In the Exodus narrative of the Hebrew Bible Moses is presented as the divinely sanctioned “national” leader of Israelites, who led them out of the oppressive situation they found themselves in as migrants in Egypt (Exod. 3:16–22) and conveyed to them a set of legal rules concerning all aspects of life, endorsed by the claim of divine revelation (Exod. 19 and 34). In later Jewish and rabbinic consciousness, this latter aspect predominates: the Torah was given to Moses at Sinai – Moses is the intermediary through whom God delivered his Torah to his people.1 In their focus on Torah study, interpretation, and application rabbis considered themselves to stand in a direct line of sages that could be traced back to Moses at Sinai.2 Their “oral” Torah was linked to the “written” Torah, rabbinic halakhah continued and expanded biblical law.3 Like Moses, late antique rabbis’ main role was that of “lawgivers”, who tried to regulate the behavior of their fellow-Jews not only in cultic but also in inter-personal relationships resembling Roman civil law.4
In the Qur’an, Muhammad appears as a prophet succeeding and superseding Moses (Musa) and Jesus, whose prophecy he is believed to have completed.5 Moses is mentioned 136 times, indicating this “paradigmatic prophet”’s prominence in Qur’anic “biblical reminiscence”.6 Angelika Neuwirth has argued that the Qur’an can only be understood properly when read in the context of late antiquity, that is, as emerging out of a late antique milieu in which Jewish and Christian perceptions of Moses circulated orally, in writing, and in artistic representations. In this vein, Hartmut Bobzin writes: “In summary, then, the Qur’an’s portrayal of Muhammad’s prophethood is characterized by a typological association with the figure of Moses. The way Moses is portrayed owes much to Judaism and to Jewish Christianity … Just as Jewish Christianity regarded Jesus as a prophet who confirmed and completed Moses’ prophecy, the Qur’an views Muhammad as having completed Moses’ work”.7 Similarly, Zishan Ghaffar sees “Muhammad as Moses redivivus” in the Qur’an and emphasizes the “typological permeability” of the representations.8 According to Griffith, Moses is presented “as a model for Muhammad” as far as his “prophetic career” as a “messenger” of God and revealer of divine scriptures is concerned.9
In this paper I shall argue that the Islamic view of Moses stands in line with the late antique transformation of Moses’ image in patristic literature and Byzantine art, particularly of the fourth to sixth centuries. The Christian appropriation and transformation of Moses coincides with a de-emphasis on Moses in synagogue and funeral art of that time. While the Christian traditio legis replaced Moses at Sinai with Christ on a mountain and the Torah with an open scroll that was probably meant to represent Jesus’ gospel, the figure of Moses is absent in late antique synagogue art in the Land of Israel and appears only in the earlier third-century Dura Europos synagogue paintings. In a recent article, Armin F. Bergmeier has argued that in the late antique context the traditio legis “was understood as a visualization of the Old Testament prophecy at Isa. 2:2–4. These verses predicted the coming of the new Messiah and the spreading of his Law across the world in a time of peace …”.10 This iconographic motif had its heyday in the fourth and fifth centuries and is represented in a number of early Byzantine churches.11 In the Qur’an, the receipt of the Decalogue (sura 17:39) puts Muhammad “as nabiy typologically on the same level as Moses”.12 Other often-used Christian motifs of that time period were Moses at the burning bush, which symbolized the transfiguration and was linked to apophatic theology, and Moses drawing water from the rock.13 The Qur’an is similarly interested in signs and symbols and, according to Ghaffar, evinces a veritable “sign theology” (“Zeichentheologie”).14 Miracles serve to legitimize and authorize divine messengers (cf. sura 40:23: “Certainly We sent Moses with Our signs and a manifest authority”).
While the most common third- to fourth-century Christian catacomb depictions of Moses emphasize the miraculous aspects of the biblical narrative (Moses drawing water from a rock; Moses performing his miracle while the Egyptian flee in disorder), Christian sarcophagus decorations show Moses on panels together with a selection of other “Old” and “New” Testament scenes and personages, that is, they integrate him into Christian salvation history. By the late fourth century the traditio legis motif already appears in sarcophagus reliefs that convey the notion that Christ is the “true” lawgiver, not only replacing Moses in his traditional role but also changing the nature of the “law” itself. The law-focused biblical tradition associated with Moses has been transformed into a tradition that presents Christ as the fulfiller of biblical prophesies and revealer of new spiritual truths that are meant to guide his believers’ lives. In the middle Meccan suras of the Qur’an, Muhammad becomes the new identification figure for Muslim communities and his message reflects a “spiritual reorientation”.15
1. Dura Europos Synagogue: Moses as a Communal Identification Figure
Motifs based on the biblical Moses narrative are particularly prevalent in the Dura Europos synagogue of the third century C.E. Scenes depicting Moses appear in five panels that range from Pharaoh’s daughter finding the baby Moses in a basket floating in the Nile river (Exod. 2:5–10),16 to Moses fleeing to Midian after having killed an Egyptian and scolded a fellow-Israelite (Exod. 2:15),17 Moses at the burning bush, where God reveals himself to him and promises to lead the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod. 3:2–19),18 Moses splitting the Red Sea to let the Israelites move into safety (Exod. 14:16),19 and Moses at Miriam’s well, an image that lacks a direct basis in the Hebrew Bible and is based on a later tradition developing from Moses striking the rock for water (Exod. 17:6). This painting also gives a central place to the menorah as the most important Jewish symbol, which appears in the background, flanked by the Israelites’ temporary huts that are reminiscent of the sukkah.20 Hagit Sivan has pointed to the central place which these Moses scenes occupy in the spatial and iconographic program of the Dura synagogue: “Moses practically dominates the Western Wall, with no less than five panels, two enormous at the top depicting the Exodus, one showing him in the centre with the burning bush, and the infancy scene. No other figure occupies so much space at Dura”.21
Why did those responsible for the Dura Europos wall paintings give so much significance to the Moses narrative and why did they choose these specific scenes? Several explanations are possible. Like Moses and the Israelites in Egypt, the Jews of Dura Europos were migrants who lived outside of the Jewish homeland. Even if they were well integrated into their local surroundings, they may have felt threatened in maintaining their Jewish identity. The very phenomenon of the synagogue paintings already suggests that they were keen on expressing their own salvation history publicly, in formal analogy to but theological distinction from the iconographic program of the nearby church.22 Peppart has emphasized that Dura Europos was a frontier town whose inhabitants came from a variety of ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds. In the mid-third century “one could have visited buildings and shrines dedicated to the gods of Greece, Rome, Judea, Syria, and Persia”, in addition to the Christian church.23 In such a multi-cultural climate each community may have been eager to stress their own cultural traditions by, at the same time, adhering to a shared visual language.
