That’s true. But the rabbis interpretation is that this was a past prophet as the verse
in Deutr. 34:10 is in the perfect tense.
It’s a pitty that the quotation from the commentary is cut and the context of this Rabbinical thought is not provided.
In the comment section of the below linked post I explain my reasons for believing that the “Muslim” claim of finding Muhammad in 34:10, and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, are extremely hard to maintain.
I think the point is that verse could refer to a non-Israelites prophet. Therefore, muslims can use it legitimately from that angle regardless what that Rabbi believed about who that prophet was specifically.
“was a past prophet as the verse in Deu 34:10 is in the perfect tense.”
I am not sure if this’s a good argument. It’s really not good.
“was a past prophet as the verse in Deu 34:10 is in the perfect tense.”“I am not sure if this’s a good argument. It’s really not good.”. Can you explain why that is not a valid argument?
The rabbinic idea that Deutr. 34:10 “there arose not a prophet since in Israel like Moses” implies that a non-Israelite prophet arose, is not the plain meaning of the text. I think the simple and straightforward reading is that the verse attests to Moses’ unique prophetic career in Ancient Israel.
But even if one accepts this rabbinic exegesis, but not “who that prophet was specifically” the verb “arose” is in the perfect tense. This means that this gentile prophet must have lived before Deutr. 34:10 was written. The Rabbis identified this prophet as Balaam who was a contemporary of Moses, but died prior to Moses death. In other words, the rabbis correctly identified this aspect of the verse. Consequently they were consistent in their exegetical application of their interpretation of the verse.
For these reasons I feel it’s a bit of a stretch and I don’t feel “muslims can use it legitimately”, as you write, to refer to Muhammad.
First, are you christian?
Second, “This means that this gentile prophet must have lived before Deutr”?
How exactly? I don’t follow?! The clear meaning is that to the time in which that verse got written, no prophet has arisen like Moses.
Hi Abdullah, No I am not a Christian though I don’t see how that affects the question.
Yes, since the verb “arose” is in the perfect tense the hypothetical, “implied” gentile prophet must have lived before this verse, Deutr. 34:10, was written. Critical scholarship has noted that this verse seems to have been written some time after Moses’ death. But anyways, on this interpretation the implied hypothetical and gentile prophet must have lived before this verse was written. And the rabbis’ exegesis, at least, is consistent with the grammatical construction of the text.
But simply read the verse: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”.
Don’t you think it’s just a little bit of a stretch to understand this verse to be talking about Muhammad?
If you were a christian, I would show you how inconsistent you’re by using this argument.
Still not sure how that verse “implied” gentile prophet must have lived before this verse, Deutr. 34:10, was written” because it does not.
I even can read that part of the verse in Hebrew because it’s almost identical to Arabic.
Well, suppose, for the sake of argument, this verse was written in the 7th century b.c.e., but it could be the xth century. Fill in your century of choice. Now the author is looking backwards from the time of Moses to his own day. The author finds that no other prophet like Moses had arisen in Israel so he writes: “Since then [Moses’ death], no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”. In the perfect tense. So the text talks from a perspective from the time of Moses till whenever the verse was written, say the 7th century b.c.e. We learn something about the time of composition.
قام (qam) is also a perfect tense verb in Arabic just as קָם (qam) is in Hebrew (he arose). Only difference is the Arabic is written with a long alif.
Spinoza too argued that Deutr. 34, is written from the perspective of a later time and Muslim apologists do the same thing.
Now, rabbis with a hypertextual approach come along, say around the 5th. century c.e. Since the verse says “had not arisen in Israel” what might be implied is that such a prophet “had arisen”, among the gentiles, i.e., not in Israel. Written in the perfect tense. That is, from the perspective of the time of composition. The candidate: Balaam. Now, what lead the rabbis to Balaam is very interesting, but that’s a different story. But they too understood it to be someone who lived before Deut. 34:10 was written, which they presumably took to be no later than the time Joshua, Moses successor.
But again, the simple contextual reading, I should argue, is that the verse talks about how unparalleled Moses was as a Prophet in Israel, even though other prophets arose in Israel, from Moses’ death and to the time of the author. I don’t think the author meant to imply a hypothetical, unnamed gentile prophet arose from Moses’ death and to the time of the author.
But again simply read the verse: “Since then [Moses’ death], no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”.
Wouldn’t you say it’s quite a stretch to see here a reference to Muhammad? I certainly would.
I don’t know what you mean by “… in the wind”. It has liitle to do with the question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. What I’m saying is this:
Deutr. 34:10 “Since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”.
If we go with the argument it implies a gentile prophet arose, no later than the time of composition of the verse, because the verse is written in the perfect conjugation. Thus, it cannot refer to Muhammad.
