The Jewish origins of Qur An 18:65-82? Reexamining Arent Jan Wensick's theory.

• Author: Wheeler, Brannon M.
• Position: Scholar

The story of moses and the anonymous "servant of God" in Q 18:65-82 has been the source of much commentary by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike. Muslim commentators generally follow the story attributed to Ubayy b. Ka b, transmitted by Ibn Abbas or Wahb b. Munabbih,(1) which identifies the unnamed "servant" as "al-Khidr," from whom Moses attempts to learn about God's justice.(2) This account describes how Moses, after claiming to be the most knowledgeable of people, is sent by God to find al-Khidr, who is supposed to have a greater and more esoteric knowledge than anyone else. Moses finds al-Khidr, after following a fish that escapes in an unusual fashion, and asks al-Khidr to teach him about God's justice. Moses then follows and watches al-Khidr as he makes a hole in a ship, kills a boy, and fixes the wall of some people who refused him hospitality.

Moses cannot fathom the justice of the actions until al-Khidr explains the unseen circumstances and reasons for what he has done. The story is usually understood as a vindication of God's justice and an indictment of the human claim to divine knowledge.

Western scholars, less concerned about the message than the origins of the Qur an, have attempted to identify the sources of this story. Probably the most interesting and influential explanation is found in the article by Arent Jan Wensinck on "al-Khadir," in the first and second editions of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. In this article, Wensinck argues that Q 18:65-82 is taken from the "Jewish legend" of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi and Elijah.(3) This explanation is followed by most subsequent scholarship on this story. Despite the erudition Wensinck's article exhibits, and the popularity it enjoys, there are a number of problems associated both with its dating of sources and its assumptions regarding the redaction of the Qur an and its relationship to the early commentaries.

A closer analysis of Wensinck's sources discloses that, although some elements are found in earlier non-Islamic sources, there is no evidence to make the theodicy story of Q 18:65-82 depend on a particular Jewish or Christian source. Wensinck's explanation and the subsequent scholarship do not make an adequate distinction between the story contained in Q 18:65-82 and the information provided in the Muslim commentaries on these verses. The evidence shows that the Jewish legend of Joshua and Elijah has more in common with these commentaries than with the Qur an itself, suggesting that the Jewish story is linked to Q 18:65-82 through the medium of the commentaries. This conclusion is further strengthened by the examination of related Moses theodicy stories which show the influence of the commentaries on other Jewish sources. The investigation of these issues does not indicate that the Qur an depends upon earlier late antique sources, but rather demonstrates how the commentaries make a purposeful attempt to associate the Qur an with certain late antique stories and thereby appropriate both the Qur an and these other sources to their own agenda.

POSSIBLE PRECEDENTS FOR Q 18:65-82

According to Wensinck, the story at issue is derived from the "Jewish" story of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi and Elijah, published by Adolph Jellinek in 1873,(4) in which Rabbi Joshua b. Levi meets Elijah on the road and asks to follow and observe his actions. Elijah agrees on the condition that Joshua will not question his actions even though he will not understand the reasons for them. The two are given hospitality by a poor man who owns only one cow. Upon leaving, Elijah kills the cow, Joshua questions the act, and Elijah rebukes him for the question. The next day the two stop at the house of a rich man who gives them no hospitality. Upon leaving Elijah causes a collapsed wall at the rich man's house to be fixed. That evening the two come to a synagogue in which sit people on seats of gold and silver. The people give no hospitality to the two but in the morning Elijah asks God to make all the people there rulers. The next evening the two stop with some poor people who give them hospitality. In the morning Elijah asks God to make only one of them a ruler. Joshua, perplexed at these actions, finally questions Elijah again, who explains the justice in his actions. The cow is killed instead of the poor man's wife, who was supposed to die that day. If left unfixed, the collapsed wall would have revealed a treasure to the rich but undeserving man. In the case of the two groups of people, Elijah explains that a place with a single ruler is much better than one where everyone is a ruler.