Besides Moses, Abraham and David appear in the synagogue paintings as prominent figures from the Jewish past.24 Rachel Hachlili has already stressed that the images are not directly based on and do not illustrate the written biblical texts. They are rather based on oral narratives that were transmitted within the community.25 Scenes from the Exodus story would have symbolized the salvific history of the Jews who lived at Dura Europos: just as God saved Moses and the Israelites in the past, he would also save contemporary Jews. The iconographical depiction would also have evoked ritual associations with the Jewish holidays of Passover as a commemoration of the Exodus and Sukkot (notice the huts in the desert in one of the scenes).
Steven Fine has also pointed to another image that he associates with Moses, namely, the depiction of a man holding a scroll.26 He argues that this man can be identified as “Moses, the archetypical sage in Second Temple and rabbinic times”.27 According to rabbinic sources, Moses received the Torah at Sinai and passed it on to Joshua, the elders, and eventually rabbis. Whereas Ezra “the scribe” is presented as reading from “the scroll of the teaching of Moses” in Neh. 8:1–3, Josephus associates public Torah reading with Moses himself.28 The scroll reader depicted in the wall painting wears the kind of clothes that third-century Jews would have worn. Fine, therefore, thinks that Torah readers within the community would have identified with Moses as the quintessential Torah reader here. The identification with Moses remains uncertain, however. The figure could also represent Ezra or was understood generically.
2. The Rabbinic Image of Moses as Lawgiver and Righteous Person
The image of the Torah reader, whose identification with Moses remains uncertain, is reminiscent of the rabbinic perception of Moses as the Jewish leader who received the Torah from God at Sinai. The chain of tradition that began with Moses is listed in Mishnah Avot 1:1: “Moses received the Torah from Sinai, and he transmitted it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets handed it down to the men of the great assembly …”.29 Late antique rabbis would have identified with Moses as the first sage who transmitted divine law to his fellow-Israelites, just as they instructed their Jewish contemporaries in halakhic matters.
In the Talmud Yerushalmi, rabbinic rules are often based on precedents attributed to Moses. For example, based on m. Pes, 7:4, y. Pes. 7:4, 34a discusses the question whether the Passover offering, which is to be brought at a specific time, can be brought in an unclean state (that is, the priest, community members, or cultic objects might be unclean). Does the requirement of a specific time override the issue of uncleanness here, and if so, what could this rule be based on? Furthermore, can the regulations pertaining to Passover be expanded to other festivals as well? In a statement attributed to Rabbi (i.e., R. Yehudah ha-Nasi) the verse Lev. 23 is quoted (“So Moses declared to the Israelites the set times of the Lord”) – do all sacrifices associated with festivals that are celebrated at “set times” override the Sabbath (but see Lev. 23:38) and can they all be offered in a state of uncleanness? This and many other rabbinic texts indicate that statements and rules associated with Moses constituted the basis of rabbinic halakhic discussions and rabbis’ own legal creativity.30
Although rabbis wondered why Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land (Deut. 32:52, cf. Num. 20:12), in Midrash he is presented as a model of righteousness.31 In Sifre Deuteronomy 26 Moses and David are presented as “two fine leaders [who] served Israel”.32 Moses, conscious of having committed a sin, is said to have asked God to “let the sin which I have committed be recorded after me [after my death] so that people should not say, ‘It would appear that Moses falsified the words of the Torah or proclaimed a precept which had not be commanded’” (ibid.). Here the lesser sin (at the waters of Meribah, cf. Num. 27:14) is supposed to be made public to avert people from suspecting Moses of a much graver sin, namely the falsification of the Torah. The truthful transmission of the Torah and its commandments is presented as Moses’ greatest legacy here. He is envisioned as an honest and truthful servant of God and leader of Israel, less concerned with his own reputation than with people’s trust in the validity of God’s precepts which he recorded. Although Moses’ “good deeds” would have suspended the divine punishment of his sin, he asked for God’s mercy. The midrash presents this behavior as exemplary. Fraade stresses the humility with which Moses is presented here.33
In his study of Moses in the rabbinic tradition Günter Stemberger has pointed out that the association of Moses with the Sinai revelation of the Torah rarely appears in tannaitic texts.34 The focus on Moses as a lawgiver and model ancestor of rabbis as legal interpreters and as a righteous person seems to have been emphasized especially in late antiquity, as the Talmud Yerushalmi and amoraic Midrahim suggest. Stemberger points to a “famous parlance of rabbinic theology” (my translation from the German) at the very end of Midrash Sifra on Lev. 27:34 (“These are the commandments which the Lord gave Moses for the Israelite people on Mount Sinai”): from that time onwards no prophet will add anything: “Erneuerung und Ausgestaltung der Halakhah ist nicht unter Berufung auf Offenbarung, sondern allein durch rabbinische Auslegung der Mose gegebenen rabbinischen Gebote möglich”.35 Variants of this tradition appear in the Palestinian (y. Meg. 1:7, 70d) and Babylonian Talmuds (b. Meg. 2b and 3a; b. Yoma 80a; b. Temura 16a): “Es ist somit denkbar, dass der Satz als ganzer erst spät in Sifra eingetragen wurde”.36 The emphasis on Moses as the last recipient of divine revelation and on rabbis as the only authorized interpreters of this revelation may have been directed against late antique and early Byzantine Christians who claimed the superiority of their “prophet” Jesus’s revealed teachings.
