Without the Church the World Will Destroy Itself

[Secret Alias]

I am not a Christian but I believe Christianity was designed to establish greater social order in antiquity (by a Jew). Without it we are doomed:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... source=twb

[iskander]

The world was created for the sake of the Church, says the CCC 760.
What next?

The Church- foreshadowed from the world's beginning
760 Christians of the first centuries said, "The world was created for the sake of the Church."153 God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the "convocation" of men in Christ, and this "convocation" is the Church. The Church is the goal of all things,154 and God permitted such painful upheavals as the angels' fall and man's sin only as occasions and means for displaying all the power of his arm and the whole measure of the love he wanted to give the world:
Just as God's will is creation and is called "the world," so his intention is the salvation of men, and it is called "the Church."155
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 23a9p1.htm

[Secret Alias]

This is NOT of course what I meant or was hoping to direct people to when I made the post. Instead I merely point to the PRACTICALITY of myth-making. Human beings are a species of animals. Some animals like bees can organize themselves with hundreds of societal members. Yet as civilization grows and grows and grows societies need to find cohesive ways to 'stay together.' THIS is the purpose of religion. Whether or not this cohesive functioning is divinely sanctioned is debatable or at worthy of discussion. My point was merely to again reinforce that 'mythicism' need not be dominate by those who would hope to 'negate' the value of religion. Jesus may not have existed, God might not exist, religion might be developed from myth AND YET EVEN WITH ALL OF THIS TRUE IT COULD STILL BE SOMETHING WORTHY OF VENERATION, ADMIRATION AND EVEN OBLIGATION.

The parallel I like to use is sex and marriage. My wife happens to be a beautiful woman. I happened to have known a lot of beautiful women. I mean really beautiful women. As a man it is difficult for me to distinguish the effect that beauty has on my mind and other parts of my body. When I met my wife I was very attracted to her AND AT THE SAME TIME we had great stimulating conversations. Many women I've known the stimulation was not from conversation, that's for sure.

Nevertheless I will have to say that my wife's efforts to redefine our relationship in terms of love rather than sex led to a functioning relationship. I am not saying that I wasn't in love with my wife when I met her. Of course not. I remember that was the best date I had ever been on in my life. But the point is that the mythological framework if you will that developed from that initial encounter was ultimately defined in one way rather than let's say another way (viz. pornographic fantasy).

Now my wife would not likely allow herself to be framed in terms of a pornographic fantasy - mine or anyone else's. But that's exactly the point. With many competing religions in antiquity it was Christianity which triumphed in the Roman Empire. Surely the reason this religion survived or was chosen over it's competitors was that it had the best potential for 'nation building' and social cohesion. My point then is that just as the myth of love and intimacy helps build personal relationships a religion of love and divine 'brotherly-loving' or brother-making certainly helped define European civilization. I think it is safe to say that we all owe Christianity a great debt in terms of the stability we have known in our life time. The question of whether or not the myth that helped define that social cohesion is true or not is entirely separate from the usefulness of the religion and the myth. Could this be one of the reasons why Jesus was called chrestos by his early followers?

[iskander]

God created the world for the sake of the Torah
What next?

[God created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called (Prov. 8:22): : “the beginning of His way,” and for the sake of Israel, who are called (Jer. 2:3) “the first of His grain.”
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... i=true&v=3

[Secret Alias]

Ummm. The Pentateuch was written with mistakes (i.e. it wasn't proofed properly). Hardly a divine text.

[Secret Alias]

I even suspect the Ten Commandments as preserved in Exodus and Deuteronomy are inaccurate or not reflective of the more ancient inscriptions known to Philo and others

[Secret Alias]

Early Karaite exegesis recognized the human narrator of the Pentateuch and identified him narrating for instance the first chapters of Genesis.

[iskander]

How would anyone identify something as a mistake as opposed to just a hostile opinion?

[Secret Alias]

There are so many. Let's start with Genesis. Who wrote this God or a human narrator?:

“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:6)

[Secret Alias]

Better yet, read this, read what the Sadducees certainly believed:

