‘Ezra as the Corrupter of the Torah? Re-assessing Ibn Ḥazm’s role in the long history of an...

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/2212943X-20130111

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 1 (2013) 253–271 brill.com/ihiw

Ezra as the Corrupter of the Torah?Re-Assessing Ibn Ḥazm’s Role in

the Long History of an Idea

MartinWhittinghamCentre for Muslim-Christian Studies, Oxford, and Regent’s Park College, Oxford

[email protected]

AbstractThis article explores the originality, quality and influence on non-Muslims of a particu-lar aspect of the work of the Andalusī Muslim Ibn Ḥazm (b. 384/994, d. 456/1064). Thefocus is the use of themotif of Ezra as corrupter of the Torah, and is examined bymeansof sustained engagement with the portrayal of Ibn Ḥazm by Hava Lazarus-Yafeh in herinfluential study, Intertwined Worlds. Building on but also questioning her work, thearticle examines positive and negative portrayals of Ezra, and explores possibleMuslimpredecessors of Ibn Ḥazm as a critic of Ezra. The originality and quality of Ibn Ḥazm’swork is questioned, throughpiecing together often familiar evidence so as to formanewpicture of Ibn Ḥazm’s contribution. Lazarus-Yafeh’s suggestion that Ibn Ḥazm directlyinfluenced non-Muslim thought, and therefore the rise of European sceptical Biblicalscholarship, via the rabbi Ibn Ezra (b. 1094. d. c. 1167), is also shown to be unlikely.

KeywordsIbn Ḥazm, Ezra, Ibn Ezra, Torah, corruption, 4Ezra

Introduction

It is commonly accepted by Muslims that the biblical text is corrupted. Anobvious question follows—according to Muslim sources, who is responsible?Where an individual is named, the most likely corrupter of the New Testamentis cited as Paul.1 For the Hebrew Scriptures, the name that recurs is Ezra. Thetask of tracing the rise, development and influence of the idea of Ezra ascorrupter has been tackled in various ways by Hava Lazarus-Yafeh2 and NoelMalcolm.3 Lazarus-Yafeh’s influential study, Intertwined Worlds, often cited inrelation to Muslims and the Bible, makes three important points about the

1) See for example Anthony, “Composition of Sayf b. ʿUmar’s Account”.2) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds.3) Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes, pp. 383–431.

254Martin Whittingham / Intellectual Historyof the Islamicate World 1 (2013) 253–271

treatment of Ezra by Ibn Ḥazm (b. 384/994, d. 456/1064). Two of these, thatIbn Ḥazm was both innovative and systematic, are found in the followingstatement:

Ibn Ḥazm was undoubtedly the one who, by being the first to make Ezra into awicked scoundrel who had intentionally corrupted the scriptures, raised the gen-eral Islamic arguments against theBible to an essentially higher level of systematictextual criticism.4

Elsewhere Lazarus-Yafeh makes a more qualified reference to “the negativeimage of Ezra appearing first in Arabic literature in IbnḤazm’s writings” (italicsadded).5 This would give scope for Muslim sources to be circulating the motifin oral or even non-Arabic form. Although Lazarus-Yafeh does not address theambivalence created by her different statements on the extent of Ibn Ḥazm’snew contribution, her other statements, as explored below, indicate that sheassumes IbnḤazm’s sources for his negative attitude to Ezra to be non-Muslim,and hence that he was the first Muslim to promote this view.Thirdly, Lazarus-Yafeh raises the possibility that, “the Muslim systematic,

critical approach to the Biblical text and to Ezra the Scribe reached Europethrough Jewish or Christian links, one of which could have been Abraham ibnEzra”.6 Hence she gives Ibn Ḥazm, whom she regards as fundamental to this“critical approach”, a potential role as a catalyst for sceptical European thoughtabout the Bible through his possible influence on the Spanish rabbi Ibn Ezra (b.1094, d. c. 1167), discussed below. The appropriateness of assigning these threeroles to Ibn Ḥazm—as innovator, systematic thinker, and as a possible root ofsceptical European scholarship—will be questioned in the ensuing study.After briefly introducing the biblical and qurʾānic portrayals of Ezra, the

significance and statements of Ibn Ḥazm are presented. Following this, theenquiry swings back in time, exploring sources pre-dating him. The studythen swings forward, beyond Ibn Ḥazm’s lifetime, to explore the question ofhis possible influence on non-Muslim thought. This study will not deal withIbn Ḥazm’s discussions of specific biblical passages but instead engages onlyhistorical explanation as to who corrupted the Tawrāt.7

4) Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, p. 68f. See also her article, “ʿUzayr,” Encyclopaedia of Islam.New Edition, vol. 10, p. 960, which states that “A negative image of ʿUzayr was developed by theAndalusī Ibn Ḥazm”. Pulcini, Exegesis, p. 44, citing Lazarus-Yafeh, also implies that Ibn Ḥazmintroduced a new element into the argument about Biblical corruption by charging Ezra withdistorting, rather than preserving, the Torah.5) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 66.6) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 73.7) Muslim writers often use the term Tawrāt to denote the whole of the Hebrew Bible, althoughits Qurʾānic usage refers principally to the books sent down to Moses, in Jewish thought the first

Martin Whittingham / Intellectual Historyof the Islamicate World 1 (2013) 253–271 255

Ezra in the Bible and the Qurʾān

The biblical Ezra features in the books of Ezra, chapters 7–10, and inNehemiah,chapters 8–9. He was a priest and scribe, traditionally understood to havearrived in Jerusalem in 458bc, as part of a movement of return after the exileof the Jews in Babylon. This exile followed Judah’s defeat by the Babyloniansunder Nebuchadnezzar in the years either side of 600bc. Around 70 years later,initially in 539bc, the Persians defeated the Babylonians and instituted a newpolicy including allowing exiles to return. The biblical text identifies Ezra asstudying, teaching and observing the previously existing law of Moses (Ezra7:10).8The qurʾānic figure of ʿUzayr is widely, though not always, identified as

Ezra.9He is only named in Qurʾān 9:30:

The Jews say: ‘Uzayr is the Son of God’, and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is theson of God’. That is their statement, by their mouths; they emulate the statementof the unbelievers of yore. May God damn them; how they are perverted!10

