Judaeo-Christian Materials in An Arabic Jewish Treatise

Judaeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish Treatise
Author(s): Shlomo Pines

Source: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 35 (1967), pp. 187-217
Published by: American Academy for Jewish Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3622480
Accessed: 18-01-2016 23:36 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Academy for Jewish Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of
the American Academy for Jewish Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:36:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN MATERIALS IN
AN ARABIC JEWISH TREATISE*
By SHLOMOPINES
The subject of the presentpaper is a JewishTreatise polemiz-

ing against Christianity,which appears to have been entitled,
Kitab Fihi Dald'il 'Ald Anna AkhadhufKutubahum
al-Nas.rdProofs That the Chris-
Min Ghayr Thiqdt:A Book Containing
tians Adopted Their Books Without (Having) Reliable
Testimonies.2
Lengthy excerptsfromthis otherwiseunknownwork (which
will be referredto in this paper as the Jewish Treatise) are
found in a voluminous, as yet unpublished,work writtenby
a Nestorian author IbrdhimIbn 'Awn; this name and the fact
that he must have lived beforethe thirteenthcenturyare the
sum total of the informationwe possess with regard to him.3
The title of his treatise is: IUall al-Shukfikwa-l-Radd 'Ald
al- YahldiZal-Mukhalif: The Solution of the Doubts and the
Refutationof theAntagonisticJew. As faras I know,no modern
scholar has dealt with this refutationin other than a biblio-
graphicalcontext.4
Because of limitationsof space and time, I shall concentrate
in this preliminarystudy, which is based upon MS. Paris Ar.
166,supon what may be termedthe Judaeo-Christianaspect of
* I wish to thank the Institute for Advanced
Studies, Princeton,N. J. for
having granted me temporarymembershipfor the year 1966-1967 and thus
facilitated the writingof the presentpaper.
I MS. Vatican Ar. 135, fol. 84b.
2 Or: reliable
witnesses; thiqdt.
3 See G. Graf, Geschichteder ChristlichenArabischenLiteratur,II, Vatican
1947, p. 212. The treatise of Ibrahim Ibn 'Awn is quoted by the Arabic
Coptic writer Safi Ibn al-'Assdl who lived in the thirteenthcentury. The
Paris MS. of the treatise is dated 1222.
4 See Graf,loc. cit.
s MS. Vatican Ar. 135 has been occasionally consulted.

187
188 PINES [2]
the Jewish Treatise. As shall be explained below, it seems

evident that some of its materials and the opinions set forth
in it were taken over from a Judaeo-Christiansect which is
eitheridenticalwith or closely similarto a sect whose texts and
views have, as I have tried to show in a recent publication,6
been adopted forhis own purposesby the Muslim tenthcentury
theologian,'Abd al-Jabbar in his work, TathbitDald'il Nobuw-
wat Sayyidina Mahammad: "The Establishmentof the Proofs
forthe Prophethoodof Our Master Mahammad."7
Ibn 'Awn's treatise is divided into three parts, which are
divided into chapters (fusfil).
As shall be brieflynoted later, there are certain perhaps
significantdifferencesin approach and in the subject matter
between various portions of the Jewish Treatise. However,
these differencesdo not seem to correspond in a clear-cut
manner to the division into three parts which, however,may
not be quite relevant in this connection. Ibrdhim Ibn 'Awn
seems to suggest that this division was due to the Jewish
author.8
The contention-which plays a central part in 'And al-
Jabbar's text- that Jesus observed all the Mosaic command-
ments and enjoined theirobservance upon his followers- is in
a similarway a main themeof the JewishTreatise. The follow-
ing passages - a great numberof otherscould also be quoted -
may illustratethe argumentationused in the latter work.
(Fol. 58b) Accordingto the Jew: "Jesus9did not cease up
to his death (to observe) the religionof the Torahlo and its com-
mandments. The proofthereof"is that in the thirdchapter of
6 "The
Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of ChristianityAccording
to a New Source," Proceedingsof the Israel Academy of Sciences and Hu-
manities,Vol. II, No. 13, Jerusalem 1966. This study will be referredto as:
JewishChristians.
7 Since the publication of my study,the firstvolume of this work has been
edited by Dr. 'Abd al-Karim 'Uthman (Beirut 1966). Dr. 'Uthman intends
to edit the whole work.
8 MS. Vatican Ar. 135, fol. 84b.
9 Here called 'Isa which is the usual Arabic form. The form Yas5i often
used in the Christian Arabic texts occurs more frequentlyin our text.
Io Lam
yazul 'ald din al-tawriya. " Or: his proof.
[3] MATERIALSIN AN ARABICJEWISHTREATISE 189
Matthew"2 he says: Do not think that I came to destroys3the

Torah'4 and the books of the prophets. I only came to com-
plete them.'s Heaven and earth will cease but no line of them
will cease. Whoever diminishes them,'6is diminished in the
kingdomof the heavens,'7 and he who observes them is great.
This is a proofthat he upheld them."
The followingpassage refersto the corruptionof Christianity
afterthe death of Jesus,which is one of the main themesof the
relevant chapter of 'Abd al-Jabb~r's Tathbit. (Fol. 101a-101b)
"The Jew says: Jesus'8announced to his people what will come
to pass through the instrumentalityof those who will come
after him and will be opposed to what they heard fromhim.
(He did this) in saying in the fifthchapter of Matthew:~9 Be
on your guard against the lying prophets. He said:20 Not all
those who say: O Lord, O lord, will enter the Kingdom of
Heaven to the end of this passage.2' Then he mentioned22 the
wise man who built his house upon rock and the foolish(man)
who built his house upon sand. The Mutasawwifu'3are those
who altered his teaching24and opposed the Torah. He said:
those who do (their) works in accordance with the will25 of my
Father, this being the commandmentsof the Torah, and not in
accordance with the will of Simon26 and those like him,27 who
12 Matthew 5:17. In the Gospels used by the author of the JewishTreatise,
the division into chapters was differentfromthe one currentlyaccepted now.

I3 Li-anquda. If one does not take into account a diacritic point figuring
in the MS., the word is changed into li-anqusa: to diminish.
4 Al-tawrdt.
's Li-utammimahi.
i6 Naqasahd, writtennaqadaha; see above.
'7 Malakfit
al-samawat.
is YasWi' '9 Matthew 7:15.
20
Matthew7:21.
22 Ma'nd.
Literally: "meaning," "notion."
22 See Matthew 7:24.27.
23 In this context this may referto the Christian monks.
24 Sunna.
25 Mashi'a, but the word is doubtful. This
reading is based on the occur-
rence of the word furtheron in the sentence: the will of Sam'in.
26Sam'dn. The referenceis to Peter.
27Nuzard'.
190 PINES [4]
say to him:28 O Lord in your name we cast out devils. There-

upon he said to them: I have neverknownyou. These are those
disciples whom he threatenswith banishmentfromhim in the
other world.29The (reason) being that they heard and taught
the contrary. They are those who built upon sand."
(Fol. 61a-b) "With regardto the storyof the leper healed by
our lord the Jew says: In the fifthchapter of Matthew3o he
ordered him to show himselfto the priests and to offerup a
sacrificein accordance with what was orderedby AMosesaccord-
ing to theirprofessionof faith.3~He says thereare (with regard
to) this only two (alternatives).32 Either he gave an order,but
did not hold it to be correct. This, however,is a wrong33
(action),
one which should not be attributed to wise and educated
people,34and even less so to prophets, those who guide the
servants (of God) to the religionof God and those (who in their
rank) come close to such men. Or (this being the other possi-
bility), he gave this order because he professedthe religionof
Moses. In the fifthchapter of Matthew he says:35 Do to
(other) people what it would rejoice you to have done to you
by them,this is what is writtenin the Torah and in the proph-
ets.. ." (Foll. 59b-60a) The Jew says: A proof that he (Jesus)
upheld the preceptsof the Torah and that therewas nothingin
his (mind) that he commanded except these (precepts) is the
fact that in the 16th chapter of Luke36he told the story of
Lazarus ('l'Tzar) and the richman and what theircircumstances
came to (in the end) and that he (the rich man) was told:3
"They have Moses and the prophetsand if they do not accept
(what) they (say), they will not accept either (what is said)
by one who came alive from the dead. He (Jesus) does not
28
To Jesus. See Matthew 7:22-23.
29 Or: at the time of the last judgment.
30 Matthew7:1-4.
31Shah&da. Literally: testimony.
32
Literally: matters; amrayn.
33Fdsid means "bad" or "corrupt."
34 Al-hukam&wa'l-udaba'.
3sCf. 7:12.
36Luke 16:19.31.
37The rich man (Dives.) is told by Abraham, 16, 29 and 31.
mentiona book which was revealed38to him or with regard to

