controversy as to authorship, date, and even as to whether it was all written by one person. Clement of Rome (about 97 A.D.) and Polycarp (about 112 A.D.) quote sayings of Jesus in a form different from those found in the present canonical Gospels. Polycarp (Epistle, vii) inveighs much against men " who pervert the sayings of the Lord to their own lusts," and he wants to turn " to the "Word handed down to us from the beginning," thus referring to a Book (or a Tradition) much earlier than the four orthodox Gospels. An Epistle of St. Barnabas and an Apocalypse of St. Peter were recognised by Presbyter Clement of Alexandria (flourished about 180 A.D.). The Apocalypse of St. John, which is a part of the present Canon in the West, forms no part of the Peshitta (Syriac) version of the Eastern Christians, which was produced about 411-433 A.D. and which was used by the Nestorian Christians. It is probable that the Peshitta was the version (or an Arabic form of it) used by the Christians in Arabia in the time of the Apostle. The final form of the New Testament canon for the West was fixed in the fourth century A.D. (say, about 367 A.D.) by Athanasius and the Nicene creed. The beautiful Codex Sinaiticus which was acquired for the British Museum in 1934, and is one of the earliest complete manuscripts of the Bible, may be dated about the fourth century. It is written in the Greek language. Fragments of unknown Gospels have also been discovered, which do not agree with the received canonical Gospels.

The lnjil (Greek, Evangel=Gospel) spoken of by the Quran is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive [e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St. Barnabas, etc.). Muslims are therefore right in respecting the present Bible (New Testament and Old Testament), though they reject the peculiar doctrines taught by orthodox Christianity or Judaism. They claim to be in the true tradition of Abraham, and therefore all that is of value in the older revelations, it is claimed, is incorporated in the teaching of the Last of the Prophets.

In v. 85 we are told that nearest in love to the Believers among the People of the Book are the Christians. I do not agree that this does not apply to modern Christians " because they are practically atheists or freethinkers. " I think that Christian thought like the world's thought) has learnt a great deal from the protest of Islam against priest domination, class domination, and sectarianism, and its insistence on making this life pure and beautiful while we. are in it. We must stretch a friendly hand to all who are sincere and in sympathy with our ideals. 

 Authorities: The first two mentioned for Appendix II, and in addition : Prof. F. C. Burkitt. on the Cannon of the New Testament, in Religion, June 1034, the Journal of Transactions of the Society for Promoting the Study of Religions; R. \V. Mackay, Rise and Progress of Christianity; G. R. S. Mead, The Gospel and the Gospels; B. \V. Bacon, Making of the New Testament, with its Bibliography ; Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Story of the Bible; R. Hone, The Apocryphal New Testament, London 1820 ; H. I Bell and T O. Skeat, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Christian Papyri, published by the British Museum, 1935. See also chapter 15 of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, where the genesis of the earlv churches and sects in» the Roman Empire is briefly reviewed. S. VI. ) 288 | C. 76.

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 camel (part two)

At the risk of sending him more traffic, I thought I'd give the identity of the YouTuber I alluded to in the post: "if the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." His name is Ryan Thompson and his YouTube channel is Remnant Rendezvous.

 

I'm really reluctant to do takfir of anyone and I'm not trying to do that now but I feel like warning people since I see him actively trying to fool Muslims. Ryan frequently presents himself as a Muslim (but on other occasions admitting that he isn't) seasoning his speech with Arabic phrases, quoting the Quran. etc. but he basically does all that to bring Muslims to some version of Christianity (he comes from a Seventh Day Adventist background).

 

At first I thought he was just trying to reconcile Christianity and Islam in some honest but idiosyncratic way. But the more I've listened to him, the more I realize that he doesn't seem to take the "Muslim" part seriously. E.g. he rejects most hadith. He doesn't believe Jummah is important for its own sake but is really just an extended preparation for the sabbath, which he says is obligatory on all people. He doesn't really believe fasting in the month of Ramadan is obligatory [actually more recently he's been arguing that Laylat al-Qadr is Yom Kippur and Muslims are fasting in the wrong time of year altogether]. He says Muhammad (saaws) is guilty of shirk (audhubillah). He gives credence to the Petra theory that Islam wasn't even founded in Mecca. He also has been saying we don't have to pray five times a day because only three times are mentioned in the Bible. He argues that since the disciples of Jesus (as) were Muslim, that Muslims should accept the books of the New Testament (even the ones written by Paul). He strictly clings to the Bible and takes its verses very seriously (even to the point of moving with his family to Jordan recently because of his interpretation of some eschatological passages in Daniel and Revelation. So he reminds me a bit of Harold Camping) but he casually dismisses pillars of Islam and teachings that are known by consensus.

 

Basically, he is a Christian missionary who says he is Muslim. 

 

For an example of where he openly says he is not Muslim (and gets pretty thoroughly spanked on the Christian side by Sam Shamoun) see: "Steve and Ryan" on the Miracle Street Channel:

 

It would be one thing if he just had weird theological views. That's fine. And to his credit, he seems to be a Unitarian Christian. And I would have much more respect for him if he was open about that and made videos as a Unitarian Christian who seems to advocate for the beauty of Islam. But he doesn't really do that. More often than not, he only tries to superficially identify as a Muslim with the purpose of persuading Muslims to look more favorably on Christianity.

dusty cobwebs

I feel like I need to update the blog more often. I just checked my comments and realized I haven't moderated any comments in well over a year. A lot of it was spam but some of it seemed like genuine positive feedback or constructive engagement. I Feel bad that I didn't see it until today.

anti-facebook?

