Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 21 (2024): 1-28
Miriam L. Hjälm
Sankt Ignatios College, EHS, and Uppsala University
Camilla Adang
Tel Aviv University
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s (d. 714/1314) critique of the Pentateuch
and the plurality of Christian Bible recensions
It is by now well known that Christian Arabic Bible translations exhibit a wide range of
translation techniques, depending on the intended function of the translated text and the
training of the translator.
1
In addition to the rich and rather uncontrolled production of
Arabic translations, major characteristics of Christians in the East were the lack of an
authoritative biblical Vorlage that could indisputably serve as the model for Arabic
translations, the movability of texts between communities, as well as the involvement of
converts who brought knowledge across already blurry communal borders.
2
Instead,
Christians in the Levant had access to and used the Peshīṭtā, the Syro-hexapla, the
This article was written with the support of the Swedish Research Council (2017–01630). We thank the
anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
1
Many Peshīṭtā-based Arabic translations exhibit a wealth of additions that serve to explain what the
translators perceived to be the meaning of the biblical text or to make its style more acceptable to a reader
well versed in literary Arabic. In contrast, Greek-based translations, as well as al-Ḥārith b. Sinān’s
translation from the Syro-hexapla, normally contain fewer deviations from the source text, although they,
too, range from “extremely literal”, to rather reader-oriented Arabic translations that, while aiming at
representing one text unit in the source text with one text unit in the target text, did not refrain from
departing from such a principle for the sake of the intelligibility of the translated text. For an overview,
see Miriam L. Hjälm, “1.2.12 Arabic Texts [Overview Article > The Textual History of the Deutero-
canonical Texts],” in Frank Feder and Matthias Henze (ed.), The Textual History of the Bible, vol. 2A
(Leiden: Brill, 2020), pp. 483-495. On specific biblical books, see the respective entries in The Textual
History of the Bible, vol. 2 and further references there.
2
See for example, Sarah Stroumsa, “The Impact of Syriac Tradition on Early Judaeo-Arabic Bible
Exegesis”, Aram 3.1–2 (1991), pp. 83-96; Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible
Criticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the
Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Ronny Vollandt, “Saʿadia Gaon’s
Translation of the Torah and Its Coptic Readers”, in Meira Polliack and Athalya Brenner-Idan (eds.),
Jewish Biblical Exegesis from Islamic Lands: The Medieval Period (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2019), pp. 75-87; Miriam L.
Hjälm, “Christian Bibles in Muslim Robes with Jewish Glosses: Arundel Or.15 and other Medieval Coptic
Arabic Bible Translations at the British Library”, published at the British Library Blog, April 2022.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
2
Septuagint, as well as Arabic renditions of the Hebrew Bible and it was not uncommon for
engaged copyists to compare the Arabic translation they were about to transcribe with
other biblical Vorlagen or translations, and to revise it.
3
In the vivid intellectual climate of the mediaeval Islamicate world where various
competing religious communities had access to a wealth of biblical texts, it was inevitable
that Muslims, too, would take notice of the many contradictions found within the Bible as
well as between its various recensions. The author discussed in this article, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-
Bājī, was certainly no exception. Our purpose in what follows is to identify the sources al-
Bājī used in his polemical tract against Christians and Jews and to examine how his
arguments related to the issue of the multiple, and sometimes contradicting, biblical
Vorlagen that Christians had inherited from late antiquity, and to the textual corruption that
inevitably occurs in texts copied by hand, which sometimes influenced his argumentation.
Before doing so, however, we shall provide a bibliographical sketch of al-Bājī and discuss
the structure and overall argument of his only surviving and little-known work, entitled
Kitāb ʿalā al-Tawrāt, in which he directs text-critical and rationalistic objections against the
Torah, especially as transmitted among Christians.
4
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī: A biographical sketch
Tāj al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Khaṭṭāb al-
Bājī, sometimes also called al-Maghribī, was born in 631/1233, but the place of his birth is
unknown, and it is unclear whether the nisba al-Bājī refers to Beja in present-day Portugal,
which at the time was part of al-Andalus, or Beja in Tunisia.
5
Although the nisba al-
Maghribī usually refers to someone hailing from North Africa, it is not seldom used for
Andalusīs, especially by Muslims residing in the eastern part of the Muslim world, including
Egypt. According to some scholars, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn was related to the famous Andalusī faqīh
Abū l-Walīd al-Bājī (d. 474/1081), whose many works include a polemic against
Christianity.
6
Unlike this Bājī and the vast majority of scholars from the Islamic West, who
3
This happened already in the early Palestinian texts and reached a climax among the Copts once they
started to embrace literature in Arabic during their golden age. For the former, see Juan Pedro Monferrer-
Sala, “The Pauline Epistle to Philemon from Codex Vatican Arabic 13 (Ninth Century CE): Transcription
and Study”, Journal of Semitic Studies 60.2 (Autumn 2015), pp. 341-371. See also Hikmat Kashouh, The
Arabic Versions of the Gospels: The Manuscripts and Their Families (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), passim. The
positive attitude among these Copts to texts from other religious denominations is reflected by the Coptic
intellectual Ibn Kabar, see the translation: Abū al-Barakāt, Catalog of Christian Literature in Arabic (2009) by
Adam McCollum, available online: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/abu_l_barakat_catalogue.htm.
4
In what follows, we use the terms Torah and Pentateuch interchangeably.
5
Full details of the biographical dictionaries containing entries on al-Bājī on which this biographical sketch
is largely based may be found in the Appendix. Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī (d. 1089/1679) is the only one
who specifically states that “al-Bājī” refers to a town in al-Andalus; see his Shadharāt al-dhahab, 6: 179.
6
On the Andalusī Bājī and his polemical tract, see Diego Sarrió Cucarella, “Corresponding across Religious
Borders: Al-Bājī's Response to a Missionary Letter from France”, Medieval Encounters 18 (2012), pp. 1-35.
Abdelilah Ljamai thinks it is quite possible that “our” Bājī is a grandson of Abū l-Walīd; see his Ibn Ḥazm
et la polémique islamo-chrétienne dans l'histoire de l'islam (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003), p. 191. In that case,
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
3
were Mālikīs, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn (“our” Bājī) belonged to the Shāfiʿī school of law. He seems to
have received his earliest education in Damascus, which was home to many families that
had immigrated from the Islamic West.
7
He is known to have attended the classes of the
eminent scholar al-ʿIzz b. ʿAbd al-Salām (d. 660/1262), another Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī of Maghribī
descent, who was expelled from the city by the local Ayyubid ruler, al-Malik al-Ṣāliḥ
Ismāʿīl, and moved to Cairo in 638/1240.
8
This means that al-Bājī cannot have been more
than seven years old when he attended al-ʿIzz b. ʿAbd al-Salām’s lectures in Damascus.
This was by no means unusual: we know of many well-known scholars who had been taken
to lecture sessions at a very early age.
9
The only other teacher mentioned by our sources is
the ascetic Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Yūsuf al-Tilimsānī (d. 655/1257), from whom al-Bājī
received a collection of prophetic traditions by the Damascene ḥadīth transmitter Ibn
Ḥawṣā (d. 320/932).
10
There were no doubt other teachers: al-Bājī enjoyed a close
friendship with his exact contemporary Muḥyī l-Dīn Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā b. Sharaf al-
Nawawī (d. 676/1277), author of the best-known commentary of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim as well as of
a number of legal tracts in the Shāfiʿī tradition, and together they attended lectures by
scholars whose names are not mentioned in the sources, but who were most likely
specialists in ḥadīth and law, the fields in which al-Nawawī excelled.
11
Sometime during the
early years of the reign of the Mamluk sultan Baybars (regn. 658-676/1260-1277) al-Bājī,
probably in his early thirties, was appointed Qadi in the town of Karak in present-day
Jordan, adjacent to the former Crusader fortress. He may have combined this position with
that of wakīl, or intendant of the treasury (bayt al-māl) there.
12
It seems that he resided in
Karak at least until the year 684/1285 (see below). At an unknown date and for reasons not
altogether clear he moved to Cairo, where he acted as deputy magistrate and witness
preparer. His renown as a specialist in a number of disciplines which he had apparently
however, one would expect the latter’s given name, Sulaymān, to be included in ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn's chain of
names.
7
Louis Pouzet, “Maghrébins à Damas au VII
e
/XIII
e
siècle”, Bulletin d'études orientales 28 (1975), pp. 167-199;
Mariam Sheibani, “Islamic Law in an Age of Crisis and Consolidation: ʿIzz al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Salām (577-
660/1187-1262) and the Ethical Turn in Medieval Islamic Law” (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago,
2018), pp. 68, 81-85. Sheibani paints a vivid picture of the religious, intellectual and political atmosphere
in Damascus at the time.
8
Sheibani, “Islamic Law in an Age of Crisis”, pp. 128-129.
9
Jonathan Berkey, The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo. A Social History of Islamic Education
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), p. 32; Camilla Adang, “Shurayḥ al-Ruʿaynī and the
Transmission of the Works of Ibn Ḥazm”, in Camilla Adang, Maribel Fierro and Sabine Schmidtke (ed.),
Ibn Hazm of Cordoba. The Life and Works of a Controversial Thinker (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013), pp. 513-537
at p. 516.
10
On al-Tilimsānī, see Abū Shāma (Shihāb al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ismāʿīl), Tarājim rijāl
al-qarnayn al-sādis wa-l-sābiʿ, al-maʿrūf bi-l-Dhayl ʿalā al-Rawḍatayn, ed. ʿIzzat al-ʿAṭṭār al-Ḥusaynī (Beirut: Dār
al-Jīl, 1974), p. 198.
11
On al-Nawawī, see W. Heffening, “al-Nawawī”, EI
2
, s.v. For a characterization of al-Nawawī’s main legal
writings, see Norman Calder, “Nawawī and the Typologies of Fiqh Writing”, in Norman Calder, Islamic
Jurisprudence in the Classical Era, ed. by Colin Imber (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 74-
115.
12
On the administrative positions in Karak, see Marcus Milwright, The Fortress of the Raven. Karak in the Middle
Islamic Period (1100-1650) (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008), p. 82.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
4
acquired in Syria –legal methodology, logic, grammar, ḥadīth and Ashʿarī theology– only
increased after he had given up his administrative positions. The fact that he adopted an
ascetic lifestyle, wearing modest garments, may have appealed to prospective students. Tāj
al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 771/1370), author of the most detailed biography of al-Bājī, relates that
our scholar had to go into hiding for a while because of something he had supposedly said.
Unfortunately, al-Subkī does not elaborate: did al-Bājī get into trouble with the local ruler
or the political establishment, or was it a rival or opponent who threatened him? The
tensions between Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarīs on the one hand, and Ḥanbalīs on the other are well
known. This complication notwithstanding, al-Bājī was much in demand as a teacher: he
taught at the Sayfiyya madrasa and acted as tutor at the Manṣūriyya and Ṣāliḥiyya madrasas.
13
Al-Bājī was often requested to issue fatwās. This he did in a most conscientious way,
refusing to give a legal opinion unless he was absolutely certain of its correctness. In cases
of doubt he would refer the petitioner to the view of al-Shāfiʿī. He was admired for his
rhetorical and debating skills, which he put to good use defending the Ashʿarī school,
which came under attack from more traditionally-minded theologians. It is said that the
two persons most skilled in defending the teachings of al-Ashʿarī were al-Bājī in Cairo, and
Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Hindī (d. 715/1315) in Syria, except that al-Bājī was the more talented
debater.