which he received an order other than the Torah and the
prophets.
If they say the story is but a parable (indicating) what will
happen, (this means that) it is a proofthat the commandments
of the Torah will remain (valid) and obligatoryfor people till
the end of time: What is professed and chosen by Simon
Cephas,39and James (Ya'qfib) Paul and (men) like them in the
book of the Acts (al-'b.r.k.s.s.) is not mentionedin the books of
the prophets,is absurd and contradictsthe foregoing,4o and even
more so if (taken in conjunction) with their appeal to you to
accept the doctrineof the Trinity and to break the covenant
(which) God (using) the tongues of the prophets (made) with
His saints."41
It may be noted that the thesis propounded in the above
passage - that Jesus had no teachings of his own, does not
appear to be consonantwithcertainotherpassages of the Jewish
treatise.42
Like 'Abd al-Jabbdir'stext, this treatise attempts to explain
that Jesus' apparent transgressionsof Mosaic commandments
and the saying in which he seems to approve of such trans-
gressionwere,fromthe point of view of the law, quite blameless.
(Fol. 67-a) "A proofforhis observanceof the Sabbath is that
he recountedin the eighth chapter of Matthew43what his dis-
ciples did, namely their rubbing (tafrik)the ears (of corn) as
well as theirbeing blamed by the Jews and his excusing them
by (means of a reference)to what was done by David when he
was hungry. The excuse (that) he put forwardin behalf of his
disciplesis a proofthat he observed the Sabbath; for(according
to him) necessity(al-idtirdr)impelled them. The Jews will not
38The Moslem term unzila (literally:brought down) is used.

39 Sam'an al-Safa, an Arabic appellation usually given to Peter.
40
Or: what has preceded (them in time).
41Awliyd': the people close to God.
42 Thus the treatise refers to Jesus' prohibition of swearing (fol. 28b);
a prohibition not observed by the Christians, to his precept--which is
likewise transgressed- that people should pray in secret (fol. 31b) and to
his forbiddingthe acquisition of property (foll. 32b-33a; see below).
43 Cf. Matthew 12:1-7. See below.
192 PINES [6]
disagreewithhimon this(point). For a dead (carcass)is per-

mittedto one whois impelledby necessity.44
As I shallmakeclearbelow,45thisinterpretation
oftheGospel
storyhas a clear connectionwith the one foundin 'Abd al-
Jabbdr'stext.46No parallel can howeverbe foundin 'Abd
al-Jabbdr'stextto the interpretation
propoundedin theJewish
Treatiseof what is usuallythoughtof as Jesus'srejectionof
lex talionis.
(Foll. 77b-78a)47 "The Jew says: ... As regards your belief
that the Torah ordersto retaliate (qa&ss) and that Jesus (Yasfi')
orders to forgive(.afh), the destruction48 of the Torah which
you have imagined has not taken place. Rather did he obey the
order of the prophet Jeremiah to the Children of Israel (to
exercise)- after (the power of) governmentand royaltywere
gone - forgivenesswith regard to those who are not ruled by
(the lex) talionis (qas.a) revealed by God to his prophets. God,
may He be honoredand exalted forbadein his book to take49...
blood moneyso from those who are subject to talio. Now
Jeremiahsays:s~ Happy is the man who has suppressedhis anger
since his youth subjects his cheek to him who smites him and
sits alone in silence. Perhaps he will be granted peace. Isaiah
and Jesus recommendedforgivenessand the abandonment of
rancour in this sense, and not in order to abrogate what God
has orderedin his book forthe protectionof His servants.52He
did not neglect them. Thus (when) some of them receive from
44 Li-anna'l-mudtarryabillu lahu al-mayyita. The passage goes on to quote

Jesus' words as the priest, being permitted to do this work in the temple
and to the story of his healing a man with a witheredhand on the Sabbath.
45 When I shall attempt to sum up the various points in which the Jewish
Treatise resemblesand differsfromthe Tathbit.

46See JewishChristians,pp. 5 and 63.
47 A referenceto this topic is also found fol. 77-a.
48 Naq. The word can also be read naqs diminution.

49 One word is doubtful. A slight emendation would permit the reading
rushd: bribes, but this is not exactly the word which would seem to be
indicated.
soDiydt in the plural.
s5The referenceis to Lamentations 3:26-29.
s2 Literally: slaves.
[71 MATERIALS IN AN ARABIC JEWISH TREATISE 193
others (various) sorts of hurts such as having their eyes put

out, their ears cut off, being killed,53and so forth,54(God's
servants) are charged (with exacting fromthose who did these
things) a similar (punishment).ssThis passage rejects the Tal-
mudic interpretationof the biblical lex talionis. According to
this interpretation,in cases of bodily injurypecuniarycompen-
sation is exacted fromthe wrongdoerand serves as a substitute
for the mutilationwhich,according to the letter of the law,ssa
ought to be inflictedupon him. This positionon the part of the
author of the JewishTreatise seems to indicate that he was not
a rabbanite Jew. This conclusion appears to be borne out by
the followingpassage whichseems to impugnthe talmudicview
that washing one's hands beforeeating is a commandmentof
the Mosaic Law.
(Foll. 79b-80a) The Jew says: (The Christiansmay argue):56
If Jesus has commandedto forgivewithoutmeaningto abrogate
the Torah, what did he mean by permittingto eat forbidden
animals, withoutregardingany of them as defiling,as they are
regarded by the Torah, when he says: "that which enters the
mouth does not defile it, but rather that which comes out of
it.ss One should answer them.s9The saying of Jesus is merely
an answer to the rabbis,6owho blamed his disciplesbecause they
saw them eat without washing their hands. In the eleventh
s3 Qatl al-nafs; literally:the killingof the soul.

54 Wa-ghayrdhdlika; literally: and other than this.
ss The MS. has: idhd '.m.t.w.l li-muqdbala. The reading, which requires a
slight emendation proposed by me is: idhan mutawallan li-muqdbala. A
more or less literal translationwould be: being then charged with (exacting)
a correspondence.
ssa Followed by the Qaraites. See for instance Aharon ben Eliyahu, Sepher
Mitzwot(Gan Eden), Eupatoua 1866, 179a-180b.
56The following sentence seems to be the Jew's version of a Christian
argument directed inter alia against his interpretation of Jesus' call to
forgive.
st Literally: wishing.
58 Cf. Matthew 15:11.
59 More or less literally: "it may be said to them," i. e., to the Chris-
tians.
6o A bbdr.
194 PINES [8]
chapterof Matthew,he says:6' Not that whichentersthe mouth

defiles it,62 but that which comes out of the lips.63 For that
which comes out of the lips,64proceedsfromthe heart,and that
defiles it.6s5These are the bad evil... (?)66 such as bloodshed,
killing,fornication,theft,false witness,lying and slander. The
Jew says: By my life,washing (one's) hands is forthe sake of
cleanliness. (It does not mean) that one who has not washed
his hand has defiled it. (The saying of Jesus) is not by way
(of implying)that he permittedpeople to eat all that God has
proclaimedto be defilingand that He has forbidden."
The thesis of 'Abd al-Jabbar's Tathbitthat Christianityas
generallypracticed is corruptand that there is a sharp opposi-
tion between the Christians as they are generally known and
Jesus' Mosaic religionis a recurrentLeit-motivin this treatise
and has been referredto in some of the passages quoted above.
The followingtext, the firstwords of which may suggest that
it is not quoted verbatim,but only in a summarizedform,sets
forthsome of the Jewish author's views on the perversionof
Jesus' doctrineby the Christians.
(Foll. 87a-88a) "The Jew says: he67mentionsafter this the
disagreementof the disciples with Jesus and their not having
accepted what he had commandedconcerningthe observanceof
the commandmentsof the Torah. He claims that, because of
their love of dominion (ri'asa) and of theirbeing complaisant68
with people and taking theirproperty,69 Simon (Sam'fin) James
61 Cf.M. 15, 11 and 18-19.

62 Or him. The Greek has: ton anthropon.
63The Greek has: out of the mouth; ek tou stomatos(Matthew 15:11).
64Al-shafatayn. The Greek has: ek tou stomatos(15:18).
6sOr: him. The Greek has: ton
anthropon.
66 A
word which should correspondto the Greek dialogismoi (15:19) could
not be made out. It could be interpretedas 'illa, which may mean fault,
but neither this nor other possible readings seem plausible.
67Apparently also the Jewish author, whose views may be summed up by
Ibn 'Awn. A possible, but not very plausible, alternative supposition would
be that the Jewishauthor quotes somebody else.
68 The MS. appears to have tanazzul. Perhaps this should be emended into:
tandzul.
69The MS. has 'mfilihim.I read: amwalihim.
[9] MATERIALS IN AN ARABIC JEWISH TREATISE 195
(Ya'qfib) Paul (Bul.s) and the other apostles abrogated the

Torah and selected7o the provision' with regard to which they
agreed that there should be 'change, thus circumcision,ablu-
tions after an emission of semen and after menstruationand
prayingwhen facing the East.72 Neither Jesus nor any one of
the prophets(did) it.73 (The same applies to) eating that which
God has forbidden,(to) profaningthe Sabbath, to adopting
Sunday which was not adopted by Jesus, nor revealed in the
Book of God or in the propheciesof the prophets,but through
the obduracy and the ruse of the disciples. For in theirlust for
dominion they agreed to abrogate that which was revealed by
God to Moses and confirmedby Jesus in the Gospel.' In addi-
tion,74he has said to Matthew: "I did not come to abrogate75
the Torah and the books of the prophets. Whoever abrogates
one of their precepts is called diminishedin the kingdom of
heaven." They76addressedthemselves77 to the idolatrousnations
who did not know either God's Book or His commandments;
and they inclined to make concessions (tarkhis) (to these na-
tions) and to make thingseasy (tashil) forthem."
This passage is followedby a translationof Simon's78speech in
70 The reading ijtabaw followedin the text is not certain.

