121 The Golden Calf between Bible and Qurʾan: Scripture, Polemic, and Exegesis from Late Antiquity to Islam N E W Y O R K : O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S , 2 0 2 0 , 4 9 9 P A G E S . M I C H A E L E . P R E G I L L Michael Pregill’s The Golden Calf between Bible and Qurʾan draws from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sources to understand how the story of the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf has been understood across scriptural communities. This book marks the first time that the story has been the subject of a comprehensive comparative treatment. Drawing from Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew primary and exegetical sources, Pregill seeks to revive the earliest approach of Western scholarship towards the Qurʾan, that it should be understood as Biblical literature, or rather, late antique religious discourse. To this end, Pregill argues that the story’s employment in both the Hebrew Bible and the Qurʾan can be understood as a “conti- nuities of discourse” rather than a communication of specific influences. After laying out his methodology in the introduction, Pregill divides his book into three parts. The first concerns the ancient traditions that formed the basis for understanding the narrative of the Golden Calf in 122  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 the Hebrew Bible (pp. 13-103). In chapter 2, Pregill analyzes the story as it is told in Exodus and Deuteronomy. He explores the polemical imper- atives surrounding each, and concludes that they markedly differ. In the latter text, worship of the Calf was no longer being presented as a cultic infraction, but rather as idolatry, a strictly unorthodox practice. In chapter 3, Pregill examines the earliest exegetical traditions of the Calf, looking at how pressures in the Greco-Roman period – especially from the Christian movement – induced rabbinical exegetes to write apologetic explanations of the story meant to mitigate the impression of idolatry. The second part concerns the Jewish and Christian contestation of the legacy of Israel through the narrative (pp. 104-207). In chapter 4, Pregill charts the development of rabbinical apologetics concerning the story, as the Christian movement emerged as an imperial religion, and Christian writers sought to use the story to emphasize their own covenantal priority over the Jews. This led to more “imaginative” and “evasive” Jewish apologetics concerning the Prophet Aaron’s and the Israelites’ culpability in the worship. In chapter 5, Pregill focuses on the corpus of Christian literature in Syriac, which continued in its anti-Jew- ish polemics surrounding the story but took a milder approach to Aaron’s culpability. While these reinterpretations paralleled rabbinical writings, they were employed towards opposite ends. The third part concerns the Qurʾan’s narrative, as well as its recep- tion in classical exegetical and Western scholarship (pp. 208-438). In chapter 6, Pregill looks at how the story of the Calf has been under- stood in both the Muslim exegetical tradition and Western scholarship beginning with the earliest Qurʾanic translations, showing the clear and sometimes undiscerning reliance of Western scholars on Muslim tradi- tion. In chapter 7, Pregill proposes reinterpretations of key aspects of the Qurʾanic story, mainly concerning the animate nature of the Calf and the figure of al-Sāmirī. In chapter 8, Pregill figures his conclusions on the Qurʾanic story of the Calf into its equivalent in Exodus, towards reifying an account that had been subject to polemics and apologetics. He also identifies possible motivations for the Qurʾanic stories related to Samaritan and Judean rivalries, projecting them onto seventh century Medina. In the conclusion, Pregill summarizes the book’s major findings BOOK rEVIEWS  123 and reiterates the need to reinterpret the Qurʾan in light of late antiquity polemics and the “continuities of discourse.” We will focus on this sec- tion, specifically Pregill’s case for al-Sāmirī, as it accounts for his most radical reinterpretation, with the farthest-reaching implications for the fields of Islamic exegesis and theology. Beginning with his introduction, Pregill identifies a problem where the vagueness of the story as presented in the Qurʾan has led to funda- mental misunderstandings both of its details and of its higher objectives. In the exegetical tradition, metaphorical and literal language has been misread, baseless reports have been used to make those readings feasible, and key characters have been misidentified. And according to the author, the vagueness of the Qurʾanic story has meant that Western scholars have relied on the classical exegetical tradition, and thus willingly par- ticipated in the confusion. Pregill thus makes the case for a radical reinterpretation of the story from the Qurʾan. Before assessing it, it is worth applauding one of his conclusions regarding a phenomenon in Western Qurʾanic schol- arship. Pregill discusses how Abraham Geiger – whose 1833 Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen was widely considered to have inaugurated the discipline of Islamic Studies in Europe – har- bored some flawed assumptions that would influence the field for the next 150 years. The chief assumption was that elements in the Qurʾanic stories distinct from their