kiener paraphrase art nj 1986

8/10/2019 Kiener Paraphrase Art Nj 1986

1/25

THE HEBREWPARAPHRASE

OF

SAADIAH

GAON'S

KITAB

AL-AMANA

T

WA'L-I'

TIQADA

T

by

RONALD C. KIENER

Saadiah Gaon

(882-942)

was a

prolific

and

pioneering

eacher,

sage,

and communal

eaderwho

pursued

his

wide-ranging

tudieswith a

single-

mindedcommitment.'

His was the firstRabbanite ranslation f the Hebrew

Bible into

Arabic;

his

was one

of

the

first

Hebrew

dictionaries;

his

Siddur

marked one of the

first

attempts

to

regularize

the

liturgy.

His

Kitdb

al-Amandt

wa'l-I'tiqdddt

(Book

of Beliefs

and

Opinions)

was the

first

major

workof medievalJewish

philosophy.2

Written

during

his renowned orced

1.

See

H.

Malter,

Saadia Gaon: His

Life

and Works

(Philadelphia, 1921);

S.

W.

Baron,

"Saadia's Communal

Activities,"

in

Ancient and Medieval

Jewish

History,

ed. L. Feldman

(New

Brunswick,

N.J.,

1972),

pp.

95-127;

and

J.

Mann,

"A

Fihrist

of

Sa'adya's

Works,"

Jewish

Quarterly

Review,

n.s.

11

(1920-21):

423-428.

2.

The

Kitab

was

edited

in

Arabic

characters

by

S. Landauer

(Leiden, 1860);

and

again

in

Hebrew

characters

with

a modern Hebrew

translation

by

Y.

Kafah

(Jerusalem,

1970),

entitled

Sefer

ha-Nivbar

be-Emunot

u-ve-De'ot. The

Landauer edition

abounds

in

errors,

especially

regarding

biblical citations.

By

convention,

the Arabic text of Landauer is the

edition cited

in

1


2/25

2

RONALD

C.

KIENER

retirement

n the

year

932

C.E.,

he

Kitdbal-Amdndt epresents

he

begin-

ning

of a

long

and noble tradition

of

Judeo-Arabic

philosophy.

The

original

Kitdb

al-Amdndt

onsisted

of

ten

separate

treatises on

matters

pertaining

to

Jewish

theology

and ethics.

Apparently

Saadiah

reedited hese individual

ompositions

nto

one

long

work,

adding

an intro-

duction on

epistemology.3

The revisedwork

is

a masterful

presentation

f

normativerabbinic

doctrine,

constructed

methodically

rom

epistemologi-

cal

presuppositions

nd

culminating

n

a tendentious reatiseon ethics and

human

conduct.

Throughout,

Saadiah

ollowedthe

philosophy

and

method

of the Mu'taziliteKaldm

heologians

who became renowned or

their five

theological principles(usal), the most prominentbeing tawhfd "[God's]

unity")

and

'adl

"[God's] ustice").4

aadiah

may

havedeviatedoccasional-

ly

from

the

Mu'tazilite

program

for

example,

he

rejected

he

predominant

Mu'tazilite

atomism),5

but he

ultimately

remained

aithfulto

the

contem-

porary

theology

of

Baghdad.

Saadiah'sArabic

philosophical

work

was translated

nto Hebrew wice.

Well known is

the translation

entitled

Sefer

ha-Emunot

ve-ha-De'ot

by

Judah

Ibn

Tibbon,

prepared

n

1186.6

But

at

least

a

century

arlier,

n

places

presently

unknown,

a

"poetical,

enthusiasticand

quasi-mystical"'

ersion

of

Saadiah's

dry

Kitdb

al-Amandt

was

prepared,

known

today simply

as

"the

anonymousParaphrase."

As

we

will

see,

the

Paraphrase

was seized

upon by European

Jewish intellectualsas one

of

the few

authoritative

this

paper.

An

English

ranslation

f

the

Arabic

was

made

by

S.

Rosenblatt,

TheBook

of Beliefs

and

Opinions

(New

Haven,

1948).

3. Evidence f

this

editing

process

can

be

uncovered

y

comparing

he

Oxfordand

Lenin-

grad

recensions

f the Judeo-Arabic

ext,

in which

he seventh

reatise

of the

Kitab

appears

n

two significantly ifferentorms,andin Saadiah's ather umbersomemethodof occasionally

referring

o

other

parts

of

the

Kitab

by

treatise itles rather

han

sequence

numbers.Landauer

published

he seventh

reatise

according

o the

Oxford

recension.

W.

Bacher

published

he

Leningrad-then

known

as the

"Petersburg"-recension

f the seventh

reatise

n

"Die zweite

Version

von

Saadja's

Abschnitt

6iber

die

Wiederbelebung

er

Todten,"

n

Festschrift

um

achtzigsten

Geburtstage

Moritz Steinschneiders

(Leipzig,

1896),

Hebrew

sec.,

pp.

98-112. See

H.

Malter,

Saadia

Gaon,

p.

194.

4. For a recent

analysis

of

these five

uSal,

see

W. M.

Watt,

The

Formative

Period

of

Islamic

Thought Edinburgh,

973),

pp.

228-249.

5.

See

H.

A.

Wolfson,

"Atomism

n

Saadia,"

Jewish

Quarterly

Review,

n.s. 37

(1946):

107-124.

6. Editedand annotatedby I. Kitower Josefow,1885).

7.

Such

s

the

description

y

G.

Scholem

n

Major

Trends

n Jewish

Mysticism

New

York,

1946),

p.

86.


3/25

HEBREW

ARAPHRASE

F

KITAB

AL-:AMANAT

WA'L-I'TIQADAT

3

expressions

of Jewish

theology

in the

Holy

Tongue.

That the

Paraphrase

was

particularly

ear to medieval

Jewish

mystics

s a

testimony

o the

rather

strange

wist that

befell

Saadianic

hought

as

filtered

hrough

he wordsof

the

Paraphrase.

The

Paraphrase

was an

important

and influential

document

in

the

evolution

of Ashkenazi

I;Iasidic

heology,

the

Maimonidean

ontro-

versy,

and

early

Kabbalah.

In

the

last

century,scholarship

has

progressed

significantly

oward

accounting

for

these

movements

n medievalJewish

intellectual

ife. But

it has been

nearly

as

long

since the

Paraphrase

as been

the

focus

of

study.

This

paper

seeks

to consider

he

relevant

data-both

new

and

old-pertaining

to the

Paraphrase

nd to draw

appropriate

new

con-

clusions.