7' Shard'it.
72 Quite clearly, the text is - at least syntactically- incorrect. Praying
while facing the East is a usage, which the Apostles were supposed to have
introduced and not abrogated, as is the case for the other usages mentioned
up to this point in this passage. In the JewishTreatise Jesus is said to have
faced the West when praying. From this point on the Christian usages op-
posed to the religionof Jesus are enumerated. Examples of Christianabroga-
tion of the Mosaic commandments given in the Jewish Treatise are also
found in the Tathbit. See, for instance, Jewish Christians,pp. 3-5.
73 Literally: "come to it."
74Literally: then, thumma.
75The MS. has li-anquda and furtheron man naqadu: whoever abrogates;
and this may have been the reading of the author. However, the Arabic
translation of the Gospel used by the latter may have had in both cases
formsderivingfromthe verb naqasu: to diminish. Such formswould parallel
the participle ntqisgan:diminished,occurringclose to the end of the verse.
See above and JewishChristians,p. 5.
76Qasadu. Literally: "directed themselves" or "went."
77The Apostles. 78 Sam'Un, i. e., Peter.
196 PINES [10]
Acts 15 (7-13) referredto in the text as Acts 14. The Jewish

author commentsupon thisspeech in the followingmanner. "As
forhis79sayingthat the heartsof the nationsso are pures' through
faith,by my life, the hearts of those who do not acknowledge
the books and do not know God incline towards that which
Simon has brought to them; there is no differencein religion
between (him and) them. For they used to eat impure (things)
and Simon throughperceivingin his dream a permission(to eat
them) encouraged them to do so. They used to worshipidols,
and he erected forthem crosses. They used to pray to the Sun
and he followed them in praying (while facing) the East; (in
this) he was in conflictwith Jesus who in praying (faced) the
West. (The Gentiles) did not wash afteremissionof semen and
menstruation,and hes2 approved of thiswithregardto themand
encouragedthemin it. They did not (favorably)regardcircum-
cision and he told them: circumciseyour hearts with faith in
Christ (al-masih). They avoided blood, carrion and fornica-
tion- (the things)whichtheywere orderedby James (Ya'qfib)
to avoid - (but) they had already abominated blood and
(eating) carrionand, because of jealousy, they had disapproved
of fornication. Simon was the one who preached, (and) his
companions bore witness to his veracity; but who bore witness
to the veracity of whoever preached from among his com-
panions?83When the idolators saw that, except with regard to
the recognitionof the divinity (rubifbiyya)of Jesus and the
observances4of commandments (which were) easy (to keep),
therewas no differencebetween (what) theyss(were used to) and
the religionwhichSimon exhortedthem (to adopt) theyfollowed
them in this. Thus Simon had given the preferenceto this
worldwhich passes away over the otherworldwhichendures.
The dream of Simon referredto in this passage is the vision
recountedin Acts 10:9-16. This vision is discussedelsewhereby
79Cf. Acts 15:9. 80The Gentiles.

8SThe MS. has dhakiyya. I read: zakiyya.
82 Simon.
83The text appears to be slightlycorrupt.
84Literally: "work," 'amal.
8sLiterally: "between them."
the Jewishauthor86(foll. 81b-82a), who blames Peter for per-

mitting,on the strengthof it, to eat forbiddenfood. Apart
fromSimon, the two disciplesof Jesus specificallymentionedin
the passage translated above are James and Paul. James's
speech at the Council of the Apostles and his proposal at this
gatherings7are partlyquoted fol. 97b. Peter, who in his speech
at the council had suggestedthe abrogationof the law of Moses,
which is difficultto observe (fol. 98a), was in full agreement
with James. The text,which may be slightlycorrupt,seems to
referto an accord between the disciples concerningthe division
between them of this world and of dominion(foll. 97b-98a).
Paul is described fol. 100b as a Jew who, after having per-
secuted the Christians after the death of Jesus, lusted"s for
dominion (ri'asa) and, having simulated blindness for several
days, claimed that Jesus had appeared to him and throughthe
instrumentalityof I;Hananiya,and ordered that the command-
ments of the Torah be abrogated.89 The Christians believed
that he was right, followed him, and in their opinion he is
superiorto the disciples9oof Jesus.
Though this referenceto the rank attributedto Paul by the
Christiansagrees with one occurringin the Tathbit,where the
Christiansare said to regardPaul as superiorto Moses and the
other prophets,9'the Jewish Treatise appears to differfrom
the relevant chapter of the Tathbit- this is one of the points
of dissimilaritybetweenthe two texts,whichhave much in com-
mon - in laying stress upon Peter's ratherthan Paul's failings
and responsibilityfor the corruptionof Christianity. It is a
matter of differenceof emphasis rather than of differenceof
opinion. 'Abd al-Jabbar,too, blames Peter for the conclusions
he drew fromhis vision, but this disapproval occurs only in one
passage.92 It is not to be compared with the massive reproba-
86 Who refersto Acts 9 (and not 10).

87 See Acts 15 (14-20) referredto as Chapter 14.
88Aththara. Literally: "preferred."
89 The MS. seems to have n.q.d. I read
naqd.
9o I. e., the directdisciples.
9' Tathbit,p. 151.
92 Tathbit,pp. 194-195; cf. Jewish Christians,p. 3.
198 PINES [12]
tion of Paul as the chiefagent of corruptionwhich is again and

again expressed throughoutthe chapter in question.93 In the
Jewish Treatise, on the other hand, pejorative referencesto
Peter are very frequent. Thus, fol. 85b, the Jewish author
maintainsthat in consequence of Peter's denial of Jesus,he was
no longerregardedby the latteras his companion. Foll. 93b-94a,
the Jewish author draws a parallel between Peter and Judas
which is favorable to the latter,who repentedof his sin to the
point of committingsuicude; whereas Peter repented of his
denial only forone instantof time and later, because of his lust
fordominion(ri'asa) abrogated the commandments(against the
wish of Jesus); if Jesus had wished to abrogate them,he would
have said so duringhis lifetime.
Jesus is described as a prophet in the followingpassage:
(foll. 115a-b) "The Jew says: In the twelfthchapter of his
Gospel94John says that after Jesus had resuscitated Lazarus
('l'azar)95 he liftedhis eyes96to heaven97and prayedand thanked
God. AccordinglyJesus acknowledges that he is obliged (to
give) thanks to God. He wanted that all should know that his
prayers had received a (favorable) response. He did not claim
to be divine (al-rubfibiyya) as you claim in his behalf (or) that
he and his Father are one god or that, unlikethe otherprophets,
he worked miracles98without imploringGod.
Jesus' prayer on the occasion of the resurrectionof Lazarus
is likewiseused in 'Abd al-Jabbar's text as proofof his attitude
of subordinationto God.99
Foll. 143b-144a, the Jewish author--referring to Acts 3
(22-29) - cites Simon's quotation fromDeut. 18:18-19: "Moses
said truly (bi-haqq) God will raise up foryou a prophetlike me
fromyour brethren. Listen to him and to all that he will say
93 See also above, the passage concerningthe leper's sacrifice.