While most Muslim exegetes assume that the name ʿUzayr denotes Ezra, someMuslim writers equate ʿUzayr with Azariah, a companion of Daniel. In someJewish legends current in Arabia, this Azariah was confused with an angeldescribed as a “son of God”, which, Comerro argues, may explain the puzzlingreference in Qurʾān 9:30 to worship of the person supposed to be Ezra.11 If thename ʿUzayr is not intended to denote Ezra, this would be an irony of history,since Muslim exegetes’ explanations of why Ezra himself might have beenworshipped (as inQurʾān 9:30) have profound effects on the portrayal of Ezra inIslam. To anticipatewhat follows, commentators explained theworship of Ezraas an exaggeration of the very high honour in which Ezra was held because ofhis perceived role in restoring the Torah perfectly, as discussed below.

five books of theHebrewBible. IbnḤazmuses the broadermeaning of the term Tawrāt in relationto Ezra, for example contrasting the Septuagint with the Tawrāt which Ezra wrote. See Faṣl, vol. 1,p. 224. In general he refers to the whole Hebrew Bible as corrupted, though a great many of hisexamples are drawn from the first five books.8) For historical background, see Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, Chapter 6. On Jewish portrayals of Ezra,see below.9) Somecommentaries and stories of theProphets literature also associateEzrawithQurʾān 2:259,although he is not named in this verse.10) Qurʾān translation adapted fromAn Interpretation of the Qurʾān, trans. Majid Fakhry. Aminor-ity ofMuslim traditions exclude Ezra from the category of prophet for his alleged refusal to believein predestination; cf. Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 53; Rubin, Bible and Qurʾān, p. 197.11) Comerro, “Esdras”. Discussion of the spelling of ʿUzayr, and how this might relate to Ezra, isgiven by Bellamy, “Textual Criticism,” pp. 4–6.


Ibn Ḥazm

Ibn Ḥazmwas born in Cordova in 384/994, and died near Seville in 456/1064. Aprolific writer in a wide variety of fields, he was a fierce opponent of those withwhom he disagreed, including many Muslims.12 His polemic against Judaismand Christianity was originally an independent work, but is now only foundas part of a much longer text which also attacks various Muslim sects, entitledKitāb al-Faṣl fī l-milal wa-l-ahwāʾ wa-l-niḥal. The section attacking Judaism andChristianity carries the title, “Treatise on the obvious contradictions and evi-dent lies in theBookwhich the Jews call theTorah and in theRest of their books,and in the Four Gospels, all of which establish that these have been distorted,and are different from what God, Mighty and Exalted, revealed”.13 Famouslyaggressive in tone, Ibn Ḥazm’s hostility to the Bible was not born of ignorance,since he demonstrates considerable knowledge of at least parts of the Bible.Which version of the Torah IbnḤazm used remains uncertain; he used a differ-ent Arabic version from themost well-knownArabic translation of the HebrewBible produced by Saadia Gaon, and departs at points from any known Arabicversions of the time.14Ibn Ḥazm does not usually name a specific corrupter of the Torah. But when

he does, it is Ezra, or as he terms him, ʿAzrā al-warrāq, “Ezra the Scribe”. Hemakes clear in al-Radd ʿalā Ibn al-Naghrīla that he equates this person withthe ʿUzayr of Qurʾān 9:30.15 He also states that Ezra was a scribe but not aprophet,16 an unsurprising stance given his dim view of Ezra. In al-Faṣl he statesof the Torah:

Ezra the Scribewrote it for them, according to the consensus of their books and theagreement of their scholars without their being any disagreement from any one ofthem over that. They did not differ about him over that. We call attention to himso that all possessors of understanding may know for certain that it is altered andchanged.17

12) For biographical background, see most recently Ibn Ḥazm of Cordoba, eds C. Adang, M. Fierroand S. Schmidtke.13) Ibn Ḥazm, Faṣl, vol. 1, pp. 138–367. Translation of the title of the shorter work is taken fromPulcini, Exegesis, p. 11. A partial English translation of some of the material on Judaism is given byRifat, Ibn Ḥazm, pp. 435–488. An extensive summary of the material on Judaism and Christianityis given by Sweetman in his Islam and Christian Theology, part 2, vol. 1, pp. 179–262.14) See Algermissen, Pentateuchzitate, p. 83. For a collection of readings distinctive to Ibn Ḥazm,and departing from known Arabic texts, see pp. 84–90.15) See Ibn Ḥazm, Radd, p. 77 (not p. 72 as stated by Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 51).16) Ibn Ḥazm, Radd, p. 77.17) Ibn Ḥazm, Faṣl, p. 214. See also, for example, p. 223f.


From where might Ibn Ḥazm have derived the idea of Ezra as corrupter ofthe Torah? Furthermore, could his sources have been Muslim? While directinfluences on him are difficult to determine, the idea has a long and complexhistory.

Early Non-MuslimWritings on Ezra

Positive Views: Jewish

Themost important Jewish source is often known as 4Ezra, a Jewish apocalyp-ticworkdating fromaround the endof the first century ce. TheHebreworiginaland Greek translation are lost, but it survives in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Geor-gian, Armenian and Arabic versions. Three Arabic translations are known, twobased on the lost Greek version. The other, translated from Syriac, dates prob-ably from the late 9th century.18 4Ezra also circulated in Christian circles witha Christian prologue and epilogue, the whole being known as 2Esdras. 4Ezraforms chapters 3–14 of 2Esdras. The final chapter of 4Ezra involves Ezra super-naturally receiving the Torah. These passages are so formative of later viewsthat they are quoted at length. Ezra bemoans:

The world is laid in darkness and its inhabitants are without light, because yourlaw is burned andman does not know the works which you did or what you wantto do. So if I won mercy before you, then throw in me the most holy spirit, thatI write everything which has been in the world since the beginning, everythingwhich has been written in your law (14:20–22).19

The angel then tells Ezra to take five scribes who can write rapidly. They all goto a field, whereupon:

There is a voice which calls me and says to me: “Ezra, open your mouth and drinkwhat I give you to drink”. And I opened my mouth and I saw him, that he handedover to me a filled cup, and it was filled with something like water, except that theform of that water resembled fire. And I took it and drank it and while I drank it,behold my heart caused understanding to flow out and my breast belched forthwisdom and my spirit retained recollection (14:38–40) … And behold, the Lord