14
Besides his two sons, al-Bājī taught some of the most respected scholars of his
time, such as the Andalusī grammarian and exegete Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī (d.
745/1344)
15
and al-Subkī's father, the polymath Taqī al-Dīn (d. 756/1355), whom he
instructed in the art of disputation (munāẓara).
16
Two other Shāfiʿī legal scholars known to
have studied with al-Bājī are Zayn al-Dīn al-Balfiyāʾī (d. 749/1348) and ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the
son of Qadi Badr al-Dīn b. Jamāʿa (d. 767/1365).
17
Kamāl al-Dīn al-Udwufī (d. 748/1347),
too, refers to him as his teacher.
18
Al-Bājī also interacted with the controversial Ḥanbalī
scholar Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), whom he debated and whose praise of him made al-
Bājī uncomfortable, perhaps because of the Ḥanbalī's bad reputation and his vocal
opposition to Ashʿarism. Among al-Bājī's Egyptian teachers, mention should be made of
Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd (d. 702/1302), a highly respected Shāfiʿī ḥadīth scholar and jurist who was
also well versed in Mālikī law.
19
Active in Upper Egypt and Cairo, he was regarded as a
13
See on these institutions al-Maqrīzī (Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAlī), al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-l-iʿtibār bi-dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-
l-āthār, al-maʿrūf bi-l-Khiṭaṭ al-Maqrīziyya, 3 vols., ed. Muḥammad Zaynhum and Madīḥa al-Sharqāwī (Cairo:
Maktabat Madbūlī, 1997), 3:449, 480, 465-466.
14
On Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Hindī see Jon Hoover, “Early Mamluk Ashʿarism against Ibn Taymiyya on the
Nonliteral Reinterpretation (taʾwīl) of God’s Attributes”, in Ayman Shihadeh and Jan Thiele (ed.),
Philosophical Theology in Islam. Later Ashʿarism East and West (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2020), pp. 195-230 at pp.
211-216. On his limited debating skills, see Sherman A. Jackson, “Ibn Taymiyyah on trial in Damascus”,
Journal of Semitic Studies XXXIX:1 (1994), pp. 41-85 at p. 47.
15
See on him J.M. Puerta Vílchez, “al-Gharnāṭī, Abū Ḥayyān”, in Biblioteca de al-Andalus, vol. 1: De al-
ʿAbbādīya a Ibn Abyaḍ”, (Almería: Fundación Ibn Tufayl de estudios árabes, 2012), pp. 361-396, no. 120.
16
On the two Subkīs, see J. Schacht – C.E. Bosworth, “al-Subkī”, EI
2
, s.v.
17
See Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, 3:56-57, no. 606; 3:135-138, no. 647. On Badr al-Dīn and his
son ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, see Kamal S. Salibi, “The Banū Jamāʿa: A Dynasty of Shāfi'ite Jurists in the Mamluk
Period”, Studia Islamica 9 (1958), pp. 97-109 at pp. 99-102.
18
Jaʿfar b. Thaʿlab al-Udwufī, al-Badr al-sāfir 2, no. 195.
19
See on him R.Y. Ebied and M.J.L. Young, “Ibn Daḳīḳ al-ʿĪd”, EI
2
(Suppl.), s.v.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
5
mujaddid, that is, a restorer or reformer of the religion.
20
Several anecdotes preserved in the
biographical dictionaries of Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī, Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī
and al-Ṣafadī (all of them Shāfiʿīs) state that al-Bājī attended the lectures of Ibn Daqīq al-
ʿĪd at the Ṣāliḥiyya madrasa and impressed his master with his knowledge, in particular of
the legal treatise al-Wasīṭ fī l-madhhab by al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111). Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd is said to
have expressed surprise at al-Bājī's knowledge, considering his youth. However, if he
resided in Karak at least till the age of fifty-two, as is suggested by the date of composition
of his polemic against the Pentateuch, to be discussed below, this is difficult to reconcile
with Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd's wonderment, unless we assume visits to Cairo from Karak at an
earlier age. It is said that Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd would never address anyone, not even the
(unnamed) sultan, except by yā insān, the only exceptions being al-Bājī, whom he addressed
as yā imām, and the Shāfiʿī legal scholar Ibn al-Rifʿa (d. 710/1310), to whom he turned with
the words yā faqīh.
21
According to Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd, al-Bājī was truly worthy of being called
a scholar. For our purpose, it is especially the following anecdote that is relevant. Shaykh
Najm al-Dīn al-Aṣfūnī (d. 751/1350) relates that he attended a study session with Ibn
Daqīq al-ʿĪd, who turned to those present saying: “There is a Jew here who wants to have a
disputation” (yā fuqahāʾ, ḥaḍara shakhṣ yahūdī yaṭlubu al-munāẓara). According to al-Aṣfūnī all
the scholars there kept silent, but al-Bājī eagerly volunteered to debate him, saying “Fetch
him and, God be praised, we shall remove all doubt”. (fa-bādara al-Bājī fa-qāla: aḥḍirūhu fa-
naḥnu, bi-ḥamdi li'llāh, nadfaʿu al-shubha). If such a disputation did take place, we may assume
that the Jewish participant wished to refute the standard themes of Muslim polemics
against his religion: abrogation of the Torah, distortion of its text or interpretation, and the
presence of references to Islam and Muḥammad in this scripture.
22
Al-Bājī's polemical tract
reflects these themes. However, a disputation between members of different religious
communities could also take a philosophical, rather than a theological turn. Al-Bājī may
have interacted with a Jew on another occasion: it is said that he replied to a Jew who had
requested a fatwā. Unfortunately, the sources do not tell us what the topic of the fatwā was,
and in neither case do we know the identity of the Jewish interlocutor. We are on shaky
ground also when it comes to al-Bājī's reply, in verse, to a brief poem allegedly authored by
a dhimmī, more specifically a Jew, criticizing the Muslim conception of predestination and
challenging “the scholars of Islam” to supply explanations and proof for their belief.
According to al-Subkī, the author was actually a Muʿtazilī Muslim pretending to be a
dhimmī.
23
Al-Bājī was one of six scholars in Cairo and Damascus who took up the gauntlet
20
See Ella Landau-Tasseron, “The ‘Cyclical Reform’: A Study of the mujaddid Tradition”, Studia Islamica 70
(1989), pp. 79-117, at p. 92.
21
On Ibn al-Rifʿa, who advocated the destruction of Christian and Jewish houses of worship, see Gowaart
Van den Bossche, “Destroying Churches by Performing Knowledge: Ibn al-Rifʿa's Kitāb al-nafāʾis fī adillat
hadm al-kanāʾis (700/1301) and the Social Negotiation of Legal Authority”, Islamic Law and Society 27
(2020), pp. 297-324.
22
On these standard topics, see Camilla Adang and Sabine Schmidtke, “Polemics (Muslim-Jewish)”, in:
Norman Stillman et al. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World, vol. 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 82-90.
23
Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt, 10:352. Livnat Holtzman has made a detailed study of the circumstances of the
composition of the provocative poem and the replies it elicited: “The Dhimmi’s Question on
Predetermination and the Ulama’s Six Responses. The Dynamics of Composing Polemical Didactic
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
6
and whose shorter or longer responses are included in Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī's biographical
entry on al-Bājī.
24
Although the biographical dictionaries refer to several possible
interactions with Jews, then, not a single Christian contact is mentioned, which is surprising
in light of the fact that his polemical tract takes issue with a Melkite translation of the
Pentateuch and criticizes Christian teachings. But although Karak, which is featured in the
famous sixth century Madaba mosaic map, had a long Christian history and had been the
seat of a bishopric in Byzantine times, we do not know whether there was still a significant
Christian presence there in the Ayyubid and early Mamluk periods.
Al-Bājī died in Cairo in 714/1314 and was buried in the Qarāfa cemetery, in or near the
section that included the tomb of Warsh (d. 197/812), the transmitter of one of the
canonical readings of the Qurʾān.
Al-Bājī’s works
According to the available biographical sketches of al-Bājī, he was a productive writer,
though most of his works were digests of or commentaries on works by earlier scholars
that did not do justice to his learning. It is said that there wasn't a single discipline on which
al-Bājī did not write a digest, this despite the fact that no one ever saw him reading a
book.
25
This may be a way to emphasize that the author prized oral instruction above book
learning. Sadly, none of these works has survived, although during his lifetime and
immediately after they were well known and being memorized.
26
As the biographer Jamāl
al-Dīn al-Asnawī (d. 772/1370) put it, inṭafaʾat kaʾanna lam takun, as if they never existed.
27
The only exception is Kitāb ʿalā al-Tawrāt, a work variously described in the sources as a
refutation of the Jews, of the Torah, of the Torah that the Jews possess, and of the Jews
and the Christians. By the author's own account, he wrote the tract during the last part of
Rabīʿ al-Awwal 684, that is, June 1285, in the town of Karak. Unless he interrupted his stay
in Karak with visits to Cairo, it is thus in Syria that he became acquainted with the
Pentateuch, which he read in at least two recensions. It is to this work and these different
recensions used by al-Bājī that we shall now turn our attention.
Poems in Mamluk Cairo and Damascus”, Mamluk Studies Review XVI (2012), pp. 1-54. She discusses two
rationalist Muslim scholars, Ibn al-Baqaqī (d. 701/1301) and al-Sakākīnī (d. 721/1321) as possible authors.
24
Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt, 10:353-366 (al-Bājī's is the first retort: pp. 353-354). For a translation of the responses,
see Holtzman, “The Dhimmi’s question”, pp. 38-52 (pp. 38-39 for al-Bājī’s).
25
According to Holtzman, the titles of the books of which he wrote abridgements reflect al-Bājī’s expertise
in Ashʿarī kalām; see “The Dhimmi's question”, p. 33, n. 134.
26
That his works were not transmitted beyond one generation may be due in part to the fact that he
apparently had few active students, though it may also be that scholars preferred the originals on which al-
Bājī's digests were based.
27
Al-Asnawī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, 1:137, no. 263.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
7
Kitāb ʿalā al-Tawrāt
The late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period, which coincided with al-Bājī’s lifetime, was rife
with polemics. The Crusader conquest of large parts of Greater Syria, with forays into
Egypt, had not only constituted a military threat, but a theological challenge as well, leading
many Muslim scholars to compose tracts defending their own faith and arguing against the
scriptures and beliefs of the Christians, and to a lesser extent the Jews.
28
Among these
works we may mention al-Ajwiba al-fākhira ʿan al-asʾila al-fājira by Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qarāfī (d.
684/1285),
29
Taʿlīq ʿalā al-Anājīl al-arbaʿa wa-l-taʿlīq ʿalā al-Tawrāt wa-ʿalā ghayrihā min kutub
al-anbiyāʾ by al-Bājī’s peer Najm al-Dīn al-Ṭūfī (d. 716/1316),
30
and Shams al-Dīn al-
Dimashqī's (d. 727/1327) reply to a Christian polemicist.