94 See John 11:41.
95 This is a Hebrew rather than a Syriac form of the name; but it often
occurs in Arabic versions of the Gospel.
96Nazar; literally:"glance."
97Greek: ano and the Peshitta: le'el (aloft).
98Al-dydt. Literally: signs.
99MS. fol. 52b; printededition, p. 113.
to you. And every soul that does not obey this prophetshall be
destroyed. Moses spoke true (sadaqa), if Jesus is (meant by)
these words. You are accordinglyobliged to admit (lazamakum)
that heIoo is a prophet like (Moses) and that he is from the
brethrenof Israel who are created and subordinate to God
(ma'lihin). There is thus an end (zdla) to the contentionthat
he is Lord and Creator, forit is impossiblethat the childrenof
Israel should have brethrenthat are gods."
The view indicated in the passages translated above with
regard to the prophethoodof Jesus and his attitude toward the
Mosaic law and with regard to the process of corruptionwhich
set in in Christianityafter the death of Jesus has, in spite of
certaindivergencies,great similaritywithopinionsexpoundedin
'Abd al-Jabbdr's text. This does not, however, apply to the
followingpassages which maintain the doctrinethat Jesus was
only sent to, and only concerned with the childrenof Israel,
i. e., the Jews.
The firstof these passages to be quoted here refers,in addi-
tion, to Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath as interpretedby
the author of the Jewish Treatise and states that Jesus had
come down fromheaven (fol.71a). "The Jewsays: In theseventh
chapterof John,he?oo says: I did one work,and you all marvel
at it. In the same way Moses commanded you (to practice)
circumcision(not that it is fromMoses, but fromthe fathers),
and a man is circumcisedon the Sabbath, in order that the
Torah of Moses be not abrogated. Why thenare you confusedl'o
because I healed a man on the Sabbath? This is a clear proof.
For he placed circumcisionon the Sabbath on the same (plane)
as healing on that (day). For he did not do this with a view
to its abrogation and to permittingwork to be done on (that
If the adoption of its (observance)1o3 had been in his
day).Io2
opinion reprehensible,he would have proclaimed this, as the
o00 Jesus.
o10Tawaswasfi. The reading of the word is not quite certain.
.02 'Ald sabil naqdiha wa-istihll al-'amal fiha. The two femininesuffixes
clearly refer to sabt. In Arabic this word is generally masculine, but the
Hebrew and Aramaic words parallel to it are feminine.
103 The translationis not
quite certain.
200 PINES [14]
proclamationwas made by him thatlo4 his coming down from

heaven (occurred) with a view to his guiding the children of
Israel onlylosto the exclusionof the others. For he said that he
had been sent to the strayIo6 sheep of the children of Israel and
forbadehis companions to go (among) the Samaritans and the
idolators."
The thesis that Jesus was sent only to the childrenof Israel
is also put forwardin the followingpassage (fol. 26a). "The
Jew says: Sam'an and the other disciples said to the rabbis:Io7
God is more deservingof obedience than men. Now the God of
our fathersraised up this Jesus whom you killed and hanged
upon a tree,and God establishedhim as a chiefand a savior.'os
And he raised him up to his right(hand) so that he should give
repentance to, and forgivethe sins of, the Children of Israel.
And we are the witnessesof these words.109This statement,if
it is truthful,entails (the conclusion) that Jesus was raised up
to heaven in order to give repentanceto and to forgivethe sins
of the Children of Israel (only) to the exclusion of the others
(ghayrihim)belonging to the other nations (sa'ir al-shu'i~b).
witnesson this point is similar to the words"' of Jesus
Theiri?o
in a number of passages of the Gospel, according to which he
came down from heaven in order to guide exclusivelyll2 the
Childrenof Israel and (in which) he forbidshis disciples to go
to the othernations.
The syntacticconstructionof the phrase is not clear.

004
los is can also

Khgsatan, whose usual meaning "particularly," "specially"
mean "only." In this context the author clearly had in mind this last mean-
ing.
xo6That is the literal meaning of the Arabic didlla. In the English transla-
tion of the Gospel verse generally the word "lest" is used.
o07Al-akbdr.
ZosMutyiyan. The usual meaning of the word is: vivifying or vivifier.
But in the Christian Arabic vocabulary this term is modelled upon the cor-
respondingSyriac word, which means both "vivifying" and "saviour."
lo9 Al-kaldm. Literally: "speech." The quotation corresponds to
Acts
5:29-32.
nioThat of the disciples.
I' Qawl. Literally: speech.
112
Khds.atan. See above.
The thesis that Jesus's mission was only concernedwith the

childrenof Israel is also clearly stated in the remarksmade by
the author of the JewishTreatise regardinga passage which he
ascribes to Luke 14; in spite of some divergenceshe apparently
refersto Luke 13:10-17. (Fol. 68a), "The Jewsays: In the 14th
chapterof Luke thereis the storyof the woman who had a flow
of blood (al-nazif). Now this chapter testifiesthat he"3 forbade
all works on the Sabbath except those which help a sick or
deformed(person) and only"4(one who belonged)to the Children
of Israel...". s For this was forbiddento him. For he only
healed the woman because she was one of the daughters of
Abraham, and if she were not (descended) fromhim, he would
not have cured her on the Sabbath. The arguments(put for-
ward) by him show that he observed the Sabbath. If he had
not done so, he would have said that work on this (day) is like
(work on) the other days. But when they reprovedhim for a
thingwhichtheyhad difficulty in grasping,he made themgrasp
it and adduced an argumentwhichcould not be refuted."
There is an evident connectionbetweenthe contentionof the
author of the JewishTreatise that Jesus' missionwas concerned
with the Jewsonly and the hypothesiswhichhe puts forwardin
the followingpassage that he had taught his disciples,that the
Jewishtemporalkingdomwould be restored. (Foll. 173a-b) "The
position"6of the Children of Israel is strengthenedby what is
recountedin the 1st Chapter of the Acts:"7 namely, that after
his death and resurrection, Jews appeared to his disciples,while
theywere assembled. And theyasked him,saying: Our Lord,"8
will the kingdombe restoredto the Children of Israel at this
time?"9 And Jesus said to them: It is not for you to know
"3Jesus.
114As above is usedherein thesense:only.
khdssatan
"s In all probabilityseveralwordsare missinghere. It may be assumed
that theirgeneralmeaningwas: "he wouldnot have done thisto a woman
whowas notJewish."
x6Amr. Literally:"matter."
"17Cf.Acts 1:6 ff.
x18Rabbaund and notSayyidund is usedherein orderto renderkyril.
119If the diacriticpointsare takeninto account,the Arabicscriptadmits
202 PINES [16]
that time, for the times were set by the Lord12o throughhis
(own) power (li-sultdanihi).This is a proofthat he12I had taught
them that the Childrenof Israel have a kingdom,which will be
restoredto them. For it was necessaryfor them to know this;
the knowledgeof God concerningthis being beyond him (?).122
If Jesus had not taught them before that time that the Jews
had a kingdomwhichwould be restoredto them,theirquestion
on this (point) would have been impossibleand theirmentionof
it reproved: he would have answered them that theirkingdom
had come to an end, that they had no kingdom,after it had
gone from them. When we see that you'23mention in your
bookI24 the answer'24awhich Jesus (gave) to theirquestion it is
necessary (to draw the conclusion) that he would not have
answered them on this (point) unless words concerningthis had
been (spoken) by him before;and that theywished to know the
time of (the event); he (forhis part) refused(to let them have
this knowledge) referringthem to the Father."
It may be noted that in his answer to this question (foll.
173-174b) the Christianauthor points out that all the Jews-
-
includingthe authorof the JewishTreatise desirethe restora-
tion of a Jewish kingdom and had this desire since the time
when Jesus lived an earthly life. "Accordingly (his) disciples
thoughtthat Our Lord Christwould restoreto them theirking-
dom, would resuscitatetheir dead and would bring them back
to Jerusalem (bayt al-maqdis) where they would live ruling all
the nations and victoriousover them,eating and drinkingand
living in a marriedstate;125 (this being) in accordance with the
opinion of the Jews on this (point).... The disciples thought
only this passive construction. The followingis an English translationwhich

agrees with the Greek text: "Wil you at this time restorethe kingdomof the
Children of Israel?"
"2oAl-Rabb. The Greek has: The Father (ho pater).
21'Jesus.
122
Difnahd. If the text is correct,this mightmean that Jesus did not know
when the kingdom of the Children of Israel would be restored.
23 The Christians.
124The Acts.
x24a Qawl. Literally:speech.
"2sOr: copulating.
[171 MATERIALS IN AN ARABIC JEWISH TREATISE 203
that Our Lord Christ would do this for them and they asked
him this question because of this thoughtwhich all the Jews
had. For thereis no passage in the Gospel whichmentionsthat
Our Lord promised that the kingdom would return to the
Children of Israel." Ibn 'Awn goes on to say that both Jesus
and John the Baptist spoke of the approach of the Kingdom of
God and did not referto the Kingdom of the Childrenof Israel.
"However the disciples had in common with all the Jews this
thoughtand the desire forthe restorationof theirkingdomand
thereforeposed the question. Jesus did not wish to indicate to
them at that time that theirhope fora restorationof the king-
dom of the Children of Israel was mistaken,because he knew
that when the Paraclete, (namely) the Holy Ghost, would come
down upon them,they would know the whole truthand would
recognizethat theirwish fora restorationof the Kingdom of the
Childrenof Israel had no validity." In other words, Ibn 'Awn
appears to consider that up to the events of the Pentecost re-
counted in the second chapter of the Acts, the Disciples shared
the political aspirations of all the other Jews.
Contraryto the passages quoted above, some of the texts of
the Jewish Treatise are intended to depreciate Jesus.126 Thus
the superiorityof Moses over Jesus is proved by means of four
(or perhaps five) arguments:
1. (Foll. 47b-48a) Whereas Jesus is said by Mark in the
ninth chapter127and by Matthew, to have been hungryafter
having,accordingto Matthew's report,fastedforfortydays and
nights,Moses is not reportedto have been hungryafterhaving
fasted twice for eighty days and nights.129
126The texts which deal with trinitarian

theology,those, for-instance,which
argue that Christ is not one with the Father or that he is inferiorto the Holy
Ghost, belong to a differentcategory and shall not be discussed in the present
paper.
127 The canonical Mark's briefreferenceto Jesus's sojourn in the wilderness
and to his being tempted occurs in 1:12-13. There is no mentionof his being
hungry.
228 If one
accepts the usual division into chapters, Matthew's account of
the temptations of Jesus occurs in Chapter 4; see vv. 2-3.
129 I do not know fromwhat source the
Jewishauthor got this information.
204 PINES [18]
2. (Fol. 48b) Whereas, according to the 12thI30 chapter of