There are three whole

manuscripts

of

the

Paraphrase

nd

many frag-

mentary

versions,

epitomes,

and one

modern

transcription.

MS Vatican

269

is

a

very

battered

manuscript,

efective

at

the

beginning.

It

contains

141

folios.

It

is written

n

a

Spanish

rabbinic

script.

There are

indicationsthat this

manuscript

s the oldest extant witness of the Para-

phrase.

First,

it

contains

more

correctJudeo-Arabic

nterpositions

han

any

of the

other

witnesses.

Second,

and less

conclusively,

he

colophon

states

that the

work

"was finished

n the

year

4855"

(nishlam

bi-shnatdttn"h

=

1095

C.E.).8

t is

likely

that this

is

not

the date

of the

copy,

but

rather

hat

of

the

original

work

itself.9

The most

legible

manuscript

s

MS Vatican

266,

in

whichthe

Paraphrase

appears

n the first 137 folios. Each

folio,

with the

exception

of

folio

68,

is in

doublecolumns,32-34 lines to a column. Folio 68 is written n one wide

column.

It is

of

two

hands,

with

the secondscribe

aking

over

at

the

begin-

ning

of the

fifth

treatise

69a:1).

The first

portion

s

written n a fine

German

rabbinic

script

of the

fourteenth

century,

while

the

remainder

s either

German

or

French

and

is

somewhat

ater.

8. Folio

140b.

L. Dukes's

emendation o

dttqn"h

s

totally

without

ustification,

ased

on a

need to

place

the

date

of the

colophon

within

the

life

span

of

Berechiah

ha-Nakdan.

See

H.

Ewald and Dukes, Beitrage zur Geschichteder Aeltesten AuslegungundSprachkldrungdes Alten

Testamentes

Stuttgart,

1844),

2:16,

n.

6.

9. See

Malter,

Saadia

Gaon,

p.

361.


4/25

4

RONALD

C. KIENER

The third

complete

witness

s

MS

Munich

42,

which contains he

Paraphrasen folios 301a-526a.10t containsnumerousdittographies,

haplographies,

nd

ranspositions,

nd s

extremely

orrupt.

n

themidst

of

the

third reatise

fol.

373a)

he text

abruptly

reaks ff

and

then

begins

a

later

portion

f

the

treatise. he

missing ortion

f the

hird reatise

ppears

in

the

middle

f thefourth.

Thus,

he

order

or

thethird nd ourth

reatises

is:

Third

Treatise

368a-373a,

386b-399b,

373a-383b

FourthTreatise 384a-386b,399b-412b

The

remaining anuscript

itnesses reeither

pitomes,"ragments,12

modern

transcriptions,'3

r so

defectiveas to be useless.14

The

Paraphrase

ad a limited

publishinghistory

of

its

own;

only

a

few

fragments-at

most two of

the

eleven treatises-were ever

brought

to

press.'5Surprisingly,

t

endured

or

some time

in

Europe,copied

and

epito-

mizedat least ten times

well into

the

modern

ra.16

It was

quoted,

cited,

and

otherwise

plagiarizedby

numerousmedievalswho

could have turned o

the

Ibn Tibbon translation.Theremust have

been

an allure

to the

Paraphrase

that was

abiding.

10.

An initial reatment

f this

MS

was

made

by

P.

Bloch,

"Die

zweite

Uebersetzung

es

Saadiahnischen

Buches

Emunoth

wedeoth,"

Monatsschrift

fair

die Geschichte und

Wissenschaft

des Judenthums

19

(1870):

401-414,

449-456. See M.

Steinschneider,

Die Hebraeischen

Hand-

schriften

der

K.

Hof-

und Staatsbibliothek

(Munich, 1895), pp.

27-28.

11.

MS Paris

669,

for

example.

12.

MS Parma

de Rossi

769;

MS

Munich

65/lc

(fols. 20b-39a);

MS Munich 120

(fols.

66b-69a);

and

MS

Breslau

183,

dentified

by

Poznanski s MSHeidenheim

,

aboutwhichM.

Steinschneider

sked

n

1893

"wo

etzt?"

See

Steinschneider's

ie

hebraeischen

ebersetzungen

des Mittelalters

und

die Juden

als Dolmetscher

(Berlin,

1893),

p.

440.

13.

MS Warsaw

687,

prepared

by

S. Poznanski

before

1912 from

MS Munich42.

14.

MS Oxford

Bodl. 1224

opp.

599;

old

1185).

See A.

Neubauer,

Catalogue

f

theHebrew

Manuscripts

in

the

Bodleian

Library

(Oxford,

1886),

1:432.

15.

Sefer

ha-Tebiyyah

ve-ha-Pedut

(Mantua,

1556)

is a

reworking

of the seventh

treatise.

Sefer

ha-Pedut

e-ha-Purqan

Mantua,

1556),containing

a

large

portion

of the

eighth

treatise,

was

reprinted

as least

nine

times,

once

under

the

title

Sefer

ha-Galut

ve-ha-Pedut

Venice,

1634).

16. See

MS Paris

669,

MS

Oxford

Bodl.

1224,

MS Breslau

183,

and

numerous

ragments

listed by Steinschneider,HebraeischenUebersetzungen, . 440. Berechiahb. Natronai

ha-Nakdan's

Sefer

ha-Ilibbur,

in

The Ethical

Treatises

of

Berakhya,

ed.

H. Gollancz

(London,

1902),

Hebrewsec.

pp.

1-115,

is

similarly

an

epitome.


5/25

HEBREW

ARAPHRASE F KITAB

AL--AMANAT

WA'L-I'TIQADAT

5

The

impulse

for

translating

the

Kitab

al-Amandt

rom

Arabic into

Hebrew is hardlya mystery.Saadiah'sstature as the leader of Islamicate

Jewry

and

champion

of Rabbanite

Judaism

made

curiosity

about

his

writ-

ings

a natural

preoccupation

of

non-Arabic-speaking

ews.

Furthermore,

those Jews of

Europe

who

thirstedfor accessibleJewish

speculative

heo-

logical

documentshad

very

few Hebrew exts to which

they

couldturn.First

and

foremost,

herewas a numberof

rabbinichomiliesand traditionswhich

could be

utilized

n

theological

discussions.Then

therewas the

crypticSefer

Yegirah.'7

n Italian

contemporary

f

Saadiah,

Shabbetai

Donnolo,

wrotea

cosmological/astrological

ommentary

o

the

Sefer

Yezirah.'8

bit later

he

Hebrewworks of Abraham Bar Iliyya

appeared,"8

nd another Hebrew

commentary containing

a

partial

Hebrew translation

of Saadiah's own

Judeo-Arabic

commentary

to the

Sefer

Yegirah)

was

published by

Bar

LHiyya's

ntagonist

Judah

b.