Biblical counterparts represent “a conflation of themes and characters known from diverse sources from Jewish tradition,” which include the Bible, Talmud, and the Midrash (p. 294). Subsequent scholars looked to rabbinical texts to understand why, for example, the Qurʾanic narrative gives the impression that the Golden Calf was animate (although, contrary to Pregill’s characterization, this by no means has been a consensus in the Muslim exegetical tradition). Scholars looked to texts such as Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer, Targum Pseudo- Jonathan, and Midrash Tanḥuma to establish rabbinical influence on this Qurʾanic variance from the Hebrew Bible. Owing to the fact that the earliest of these manuscripts date centuries after the Qurʾan, Pregill criticizes the rather gratuitous assumption that they must have existed as oral traditions pre-dating Islam. Rather, he insists that these rabbinical 124  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 works should instead be characterized as “Islamicate,” that is, reflecting Islam’s cultural impact on non-Muslim communities brought under Arab dominion. Pregill thus encourages a much-needed paleographic sobriety in the rush to identify Qurʾanic influences. As for his reinterpretation of the Qurʾanic story, Pregill claims that it was actually the Prophet Aaron who led the Israelites to worship the Golden Calf. This would make Aaron the same person as al-Sāmirī, the traditionally understood culprit. The author makes his claim by laying out a narrative from Sūrah XX, in which the Prophet Moses leaves his brother Aaron in charge of the Israelite camp while he goes to the Mount to meet with God (p. 338). There, God asks Moses why he has hurried away from his people. Moses then explains to the effect that the people “are upon my tracks” (ʿalā atharī) – a metaphor for prophetic guidance – because they have been left in Aaron’s care (v. 84). God then tells Moses that this is not the case because “al-Sāmirī” (the author’s “Aaron”) has led them astray (v. 85). Moses returns angrily and asks Aaron what kept him when he saw them going astray from “following me” (āllā tattabiʿani) – an expression traditionally understood literally, but understood by Pregill as metaphorical to render synonymous with “being upon my tracks” (vv. 92-3). Aaron says that he did not disobey Moses’ command, but rather sought to obey it. “However,” Pregill says, “he is vague about exactly what happened.” Then Moses says “so, al-Sāmirī, [that is, Aaron] what do you have to say for yourself?” (v. 95). That is, “what about my athar, which you should have upheld?” Rather than two dialogues, Pregill thus argues that there was only one – between Moses and Aaron, who halfway through is called al-Sāmirī. Here, we can point out some of the flaws in this argument. As Pregill’s reading indicates, his case for a single al-Sāmirī-Aaron character rests largely on the theme of following prophetic guidance, which, the author claims, Aaron failed to do. But in highlighting this, which he does by rendering two different expressions metaphorical and synonymous (ʿalā atharī and āllā tattabiʿani), he also downplays the visibly prominent theme of lieutenancy, or discharging a leadership trust. It is in this respect that Aaron is culpable. In Sūrah VII’s narrative of the story that the author gives far less attention, Moses says to his brother before departing the Israelite camp for his appointment with God, “Lead in my place amongst BOOK rEVIEWS  125 my people and do right and do not follow the way of the corrupters.” (v. 146). The verse giving Aaron instructions to lead implies that corrupt elements among the Israelite camp were already known. Indeed, calf-wor- ship was foreshadowed in v. 138, which states that the Israelites, fresh from the parted sea, came across a people worshipping their idols, and asked Moses to make for them a god just like theirs. And any vagueness Pregill ascribes to Aaron’s defense in v. 94 is supplemented with his rather clear explanation in Sūrah VII, v. 150, “Indeed, the people overcame me and were about to kill me, so do not let the enemies rejoice over me, and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” This account of Aaron being overpowered by a group of wrongdoers is difficult to square with his being the initiator of the Golden Calf worship. That claim is further problematized by the exchange in Sūrah XX, vv. 90-1 (that oddly the author only addresses in a Biblical context) in which Aaron tells the calf-worshippers, “Oh my people, you are only being tested by it, and indeed your Lord is the Most Merciful, so follow me and obey my order.” The people reply, “We will not stop being devoted to the calf until Moses returns to us.” In Moses’ angered return to the camp, never does he accuse Aaron of worshipping the calf. Rather, he asks him about those who did. So, if Moses first directed his anger towards Aaron, it was for failing in his lieutenancy to keep the Israelites upon prophetic guidance. This is quite different from any suggestion that he had initiated the calf worship. When read together, the Qurʾan’s narratives do not support a single al-Sāmirī-Aaron character. The narratives as told in both Sūrah VII and Sūrah XX are concluded in ways that show that Aaron and al-Sāmirī are two distinct characters. In Sūrah XX, v. 97, Moses says to al-Sāmirī, “Then go. And it is for you to say in this worldly life, ‘no contact.’ And you have an appointment you will not fail to keep. And look at your god that you tarried in worship. We will certainly burn it and scatter its ashes in the sea.’” But in Sūrah VII, v. 151, Moses says, “My Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us into Your mercy, for You are the most merciful of the merciful.” These are two completely different responses. Furthermore, the Qurʾanic portrayal of Aaron following the episode of the Golden Calf differs greatly from the fate meted out to al-Sāmirī. It is clear that the “no contact” decreed for al-Sāmirī was not applicable 126  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 to Aaron, who was evidently alongside his brother a while later when the Israelites refused the command to enter the Holy Land and Moses said, “My Lord, indeed I do not possess but myself and neither does my brother, so part us from the defiantly disobedient people.” (Sūrah V, v. 25). Not only is Aaron still very much part of the Israelite community, but again he is being distinguished from its wrongdoers. At a fundamental level, it is important to keep in mind that Aaron is described in the Qurʾan as a “messenger” (rāsūl). This description carries a certain moral weight, and involves certain parameters. In the Islamic tradition, there exists a lively debate about whether messengers are infal- lible or can commit minor sins. Worshipping other than God (shirk) is considered the worst of the major sins. While there is nothing wrong with examining the Qurʾanic text in ways that could revise doctrine, this ought to be done with some consideration that the parameters of doctrine have also been informed by the Qurʾanic text. Thus, regarding Pregill’s claim that Aaron led the Israelites to worship the Golden Calf, there is a sequence of verses in Sūrah VI naming 18 prophets and mes- sengers – among them Aaron. The sequence ends with, “And if they had worshipped other than God (ashrakū), then worthless would be anything they were doing.” (v. 88). And, “Those are the ones whom God has guided, so from their guidance take an example.” (v. 90). In several other places in the Qurʾan, the Qurʾan places Moses and Aaron in the same moral league. Moses and Aaron together are the recipients of the Torah (Sūrah XXI, v. 48). This honorific would be hard to fathom if the Torah was being revealed at the same time that Aaron was allegedly leading the Israelites into the worst sin. Then there is mention of the two being guided by God on the straight path, and having a favorable mention amongst later gen- erations as a reward for their good-doing (Sūrah XXXVII, vv. 114-121). While the Qurʾan allows for the possibility of a messenger miscarrying a trust, as indicated in the story of Prophet Jonah prematurely escaping his community’s impending punishment (vv. 139-148), nowhere does it remotely imply that a prophet or messenger would engage in polytheism. Even if we overlook Pregill’s neglect of key verses within his chosen narrative, his claim shows the dangers of constructing a complete account by choosing one Qurʾanic narrative out of multiple ones. Perhaps knowing BOOK rEVIEWS  127 better, he seems to betray a broad documentarian persuasion in doing this. In that methodology, scholars consider the distinct sources in which Biblical stories are “doubled” to identify source-authors’ motivations or higher objectives for casting characters in certain ways. It is perhaps unsurprising that Pregill’s primary gain in identifying Aaron as al-Sāmirī is to associate Aaron with Biblical Samaria. Pregill mentions that in Deuteronomy, the practice of worshipping golden calves in the Samarian cities of Bethel and Dan is attributed to Jeroboam, a blame designed for anti-priestly polemics (though Pregill glosses over what is a far more approximate regional prec- edent for calf-worship in Sūrah VII, v. 138). Pregill claims that the rationale or higher objective of the story’s inclusion in the Qurʾan is to shame the Jewish tribes of seventh century Medina, whom the early Muslim historian Ibn Isḥāq identified as Aaronites – and delegitimize “their claims to the prestige associated with priestly descent when they had come to oppose Muḥammad.” Fortunately, Pregill admits that such an interpretation is “completely conjectural,” but not until selectively choosing verses from the Qurʾanic narrative to make it possible (p. 427). While Pregill warns of the dangers of reading Qurʾanic stories through the lens of classical exegesis and rabbinical sources, he seems to fall into the trap of reading them through the lens of the Hebrew Bible. After all, he does frame the Qurʾan as a continuation of its discourse. But the tools that have been effective for understanding the Hebrew Bible, its objectives and polemics, might not all be transferable to the Qurʾan. The urge to project those polemics onto the Qurʾan without first considering all of its relevant texts, let alone the parameters of doctrine that have formed around them, can lead to some unpalatable narrative reconstructions. Nonetheless, Pregill does a commendable job in synthe- sizing sources across scriptural communities, and on the way, making critical observations on both classical exegesis and Western scholarship. Kareem Rosshandler Doctoral Student Emory University Atlanta, GA doi: 10.35632/ajis.v42i1-2.3665