Matthew, the light which was upon Jesus during his "mani-
festation" (tajalli) upon the mountain- the referenceis to the
transfiguration -
disappeared (zala 'anhu) when he came
down.u13 The Children of Israel could not, because of the bright-
ness of its radiance, look upon the face of Moses, when he came
down fromthe mountain, and he had to keep it veiled up to
his death.
3. Moses set a brazen serpent upon a spear (rum4)'32 and
whoeveramong those who were by serpents,was called back to
life and cured. Jesus, on the other hand, resuscitateds33his
people (qawm) through his being crucifiedupon a piece of
wood.'34
4. (Fol. 51a) Moses is also superior to Jesus because he
delivered the Children of Israel from Pharaoh, whom God
destroyedin the sea when he pursued them,whereas Jesus hid
himselfand fledfromthe Jewsmany times.
A text occurringin foll. 8a-b also refersto Jesus' inferiority
to Moses. The text deals with Jesus' fear as described in the
12th Chapter of Mark.'3s Accordingto the Jewishauthor, this
fear is incomprehensibleon the part of one who knows that he
will attain somethinggood and on the part of one who is going
to sit at the righthand of the Father. He compares this atti-
tude to Jesus' disadvantage, with that of Moses when the
latter was informedthat he was about to die.
This confrontationbetween Moses and Jesus, made in order
to affirmthe superiorityof the formermay,~36 but need not be,
130 The 12th according to the usual division of chapters.

13! This is not explicitlystated in the Gospel text, as known to us.
132 The Hebrewhas
nes (Num. 21:9).
s33Ahzyd.As the Christian Arabic terminologyis modelled upon the Syriac.
the word may also mean: saved.
134Cf. John 3:14.
s35The quotation refersto Mark 14. Jesus's fear (as reportedby Matthew,
Mark and Luke) is also referredto by the Jewish author elsewhere (foll.
195b-196a).
136 The thesis might be maintained that Epistle to the Hebrews 3:3-6, is a
of Judaeo-Christian,rather than of Jewish origin. There are,

however,other derogatoryobservationsconcerningJesus which
appear to indicate that, though the author may have adapted
for his own purposes Judaeo-Christian materials, a theory
whichwill be set forthbelow, he was a Jew ratherthan a Jewish
Christian. It is true that we do not know how far the Jewish
Christians,polemizingagainst the dominantChristiandoctrines,
were prepared to go in depreciatingJesus. Nevertheless the
followingcriticismof Jesus because of the latter's attitude to-
wards propertycan, as far as I can see, be best accounted for
on the suppositionthat the author was a Jew.
Accordingto the JewishTreatise (foll. 32a-b), Jesus forbade
the acquisition of property;this prohibitiondid not solely con-
cern his disciples,but people in general; and yet he himselfhad
acquired property(foll. 34a, 35a-b); as is proved interaliac37by
that fact that accordingto the 14thChapter of John,'38 Jesus' '39
words to Judas: "What you want to do, (do) quickly, were
interpreted(by the disciples) as referringto Judas' buying
somethingor giving alms to the poor. This means that Jesus
had acquired propertyand that he was spendingsome of it and
givingalms, just as ordinarypeople do."
Another passage (fol. 23b) does not referto a contradiction
between Jesus' words and his actions, but to a contradiction
between two of his pronouncements.The criticismis not, how-
ever, directedas elsewhereagainst the text of the Gospels, but
against Jesus himself. The two utteranceswhichare referredto
are: the words of Jesus concerningthe obligation to buy a
sword, quoted as being in the 21st Chapter of Luke14o and the
expression of Jesus' disapproval of the action of the disciple
who cut offan ear of a slave of the chiefof the rabbis, whichis
said to be reportedin the 20th chapter of the Gospel of Mat-
rebuttal of a Judaeo-Christian view which held Moses to be superior to

Jesus.
'37 Other examples are also given.
138
I. e., John 13:27-29.
'39
In this passage purportingto be a quotation fromthe Jewish Treatise,
Jesus is called sayyidund:Our Lord.
140 The
passage which is quoted occurs in Luke 12:36 and 38.
206 PINES [20]
thew.14~Jesus said interalia: for all who bear (yahzmilun)the

sword, will die (yamfitiin)by the sword. The conduct of Jesus
in utteringthose two contradictorysayings is compared to that
of the Devil (Iblis) (1) who persuaded man to be an unbe-
liever (al-kufr),and (2) said to him after he had become an
unbeliever: "I have nothingin common with you (inni bariyy
minka); forI fearGod."142
Inter alia Jesus is also said by the author of the Jewish
Treatise not to have knowledge of hidden things (al-ghayb)
because of the saying,said to be in the 11th Chapter of Mark:143
"No one knows that day and that hour, not the angels and not
the Son, but only the Father." Elsewhere (fol. 139b) he is said
not to have had the knowledgeof hidden thingsbecause accord-
ing to the 4th Chapter of Mark,144he had to ask (when the
woman who had a flowof blood touched his garment): "Who
was it who came close to me? forI knew that a great powerhas
come forthfromme."'45
No examples can be given hereof the objectionsof the Jewish
author based on contradictionsbetween the Gospels. These ob-
jections make up a considerableportionof his Treatise.
Certain similaritiesbetweenviews adopted (1) in the Jewish
Treatise and (2) in the chapteron Christianitywhichoccurs in
'Abd al-Jabbar's TathbitDala'il al-Nubuwwahave been pointed
out above. These resemblancescan be summed up as follows:
Both texts consider that Jesus did not intend to abrogate the
Mosaic Law. His abrogation must be laid at the door of the
men who came afterhim,who became unfaithfulto the teaching
141The passage occurs in Matthew 26:47, 50, 51 and 52. The people who
came to arrest Jesus are said to be messengers (rusul) from the principal
rabbis (muqaddami al-abEbar),cf. v. 47. According to v. 51 it was the slave
of the chief priest (and not the slave of the chief of the rabbis, ra'is al-abbar,
as our text has it) who had his ear cut off.
242 According to Ibn 'Awn this story concerningthe Devil is not of Jewish
origin,but was "stolen" by the Jewishauthor.

143Mark 13:32.
144Mark 5:25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33.
145 Ilan allddhl
qariba minni'fa-inni qad 'alimtu anna quwwa 'azima kharayat
minni. In some details, though not in others, this passage has a closer cor-
respondence to Luke 8:46 than to Mark 5:30 and 31.
of Jesus because of their lust for dominion. This last term is

used in this context both in the JewishTreatise (see above)'46
and in the relevantchapter of the Tathbit. The list of principal
commandmentsabrogated by the Christian leaders which is
given in the JewishTreatise (foll. 87a-88, see above)147namely,
the commandmentsconcerningcircumcision,ablutions afteran
emission of semen and after menstruation,the eating of for-
bidden foods and the Sabbath and the referenceto the com-
mandment to face the East when praying, supposed to be
institutedby these leaders, has a close parallel in the Tathbwt'48
(which also taxes the Christians,as does this text of the Jewish
Treatise, with having adopted Sunday). The two treatisesat-
tack both Peter and Paul, though there is, in this respect, a
differenceof emphasis. Paul is more particularlythe batenoire
146Cf. also the following passage which occurs in the Jewish Treatise,
fol. 75a: "The Jew says: He (Jesus) said at the end of Matthew (28:20)
after his death and resurrection: Teach the nations all that I have enjoined
upon you." The MS. has an initial alif which may mean that the scribe
hesitated between the perfectand the imperfectof the verb (wassaytukum).
He enjoined nothing but (to keep) the commandments of the Torah and
he did not give them a book or a law which was in conflictwith the Torah
and the books of the prophets. The Acts (('.b.r.k.s.s) the book of Paul and
the decisions of the Councils (al.s.nad.sdt) which have been composed by
the masters (arbab) of this community (milla) because of their inclination:
bi-maylihim(the reading tamiluhum:"incline them") is also possible towards
dominion and (their) love of this world and the acquisition of propertyfrom
those who entrust (the reading is doubtful) it to them. And they exhort
them to sell their estates and to hand over their price to them in order that
they should (as the persons who hand over the price of their property) dis-
tribute it among the needy according (to their need) for food..." The
Jewish author does not remark upon the fact that the injunction to "teach
the nations" is not consistent with the doctrine of Jesus as interpretedby
him elsewhere (see above). Ibn 'Awn, in his rejoinder, charges him with
having mutilated the text through the omission of Matthew 28:19. The
text cited by the Jewish author does not, because of its being too short, en-
able us to ascertain whether the quotation presupposes the shorter ending
of Matthew preserved by Eusebius; see H. Kosmala, The Conclusion of
Matthew, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute,Vol. IV, Jerusalem
1965, pp. 132-145.
147 Cf. JewishChristians,pp. 3, 25 and 26.
148 Cf. Jewish Christians,
pp. 3-5.
208 PINES [22]
of the Tathbit,while the JewishTreatise singlesout more often