Barzilai.20

ut the Arabic

works

of

Saadiah

and

his

philosophico-linguistic

uccessors n the

Middle

East and

Spain

were

impenetrable.

Not

until

the late

twelfth

century

would

these

Judeo-Arabic

works

be

rendered

nto Hebrew

by

the

Tibbonides

and

the

other

pro-

fessional translatorswho

lived

in

Provence.2'

Only

then would Saadiah's

Kitabal-Amdndt,BabyaIbn Paquda'sHidayaild Fard'idal-Qulab,Judah

Halevi's

Kitab

al-Radd

wa'l-Dalil

t

al-Din

al-Dhalil,

and Maimonides'

Daldlat

al-fHd'irin

e available

to

non-Arabic-speaking

ews.

The

impact

of these

twelfth-century

ranslations

on

European

Jewish

speculative

thought

has

been

chronicledand constitutes n and of

itself a crucial

chapter

in

the

history

of

Jewish

philosophy.

But between

the tenth and

twelfth

centuries

there was

a dearth of

speculative

materialoutside

of Islamicate

lands. Into this

vacuum

appeared

he

Paraphrase,

he

first translation f the

first

major

work of

Jewish

philosophy.

17.

The

first references

to the

Sefer

Ye;irah

appear

in

the sixth

century

C.E.

Saadiah com-

posed

a Judeo-Arabic

commentary

to this

work

which was translated into Hebrew

a number of

times

beginning

in

the

eleventh

century.

See

Steinschneider,

Hebraeischen

Uebersetzungen,pp.

443-448;

Malter,

Saadia

Gaon,

pp.

355-359;

and

G.

Vajda,

"Sa'adya

Commentateur du

Livre

de la

Creation,"

in

Annuaire

de

l',cole

Pratique

des Hautes Etudes

(Paris,

1959/60),

pp.

1-35.

18.

Sefer

.akhmoni,

ed.

D.

Castelli

(Florence, 1880),

written

sometime between

946

and

982. See A.

Sharf,

The

Universe

of

Shabbetai

Donnolo

(New

York,

1976),

pp.

1-13.

19. A full

bibliography

is

provided

by

G.

Wigoder

in his

introduction

to Bar

Ijiyya's

The

Meditation

of

the Sad

Soul

(New

York,

1968),

pp.

4-6.

20. Perusch

Sepher

Jezira,

ed. S.

J. Halberstam

(Berlin,

1885),

written sometime

in

the first

half of the twelfth

century.

21.

I.

Twersky,

"Aspects

of the Social

and

Cultural

History

of Provencal

Jewry,"

in

Jewish

Society

Through

he

Ages,

ed. H. H.

Ben-Sasson and

Ettinger

(New

York,

1969), pp.

195-202.


6/25

6

RONALD C. KIENER

The

second

translation

of

the Kitdb

al-Amandt

s

known to

most

studentsof Saadiah's

philosophy:

t

is

the translation

f

JudahIbn

Tibbon,

professional

translatorfor the

Hebrew-speaking

cholars of

Provence.22

This

Tibbonide

translation

quickly

replaced

the

earlier

effort,

for the

Paraphrase

was a

lavish,

cacophonously

xpansive,

and

inaccurate ender-

ing,

while

Ibn

Tibbon's

translationwas terse

and

accurate,

exceedingly

faithful to

the

original

Arabic.

The value of Ibn Tibbon's translation

was

readily apparent,

and

it

quickly

became the

vehicle

by

which Saadiah's

philosophy

became known

to

the

Jews of

Europe-at

at

least

until the

Wissenschaft

cholars

rediscovered he Arabic

original.

Theplayful anguageof the Paraphrase, erived romfamiliariturgical

styles, helps

to account

for its

popularity.

On

the

one

hand,

the

Paraphrase

renderedsome of

the more obscure

philosophical

passages

into a

fairly

simple

and

straightforward

abbinic/paytanic

diom-a

far

cry

from Ibn

Tibbon's

slavish

quasi-Arabic yntax.

On the

other

hand,

the authorof the

Paraphrase

possessed

an

almost mischievous

creativity

in

coining

new

words

for subtle

concepts.

And,

as

Gollancz

once

noted,

the

Paraphrase

abounds

n rabbiniccitationsand

biblical

allusionsnot found

in eitherthe

Kitdb

al-Amdndt

r

Ibn

Tibbon's

translation.23

With

this

stylistic

feature,

the Paraphrase ossesseda compellingair of traditionalismwhich the Ibn

Tibbon translation

never

acquired.

These two factors

together-the

some-

times

simple,

sometimes

confounding

Hebrew

language

and

syntax;

and

secondly

the constant

rabbinic

and

biblical

allusions-help

to

account for

the

Paraphrase's

arly popularity

and

widespreadacceptance.

But the

Paraphrase

did not

garner

only praise

for

Saadiah;

a

third

feature-its

long-windedness-did

not

go

over

well with most of

Saadiah's

detractorsand some

of Saadiah's

upporters.24

ven

in the

original

Arabic

Saadiahdisplayedan annoying aste forrepetitiveistsand verbose urns

of

phrase.

The

Paraphrase

reely

stretched

numerous

passages

with

a

metrical,

rhyming

xpansion,

and

as a result

he

Paraphrase

s some 50

percent

onger

than the

original

Kitdb

al-Amdndt,

lready

a

substantial

work.

It is the

very

length

of the

Paraphrase

hat

generated

the

numerous

compendia

and

22.

See

Steinschneider,

Hebraeischen

Uebersetzungen, p.

439;

Malter,

Saadia

Gaon,

pp.

370-373.

Malter

never

published

his

promised

critical

edition.

Whereas Ibn Tibbon

followed

the

"Petersburg"

recension,

the

Paraphrase

is more

faithful to the

Oxford text.

See Hebraeisch-

en

Uebersetzungen,p.

441,

and

Landauer's introduction

to

the

Kitcab,

p.

viii.

23. Ethical

Treatises

of

Berakhya,

editor's

introduction,

p.

xli.

24. See

Malter,

Saadia

Gaon,

pp.

283-284,

n.

607.