18) See the discussion, text of one of the Arabic versions and English translation in Drint TheMount Sinai Arabic Version. On the Mount Sinai Arabic version, see also idem, “Some Notes”. Amore widely known English translation can be found in the New Revised Standard Version of theBible with Apocrypha. On the emergence of 4Ezra in Arabic in recent centuries see Hamilton,Apocryphal Apocalypse, pp. 253–284.19) Translation from Drint, TheMount Sinai Arabic Version, vol. 49, p. 114 f. For the Arabic text seevol. 49, p. 66.


gave to those five men understanding and they began to write the words which Ispoke through the prophecies (14:42).20

Through this process ninety-four books are produced, twenty-four for publicconsumption (the Hebrew Scriptures) and seventy more for the wise. This isthe final climactic event of 4Ezra and plays a fundamental part in earlyMuslimportrayals of Ezra.21 It has been suggested that the emergence of several Arabictranslations of 4Ezra is evidence of a reaction to Muslim criticisms of Ezra.22 Ifso, this would be indirect evidence of the motif of Ezra as corrupter emergingin Arabic-speaking circles before Ibn Ḥazm, but at present this must remainspeculation. Other evidence of the motif circulating amongst Muslims beforethe time of Ibn Ḥazm will be discussed below.Rabbinic views of Ezra acknowledge his prominence, but resist the idea that

he miraculously reproduced the Torah from memory. As Wyrick notes, associ-ating Ezra with a change from ancient Hebrew to Aramaic script, linked to Ezra4:7, “may be a concession or alternative to the Palestinian tradition preservedin 4Ezra.”23 Additionally, some mystical and apocalyptic trends within Jewishthought used the 4Ezra legend to gain credence for non-canonical texts.24

Christians

Various early Christian writers, including Clement of Rome (d. c. 101ce) andIrenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (d. 202ce) give Ezra an unspecified but central rolein restoring the Scriptures after the Exile in Babylon.25 In the Syriac ChristianCave of Treasures, probably dating from the 6th century, when Ezra finds somebooks of the prophets in a pit in Jerusalem on his return from exile, “[t]hricehe took some of the dust of those Books, and cast it into his mouth, andstraightaway Godmade to abide in him the spirit of prophecy, and he renewedall the Books of the Prophets”.26 Ezra’s experience is here portrayed in moremiraculous terms than is typically found in statements from earlier Church

20) Translation fromDrint, TheMount Sinai Arabic Version, vol. 49, pp. 118–120; Arabic text vol. 49,p. 68f.21) Steiner, “Jewish Theory,” p. 159, comments, “it is difficult to overstate the impact of this storyon religious polemics through the ages”.22) Shalit and Eran, The Hebrew Bible Reborn, p. 50, n. 115.23) Wyrick, Ascension, p. 321. See further Wyrick’s discussion of rabbinic treatment of the figureof Ezra and the legend of 4Ezra, pp. 320–324, 342f.24) Wyrick, Ascension, p. 316.25) Both are quoted by Kraft, “ ‘Ezra’ Materials,” p. 125.26) The Cave of Treasures, p. 192.


Fathers. Such extreme positive statements gave Ezra a centrality in the story ofthe Torah that paradoxically proved ultimately to have negative consequences.

Negative Views

Samaritans

Samaritan portrayal of Ezra prior to Ibn Ḥazmmight have included allegationsof corrupting the text of Scripture, though evidence is unclear. It is difficultto know in which direction Samaritan/Muslim influence flowed, since extantSamaritan criticisms of Ezra as corrupter of the Torah post-date Ibn Ḥazm, butmay reflect older traditions.27 Lazarus-Yafeh makes divergent statements. Sheconsiders that, for all the Samaritans’ negativity towards Rabbinical Judaism,Samaritan literature never criticises Ezra for corrupting the Torah.28 Yet shealso states, “The Samaritans undoubtedly saw him as a negative figure who, bychanging the alphabet of the sacred texts and adding to them, brought aboutthe falsification of the Torah”.29

Pagan

The criticism of Ezra by Porphyry, the third century ce pagan philosopher,interesting in itself, also sheds light on Lazarus-Yafeh’s approach to the workof Ibn Ḥazm. Porphyry criticised Ezra in Against the Christians, a lost multi-volume work which can be partially reconstructed from fragments found inother authors’ responses.Whether the text of Porphyrywas known in late antiq-uity andbeyond, andhow far its influence couldhave spread, is debatable, sinceit is not known at what point it disappeared from view. Porphyry states that:

Nothing Moses wrote has been preserved for all his writings are said to havebeen burnt with the temple. All those written under his name afterwards werecomposed inaccurately one thousand one hundred and eighty years after Moses’death by Ezra and his followers.30

27) See, e.g., The Chronicle Adler, in Bowman, Samaritan Documents, p. 102. Also the Poem ofAbisha, trans. in Gaster, The Samaritan Oral Law, p. 258, with Gaster’s comments, p. 27. Wyrick,Ascension, p. 339, suggests that the Samaritans received some influence on their polemics fromIbn Ḥazm.28) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 62.29) Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, p. 60. It is unclear on what basis she considers this to bebeyond doubt, in the light of the statement previously quoted.30) Fragment preserved by Macarius Magnes, in Berchman, Porphyry, p. 198, who translates allextant fragments.


Lazarus-Yafeh comments that, “Porphyry’s approach here is indeed scholarlyand scientific, like that of modern Bible critics”.31 This is a surprising assess-ment without further knowledge of Porphyry’s basis for his judgment. Lazarus-Yafeh’s willingness to link straightforward rejection to “modern” and “scholarly”enquiry finds echoes in her discussion of Ibn Ḥazm, as will emerge below.