Peter fordisapproval.'49 Both texts blame the latter forhaving
decided, because of the vision seen by him in Juffa,to cease to
observe the commandments concerning forbidden foods (see
above). Each of the treatises has a passage dealing with the
incident recounted in the Gospels which started with the dis-
ciples rubbing (or plucking) ears of corn on a Saturday and
eating them,'50and these passages have points of similarityin
theirdetails. Both of them referforthis storyto the Gospel of
Matthew (the JewishTreatise to the 8th Chapter of this Gos-
pel), and both speak of the disciples rubbing(verbal rootf.r.k.)
the ears of corn and do not mentiontheirpluckingthem. This
does not agree with the canonical Matthew, who does not refer
to the ears having been rubbed, but is in accord with the
Arabic's' and the Persian5s2 Diatessaron. The fact that both
texts make the same mistake in theirreferenceto the Gospel -
supposing that they had in mind the canonical Matthew -- is
particularlynoteworthybecause of the fact that the Jewish
Treatise is,s12a more often than not, reasonably accurate in its
referencesto and quotations fromthe Gospels and - in contra-
distinctionto the Tathbit- does not as a rule quote fromun-
canonical Gospels. Both of the passages use the word idtirdr,
"necessity" in arguingthat because of theirhungerthe disciples
were,fromthe point of the Mosaic Law, justifiedin rubbingthe
ears of corn and eating them.'54
The two textscriticizethe doctrineof the dominantChristian
'49 See above. Neither text approves of James ("the Lord's brother").
IsoSee above and JewishChristians,pp. 5 and 63.
Is5See JewishChristians,p. 63, n. 256.
15s2See G. Messina, Diatessaron Persiano, Rome, 1951, p. 54. This text
speaks of the disciples rubbing (mi malidand), cleaning (pak mi kardand), and
eating of the ears of corn.
1s2a If one allows for the fact that the division into chapters known to its
author was different fromours.

153See above and JewishChristians,p. 5, n. 12.
154 The view that the action of the
disciples did not constitute a trans-
gression of the Law is maintained by Irenaeus: (contra Haereses, IV, 7)
"Sed et esurientes accipere Sabbatis escam ex his quae adjacebant, non
vetabat lex." Later Christian theologians were of a differentopinion.
denominationswhich regardsJesus as a divine being and refer,

in theirattempt to prove that he was man and not God, to his
having experiencedfear. And both of them contain occasional
referencesto Jesus' being a prophet. The adoption of this point
of view by the author of the Moslem text could be imputed to
the fact that this is orthodoxIslamic doctrine. But no similar
explanationis available in orderto account forthe circumstance
that this conceptionis foundin a professedlyJewishtext.
These and othersimilaritiescannot be due to merechance. It
does not, however,seem possible to regard the Jewishtext as
an adaptation of the Moslem textor, conversely,the latteras an
adaptation of the Jewish text. The firsthypothesisis, as it
seems to me, put out of court by the fact that the Jewishtext
does not contain,eitherexplicitlyor by implication,the slightest
referenceto the specificallyMoslem conceptionswhich are set
forthin detail in various parts of the relevant chapter of the
Tathbit.'ssIn order to accept the hypothesisone would have to
postulate that, in using the Moslem text,the Jewishauthor was
able, by means of a tour de forceof criticaljudgment,to elimi-
nate all its abundant Islamic elements (some of which are
acceptable from the Jewish point of view) and to create the
impressionthat he was only concernedwith (1) Christiantexts
(i. e., firstand foremostthe New Testament) and (2) with the
Old Testament and Jewish doctrine. This is more than im-
probable. The hypothesisthat 'Abd al-Jabbdrwas influenced
by the JewishTreatise fails interalia to account for the fact
that the relevant chapter of the Tathbitcontains many quota-
tions from uncanonical Gospels;'56 some of which appear to
derive froma very early tradition. The JewishTreatise refers
to the canonical Gospels only. It is quite inconceivable that
'Abd al-Jabbdr should have substituted quotations from un-
canonical Gospels for quotations from the canonical Gospels
foundin the JewishTreatise.
'ss In my view, 'Abd al-Jabbar inserted characteristically Islamic inter-

polations into a Judaeo-Christiantext adapted by him for his own purposes.
5,6Some of these quotations are discussed by me in a paper which will
shortly appear in the Harvard TheologicalReview.
210 PINES [24]
The most probable explanationforthe similaritiesbetweenthe

chapter in the Tathbitand the JewishTreatise seems to be that
both drew upon a common source, which the author of each
text adapted forhis own purposes: 'Abd al-Jabbar throughthe
interpolation of characteristicallyMoslem passages and the
author of the Jewish Treatise throughthe replacementof the
quotations from uncanonical Gospels by quotations from the
New Testament canon which would be acceptable to the Chris-
tians of the dominant denominations. He appears to have had
a thoroughknowledge of this canon. The source in question
(which may have been one of several used in the Jewish
Treatise), seems to have been a JewishChristianone. Some of
my reasons for ascribing this provenance to a considerable
portion of the relevant chapter in the Tathbitare set forthin
Jewish Christians.'57 They are based upon the fact that the
doctrinesof the early Judaeo-Christiansects referredto by the
Church Fathers with respect to Jesus, who was regarded as a
man and not a God, and to the validity of the Mosaic law, are
similarto those expounded in this chapterwhich,moreover,has
quotations and historical informationwhich appear to derive
froman early traditionindependentfromthat of the dominant
Christianchurches.
The JewishTreatise has no such quotations or historicalin-
formation. But, as already stated, its conceptionof the proph-
ethood of Jesus and of his attitude toward the Mosaic Law are
as reminiscentof Judaeo-Christianviews as the similarconcep-
tion found in the Tathbit. Moreover, the JewishTreatise has a
conception of the limitationof Jesus's mission which seems to
be typicallyJudaeo-Christian.Accordingto its interpretation of
New Testament texts, the missionof Jesus was confined to the
childrenof Israel. Now, accordingto Origen,this view was held
by the Ebionites, i. e., a Judaeo-Christiansect (or the Jewish
Christiansin general) (De Principiis, III, 8): "Now if what we
have stated about Israel, its tribesand its clans, is convincing,
then when the Saviour says, 'I was not sent but unto the lost
s57As well as in the paper referredto in the preceding note. See Jewish
Christians,pp. 2 ff.,pp. 19 ff.,pp. 32 ff.
sheep of the house of Israel' (Matthew 15:24), we do not take

these words in the same sense as the poor-mindedEbionites
do (men whose very name came from their poverty,for in
Hebrew ebionis the word forpoor) so as to suppose that Christ
came especially to the Israelites afterthe flesh" (G. W. Butter-
worth'stranslation).
The Gospel verse quoted by the Ebionites is one of several
New Testament texts referredto in the Jewish Treatise in
order to prove the limitationof Jesus' missionto the Jews (see
above). In view of the evidence that the author of this treatise
was cognizant of various teachings of the Jewish Christians,
there can be little doubt that he adopted on this point one of
theirdoctrines(and did not discover it on his own on the basis
of some New Testament texts, which are contradicted by
others).5s8
We may also note that it is very unlikely that a Jewish
author would have employeda great deal of ingenuityin order
to explainaway Jesus'srejectionof the Mosaic lex talionis;
this,however,is done in theJewishTreatise(see above). The
passage is probablya piece of Judaeo-Christianexegesis. It was
clearlyof cardinalimportance
forthe sectariansin questionto
prove that Jesus did not contradictthe teachingof Moses.
Because of limitationsof space and time,I cannotdiscuss
here various other relevantpoints. However,the evidence
noted above seems to indicate with sufficientclarity that the
author of the JewishTreatise appears to have made use in a
portion of his work of a Judaeo-Christiantext similar to the
one used in the Tathbit.As has been noted, the latterwork has
many quotations from uncanonical Gospels, while the Jewish
158 In modern times this was done to some extent by Reimarus and cer-
tain later historians of Christianity; but even they, or some of them, were
helped by the patristicaccounts of Judaeo-Christiandoctrines. These scholars
maintained a deliberately critical attitude towards traditional sacred his-
tory: their declared goal was objective historical truth. There is no reason
to suppose that this was the goal of the author of the Jewish Treatise. His
attempt to criticize Christianityin the interestsof Judaism does not appear
to be directlyserved by the proof of the restrictedscope of Jesus' mission;
this proof benefitsfirstand foremostthe Jewish Christian positions.
212 PINES [26]
Treatise only cites the canonical Gospels.'s9 This difference may