31
Ibn Taymiyya, too, contributed
an elaborate anti-Christian tract: al-Jawāb al-ṣaḥīḥ li-man baddala dīn al-Masīḥ
32
as well as a
shorter epistle.
33
His faithful student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350) would add
another relevant work to this literature: Hidāyat al-ḥayārā fī ajwibat al-Yahūd wa-l-Naṣārā.
34
Besides religious polemics, tracts criticizing the social position of the Christians, especially
those employed in the administration, were also produced. A prime example is Abū ʿAmr
ʿUthmān al-Nābulusī’s (d. 660/1262) Tajrīd sayf al-himma li'stikhrāj mā fī dhimmat al-dhimma.
35
Such works mainly inveighed against members of the Coptic minority in Egypt, who in the
eyes of many Muslims, scholars and laymen alike, were able to exert a degree of influence
not commensurate with the size of their community. Moreover, the Copts seemed to be
28
For an excellent survey of the religious and political context, see Diego R. Sarrió Cucarella, Muslim-
Christian Polemics across the Mediterranean. The Splendid Replies of Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qarāfī (d. 684/1285), col.
«The History of Christian-Muslim Relations» 23 (Leiden, Boston: Brill: 2015), pp. 28-35.
29
Translated and analyzed in Sarrió Cucarella, Muslim-Christian Polemics across the Mediterranean.
30
This work was edited, translated and analyzed in Lejla Demiri, Muslim Exegesis of the Bible in Medieval Cairo.
Najm al-Dīn al-Ṭūfī's (d. 716/1316) Commentary on the Christian Scriptures. A Critical Edition and Annotated
Translation with an Introduction, col. «The History of Christian-Muslim Relations» 19 (Leiden-Boston: Brill,
2013).
31
Edited, translated and analyzed in Rifaat Y. Ebied and David Thomas, The Letter from the People of Cyprus
and Ibn Abī Ṭālib al-Dimashqī's Response, col. «The History of Christian-Muslim Relations» 2 (Leiden-
Boston: Brill: 2005).
32
Ibn Taymiyya, A Muslim Theologian's Response to Christianity. Ibn Taymiyya's al-Jawab al-Sahih, edited and
translated by Thomas F. Michel S.J. (Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1984). Diego Sarrió Cucarella calls it
“one of the landmarks in the history of Muslim-Christian polemics”. See his “Corresponding across
religious borders. The letter of Ibn Taymiyya to a Crusader in Cyprus”, Islamochristiana 36 (2010), pp. 187-
212 at p. 188.
33
Al-Risāla al-Qubruṣiyya. See on this text Sarrió Cucarella, “Corresponding across religious borders”.
34
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya is also the author of Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, which deals with the rights and duties
of Jews and Christians in Muslim society. See on this work Antonia Bosanquet, Minding their Place. Space
and Religious Hierarchy in Ibn al-Qayyim’s Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, col. «The History of Christian-Muslim
Relations» 42 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2020). See on the author and his two relevant works Jon Hoover,
“Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya”, in David Thomas and Alex Mallett, with Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala et al.
(eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, Volume 4 (1200-1350) vol. 4, col. «History of
Christian-Muslim Relations» 17 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2012), pp. 989-1002.
35
ʿUthmān b. Ibrāhīm al-Nābulusī, Tajrīd sayf al-himma li'stikhrāj mā fī dhimmat al-dhimma. The Sword of
Ambition. Bureaucratic Rivalry in Medieval Egypt. Edited and translated by Luke Yarbrough, Foreword by
Sherman ʿAbd al-Ḥakīm Jackson (New York: NYU Press, 2016).
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
8
experiencing a literary renaissance which strengthened their identity vis-à-vis the Muslims.
Al-Bājī’s work, then, was not written in a vacuum, though we do not know what exactly
induced him to write it. It is unique in that it singles out the Pentateuch for critical analysis,
whereas his predecessors and contemporaries were mainly concerned with the New
Testament, or at times with the Bible in its widest sense. Another feature that distinguishes
the work is that it is not cast in the form of a reply to a query or request for enlightenment,
real or fictitious, nor does it appear to have been written in reaction to an earlier polemic,
either by a Jew or by a Christian. If al-Bājī was concerned about the role played by dhimmīs
in the social and political life in Syria and Egypt, there is no clear indication of it in his
work. Interesting is also that he does not include references to the Qurʾān in order to
strengthen his argument.
Al-Bājī’s tract narrowly escaped the fate of his other writings which, as was seen above,
disappeared as if they never were. It has been preserved in one manuscript only, and does
not appear to have been quoted by later authors.
36
The unique manuscript, Fazıl Ahmed
Paşa 794 M, is kept at the Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul. The title of the tract, Kitāb ʿalā
al-Tawrāt, was taken by one of the editors (referred to below) to mean that it is a polemic
against Judaism, although Christianity is targeted no less than Judaism, and in fact even
more so. The author seems to want to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, seeing
that the Torah or Pentateuch is an integral part of the Christian canon.
In the Istanbul manuscript the tract is bound together with a lengthy polemical work
against Christianity by Abū l-ʿAbbās al-Qurṭubī (d. 656/1258),
37
and takes up pages 215 to
262. The two works are in same the hand, namely of an Egyptian Shāfiʿī, ʿAlī b.
Muḥammad al-Fayyūmī, who completed his transcription of al-Qurṭubī's Iʿlām on 27 Rabīʿ
I, 879/11 August 1472 and of al-Bājī’s' work on 21 Jumādā I of that year, i.e. 21 September
1472. There are three editions: ʿAlā al-Tawrāt: Kitāb fī naqd al-Tawrāt al-yūnāniyya, ed. Aḥmad
Ḥijāzī al-Saqqā, [Cairo]: Dār al-anṣār, 1980; repr. Paris: Dar Biblion, 2006; Kitāb ʿalā al-
Tawrāt aw al-Radd ʿalā al-Yahūd, ed. al-Sayyid Yūsuf Aḥmad, Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyya,
1428/2007; an edition, Spanish translation and analysis are included in Hussein O.
Zurghani, ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn al-Bāŷī y su crítica a la Torah, PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense
Madrid, 2 vols., 2007. Unfortunately, each of these editions has its problems, which can
partly be explained from the fact that none of the editors has had access to the manuscript
and had to make do with a microfilm or a reproduction of the microfilm. In what follows,
we shall therefore include references to the Istanbul manuscript, which has by now been
digitized.
38
36
See on the tract Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, “al-Bājī”, in David Thomas and Alex Mallett, with Juan Pedro
Monferrer-Sala et al. (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, Volume 4 (1200-1350) vol. 4,
col. «History of Christian-Muslim Relations» 17 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2012), pp. 767-768.
37
Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. ʿUmar al-Anṣārī al-Qurṭubī, al-Iʿlam bi-mā fī dīn al-Naṣārā min al-fasād wa-l-awhām
wa-iẓhār maḥāsin dīn al-Islām wa-ithbāt nubuwwat nabīyinā Muḥammad, ed. Samīr Qaddūrī (Tunis-Beirut: Dār al-
Mālikiyya, 1441/2020).
38
At the time of writing, the digital images could only be viewed and purchased on the spot at the
Süleymaniye Library.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
9
Aim and structure of the work
Al-Bājī's tract aims to expose inconsistencies and illogicalities in biblical narratives. It opens
with the following statement: “I studied the Torah of Moses (peace be upon him) rendered
in Arabic which the Melkite Christians possess, as they claim, and it consists of five books.
Questions occurred to me about its wording, which I present in the order of their
appearance.” The author then starts right away with a quotation and discussion of Genesis
1:1–5, without any further introduction. The lion’s share of the work is taken up by a
critique of Genesis (Sifr Kawn al-dunyā), which is followed by what al-Bājī sees as confusing
passages from Exodus (Sifr al-Khurūj), Leviticus (Sifr al-Lāwiyyīn), Numbers (Sifr al-ʿAdad)
and Deuteronomy (Sifr al-Istithnāʾ). The fact that he specifically mentions a Christian
recension of the Pentateuch already indicates that it is this religion whose scripture he seeks
to undermine, not only by pointing to internal inconsistencies, but also to discrepancies
between different translations. Muslim polemicists against Jews and Christians had a large
arsenal of arguments against the Bible at their disposal, accumulated over several centuries,
and these tended to be repeated with little variation. One of them was that unlike the
earlier scriptures, the Qurʾān was the inimitable and untranslatable word of God, and that
copies of it did not show any variation. The most elaborate polemic against both the
Hebrew Bible and the New Testament was written by the Andalusī Abū Muḥammad Ibn
Ḥazm (d. 456/1064), who pointed to inconsistencies, geographical, historical and
mathematical inaccuracies, attributions of immoral behaviour to the biblical prophets, and
passages that were theologically unacceptable, all of which in his view clearly demonstrate
that the extant Torah is not the one that had been revealed to Moses. Although he does
not explicitly say so, al-Bājī’s main aim, too, was obviously to prove that the original Torah
had undergone changes. But if al-Bājī read and felt inspired by Ibn Ḥazm’s work, which is
quite likely,
39
he did not adopt his abrasive polemical style: on the whole, his critique of the
Pentateuch is dispassionate, though one can imagine him shaking his head at some of the
descriptions he encountered in the biblical books. Moreover, many of his arguments are
quite original and have no parallel in works like Ibn Ḥazm's, even though al-Bājī, too,
cannot resist the temptation to adduce a well-known verse believed to refer to the Prophet
Muḥammad: Deuteronomy 18:18. It should be stressed that he has made no attempt to
cover the entire Pentateuch. It is not clear where al-Bājī obtained or consulted his Vorlagen,
nor do we know how familiar he was with Jewish and Christian tenets.
Al-Bājī’s method throughout his Kitāb ʿalā al-Tawrāt is as follows. He dedicates a longer
or shorter section to each of the books making up the Pentateuch, whose Arabic titles were
given above. He begins by quoting a verse or passage (mostly following the order in which
the verses appear in the biblical book) and then proceeds to criticize it, often identifying
several illogical or otherwise problematic aspects. Rather than indicating the number of the
biblical verse, he refers to its occurrence in a “reading unit” (qirāʾa). The following passage
from Genesis with the author's comments may illustrate the manner in which he proceeds.
39
It is assumed by Ljamai; see his Ibn Ḥazm et la polémique, pp. 191-196.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
10
Question about the eleventh reading, from six perspectives
[…] The fourth:
How can it be rightly said: “The Lord God said: ‘My spirit will not dwell among
these people forever, because they are flesh’” (Genesis 6:3). His expression “among
these people” makes one imagine that the spirit of the Lord, praised be He, does dwell
among other people, but this is not so.
Also, the phrase “because they are flesh” comes to explain why the spirit of the Lord
will not dwell among those people, namely, because they are flesh. But the remaining
people, too, are flesh, so why are some singled out?
If this explanation were correct, it would constitute an argument against the Jews and
the Christians, invalidating [their claim that] His spirit resides in the body of Jesus -
for he is flesh. Now, one of two things: either this explanation is invalid, or their
belief in the incarnation of the spirit of God, praised be He, in the body of Jesus,
peace be upon him, is false.
In another copy [of the Torah] it says: “My spirit will not dwell in humankind forever,
because they are flesh”. This renders the question even more acute.