Karaite Jewish

Al-Qirqisānī, writing in about 937ce, was a Karaite Jew who wrote a long legalwork, K. al-Anwār wa-l-Marāqib. In this work he comments of his opponents,the Rabbanite Jews, who accepted the oral law:

They assert that the Torah which is in the hands of the people is not the TorahwhichMoses—onwhombe peace—brought, but was composed by Ezra, for theysay that the Torah brought by Moses perished and was lost and disappeared …Were the Muslims to learn of this, they would need nothing else with which torevile and confute us, for some of their theologians argue against us saying: “YourTorah is not the Torah brought by Moses”.32

If al-Qirqisānī’s testimony is accepted, this indicates that Muslims were level-ling the charge of a corrupted Torah in the century before Ibn Ḥazm, thoughal-Qirqisānī’s words imply that Muslims did not know of a supposed role forEzra.33Two questions arise. To which Rabbanite argument is al-Qirqisānī refer-

ring, and how likely is it that his statement that the Rabbanites hold thatEzra wrote the Torah directly influenced Ibn Ḥazm? The answer to the firstquestion is unclear. Steiner rules out the possibility put forward by Khan thatit is a reference to the doctrine of the eighteen “corrections of the scribes”(tiqqune soferim).34 Another possibility is that al-Qirqisānī makes misleadinguse—either deliberately or unknowingly—of a Rabbinic statement (B. Sukkah20a) that the Torah was forgotten in Israel three times, and each time wasre-established, on the first occasion by Ezra.35 Thirdly, a group of rabbinic

31) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 63.32) Al-Qirqisānī,Anwār, p. 15. Translation fromYaʿqūbal-Qirqisānī on Jewish Sects andChristianity,p. 105f. On al-Qirqisānī’s attitude towards Islam, see Ben-Shammai, “Attitude”.33) For some reason Nemoy, “Al-Qirqisānī’s Account,” p. 331, translates this passage as “Whenoccasionally some of the Muslim theologians attack us”, though no Arabic term warrants thetranslation “occasionally”,with the softening of the chargewhich this implies. For further evidenceof use of the Ezra motif before Ibn Ḥazm, see below.34) Steiner, “A Jewish Theory,” p. 161 f.; cf. Khan, “Al-Qirqisānī’s Opinions,” p. 61 f. On the correctionsof the scribes see Zipor, “Some Notes”.35) Steiner, “A Jewish Theory,” p. 161 f.


traditions, regarding a master copy of the Torah kept by the priests, link Ezrato the alteration or loss of the Torah when he transcribed it into the newAramaic script. However, such classical rabbinic traditions did not representviews contemporarywith al-Qirqisānī, being vigorously opposedbyRabbanitesaround his time.36The second question is whether al-Qirqisānī is a source for Ibn Ḥazm’s view

of Ezra. While some suggest this,37 it is possible that Ibn Ḥazm draws on other,unknown Rabbanite sources, which al-Qirqisānī may also have accessed inattributing views to the Rabbanites. However, it is by nomeans certain that IbnḤazm relied upon al-Qirqisānī directly since he employs different proof texts.38Lazarus-Yafehassumes that sources criticisingEzra andpre-dating IbnḤazm

must be non-Muslim.

We may reasonably assume … that the negative image of Ezra appearing first inArabic literature in IbnḤazm’swritings alsohas Jewish-Christianor anti-Christianroots. Ibn Ḥazm’s younger contemporary in the east, ʿAbd al-Malik al-Djuwaynī(d. 1085), may have come across the same sources, or taken ideas from Ibn Ḥazmhimself.39

Before discussing al-Juwaynī it is necessary to explore other, indirect, evidencethat such sources could also have been Muslim.

Muslim Views of Ezra before Ibn Ḥazm

As noted earlier, Qurʾān 9:30 is understood by most Muslims to state thatthe Jews worship Ezra as son of God. Early Muslim commentators on thisverse relate it to Ezra’s role in miraculously receiving the Torah, in narrativesrecalling 4Ezra. The role of Ezra inmany earlyMuslim sources is therefore verypositive, in contrast to Ibn Ḥazm’s view.40 A representative passage occurs inal-Ṭabarī’s History. Ezra is approached by a man while grieving over the loss ofthe Scripture, which has been burned.

The man said, “Would you like it to be returned to you?” Ezra asked, “Is thatpossible?” “Yes”, theman replied. “Go back, fast, cleanse yourself, and cleanse yourgarments. Then be at this place tomorrow”. Ezra went back, cleansed himself andhis garments, and went to the appointed place. He sat there, and the man camecarrying a vessel filled with water—he was an angel sent by God—and gave Ezra

36) Krakowski, “ ‘Many Days’,” p. 124f.37) Adang,MuslimWriters, p. 246; also Pulcini, Exegesis, p. 35.38) Krakowski, “ ‘Many Days’,” p. 125.39) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 66.40) See Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, pp. 54–58; more generally see Ayoub, “ʿUzayr”.


to drink from that vessel. The Torah then presented itself in Ezra’s consciousness.Ezra returned to the Children of Israel and set down the Torah for them, so thatthey might know what it permits and what it prohibits, its patterns, precepts andstatutes. They loved it as they had never loved anything before. The Torah wasestablished among them, and with it their cause fared well. Ezra stayed amongthem to carry out the divine truth. Then he died. In the course of time, theIsraelites considered Ezra to be the son of God.41

Parallels to 4Ezra here include the idea of the Torah being burned, and an angelappearing so as to give him a drink, which miraculously imparts the Torah tohim. But the main point of the story as presented by al-Ṭabarī is to explain theworship of Ezra mentioned in Qurʾān 9:30.However, there was also suspicion associated with the circle of Ezra, if not

levelled at Ezra himself. Al-Maqdisī, writing around 966ce42 in his al-Badʾwa-l-tārīkh states that Ezra dictated the Torah at the end of his life. Al-Maqdisīasserts that after Ezra restored the Torah, it was subsequently distorted by oneof his disciples.43Most significantly, an exchange of correspondence, mentioning Ezra as pos-

sible corrupter of theTorah, has beenpreservedbetween aChristian and aMus-lim who represent themselves as the Byzantine Emperor Leo III (r. 717–741ce)and the Caliph ʿUmar II (r. 99/717–101/720).44 Lazarus-Yafeh remarks that theexchange is only preserved in Armenian and Latin and is “never mentionedin Arabic literature”.45 Because of this, she does not pursue the implications ofEzra’s nameoccurring in this responseby aChristian to aMuslim.ButGaudeul’s1984 studyprovides a reconstructionof theMuslimdocument, establishing thatit would have been written in Arabic. After presenting the passages relevant toour enquiry, the historical questions regarding these texts will be addressed.TheMuslim document states that, “the sons of Israel who could read the Bookswere scattered and died off, until such a time as some people among themrewrote (the Torah) following their own counsel and their own passions”.46 TheChristian correspondent replies:

I know that you attack the second edition that Esdras [Ezra] composed. Yet thisman possessed the grace of the Holy Spirit, and all that he composed has the

41) Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, vol. 3, p. 669f.; English trans. from Tārīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, vol. 4, p. 64f.42) Adang,MuslimWriters, p. 48.43) Adang, Muslim Writers, p. 233. See al-Maqdisī, al-Badʾ wa-l-tārīkh, vol. 5, p. 29 (Arabic), p. 32(French).44) For the reconstructed Muslim text of this exchange, see Gaudeul, “Correspondence”. For anEnglish translation of the Christian letter see Jeffery, “Ghevond’s Text”.45) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 64.46) Gaudeul, “Correspondence”, p. 134.


cachet of infallibility, as is proved by the fact that when all the people deliveredfrom captivity came back to Jerusalem bringing with them the Testament, therewas seen the marvelous work of God, for when it was compared with the editionof Esdras, this was found completely in conformity with the former.47

This exchange shows a Christian, when presented with criticism by a Muslimof the reliability of the Hebrew Bible, assuming that Ezra is the one accused. IftheMuslimwriter had named Ezra, this would have beenmore direct evidenceof Muslim familiarity with the charge. However, the Christian’s assumptionthat Ezra is intended even when not mentioned provides a different but insome ways equally striking indicator of the prevalence of the motif of Ezra ascorrupter.What can be known about the authenticity and dating of this exchange? It

would appear that the preserved texts indicate a real exchange of correspon-dence, not just the use of an epistolary form, even if the extant documents mayrepresent some form of compilation of the exchange of several letters.48 Thedocuments also appear to be 8th century ce, though while the Muslim lettermay be early 8th century, Leo’s reply in its present form reflects elements alsoindicating a late 8th century date.49 These conclusions indirectly point to thecirculation in Muslim circles of the motif of Ezra as corrupter two centuriesbefore Ibn Ḥazm. Further evidence of this motif probably existing in Arabicbefore Ibn Ḥazm emerges even as the pivot of our enquiry swings forwardstowards treatments of Ezra postdating Ibn Ḥazm.

Al-Juwaynī

The Ashʿarite theologian al-Juwaynī (d. 478/1085) composed Shifāʾ al-ghalīl fībayān mā waqaʿa fī l-tawrāt wa-l-injīl min al-tabdīl, probably in the 1050s.50 Hewrites of Ezra:

The Tawrāt which is now in the hands of the Jews is the Tawrāt which Ezra theScribe wrote after their conflict with Nebuchadnezzar … This copy Ezra wrote 545years before the sending of the Messiah, upon whom be peace, when there wasno Christian on the face of the earth … So the perpetrator is one: Ezra, although, ifthey elevate his status above that, then [it was] the transcriber of it from his copy.

47) Jeffery, “Ghevond’s Text,”, p. 289f.48) See the discussion by Hoyland, “Correspondence,” repr. in idem, Seeing Islam, from whichreferences are taken. For the suggestion of a compilation, see Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 496.49) Hoyland, Seeing Islam, pp. 498–500.50) Text of Shifāʾ in Allard, Textes, pp. 39–83. For discussion of this work see Thomas, “Bible,”pp. 186–190.


So the occurrence of tabdīl (alteration) from him is possible, because of his desireto continue his leadership.51

Is al-Juwaynī writing independently of Ibn Ḥazm? On the one hand, they usethe same term for Ezra, ʿAzrā al-warrāq. However, in their work on the gospels,the two authors seem to be using different versions of the text,52 and thereare likewise different details included in their comments on Ezra, notably al-Juwaynī’s remarks about Ezra’s motive being the search for power. In addi-tion al-Juwaynī mentions that a disciple of Ezra could have been responsible, aview closer to al-Maqdisī than Ibn Ḥazm. The divergences in their work, andthe short time period during which Ibn Ḥazm’s work could have circulatedand exerted influence, suggests that though it is possible that Ibn Ḥazm influ-enced al-Juwaynī, a common source or even separate sources seemmore likely,though a degree of influence cannot be conclusively ruled out. Whether thesesources were Muslim, or non-Muslim, such as the comments of al-Qirqisānī, isopen to debate. However, the correspondence of Leo and ʿUmar shows a Chris-tian assuming that aMuslimwould level this charge against Ezra. This increasesthe likelihood that at least some Muslim writings circulated the motif, unlessthe circulation was purely oral.To summarise, Ibn Ḥazm appears neither innovative nor systematic regard-

ing Ezra. He is not the first Muslim to introduce this motif; the evidenceof the correspondence of Leo and ʿUmar suggests that the idea appeared inArabic—speaking circles much earlier than Ibn Ḥazm, and the appearance ofal-Juwaynī’s Shifāʾ points indirectly in the same direction. This evidence is notconclusive, but neither is it easily dismissed. Secondly, Ibn Ḥazm is not system-atic, in the sense of weighing evidence to determine the most likely conclu-sions. The review of traditions about Ezra given above shows that he borrowsmaterial already circulating, material which gradually transformed Ezra frommiraculous restorer of the Torah into its principal author. These traditions hadgrown out of the legend narrated in 4Ezra.

The Influence of Ibn Ḥazm

IbnḤazm’s influence on subsequentMuslim authors is well-known.53Butwhatof his influence onmodern Biblical scholarship? The Ezramotif becamepromi-nent in European scholarship from the late sixteenth century onwards.54 Con-

51) Al-Juwaynī, in Allard, Textes, pp. 46–49.52) Accad, “Corruption and/or Misinterpretation,” p. 90f.53) See in general Ljamai, Ibn Ḥazm, pp. 145–196; Adang, Fierro and Schmidtke (eds.), Ibn Ḥazmof Cordoba, Part 7.54) Malcolm, Aspects, p. 414.


sequently more recent Muslim authors, such as Rashīd Riḍā (b. 1865, d. 1935)and Sayyid Quṭb (b. 1906, d. 1966) cite the motif as a Christian or Jewishidea.55 But if the idea of Ezra as corrupter is both Muslim yet also eventuallyheld by some Jews and Christians, is there a direct line of influence linking allthree and leading back through Spanish Jewry to Ibn Ḥazm?The idea of Ezra as corrupter of the Torah was rarely mentioned in Jewish

literature after Ibn Ḥazm. There is no extant Jewish response to Ibn Ḥazmfrom his contemporaries.56 Fear of Muslim authorities might account for this,perhaps explaining why Rabbi Ibn Adret of Barcelona (b. 1235, d. 1310), livingunder Christian rule, felt free to write the first work devoted specifically torebutting IbnḤazm.57As for the role of Ezra specifically, Lazarus-Yafeh suggeststhat the question of the authenticity of the Torah was usually regarded as toosensitive for open discussion. Ibn Daʾūd, Rabbi of Toledo (d. 1180), affirms apositive view of Ezra in preserving the Torah, as does Ibn Kammūna (d. 1285),the Jewish philosopher of Baghdad.58 The impulse to defend Ezra is also voicedin more surprising settings, such as a 14th century Judeo-Persian epic poemwhich defends Ezra in vivid terms.59Turning from opposition to reception of the idea of Ezra as corrupter, could