7/25

HEBREW ARAPHRASE F

KITAB

AL-AMANAT

WA'L-1'TIQADAT

7

epitomes,

and

these

in turn

helped

to make certain

aspects

of

Saadiah's

magnum opus,

now

distilled,

popular

n

Europe.25

The Paraphrases both a renderingof Saadiah's

Kithb

al-Amdndtnto

Hebrewand a creationof

a new

vocabulary

nd

Hebrew

philosophicalprose

style.

As a

translation,

he

Paraphrase

s

but

a faint and

faltering eproduc-

tion of

the Arabic

original,generally onveying

ittle morethan

the

gist

and

outward

structure of

the

exceedingly complex

and technical

Kitab

al-

Amandt.

As

literary

creation,

the

Paraphrase

urvives

as a

remarkable

hermeneutical nvention

which,

through linguistic

and

stylistic

features,

created

a new

Saadiah,

a new Saadianic

heology,

and a new

(though

ittle-

used)

theologicalvocabulary.

Though

we cannot

identify

the

paraphrasist,

we are certain of a few

things

regarding

his abilities.He

was

not

an

accurate

ranslator,

nor was

he

as

proficient

an Arabist

as the

later

Judah

Ibn

Tibbon.

In this

respect,

he

paraphrasistypifies

many pre-Tibbonide

ranslators,

uch as the

eleventh-

centuryByzantine

Karaite ranslators

who undertook o translate

he vast

bodyof Judeo-ArabicKaraite iterature nd whohavebeenfoundwanting

in recent

evaluationsof their

ability.26

he

problem

was

widespread:

n

the

Rabbanite world of

Provence,

Judah

Ibn Tibbon

complained

about the

inaccuracies of

the

early

translations.27

The

Paraphrase

easily

falls into the

category

of flawed

translation,

a

malady

the Tibbonides

sought

to

rectify

with their new round of translations.

As an

example

of

the

Paraphrase's

nadequacies, present

here

the

text

of a

philosophically

dense

Kaldm

proof

for the createdness

of

the

world,

one

of the

manyexamples

of

paraphrastic

mistranslation.

25.

In

general,

the

epitomes

tended

to

pass

over

the

cosmological

treatises of the

original

Kitab

al-Amandt,

concentrating

instead

on the

more "ethical"

treatises,

such as

chapters

4,

5,

and

6.

See,

for

example,

how the

epitomist

of MS

Paris 669

opens

the first

treatise

with

the

phrase

"A

version

selected from

the second scroll"

(nusab

me-'inyyan megillah sheniyah,

fol.

8a),

and

then

reduces more than

thirty

folio

pages

in

MS

Vatican

266

to one folio.

26. Z.

Ankori,

Karaites

in

Byzantium:

The

Formative

Years,

970-1100

(New

York,

1959),

pp.

191-193.

27.

His

complaints

may

have been

specifically

directed at the

Paraphrase.

See

his

introduc-

tion to the translation of Babya Ibn Paquda's Hiddyah, entitled Sefer Hovot ha-Levavot

(Warsaw, 1875),

p.

4.


8/25

8

RONALD C. KIENER

Para.,

MS Vat.

266,

Ibn

Tibbon

(Josefow

Kitab

ed. Landauer):

2

fol. 14b:1-2 ed.): 56

The Paraphrases in word count more than triple he lengthof either he

Kitab al-Amandt r the Ibn Tibbon translation.This is partly due to the

typical hendiadys

and

pleonasms

of the

Paraphrase,

such as the Para-

phrase's mugbalim ve-niq avim be-shi'ur ve-takhlit ve-heker for the single

Arabicword

mutanahiydn.

ut there s also a

horrendous

mistranslation

n

this

passage

from which the

paraphrasist

never

fully

recovers.

The first of the four Kaldm proofs for the createdness of the

world,

erived

rom

Aristotelian

radition,

can

be

stated

succinctly

n threepropo-

sitions:

first,

the

world

is finite in

magnitude;

econd,

the force within the

world, that "which preserves" the world, is finite; third, a finite force cannot

produce nfiniteexistence.Hence, the world must have a beginningand an

end. The second

proposition

s defended

by

the statement

"it

is

not

possible

that

an

infinite

orceexistwithin

a finite

body."28

The

Tibbonideranslation.his is

partly

due to the

t h a t i n f i n i t e f o r c e

e x i s t

w i t h i n

f i n i t e

b o d y . "

T h e

T i b b o n i d e

t r a n s l a t i o n

28. For a treatment of this

proof,

see H. A. Wolfson, The

Philosophy

of the Kalam

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1976),

pp.

374-382;

and H.

Davidson,

"The

Principle

That a Finite

Body


9/25

HEBREW

ARAPHRASE F

KITAB

AL-AMANAT

WA'L-I'TIQADAT

9

faithfully reproduces

this statement. But the

paraphrasist

has

clumsily

reversed he sense of

the

argument

and now

employs

the statementas a

buttress or the firstproposition,namely, hat the world is finite in magni-

tude:

"for it is

impossible

hat

[the

power]

be

bounded

n a mass that is not

bounded;

and also it

is

impossible

hat

a

determinate

measurereside n

a

body

that is neither determined

nor limited

[nitkal];29

ather,

ust

as their

force

is determinate o

it is

appropriate

hat their

body

be limitedand

deter-

minate."

Thus,

the

buttressing

statement

no

longer supports

the

second

proposition,

and

in the

Paraphrase

t

becomes

a furtherdemonstration

f

the world's

finitude.

A

crucial

link in the

argument

s forever ost.

Not only is precision ost in the torrentof words,but accuracy s also

tossed

aside.

In the hermeneutical

rocess,

the

paraphrasist

as so embel-

lished

the

argument

as to

render t

inaccurate,

nd the embellishment

nly

serves

to

compound

the

problem.

Occasionally,

and

despite

his

indefatigable

reativity,

he

paraphrasist

was unableto translate

an Arabic term

nto Hebrew.Sometimes

he offered

both his

Hebrew

approximation

along

with the Arabic

original,

as if to

allow the reader o decide or

himself.Once

he even inserted nto his

transla-

tion

an

Arabic

phrase

not

present

in the

Kitdb al-Amdndt.30

hus,

numerousArabismsand Arabicphrasesappear n the text, particularly s

preserved

n

MS Vatican269.

A

preliminary

ist of some

of theseArabisms

s

provided

below:

MS Vatican

266,

fol.

6b,

col. 1:

inny

K

[om].