40
After introducing the author and his Kitāb ʿalā al-Tawrāt, we now turn to a philological
analysis of selected biblical passages that were singled out by al-Bājī for criticism, with the
aim of identifying the different recensions of the Pentateuch used by him. Before that,
however, we will pay some attention to previous research on the reception of the
Pentateuch among Christian Arabic-speakers as a means of locating al-Bājī’s sources
within it.
The Christian sources used by al-Bājī
In his discussion and Spanish translation of al-Bājī’s Kitāb ʿalā al-Tawrāt, Hussein Zurghani
notes that the author tells us nothing about the sources he is using other than that he
quoted the version of the Torah in Arabic that circulated among the Melkites.
41
Zurghani
also notes that al-Bājī often refers to “another copy” and sets out to identify the Arabic text
witnesses that the Muslim author could have had access to. Based on the classifications by
Georg Graf in 1944
42
and Joseph Rhode in 1921,
43
he studied samples of each Arabic
version known at the time and concluded that al-Bājī used the Coptic-based Arabic version
40
Ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M, p. 226. For another example, see Camilla Adang, “Al-Bājī, Book against the
Torah”, in David Thomas (ed.), The Bloomsbury Reader in Christian-Muslim Relations, 600-1500 (London:
Bloomsbury Academic, 2022), pp. 123-125.
41
Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 1, p. 23.
42
Georg Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 1 (Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Città del
Vaticano, 1944), pp. 101-108.
43
Joseph Francis Rhode, The Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch in the Church of Egypt: A Study from Eighteen Arabic
and Copto-Arabic Mss. (IX-XVII Century) in the National Library at Paris, the Vatican and Bodleian Libraries and
the British Museum (Dissertation, Catholic University of America; Leipzig: Drugulin, 1921).
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
11
attested to by ms Paris, BnF Ar. 9 (henceforth BnF Ar. 9) dated 1284 CE, whereas he was
not able to detect the “other copy” used by him.
44
Ronny Vollandt did not specifically deal with BnF Ar. 9 in his classification of Arabic
Pentateuch translations, but he notes in passing that it contains the detached version of
Marcus ibn al-Qunbar’s (ca. 1130/40–1208 CE) commentary-translation.
45
In 1942 Graf
listed a range of manuscripts of anonymous commentaries on Genesis–Leviticus
containing the same version of the text as the one found in BnF Ar. 9. He suggested that
they were produced by Ibn al-Qunbar.
46
The commentary is sometimes interspersed with
the biblical text, as in Vat. Sir. 216, or placed after a reading unit, as in Vat. Ar. 606.
47
We
do not know what version al-Bājī had access to, but we assume that he used a biblical
translation detached from the commentary rather than a copy which included the
commentary.
In his short study on the manuscript, Joseph Rhode notes that Genesis in BnF Ar. 9
reflects readings in the Septuagint but that the other books, “especially Deuteronomy”,
exhibit deviations from it, and calls for a comparison with the Syro-hexapla.
48
Similar
observations on a witness to the commentary version had already been made in 1823 by
Johann Anton Theiner, who states that Genesis, and to a certain extent also Exodus,
exhibit affiliation with the Septuagint, whereas the other books seem to be related to the
Peshīṭtā.
49
Graf corroborates and develops the findings by Theiner and Rhode on this
version and based on the renditions of proper names, he suggests that the basis was the
Peshīṭtā, which was later partly revised according to the Septuagint.
50
Graf also suggests
that Ibn al-Qunbar was not the translator of these Arabic Bible texts but that he took what
was available to him in the Rūm Orthodox church at the time and revised these materials.
51
Adding Zurghani’s observations to those of Rhode, Theiner, and Graf, the present study
confirms our previous observations that al-Bājī thus used the Arabic text revised by Ibn al-
44
Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 1, pp. 47–61, esp. pp. 60-61. Ms BnF Ar. 9 is accessible online
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11004704q/f66.item. Accessed 9 January 2024.
45
Ronny Vollandt, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch: A Comparative Study of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Sources,
col. « Biblia Arabica» 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 69n79.
46
Georg Graf, “Ein arabischer Pentateuchkommentar des 12. Jahrhunderts”, Biblica 23 (1942), pp. 113–138.
Ibn al-Qunbar’s commentaries are often attributed to Ephrem the Syrian. For later works on Ibn al-
Qunbar’s commentary, see Samir K. Samir, “Vie et oeuvre de Marc ibn al-Qunbar”, in Christianisme
d’Égypte. Mélanges René-Georges Coquin, col. « Cahiers de la Bibliothèque Copte » 9 (Paris, 1995), pp. 123–
158; and Mark N. Swanson, “Marqus ibn al-Qunbar”, in David Thomas and Alex Mallett, with Juan
Pedro Monferrer-Sala et al. (ed.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, vol. 4, col. «History of
Christian-Muslim Relations» 17 (Leiden: Brill: 2012), pp. 98-108, esp. 98-101; 103-108.
47
For more on the various structures of the commentary, see Samir, “Vie et oeuvre de Marc ibn al-
Qunbar”.
48
Rhode, Arabic versions of the Pentateuch, pp. 70-74. Rhode suggests a close relationship between BnF Ar. 9
and BnF Ar. 16 yet according to Zurghani, only the four last books are the same in these two manuscripts
“ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 1, pp. 52-53.
49
Johann Anton Theiner, Descriptio codicis manuscripti, qui versionem Pentateuchi arabicam continent, asservati in
Bibliotheca Universitatis Vratislaviensis, ac nondum editi, cum speciminibus verisonis arabicae, etc. (Breslau, 1823).
50
Graf, “Ein arabischer Pentateuchkommentar”, pp. 118-119.
51
Graf, “Ein arabischer Pentateuchkommentar”, pp. 128-129.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
12
Qunbar.
52
In addition to the actual renderings of the text, this explains the structure of the
division of the Pentateuch into various “readings” (qirāʾāt) in al-Bājī’s text and corroborates
the fact stated by the Muslim author that this is the version used by the Melkites: Ibn al-
Qunbar is known to have left his Coptic denomination for the Rūm Orthodox church.
53
Below, we also confirm Graf’s suggestion that this version is based on earlier Arabic
translations that circulated among Christians at the time and we aim to identify these
translations by using the categorization established in Vollandt’s study. Although Ibn al-
Qunbar’s full commentary is only extant for Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, these
manuscripts sometimes include renditions of the biblical text in Numbers and
Deuteronomy as well (here we use Vat. Sir. 216 for Genesis and Exodus and Vat. Ar. 606
for Leviticus–Deuteronomy).
54
Finally, as noted above, we aim at understanding al-Bājī’s criticism in light of the biblical
material he had at his disposal. Since this is a large undertaking, we restrict this study to a
few examples. Thus, we will select a few sample texts and look more closely at the sources
used in BnF Ar. 9/al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar, how they relate to various Vorlagen, their
translation techniques and, where possible, how the textual situation relates to his overall
argument of scriptural distortion. We shall also keep an eye on “the other copy” that al-Bājī
had access to and referred to as a means to undermine the credibility of the scriptural
tradition among Christians.
Example 1
In the questions prompted by the twenty-first reading from Genesis, al-Bājī discusses the
chronology from the Flood to Abraham in Genesis 11 (here and below, al-Bājī’s text is
reproduced according to ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M, p. 226, including its inconsistent
orthography).
55
او دا ةاا لااذ نا ا وا را تو ه
نا ا ه و خر ا و ماا دوا ا نا دا را
ةاا
56
نو ىا ا هذ و
57
ها ناو ث
58
نو
52
See Sabine Schmidtke, “Notes on an Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch in the Library of the Twelver
Shīʿī Scholar Raḍī al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Mūsā Ibn Ṭāwūs (d. 664/1266)”, Shii Studies Review 1 (2017), pp. 72-129,
p. 74 n.7.
53
Swanson, “Marqus ibn al-Qunbar”.
54
Swanson, “Marqus ibn al-Qunbar”, p. 105; and Graf, “Ein arabischer Pentateuchkommentar”. Vat. Sir.
216 is available online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.216; as is Vat. Ar. 606 in two parts:
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ar.606.pt.1 and https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ar.606.pt.2.
55
For published editions of the work, see Aḥmad (ed.), Kitāb, p. 80; al-Saqqā (ed.), ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 61;
Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 2, p. 44. Al-Saqqā’s edition in particular includes substantial editorial
alterations, see below. In the ms, there is a note in the margin referring to the chronology in Genesis 5,
including the total amount of year elapsing between Adam to Shem. It is transcribed in Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ
ad-Dīn”, vol. 2, p. 44 n.82 and Ahmad (ed.), Kitāb, pp. 80-81.
56
al-Saqqā (ed.), ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 61 adds the word ناو, thus altering the age to 1072 years. The alteration
is probably made by the editor to improve the count.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
13
59
ا ا او ن نا او اا هارا
ا داد ا اا ةارا ا
60
ةاو ر حر ما
اار خور هدو و ح م راو را ن
را هدو ا م ثو
61
Question on the 21
st
reading, from three perspectives. Firstly, the result of what it
says there concerning the deaths of the people mentioned from Arpachshad, who
was born two years after the Flood, to the birth of Abram, that is, Abraham the son
of Terah – and these are ten people – is a period of 1,070 years. [However] the result
of what is mentioned in another copy is a period of 395 years and this is an absurd
contradiction between the two copies, which deprives both of them of credibility in
their translation of the Hebrew Torah, except if the contradiction also occurred in
the copies of the Hebrew Torah itself, in which case the contradiction would be
compounded and be even more absurd.
62
The ten [men] are: Abram son of Terah,
son of Nahor, son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah,
son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, Arphaxad being the son of Shem, the son of Noah.
Al-Bājī has identified one of the most problematic text-critical cruxes in the textual history
of the Hebrew Bible.
63
In the Septuagint, ten people are included from Arpachshad to
Abraham, including a certain Cainan, whereas the Masoretic text, as well as the Samaritan
Pentateuch and later the Peshīṭtā, includes only nine. Cainan was perhaps added in later
witnesses to the Septuagint as a means to match the account of the genealogy provided in
Luke 3:36.
64
Cainan lived no less than 460 years, which, together with other additions and
alterations in the two texts, results in a difference of more than a thousand years between
57
al-Saqqā (ed.), ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 61 adds the passage اا ةارا و “and this is the Hebrew Torah” as a
means of explaining the text. However, as argued below, this was in fact not the Hebrew text but the
Peshīṭtā.
58
al-Saqqā (ed.), ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 61 reads ناو, again likely the editor's attempt to make sense of the
numbers.
59
Ahmad (ed.), Kitāb, p. 80 excludes text between …و.
60
In al-Saqqā (ed.), ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 61, the following is excluded … .
61
In al-Saqqā (ed.), ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 61, the numbers of years are included by the editor.
62
A similar comment is made by the author with regard to Genesis 6:1-2; see Ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M,
p. 226; Aḥmad (ed.), Kitāb, p. 49.
63
The genealogies in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 serve to connect the time lapsing from Adam to Noah and
from Noah to Abraham. Although the names of the biblical characters listed remain more or less the
same, their lifespans were revised and the three main versions vary significantly (i.e., the Masoretic text,
the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint, with some internal deviation as well). In chapter 5, it is
mainly the division of years before the birth of the first son and the years elapsing after it that differ
between the versions and the total amount of years for each character is the same (except for the case of
Lamech where all three versions differ with up to a century, and Jared and Methuselah where the
Samaritan Pentateuch differs from the other two). In contrast, chapter 11 exhibits a great variation.