Ibn Ḥazm’s view have been absorbed into subsequent Jewish thought? Themost emphatic advocate of Ezra as sole author of the first five books of theHebrew Bible was Benedict de Spinoza (b. 1632, d. 1677), who mentions in sup-port of his views the Spanish rabbi Ibn Ezra.60 So when Lazarus-Yafeh portraysmedieval Muslim Bible criticism as “the middle link” between pre-Islamic andearly modern ideas of Bible criticism and the beginnings of modern Bible crit-icism,61 she bases this on the possible influence of Ibn Ḥazm on Ibn Ezra, asquoted above.62Malcolm repeats this suggestion, citing Lazarus-Yafeh.63

55) Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr, vol. 10, pp. 322–325. Riḍā is quoted extensively by Sayyid Quṭb, Fī ẓilālal-qurʾān, vol. 3, p. 1636f.; English translation In the Shade of the Qurʾān, vol. 8, pp. 127–129.56) Adang, “A Jewish reply,” p. 185.57) Adang, “A Jewish reply”, p. 185.58) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 71 f.59) See the translation in Moreen, “The ‘Iranization’ of Biblical Heroes,” p. 328.60) See Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, pp. 118–121. On Ibn Ezra’s life and work see Lan-caster, Deconstructing the Bible.61) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, p. 140.62) Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, p. 73. The same idea of Ibn Ezra being influenced by IbnḤazm is set forward briefly by al-Sharqāwī, Manhaj naqd al-naṣṣ, p. 71, who gives as reasons forhis view their geographical and chronological proximity, and Ibn Ezra’s presumed knowledge of awriter as prominent as Ibn Ḥazm. For more on Ibn Ezra’s attitude to Ibn Ḥazm see below.63) Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes, p. 402.


Ibn Ezra lived in Spain only a few decades after the death of Ibn Ḥazm, butspent the later years of his life in Italy, France and England where he wrotecommentaries which brought to Jews under Christian rule, reliant primarilyonmidrashmaterial, the emphasis on grammar, philology, poetics, science andphilosophy first developed—under Muslim rule—by Saadia Gaon.64 Ibn Ezrafamously mentions a number of verses whichmight imply non-Mosaic author-ship of passages of the Torah, in the course of commenting on Deuteronomy1:1. “If you can grasp the mystery behind the following problematic passages …you will then understand the truth.”65 If the precise significance of the wordsof Ibn Ezra remains veiled, what of the claim that he might have consciouslyabsorbed Ibn Ḥazm’s influence and thus passed on his approach to EuropeanBible criticism? This is doubtful, for two reasons.First, other Jewish sources prior to Ibn Ezra explored issues regarding the

editorial formation of the Torah. Despite his undoubted opposition to theKaraites on somepoints, IbnEzra also absorbs influences from theKaraite Yefetben ʿEli (first half of the tenth century ce).66 The latter periodically mentionsthe role of themudawwin, an elastic termwhich can denote editor, compiler oreven author.67 In addition, the possibility of redaction of the biblical text wasbeing discussed by Byzantine Jews in the medieval period, where the sadran,with an editorial role, resembles Yefet ben ʿEli’smudawwin.68 So there is noneedto posit a Muslim source for the beginnings of reflection on the editing of thebiblical text.Secondly, rather than absorbing Muslim influence, Ibn Ezra seems to have

rejected it. His commentary on Exodus 13:18 states that, “we have enough grief(already) with the Muslim scholars”, and goes on to cite a Muslim objection tothe account of the numerical growth of the Israelites strikingly similar to the

64) Cohen, Three Approaches, p. 33 f.65) Ibn Ezra, The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch, vol. 5, p. 1 f. The passages cited by IbnEzra are Deuteronomy 34, 31:22, Genesis 12:6, 22:14, and Deuteronomy 3:11. Ibn Ezra is more blunt(Commentary, p. 181) about the possibility of someone other than Moses writing the last 12 versesof Deuteronomy, but this is a more common Jewish view. Interestingly, such remarks by Ibn Ezraare subsequently used by Muslims to criticise the Torah. See Adang, “Guided to,” p. 72; see alsoSchmidtke and Adang, “Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā Ṭashkubrīzāde’s (d. 968/1561) Polemical Tract,” pp. 96(Arabic), 110, 112 (English).66) See Simon, Four Approaches, pp. 203–210, on Ibn Ezra’s opposition to the Karaites, and p. 160on the influence of Yefet ben ʿEli on his Psalms commentary.67) See Zawanowska, Arabic Translation and Commentary, pp. 27–55. Note, however, Zawanow-ska’s argument that by introducing a human editorial hand or even the idea of omissions intoan understanding of the Biblical text, Karaites, “could successfully rebut the Islamic argumentsagainst the Bible” (p. 53). On the contrary, such admissions would undermine a defence of theHebrew Scripture against Muslim charges.68) Steiner, “A Jewish Theory,” p. 134 and passim.


same charge as raised by Ibn Ḥazm.69 Steiner argues that if this is a response toIbn Ḥazm specifically, other statements affirming the biblical text and the roleof Ezramay also be reactions to IbnḤazm.70 The relationship of Ibn Ezra to IbnḤazm is therefore better characterized as one of resistance, not receptivity.To summarise, on the basis of available evidence it can be argued that

Lazarus-Yafeh overreaches in suggesting a line of influence linking Ibn Ḥazmto Ibn Ezra and on to Spinoza. Whatever Ibn Ezra’s own ideas, his apparentresistance to Ibn Ḥazm’s influence, along with other clearer Jewish precedentsfor his thought, undermine claims that Ibn Ḥazm is the formative influence onhim, and through him to subsequent European scholarship.