 

As I write this, Facebook has been down for the past two hours. And especially in the wake of revelations from the Facebook whistle blower, Frances Haugen, that the company has frequently chosen profits over the public good, its made me wonder (again) if it would be possible to create a robust alternative to Facebook somehow. At times I wish I had a better grounding in computer science so that I could better conceptualize what I"m talking about.. Over the years, there have been a couple of apps that have been identified as the anti-Facebook. But it is hard for them to break into a market so totally dominated by one company already. But what if a few of these apps somehow decided to cooperate? What if there could be a kind of shared space where people who use Ello, MeWe, Parler, Twitter, Blogger (maybe even Myspace...lol)  and certain other apps / platforms can easily share their content and explore the content on the other sites. That way, people who are parts of these smaller platforms could combine a form a kind of super-forum which could potentially give Facebook a run for their money. Just a thought.

afro-latin@ invisibility in "in the heights"

NPR: Lin-Manuel Miranda Apologizes For Lack Of Afro-Latinx Actors In 'In The Heights'

neurotology

 

the path

 Speaking of Hulu-series which indirectly deal with Scientology, I'd recommend checking out "The Path". It is a series about a fictional religion known as Meyerism which is  basically like Scientology except with more of a hippie liberal vibe. The followers progress through different levels called "The Ladder" and there is a hierarchy within the organization which depends on what level you are at. It is also like Scientology in that there is a disconnection policy  which is applied when family members reject Meyerism. 

The hippie liberal vibe comes in with the group's pro-environment, pro-immigrant 's rights activity, Also in contrast to Scientology's anti-drug stance, the practitioners of Meyerism seem to frequently use  marijuana and ayahuasca to achieve higher states of consciousness.

Meyerism also reminded me of The Celestine Prophecy  The book is a fictional story about secret scriptures which were discovered in Peru with nine, then ultimately twelve special "insights" which seem reminiscent of Meyerism's Ladder.  Also on the show, the founder Stephen Meyer and his group had a retreat in Peru where some of the most loyal disciples were based. Actually, I think there is a religious community of people inspired by the The Celestine Prophecy (with mostly an online presence) but my impression is that it is not intense enough to attract accusations of being a cult. 

anti-psychiatry

I'm at an age where I have been thinking alot about the "road not taken". What would my life be like if I had zigged instead of zagged? So while we are on the subject of Scientology and mental health, I feel like mentioning that in another life I might have been some flavor of shrink. (I've been facinated with psychology as far back as 8th grade when I had to do a huge  school project about Sigmund Freud. And my interest continued enough that I majored in psychology in college). 

Honestly, if I had had a vocation in mental health, I would probably be some kind of "anti-psychiatrist". To be clear, I'm definitely NOT an advocate for the extreme beliefs of Scientology which are categorically opposed to pretty much all forms of psychological or psychiatric treatment.  But many of the thinkers who appealed to me tended to be critical of the mental health field and were trying to push it in a new direction.

I was intrigued by Thomas Szasz  and his ideas about  The Myth of Mental Illness ("mental illness" is less a disease and more a metaphor for people who have some kinds of problems with living). For the record I do NOT believe mental illness is just a metaphor. There are certainly people with chemical imbalances in the brain or people who are neurodivergent. But I'd still think it is worth exploring other counter-points (like R.D. Laing's approach to schizophrenia or the implications of the Rosenhan Experiment). 

Another influence / source for me would be  Frantz Fanon and his ideas about how racism and colonialism lead to certain neuroses, and how poltical resistance can lead to healing (along with the publication  The Radical Therapist which looked at the social dimension of mental health, as opposed to just the individual component).

I'm also a fan of Na'im Akbar and the way he fused Afrocentricity in a natural way with Quranic ideas (In contrast to how other Afrocentrists framed Islam as an anti-African religon).  I also liked Laleh Bakhtiar and the idea of moral healing. And in general I'd think Sufism has some valuable insights in terms of mental states and personal development.

For another chunk of my teenage years I was really into existentialism.  And was really drawn to Existential Therapy along with Viktor Frankl and Logotherapy. I was especially impressed with Frankl's ideas about the need for meaning, and the capacity to find it, even in the most extreme of circumstances. 

And while it might seem contradictory to the above, I've also tended to like B.F. Skinner. While I would not follow the extremes of his radical behaviorism, I think he offered a valuable corrective to the way some psychologists tended to invent and multiply concepts, structures, diseases, etc. There is something useful in trying to focus on visible behaviors and minimizing the assumptions that we make.

shill / why i hate saturn

So I'm starting to watch "Shrill" and it is reminding me of the brilliant and hilarious graphic novel, "Why I Hate Saturn" by Kyle Baker. Both are about a white woman who writes for some kind of magazine / periodical and goes on zany adventures. Both have black friends who are not just the sidekick but have their own independent voices and perspectives. Both are full of social and political commentary. 

I wonder if Netflix / Hulu / Amazon would turn "Why I Hate Saturn" into a movie or series? It is over 30 years old at this point so it might have to be updated. 

Planet Grenada: Birth of a Nation: A Comic Novel

Planet Grenada: Kyle Baker on the Fourth of July

the handmaid's tale and scientology (part three)

This is actually an older link but I'm honestly a bit late thinking about this so I'm going to post it anyway. This is actually about a scene from the first season of The Handmaid's Tale. So apparently other people out there are are drawing connections between the content of the show and the faith and practice of Scientology.

Tony Ortega: Elisabeth Moss in this week’s ‘Handmaid’ sure sounded like FBI testimony about Scientology