https://www.academia.edu/7368474/Was_Mo ... et_ben_Eli

very often the exegete limits himself to a statement that Moses “wrote down” the Torah (or that an anonymous mudawwin recorded it) without asserting that God dictated it to His prophet. This leaves the door open to assuming that Moses could have had at least a tiny share in the fashioning of the Pentateuch, and accordingly in its authorship as well. For instance while commenting on Deuteronomy 31:24, Yefet laconically acknowledges: The statement [And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book], until they were finished, is a clear indication that [Moses] wrote down (kataba) the entire Torah.23 20 Similar statements referring to Moses as a medium through which God reveals His will to humanity already appear in the Torah. See, e.g., Lev 27:34; Num 36:13. Cf. al-Qirqisānī’s statements: ‫“( אמרנא אללה עלי יד משה‬God commended us through Moses”) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab I 4529, fol. 42b); ‫אלי אן ̇גא משה פחרמה אללה עלי ידה‬ (“until Moses came, and God forbade it through him”) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab I 4529, fol. 49a, and similarly fol. 49b). Similarly, Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ ascertains that “the Book was revealed through our mater, Moses, may peace be upon him” (‫סידנא‬ ‫( )משה על׳ אלס׳ אל̇די עלי ידה אנזל ספר‬Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab I 3308, fol. 4b). 21 See Hirschfeld, Qirqisāni Studies, p. 11 (Eng.), p. 39 (Ar.). Cf. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, p. 52. Cf. also Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin,” p. 358. The translation is my own. 22 For the examples from the Talkhῑṣ of Moses being ordered by God to record something in the Torah, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, p. 214; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, pp. 152–153 (Eng.), p. 188 (Ar.). 23 ‫( קולה עד תמם פה̇דא דליל וא̇צח אנה כתב אלתורה ב̇גלתהא‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fol. 115a). Marzena Zawanowska 17* Whereas his comment on Deuteronomy 34:4 reads: We will say that the Master of the Universe, may His name be blessed, commanded our prophet Moses, may peace be upon him, to write down this Law (bi-kitābat hadhihi al-sharīʻa), as it is said Moses commanded us a law (Tōrā) (Deut 33:4), and he made it an inheritance which he transmitted to the congregation of Jacob (Deut 33:4).24 Thus we may deduce that God commanded Moses to write down (kataba) the Torah. Nonetheless, it is by no means obvious whether God told Moses exactly what to write down, word by word, or just transmitted to His prophet the main idea, whereas the wording and fashioning of the text was done by Moses.25 Moreover, if Yefet believed that God dictated the Torah to Moses word by word, then why would the exegete differentiate between the words or “voice” of God and the words or “voice” of Moses, all verses being the words of God faithfully recorded by His prophet?26 In his commentary on Genesis 3:23, Yefet says: The words, And the LORD God said (Gen 3:22) are those of the narrator (or storyteller) (al-muḥkī),27 Moses, may peace be upon 24 '‫פנקול אן רב אלעאלמין תבארך אסמה אמר נבינא משה ע׳ אלס׳ בכתאבה ה̇דה אלשריעה כקו‬ ‫( תורה צוה לנו משה ו̇געלהא מירא̇ת ותואר̇תיהא קהלת יעקב‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fol. 167b). 25 For similar ideas expressed by al-Qirqisānī, see Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,” p. 10. 26 For a discussion of this subject in Yefet’s Bible commentaries, see Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin”; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters.” For examples of the differentiation made by the Talkhῑṣ between the speech of God and the words of al-mudawwin, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 205–206; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 128 (Eng.), p. 194 (Ar.). 27 Following the precedents set by previous research on the topic, throughout this article, to render the Arabic word al-muḥkī, faut de mieux, I am making a somewhat anachronistic use of the English terms “narrator” and/or “storyteller.” To be sure, these concepts, as conceived of and employed by modern literary criticism, were alien to medieval commentators, even if they may have implicitly recognized some of the literary functions that these devices perform in literary analysis. For the use of these terms in recent scholarship to denote the same or similar Arabic words and concepts, see, e.g., Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, p. 218; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 126 (Eng.), p. 186 (Ar.); Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin”; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters.” For the Arabic term al-muḥkī as denoting the “transmitter” (‫ )מוסר‬of the divine message, see Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,” pp. 80, 84–85. On Yefet’s perception of the 18* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? him, [who] reports to us the words of God, just like he has reported to us [other] of God’s utterances [starting] from And God said: ‘Let there be light’ (Gen 1:3) till this verse, which are [altogether] eighteen utterances of God.28 Here Yefet not only clarifies the distinction between the voice of God and that of Moses, but also explicitly designates Moses as the narrator (or storyteller) (al-muḥkī), who only quotes God’s exact words sparingly, interweaving them in the reported story, which he has surely also learned from God, but apparently in broad outline alone.29 mudawwin as the “transmitter” (rāwī) of divine revelation, who merely relates the words of God (marwī ʻan Allāh), see his comment on Deut 32:3 in Sokolow, Yefet ben Ali on Deuteronomy, p. 27. 28 Yefet continues: “Nine of them are related to the Creation, and they are: Let there be light (Gen 1:3), Let there be a firmament (Gen 1:6), Let the waters […] be gathered together (Gen 1:9), Let the earth put forth grass (Gen 1:11), Let there be lights (Gen 1:14), Let the waters swarm with swarms (Gen 1:20), Let the earth bring forth (Gen 1:24), Let us make man (Gen 1:26), It is not good that the man should be alone (Gen 2:18); one of them [God directed] to the snake [= Gen 3:14–15, starting from: Because thou hast done this]; two [of them He pronounced] to Eve [= Gen 3:13, 16]; two of them [He said] to Adam and Eve, and they are: and God said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply (Gen 1:28), And God said, Behold, I have given you every [herb yielding seed […], and every tree […] – to you it shall be for food] (Gen 1:29); four of them [God directed] to Adam alone, and they are: and said unto him: Where art thou? (Gen 3:9), [And He said]: Who told thee that [thou wast naked?] (Gen 3:11), [And unto Adam he said]: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife (Gen 3:17), And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: [Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat] (Gen 2:16). As for Behold, the man is become [as one of us] (Gen 3:22), it is possible that it is also a statement [said] to Adam, but it is [equally] possible that they are words of wisdom [just] like the rest of [passages opening with the words] and God said (va-yōmer elōhīm) pronounced during the Creation.” (‫קולה ויאמר י"י אלהים הו קול אלמחכי מוסי על׳ אלסל׳‬ ‫יחכי לנא קול אללה כמא אחכי לנא קול אללה מן ויאמר אלהים יהי אור אלי ה̇דא אלאפסוק והו‬ ‫י׳ ח׳ קול אללה מנהא ט׳ פי באב אל̇כליקה והי יהי אור יהי רקיע יקוו המים ותדשא הארץ יהי‬ ‫מארות ישרצו המים תוצא הארץ נעשה אדם לא טוב היות האדם ומנהא ואחד לאלנחש וב׳ לחוה‬ ‫ב׳ מנהא לאדם וחוה והמא ויאמר להם אלהים פרו ורבו ויאמר אלהים הנה נתתי לכם את כל ד׳‬ ‫מנהא לאדם וחדה והי ויאמר לו איכה מי הגיד לך כי שמעת לקול אשתך ויצו י"י אלהים על האדם‬ ‫לאמר ואמא הן האדם היה פיחתמל אנה קול לאדם אי̇צא ויחתמל אנה קול פי אלחכמה מ̇תל סאיר‬ ‫( )ויאמר אלהים אלמקול פי אל̇כליקה‬Ms. SP IOS B051, fols. 171a–b). 