Conclusion

Lazarus-Yafeh portrays IbnḤazm as the firstMuslim to blame Ezra for corrupt-ing the Torah, or, in some of her statements, the first Muslim in Arabic litera-ture, a lesser but related claim. Secondly, in so doing he was being systematicand critical, and thirdly, he may have influenced European Biblical criticismthrough Ibn Ezra. As for the first of these, it seems more likely that both IbnḤazm and al-Juwaynī are drawing on traditions circulating before them. TheEzra motif was familiar enough for an 8th century Christian using the nameLeo III to assume that it lay behind criticism of a falsified Torahmade by aMus-lim writing in Arabic. It is safer to conclude that Ibn Ḥazm was not the origi-nator of the Ezra motif amongst Arab Muslims, though he was to be its chiefpublicist.Secondly, how are we to evaluate Ibn Ḥazm’s use of the Ezra motif? Does

he reach “an essentially higher level of textual criticism” and demonstrate“the Muslim systematic, critical approach to the biblical text and to Ezra theScribe”?71 In relation to his use of the Ezra motif, Ibn Ḥazm is not critical, ifthat term denotes weighing up evidence so as to draw a conclusion. Instead,Ibn Ḥazm takes an inherited negative portrayal of Ezra, growing paradoxicallyout of the legendary positive role depicted in 4Ezra, and runs with it. IbnḤazm leaves undisturbed the historical questions regarding the basis for sucha narrative. It would be unfair to expect of him the type of access to historicalsources possible in themodernworld, but given this, claims that his statementsabout Ezra are “systematic” ought to be tempered with great caution.

69) Steiner, “A Jewish Theory” p. 165. Ibn Ezra’s text was not available to me; Steiner quotes it inHebrew and English, but does not provide references.70) Steiner, “A Jewish Theory,”, pp. 157f., 166.71) Lazarus-Yafeh, IntertwinedWorlds, pp. 68f., 73.


As for the third proposed role, as catalyst for modern critical scholarshipthrough his influence on Ibn Ezra and hence Jewish discussion, this also seemsunlikely. Perhaps Ibn Ezra and others might themselves be such catalysts byraising questions and hints about the authorship of the Torah. Yet Ibn Ezra wasacutely aware of the pressure of Muslim criticisms, and probably of Ibn Ḥazmhimself, and sought to resist them.The influence of IbnḤazmonMuslimwritings is undoubtedly profound. But

in relation to Ezra this influence seems to derive from the hostility of his attackson Ezra himself, and through linking those criticisms to his extensive condem-nations of the Biblical text more generally. It has been said of Ibn Ḥazm’s writ-ings on the Gospels, “Ibn Ḥazm is distinguished from earlier Muslim authors… more by his unfailingly hostile rhetoric than by the method or content ofhis arguments against Christianity”.72 The same appears to be true of his state-ments concerning Ezra as corrupter. If so, when it comes to his understandingof the role of Ezra, the portrayal of Ibn Ḥazm as an innovative and systematicinfluence on early modern Bible criticism needs re-assessing.

Bibliography

Accad, Martin “Corruption and/or Misinterpretation of the Bible: The Story of theIslamic Usage of Taḥrīf,” Theological Review of the Near East School of Theology 14(2003), pp. 67–97.

Adang, Camilla, “Guided to Islam by the Torah: The Risāla al-hādiya by ʿAbd al-Salāmal-Muhtadī al-Muḥammadī,” in Contacts and Controversies Between Muslims, Jewsand Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran, eds Camilla Adang andSabine Schmidtke, Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2010, pp. 57–72.

——, “A Jewish reply to Ibn Ḥazm: Solomon b. Adret’s Polemic against Islam,” in Judíosy musulmanes en al-Andalus y el Magreb: contactos intelectuales, ed. Maribel Fierro,Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2002, pp. 179–207.

——, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: from Ibn Rabban to Ibn Ḥazm,Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Adang, Camilla, Maribel Fierro and Sabine Schmidtke (eds), Ibn Ḥazm of Cordoba: theLife and works of a controversial thinker, Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Algermissen, Ernst, Die Pentateuchzitate Ibn Ḥazms: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ara-bischen Bibelübersetzungen, PhD dissertation, Münster 1933.

Allard, Michel (ed.), Textes Apologétiques de Ğuwainī, Beirut: Dār al-Machreq, 1968.Anthony, Sean, “The Composition of Sayf b. ʿUmar’s Account of King Paul and hisCorruption of Ancient Christianity,” Der Islam 85 (2008), pp. 164–202.

Ayoub,Mahmoud, “ʿUzayr in theQurʾān andMuslimTradition,” in Studies in Islamic and

72) Gabriel Said Reynolds, review of S.M. Behloul, Ibn Ḥazm’s Evangelienkritik: Eine methodischeUntersuchung, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 124 (2004), p. 116.


Judaic Traditions, eds William Brinner and Stephen Ricks, Atlanta: Scholars’ Press,1986, pp. 3–18.

Bellamy, James, “Textual Criticismof theKoran,” Journal of theAmericanOriental Society121 (2001), pp. 1–6.

Ben-Shammai, Haggai, “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites Towards Islam,” in Studiesin Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. Isadore Twersky, Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press, 1984, vol. 2, pp. 3–40.

Berchman, Robert, Porphyry Against the Christians, Leiden: Brill, 2005.TheCaveofTreasures, trans. E.A.Wallis Budge, London: TheReligiousTract Society, 1927.Bowman, John (ed. and trans.), Samaritan Documents Relating to their History, Religionand Life, Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1977.

Cohen, Mordechai, Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor: from Abraham Ibn Ezra andMaimonides to David Kimhi, Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Comerro, Viviane, “Esdras est-il le fils de Dieu?,” Arabica 52 (2005), pp. 165–181.Drint, Adriana, TheMount Sinai Arabic Version of IVEzra, Leuven: Peeters, 1997.——, “Some Notes on the Arabic Versions of IVEzra and the Apocalypse of Baruch inMSMt Sinai Arabic Codex 589,” Parole de l’Orient 24 (1999), pp. 165–177.

Gaster, Moses, The Samaritan Oral Law and Ancient Traditions, vol. 1: Samaritan Escha-tology, London: The Search Publishing Company, 1932.

Gaudeul, Jean-Marie, “The Correspondence Between Leo and ʿUmar: ʿUmar’s letterre-discovered?” Islamochristiana 10 (1984), pp. 109–157.

Hamilton, Alastair, The Apocryphal Apocalypse: the reception of the second book of Es-dras (4Ezra) from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1999.

