DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**VistaULTIMATEdownloadaPro** · 05-19-2011, 09:24 PM

Imam Al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni recorded the opinion that Uzayr was the one who corrupted the Torah. I believe it was his own opinion, but can't remember for sure. According to Jewish tradition, Uzayr (or Esra) was the one who started the canonization of the Tanakh. So when did any corruption take place?
Most likely not after the time of Uzayr, since you will find manuscripts, scholarly quotes from after that etc.

As-salamu aleikum

I remember reading that Ibn Hazm and Shamwil al-Maghribi (an ex-Jew) both said that Ezra, or his contemporaries changed the Torah. I would like to read their arguements. Jewish traditions also mention that Ezra or his contemporaries, the men of the Great Assembly who established the Jewish texts, changed the Torah in certain instances:
""Rabbinic sources speak of tikkun soferim, i.e. textual changes introduced
by the scribes, some of which concern the Torah.134 According to the
Tanhuma 135 and Yalkut ha-Makhirt, l36 it was the anshei kenesset hagedolah
who changed certain words in the Torah. The Masoretic work
Okhlah ve-Okhlah137 and R. Joshua Lisser138 credit Ezra with the textual
changes. The 'Arukh,139 Rashi,140 R. David Kimhi,l41 Yemenite Masorah,
142 and Shemot Rabbah as explained by the standard Midrashic commentary
Matanot Kehunah 143 (which is actually the clear meaning of the text), are
also explicit that the biblical text was changed by the Soferim. Although
lacking in our texts, there are some versions of Shemot Rabbah 13:2 which
also contain this explanation""

Source: Marc B. Shapiro's: "Maimonides' Thirteen Principles: The
Last Word in Jewish Theology?".

Anshei kenesset hagedolah means men of the Great Assembly. Soferim means scribes.
So there are nine Jewish sources that say that the Torah was changed in certain instances, ten if you count the source mentioned at the end. I don't know about the rules of Hadith metholodgy, but wouldn't this amount to mass-transmission, considering that all of those sources are indepent of one another?

According to these Jewish sources, the Torah was changed in three instances. Two of them were changed because they were seen as offensive towards God and one because it was seen as offensive towards Moses. Here are the passages:

Commentary on Gen. 18:22

The two men turned62 and headed63 toward Sodom, but Abraham was still standing before the Lord.

64tc An ancient Hebrew scribal tradition reads “but the Lord remained standing before Abraham.” This reading is problematic because the phrase “standing before” typically indicates intercession, but the Lord would certainly not be interceding before Abraham.

Commentary on Num. 11:15

But if you are going to deal37 with me like this, then kill me immediately.38 If I have found favor in your sight then do not let me see my trouble.”39

39tn Or “my own ruin” (NIV). The word “trouble” here probably refers to the stress and difficulty of caring for a complaining group of people. The suffix on the noun would be objective, perhaps stressing the indirect object of the noun – trouble for me. The expression “on my trouble” (בְּרָעָתִי, bÿra’ati) is one of the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or “emendations of the scribes.” According to this tradition the original reading in v. 15 was [to look] “on your evil” (בְּרָעָתֶךָ, bÿra’atekha), meaning “the calamity that you bring about” for Israel. However, since such an expression could be mistakenly thought to attribute evil to the Lord, the ancient scribes changed it to the reading found in the MT.

Commentary on Num. 12:12

Do not let her be like a baby born dead, whose flesh is half-consumed when it comes out of its23 mother’s womb!”

23tc The words “its mother” and “its flesh” are among the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or “emendations of the scribes.” According to this tradition the text originally had here “our mother” and “our flesh,” but the ancient scribes changed these pronouns from the first person to the third person. Apparently they were concerned that the image of Moses’ mother giving birth to a baby with physical defects of the sort described here was somehow inappropriate, given the stature and importance of Moses.

Source: http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm

How would this information interpreted by hadith methodology?

Rifai, I also agree that the Torah couldn't really have been changed too much after Ezra or the men of the Great Assembly. First, like you said there are manuscripts after that time. Second, because the Torah was translated into Greek and the Septuagint was adopted by the Christians. Although there are a lot of differences between the Masoretic Torah and the Septuagint, I don't see how both Jews and Christians would collaborate to corrupt the Torah, i.e. get rid of a passage mentioning the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). In addition to the Septuagint, you have the Samaritan Torah, two Aramaic translations called Targums and the Latin translations like Jerome's translation. Did I miss anything? Then, like you said, there are too many scholarly quotes, ranging from Jewish Rabbis to Christian Church Fathers.

