210 • chapter 5
on the “Israelite temple in alexandria,” Moyal sought to highlight the
shared origins of Judaism and Christianity and, in so doing, it would
seem, to convince his readers that the two faiths are not so fundamen-
tally opposed as might otherwise be believed.
however, in the same section of the text, Moyal declares that philo’s
philosophy, and the “ideas of the alexandrian Israelite scholars” found
in the Septuagint, are “greatly distanced from the true Israelite spirit
[ar- rūḥ al- isrāʾīlī al- ḥaqīqī].” Moyal goes on to discuss the tensions be-
tween the Jewish scholars of Judea and those of alexandria. his con-
clusion, indeed the very last remark Moyal offers before beginning his
analysis of Pirkei avot, once more turns to Christianity. the “Greek Isra-
elite books,” he argues, “cleared the way for the spread of the religion
that newly came into existence at that time, that is, the Christian reli-
gion, which, at first, was nothing more than one of the ways of israelite
theology.”^93 Given the contention that these “Greek Israelite books”
violated “the true Israelite spirit,” Moyal’s linking of Christianity to
ancient alexandrian Judaism should not be understood as an attempt
to equate true Judaism (as Moyal conceived of it) with christianity.
Moyal’s writing on ancient Judaism’s relationship with the origins of
Christianity thus serves two purposes: on the one hand, to underscore
the affinities between christianity and Jewish concepts (for example,
philo), and, on the other hand, to emphasize that christianity grew out
of a deviant, “inauthentic” form of Judaism, namely, hellenistic Juda-
ism (of the Diaspora), rather than out of the “true israelite” religion.
At- Talmūd and islamic terminologyMoyal’s intended readers, arabic- speakers, were not, of course, only
Christians. Muslims represented the vast majority of the arab popula-
tion, and thus, to succeed in his goal of combating “misunderstanding,”
Moyal would have to address the concerns of Muslim readers as well.
In general, Moyal makes fewer direct references to Islam than he does
to Christianity. at least three reasons for this disparity might be sug-
gested. First, the translation project, as discussed above, was originally
initiated by a christian, Jurji Zaydan; thus from the start, Christian-
Jewish matters were paramount. Second, the anti- Jewish sentiment
that was percolating through the Middle east was being carried, it was
believed, by Christians, whether native arabs or europeans. to the
extent that Moyal wrote at- Talmūd as a response to this phenomenon,
he would have reasonably chosen to focus more on Christianity than
(^93) ibid., 53.