Hoyland, Robert, “The Correspondence of Leo III (717–741) and ʿUmar II (717–720),”Aram 6 (1994), pp. 165–177 [repr. R. Hoyland, Seeing IslamasOthers Saw It, Princeton:Darwin Press, 1997, pp. 490–501].

Ibn Ezra, The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch vol. 5: Deuteronomy, trans.J. Schachter, Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing, 2003.

IbnḤazmKitāb al-Faṣl fī l-milal wa-l-ahwāʾwa-l-niḥal 1–3, Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiy-ya, 2007.

Ibn Ḥazm Al-Radd ʿālā Ibn al-Naghrīla al-yahūdī, ed. Iḥsan ʿAbbās, Cairo: Maktabat Dāral-ʿUrūba, 1960.

Jeffery, Arthur, “Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence Between ʿUmar II and Leo III,”Harvard Theological Review 37 (1944), pp. 269–332.

Khan, Geoffrey, “Al-Qirqisānī’s Opinions Concerning the Text of the Bible and ParallelMuslim Attitudes Towards the Text of the Qurʾān,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 81(1990), pp. 59–73.

Kraft, Robert, “ ‘Ezra’ Materials in Judaism and Christianity” in Aufstieg und Niedergangder Römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms in Spiegel der Neueren Forschung,vol. 19.1, Religion ( Judentum: Allgemeines: Palaestinisches Judentum), ed. W. Haase,Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979, pp. 119–136.

Krakowski, Eve, “ ‘Many Days Without the God of Truth’: Loss and Recovery of Reli-gious Knowledge in Early Karaite Thought,” in Pesher Naḥum: Texts and Studies inJewish History and Literature from Antiquity Through the Middle Ages Presented to


Norman (Naḥum) Golb, eds Joel Kraemer andMichael Wechsler, Chicago: Universityof Chicago, 2011, pp. 121–140.

Lancaster, Irene,Deconstructing the Torah: Abraham Ibn Ezra’s introduction to the Torah,London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.

Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava, Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible criticism, Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1992.

Ljamai, Abdelilah, Ibn Ḥazm et la polémique islamo-chrétienne dans l’histoire de l’ islam,Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Malcolm, Noel, Aspects of Hobbes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.al-Maqdisī, Kitāb al-Badʾ wa-l-tārīkh 1–5, ed. and trans. C. Huart, Paris: Ernest Leroux,1899–1919.

Moreen, Vera, “The ‘Iranization’ of Biblical Heroes in Judeo-Persian Epics: Shahin’sArdashīr-nāmah and ʿEzrā-nāmah,” Iranian Studies 29 (1996), pp. 321–338.

Nemoy, Leon, “Al-Qirqisānī’s Account of the Jewish Sects and Christianity,” HebrewUnion College Annual 7 (1930), pp. 317–397.

Pulcini, Theodore, Exegesis as Polemical Discourse: Ibn Ḥazm on Jewish and ChristianScriptures, Atlanta: Scholars’ Press, 1998.

al-Qirqisānī, Kitāb al-Anwār wa-l-Marāqib: Code of Karaite Law 1–5, ed. Leon Nemoy,New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939.

——, Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī on Jewish Sects and Christianity, trans. Bruno Chiesa and Wil-frid Lockwood, Frankfurt: Lang, 1984.

Quṭb, Sayyid, Fī ẓilāl al-Qurʾān 1–6, Beirut: Dār al-Shurūq, 1979.——, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, vol. 8, trans. Adil Salahi, Leicester: Islamic Foundation,2003.

Reynolds, Gabriel Said, review of Samuel-Martin Behloul, Ibn Ḥazm’s Evangelienkritik:Eine methodische Untersuchung, Journal of the American Oriental Society 124 (2004),pp. 115–117.

Riḍā, Rashīd, Tafsīr al-Manār 1–12, Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Manār, 1947–1961.Rifat, N., Ibn Ḥazm on Jews and Judaism, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Exeter, 1988.Rooke, Deborah, Zadok’s Heirs—The Role and Development of the High Priesthood inAncient Israel, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Rubin, Uri, Between Bible and Qurʾān, Princeton: Darwin Press, 1999.Schmidtke, Sabine andCamillaAdang, “Aḥmadb.Muṣṭafā Ṭashkubrīzāde’s (d. 968/1561)Polemical Tract Against Judaism,” Al-Qanṭara 29 (2008), pp. 79–113.

Shalit, Yaacov and Mordechai Eran, The Hebrew Bible Reborn: From holy scripture to thebook of books, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007.

al-Sharqāwī, Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh,Manhaj naqd al-naṣṣ bayna IbnḤazm al-Andalūsīwa-Isbīnūzā, Cairo: Tawzīʿ Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī, 1993.

Simon, Uriel, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: from Saadiah Gaon to Abraham IbnEzra, trans. L. Schramm, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1991.

Spinoza, Benedict de, Theological-Political Treatise, ed. Jonathan Israel, trans. JonathanIsrael and Michael Silverthorne, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Steiner, Richard, “A Jewish Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: Its Rabbinicroots, its diffusion and its encounterwith theMuslimdoctrine of falsification,” JewishStudies, an Internet Journal 2 (2003), pp. 123–167.

Sweetman, James, Islam and Christian Theology, London: Lutterworth Press, 1955.


al-Ṭabarī, Annales, ed. M. de Goeje et al., vol. 3, Leiden: Brill, 1883–1884.——, Tārīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, vol. 4, The Ancient Kingdoms, trans. Moshe Perlmann,Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1987.

Thomas, David, “The Bible and the Kalām,” in David Thomas (ed.), The Bible in ArabChristianity, Leiden: Brill, 2007, pp. 175–191.

Wyrick, Jed, The Ascension of Authorship: attribution and canon formation in Jewish,Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,2004.

Zawanowska, Marzena, The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben ʿEli theKaraite on the Abraham Narratives (Genesis 11:10–25:18): edition and introduction, Lei-den: Brill, 2012.

Zipor, Moshe, “Some Notes on the Tradition of the Eighteen tiqqûnê sôperîm,” VetusTestamentum 44 (1994), pp. 77–102.

‘Ezra as the Corrupter of the Torah? Re-assessing Ibn Ḥazm’s role in the long history of an...

Documents

Transcript of ‘Ezra as the Corrupter of the Torah? Re-assessing Ibn Ḥazm’s role in the long history of an...