3. The Exodus in the Wadi Hamam and Huqoq Synagogue Mosaics: God’s Saving Power
Whereas scenes concerning Moses and the Exodus narrative are absent from synagogues with Zodiac panels (the Sepphoris synagogue shows Aaron’s consecration to the service of the Tabernacle, though), the two recently excavated synagogues at Wadi Hamam (4th c.) and Huqoq (5th c.) do depict particular scenes from the narrative – albeit not Moses himself.37 Before we take a closer look at these scenes, it should be noted that other, no longer existing panels may well have featured other parts of the Exodus story and perhaps even Moses himself. With regard to the Wadi Hamam mosaic, Weiss has suggested that “its missing parts probably illustrated the Israelites being saved miraculously”,38 and Talgam reckons with the possibility that Moses himself may have been depicted in a no longer preserved panel.39 If that was the case – something we can no longer determine – the iconographic program of some late antique synagogues in the Land of Israel may have resembled that of the Dura Europos wall paintings with more biblical scenes than assumed in the past.
A fragmentary panel of the only partly preserved floor mosaic of the Wadi Hamam synagogue seems to depict the unsuccessful attempt of Pharaoh’s army to follow the Israelites through the Red Sea. The image seems to allude to that part of the Exodus story which mentions God’s protection of the Israelites while crossing the sea. In Exod. 14:16 God tells Moses to “lift up your rod and hold out your arm over the sea and split it so that the Israelites may march into the sea on dry ground”. By contrast, Pharaoh’s army is destined to drown. In the next sentence, their destiny is predicted: “And I shall stiffen the hearts of the Egyptians so that they go in [to the water] after them; and I will gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen. Let the Egyptians know that I am Lord, when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen” (14:17–18). The fate of Pharaoh’s army is related in Exod. 14:23–28: when the Egyptians pursued the Israelites, God “locked the wheels of their chariots, so that they moved forward with difficulty (14:25). He then instructed Moses to use his rod again: “that the waters may come back upon the Egyptians and upon their chariots and upon their horsemen” (ibid. v. 26). The very moment when the Egyptians experience this difficulty seems to be depicted in the mosaic panel, which shows the upturned wheels and horses of a chariot, a large fish, and part of a soldier lying on the ground with an outstretched sword.40
The synagogue visitors would have been familiar with the narrative, e.g., through synagogue Torah readings and sermons. While the preserved part of the panel shows the outcome of God’s (and Moses’) actions only, obviously God’s protection of the Israelites and his punishment of their enemies is alluded to here. Miller and Leibner point to “the centrality of the story of the exodus and the crossing of the Red Sea in Jewish tradition”.41 In the Hebrew Bible the Exodus and crossing of the sea constitute the beginning of the Israelites’ movement toward the promised land and God’s revelation of the Torah at Sinai. “Rabbinic sources go even further, viewing the exodus not only as a miraculous intervention by God on behalf of the Israelites, but as an archetype for future redemptions”.42 In the early Byzantine context, God’s actions against Pharaoh and his army, that is, his eradication of Israel’s enemies may have received a particularly poignant meaning. Pharaoh and the Egyptian army may have stood in for Byzantine Christian authorities imposing discriminatory laws on Jews and invading and appropriating their territory. Whereas the motif is rare in synagogue art – it also appears in Dura Europos and Huqoq – it often appears on Christian sarcophagi, on the wall of a Christian catacomb in Rome, and in early Byzantine churches (see section 4 below). The Wadi Hamam version seems to stress God’s own salvific power rather than pointing to Moses as a human endowed with supernatural powers.
Whereas the Wadi Hamam sea-crossing scene focuses on the drowning of Pharaoh’s army, at Dura Europos the focus is on Moses’ miracle working. The wall painting shows three Jewish men in striped tunics in the foreground and two depictions of groups of people in a smaller size format. The group on the left-hand side seems to depict Israelites able to walk on dry ground, whereas the right-hand scene shows people in the water who are drowning and splashing about. The central figure is Moses, whose miracle splits the sea, as explicated by an Aramaic inscription (“Moses when he went up from Egypt and split the sea”). In fact, all three men seem to represent Moses at different times, a composition that resembles modern graphic novels and is to be read from left to right (despite the Aramaic script’s reading from right to left): Moses with the rod in his hand before using it, turned toward the Israelites; Moses lifting his arm and using the rod; and Moses lifting the rod above his head after having accomplished his task.43 Moses’ action is linked to God’s saving power through the two hands from heaven above the two central figures’ heads. The divine hands suggest that Moses’ miraculous power is authorized by God, that the crossing of the sea exemplifies God’s protection of the Israelites through the intermediacy of their leader.44 Did the commissioners of the fourth-century Wadi Hamam mosaic fear that such emphasis on Moses could be misread and associated with Jesus’ miracle working and Christian beliefs in his divine powers?
An even later fifth-century Jewish rendition of the scene appears on the Huqoq synagogue mosaic floor. As in the Wadi Hamam mosaic, Moses is absent from the scene and the focus is on the drowning of the Egyptian soldiers. A soldier with a helmet and spear is half-swallowed up by a large fish, while other fish with open mouth threaten horses and soldiers who are overturned and floating in the water. Perhaps even more than the Wadi Hamam rendition, this version presents the sea and its creatures as naturally dangerous to humans. By implication, and perhaps considered evident without explicit reference, the saving of the Israelites would seem even more extraordinary. Karen Britt and Ra’anan Boustan have already emphasized that “[t]he focus on the drowning of the Egyptian army in the panels at Huqoq and Wadi Hamam stands in sharp contrast to most other Jewish and Christian depictions of this episode, which highlight the role of Moses and the experience of the Israelites”.45
Another Huqoq mosaic panel related to the Exodus narrative shows two men carrying a pole laden with grapes, reminiscent of the spies or scouts sent by Moses to Canaan after the Exodus from Egypt. Poles are mentioned in Num. 13:23. “The spies returned with tales of an abundant land of milk and honey – with bunches of grapes so large they required two men to carry. Most of the scouts, however, were uncertain that they could conquer Canaan and wandered in the wilderness for 40 years as a result”.46 There is a Hebrew inscription on the panel that reads: “a pole between two”. The depiction of such a specific scene suggests that the synagogue visitors, or at least those who commissioned the mosaic floor panels, were very familiar with the various aspects of the Exodus narrative, perhaps on the basis of storytelling (e.g., on Passover) and Torah reading practices. The grapes symbolize the fecundity of the Land of Israel, the land that the synagogue community lives in but also experienced to be appropriated by Byzantine Christians. In this context, the Exodus mosaic panels might serve to stress the Jewish claim to the land, both with regard to the Exodus narrative and Jewish labor and craftsmanship (elsewhere in the mosaic workers are depicted).47
4. The Transformation of Moses in Early Byzantine Christian Art
As we have seen above, late antique rabbinic Judaism saw Moses as a lawgiver and Jewish leadership figure, while synagogues of the fourth to sixth centuries emphasized God’s salvific power, skipping over the intermediary role of Moses. It was early Byzantine Christian art that presented Moses as a prophetic forerunner of Jesus, appropriating and transforming his biblical image to make it subservient to the Christian message. Part of this appropriation was the claim of Christ’s superiority to Moses. Moses’ centrality in Judaism was downgraded to a mere supporting role to claim that ultimate divine revelation happened through Jesus Christ only.