29 For another example of Moses fulfilling the function of the narrator (or storyteller), who reports to us what he has heard from God, see, e.g., Yefet’s comment on Gen 8:20, where he contends: ‫“( ה̇דה חכאיה משה ע׳ אלס׳‬This is a story reported by Marzena Zawanowska 19* Furthermore, according to Yefet, in the entire Creation story there are only eighteen utterances pronounced by God, the rest evidently being the words of Moses. It may be assumed, therefore, that Moses, having been commanded by God to write down the Pentateuch, was not instructed concerning its exact wording, but rather wrote it down of his own accord, only from time to time having recourse to God’s words and quoting His exact utterances. Yefet’s younger colleague from the Jerusalem school,30 Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ, also distinguishes the voice of Moses in the Torah as a narrator or storyteller of the written account who reports past events to the Israelites. In his commentary on Genesis 2:5, he states: This is a story reported by Moses (ḥikāyat Moshe), may peace be upon him, telling the Israelites that every tree of the field that they [could] see on the earth and every herb of the field that they [could] observe, had not been beforehand on the earth.31 Both quotations attest to the exegetes’ awareness of the existence of more than one voice – the divine – in the biblical account. Although the information about past events undoubtedly comes to Moses from God, the wording or phrasing of the reported account seems to be attributed by medieval Karaite interpreters of Scripture to His prophet. Yefet’s comment on Genesis 1:8 may be adduced as another proof-text of such a dual (heavenly-earthly) authorship of the Torah, whereby divine and human voices are inextricably interwoven in the narrated story. He expounds: Moses [ḥikāyat Moshe], may peace be upon him.”) (Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 37a). 30 On this “school,” “academy” or “college,” its activities and members, see Margoliouth, “Ibn Al-Hiti’s Chronicle,” and also Frank, Search Scripture Well, pp. 1–32; Gil, Palestine 634–1099, pp. 789 [925]; Mann, Texts and Studies, pp. 32–33; Polliack, Karaite Tradition of Translation, pp. 37–64; Poznański, “Karaite Opponents of Saadia” 18 (1906), pp. 209–250; Skoss, Ali ben Suleiman on Genesis. On different names and functions of this Karaite “house of study” (“school,” “meeting place” [majlis], “library,” “courtyard”), see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 13–16; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, pp. 13–14. 31 ‫ה̇דא הו חכאיה משה ע׳ אלס׳ יקול לישראל אן כל ש̇גר ה̇דה אלצחרא אל̇די תשאהדוה פי אלאר̇ץ‬ ‫( וכל עשב אלצחרא אל̇די הו̇דא תנ̇טרוה פאנה מן קבל ה̇דא לם יכון פי אלאר̇ץ‬Ms. RNL Yevr.- Arab. I 4760, fol. 32a). Another example of Sahl singling out the voice of the narrator in the biblical account can be adduced from his comment on Gen 2:9: ‫“( וקולה נחמד למראה וטוב למאכל ערף אן ה̇דא קול אלמחכי‬The statement [And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is] pleasant to the sight, and good for food [Gen 2:9] informs [us] that these are words of the storyteller [al-muḥkī].”) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4760, fol. 37b). 20* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? The words And God made the firmament (Gen 1:7) constitute a statement by the mudawwin, may peace be upon him, whereas [the expression] Let there be a firmament [in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.] (Gen 1:6) and the rest of the verse are the words of God, exalted be He. Similarly, [in] the previous passage, only four words are pronounced by God, exalted be He, Let there be light (yĕhī ōr) (Gen 1:3), Day [and] Night (yōm, lāylā) (Gen 1:5), whereas the rest of the chapter is a story reported by the mudawwin (ḥikāyat al-mudawwin), may peace be upon him.32 Here Yefet again singles out the words of God, but this time he does not even mention Moses, attributing the rest of the account to an anonymous mudawwin.33 Likewise, Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ distinguishes the voice of God from the voice of an anonymous mudawwin in the biblical account. In his comment on Genesis 2:5 he contends: This verse is a story reported by the mudawwin (ḥikāya min al- mudawwin), telling [us] that God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and when he fell asleep, [God] took one of his ribs and closed the flesh in this place.34 Furthermore, even if we assume pro tempore that the mudawwin is identified with Moses, this figure, “the greatest prophet ever,” who relates to us what he has heard from God, was, according to the Karaite exegetes, selective in writing down what God told him. When commenting on Genesis 2:17, Yefet states that Adam knew many commandments, but Moses mentioned only one of them, namely the one which was specific to Adam, the one against which he transgressed and for which was expelled from Paradise. The exegete concludes: 32 ‫וקו׳ ויעש אלהים את הרקיע הו קול אלמדוון ע״ה א̇דא יהי רקיע ותמאם אלפסוק הו קול א״ת‬ ‫וכ̇דאך אלפצל אלאול פיה ד׳ אלפא̇ט פקט הי קול א״ת יהי אור יום לילה ובאקי אלפצל הו חכאיה‬ ‫( אלמדוון ע״ה‬Ms. SP IOS CO51, fol. 21a). 33 Another example of Yefet distinguishing different “voices” in the Torah may be found in his comment on Gen 10:6–20. While interpreting this biblical passages, he singles out verse nine, which – in his opinion – contains a kind of parenthetic remark made by Moses (qawl Moshe) (Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 61a). On different voices discerned by Yefet in the Bible, see especially Polliack, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters.” 34 ‫ה̇דא אלפסוק הו חכאיה מן אלמדון יקול אן אללה אוקע אלסבאת עלי אדם פוסן וא̇כ̇ד ואחדה מן‬ ‫( א̇צלאעה וסד לחם פי מכאנהא‬Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4760, fol. 22a). Cf. Polliack, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” p. 900 n. 17. Marzena Zawanowska 21* Moses recorded (dawwana) for us this commandment from among all the commandments, which had been [imposed] upon Adam.35 Thus it appears that God had informed Moses about past events,36 the Creation, and the stories of the forefathers in detail, including the commandments given to them, but Moses decided on his own, what to include in the Torah, and what to omit, as well as how to fashion the text. It is interesting to juxtapose this statement by Yefet with the opinion of his contemporary exegetes (Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ and Abū al-Faraj Hārūn), as preserved in the Talkhῑṣ. While commenting on the two promulgations of the Ten Commandments, the authors ponder the questions of why they were actually proclaimed twice (Exod 20, Deut 5) and why these two renderings are different. Of three possibilities raised by the Talkhῑṣ, in the last one, Moses included the second “version” of the Ten Commandments of his own accord in order to clarify the first one. The exegetes assert: It is also said that they [= the children of Israel] were addressed only once. But the prophet mentioned [the Ten Commandments] for the second time unto the plains of Moab (Num 31:12), in order to elucidate the statements, which were abbreviated in recording (al-kalim al-mukhtaṣira fī al-tadwīn),37 and the words [that were] added or omitted [in the first rendition of the Ten Commandments].38 35 ‫( דוון לנא משה ה̇דא אלפר̇ץ מן ̇גמלה אלפרו̇ץ אלתי כאנת עלי אדם‬Ms. SP IOS CO51, fol. 126a). For examples from the Talkhῑṣ of Moses adding something in the Torah of his own accord, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, p. 215 (ad Gen 2:24); eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 128 (Eng.), p. 194 (Ar.) (ad Exod 14:19–20). 36 E.g., Yefet’s comment on Gen 4:1 reads: ‫פקאל מוסי עלי' אלסל' ען אעלאם אללה לה אן‬ ‫“( אדם ענד מא ̇כר̇ג מן אל̇גנאן ערף חוה אשתו‬Moses, may peace be upon him, says that he was informed by God that when Adam had left Paradise, he knew Eve, his wife [Gen 4:1].”) (Ms. SP IOS CO51, fol. 177b). 