If you read the verse as “there will not arise a prophet like Moses”, in the imperfect. You have two problems:
1. You are contradicting the grammar of the verse, indeed the whole context of Deut. 34.
2. Even if one allows for reading it contrary to the grammar, you are still relying on a questionable assumption: does “there will not arise a prophet like Moses” really mean or imply the same as “Muhammad will arise”? It’s somewhat forced and very vague.
Simply read the verse: “Since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”. Wouldn’t you say it’s quite a stretch to see here a reference to Muhammad?
I’m really not sure if you really believe this verse is reference to Muhammad.
I think they were just glorifying moses as a mighty prophet and it doesnt suggest anything more. It’s such an ambiguous verse when you hypertexualise it and the meaning is lost. I agree that moses was a mighty prophet, but not as the jews claim as a source. Albeit if what they claim is similar to what I follow I accept it.
I completely agree with you that the verse testifies to Moses’ unique prophetic character in Israel and nothing more as you say. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It’s Abdullah1234 who has argued the other position. I don’t know what you mean by “that moses was a mighty prophet, but not as the jews claim as a source”.
@marc
I dont want to offend you or anyone else for that matter but I wont trust what the jews wrote for many reasons. And I say that without any bias. Does it mean I dont believe in the Torah that moses recieved from the creator? I do, but not the torah as we know today.
No problem, you’re not offending me. Q 7:157 says that “the Messenger, the unlettered [or gentile] prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel with them” and I think this implies that what they had was more or less what we have today and what we know from ancient manuscripts.
So if Muhammad was not excised from scripture, the interesting question is how does the Quran envision the Prophet to be written in the Torah and Injeel? I think it envisions that he can be found there, not explicitly, but through other means, one being Midrashic exegesis of Biblical verses, for example such as this one.
So how we understand Q 7:157 saying that “the prophet is written in the Torah and Gospel they have”?
It seems to indicate that you could find the prophet written in the documents of the 7th century, doesn’t it?
«𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐡’𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞 𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭…» ~ Artscholl Chumash Commentary on Deuteronomy, p. 187
That’s true. But the rabbis interpretation is that this was a past prophet as the verse
in Deutr. 34:10 is in the perfect tense.
It’s a pitty that the quotation from the commentary is cut and the context of this Rabbinical thought is not provided.
In the comment section of the below linked post I explain my reasons for believing that the “Muslim” claim of finding Muhammad in 34:10, and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, are extremely hard to maintain.
https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/04/11/some-thoughts-on-nadir-ahmed-v-michael-brown/
I think the point is that verse could refer to a non-Israelites prophet. Therefore, muslims can use it legitimately from that angle regardless what that Rabbi believed about who that prophet was specifically.
“was a past prophet as the verse in Deu 34:10 is in the perfect tense.”
I am not sure if this’s a good argument. It’s really not good.
“was a past prophet as the verse in Deu 34:10 is in the perfect tense.”“I am not sure if this’s a good argument. It’s really not good.”. Can you explain why that is not a valid argument?
The rabbinic idea that Deutr. 34:10 “there arose not a prophet since in Israel like Moses” implies that a non-Israelite prophet arose, is not the plain meaning of the text. I think the simple and straightforward reading is that the verse attests to Moses’ unique prophetic career in Ancient Israel.
But even if one accepts this rabbinic exegesis, but not “who that prophet was specifically” the verb “arose” is in the perfect tense. This means that this gentile prophet must have lived before Deutr. 34:10 was written. The Rabbis identified this prophet as Balaam who was a contemporary of Moses, but died prior to Moses death. In other words, the rabbis correctly identified this aspect of the verse. Consequently they were consistent in their exegetical application of their interpretation of the verse.
For these reasons I feel it’s a bit of a stretch and I don’t feel “muslims can use it legitimately”, as you write, to refer to Muhammad.
First, are you christian?
Second, “This means that this gentile prophet must have lived before Deutr”?
How exactly? I don’t follow?! The clear meaning is that to the time in which that verse got written, no prophet has arisen like Moses.
Hi Abdullah, No I am not a Christian though I don’t see how that affects the question.
Yes, since the verb “arose” is in the perfect tense the hypothetical, “implied” gentile prophet must have lived before this verse, Deutr. 34:10, was written. Critical scholarship has noted that this verse seems to have been written some time after Moses’ death. But anyways, on this interpretation the implied hypothetical and gentile prophet must have lived before this verse was written. And the rabbis’ exegesis, at least, is consistent with the grammatical construction of the text.
But simply read the verse: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”.
Don’t you think it’s just a little bit of a stretch to understand this verse to be talking about Muhammad?