In Acts 3:22 a verse from the book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 18: 15) is quoted: “For Moses said: A prophet like me shall the Lord your God raise up unto you from among your brothers; to him shall you listen in everything that he tells you” (repeated ibid. 7:37). In the context of Deut. 18:9–22, the statement serves to alert Israelites to the lures of false prophecy once they have entered the promised land without Moses. Various types of false prophecy are mentioned as examples: divination, soothsayers, enchanters, sorcerers, charmers, necromancers (18:10–11), practices which are called “abominations of those nations” (18:9). From the perspective of Deuteronomistic history, the prophet like Moses, recommended in the statement, would have been one of the succeeding leaders of Israelites, such as Joshua and the later Israelite kings. Obviously, rabbis of the third and fourth centuries C.E. would have considered themselves the legitimate heirs of Moses, although they stressed that “prophecy” had ended a long time ago. Deut. 18:21–22 points to prophecies’ actual fulfillment as a means to identify true prophecy.
Notably, according to Sifra 13:8 on Lev. 27:34, God revealed his commandments to Moses at Sinai exclusively. After Moses, no prophet is supposed to change or innovate anything. Stemberger writes: “Diese Auslegung, ein berühmter Spitzensatz rabbinischer Theologie, schließt andere Gebote, die ein Prophet einführen möchte, völlig aus”.48 On that basis, any claim of “prophecy” in the sense of divine revelation after Moses is illegitimate. In a monographic study L. Steven Cook has analysed all ancient Jewish references to the “cessation of prophecy”.49 He points to the difficulty involved in defining prophecy: the term seems to have been used in various ways in the ancient texts.50 The above-mentioned Sifra text associates “prophecy” with the revelation of the Torah to Moses at Sinai only, not with the prophets and prophetic texts that are part of the biblical canon. Accordingly, Jewish views on the “end of prophecy” are diverse. The “end of prophecy” is usually associated with the end of the biblical period, i.e., Persian times. The revelation to Moses maintained a central significance for Philo and later rabbis.51
For the perception of Moses vis-à-vis Jesus in late antique Christian theology the traditio legis tradition and the notion of transfiguration are important. These theological developments had an impact on the ways in which Moses is depicted in early Byzantine art. The traditio legis seems to have been represented in church apsis mosaics since the late fourth century C.E. Deines writes: “Typically, Jesus depicted in majestic, cosmocratic posture, hands over the new law in the form of a scroll to Peter in the presence of Paul (although Christians used the codex) … The scenery is a sophisticated blend of paradise and Mt. Sinai: Jesus is standing on a kind of mountain top evoking the moment the Torah was given to Moses. But this mountain is placed within paradise … in other contexts, not only Jesus, but also Peter and Paul are regularly depicted with scrolls, that is, in the traditional role of Moses and the prophets”.52 As examples, Deines points to the apsis mosaics of the early sixth-century basilica of saints Cosmas and Damian and to the fourth-century church of Santa Costanza (the tomb of Constantine’s daughter) in Rome.53 In this iconographic tradition, Moses has been replaced by Jesus, who takes center-stage. The Torah given to Moses at Sinai is replaced by a “new law”, the gospel of Jesus. A substitution of both the messenger and the message is evident here.
In his study of the traditio legis motif in early Christian art and literature, Reidar Hvalvik has pointed out that the motif is most prevalent in ecclesiastical and funerary contexts in late fourth- and early fifth-century Rome.54 He rejects earlier understandings of the motif, according to which Jesus handed over a scroll of the law to Peter: Christian depictions of the law given to Moses at Sinai differ from the traditio legis-motif. “It should, however, be noted that some occurrences of Moses receiving the law are found exactly on monuments where the traditio legis-scene is the central motif”.55 In such cases, the depiction of Moses has been delegated to the side aisle panels. Hvalvic reckons with a direct connection between the two motifs: “While the former depicts Moses receiving the law, the latter depicts Christ giving the law – figuratively speaking”.56 According to Hvalvik, the motif would suggest that Jesus merely continued Moses’ task by spreading the law amongst the nations through his apostles Peter and Paul. It is this “figuratively speaking” which makes a real difference, however. It was not the Torah given to Moses at Sinai that the mis-named traditio legis is referring to but “the gospel/the message of Christ as a (new) law” and “new covenant”.57 Therefore I agree with Deines, who points to the obvious disagreement between the traditio legis and Jewish emphasis on the one and only revelation of the Torah given by God to Moses at Sinai.58
Where does this replacement leave Moses, then? In churches of the late fourth to sixth centuries biblical scenes from the Exodus story featuring Moses are delegated to the side aisles that guide the viewer’s gaze to the Christian message displayed centrally in the apse. This is the case, for example, with the scenes from Moses’ life in the nave of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, dated to the first half of 5th c. C.E. Amongst the 43 mosaics on the right wall of the nave twelve depict episodes from the biblical Exodus story: Moses receives the commandments (now lost), the young Moses, Moses in Midian, Moses confronts Pharaoh (now lost), Moses tells the Israelites of God’s plan (now lost), Moses explains the laws of Passover (now lost), the crossing of the Red Sea, the manna and quails, the waters of Marah and attack of the Amalekites, Moses is rebuked by the people, Moses’ death and burial.59 Besides Jacob, Moses is therefore the most displayed biblical character in the basilica’s mosaic program. This indicates the importance of the Exodus narrative amongst those responsible for the iconographic choices.