37 The concept of abbreviation, omission, elision, or ellipsis (ikhtiṣār) corresponds with the ninth principle of thirty-two principles (midot) of R. Eliezer ben R. Yose ha-Gelili. In the Middle Ages it was included in forty-nine principles of R. Shemuel ben Hofni and was particularly developed by the Muslim exegetes of the Koran. For the use of this concept in Yefet’s Bible commentaries, see Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin”; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters”; Polliack & Schlossberg, “Methods of Interpretation,” pp. 33–34. See also Wechsler, Yefet ben ʻEli on Esther, pp. 32–34. For the use of this concept in the Talkhῑṣ, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, p. 220; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 137 (Eng.), pp. 197–198 (Ar.). 38 ‫וקיל לם י̇כאטבו אלא בואחדה ואנמא ̇דכר אלרסול אל̇תאניה פי ערבות מואב ליבין אלכלם‬ ‫( אלמ̇כתצרה פי אלתדוין ואלחרוף אלזאידה ואלנאקצה‬Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4785, 22* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? Although these Karaite exegetes do not find the last possibility to be the most probable, the mere fact that they quote it in this context testifies to their perception of this explanation as fairly admissible.39 Accordingly, just like Yefet, the authors of the Talkhῑṣ also seem disposed to agree that Moses was far from being a mere scribe, or a passive medium of divine revelation, and might easily be considered a human co-author of the Torah, not only formulating in his own words what he heard from God, but also and of his own accord omitting and adding entire passages to the Holy Text. Yet this raises another problem: was Moses indeed the only mortal scribe-recorder or author-redactor of the Pentateuch? In his comment on Deuteronomy 31:19, Yefet points to two possible writers or copyists, namely Moses and Joshua. He explains: It is possible that the statement Now therefore write ye (vĕ-ʻatā kitḇū lākhem) this song for you, [and teach thou it the children of Israel] (Deut 31:19) [in plural] points out Moses and Joshua, but the teaching and the instruction came from Moses, as it is said and teach thou it (vĕ-lammĕdāh) the children of Israel (Deut 31:19) [in singular].40 Hence, although Moses undoubtedly enjoyed a privileged position with God, being directly inspired by the Creator, he was not necessarily the only person who committed the received information, be it stories or commandments, to writing. In his commentary on another passage of Deuteronomy 31 (verse 22), Yefet explicitly confirms his conviction concerning Joshua’s participation in the process of writing down the Torah: When [Scripture] has finished informing [us] what would happen to the people [of Israel] which is the lesson41 of this Song [= the fol. 238a). Cf. Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 219–221; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 137 (Eng.), pp. 197–198 (Ar.). The translation is my own. 39 Cf. with Yefet’s comment on Deut 34:1–3: ‫ואעלם אן האהנא כלאם מ̇צמר קאלה אללה‬ ‫“( תע׳ למשה א̇כתצר תדוינה האהנא ושרחה פי משנה תורה והו קול ועשית לך ארון עץ‬Know that the speech [of God] is elliptical here, [for] God, exalted be He, told Moses to abbreviate its recording here and explain it [in detail] in the Book of Deuteronomy [Mishneh Torah], when He said and make thee an ark of wood [Deut 10:1].”) (Ms. SP IOS B220, fol. 161a). 40 ‫וקו׳ כתבו לכם יחתמל אן ישיר בה אלי משה ויהושע ואלתעלים ואלתלקין יכון מן משה כמא קאל‬ ‫( ולמדה את בני ישראל‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fols. 112a–b). 41 For the meaning of the Ar. word fāʼida as “instructive remark,” see Blau, Dictionary of Judaeo-Arabic, p. 520b. Marzena Zawanowska 23* Song of Moses], it mentions Moses’ obedient fulfillment of [God’s] order, as it is said, So Moses wrote [this song] (Deut 31:22). Yet, [beforehand] [God] commanded: Now therefore write ye (vĕ-ʻatā kitḇū lākhem) [this song for you] [in plural] (Deut 31:19), whereas here [Scripture] says So [Moses] wrote (va-yikhtōḇ) [this song] [in singular]. This refers to an unambiguous principle that Joshua participated in the writing of this Song.42 As if this was not enough, in a different place Yefet allows for the possibility that there were even more “writers” of the Law than these two. In his comment on Deuteronomy 31:9 the exegete expounds: The statement: And Moses wrote [this law] (va-yikhtōḇ Mōshe et ha-Tōrā ha-zōʼt) (Deut 31:9) informs us that Moses, may peace be upon him, wrote down the Torah (kataba al-Torah) [starting] from [the letter] “beth” [in the phrase] In the beginning (bĕ-rēʼshīt) (Gen 1:1) till [the letter] “lamed” [in the phrase] in the sight of all Israel (lĕ-ʻēnē kōl Yisrāʼēl) (Deut 34:12). The majority of scholars say that he wrote it down by his own hand, but some of them say that he summoned experienced [= professional] scribes and dictated to them, so that they write it down in his presence.43 It appears, therefore, that, in Yefet’s opinion, though God communicated directly with Moses, he did not necessarily write down what he was told in his own hand, conceivably commissioning professional scribes to whom he dictated the Torah (or at least instructed as to the manner of its composition, as he had Joshua, according to the previously quoted statement). Thus the chain of transmission of God’s revelation becomes longer and begins to resemble the children’s “telephone game.” God says something to Moses, who repeats it, possibly in a selective way and maybe also in his own words, to Joshua or “experienced scribes,” who, we can only assume, do their best to write down exactly what Moses dictates to them. 42 ‫למא אנתהא מן תעריפה מא יכון מן אלקום והו פאידה ה̇דה אלשירה ̇דכר אמת̇תאל משה ̇דלך כמ׳‬ ‫ק׳ ויכתב משה וקאל פי אלאמר ועתה כתבו לכם וקאל האהנא ויכתב ה̇דא מרדוד אלי אלאצל‬ ‫( אלמחכם והו אן יהושע כאן ישארכה פי כתאבה ה̇דה אלשירה‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fol. 114a). 43 ‫קולה ויכתב משה ערפנו אן משה כתב אלתורה מן בא בראשית אלי לעיני כל ישראל פאכ̇תר‬ ‫אלעלמא יקולון אנה כתבהא בידה וקום מנהם יקולון אח̇צר סופרים מהורים ואמלא עליהם חתי‬ ‫( כתבוהא בח̇צרתה‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fol. 105a). Cf. Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin,” p. 360; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” p. 902. I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Mordechai Akiva Friedman for having suggested certain corrections to my translation of this passage. 24* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? Yet, the question may be asked: did Yefet truly believe that Joshua or these professional copyists succeeded in recording exactly, what Moses told them? Or perhaps Joshua or these commissioned scribes, whoever they may have been, also took the liberty of selecting, arranging, and editing the received information? Or maybe another person was involved in the process of shaping the heavenly revelation into the earthly book, and thus responsible for the final edition of the text? There is no clear answer to these questions, but we find a hint in Yefet’s comment on Genesis 9:4, where first of all, he seems to differentiate between Moses and the person who recorded the Torah. Secondly, he seems to have believed that whoever this person was, he apparently decided on his own what to include in the Torah and what to omit. While pondering the question of whether the forefathers knew the “dietary laws” about permitted and prohibited foods (ḥalāl and ḥarām), Yefet quotes the opinions of other sages and concludes with the one that he regards as the most probable interpretation. He explains: Some people say that similar things [= the consumption of the flesh of animals], were permissible to Adam, though [the mudawwin] did not record it (ikhtaṣara tadwīnahu) there [= in the account about Adam], but recorded it here [= in the account about Noah]. Similarly, [the mudawwin] recorded [the phrase] told to Moses (alladhī khūṭiba bihi Moshe): These are the beasts which ye may eat (Deut 14:4), but abbreviated [and did not] record [the fact] that Adam and Noah knew [the distinction of] the permissible from the prohibited. This is the most likely [interpretation].44 Although in this comment Yefet does not explicitly mention the mudawwin, he clearly distinguishes between Moses and the anonymous “he” who recorded or omitted God’s words directed to the prophet, that is, he decided on his own what to include in the Torah. 