Ed.

Landauer,

p.

13:

'ilm

md

dafa'at

al-dariarah

laihi,

"necessarily

nferred

knowledge."

MS

Vat.

266,

9a:1:

nan

x. Ed.

Landauer,

p.

19:

al-majarrah,

the

Milky

Way."

MS Vat.

269,

fol.

13b,

11.

19-21:

n~il

i

[vocalized ].

Ed.

Landauer, p.

29:

amran

wa-nahiyan,

commandand

prohibition."

n,;rml

inn.

Ed.

Landauer,

p.

29:

al-ld'ah

wa'l-ma'piyah,

"obedience

and

rebellion."

Can Contain

Only

Finite

Power,"

in

Studies in Jewish

Religious

and

Intellectual

History,

ed.

Stein and Loewe

(University,

Ala.,

1979),

pp.

75-92.

29. An

unattested

nifal

form of

TKL,

derived from KLH

with a

performative

tav:

TaKhLrt.

Ben-Yehudah notes

a

paytanic hifil

form of TKL. See

E.

Ben-Yehudah,

Thesaurus

Totius

Hebraitatis

(New

York,

1959),

p.

7747a-b.

30. Ibn Tibbon retains the Arabic only once. See Sefer ha-Emunot,

pp.

59 f.


10/25

10

RONALD C.

KIENER

nfK1

nmon.

Ed.

Landauer,

p.

29:

al-basandt

wa'l-saydt, "good

and

evil

deeds."

MS Vat.266, 13b:1: nz rra (MSVat.269,fol. 13breadsannn

K carrI).

o

parallel

n

Judeo-Arabic

ext.

Probably

rom

?adr

al-kitab,

"title of

the

book."

MS Vat.

266,

18b:l:

"2nn.

Ed.

Landauer,

p.

41:

sanawbariyan,

cone-

shaped."

MS Vat.

266,

27a:1:

pmonx

..

i,...

.

inDn:.

d.

Landauer,

p.

61:

al-ittifdq

...

bi-ittifdq,

"chance occurrence."

MS Vat.

269,

fol.

64b,

1. 2:

i'l'

1

t'

yx

[ ].

Ed.

Landauer,

p.

145:

wa'l-jabr

wa'l-'adl,

"predestination

nd

divine

justice."

MS

Vat.

266,

85b:

1

0mno

nn'i1

-i5x

,oin'.

Ed.

Landauer,

p.

207-8:

bi'l-karr

wa-yusammunhu

al-tandsukh,

"return or

transmigration."

Another

distinguishing

eatureof the

Paraphrase,

n the first

treatise

n

particular,

re

phrases

onstructed rom

the

Sefer

Yegirah,

workwhichhas

been

variously

dated

sometime

between he

second

and sixth

centuries

C.E.31

One such

peculiar

inguistic

creationderived rom

the

Sefer

Yezirah

ever-

berated nto

later

theological

iterature.

t is what

ultimately

became

the

standardHebrew ormulafor "creationex nihilo": eshme-ayin MS Vat.

266,

fols.

14a:1, 18a:2,79a:1,

87a:1,

87b:2),

used to translate

he Arabic

d

min

shay',

"creation rom

nothing."

2

This is derived

rom

Sefer

Yegirah

:6:

ve-'asah t eino

yeshno,

"He

[God]

made

that

which

was not into

that

which

is." Of the

early

medievals,

Solomon

Ibn

Gabirol

1021-1057)

made use of

this

passage

n

his sacred

poetry,

hough

n

a

way

that avoided

he

formulaic

construction and

was far removed from the ex

nihilo

signification.33

Abraham

bn Ezra

(1089-1164)

used the formula

n his short

commentary

to

Genesis,

but this

usage

s attributableo his

knowledge

of

the

Paraphrase,

for the

phrase

was not

widely

in use in Hebrewuntil the late twelfth

31. On

the

Sefer

Ye;irah,

see

G.

Scholem,

Major

Trends,

pp.

75-78;

idem,

Reshit

ha-Qabbalah

ve-Sefer

ha-Bahir

(Jerusalem, 1979),

pp.

1-59.

32.

On the

terminology

for

"creation

ex nihilo"

in

medieval

Hebrew and Arabic

philo-

sophy,

see H.

A.

Wolfson,

"The

Meaning

of

Ex

Nihilo

in the Church

Fathers,

Arabic and

Hebrew

Philosophy,

and

St.

Thomas,"

in

Medieval Studies

in Honor

of

J.

D. M. Ford

(Cambridge

Mass.,

1948),

pp.

355-370;

reprinted

and cited

from Studies

in the

History

of

Philosophy

and

Religion,

ed.

Twersky

and Williams

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1973),

1:207-221;

and

more

recently

The

Philosophy

of

the

Kalam,

pp.

355-372.

33. In Ibn Gabirol's Keter Malkhut: li-mshokhmeshekhha-yesh min ha-ayin, "to draw up

the

film

of the existent

from the

nothing."

See Ha-Shirah

ha-'Ivrit

be-Sefarad

u-ve-Provans,

ed.

J.

Schirmann

(Jerusalem,

1959),

vol.

1,

sec.

1:262.


11/25

HEBREWARAPHRASEF

KITAB

AL.-AMANAT

WA'L-I'TIQADAT

11

century.34

Previous

assumptions

o the

contrary,

he Tibbonides

eschewed

the

phrase

yesh me-ayin,

preferring

nsteadthe more literal

lo

mi-davar,

"notfroma thing."35hus,wemay regard heparaphrasist's oinageof the

formula

yesh

me-ayin

or

"creation

ex nihilo"as the first instance

of

this

now

famousHebraism.36

As a

literary

creation,

the

Paraphrase

ontains two distinct

styles:

a

predominant

narrative

prose style

(of

which the

passage

cited

above

from

the

first treatise is

a fine

example),

n

which both

neologisms

and

poetic

parallelisms

appear

with moderate

frequency;

and a less

frequent style

composed

of

"poetic

sequences"

n

which the

parallelisms

ncrease

dramati-

cally

to a

lilting

crescendo,

and

creatively

new derived orms and

coinages

abound.

The

Paraphrase

wavers between

a

sporadically

areful

iteralism

and

a

wildly

expansive

concatenation

f

phrases

which

only vaguelyrepro-

duce the

original

Arabic.

For

example:

MS

Vat.

266,

fol.

61a:1-2

Kitdb

ed.