Perhaps less than in the triple representation of Moses in the Crossing of the Red Sea at Dura Europos but in contrast to Wadi Hamam and Huqoq, Moses is part of the scene: his miraculous parting of the sea with his rod, with Aaron at his side, is foregrounded here. Also similar to the Dura image is the presence of both the Israelites walking on dry land on the left-hand side and the Egyptian army marching towards and drowning in the sea in the center and right-hand side. The old man with a beard and raised arm, already half-way underwater, may be Pharoah himself. Despite such similarities between the Jewish and Christian depictions, Robert L. Wilken points to the different theological frameworks that determined the interpretation and spatial arrangement of the images: “what is pictured in the mosaics in the nave [of Santa Maria Maggiore] finds fulfillment in the panels flanking the apse”, with Jesus, Mary, and Joseph in the triumphal arch.60 The narrative-based biblical scenes are juxtaposed and culminate in dogmatically inspired representations of Jesus. Robin Jensen, who has traced the transformation of Christian iconography in the post-Constantinian era, notes that earlier “themes are not entirely displaced, but rather placed in relationship to powerful artistic representations of the risen and triumphant Christ …”.61
The favourite Moses motifs in late antique Christian art were Moses at the burning bush (cf. Exod. 3:2–4) and Moses striking the rock in the desert to draw water (Exod. 17:6). These motifs have a particular significance in the Exodus narrative. They refer to miracles and to God revealing himself to Moses. In the burning bush episode, Moses perceives God (or his angel) in a burning bush that was not consumed by fire. God introduces himself to Moses and reveals his plan to save the Israelites from Egyptian oppression through Moses as their leader. An iconographic depiction of this episode also appears in the Dura Europos synagogue, where Moses stands barefooted next to his shoes (cf. Exod. 3:5: “And He said: ‘Do not come close; take off your shoes from your feet, for the place whereon you stand is holy ground”) and to the burning bush to which his right hand points.62 This is the only evidence we have for the iconographic use of this motif in ancient Jewish contexts. Stemberger has pointed out that the scene is also rarely discussed in rabbinic texts.63
The burning bush motif had a special significance in early Byzantine Christian art of the fourth to sixth centuries, when it seems to have been understood on the basis of transfiguration theology. It appears, for example, in the wall mosaic of the basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna (ca 525 C.E.).64 The central part of the image shows Moses, identified by an inscription, in the process of removing his shoes. He is surrounded by flames emerging from the greenery around him. There is a halo around his head. He looks towards the hand of God, which appears in the upper left-hand corner.
The scene also appears in the sixth-century mosaic of the basilica of St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai Desert.65 The apse mosaic is meant to show the Transfiguration of Christ: “At the top of the wall above the apse are two scenes from the Old Testament which occurred at Mount Sinai itself: Moses loosening his sandals before the Burning Bush and Moses receiving the tablets of the Law from the hand of God”.66 Mango notes that the Moses scenes are placed very high on the wall above the apse, that is, they were considered to be of only subordinate importance to the main message.67 The apse mosaic shows “Christ in a mandorla revealed to the prophets Elijah and Moses and to three apostles”.68 Moses is clearly seen as a prophet here, who allegedly foresaw the coming of Christ. Mango understands the images in the context of Byzantine theology as, e.g., expressed by the seventh-century father Anastasius Sinaites: “The Transfiguration in the New Testament was the fulfillment of Moses’ incomplete vision in the Old. On Sinai Moses did not see God face to face; on Tabor he, Elijah and the three chosen apostles were able to see Christ in His divine glory”.69 The biblical figure of Moses is appropriated and transformed into a prophet of Christ here. The young Moses at the burning bush and the middle-aged Moses with the law tablets belong to an earlier stage of revelation history. Only the aged Moses in the Transfiguration mosaic is “being deemed worthy of the divine vision” of Christ.70
Andreas Andreopoulos has argued that the images of Moses at the burning bush and Moses receiving the law symbolize the heavenly ascent of Moses. This interpretation is based on the early Byzantine theological context: “The Sinai synthesis, apparently closer to the mystical than the literal content of the Transfiguration, reflects the patristic strand of the theology of darkness, as is seen in the writings of Philo, Gregory of Nyssa, and pseudo-Dionysius. These authors used Moses – the customary model of spirituality for many early Fathers, including Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzinos – as a model of ascetic ascent in a way that expressed a particular strand of mystical theology. The connection between the iconography of the Transfiguration and the ascent of the soul as it was understood through the metaphor of the ascent of Moses on Sinai is evident.… Still, there is no written evidence from that time pointing out that this connection was widespread”.71
He also notes that the narrative of Moses at Sinai and the burning bush episode, together with the reference to “thick darkness where God was” (Exod. 20:18–20) were important for apophatic theology, that is, the knowledge of God obtained outside of intellectual and sensory perception. In his Life of Moses, Gregory of Nyssa describes the ascent of the soul “using the analogy of the ascent of Moses on Sinai. This tradition of Sinai as a model of ascent became most influential with pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite and his Mystical Theology …”.72 Both church fathers “interpreted the several experiences of Moses’ ascent on Mount Sinai as stages of revelation: Moses passed everything that could be perceived … and entered a divine darkness in which he was united with God in a way beyond knowledge and reason”.73
The Christian use of the motif of Moses drawing water from the rock (cf. Exod. 17:6), which appears repeatedly in third- and fourth-century Christian catacombs and as a sarcophagus decoration in Rome, indicates another type of appropriation. The miracle of striking the rock was used to express the continuity of divinely legitimized authority from Moses to Peter. In the Christian context, Moses can be replaced by Peter and the identity of the miracle worker – Moses or the Christian apostle – often remains uncertain. The water also symbolized the Christian baptism ritual.