be due to the eliminationof uncanonical matterforwhicheither
the author of the treatise or some previous redactor of the
Judaeo-Christiantext may be responsible. The action is analo-
gous to the eliminationof Syriac Old Gospel readings,which is
a well-knownphenomenonin the historyof Syriac literature.
As I have argued in Jewish Christians(pp. 43 ff.),Judaeo-
Christiansmay have led, for a certain period, a clandestineor
semi-clandestineexistence not only within Christian but also
withinJewishcommunities. However this may be, there is no
difficultyin supposing that the Jewish author of our treatise
could have had direct access to Judaeo-Christian materials
withoutneedinga Moslem intermediary.
His relationswith the JewishChristianmay have been facili-
tated by the fact that he was a non-rabbaniteJew. As has
been noted, this conclusion can be safely drawn fromhis in-
sistence upon the literal observance of the Mosaic lex talionis
and fromhis statementthat washing one's hands beforeeating
is done forthe sake of cleanliness (and is not a commandment;
see above). Both positionscontradictTalmudic law.
His use of the expressiondarufriyyat al-giyds (literally: "the
necessitiesof reasoning" or "of syllogism,"see fol. 127b) might
indicate that he was acquainted with the vocabulary of Kalam
or of philosophy.I6o
s59The variants which sometimes occur in the Jewish text are in no case
as startling as some that are encountered in the quotations from the New
Testament found in the Tathbit,but present nevertheless some interest.
Some of them are quoted above. The subject cannot be investigated more
fullyin the present paper.
i6o The expression seems to be rather more characteristic of the former
than of the latter. It would be temptingto identifyhim with al-Muqammi?,
who, as I noted in Jewish Christians(p. 47, n. 176) seems to have had access
to Jewish Christian texts, and who is known to have writtentwo polemical
treatises against Christianity. The story of his conversion to Christianity
and his subsequent attacks against this religionmight appear more likely if,
during the Christian period, he had contact with a Judaeo-Christianmilieu.
However, the polemics against Christianity found in al-Qirqisdni, which
may be supposed to derive at least in part fromal-Muqammis' writingsare
not reminiscentof our Jewish Treatise. Moreover, al-Muqammis' view - as
A terminusante quem for his treatise mightbe established if

it could be proved that this treatisewas one of the sources of
the chapteron Christianityin Kitdbal-Fasl fi'l Milal wa'l Ahwd'
wa'l-Nibal,'6I a heresiographicwork composed by the Spanish
Moslem Ibn HI;Iazm, who lived in the 11th century. A full in-
vestigationof the matter would necessarilygo far beyond the
scope of the present paper and shall be attempted elsewhere.
However, a fewindicationscan be given here.
A significantnumber of objections against the Gospels for-
mulated by Ibn Hazm have a counterpartin our JewishTrea-
tise;'62 given the frequency of the phenomenon, it is most
unlikelythat therewas no director indirectconnectionbetween
the two texts. But Ibn Hazm probably consulted an Arabic
reported by al-Qirqisdni- of the early history of Christianity- seems to

differin important particulars (though perhaps not in the general tendency)
fromthe one which is adumbrated in our Treatise.
161 I quote the Cairo edition published in 1347H.
A62Some of the objections are such as may occur to any attentive reader of
the Gospels. Thus both the Jewish Treatise (foll. 197a-b) and Ibn Hazm
(II, pp. 43-44) draw attention to the contradictionbetween the accounts of
Mark (15:32b) and Luke (23:39 ff.) concerning the two crucified thieves
(neitherof them refersto Matthew 27:44 and this may be a significantpoint
of similarity). And both note the contradictionwhich exists- according to
the Jewish Treatise (fol. 196b) between the accounts of the three Synoptic
Gospels (see Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:2) or, according to Ibn
I;Iazm (II, p. 4) between accounts of Mark and Luke - on the one hand
and the account of John (19:17) on the other, as to the person who carried
the cross. According to John, it was Jesus; whereas the other Evangelists
name Simon of Cyrene. Many examples of this kind can be adduced and
their number suggests that there was some connection between Ibn Hazm's
text and the Jewish Treatise. Other objections found in both texts are less
obvious. To cite but one instance, both Ibn Hazm (II, p. 48) and the Jewish
Treatise (foll. 203b-204a) point out the contrast that exists between Jesus'
objection - stated in Mark 8 according to the Jewish Treatise and in Mark
10 according to Ibn Hazm (see Mark 10:17-18) - to being called: "Good
Teacher" and his having called himself- in John 9 according to Ibn Hazm
and in John 10 according to the Jewish Treatise (see John 10:11) - "The
Good Shepherd." It may be noted, though the objection may be identical,
the words used by Ibn Ijazm generallydifferfromthose found in the Jewish
Treatise. But this differenceis not significantas Ibn Hazm often prefers
paraphrasing his sources to quoting them verbatim.
214 PINES [28]
version of the New Testament which was differentfrom that

used by the author of the JewishTreatise.
Some of the remarks of Ibn Hazm seem to referto views
which, on the basis of materials used in JewishChristiansand
in the present paper, may appear as specificallyJudaeo-Chris-
tian. Thus he says: (II, p. 23): "The second is his'63saying: do
not go in the way of (or: forthe sake of,fi sabil) of the nations;I64
do not enter the town of the Samaritans; come to the
perishing and scattered (ih.tadiru)
sheep (al-da'n al-talifa al-mubaddada)
descended from (min nasl) the Children of Israel.... They
(came to) be in disaccord with him and to rebel against him.
For they went only to the nations." Ibn HIazm also points out
(II, pp. 18-20) that in abrogatingthe Mosaic commandments,
for instance those concerningSabbath and the Jewish feasts,
circumcision (which he, like 'Abd al-Jabbar and our Jewish
Treatise, regards as having been abolished by Paul) and the
prohibitionof certain foods (imputed by him as by the two
othertextsto Peter,whom he calls Sham'finBatrd)'65the Chris-
tians opposed the teaching of Jesus. He also taxes them with
falsely ascribing to Jesus the prohibitionof divorce, which
accordingto the Tathbstwas due to Paul,'66and the abrogation
of the lex talionis; as we have seen, the JewishTreatise tries to
show that Jesus did not abolish this Mosaic Law.
In view of the weight of the evidence,"67 there can, I think,
163 Jesus.
164 Ajnas. Literally:genera. The fact that Ibn IHazm uses the word in
thiscontextis curious. In an Arabicversionof the Gospelstranslatedfrom
the Latin it might- becauseofthe phoneticsimilarity - have been used to
rendergentes;but this possibilityseemsremote.An alternativesolutionof
the problemis suggestedby the factthat in certainSyriactranslations of
Old and New TestamenttextstheGreekethne is rendered
by mininormindye,
whichliterallymeans species. Ajnds could be a translationof this Syriac
word. In Jewishusagethe wordmininis appliedto heretics.Cf. Th. Zahn,
Forschungen zur Geschichte
des NeutestamentlichenKanons,T. Erlangen1881,
p. 335,n. 1.
165 The use of a formof the name Petermay be due to Ibn Hazm's being
a nativeofSpain. In textswritten in Arabicin the MoslemOrientthisGreek

nameis seldomusedto designatethe apostle.
166 p. 27.
See JewishChristians,
167Because of theirnumber,the pointsof similarity can be conveniently
be no doubt that thereis a close connectionbetweenthe Jewish