64
Andrew E. Steinmann, “A Comparison of the Text of Genesis in Three Traditions: Masoretic text,
Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 64.1 (2021), pp. 25-43, here p.
41 n.33.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
14
the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. The Samaritan Pentateuch differs from both of
them.
65
The discrepancies between the three versions were carefully recorded already by
Eusebius in the fourth century and sporadically discussed by scholars in the East
throughout late antique and mediaeval times.
66
Muslim scholars like al-Bīrūnī (d. in or after 442/1050) and the above-mentioned Ibn
Ḥazm also addressed this issue, and it was apparently through a Muslim source that al-Bājī
became aware of the discussion.
67
In the biblical texts, the lifespan of each biblical figure is
provided according to two sets: first according to how old the character was when his first
son was born, and then how long he lived after his first son’s birth. Al-Bājī only takes into
consideration the first numbers as he reaches a result of 1070 years, which perfectly
matches the numbers provided in BnF Ar. 9 and the main manuscripts of the Septuagint if
the first years only – the age of a character when he begets his firstborn – from Arpachshad
to Terah are added together.
68
In witnesses to what is labelled Arab
Copt
in Vollandt’s
classification, the first number in Nahor’s life is listed as 75 instead of 79 years, thus BnF
Ar. 9 and al-Bājī seem to preserve an older reading.
69
In Ibn al-Qunbar’s text, as
represented in Vat. Sir. 216, something interesting occurs.
70
The text follows the
Septuagint’s count until Cainan but then starts following the Peshīṭtā. This deviation does
not occur in al-Bājī’s text nor in BnF Ar. 9 and as Genesis continues, they follow Ibn al-
Qunbar’s text again. Thus, this deviation may have occurred only in Vat. Sir. 216. It is not
uncommon for Christian scribes to note down what they found in other copies in this
particular passage. The scribe of BnF Ar. 12, for example, noted in the margin that Cainan
is not mentioned in the Hebrew version.
71
As for the other copy used by al-Bājī, it reportedly contained a span of 395 years. This is
exactly the result we get if we add up the first numbers provided in the Peshīṭtā and include
the one connected to Shem to reach a total number of ten men. The Peshīṭtā matches the
Masoretic text in full except in the case of Terah, who in the main recension of the Peshīṭtā
65
Steinmann, “Comparison”.
66
Yonatan Moss, “Versions and Perversions of Genesis: Jacob of Edessa, Saadia Gaon, and the
Falsification of Biblical History”, in Aaron M. Butts and Simcha Gross (ed.), Jews and Syriac Christians:
Intersections across the First Millennium (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), pp. 207-229; and Alexander Treiger,
“From Theodore Abū Qurra to Abed Azrié: The Arabic Bible in Context”, in Miriam L. Hjälm (ed.),
Senses of Scripture, Treasures of Tradition: The Bible in Arabic among Jews, Christians and Muslims, col. «Biblia
Arabica» 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), pp. 11-57.
67
See Adang, Muslim Writers, pp. 236 and 248.
68
John William Wevers, Genesis «Septuagint Vetus Testamentum Graecum» I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1974), pp. 114-147; BnF Ar. 9, fol. 16r-v. In COP Bible 20, fol. 12v-13r, a copy of Arab
Hebr
1a
(cf. Vollandt, Arabic Versions, p. 226), the same numbers are provided and thus deviate from the Hebrew
text.
69
Witnesses of this translation include Vat. Copt. 1, fol. 12v-13r and BnF Ar. 12, fol. 14r-v. These
two manuscripts are available online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.copt.1 and
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84192173/f2.item. Some numbers were not fully legible as the
margins of fol. 12 are partly damaged. In contrast to the first years, the second years provided for each
biblical character differ rather substantially from other witnesses to the Septuagint in the Coptic-Arabic
version.
70
Vat. Sir. 216, fol. 51v.
71
The same occurred in the chronology of Genesis 5, see Rhode, Arabic Versions, p. 72.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
15
begets Abram at the age of 75 and not 70, as in the Masoretic text.
72
It is likely, then, that
al-Bājī had in front of him an Arabic copy of what Vollandt labels Arab
Syr
2.
73
We have had
access to Sinai Ar. 4 in this recension, which matches the Peshīṭtā in this regard.
74
Alternatively, al-Bājī had another copy of Ibn al-Qunbar’s text in which a similar change of
Vorlage to what we saw in Vat. Sir 216 had taken place.
Al-Bājī’s last hypothetical statement that “if the contradiction also occurred in the
copies of the Hebrew Torah itself, in which case the contradiction would be compounded
and be even more absurd”, seems to indicate that he did not have access to a Hebrew copy
otherwise he would probably have noticed that in the Hebrew Bible, the span is only 290
years (in the Samaritan Pentateuch it is 940).
75
Hebrew
Sam
aritan
Greek
BnF12/
Vat.Cop1
BnF Ar.9
Vat
.
Sir
.
216.
Pesh
.
S
hem
(100+500)
(100+500)
(100+500)
(100+500)
(100+500)
(100+500)
(100+500)
Arpachshad
35+403
135+303
135+430
135+330
135+330
135+430
35+403/430*
Cainan
130+330
130+430
130+3
3
0
130+330
Shela
h
30+403
130+303
130+330
130+300
130+3
3
0
30+430
30+403
Eber
34+430
134+270
134+370
134+270
134+3
3
0
34+430
34+430
Peleg
30+209
130+109
130+209
130+270
130+209
30+209
30+209
Reu
32+207
132+107
132+207
132+207
132+207
32+207
32+207
Serug
30+200
130+100
13
0+200
130+200
130+200
30+200
30+200
Nahor
29+119
79+69
79+129
75+120
79+119
29+119
29+119
Terah
70
70
70
70
70
75
75
290+
940+
1070+
1066+
1070+
525
+
295+
72
Here the Leiden critical edition as uploaded in https://cal.huc.edu is used for the Peshīṭtā and for the
Hebrew text Rudolf Kittel et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft
Stuttgart, 3
rd
ed., 1987 [1967/77], p. 16.
73
Vollandt, Arabic Versions, p. 245.
74
Sinai Ar. 4, fol. 10v-11r. Fol. 10v appears to have been written by another hand. As Treiger has already
shown, the other early Peshīṭtā-based Arabic version (Arab
Syr
1), Sinai Ar. 2, fol. 16r-v, exhibits
considerable deviation, with several numbers omitted or altered, see Treiger, “From Theodore Abū
Qurra”, pp. 26-27. It should be mentioned in this regard that yet another Arabic version of the
Pentateuch, that by al-Ḥārith b. Sinān based on the Syro-hexapla, provides an even higher number, 1170
or 1270 depending on the mss we had access to (cf. Sinai Ar. 3, fol. 37r–38r and ms Oxford, Bodleian,
Laud. Or. 258, fol. 43v-44r). Apparently, al-Bājī did not have access to these recensions here. Even within
the same version, there is some notable variation in the lifespans of the various characters.
75
Steinmann, “Comparison”, p. 41.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
16
Finally, al-Bājī sums up the findings in Genesis 5 and 11 and notes that from Shem to
Abram, 1,073[!]
76
years have elapsed and from Adam to Shem 2,156 years, that is 3,229
years in total. The other copy has a total of only 1,564, he claims. The numbers do not fully
match the above, and it appears that just like numbers vary in many Christian Arabic Bible
translations, so they did in al-Bājī’s text and for the same reason: numbers require no
grammaticality that instantly prompt the observant reader to spot a mistake and if there is
no external paradigm that makes sense of them, they easily get corrupted. This is probably
partly why they differ in the biblical Vorlagen as well. In any event, al-Saqqā, the editor of
one of the editions of al-Bājī’s text, altered the numbers found in the manuscript and adds
in the footnote a chart with the Hebrew, Greek, and Samaritan calculation of these
numbers.
77
However, the copy consulted by al-Bājī was neither related to the Hebrew
version nor to the Samaritan text, but rather to the Peshīṭtā, as mentioned above, and to
the complex transmission of various biblical texts among Eastern Christians at this time.
Example 2
Our next sample is taken from the story of Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39. There is a slight
variation between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text in their respective renditions of
this passage. Al-Bājī includes Genesis 39:11–15 in his refutation of the fiftieth reading.
78
Thus, we will now compare 1) his rendering, 2) the Arabic Bible he had access to, i.e., BnF
Ar. 9,
79
and 3) a representative of Ibn al-Qunbar’s commentary,
80
with Arab
Copt
, to show
that in Genesis these texts are related. For the sake of comparison, we will also bring into
the conversation the most widespread Peshīṭtā-based Arabic version, Arab
Syr
2 (= ms Sinai
Arabic 4, henceforth SA 4), an earlier Peshīṭtā-based version, Arab
Syr
1 (=ms Sinai Arabic 2,
henceforth SA 2), as well as Arab
Syr_Hex
1a (= ms Sinai Arabic 10, henceforth SA 10) and
Arab
Syr_Hex
1b (= ms Sinai Arabic 3, henceforth SA 3).
81
Most important for the plot is whether Potiphar’s wife took Joseph’s garment, i.e., a piece
of clothing in singular as in the Masoretic text (ודגב), or his clothes in plural, as in the
Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint (וידגב/ τῶν ἱματίων αὐτοῦ). In the latter scenario,
Joseph fled naked from his master’s wife whereas in the former case, he simply left one
piece of clothing behind.
82
Not only does Arab
Copt
, including al-Bājī’s version of it,
83
reflect
76
In the ms, this passage is written in the margin and may originally be from another ms. This would
explain why in the main text, the number was 1070 and in the marginal text 1073.
77
al-Saqqā, (ed.) ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, pp. 61-62.
78
Ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M, pp. 247-248. For the other editions, see Aḥmad (ed.), Kitāb, p. 115; al-Saqqā
(ed.), ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 85; Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 2, p. 67.
79
BnF Ar. 9, fol. 63r.
80
Vat. Sir. 216, fol. 106r.
81
Arab
Syr_Hex
1b/SA 3 according to Monferrer-Sala’s edition, see his Hexateuch from the Syro-Hexapla, col.
«Biblical and Apocryphal Christian Arabic Texts» (Gorgias Press, 2019), p. 73. The other manuscripts are
available on the Sinai Manuscript Digital Library https://sinaimanuscripts.library.ucla.edu. Login
requested.
82
Steinmann, “Comparative”, p. 29.
83
Including BnF Ar. 9, fol. 63r. In this passage, there are some minor discrepancies between BnF Ar. 9/al-
Bājī’s text and Arab
Copt
.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
17
the plural form “clothes” () as in the Septuagint but it also expands on this feature by
adding an explanatory clause “[And she caught hold of him by his clothes] and stripped him of
these”. This addition, which is not found in the Vorlagen, indicates again that in Genesis, al-
Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar share common ground with Arab
Copt
. Yet, as it occasionally deviates
rather substantially from it, it is best seen as a subcategory of it, or as reflecting a stage in
which Arab
Copt
had yet to be revised.