Landauer):

47

mi )n-r

r

jrlau nrimrnl

5D

nvr n

rnt I~ml

1 1 1 = 1

1 1 1 , 1 1 , 3 1 ,

. 1 2

1 X I 3 1

n i m y - 1 1

7 M I 3 1

7 5 1 3 - .

t t t p n n

x N l .

n l r L t ) 3 - .

ivrif5

invy

5y t rmrm

ri

vv.

x

m

Kin

ri

rim

N X t r - ) 5 r

1 3 1 Y 1 u

7 1 Y U 5 2 1

I n n u

i 2 T Y 5 1 n ~ t V

v n t l

I I - ) - I M

t3.-I-

only

t)il trimin

nrrnlyn

nXn-

03-.51

xim

Imm

Kin731rm ( )5

DI-1

rpi

rnn

y

r5D

. ) 3 E

t n l n i x

j i v i n i

) i I

n y n n

t r n r l

) Y l n

x K l .

t 3 - . 1 5

- . I t l Y l

t r o - m - .

n X I

n w r l r t o r . 1 3

- . 1 i m m

5 3 n

t 3 . ) 5 1 5 1

r u r l u K v . 1

r i m m - . 1

- . 1 1 3 1

n i m u 1

I r m , 1

t 3 . 7 x

5 n l

u ) I . ) ) 5 3

t n n y n

t 3 . ) 3

p l u

t r i v

3 1

3 m u l

nimi

)izvv

-Ty

mn= K11

i

?trl1

a2r1?r

mimwt?

To

niwix2K

Dvw

nit

rim

Kmin

rim"nl

731

rrv

Kin

n*Dxn-)rm

'xt

tvnyu1

7

12n

mm

r

mr) n

vi i

rK

tr-m

ri

trn)

x

rt

n

nnr

[

x-miripi

r i m

i = 5 =

m 5 b n ' y n

m i n

vr7~n

i m i

- n r n u m t r a

m m

- ) x ~ y

w ~ ~ n

m i n

r i m m m

m r l t v l m

y m ,

m i n

r o n m r o i

m n o v w

t l

n i m

r o i r m

u 3 3 i v i

i m o D

7 t p r i m

1 3 5 3

y r i

i n i M r i

- i m o i

i n L ~ w n n

n - 1 2

i t ~ r o r m

n - m i

t n n i r m n

3 y p i

t n r i m p

- I I Y - ) W l

t 3 - 0 3 D I D . I

1 5 - -

t r v i r n

- ) Y f n

r i m m i

[ P T 3 - ) 3 5 y ~ t w l

r m n n n n ~

5 * o w

a n x v

m i x i

t K ~

i m n n

i n i

[ t 3 1 m 1 m ] - I l y . ) I v l ~ ~ ~ l

t P r l ' m . ) I 5 t r i - m ' I 2 -

t v r n u o i

7 - m r w

r i - m i m

. m r m ~ n

5 5 m

t r n - r m

t l m r m i t m m p 5 i t m r i i r m i r i - ' 7 l B

n i 5 - ) Y i

t m m y o

L;Dy~

0Xj5 &4

Q

?

Y JI

3'

3?

)

LS;r

,LL, dkI 9jULL rj c~4

~Y(

J~.A5

J j ?

L i j 3

I j ?

34. See his comment to Genesis

1:1.

35. Judah

al-Harizi

also used the literal lo mi-davar

in his

translation

of

Maimonides'

Guide. See his

translation,

also entitled Moreh

Nevukhim,

ed. L.

Schlossberg

(London, 1851),

vol.

2:20a,

21a.

36.

The

Paraphrase

was

quite popular

among mystics

of

the

twelfth

and thirteenth cen-


12/25

12

RONALD

C.

KIENER

This

passage

demonstratesa number of

key

features

typical

of the

Paraphrase.

irst,

t

is

highly

expansive,

more than double

the

length

of the

Arabic.37

Second,

it

abounds

in assonantal

rhyming parallelisms

of

an

occasional

metric

quality.

The

passage

above

s

admittedly

n extreme

case,

but

it is

not

unique.

Third,

the

passage

containsa numberof rare rabbinic

words,

such as

moranim,

"storehouse";38

etidra'ot,

"chair";39

"la'ot

(or

i;tallut),

"shoe-lining";40 astreihem,

"their

military

camps";41

and

tarqoneihem,

theircastles."

2

Finally,

evenan airof

esotericism

s

injected

into the

passage by

the

seemingly

nnocent

phrase

u-mevin

t

ha-otiyyot,

"[by

this wisdom

man]

also comesto know the

letters,"

a

phrasecompletely

absent n theArabicoriginal.Byinvoking he verbmevinwith theletters, he

Paraphrase

onveys

a sense

of

"gnostic"

egitimacy

o

Hebrew etter

specu-

lation

and

manipulation.

As

previous

studentsof the

Paraphrase

ave

already

noted,

the Para-

phrase

contains

numerous

words,

phrases,

and constructionswhich

emulate

the

neologistic

Hebrew of Eleazar

ha-Kallir,

the

Palestinian

paytan

who

lived and died

sometime

before Saadiah's

ifetime.43

As

one of

the first

Palestinian

iturgical

poets,

Kallir's

unique

treatmentof

the Hebrew

lan-

guage

influenced

subsequent

Palestinian

poets.

Neo-Kallirism nfluenced

Babylonian,

talian,German,and northernFrench

styles

wellinto the thir-

teenth

century.44

ven

Saadiah's

own difficult

poetic

style

exhibitsKallirian

turies.

Thus,

we

may

further surmise that the

popularity

of this

phrase

amongst

medieval

kabbalists

in more

properly

attributable

to

the

Paraphrase

than the Tibbonide translation. On

the

popularity

of

the

phrase yesh

me-ayin

amongst

kabbalists,

see

Scholem,

Major

Trends

p.

25;

idem,

On the

Kabbalah

and

Its

Symbolism

(New

York,

1969),

pp.

101

f.;

idem,

"Sch6pfung

aus

Nichts und

Selbstverschrankung

Gottes,"

in

Uber

einige Grundbegriffe

es Judenthums

Frank-

furt

a.

M.,

1970),

pp.

53-89.

37. Moses b. Hisdai

(Taku),

who had the

Paraphrase

before him,

complained

that Saadiah

"could

have written

in

five

tracts what he

writes

in fifteen." See MS Paris

H711:14a,

published

by

J.

Dan

in

facsimile form

as KeTAV TAMIM

(Jerusalem,

1984).

38. B.T.

Bava

Batra

6a.