Only a few examples can be presented here. In the so-called Cubiculum of the Sheep in the Calixtus Catacomb in Rome, a wall painting shows Moses unlacing his sandals and Moses or Peter striking a rock to get water.74 The fact that the two larger figures look differently may suggest that Peter rather than Moses is represented on the right-hand-side. The smaller figure moving toward the water may represent an Israelite in the process of gathering water in his hands or a Christian community member about to receive baptism. A fresco depicting a man striking a rock appears in the Peter and Marcellinus Catacomb of the fourth century C.E.75 The catacomb walls show scenes from both the “Old” and “New” Testaments, besides pagan motifs. In the Christian context, the identification of the figure with Moses or Peter seems irrelevant, since the understanding was Christian in any case. Concerning both catacomb depictions Robin Jensen writes: “… most of the early catacomb frescoes (especially those in the Catacombs of Calixtus and Peter and Marcellinus) that portray Moses striking the rock can be interpreted as a recurrent typological reference to baptism. During the fourth century, this popular image was significantly transformed in frescoes and sarcophagus reliefs to show Peter instead of Moses and Roman soldiers (…) instead of Israelites reaching for the water gushing forth from the rock”.76 The association of the rock miracle with Peter lacked a biblical basis. Jensen points to a narrative insertion into the apocryphal Acts of Peter, according to which Peter baptized the Roman soldiers who arrested him, with water he produced from a rock.77 Whatever the explanation, the Christians who commissioned these images superimposed Peter on the biblical Moses, supplanting the latter and completely changing the meaning of the water episode.78
On third- and fourth-century Christian sarcophagi stemming not only from Rome but also from Arles, the scene of Moses/Peter striking the rock for water is usually combined with other scenes from the biblical past (especially the Binding of Isaac and Daniel in the Lion’s Den) and from the Christian tradition the deceased’s relatives would have identified with.79 In its description of the Sarcophagus of Marcus Claudianus, with images of Peter Striking the Rock and Peter’s Arrest, the Vanderbilt University library digital archive states that the motif “presents the theme of the continuity of authority. This authority was first manifest in Moses’ act of striking the rock to bring forth water (Exod. 17:1–7.) The rod that Moses used was a strong symbol of his authority to both lead the Israelites and to perform miracles. Here we see Peter performing the same activity, thereby strengthening his own authority, granted by Jesus, to lead the Christian Church. To the right of the scene of Peter’s arrest, Christ is performing two miracles, the Wedding at Cana and a healing miracle. Christ holds a rod, symbolizing his own authority as the Son of God and as a miracle-worker”.80 Here all of the scenes are Christian and the rod which the Hebrew Bible attributes to Moses has been Christianized entirely. Not only Peter but also Jesus is shown in possession of the rod as a divinely given instrument. Ancient viewers were led to believe that the miracle-working rod had been passed on to Jesus and Peter while Moses has become a distant memory.
5. Moses/Musa as a Prophetic Predecessor of Jesus and Muhammad in Early Islam
The typological association of Moses with later recipients of divine authority and religious leadership continues in Islam. Since the early Islamic tradition lacks figural representations of biblical characters, the argumentation is based on literary sources here. Hartmut Bobzin writes: “Just as Jewish Christianity regarded Jesus as a prophet who confirmed and completed Moses’ prophecy, the Qur’an views Muhammad as having completed Moses’ work”.81 Zishan Ghaffar has traced the representation of prophetic figures in the Qur’an from early to middle and late Meccan suras and emphasized the “exposed position of Moses” in the middle Meccan texts.82 He points to the “typological permeability” of the Exodus and other Moses-related traditions which are now loaded with new meaning for Muslim communities and Islamic identity. As already mentioned above, Muhammad is presented as a “Moses redivivus” who liberated Muslims as “servants of God” and gave them divine instructions (huda) to follow.83 Griffith has pointed to a recurrent pattern in the sequence of seven biblical and non-biblical “prophets” in sura 26, which includes a long passage on Moses (26:10–68) and ends with Muhammad: they serve as “warners” amongst their people, are “discredited” by their audiences but “vindicated” by God.84 Like the other figures preceding Muhammad, the biblical Moses is integrated into the Qur’an’s “distinctive prophetology”, which presumes its audiences’ knowledge of the biblical narratives by “recalling” and transforming them.85
In the Qur’an, Moses is repeatedly presented as a prophet, sometimes together with Jesus. Thus, sura 19:51 states: “Mention Moses in the Scripture. He was devoted [to God] and a messenger and a prophet”.86 The covenant that God made with the prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus was taken up by Muhammad and his followers (33:7). Various figures preceding Muhammad, who are associated with divine revelations, are homogenized under the rubric “prophets” here. This process is explicated in the following statement: “We believe in God and in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob and the tribes, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them. We surrender to Him” (2:136). All earlier revelations are considered equally valid as forerunners of the revelation to Muhammad. Muhammad’s special role in Islam is reflected in another verse which presents him as “the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets” (33:40). According to Rubin, this verse “is designed to demonstrate that Muhammad brings the successive chain of prophetic revelations to its final manifestation”; the seal metaphor “denotes confirmation as well as finality of prophesy”.87 Elsewhere, too, continuity with his prophetic predecessors is claimed: “Muhammad is only a messenger. [There have been] messengers who have passed away before him” (3:144).
In his study on Moses in the Qur’an, Brannon M. Wheeler has argued that Muhammad is seen as “a prophet unlike Moses”.88 According to him, the Byzantine Christian appropriation of Moses and his typological replacement with Christ had an analogy in early Islam, which carried it one step further: “Christians relied upon the Torah to make the argument that it had been abrogated. This same observation holds mutatis mutandis for an examination of Muslim exegetical efforts to demonstrate the abrogation of the Torah and the supersession of Islam in the place of Israel”.89 Whether the term “abrogation” correctly describes the Qur’anic representation of the Hebrew Bible is questionable, however. Ghaffar points to the “typological deep structure of Qur’anic teaching”: while the earlier prophetic figures still maintain their value as divine intermediaries, Muhammad’s profile as God’s messenger takes center stage.90 The middle Meccan prophetological discourse supports the development of a distinct Muslim communal identity.