As for Arab
Syr_Hex
1a–b, they reflect the Septuagintal plural (), but, as expected, not the
addition “and stripped him of these”. Arab
Syr
2 seems influenced by the tradition of Joseph
leaving behind all his clothes as well but opts for other word choices (اد/) and does
not include the additional passage. Arab
Syr
1 clearly reflects the Masoretic-Peshīṭtā tradition
in using the singular (). Both Syriac-based versions include the addition “to the market”
found in the Peshīṭtā. Compare al-Bājī (Ibn al-Qunbar’s text, BnF Ar. 9 and Vat. Sir. 216,
in footnotes) with the Arabic recensions mentioned above:
LXX 12 And she caught hold of him by his clothes [τῶν ἱματίων; MT וֹד ְג ִב ְבּ P ], and
said, Lie with me; and having left his clothes, in her hands, he fled, and went forth [P:
܂]
84
جو بو
85
86
ا و
را
al
-
Bājī/Ibn
al-Qunbar
ك
.
جو
ر ً
ا و
را
Arab
Copt87
ك
ً جو
88
را و
89
90
Arab
Syr_Hex
1
ك
ج بو ا
قا
اد
و
Arab
Syr
2
91
ك
و
ر
ا
قا
تاو
ا و
Arab
Syr
1
92
Based on the examples surveyed in this paper, the addition of an entire clause (“and
stripped him of these”) that we see here is rather untypical of this translation. In general,
Arab
Copt
stays close to the source text, yet it deviates from its form for the sake of fluency
in the target text and here, seemingly for emphasis. The discrepancy in the Vorlagen in verse
1 “and there was no one of the household within [MT/Pesh in the house]”, is reflected in
84
Wevers, Genesis, p. 372; English translation by Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old
Testament (Samuel Bagster & Sons, London, 1879 [1844]), p. 53; the Leiden critical edition as uploaded in
https://cal.huc.edu; Kittel et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica, p. 64.
85
Vat. Sir. 216, fol. 106r ج.
86
Vat. Sir. 216 fol. 106r (in Karshuni)
87
Arab
Copt
= Vat. Copt. 1. fol. 49v–50r; BnF Ar. 12, fol. 53v.
88
Arab
Syr_Hex
1b=Monferrer-Sala, Hexateuch, p. 73; Arab
Syr_Hex
1a=SA 10 fol. 44r.
89
SA 10, fol. 44r ل.
90
SA 10, fol. 44r, see above.
91
SA 4, fol. 47v-48r.
92
SA 2, fol. 62r.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
18
the various Arabic translations as expected, yet they all, regardless of the Vorlage, alter the
text somewhat so as to make it run more smoothly in Arabic. Thus, in Arab
Copt
, including
al-Bājī’s text, the above passage is rendered “and there was no one inside the house”,
93
and
the Syriac-based translations both rendered it “and there was no one from the household
there”.
94
We make an interesting observation in verse 14, where a switch from direct speech (the
Septuagint: “he came in to me, saying, ‘Lie with me’”) to indirect speech (the Masoretic
text/the Peshīṭtā: “he came in unto me to lie with me”) has occurred. It is worthwhile to
note that al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar’s texts reflects the direct speech found in the Septuagint
“and said: lie with me” whereas Arab
Copt
has turned it into indirect speech, just as the other
biblical Vorlagen and probably for the same reason: to make the sentence run more
smoothly. It thus appears that in this instance, al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar reflects an older,
more original reading, closer to the Septuagint, which was later changed for the sake of
fluency in the target language or in conversation with other Vorlagen. The choice of
rendering “a Hebrew boy” in indefinite form as in al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar rather than as
“this Hebrew boy” as in Arab
Copt
also supports the notion that al-Bājī’s text reflects an older
stage in the transmission of this version. In contrast, however, we read in al-Bājī/Ibn al-
Qunbar’s text that the boy laughs “at me [the queen]” and not “at us” as in the other
source texts and Arabic translations.
LXX 14 that she called those that were in the house, and spoke to them, saying [P–], See,
he has brought in to us a Hebrew servant to mock us – he came in to me, saying, Lie
[λέγων κοιμήθητι; MT ב ַכּ ְשׁ ִל and P “to lie”] with me, and I cried with a loud voice.
95
ا د
96
و ا
97
دا ا
98
ا
99
ا
100
al
-
Bājī/Ibn al
-
Qunbar
اوا و ا ا تد
ا دا ا ما ا اا
ا د
ت
Arab
Copt101
93
ا اد ا و
94
SA 2, fol. 62r ا ا ا و; SA 4, fol. 47v ك ا ا ا و; SA 3, Monferrer-
Sala, Hexateuch, p. 73./SA 10, fol. 44r ا ا اد و.
95
Wevers, Genesis, p. 373; Brenton, Septuagint, p. 53; the Leiden critical edition as uploaded in
https://cal.huc.edu; Kittel et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica, p. 64.
96
Vat. Sir. 216, fol. 106r يا.
97
Vat. Sir. 216, fol. 106r اوا (in Karshuni).
98
Vat. Sir. 216, fol. 106r د (in Karshuni).
99
Vat. Sir. 216, fol. 106r ما ا (in Karshuni)..
100
Vat. Sir. 216, fol. 106r اا (in Karshuni).
101
Arab
Copt
= Vat. Copt. 1, fol. 49v-50r; BnF Ar. 12, fol. 53v.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
19
اوا و ا ا تد
ا دا ا ما ا اا
ا د
ت
Arab
Copt102
In any event, should this version of the Arabic Pentateuch be critically edited, it will be
important to take al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar’s rendition into consideration, as it seems to
reflect an early stage of his version.
The main inconsistency al-Bājī finds here is that first the text tells us that no one is in
the household, whereas later, Potiphar’s wife calls for “them” and “they” come, thus it is
not connected to its later transmission, but to the logic of the story.
To conclude: as far as we can tell, al-Bājī’s text for Genesis is the same as the one found in
BnF Ar. 9 and in Ibn al-Qunbar’s commentary. The small deviation we have seen between
witnesses to this text – al-Bājī’s text, BnF Ar. 9, and Vat. Sir. 216 – is likely the result of
inner-textual corruption or the intervention of engaged copyists.
103
Most importantly, based
on these two samples it can be established that al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar’s version of Genesis
is related to Arab
Copt
, either as a branch within this recension or as a text preceding it, in
which case Arab
Copt
would be a revision.
Example 3
In our text sample from Exodus, namely chapter 1:12, al-Bājī
104
/Ibn al-Qunbar’s
105
rendition continues to reflect the Septuagint reading as opposed to the one found in the
Masoretic text. Here, in the first reading in Exodus, the Greek text explicates that “the
Egyptians greatly abhorred the children of Israel”, whereas in the Masoretic text and the
Peshīṭtā the verb is in the passive and the word “Egyptians” is omitted (i.e., “and they were
adread because of the children of Israel”).
Al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar and Arab
Copt
follow the
Septuagint’s inclusion of the “Egyptians”, whereas Arab
Syr_Hex
1a–b omit it,
106
as do the
Peshīṭtā-based Arabic translations, as expected.
107
The rendition of Exodus 1:12–13 in the
two sets (al-Bājī/BnF Ar. 9/Ibn al-Qunbar and Arab
Copt
) are similar in word choice:
102
Arab
Copt
= Vat. Copt. 1, fol. 49v-50r; BnF Ar. 12, fol. 53v.
103
In our text samples, al-Bājī’s text does not reflect Arab
Heb
1b in Vat. Ar. 2, fol. 28v.
(https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ar.2) nor that in Arab
Syr_Hex
1a in COP Bible 20, fol. 47r (
https://archive.org/details/COP3-4/page/n5/mode/2up).
104
Ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M, p. 249. For the other editions, see al-Saqqā, ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 89; Ahmad,
Kitāb, p. 120, Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 2, p. 71.
105
BnF Ar. 9, fol. 86r; Vat. Sir 216, fol. 122r.
106
Arab
Syr_Hex
1a = SA 10, fol. 61r; Arab
Syr_Hex
1b = Monferrer-Sala, Hexateuch, p. 89.
107
SA 2, fol. 82r. SA 4, fol. 66r, is difficult to read here but does not seem to include the word “Egyptians”.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
20
12 But as they humbled them, by so much they multiplied, and grew exceedingly strong;
and the Egyptians [οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι; MT/P–] greatly abhorred the children of Israel.
108
نوداد ا ا و
109
ة]ه نودادو
110
[وناك
111
نا
112
ن
113
اا
al
-
Bājī/Ibn al
-
Qunbar
ذا او نوداد
ة
ه نودادو
نونا
ن
اا
Arab
Copt114
In other places, there are similarities between al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar’s text and Arab
Syr
2 and
it may be that Exodus was revised, as mentioned above in the section on previous research.
In any event, al-Bājī or his copy (or later copyist) omits a clause, seemingly a case of scribal
haplography (cf. ه نودادو ة نوداد). More importantly, the copy used by al-Bājī
contained another scribal error, which he used to undermine the integrity of the biblical
text. In verse 12, we read in al-Bājī’s text that the Egyptians “had pity” on Israel and in the
next verse that the Egyptians enslaved them, causing al-Bājī to state: “The reports that the
Egyptians had pity on the children of Israel and the reports that they unjustly enslaved
them are two mutually exclusive reports”.
115
The Arabic word “had pity” (ن) in al-
Bājī’s text is seemingly a corruption of ن, from the root shaqqa “to be heavy,
burdensome, grieve”. Indeed, Ibn al-Qunbar (i.e., BnF Ar. 9/Vat. Sir. 216) reads ن.
Based on the (admittedly few) samples extracted for this paper, we have thus detected one
of the surprisingly few discrepancies between Ibn al-Qunbar’s and al-Bājī’s texts.
Although al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar reflects the same text as Arab
Copt
here, there are notable
variations between the two versions in other places, requiring a more thorough study. In
any event, whether as the result of a partial revision or an original composition, both
Genesis and Exodus in al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar’s texts exhibit a relationship with the
Septuagint. This is not the case as we move on.
108
John William Wevers, Exodus (Septuagint Vetus Testamentum Graecum II,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 67-68; Brenton, Septuagint, p. 70; the Leiden critical edition as uploaded in
https://cal.huc.edu; Kittel et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica, p. 86.
109
Vat. Sir. 216, fol. 122r ا دودا (in Karshuni).
110
Omitted in al-Bājī, see below. Here according to BnF Ar. 9. Vat. Sir. 216 reads ه اودادو (in Karshuni).
111
Vat. Sir. 216 و (in Karshuni).
112
Vat. Sir. 216 ا (in Karshuni).
113
BnF Ar. 9 ن. Vat. Sir. 216 ا (in Karshuni).
114
BnF Ar. 12, fol. 74v. Some words in the margin are difficult to read; Vat. Copt. 1, fol. 63r; one word is in
the margin and difficult to read.
115
Ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M, p. 249. او اا ن ا ا را ن ر
ن نارا ار و.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
21
Example 4
The first sample from Leviticus provided by al-Bājī comes from chapter 3:1–2, listed there
as the first reading of the third book.
116
The same text is found in Ibn al-Qunbar’s
commentary.