39.

J.T.

Sukkah

55a.

40.

Tosefta

Bava

Batra 4:6.

41. From

gastra,

B.T. Shabbat

121a.

42.

From

tarqa,

Targum

Proverbs 25:24.

43.

Saadiah

mentions Kallir

in

his

Agron

(ed.

N.

Allony

[Jerusalem,

1969], p.

154),

which

was

composed

in

902

(see

Allony's

introduction,

p.

23).

He mentions

Kallir

again

as

an

"ancient"

poet

in

his

commentary

to the

Sefer

Ye;irah

entitled

Kitab

al-Mabadd

(ed.

Kafab

[Jerusalem, 1972], p. 49); which was written in 931 (ibid., p. 86).

44.

A. M.

Habermann,

Toledot

ha-Piyyul

ve-ha-Shirah

Ramat

Gan,

1972),

1:40-49;

and

2:11,

23.

On

Kallirian

style

in

Byzantine Italy,

see J.

Schirmann,

Studies

in the

History of

Hebrew

Poetry

and Drama

[Hebrew] (Jerusalem,

1979),

2:18-29.


13/25


14/25

14

RONALD

C.

KIENER

Paraphrase,

whilethe date

of

composition

of

the

Arabic

original 932 C.E.)

s

the terminus

quo.

It

is

not

imprudent

o conclude hat

the

Paraphrase

was

madeduringthis 163-yearperiod.

If

we

were o

disregard

he

evidence

of the

colophon,

we

would

next

have

to

turn to the earliestcitation of

the

Paraphrase

n

other datableworks.

In

this

case,

we are led to no earlier

han

the

last

half

of the twelfth

century,

when the

Paraphrase

s

cited

n

both Franceand

Spain.

In FranceBerechiah

b. Natronaiha-Nakdanboth

epitomized

and

quoted

the

Paraphrase

xten-

sively

in his

Sefer

ha-fHibbur

"The

Compendium")

and

his

Sefer

ha-Ma;ref

("The

Book

of

the

Refinery"),

he latterwritten

around

1170.53

he former

is

largely,

though

not

exclusively,

an

epitome

of the

Paraphrase.

Other

authors,

notably

Abraham bn

Ezra,

SolomonIbnGabirol,and

Babya

Ibn

Paquda,

are cited.

The

second and

chronologically

ater

work

contains no

new

Saadianicmaterial

over

and above the

Hibbur.

Berechiah

lourished n the second

half

of

the

twelfth

century.

As

his

title

implies,

he was

apparently

vocalizer

of biblical

manuscripts.

His

place

of

origin

was

France,

hough

J.

Jacobs

attempted

o

identify

him witha

certain

Benedictus

e Puncteur f

Oxford,

making

him

an

importantEnglish

Jew.54

Jacobs's

heory

s

untenable,

or

Berechiah's wn

epitome

of the

Paraphrase

is dedicated o "thepatronR. Meshullam," one otherthan Meshullamb.

Jacob

of

Lunel,

the

sponsor

of

the

great

Rabbanite ranslation

project

n

southern

France.55

his

dedication

dates,

locates,

and identifiesBerechiah

as a memberof Meshullam's

mmense

translation

actory

n

Lunel.

Many attempts

have been made over

the

last

century

o

identify

Bere-

chiahas the author

of

the

Paraphrase.

he

identification f

Berechiah s the

paraphrasist

was

originally

made

by

J.

Fidrst,

hough

by

implication

L.

Dukes

first

raised the connection.56

And

indeed,

Berechiah

produced

an

abbreviated

ersion

of

the

Paraphrase

n his

Hibbur.

However,

here

s

not

the slightestevidencethat Berechiahwas conversantwith Arabic,for his

other

known translationefforts constitute

a

Lapidarium

nd

a version of

53.

For the

date of

composition

of these

two

works,

see Gollancz's

introduction,

Ethical

Treatises

of

Berakhya,

p.

1.

54. See the

exchange

between

Jacobs

and A.

Neubauer

in

Jewish

Quarterly

Review,

o.s.

1

(1889):

182-183,

and 2

(1890):

322-333,

520-526.

55. See

Ethical

Treatises

of

Berakhya,

p.

1. On

Meshullam,

see

I.

Twersky,

Rabad

of

Posquieres

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1962),

p.

12-14.

56. First, Bibliotheca Judaica (Leipzig, 1863), 2:210; Ewald and Dukes, Beitriage,2:16, n.

6.


15/25

HEBREW

ARAPHRASEFKITAB

AL-AMANAT

WA'L-I'TIQADAT

15

Adelard

of Bath's

Questiones

Naturales.57

Conceivably,

this identification

was based

on the contents

of MS Munich

42

(the

MS most often cited

n the

nineteenth

century),

in which the

Paraphrase

appears

immediately

pre-

ceding

Berechiah's ranslation

of

the

Questiones

Naturales.58

espite

this

very

circumstantial

ssociation,

t

is

now

generallyregarded

hat the

once

promising

dentification

s

fruitless.59

In

Spain

the anti-Christian

olemicist

Jacob b. Reuben

quoted

exten-

sively

from

the

Paraphrase

n

the twelfth

chapter

of

his

Milhamot

ha-Shem

(composed

1170).60

This

book

is

cast

in

the form of

a

dialogue

betweena

Christian

(ha-mekhabed,

"the

denier")

and

a

Jew

(ha-meyabed,

"the

uniter"),and is a literaryexpansionof a private "disputation" hat the

young

Jacob

held with

a

friendly

priest

n

Gascogne.61

n

the final

chapter

of

the book

there

appears

a

compilation

f various

philosophic

demonstrations

which

seeks

to

prove

that the Messiahhad not

yet

arrived.

In

this

chapter

Jacob cites

Isaac

Israeli,

Abraham

Ibn

Ezra,

Abraham Bar

Hiyya,

and most

prominently

SaadiahGaon. Jacob

quotes

at

length

numerous

passages

rom

the seventh and

eighth

treatises

of

the

Paraphrase,

evoted

respectively

o

the doctrines of

bodily

resurrection

and messianic

redemption.

These

passages

are

typically

ntroduced

by

the

phrase

amar

ha-ga'on,

"the

gaon

said," or amar

he-hakham

ha-gadol be-sifro, "the great sage said in his

book."

