The Yahuds agree in denying the appearance of Aisia (Jesus) as a prophet; they say that he was a deceiver; and they reject what the Aisuyan, “Christians,” adduce from the Old Testament about the appearance of Aísya; they maintain that the prophet Ishâía spoke of himself the words[487] which have been applied to Aísya. They assert that Ibrâhím was no prophet, but a holy man, and they esteem a holy man higher than a prophet. They say that, in the Mosaic book, no mention is made of Pharâún’s pretensions to be a god; but they relate that this king was a tyrant who oppressed the children of Israel, wherefore Musiâ (Moses) rose, and protested against his tyranny. As Pharâún did not attend to his words, he met with his fate. They also say that it is not to be found in the sacred book that Harun (Aaron) was joined to Musiâ in the divine mission, although he acted as his substitute. They agree in saying that Dáúdâ (David) sent Urîa to be killed, because the king coveted the possession of that man’s wife, whom he took afterwards, and hence Solíman was begotten. They further insist that Aísia was no prophet, as the Nazaréans believe. Dáudâ said: “My hands and feet will fall, and my bones have been counted;” all this was fulfilled at the time when Aísia suffered death; but they assert that Dáúda spoke those words of himself, and in such manner all things which the Nazáréans set forth about Aísia, the Yahuds interpret clearly in another sense. It is besides written in their sacred book that, when the children of Isráîl shall perform iniquitous acts, Muhammad will appear. About this, Sarmed said that, although the name of the prophet is in the sacred book, yet another meaning may more evidently be attached to it; but if even the prophet’s very name be insisted upon, it has no other import but that it exhorts the children of Isrâíl to convert themselves to his religion, and, in such an endeavour, carried beyond all bounds, he said many other things.
The Yahuds receive no stranger into their community; circumcision is the law of their prophet, not that of others. They say also that a prophet is always living and present, to be the propagator of the law which is contained in the sacred book. Abhî Chand, having translated a part of the Mosaic book, the author of this work revised it with Sarmad; they corrected it completely, affixed their mark to it, so that it became a correct copy, from which is the following:
Section the Second: on the Book of Adam.
The Dabistan gives here a Persian translation of the Genesis, from the beginning to chapter VI, verse 8; at the end of which the author says that this is the only portion of the sacred book of the Jews which he had an opportunity of examining. According to Eichhorn (see Einleitung in das alte Testament, 4th edit., vol. II. p. 329) the five books of Moses were translated into Persian by the rabbi Jacob, son of Joseph, after the ninth century; the translation contained in the Dabistan is said to have been executed by Abhi Chand; we cannot say whether it was made from the Hebrew original, or from the Arabic, or any other language. We are informed by the baron Hammer-Purgstall (see Gemaldesaal moslimisher Herrsher, p. 57) that Werka ben Nafil, a cousin of Khadija, Muhammed’s wife, and a Christian priest, translated the Old and New Testament from the Hebrew into Arabic; this translation appears however to have been but little known. Eichhorn says (loco citato, p. 231), that the first certain traces of a translation of the Hebrew sacred books into Arabic are to be found in the tenth century. Pocock mentions (pp. 34, 361) Sâadias, a learned Jew, who lived from 892 to 941 A. D., as translator of all the books of the Old Testament into Arabic; and another Jew (not named) who made a version of the book of Kings into the same language.
The Persian translation of the fragment under our consideration was revised by the author of the Dabistan, and by Sarmed, who was a Jew and a Rabbin, converted to Muhammedism, most probably in the first half of the seventeenth century. As it was undoubtedly executed from another original copy than that which had served to the translators in Europe, it appeared interesting enough to examine whether the Persian version of the Dabistan differs in any material point from the translations known in Europe. For that purpose I have consulted the following copies of the Bible:
I. The polyglot Bible, printed at Paris, 1645, in which I chiefly compared the Arabic translation.
II. The Persian translation, published by the Bible Society in 1825.
III. The German Bible, translated by Martin Luther.
IV. The English Bible, appointed to be read in Churches, 1837.