If you were a christian, I would show you how inconsistent you’re by using this argument.
Still not sure how that verse “implied” gentile prophet must have lived before this verse, Deutr. 34:10, was written” because it does not.
I even can read that part of the verse in Hebrew because it’s almost identical to Arabic.
Hebrew (wə lō qām nā-ḇî)
Arabic (wa la qām nabî)
Well, suppose, for the sake of argument, this verse was written in the 7th century b.c.e., but it could be the xth century. Fill in your century of choice. Now the author is looking backwards from the time of Moses to his own day. The author finds that no other prophet like Moses had arisen in Israel so he writes: “Since then [Moses’ death], no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”. In the perfect tense. So the text talks from a perspective from the time of Moses till whenever the verse was written, say the 7th century b.c.e. We learn something about the time of composition.
قام (qam) is also a perfect tense verb in Arabic just as קָם (qam) is in Hebrew (he arose). Only difference is the Arabic is written with a long alif.
Spinoza too argued that Deutr. 34, is written from the perspective of a later time and Muslim apologists do the same thing.
Now, rabbis with a hypertextual approach come along, say around the 5th. century c.e. Since the verse says “had not arisen in Israel” what might be implied is that such a prophet “had arisen”, among the gentiles, i.e., not in Israel. Written in the perfect tense. That is, from the perspective of the time of composition. The candidate: Balaam. Now, what lead the rabbis to Balaam is very interesting, but that’s a different story. But they too understood it to be someone who lived before Deut. 34:10 was written, which they presumably took to be no later than the time Joshua, Moses successor.
But again, the simple contextual reading, I should argue, is that the verse talks about how unparalleled Moses was as a Prophet in Israel, even though other prophets arose in Israel, from Moses’ death and to the time of the author. I don’t think the author meant to imply a hypothetical, unnamed gentile prophet arose from Moses’ death and to the time of the author.
But again simply read the verse: “Since then [Moses’ death], no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”.
Wouldn’t you say it’s quite a stretch to see here a reference to Muhammad? I certainly would.
@marc
Hate to see you pissing in the wind but thought you might find this interesting or not
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship
I don’t know what you mean by “… in the wind”. It has liitle to do with the question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. What I’m saying is this:
Deutr. 34:10 “Since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”.
If we go with the argument it implies a gentile prophet arose, no later than the time of composition of the verse, because the verse is written in the perfect conjugation. Thus, it cannot refer to Muhammad.
If you read the verse as “there will not arise a prophet like Moses”, in the imperfect. You have two problems:
1. You are contradicting the grammar of the verse, indeed the whole context of Deut. 34.
2. Even if one allows for reading it contrary to the grammar, you are still relying on a questionable assumption: does “there will not arise a prophet like Moses” really mean or imply the same as “Muhammad will arise”? It’s somewhat forced and very vague.
Simply read the verse: “Since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”. Wouldn’t you say it’s quite a stretch to see here a reference to Muhammad?
I’m really not sure if you really believe this verse is reference to Muhammad.
I think they were just glorifying moses as a mighty prophet and it doesnt suggest anything more. It’s such an ambiguous verse when you hypertexualise it and the meaning is lost. I agree that moses was a mighty prophet, but not as the jews claim as a source. Albeit if what they claim is similar to what I follow I accept it.
I completely agree with you that the verse testifies to Moses’ unique prophetic character in Israel and nothing more as you say. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It’s Abdullah1234 who has argued the other position. I don’t know what you mean by “that moses was a mighty prophet, but not as the jews claim as a source”.
@marc
I dont want to offend you or anyone else for that matter but I wont trust what the jews wrote for many reasons. And I say that without any bias. Does it mean I dont believe in the Torah that moses recieved from the creator? I do, but not the torah as we know today.
No problem, you’re not offending me. Q 7:157 says that “the Messenger, the unlettered [or gentile] prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel with them” and I think this implies that what they had was more or less what we have today and what we know from ancient manuscripts.
So if Muhammad was not excised from scripture, the interesting question is how does the Quran envision the Prophet to be written in the Torah and Injeel? I think it envisions that he can be found there, not explicitly, but through other means, one being Midrashic exegesis of Biblical verses, for example such as this one.
“I think this implies that what they had was more or less what we have today and what we know from ancient manuscripts.”
Or not, which is my view mainly from a logical perspective
So how we understand Q 7:157 saying that “the prophet is written in the Torah and Gospel they have”?
It seems to indicate that you could find the prophet written in the documents of the 7th century, doesn’t it?
“It seems to indicate that you could find the prophet written in the documents of the 7th century, doesn’t it?”
I think deuteronomy 18:18 would suggest that it does
is this source avaliable online pdf my brother ???
sorry I don’t know