Neuwirth has pointed out that the Qur’an’s presentation of “Moses as a typological precursor of the proclaimer” enables the positioning of Muhammad in continuation with biblical tradition by, at the same time, representing a new revelation.91 The Middle Meccan tradition seems to focus on analogies between the two prophets.92 The focus of the Moses story in the Qur’an is the conversion of Pharaoh, however, rather than the Exodus tradition (connected with Passover) that is central in the Torah and later Judaism. Neuwirth argues that the Exodus serves as a model for the “personal experience of liberation of the proclaimer” instead.93 Similarly neglected is the biblical account of the Sinai revelation that serves as the basis of the Jewish belief in the divine inspiration of the Torah. In the Qur’an “the reception of revelation, shared by all prophets, is conceived as oral”, an idea that is irreconcilable with the notion of a written Torah given or dictated to Moses.94 As to the covenant, a later Medinan text (2:92–93) connects it with the Golden Calf episode as a reason why God allegedly “took the covenant from you” (2:93). Neuwirth views this text in the context of controversies between the Muslim community and Medinan Jews.95 Obviously, the idea of a divine covenant with Israelites only “did not fit well conceptually into the Qur’an”.96
In the Qur’an the Israelites’ alleged disobedience to God is connected with the destruction of the First and Second Temples (Q 17:4–7). Ghaffar has suggested to understand this text in the context of religious and political developments after the Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 C.E.97 No specific reasons for the Israelites’ disobedience are mentioned in the text. Ghaffar translates ifsād (17:4) with “Unheil anrichten” or “to create havoc” in English, in contrast to iṣlāḥ, moral action based on Islamic faith.98 Whereas the proclaimer’s contemporary Meccan Jews may have hoped for a rebuilding of the Temple, the Qur’an rejects that possibility.99 Rather, a universal Islamic community, including Jews, is associated with eschatological times (cf. Q 4:104).100
See the contributions in Brooke, Najman, and Stuckenbruck, The Significance of Sinai.
Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began, 110: “… the Torah given at Sinai included more than just the words written on the tablets, but also Scripture, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and Aggadah – and even what the experienced students in the future are going to conclude”.
Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 39.
On rabbis and Roman law see Hezser, “The Mishnah and Roman Law.”
On Moses’ relationship to Jesus and Muhammad in Islam see Wolf, “Moses in Christian and Islamic Tradition,” 105f.; Ghaffar, “Einordnung in die koranische Prophetologie,” 176–226 esp. 206–9. On Moses in Islam see especially Wheeler, Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis; Sukhiashvili, “Moses in the Qur’an.” On prophetology in the Qur’an see Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 62–89, and on Moses in particular ibid., 77–80.
Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 80, 77.
Bobzin, “The ‘Seal’ of the Prophets,” 581.
Ghaffar, “Einordnung in die koranische Prophetologie,” 198, 206. My translation from the German text.
Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 77–78.
Bergmeier, “The Traditio Legis in Late Antiquity,” 27–52.
See ibid.
Ghaffar, “Einordnung in die koranische Prophetologie,” 209. My translation from the German.
Andreopoulos, Metamorphosis, 91 (transfiguration) and 198 (apophatic theology).
Ghaffar, “Einordnung in die koranische Prophetologie,” 182f.
Ibid., 208.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dura_Europos_fresco_Moses_from_river.jpg (accessed 7 July 2021).
See https://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=alone&id=6886 (accessed 7 July 2021).
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moses_Dura_Europos.jpg (accessed 7 July 2021).
See http://cojs.org/dura-moses/ (accessed 7 July 2021).
See https://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=alone&id=873 (accessed 7 July 2021).
Hagith Sivan, “Retelling the Story of Moses at Dura Europos Synagogue”, https://www.thetorah.com/article/retelling-the-story-of-moses-at-dura-europos-synagogue (accessed 7 July 2021. Sivan considers the Dura Europos paintings of the Exodus as an “anti-Haggadah”: “The dominance of Moses here is striking in view of his almost total absence from the Passover Haggadah, the central text of the Passover Seder”, but the Passover Haggadah developed in the Middle Ages only, so that this iconographic programme cannot be considered a reaction to it.
On the church see Peppard, The World’s Oldest Church.
Ibid., 6.
On the Binding of Isaac motif in the Dura Europos synagogue see Hezser, Bild und Kontext, 48ff.
Hachlili, Ancient Mosaic Pavements, 96.
See https://talivirtualmidrash.org.il/dura-europos-synagogue-moses-reading-the-torah/ (accessed 8 July 2021).
Fine, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World, 179.
Ibid., 179, n. 65.
On this text see Stemberger, “Moses received Torah.”
See also, e.g., y. Pes. 1:1, 27a, where Moses’ rules for offering the first (on the fourteenth of Nissan, cf. Num. 9:4–5) and second Passover sacrifice (by those who were unclean then and had to offer it a month later) are mentioned (cf. Num. 9:9–11).
Fraade, “Sifre Deuteronomy 26 (Ad Deut. 3:23),” 258 n. 27 notes that “this question becomes the subject of intense discussion among rabbinic midrashists and mediaeval commentators”, with references.
My translation follows Fraade ibid., 264f.
See Fraade, “Sifre Deuteronomy 26 (Ad Deut. 3:23),” 270.
Stemberger, Mose in der rabbinischen Tradition, 105.
Ibid., 109.
Ibid.
On the scene with Aaron and the Tabernacle see Weiss, “Decorating the Sacred Realm.” At 123 fig. 1. Aaron’s consecration was linked to priestly functions and would have fitted other priestly associations in synagogue mosaic decorations.
Weiss, “Decorating the Sacred Realm,” 122.
Talgam, “From Wall Paintings to Floor Mosaics,” esp. 104.
See fig. 4.32 in Leibner and Miller, “The Synagogue Mosaic,” 165.
Ibid., 167.
Ibid.