Treatise and Ibn Hazm's chapteron Christianity.On the whole,
it seems probable that the formerhas served as a source'68for
the latter. The reversecan, I think,be excluded: Ibn Hazm's
remarkon the lex talioniscan perhaps be conceived as deriving
fromthe more elaborate passage in the JewishTreatise, but not
the latter fromthe former. Again Ibn H;Iazm'scomparatively
briefreferenceto the notion that Jesus's missionwas confined
to the Jews could have been influencedby the JewishTreatise.
In the latter text this notion plays a much more importantrole
than in Ibn HIazm's and several Gospel sayings- not only one
(as is done by Ibn HIazm) - are interpretedin accordance with
it. The suppositionthat this conceptionwas taken over by the
author of the treatisefromIbn Hazm cannot,as it seems to me,
be entertained.
The hypothesis that the Jewish Treatise served as an im-
portantsource forIbn HI;Iazm would also account forthe curious
indicated only in an edition of the Jewish Treatise or after it has been

edited.
x68 In his chapter on Christianity,Ibn has probably used several
H.Uazm
sources, inter alia possibly the Tathbit. Ibn Hazm may have also known
some version of the Jewishlife of Jesus Toldot Yeshu, as he refers(II, p. 61)
"to the claim of the Jews that their ancestors had used this villain Paul in a
plot to lead the followersof Christ astray." Certain versions of Toldot con-
sider Paul to have been agent of the JewishSages, who wished to bringabout
a separation of the Christians from the Jews. This result was obtained by
Paul who gave the Christianscommandmentswhich differedfromthe Mosaic
and taught them to shun the society of Jesus. See S. Krauss, Das Leben
Jesu nach JiidischenQuellen,Berlin 1902, pp. 83-85; JewishChristians,p. 42.
Ibn Ijazm believes that the Christians hold Paul to have been more truthful
than Moses (ibid.); this is reminiscentof the remark in the Tathbit (see
above) according to which the Christians considered Paul as superior to
Moses.
169 In order to prove the fact that the Christians lie concerningJesus Ibn
Hazm points out (II, pp. 18-19) that Jesus has said that he did not come
to abrogate the Law, and in spite of that is reported to have forbiddenre-
taliation, which is enjoined by the Torah and to have said: "It was said:
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth but I say do not resist one with evil.
But if any one strike you on the rightcheek, turn him the leftcheek." This
line of argument can conceivably have been suggested by Ibn HIazm by the
relatively elaborate reasoning of the Jewish Treatise or a similar text, which
216 PINES [30]
fact that in his section on Christianity,Ibn IHIazm,who was a

devout Moslem, makes - contraryto 'Abd al-Jabbar- hardly
any referenceexcept near the end of the chapter17oto the Moslem
doctrine concerningJesus, while he expounds at length objec-
tions against Christianitywhich have an unmistakablyJewish
character. There exists,however,the possibilitythat his chapter
on Christianityand the Jewish Treatise have drawn upon a
common source which provided them with Judaeo-Christian
materials.I7'
There is, therefore,a distinct possibility,but no certainty,
that the authorof theJewishTreatiselivedbeforeIbn HIazm,
i. e., in the tenthcenturyor earlier.172
The present paper is concerned with one Jewish and, more
briefly,with two Moslem texts. All three texts maintain that
historic Christianityis a corruptionof the teaching of Jesus;
that the latter was a prophetand not a divine being, and that
his teachingwas nothingbut an exhortationto observe the law
he may have wished to simplifywhile retaining the notion of a conflictbe-

tween the position ascribed by the Christians to Jesus and the Mosaic Law.
I do not think that Ibn HIazm's opinion that the Christians had lied on the
point in question can possibly have suggested the exegesis of Jesus' doctrine
found in the Jewish Treatise.
'7o Such a referencemay be found II, p. 63. The chapter begins p. 2 and
ends p. 74. The latter part deals not only with Christianity,but also with
Muhammad.
17 As suggested above, some of these materials are similar to those found
in the Tathbit. I shall cite the followingtwo examples: Both Ibn Ijazm
(ii, p. 48) and 'Abd al-Jabbir (Jewish Christians,p. 15 ff.) consider that the
Christians and that the four canonical Gospels were composed a long time
after Jesus' death. Both of them also take an unfavorable view of Con-
stantine and consider that he Christianized his subjects by forceand (as Ibn
Ijazm emphasizes) by holding out to them material rewards (cf. Ibn Hazm
II, pp. 71-72); Jewish Christians,pp. 28-31. Points of resemblance between
Ibn IJazm's text and the Tathbitare brieflydiscussed in the Appendix to a
paper of mine entitled: Israel My Firstbornand the Sonship of Jesus. The
paper will be published shortly in a volume on Honor of B. G. Scholem's
70th Birthday.
172 Some Jewishsects which existed approximatelyin this period appear to
have adopted a not unfavorable or a not uniformlyunfavorable attitude

towards Jesus or towards Christianity. The position taken up by the author
of the Jewish Treatise may have to do with his being a non-rabbaniteJew.
of Moses. Both Ibn HLazmand the JewishTreatise go to some

troubleto explain away the apparent contradictionbetween the
Mosaic lex talionis and Jesus' words. And both of them hold
the Ebionite view that Jesus's mission was confined to the
Jews. There is not the slightest indication that the Jewish
Treatise was in any way influencedby the Moslem conception
of Jesus. It refersexclusivelyto Jewishand Christianwritings
and ideas. Its similaritywith the two Islamic texts- or if it is
regarded as a source for Ibn Hazm - with the Tathbit,can
thereforebe only due to theirhaving used materialswhich have
an identical non-Islamic provenance. Because of the doctrines
maintained in these texts, these materials can only be Judaeo-
Christian. In JewishChristiansI have put forwardmy Judaeo-
Christian hypothesis concerningthe relevant chapter of the
Tathbitmainlyon the basis of internalevidence. The fact that
thereexistsa Jewishtextwhichexpoundsa view of Christianity
and of Jesus which is similar to that of 'Abd al-Jabbaris, in a
way, a piece of externalevidence.'73
'73 If need be, it can be used, though to my mind this would be super-
erogatory to disprove any hypothesiswhich maintains that 'Abd al-Jabbar's

and Ibn views on Jesus and Christianityare merelya result of their
having read the New Testament with a view to arguing the case of Moslem
H.azm's
Christology.

Judaeo-Christian Materials in An Arabic Jewish Treatise

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judaeo-Christian Materials in An Arabic Jewish Treatise

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judaeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish Treatise

Author(s): Shlomo Pines

The subject of the presentpaper is a JewishTreatise polemiz-

s MS. Vatican Ar. 135 has been occasionally consulted.

the Jewish Treatise. As shall be explained below, it seems

Matthew"2 he says: Do not think that I came to destroys3the

12 Matthew 5:17. In the Gospels used by the author of the JewishTreatise,

the division into chapters was differentfromthe one currentlyaccepted now.

say to him:28 O Lord in your name we cast out devils. There-

mentiona book which was revealed38to him or with regard to

38The Moslem term unzila (literally:brought down) is used.

disagreewithhimon this(point). For a dead (carcass)is per-

44 Li-anna'l-mudtarryabillu lahu al-mayyita. The passage goes on to quote

Treatise resemblesand differsfromthe Tathbit.

48 Naq. The word can also be read naqs diminution.

others (various) sorts of hurts such as having their eyes put

s3 Qatl al-nafs; literally:the killingof the soul.

chapterof Matthew,he says:6' Not that whichentersthe mouth

61 Cf.M. 15, 11 and 18-19.

(Ya'qfib) Paul (Bul.s) and the other apostles abrogated the

70 The reading ijtabaw followedin the text is not certain.

Acts 15 (7-13) referredto in the text as Acts 14. The Jewish

79Cf. Acts 15:9. 80The Gentiles.

the Jewishauthor86(foll. 81b-82a), who blames Peter for per-

86 Who refersto Acts 9 (and not 10).

tion of Paul as the chiefagent of corruptionwhich is again and

93 See also above, the passage concerningthe leper's sacrifice.

proclamationwas made by him thatlo4 his coming down from

The syntacticconstructionof the phrase is not clear.

los is can also

The thesis that Jesus's mission was only concernedwith the

only this passive construction. The followingis an English translationwhich

126The texts which deal with trinitarian

2. (Fol. 48b) Whereas, according to the 12thI30 chapter of

130 The 12th according to the usual division of chapters.

of Judaeo-Christian,rather than of Jewish origin. There are,

rebuttal of a Judaeo-Christian view which held Moses to be superior to

thew.14~Jesus said interalia: for all who bear (yahzmilun)the

origin,but was "stolen" by the Jewishauthor.

of Jesus because of their lust for dominion. This last term is

of the Tathbit,while the JewishTreatise singlesout more often

author was different fromours.

denominationswhich regardsJesus as a divine being and refer,

'ss In my view, 'Abd al-Jabbar inserted characteristically Islamic inter-

The most probable explanationforthe similaritiesbetweenthe

sheep of the house of Israel' (Matthew 15:24), we do not take

Treatise only cites the canonical Gospels.'s9 This difference may

A terminusante quem for his treatise mightbe established if

reported by al-Qirqisdni- of the early history of Christianity- seems to

version of the New Testament which was differentfrom that

a nativeofSpain. In textswritten in Arabicin the MoslemOrientthisGreek

be no doubt that thereis a close connectionbetweenthe Jewish

indicated only in an edition of the Jewish Treatise or after it has been

fact that in his section on Christianity,Ibn IHIazm,who was a

he may have wished to simplifywhile retaining the notion of a conflictbe-

have adopted a not unfavorable or a not uniformlyunfavorable attitude

of Moses. Both Ibn HLazmand the JewishTreatise go to some

erogatory to disprove any hypothesiswhich maintains that 'Abd al-Jabbar's

You might also like