Wensinck's claim is, in part, based on the supposition that the story in the Qur an is confused about the names of the characters. According to him, because there is no mention of Joshua b. Levi in Muslim sources, the author of the Qur an takes Joshua b. Levi from the previous story as Joshua b. Nun, the companion of Moses. It is important to note what Wensinck assumes here. First, the Qur an does not mention Joshua b. Nun as the companion of Moses, although this is often supplied by later commentators. Second, Wensinck assumes that the author of the Qur an, whom Wensinck identifies as Muhammad, borrowed this story, not too accurately at that, directly from a Jewish source. Whether Muhammad confused the story purposefully or out of ignorance is not specified by Wensinck. The most obvious problem with this explanation, however, is that it identifies Moses with Elijah, and does not account for the third character in the Qur an, the mysterious "servant of God."(5) A closer parallel between the two stories would have Moses identified with Joshua b. Levi and Elijah with the "servant of God," later identified by commentators as al-Khidr.

This theory concerning the confusion of the two Joshuas is related to a discussion found in some of the commentaries over the identity of "Moses" in Q 18:60-82. This discussion is found in Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's commentary.

Most of the scholars hold that the Moses mentioned in these verses is Moses b. Imran, master of the clear miracles, and master of the Torah. This is on the authority of Sa id b. Jubayr, who said to Ibn Abbas that Nawf [al-Bikali], son of the wife of Ka b, alleges that al-Khidr was not the companion of Moses b. Imran.

He was the companion of Moses b. Manasseh [Misha], son of Joseph, son of Jacob. It is said that be was a prophet before Moses b. Imran.

Ibn Abbas said the enemies of God lie. It is known that Joseph had two sons: Ephraim and Manasseh [Misha]. Ephraim bore Nun and Nun bore Joshua b. Nun. He is the companion of Moses, and he carried on his commission after his death.

As for the son of Manasseh, it is said that prophethood came to him before Moses b. Imran. The people of the Torah allege that he is the one who was searching to be taught this knowledge, and that al-Khidr is the one who broke the ship, killed the boy, and fixed the wall, Moses b. Manasseh being with him. This is the opinion of most of the Jews.(6)

This passage shows that there was some dispute between Jews and Muslims over the provenance of this theodicy story. There also seems to have been some confusion about the name of Joseph's first-born son Manasseh. The name "Misha" probably depends on a ketib-qir e in the Massoretic text of Judges 18:30, where the name Manasseh is written as "MSH" with the nun provided only as a superscript letter, allowing the name to be read as Moses [Moshe].(7) It is possible that, without the Massoretic apparatus, the name was read as Mishe to distinguish it from Moses. There are other reasons that Manasseh could be confused with Moses, but there is no apparent biblical or rabbinic precedent for Manasseh having a son named Moses. In any case, this story does not Support Wensinck's supposition that Joshua b. Nun and Joshua b. Levi were confused, but shows only that some sort of disagreement existed over the identity of the Moses of Q 18:60-82.(8)

In making his claim that Q 18:65-82 depends upon this story, Wensinck was following the earlier opinions of Y. L. Zunz,(9) Abraham Geiger,(10) and Israel Friedlander.(11) Neither these scholars nor Wensinck were aware that this story, given under the title Hibbur yafeh me-ha-yeshu a, is a Hebrew paraphrase of an earlier Arabic work attributed to the eleventh-century Nissim b. Shahin of Qayrawan.(12) In his introduction to the Hebrew text, Jellinek does repeat the earlier assertion made by Zunz that the story of Joshua b. Levi and Elijah is related to Q 18:65-82.(13) In discussing another Hebrew story about Joshua b. Levi and Elijah, the frame-story of which is similar to the Ibn Shahin story, Jellinek states that both stories seem to originate from an Arabic source, although he does not identify that source.(14) Jellinek also mentions that the story of Nathan b. Hanna found in the Hebrew paraphrase of Ibn Shahin is similar to a story found in the Arabian Nights.(15) Unfortunately, these suggestions about the possible Arabic origins of these Hebrew stories were not taken up by Wensinck and subsequent scholarship.

Even after the Arabic original was discovered, however, scholars have continued to maintain that the Qur an depended upon this story despite the fact that it is not attested in Jewish sources before this eleventh-century text. The claim for the originality of the Jewish story is epitomized by the argument of Julian Obermann, the editor of Ibn Shahin's Arabic text. According to Obermann, the existence of the story in the Qur an proves that Ibn Shahin derived his story from an earlier, but not extant, rabbinic source. Obermann argues, first, that the two stories are similar enough to suggest a genetic relationship but not so similar as to indicate that one borrowed from the other.(16) Second, "as a rule" the Qur an draws upon "early post-Biblical religious lore, most frequently of Jewish, less frequently of Christian, origin."(17) Third, since Ibn Shahin claims his book to be a collection of...