For the identification of the three figures with Moses see also Jaś, “‘Pharaoh’s Army Got Drownded’,” 31 who compares the Dura Europos image with those on Christian sarcophagi.
Schenk, “The Exodus Narrative and the Divine Warfare,” 30, argues that the Dura Europos synagogue represents the Exodus as a “battle scene” with “divine participation”.
Britt and Boustan, “Artistic Influences in Synagogue Mosaics,” 40.
Romey, “Biblical ‘Spies’ Revealed in 1,500-Year-Old Mosaic,” available at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-huqoq-mosaic-synagogue-ancient-israel-archaeology (accessed 12 July 2021).
On the Huqoq mosaic discoveries see Magness et al., “Huqoq (Lower Galilee) and its Synagogue Mosaics” 327–55; Magness et al., “The Huqoq Excavation Project,” 61–131; Ovadiah, “The Mosaic Panel with the Warlike Scenes and Figurative Arcade in the Ancient Synagogue at Huqoq,” 1–14.
Stemberger, Mose in der rabbinischen Tradition, 109.
Cook, On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism.
Ibid., 1f.
See ibid. 174 with reference to Deut. 34:10 and Philo.
Deines, “God’s Revelation Through Torah, Creation, and History,” 181f.
See Spier, and Kimbell Art Museum, Picturing the Bible, fig. 68. The image is also available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Santa_Costanza._Mosaic_del_S._VII_%E2%80%9CTraditio_Legis%E2%80%9D_adjusted.JPG (accessed 14 July 2021).
Hvalvik, “Christ Proclaiming His Law To The Apostles,” 406.
Ibid. 415.
Ibid.
Ibid. 419.
Deines, “God’s Revelation Through Torah, Creation, and History,” 182.
See the list at https://www.christianiconography.info/staMariaMaggiore/naveMosaics.html (accessed 14 July 2021). The site provides links to the images.
Wilken, “The Novelty and Inescapability of the Bible in Late Antiquity,” 5.
Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art, 92.
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moses_Dura_Europos.jpg (accessed 15 July 2021).
Stemberger, Mose in der rabbinischen Tradition, 72. He presents the few rabbinic texts that deal with this episode; Stemberger, Mose in der rabbinischen Tradition, 73–77.
See https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=55945 (accessed 15 July 2021).
See https://ccaroma.org/project/monastery-of-st-catherine/ (accessed 16 July 2021). On this monastery see especially Gerstel and Nelson, Approaching the Holy Mountain.
Mango, “The Mosaic of the Transfiguration”: https://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/2014/07/mango-sinai-mosaic/ (accessed 16 July 2021).
See ibid.: “They are distant both spatially and temporally, the double meaning of the Greek word anôthen, both ‘from above’ and ‘from the past’”.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Andreopoulos, Metamorphosis, 91.
Ibid., 198.
Ibid.
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moses_striking_the_rock_in_the_desert.jpg (accessed 18 July 2021).
See https://www.akg-images.com/archive/Moses-draws-water-from-the-rock-2UMDHU1GDKTN.html (accesses 18 July 2021).
Jensen, Living Water, 76.
Ibid. 77.
The scene of Moses/Peter drawing water from a rock also appears in the Catacomb of the Via Anapo (Catacomba di Via Anapo) in Rome; dated to the mid-3rd c., see the film at https://www.giornatadellecatacombe.it/en/third-catacombs-day/1145-unplished-images-the-catacomb-of-via-anapo/ and the image at https://www.akg-images.com/archive/Moses-draws-water-from-the-rock-2UMDHURR5OX9.html (accessed 18 July 2021).
See, for example: sarcophagus with three panels: Binding of Isaac, Moses, Christ Performing Miracle; 3rd-4th centuries; Vatican City: https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/diglib-fulldisplay.pl?SID=20210702764790402&code=act&RC=46371&Row=2; the Two Brothers Sarcophagus: Christ healing the crippled woman who was bent over; the cock of St. Peter is depicted below Christ’s feet; both Christ and Moses are clean-shaven; Vatican City, 4th c.: https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=51253; Daniel in the Lions’ Den; Moses/Peter Striking the Rock (Exod. 17:1–7); 3–4th c., Vatican City: https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=51622; similar: https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=51623; https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=55203; Sarcophagus of Marcia Romania Celsa, Arles, 330 C.E.: Found in Trinquetaille in 1974. Lid: three Youths in Fiery Furnace, central medallion with putti, adoration of the Magi. Base: (front frieze) Moses/Peter Striking the Rock, arrest of Peter, multiplication of the loaves, healing of the blind man, raising of Lazarus: https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=42654; Sarcophagus of the Anastasis – Moses Striking the Rock; Arles, 375 C.E.: https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=42649 (all accessed 18 July 2021).
See https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu//act-imagelink.pl?RC=54026. For the image see https://www.nasscal.com/materiae-apocryphorum/sarcophagus-of-marcus-claudianus/ (both accessed 19 July 2021).
Bobzin, “The ‘Seal’ of the Prophets,” 581.
Ghaffar, “Einordnung in die koranische Prophetologie,” 198. My translation from German.
Ibid. 206f.
Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 70.
Ibid. 71.
In this chapter all English translations of the Qur’an follow Alan Jones’ translation.
Rubin, “The Seal of the Prophets.” Rubin argues that the verse continues the previous ones (33:38–39) which “endeavor to exonerate Muhammad from any fault”. He discusses previous scholarship on the interpretation of the verse. I thank Zishan Ghaffar for this reference.
Wheeler, Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis, 123.
Ibid.
Ibid. 210.
Neuwirth, The Qur’an and Late Antiquity, 406.
See ibid. 406 f. with references.
Ibid. 409.
Ibid. 411.
Ibid. 412.
Ibid. 414.
Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 15–26.
Ibid. 17–8. Ghaffar emphasizes that the Qur’an does not present specific examples of ifsād here and does not refer to Jewish or Christian discussions about the possible reasons for the destruction of the Second Temple.
While tannaitic rabbis remained silent on this issue, the later amoraim used the discussion of Temple-related matters to build up their own authority. See Cohen, “The Destruction,” 22–43; Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis.
Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 20f.