117
The Greek and Hebrew renditions of this passage are rather close, yet they
allow for a certain variation in meaning. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew [zebaḥ] shəlāmīm
“complete, whole > peace [offering]” is rendered [θυσία] σωτηρίου, often translated as
“peace [-offering]” but also with the meaning of “salvation”.
118
The Peshīṭtā uses the Syriac
cognate with a similar meaning as the Hebrew. The Hebrew term ʾōhel mōʿēd “tent of
meeting” is rendered τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου, “the tabernacle of witness” emphasizing the
aspect of presence in the Hebrew text, whereas the Peshīṭtā renders it as “tent of time”
(mashkənā zabnā) focusing on its temporariness. Although both the Septuagint and the
Peshīṭtā reflect the proper meanings of the two Hebrew terms, these in turn give rise to a
certain fluctuation in meaning in the various Arabic translations. Arab
Copt
reads “sacrifice of
salvation” [ص ذ ] and “shrine/dome of witnesses” [ةدا ], clearly reflecting a
Greek origin.
119
The same word choices are provided in Arab
Syr_Hex
1a.
120
In contrast to what
we saw in Genesis and Exodus, however, al-Bājī’s word choices rather reflect a literal
translation from the Peshīṭtā: “whole offering” ( ذ) and “shrine/dome of time” (
نا).
121
In fact, al-Bājī’s version reflects Arab
Syr
2 more or less word by word.
بو ب ذ ن ناو
]
ناا
[
122
ب
ن اذ
و ا وا
نا ب سار ه نا
al-Bājī/Ibn al-
Qunbar
بو ب ذ ن ناو
ناا
اذ ب
و ا وا ن
سار ه نا نا ب
Arab
Syr
2
123
It thus appears that the text used by al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar is one of the many mixed
versions of the Pentateuch that circulated in the Christian communities.
124
Genesis and
Exodus represent a Greek-based Arabic translation, possibly via the Coptic as indicated by
116
This rendering is found in ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M, p. 255; For the other editions of al-Bājī’s text, see
al-Saqqā, ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 103; Ahmad, Kitāb, p. 142, Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 2, p. 86.
117
For Ibn al-Qunbar’s Leviticus commentary, we had access to Vat. Ar. 606. For this specific rendering in
Ibn al-Qunbar’s recension, see BnF Ar. 9, fol. 157v and Vat. Ar. 606 (1
st
part), fol. 147r.
118
John William Wevers, Leviticus (Septuagint Vetus Testamentum Graecum II, 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1986), p. 55; Brenton, Septuagint, p. 127; the Leiden critical edition as uploaded in
https://cal.huc.edu; Kittel et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica, p. 160.
119
Cf. BnF Ar. 12, fol. 135r; Vat. Copt. 1, fol. 123v.
120
Cf. Oxford, Bodleian, Laud. Or. 258, fol. 208v.
121
Arab
Syr_Hex
1b reflects the Peshīṭtā-based reading in this regard ( ذ and نا ), cf. Monferrer-Sala,
Hexateuch, p. 138.
122
Omitted in al-Bājī’s manuscript but present in BnF Ar. 9, fol. 157v.
123
SA 4, fol. 128v.
124
See Vollandt, Arabic Versions, esp. pp. 222, 229, 260.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
22
Zurghani (although further research is necessary to confirm this), yet Leviticus reflects the
Peshīṭtā and represents a witness to Arab
Syr
2.
125
As we shall now see, the picture becomes
even more complicated as we turn to the book of Numbers.
Example 5
In the book of Numbers, al-Bājī’s tract continues to reflect the text in BnF Ar. 9 but it no
longer follows either Arab
Copt
or Arab
Syr
2 but rather yet another Christian Arabic version, as
noted elsewhere.
126
In contrast to the previous books, Numbers is most closely connected
to Arab
Syr_Hex
1b as represented in SA 3.
127
Compare for example the second question in
Numbers, which refers to Numbers 2:2, where al-Bājī’s text exhibits similarities in syntax
and word choice with SA 3, often as oppose to Arab
Copt
and Arab
Syr
2:
128
LXX “Let the children of Israel encamp fronting each other, every man keeping his own
rank, according to their standards, according to the houses of their families; the children of
Israel [MT/P-] shall encamp round about the tabernacle of witness.
129
اا و ي
ر
130
ضرا
او ال
131
ا
al
-
Bājī/BnF Ar. 9 etc
اا
و ر ت لز ا
و ا ا ا ا و
Arab
Syr_Hex
1b
132
125
A quick look at other passages supports these findings. See for example al-Bājī’s rendering of Leviticus
1:2–3 in al-Saqqā, ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 103, and that in SA 4, fol. 126v; as well as the renditions of Leviticus
10:1–2 in al-Saqqā, ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 104 and SA 4, fol. 138r–v; and that in Leviticus 25:20–24 in al-Saqqā,
ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p.108 and SA 4, fol. 164v.
126
Adang, “Al-Bājī, Book against the Torah”. Vat. 606, vol. 2, fol. 200v–201r, i.e., the manuscript that
includes Ibn al-Qunbar’s commentary of Genesis–Leviticus, exhibits the same text as BnF Ar. 9/al-Bājī
here as well.
127
See also Vollandt, Arabic Versions, p. 260. In our test samples, Arab
Syr_Hex
1b differs from Arab
Syr_Hex
1a as
represented in Oxford, Bodl. Laud. Or. 258, fol. 264v.
128
See ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M, p. 260. For the other editions of al-Bājī’s text, see al-Saqqā, ʿAlā al-
Tawrāt, p. 111; Ahmad, Kitāb, pp. 155-156; Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 2, p. 95. For the text often
transmitted with Ibn al-Qunbar’s commentary, see BnF Ar. 9, fol. 209r and Vat. Ar. 606 (2
nd
part), fol.
200v–201r.
129
John William Wevers, Numeri (Septuagint Vetus Testamentum Graecum III, 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1982), p. 62; Brenton, Septuagint p. 172; the Leiden critical edition as uploaded in
https://cal.huc.edu; Kittel et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica, p. 211.
130
BnF Ar. 9, fol. 209r adds post و.
131
In Vat. Ar. 606 (2
nd
part), fol. 200v–201r ل (the word is repeated on both folios).
132
SA 3, fol. 211r. See Monferrer-Sala, Hexateuch, p. 171.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
23
لو ت تو ب ر اإ
ل ءاز
ةدا اإ
Arab
Copt133
ر م
134
اا ل ه ا دا لز ا
ا ل
Arab
Syr
2
135
The biblical text in Numbers 2:2 is dense and its syntax challenging to any translator, which
may have prompted revision and retranslation. The repetition of “the children of Israel” in
the Septuagint is only reflected in Arab
Copt
, which is clearly not the version followed by al-
Bājī here. None of the two renditions is particularly literal. The last phrase in Arab
Syr_Hex
1b
“and surrounded it by all directions”, is not attested in the Vorlagen but rather constitutes
an addition that elaborates on the previous phrase “they camped around the tent”. There
are similar “alternative renditions” in Arab
Syr_Hex
1b, a trait otherwise typical of Peshīṭtā-
based Arabic translations.
136
Al-Bājī later criticizes the rendering of “land” in the biblical
text, yet this gloss is not detected in Arab
Syr_Hex
1b and not supported by the Vorlagen and
seems thus to be a corruption, which has occurred within this rendition (i.e. al-Bājī’s
text/BnF Ar. 9 etc).
Whereas al-Bājī’s text and that transmitted in Arab
Syr_Hex
1b are sometimes identical, they
may be completely different at other occasions and it may be that we have to deal with
another revision.
137
We will include another example from Numbers.
Example 6
In Numbers 3:39, the Peshīṭtā clearly differs from the Masoretic-Septuagint twice: in the
former only Moses is mentioned as the subject who numbered the Levites whereas in the
latter two, both Moses and Aaron are mentioned. In addition, the Peshīṭtā omits the phrase
“according to their families”, present in the other two witnesses. Here al-Bājī’s text follows
Arab
Syr_Hex
1b rather closely.
138
133
BnF Ar. 12, fol. 179v.
134
Or . This passage is in general difficult to read, see also fol.47v in Munich, Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek, MS Ar. 234 https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb00017607?page=98,99
135
SA 4, fol. 173v–174r.
136
For a comparative chart, see Hjälm, Christian Arabic Versions, pp. 379-398.
137
In Numbers 2:3, the two texts are very different.
138
See ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M, p. 260. For the other editions of al-Bājī’s text, see al-Saqqā, ʿAlā al-
Tawrāt, p. 111; Ahmad, Kitāb, p. 156; Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 2, p. 96. For the version often
transmitted with Ibn al-Qunbar’s commentary, see BnF Ar. 9, fol. 212r and Vat. Ar. 606 (2
nd
part), fol.
203r.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
24
LXX 39 All the numbering of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron [P om.] numbered by
the word of the Lord, according to their families [P om.], every male from a month old and
upwards, were two and twenty thousand.
139
ذا وا ن
ذ ا
ا
140
141
ذ ق
142
نا
143
نوو
144
ا
al
-
Bājī/ BnF Ar. 9 etc
اوا ن
ذ ا
و ا
ر ا و ا ذ ق
Arab
Syr_Hex
1b
145
يا وا د نو
ا ذ با ل
ا و ا ق ا
Arab
Syr
2
146
ا ا وا ه
با ل
ذ ا
ا نوو نا ا
Arab
Copt147
Note that neither al-Bājī’s text/BnF Ar. 9 etc nor Arab
Syr_Hex
1b reflects the
Septuagint/Hebrew version of “Moses and Aaron”; they rather follow the Peshīṭtā. In
contrast, they reflect the phrase “according to their tribes” which is omitted in the Peshīṭtā.
As Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala has shown, the revision (Arab
Syr_Hex
1b) at times reworked the
earlier version (Arab
Syr_Hex
1a) rather extensively.
148
Arab
Copt
does not share the Septuagint
rendering either, (cf. the Göttingen edition),
149
which is thus only reflected in
Arab
Syr_Hex
1a.
150
Example 7
Our last example is from Deuteronomy. In the fourteenth question of the first reading, we
find a quotation from Deuteronomy 21:22–23, a passage which is often taken by Christians
as foreshadowing Jesus’ crucifixion while for al-Bājī it constitutes proof that Jesus was not
139
Wevers, Numeri, p. 84; Brenton, Septuagint p. 175; the Leiden critical edition as uploaded in
https://cal.huc.edu; Kittel et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica, p. 215.
140
Vat. Ar. 606 (2
nd
part), fol. 203r ا.
141
BnF Ar. 9, fol. 212r و.
142
Vat. Ar. 606 (2
nd
part), fol. 203r om.
143
Vat. Ar. 606 (2
nd
part), fol. 203r ا.
144
Vat. Ar. 606 (2
nd
part), fol. 203r و.
145
SA 3, fol. 214r; Monferrer-Sala, Hexateuch, p. 173.
146
SA 4, fol. 176v.
147
BnF Ar. 12, fol. 183r.
148
Monferrer-Sala, Hexateuch, pp. xxviii-lviii.
149
Wevers, Numeri, p. 84n39; cf. Kittel et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica, p. 215, n39
a
.