44 ‫וקאל קום אנה כאן מבאח לאדם מ̇תל ̇דלך וא̇כתצר תדוינה הנאך ואנמא דוון ה̇̇דא ההנא נ̇טיר מא‬ ‫דוון זאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו אל̇די ̇כוטב בה משה וא̇כתצר אן תדוון מערפה אלחלאל ואלחראם‬ ‫( לאדם או לנח והו אלאקרב‬Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 42a). According to this comment, Yefet is inclined to think that Adam and Noah knew the distinction between permissible and prohibited animals, as it seems to be suggested by the biblical text itself (e.g., Gen 7:2). In the rabbinic tradition, the predominant view holds that Adam had been forbidden to eat the meat of animals, permission to do otherwise having been granted only to Noah. See, e.g., b. Sanhedrin 59b. I am thankful to the reviewer of this article for bringing these sources to my attention. Marzena Zawanowska 25* In Yefet’s commentary on Exodus 11:3 we find a further proof-text indicating that the exegete did not perceive Moses as the “editor-in-chief” of the Torah, and that whoever compiled the final version of the Pentateuch, whether Joshua, or scribes commissioned by Moses, or a totally different person, who collected and edited the previously recorded reports, did not play merely a passive role in transmitting God’s revelation mediated by Moses: I am inclined to think that [the verse] And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh: Thus saith the LORD, Israel is My son, My first-born (Exod 4:22) and the passage [commencing] with Thus saith the LORD: About midnight [will I go out into the midst of Egypt] (Exod 11:4), till And all these thy servants shall come down unto me (Exod 11:8) God had said to [Moses], before [He ordered him] Speak now in the ears of the people (Exod 11:2). But when the mudawwin abbreviated (ikhtaṣara) God’s words [directed] to Moses About midnight will I go out [into the midst of Egypt] (Exod 11:4), he put [the verse] Speak now [in the ears of the people] (Exod 11:2) after [the verse] he shall surely thrust you out [hence altogether] (Exod 11:1).45 Thus Yefet seems to be making a clear distinction here between as many as three independent entities involved in the process of producing the book called the Torah. [1.] The first is God, the divine author, who fulfills the function of the originator of Scripture and speaks to Moses. [2.] The second is Moses, who we know from previous citations as the authorial narrator or storyteller that related (either in his own words or by quoting God’s words verbatim) the reports he heard from the Creator. As may be inferred from the above quotations, he is also concerned with the transmission of the divine message by ensuring that it is committed to writing. Moreover, from the above we can see that it is by no means obvious who, in the exegete’s opinion, actually recorded the Pentateuch: Moses himself, Joshua, professional scribes, or perhaps somebody else? [3.] The third and last individual whom Yefet distinguishes in this passage as being responsible for preparing and shaping the final version of the entire text is the compiler-editor (al-mudawwin) “in chief,” who took the liberty of changing, arranging, and abbreviating Scripture, including the words of God directed to Moses. 45 ‫ויקרב פי נפסי אן ואמרת אל פרעה כה אמר י"י אלהי ישראל בני בכורי [ישראל] ופצל כה אמר י"י‬ ‫כחצות הלילה אלי וירדו כל עבדיך אלה אלי וג׳ קאלה אללה לה קבל דבר נא באזני העם ואנמא‬ ‫למא א̇כתצר אלמדוון קול אללה למשה כחצות הלילה אני יוצא ̇געל דבר נא בעקב גרש יגרש‬ (Ms. SP IOS B219, fol. 18a). Cf. Erder, “Moral Issues,” pp. 321–322. 26* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? An additional example of Yefet’s distinguishing between Moses and the anonymous mudawwin may be found in the exegete’s comment on Exodus 3:2, where he expounds: Know that the mudawwin said: And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him [in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush] (Exod 3:2) and reported about Moses: he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, [and the bush was not consumed] (Exod 3:2).46 It may be conjectured that if Yefet had believed that Moses was the final mudawwin of Scripture, who was reporting in this case something about himself, the exegete would have phrased this sentence: “know that the mudawwin […] reported about himself.” This can be seen in other instances in Yefet’s commentary on the Pentateuch, where he states that Moses says or said something about himself” (qawl/qāl/yaqūl Moshe ʻan nafsihi).47 In light of the above, it is my contention that in Yefet’s view, not all of the Torah was written down by Moses, neither in the sense of mere recording nor even in the sense of providing a loose report of the words of God. Furthermore, either the person commissioned by Moses to commit Scripture to writing or someone who came afterwards with a view to editing the previously accumulated records and compiling them into a book had taken the liberty of changing, arranging, and abbreviating the text. In other words, Yefet inferred that this person, of his own volition, consciously and purposely subjected the text to a process of literary shaping and fashioned Scripture according to his own wishes and tastes.48 In Karaite commentaries all of the distinct individuals involved in the making of the Pentateuch, namely the author, narrator or storyteller, scribe or recorder, compiler or editor, were often designated by one Arabic 46 ‫( ואעלם אן אלמדוון קאל וירא מלאך י"י וא̇כבר ען משה וירא והנה הסנה בער באש‬Ms. SP IOS B218, fol. 155a). Cf. Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,” p. 25. 47 ‫קול משה ען נפסה‬/‫קאל‬/‫יקול‬. See, e.g., Yefet’s commentary on Gen 1:26 (Ms. SP IOS 051, fols. 71b–72a). For an argument that, in Yefet’s view, in this and other similar places Moses, the mudawwin, speaks about himself in third person, see Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,” p. 94; Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis, p. 134. On this habit as common also among other exegetes, see ibid., pp. 42, 43. 48 I should like to emphasize that by stating that the mudawwin (other than Moses) “of his own volition, consciously and purposely subjected the text to a process of literary shaping and fashioned Scripture according to his own wishes and tastes,” I am not excluding the possibility that – in Yefet’s view – he did so under some kind of divine inspiration, on which subject I develop in the following part of this article. Marzena Zawanowska 27* “umbrella” term, al-mudawwin. Indeed, the use of this term may have served as a convenient “camouflage” circumventing the religiously inconvenient question of biblical authorship, in the sense of both committing the revelation to writing or recording, and shaping or editing the text.49 (It should be noted that a similar function can also be fulfilled by the elusive term Scripture [al-kitāb], since its use also enables the Bible exegete to avoid providing a definite answer to the above-mentioned “problematic” questions).50 At 49 On the term al-mudawwin serving as a “camouflage,” see Polliack, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” p. 903; eadem, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin,” p. 372. 