Thoughts?

05-19-2011, 09:24 PM	#4
VistaULTIMATEdownloadaPro Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 518 Senior Member	Imam Al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni recorded the opinion that Uzayr was the one who corrupted the Torah. I believe it was his own opinion, but can't remember for sure. According to Jewish tradition, Uzayr (or Esra) was the one who started the canonization of the Tanakh. So when did any corruption take place? Most likely not after the time of Uzayr, since you will find manuscripts, scholarly quotes from after that etc. As-salamu aleikum I remember reading that Ibn Hazm and Shamwil al-Maghribi (an ex-Jew) both said that Ezra, or his contemporaries changed the Torah. I would like to read their arguements. Jewish traditions also mention that Ezra or his contemporaries, the men of the Great Assembly who established the Jewish texts, changed the Torah in certain instances: ""Rabbinic sources speak of tikkun soferim, i.e. textual changes introduced by the scribes, some of which concern the Torah.134 According to the Tanhuma 135 and Yalkut ha-Makhirt, l36 it was the anshei kenesset hagedolah who changed certain words in the Torah. The Masoretic work Okhlah ve-Okhlah137 and R. Joshua Lisser138 credit Ezra with the textual changes. The 'Arukh,139 Rashi,140 R. David Kimhi,l41 Yemenite Masorah, 142 and Shemot Rabbah as explained by the standard Midrashic commentary Matanot Kehunah 143 (which is actually the clear meaning of the text), are also explicit that the biblical text was changed by the Soferim. Although lacking in our texts, there are some versions of Shemot Rabbah 13:2 which also contain this explanation"" Source: Marc B. Shapiro's: "Maimonides' Thirteen Principles: The Last Word in Jewish Theology?". Anshei kenesset hagedolah means men of the Great Assembly. Soferim means scribes. So there are nine Jewish sources that say that the Torah was changed in certain instances, ten if you count the source mentioned at the end. I don't know about the rules of Hadith metholodgy, but wouldn't this amount to mass-transmission, considering that all of those sources are indepent of one another? According to these Jewish sources, the Torah was changed in three instances. Two of them were changed because they were seen as offensive towards God and one because it was seen as offensive towards Moses. Here are the passages: Commentary on Gen. 18:22 The two men turned62 and headed63 toward Sodom, but Abraham was still standing before the Lord. 64tc An ancient Hebrew scribal tradition reads “but the Lord remained standing before Abraham.” This reading is problematic because the phrase “standing before” typically indicates intercession, but the Lord would certainly not be interceding before Abraham. Commentary on Num. 11:15 But if you are going to deal37 with me like this, then kill me immediately.38 If I have found favor in your sight then do not let me see my trouble.”39 39tn Or “my own ruin” (NIV). The word “trouble” here probably refers to the stress and difficulty of caring for a complaining group of people. The suffix on the noun would be objective, perhaps stressing the indirect object of the noun – trouble for me. The expression “on my trouble” (בְּרָעָתִי, bÿra’ati) is one of the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or “emendations of the scribes.” According to this tradition the original reading in v. 15 was [to look] “on your evil” (בְּרָעָתֶךָ, bÿra’atekha), meaning “the calamity that you bring about” for Israel. However, since such an expression could be mistakenly thought to attribute evil to the Lord, the ancient scribes changed it to the reading found in the MT. Commentary on Num. 12:12 Do not let her be like a baby born dead, whose flesh is half-consumed when it comes out of its23 mother’s womb!” 23tc The words “its mother” and “its flesh” are among the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or “emendations of the scribes.” According to this tradition the text originally had here “our mother” and “our flesh,” but the ancient scribes changed these pronouns from the first person to the third person. Apparently they were concerned that the image of Moses’ mother giving birth to a baby with physical defects of the sort described here was somehow inappropriate, given the stature and importance of Moses. Source: http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm How would this information interpreted by hadith methodology? Rifai, I also agree that the Torah couldn't really have been changed too much after Ezra or the men of the Great Assembly. First, like you said there are manuscripts after that time. Second, because the Torah was translated into Greek and the Septuagint was adopted by the Christians. Although there are a lot of differences between the Masoretic Torah and the Septuagint, I don't see how both Jews and Christians would collaborate to corrupt the Torah, i.e. get rid of a passage mentioning the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). In addition to the Septuagint, you have the Samaritan Torah, two Aramaic translations called Targums and the Latin translations like Jerome's translation. Did I miss anything? Then, like you said, there are too many scholarly quotes, ranging from Jewish Rabbis to Christian Church Fathers. Thoughts?
	Quote