150
In Arab
Syr_Hex
1a (in Oxford, Bodl. Laud. Or. 258, fol. 268r), the Septuagint-reading is reflected.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
25
crucified. Again, al-Bājī’s text and the one connected with Ibn al-Qunbar are identical.
151
Despite the rather dense Hebrew phrasing of this passage, the Septuagint and the Peshīṭtā
do not deviate notably from it. The Arabic translations, however, exhibit significant
variation and it becomes clear that just like in Numbers, al-Bājī’s text/BnF Ar. 9 etc
exhibits similarities with Arab
Syr_Hex
1b.
152
Compare the three Christian Arabic versions used
by al-Bājī/Ibn al-Qunbar in the various books (Arab
Syr
2; Arab
Copt
):
LXX 22 And if there be sin in any one [ἔν τινι; MT שׁי ִא ְב /P ], and the judgment of
death be upon him, and he be put to death, and ye hang him on a tree: 23 his body shall not
remain upon the tree, but ye shall by all means bury it in that day; for every one that is
hanged on a tree is cursed of God.
153
ذ ر ذا ناو
و و
ه ت
ن ا ا ا ا
ع
al
-
Bājī/
BnF Ar. 9 etc
ر ذا ناوء
ًذو
ه ت و
ن با ا ا ا عو
Arab
Syr_Hex
1b
154
ا و ر ياو
155
او
.
156
و
157
و ا ه/
158
159
ا يا و
Arab
Syr
2
160
151
Ms Fazıl Ahmed Paşa 794 M, p. 271. For the editions of al-Bājī’s text, see al-Saqqā, ʿAlā al-Tawrāt, p. 138;
Ahmad, Kitāb, p. 186; Zurghani, “ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn”, vol. 2, p. 119. BnF Ar. 9, fol. 306v and Vat. Ar. 606 (2
nd
part), fol. 274v.
152
There is notable variation between Arab
Syr_Hex
1b and Arab
Syr_Hex
1a here. Neither Oxford, Bodleian, Laud.
Or 258 nor SA 10 includes the passage (there is a gap between fol. 192v–193r–192v ends with
Deuteronomy 21:10 and 193r starts with Deuteronomy 23:15). Here we read from Vat. Ar. 1.
153
John William Wevers, Deuteronomium (Septuagint Vetus Testamentum Graecum III, 2; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), pp. 248-249; Brenton, Septuagint p. 260, here somewhat revised
[Brenton reads “23 his body shall not remain all night” 23 οὐκ ὲπικοιμηθήσεται τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ
ξύλου…]; the Leiden critical edition as uploaded in https://cal.huc.edu; Kittel et al. (ed.), Biblia Hebraica, p.
324.
154
Monferrer-Sala, Hexateuch, p. 244.
155
SA 4, fol. 260v reverse order او او.
156
SA 4, fol. 260v .
157
SA 4, fol. 260v .
158
SA 4, fol. 260v .
159
SA 4, fol. 260v ا .
160
As the ms is difficult to read, we primarily use Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS Ar. 234, fol. 72v
(https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb00017607?page=146,147); S4, fol. 260v.
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
26
و ت تا نا و اذاو
و
ر ا ن ما ذ ًد ا
Arab
Copt161
Concluding remarks
The spread of multiple Bible versions among Eastern Christian communities was an
accepted fact in these communities and at times a source for exegetical creativity. However,
in a context in which Muslim accusations of distortion (taḥrīf, tabdīl) were always in the air,
this variety could be exploited as a means to challenge Christian –and Jewish—claims of
the divine origin of the Pentateuch. Once Arabic translations from Syriac, Greek, Hebrew,
and other biblical source texts began to circulate, all that Muslim polemicists, including al-
Bājī, had to do was to obtain some copies and to compare them to find proof of their
argument that Christians and Jews had distorted the original version of Scripture. As we
have seen in the examples above, al-Bājī used a combination of seemingly illogical
statements and text-critical cruxes in the Torah and its reception to criticize it. Firstly, he
identified apparent inconsistencies that are sometimes embedded in the biblical stories
themselves (cf. Example 2). At times, however, the inconsistencies he found were the result
of the use of multiple biblical Vorlagen in Eastern Christian communities which showed
discrepancies (cf. Example 1). Lastly, some of the “irrationalities” he discovers seem to
result from the specific copy of the text he had in front of him as they are not found in the
other Christian Arabic texts used in the present study (Examples 3 and 5).
One of the aims of the present article was to identify or confirm the sources used by al-
Bājī in his criticism of the Christian reception of the Torah. These sources reflect three
different versions known to have circulated among Christians in the Levant at the time:
Arab
Copt
for Genesis and seemingly for Exodus; Arab
Syr
2 for Leviticus; and Arab
Syr_Hex
1b for
Numbers and Deuteronomy. Similar combinations of versions are known from other
Christian Arabic Bible manuscripts,
162
and in our case, it seems clear that al-Bājī got hold of
a copy of Ibn al-Qunbar’s revision and describes it as the version of the Pentateuch in use
among the Rūm Orthodox (Melkite) communities at the time. In our test samples, Leviticus
in this version is close to its identified source, i.e., Arab
Syr
2, whereas Genesis and Exodus
should rather be seen as revisions of their identified source (Arab
Copt
). It may be that
Genesis reflects an earlier stage of this recension, which was closer to a Greek source text,
which would make Arab
Copt
an initially Greek-based revision, which was later brought in
line with the Coptic text. However, such a hypothesis needs to be tested on a larger corpus.
The same is true for Exodus, which exhibits similarities with a Syriac-based version. Just
like Genesis and Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are revisions of/related to their
source (Arab
Syr_Hex
1b) rather than close reproductions of them.
161
BnF Ar. 12, fol. 269v–270r.
162
For example, BnF Ar. 16 transmits, according to Vollandt, Genesis 2:10–19:26 according to Arab
Heb
1a, a
few folios of Arab
Copt
and most of Genesis-Leviticus by Ibn al-Qunbar whereas Numbers and
Deuteronomy reflects Arab
Syr_Hex
1b. Vollandt, Arabic Versions, pp. 228-229.
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī’s critique of the Pentateuch
27
Appendix: Biographical sources on al-Bājī, in chronological order
Al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1347), Dhayl Tārīkh al-Islām, ed. Māzin b. Sālim Bāwazīr, Riyadh: Dār
al-Mughnī, 1998 [= Tārīkh al-Islām, 53, p. 158].
Al-Udfuwī (or al-Idfuwī), Jaʿfar b. Thaʿlab (d. 748/1347), al-Badr al-sāfir ʿan uns al-musāfir,
ed. Muḥammad Fatḥī Muḥammad Fawzī, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, n.d. [vol. 2,
no. 195].
Al-Ṣafadī, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Khalīl b. Aybak (d. 764/1362), Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr wa-aʿwān al-naṣr, ed. ʿAlī
Abū Zayd, Nabīl Abū ʿAmsha et al., 6 vols., Beirut: Dār al-Fikr al-muʿāṣir; Damascus:
Dār al-Fikr, 1418/1998 [vol. 3, 483-487, no. 1210].
Al-Ṣafadī, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Khalīl b. Aybak (d. 764/1362), Al-Wāfī bi-l-wafayāt, ed. Hellmut
Ritter, Sven Dedering et al., 32 vols., Beirut, Stuttgart: Kommissionsverlag Franz
Steiner, 1991 [vol. 21, 453-454, no. 311].
Al-Kutubī, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Shākir (d. 764/1362), Fawāt al-wafayāt wa-l-dhayl
ʿalayhā, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās, 5 vols., Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1973 [vol. 3, pp. 73-74, no. 352].
Al-Subkī, Tāj al-Dīn Abū Naṣr ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. ʿAlī (d. 771/1369), Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya
al-kubrā, ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad al-Ḥilw and Maḥmūd Muḥammad al-Ṭanāḥī, 10
vols., Cairo: ʿĪsā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1383/1964. [vol. 10, 339-366, no. 1394].
Al-Asnawī, Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥīm (d. 772/1370), Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, ed. Kamāl
Yūsuf al-Ḥūt, 2 vols., Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿilmiyya, 1407/1987. [vol. 1, 137, no. 263].
Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Taqī al-Dīn Abū Bakr b. Aḥmad (d. 851/1448), Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, ed.
ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm Khān, 5 vols., Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyya, 1399/1979
[ vol. 2, 290-293, no. 512; vol. 3, 48, 53, 56, 136].
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1448), al-Durar al-Kāmina fī aʿyān al-miʾa al-thāmina, 4 vols.,
Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyya, 1349/1930. [vol. 3, 101-103, no. 232].
Al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 911/1505), Ḥusn al-muḥāḍara fī tārīkh Miṣr wa-l-
Qāhira, ed. Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm, 2 vols., N.p.: 1387/1967 [vol. 1, 544, no.
27].
Ibn al-ʿImād, Shihāb al-Dīn b. al-Falāḥ ʿAbd al-Ḥayy b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Ḥanbalī
(d. 1089/1678), Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār man dhahab, ed. Muṣṭafā ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā,
9 vols., Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1419/1998 [vol. 6, 179-180].
Abstract:
The
present
article
discusses
the
Muslim legal scholar and theologian ʿAlāʾ al-
Dīn al-Bājī (631-714/1233-1314) and his
polemic against the Pentateuch, which he read
in at least two Christian Arabic translations that
were in use among Rūm Orthodox Christians
(Melkites). It aims to identify the recensions of
the Pentateuch that al-Bājī had access to, and to
Resumen:
El presente artículo analiza al jurista
y teólogo musulmán ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bājī (631-
714/1233-1314) y su polémica contra el
Pentateuco, que leyó al menos en dos
traducciones árabes cristianas que estaban en
uso entre los cristianos ortodoxos Rūm
(melkitas). El objetivo es identificar las
recensiones del Pentateuco a las que al-Bājī
Miriam L. Hjälm – Camilla Adang
28
understand
how
the
diff
erences
between
these
recensions contributed to his view that the
shared Jewish and Christian scripture had
undergone changes. The article suggests that al-
Bājī used a combination of arguments to
undermine especially the Christian reception of
divine revelation, pointing out apparent
inconsistencies and illogicalities in the biblical
stories themselves as well as text-critical cruxes
caused by discrepancies between different
versions that circulated side by side within the
Eastern Christian communities. Finally, some of
the “irrationalities” he describes seem to be
particular of the copies of the texts he had in
front of him.
tuvo
acceso
y
comprender
cómo
las
diferencias
entre estas recensiones contribuyeron a su
opinión de que las escrituras judías y cristianas
compartidas habían sufrido cambios. El artículo
sugiere que al-Bājī utilizó una combinación de
argumentos para socavar especialmente la
recepción cristiana de la revelación divina,
señalando aparentes inconsistencias y faltas de
lógica en las historias bíblicas mismas, así como
puntos cruciales de la crítica del texto causados
por discrepancias entre las diferentes versiones
que circularon una al lado de la otra dentro de
las comunidades cristianas orientales.
Finalmente, algunas de estas ‘irracionalidades’
que él describe parecen ser propias de los textos
que tenía delante.
Keywords:
al
-
Bājī;
Pentateuch;
Melkites,
Christian Arabs; Rūm; Polemics.
Pal
abras clave:
al
-
Bājī;
Pentateuco;
Melkitas;
Árabes cristianos; Rūm; Polémicas.