50 In various places in his commentary Yefet makes Scripture (al-kitāb) the subject of sentences, and states that Scripture “mentions” (yadhkur) something (e.g., his comment on Gen 8:20, Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 37b), or “reports” (yanuṣṣ) about something (e.g., his comment on Gen 9:4, Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 41b). Moreover, there are instances in which Yefet makes Scripture responsible for its own redaction and structure. For example, when commenting on Gen 41:16, Yefet says: ‫א̇כתצר אלכתאב ידוון לנא מא ̇גרי מן כלאם יוסף אלי אלסלטאן ומעאני א̇כר אלתי‬ ‫“( ̇גרת בינהם פ̇דכר אלגר̇ץ פערף אן פרעה צדק יוסף באלקול כקולה ופתר אין אתו‬Scripture abbreviates [and does not] record for us [ikhtaṣara al-kitāb yudawwin lanā] the [exact] words directed by Joseph to the king (sulṭān), and [what] other subjects were spoken about between them. It only mentions the purpose [of the whole conversation] and informs [us] that Pharaoh believed in the words of Joseph, when he said and there is none that can interpret it [Gen 41:15].”) (Ms. SP IOS B217, fols. 143a–b). Another example where Scripture is the subject of a sentence describing its own redaction can be adduced from Yefet’s comment on Gen 47:10. Here the exegete informs us that some people thought that Pharaoh was a fool not to ask Jacob about anything related to wisdom, but just about his age. According to Yefet, however, this is not true, since Pharaoh did ask Jacob about other things as well, even though Scripture did not record them (lam yudawwinhā al-kitāb), since it records only what is instructive for the reader (‫וקד י̇טן אלנאס פי פרעה אנה‬ ‫כאן ̇גהל א̇ד ד̇כל אליה יעקב ולם יסלה ען שי מן אלחכם אלא ען עמרה פקט וליס אלאמר כ̇דאך בל‬ ‫( )קד סאלה ען אשיא לם ידונהא אלכתאב ואנמא דוון מא יפאד מנה‬Ms. SP IOS B218, fols. 37a–b). In the same manuscript, we find Yefet’s interpretation of Gen 50:4–6, in which the exegete explains how it was possible for Pharaoh to know about Joseph’s request, even though it was conveyed in a conversation with the house of Pharaoh, not with Pharaoh himself. Yefet concludes: ‫א̇כתצר אלכתאב אן ידוון לנא‬ ‫“( מ̇כאטבה בית פרעה לפרעה‬Scripture abbreviates [and does not] record for us the conversation [between] the house of Pharaoh and Pharaoh.”) (Ms. SP IOS B218, fols. 117a–b). For an explanation of the same passage by the Talkhῑṣ (without reference to Scripture), see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 206–207; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 129 (Eng.), pp. 192 (Ar.). For the use in the Talkhῑṣ of the term Scripture (al-kitāb) as the subject of sentences, see ibid., pp. 210–211. Al- Qirqisānī too often makes Scripture the subject of phrases, stating that Scripture “says,” “ascribes,” or “informs [us] about” something (e.g., Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab 28* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? the same time, this concept was certainly a very useful abstract tool for understanding and analyzing distinct textual phenomena, as well as the process behind the final edition of the Torah, certain aspects of which could not be so easily explained, if its final redaction had been attributed unambiguously to Moses.51 Yet, the fact that the mudawwin could not be unequivocally identified with Moses and remained anonymous evidently had no bearing, in Yefet’s opinion, on the importance of the Torah as a divinely inspired text.52 God was still believed to have been the heavenly originator of the Pentateuch and Moses its earthly author, in the sense that he wrote it down, either by himself or by dictating its first version or “draft”53 to others, after giving them suitable instructions, whereas the final redactor merely copied, rearranged, ordered and edited the collected text or texts.54 Moreover, it seems reasonable to assume that, just as in the case of the Book of Psalms, here too Yefet was inclined to believe that this editing work was not a purely human undertaking, the final mudawwin, whoever he may have been, having also functioned under divine inspiration.55 It is noteworthy that, according to Yefet, Moses not only received a direct, face-to-face revelation by which were transmitted to him all the commandments, but also prophesied by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, while blessing (Deut 33) or composing Psalms (Exod 15:1–18; Ps 90:1). In this regard, Moses was no higher in rank than any other prophet who received I 4529, fols. 31b, 41b, 48b). Sometimes, instead of the term “Scripture,” Karaite exegetes use the term “text” (al-naṣṣ), for example Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ states that “the text mentions” something (yadhkuruhu al-naṣṣ) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4760, fol. 44a). 51 For an argument that the term mudawwin served after all as an exegetical tool for solving textual difficulties and interpretative cruxes, see Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin”; Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis, pp. 124–136. 52 On the lack of reluctance on Yefet’s part to acknowledge the anonymity of the mudawwin of the Book of Psalms, see Simon, Four Approaches to Psalms, p. 73 (Heb.), p. 76 (Eng.). 53 On similar concepts expressed by Yefet with regard to the Book of Psalms, see ibid., pp. 87 (Heb.), pp. 89–90 (Eng.). 54 On Yefet’s conviction that the biblical texts (in opposition to the Oral Law) were not transmitted orally, but in writing, and were compiled in the epoch of their authors, see ibid., p. 89 (Heb.), p. 91 (Eng.). 55 On the idea of the mudawwin being divinely inspired, see ibid., p. 88 (Heb.), p. 91 (Eng.). On the comparison made by Yefet between Moses and other prophets concerning their respective modes of receiving the divine revelation, see above n. 15 and ibid., p. 78 (Heb.), p. 80 (Eng.). Marzena Zawanowska 29* the revelation from the Holy Spirit (David, Solomon, the sons of Korah, Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun). In my view, making him equal – even if only in certain respects – to other prophets together with the common Karaite conviction that the Five Books of Moses are no better a source of religious legislation than other books of the Bible, all the precepts and commandments being faithfully reported by prophets,56 allowed Yefet to differentiate between the author of the Torah (i.e., the person who actually received the divine revelation or inspiration) and its mudawwin, just as he did in the case of the other biblical books. By doing so, he apparently went further than any Karaite author of his day, since – as far as I can see – no other medieval Karaite exegete differentiated between Moses and the final mudawwin of the Torah. Later on, our exegete found a faithful pupil in Abraham Ibn Ezra, a devoted reader of Yefet’s Bible commentaries, who possibly under their influence embraced some of the above-scrutinized innovative concepts, while discussing “the mystery of the twelve [final] verses [of the Torah].” Over time, however, Yefet and his works sank into oblivion. As a result, Spinoza fully credited Ibn Ezra with originating the “revolutionary” idea that Moses might not have been the sole and final author of the Pentateuch, though – I believe – it should rightfully be traced back to our Karaite exegete.57 *** It appears that Yefet ben ʻEli conceived the process of writing down the Torah as an undertaking carried out in four stages that involved: [1.] God as the heavenly source of revelation and its original author (i.e., its originator); [2.] the prophet, as an earthly recipient of the divine inspiration, who as a human author, fulfilling the function of the authorial narrator or a storyteller, reported – sometimes in his own words, other times quoting God’s exact utterances – what he heard from the Creator; [3.] the scribe or the recorder (who may or may not have been identical with the prophet); [4.] the compiler- editor or redactor (who, again, may or may not have been identical with 56 In his comment on Num 20:12 Yefet contends: “The prophets sent to mediate between the Lord and the nation resemble Moses in that they report the words of the Lord as they heard them, without addition or omission.” Quoted from: Simon, Four Approaches to Psalms, p. 78 (Heb.), p. 80 (Eng.). On Yefet’s conviction that the prophet cannot be mistaken with respect to the received revelation, neither forget nor change it, see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines of Religious Thought, vol. 1, pp. 264–266; vol. 2, appendix 3/28, pp. 176–177. 57 See, e.g., Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, p. 145 (8:4). 30* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? the two previous individuals). Accordingly, this exponent of medieval Karaite exegesis, although he would never have admitted it openly, probably envisioned the recording (tadwīn) of the Pentateuch as a much longer and more complex process than he was willing to declare officially in “formal” statements such as: “Thus it is proved that Moses, may peace be upon him, wrote down (kataba) the [entire] Torah.”58 Yefet seemed to have been aware that of these four distinct functions, only the “reporting” and “storytelling” or “narrating” could be attributed to Moses with no reservations.59 That does not mean, however, that in his opinion, Moses did not also fulfill, at least partially, the other roles. Nonetheless, the exegete probably felt that these other functions could not easily be attributed to “the greatest prophet ever” in an uncontested and clear-cut manner. This is probably why the term mudawwin, covering all the different functions without associating it with one concrete person, was such a useful and convenient invention. It enabled him to explain different internal textual (literary or other) phenomena, as well as external, historical, and other circumstances related to the formation of the Bible, without having to determine who was responsible for the final edition of Scripture. It also allowed Yefet to avoid confessing openly to an intuitive or learned opinion that might diverge from a commonly accepted religious tenet, in keeping with Maimonides’ warning: “It is right that a man should belong to that class of men who have a conception of truth and understand it, though they do not speak of it.”60 Having reached the conclusion that Moses was not the final redactor of the Pentateuch, Yefet did not seem to be greatly concerned about the identity of the editor. The part played by the anonymous mudawwin in compiling and editing the Holy Writ did not diminish, in the exegete’s eyes, its importance as a divinely inspired text, nor did it divest Moses of his role as the mortal originator of the Torah (“but the teaching and the instruction came from Moses”). Similarly, in our day, too, the work of the editor and the changes 58 On the contrast between more conservative theoretical (or rhetorical), exegetical positions, as expressed by certain exegetes, and their actual exegetical practice, see Polliack, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” p. 900. 59 On the lack of evidence for Yefet’s identification of the mudawwin with Moses, see ibid., p. 903. For an explicit identification of the biblical narrator or storyteller with Moses, see, e.g., Yefet’s comment on Gen 13:10: ‫ה̇דא קול אלמחכי משה על׳‬ ‫“( אלסל׳‬This is a statement [pronounced] by the storyteller [al-muḥkī] Moses, may peace be upon him.”) (Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 98a). 60 See Maimonides, Guide for Perplexed, p. 68. Marzena Zawanowska 31* he introduces to the manuscript do not undermine the authorship of the book. In this sense, Yefet, though he remained a true homo religiosus, was ready to accept the intellectual conclusion that Moses did not produce the final version of the Torah. As a Karaite, this was even easier for him, since in certain respects the Karaites perceived all the twenty-four books of the Tanakh in a more “equal” manner than the Rabbanites.61 Finally, it should be noted that the introduction of the human mudawwin, who played a more significant role than that of a mere scribe, copyist, or recorder of God’s words, testifies to the growing historical and literary awareness of the medieval Karaite exegetes, which was influenced by the achievements of the surrounding Islamic culture. This concept may also be considered an outcome of the internal Jewish debate over the nature and status of the Holy Writ and the ways in which it should be interpreted, or as an intrinsic element of Karaite hermeneutic conceptualization. At the same time, it may also be understood as an apologetic endeavor to refute the Christians’ and Muslims’ allegations against the Hebrew Script.62 For it is my contention that, paradoxically, in order to preserve the divine dimension of the Holy Writ and its heavenly origin, it might have proved much more effective to acknowledge the active involvement of a human hand in the process of shaping the final version of the biblical text, written for humans, and therefore in human language and by humans63. 61 Since the Karaites rejected the binding authority of the rabbinic tradition and denied the validity of its religious legislation (halakha) as encapsulated in the Oral Law, they needed to fill the resulting vacuum by deriving new legislation from all the books of the Hebrew Bible. For more about the reasons standing behind this shift in the Karaite approach to religious legislation, see Vajda, “Etudes sur Qirqisani” 122 (1963), pp. 51–57. On this procedure as initiated by the alleged founder of the Karaite movement, ʻAnan ben David, see Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, p. 209; Baron, Social and Religious History, vol. 5, p. 212; Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 78–89. See also Lasker, “Influence on Maimonides,” pp. 155– 156 and n. 53. For the legislative activity of post-Mosaic prophets, see Frank, Search Scripture Well, pp. 239–242. 62 For slightly different reasons behind the development of the concept of a biblical mudawwin conceived of as a manifestation of the Karaite interest in structural analysis of the biblical text, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 224–239. Cf. above, n. 51. 63 Cf. ibid., pp. 232–235. Yet, it has also been suggested that the theory of human editor(s) of Scripture was often rejected by Bible exegetes for similar (polemical) reasons, viz., to defend its holy character against the Christians’ and Muslims’ allegations of human falsification or distortion, and alteration of the Hebrew Writ, which were meant to justify its abrogation and supersession by later revelations. 32* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? Nonetheless, Yefet’s identification of someone other than Moses as the final redactor of the Pentateuch was overstepping the bounds vis-à-vis his own coreligionists, in addition to being a dangerous weapon for the anti- Bible polemicists. It thus remains concealed under the ambiguous term of al-mudawwin. Abbrevations Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium = Zvi Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium: The Formative Years, 970–1100 (New York and Jerusalem: Columbia University Press and the Weizmann Science Press of Israel, 1959). Astren, Karaite Judaism = Fred Astren, Karaite Judaism and Historical Understanding (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2004). Baron, Social and Religious History = Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd ed., 18 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1957). Ben-Shammai, Doctrines of Religious Thought = Haggai Ben-Shammai, The Doctrines of Religious Thought of Abū Yusūf Yaʻqūb al-Qirqisānī and Yefet ben ʻEli, 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977) [Hebrew]. Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin” = Haggai Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin – the Redactor of the Hebrew Bible in Judaeo-Arabic Bible Exegesis,” in From Sages to Savants: Studies Presented to Avraham Grossman, eds. Joseph Hacker, Benjamin Z. Kedar and Joseph Kaplan (Jerusalem: the Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2009), pp. 73–110 [Hebrew]. Blau, Dictionary of Judaeo-Arabic = Joshua Blau, A Dictionary of Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic Texts (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2006) [Hebrew]. Drory, Emergence of Literary Contacts = Rina Drory, The Emergence of Jewish-Arabic Literary Contacts at the Beginning of the Tenth Century (Tel Aviv: Porter Institute of Poetics and Semiotics, 1988) [Hebrew]. For a discussion of polemical reasons behind the rejection of the theory of human editor(s) of Scripture by later Bible exegetes from Spain, see, e.g., Steiner, “Theory of Biblical Redaction.” Marzena Zawanowska 33* Erder, “Moral Issues” = Yoram Erder, “The Attitude of the Karaite Yefet ben ʻEli to Moral Issues in the Light of his Interpretation of Exodus 3:21–22,” Sefunot 22 (1999), pp. 313–333 [Hebrew]. Frank, Search Scripture Well = Daniel Frank, Search Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Gil, Palestine 634–1099 = Moshe Gil, Palestine During the First Muslim Period, 634–1099, 3 vols. (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1983) [Hebrew]; Eng. trans. by Ethel Broido, A History of Palestine 634–1099 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis = Miriam Goldstein, The Pentateuch Exegesis of the Karaite Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ and Abū al-Faraj Hārūn: an Examination of Method in the Context of the Contemporaneous Literary and Exegetical Approaches of Jews, Christians and Muslims, Ph.D. dissertation (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006). Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis = Miriam Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis in Medieval Jerusalem. The Judeo-Arabic Pentateuch Commentary of Yusuf ibn Nuh and Abu al-Faraj Harun (Tuebingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2011). Halevi, Kuzari = Judah Halevi, The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith of Israel, trans. from Arabic by Hartwig Hirschfeld (New York: Schocken Books, 1964). Hirschfeld, Qirqisāni Studies = Hartwig Hirschfeld, Qirqisāni Studies (London: Jews’ College Publications, No. 6, 1918). Lasker, “Influence on Maimonides” = Daniel Lasker, “The Influence of Karaism on Maimonides,” Sefunot 20 (1991), pp. 145–161 [Hebrew]. Mann, Texts and Studies = Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, 2 vols. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1931–35; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1935), vol. 2 “Karaitica.” Maimonides, Guide for Perplexed = Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. from Arabic by Michael Friedländer, 2nd ed. (New York: Dover Publications Inc, 2000). Margoliouth, “Ibn Al-Hiti’s Chronicle” = George Margoliouth, “Ibn Al-Hiti’s Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors,” Jewish Quarterly Review o.s. 9 (1897), pp. 429–444. Marwick, “Order of Books” = Lawrence Marwick, “The Order of the Books in Yefet’s Bible Codex,” Jewish Quarterly Review o.s. 33 (1942–43), pp. 445–460. 34* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? Nemoy (ed.), Code of Karaite Law = Kitāb al-anwār wa-al-marākib. Code of Karaite Law, ed. Leon Nemoy, 4 vols. (New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939–43). Nemoy, Karaite Anthology = Leon Nemoy, Karaite Anthology (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1952). Polliack, Karaite Tradition of Translation = Meira Polliack, The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin” = Meira Polliack, “The Karaite Conception of the Biblical Narrator (Mudawwin),” in Encyclopedia of Midrash, eds. Jacob Neusner and Alan Jeffery Avery-Peck (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 350–374. Polliack, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters” = Meira Polliack, “The ‘Voiceʼ of the Characters in the Bible Commentaries of Yefet ben ʻEli,” in Birkat Shalom – Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Post-biblical Judaism, Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, eds. Chaim Cohen, Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch Schwartz and Jeffrey Tigay (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008), pp. 891–915. Polliack & Schlossberg, “Methods of Interpretation” = Meira Polliack & Eliezer Schlossberg, “Historical-Literary, Rhetorical and Redactional Methods of Interpretation in Yefet Ben ʻEli’s Introduction to the Minor Prophets,” in Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts, ed. Geoffrey Khan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 1–39. Polliack & Schlossberg, Yefet ben ʻEli on Hosea = Meira Polliack & Eliezer Schlossberg, Commentary of Yefet ben ʻEli the Karaite on the Book of Hosea (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2009) [Hebrew]. Poznański, “Karaite Opponents of Saadia” = Samuel Poznański, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadia Gaon,” Jewish Quarterly Review o.s. 18 (1906), pp. 209–250; 19 (1907), pp. 59–83; 20 (1908), pp. 74–85 and 216–231; repr. in idem, The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadia Gaon (London: Luzac & Co., 1908); repr. in Karaite Studies, ed. Philip Birnbaum (New York: Sepher Hermon Press, 1971), pp. 129–234. Saadia, Book of Beliefs = Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, trans. from Arabic and Hebrew by Samuel Rosenblatt, 2nd ed. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976). Simon, Four Approaches to Psalms = Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: From Saadya Gaon to Abraham ibn Ezra (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1982) [Hebrew]; Eng. trans. by Lenn Marzena Zawanowska 35* J. Schramm (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991); reviewed by Haggai Ben-Shammai, “Review: Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: From Saadya Gaon to Abraham Ibn Ezra,” Kiryat Sefer 58 (1983), pp. 400–405 [Hebrew]. Skoss, Ali ben Suleiman on Genesis = Solomon L. Skoss, The Arabic Commentary of Ali ben Suleiman the Karaite on the Book of Genesis (Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate, 1928). Sokolow, Yefet ben Ali on Deuteronomy = Moshe Sokolow, The Commentary of Yefet ben Ali on Deuteronomy xxxii, Ph.D. dissertation (New York: Yeshiva University, 1974) [Hebrew]. Spinoza, Tractus Theologico-Politicus = Benedict de Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Tractatus Politicus, translated from the Latin, with an Introduction by R.H.M. Elwes (London: George Bell and Sons, 1891). Steiner, “Theory of Biblical Redaction” = Richard C. Steiner, “A Jewish Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: its Rabbinic Roots, its Diffusion and its Encounter with the Muslim Doctrine of Falsification,” Jewish Studies an Internet Journal 2 (2003), pp. 123–167. Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative = Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1985). Vajda, “Etudes sur Qirqisani” = George Vajda, “Etudes sur Qirqisani,” Revue des études juives 106–108 (1946–47), pp. 87–123, 52–98, 63–91; 120 (1961), pp. 211–257; 122 (1963), pp. 7–74. Wechsler, Yefet ben ʻEli on Esther = Michael Wechsler, The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben ʻEli the Karaite on the Book of Esther (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Wieder, Judean Scrolls = Naphtali Wieder, The Judean Scrolls and Karaism (London: East and West Library, 1962; repr. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East Yad Ben- Zvi Press, 2005). Zawanowska, Yefet ben ʻEli on Genesis = Marzena Zawanowska, The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben ʿEli the Karaite on the Abraham Narratives (Genesis 11:10–25:18) (Leiden: Brill, 2012). Zawanowska “Review of Research” = Marzena Zawanowska, “Review of Scholarly Research on Yefet and His Works,” Revue des études juives 173 (1/2) (2014), pp. 97–138.