62

It is

open

to

some

doubt

whetherJacob drew from a

copy

of

the

full text

of

the

Paraphrase

r from

an

epitome,

such

as

Berechiah's

Hlibbur

or

MS Paris

669,

for these

epitomes

delete but a small amount from the

content of

the seventh and

eighth

treatises.In either

case,

Malter's nitial

evaluationof the

Milbhamot

a-Shemas

a

valuable ool

in

determining

he

57. On

Berechiah's

knowledge

of

Arabic,

see Gollancz

in

Ethical

Treatises,

pp.

xxxix-xl.

An

early

and

fairly

accurate

bibliography

of Berechiah's

works

is

provided by

H.

Gross,

Gallia

Judaica

(Paris,

1897),

2:180-185. See

Steinschneider,

Hebraeischen

Uebersetzungen,

pp.

958-962.

Berechiah

also

composed poetry;

see

I.

Davidson,

Thesaurus

of

Medieval

Hebrew

Poetry

(New

York,

1933),

vol.

4,

s.v.

"Berakhyah

b.

Natronay ha-Naqdan."

58.

Steinschneider,

Hebraeische

Bibliographie

3

(1860):

44,

n.

1;

and Hebraeischen

Ueber-

setzungen, p.

440.

59.

Zunz,

Bloch

(for

his own

reasons),

Neubauer, Gollancz,

Steinschneider,

Malter,

and

Porges

were all

in

agreement

on this

point.

60.

For

the

date

of

composition

of

this

work,

see Y. Rosenthal's introduction

in

Sefer

Milhamot

ha-Shem

(Jerusalem,

1963),

p.

viii.

61. See Rosenthal's

introduction, Milbamot

ha-Shem,

p.

ix.

62.

Milfhamot

ha-Shem,

pp.

157,

159, 161,

et al.


16/25

16

RONALD

C.

KIENER

text of the

Paraphrase

ought

to be

ignored,

for the

text

is a

derivative wit-

ness

of

little textual value.63

A third witness to the Paraphrase from the twelfth century is more

problematic:

it

is the

Shir

ha-Yihud

("Hymn

of

Unity"),

an

anonymous

poem deriving

from the earliest

German

pietist

circles of the Rhine

River

valley.64

Unlike

the other

witnesses,

the

Shir

ha-

Yizud

does not

cite Saadiah

by

name,

nor can

it be dated with

any

precision.

The

poem,

composed

at

least a

generation

before R. Judah

he-.Hasid

(d. 1217),

is

essentially

an

ecstatic

reworking

set to

rhyme

and meter of the second treatise

of the

Paraphrase.

The first

to

recognize

the link

between

Saadiah and the

Shir

was

R.

Moses b. Ijisdai (Taku), the bitter anti-Saadiah

polemicist

who lived in the

midst of

the

pietist

Rhineland.65

He attacked

the

Shir

ha-Yihud-and

by

implication

Saadiah-for its

confused and heretical

theology.

There

is a

poem

called

"Song

of

Unity,"

and

I

have heard that R. Bezalel

composed

t-but not

all

cf

it-from

the

Book

of Beliefs,

for

from

the

verse

"God

Almighty"

[Shaddai;

Shir

ha-Yihbud,

d.

Habermann,

33:97],66

R.

Samuel

composed

t.

In it

is

written:

"Everything

s

in

You,

and You are

in

everything"

25:39],

"You surround ll and

fill

all,

and

with

the

becoming

of

all,

You are

in all"

[26:49],

"Before he

all,

You

were

all;

and

with the

begin-

ning

of

all,

You filled

all"

[27:65].

f this is the

case,

then

why

s it

also written:

"The

Judge

sits as an Ancient

One,

His hosts to the left and

right"

29:18]?

t is

as if He were

a

createdform

Thus,

the Torah

opinion

is that

anyone

who

recites

[the poem]

is a

defiler.67

63.

Saadia

Gaon,

p.

368.

64. The

poem

was

published

with critical

commentary

by

A.

Habermann in

Shirei

ha-Yibud

ve-ha-Kavod

Jerusalem,

1948),

pp.

13-45. For a

recent

discussion of the

poem's

position

in

German

pietist

tradition,

see J.

Dan,

The

Esoteric

Theology

of

Ashkenazi

fasidism

[Hebrew] (Jerusalem,

1968),

47-48.

65.

On this

individual,

see

J.

Epstein,

"Moise

Tako b.

Hisdai

et

son

Ketab

Tamim,"

Revue

des

etudes

juives

61

(1911):

60-70;

and

more

recently

J. Dan's

introduction

to the

facsimile

edition of

the Ketav

Tamim

(Jerusalem,

1984),

pp.

vii-xxvii.

66. This

verse of the

Shir contains

the

acrostic "Samuel."

67. MS Paris

H711:

54a.


17/25

HEBREW

ARAPHRASEFKITAB

AL-AMANAT

WA'L-I'TIQADAT

17

Observant

riticthat he

was,

Moses

b.

HIisdai

riticized

he

Hymn

for its

ecstatic panentheismand correctly dentifiedthe source for this deviant

thought:

the

Paraphrase,

dentified

by

Moses b.

Hisdai

as the

Sefer

ha-Emunot.Moses b.

Hisdai

also

objected

to the

notion

that

God

is

por-

trayed

as a

physical

orm,

and herewe

touch

upon

a

second

motif

shared

by

the

Shir ha-

Yibud

and

the

Paraphrase:

he existence

of

a

created and

resplendent

Kavod

"Divine

Glory")

which

acts as God's

revelatory

agent

and immanent

presence.68

nd

indeed,

there are a few

paraphrastic

evia-

tions

from

Saadiah's

highly

ranscendent

heology

of the

Kavod

which,

when

taken

together,provide

a

visual

panentheist

oloring

o Saadiah's

work.

The

most importantaspectof this theologicalshift is the Kavoddoctrineas it

appears

n

the

Paraphrase.

Para. MS Vat.

266,

fol. 41b:1 Kitdb

ed.

Landauer):

9

Y-)i

-1-1rO

Irmrrumm

rcrurn 1-IYl yn Y-

..

ni ai:xnr nxrrm *z i ix wxvin'v

wxn

n~~ri

-~

v

jn

17rrn

rran

7m

px?~roninniroiron

nzy

rim

rnirminwt

.rnr mwi im

imi

n m

n

rrn rr

rrnmv

1 1 1 7 - 1 1 2 i n

- I l x -

l n 3 r i n l y y

t r x ? D v l l

t 3 S ) x w 3 - ; I

jr *vnrzn

imrrmrmv

r

-mrm

miv

i i

nix

wi

r

vn

-ron

ml

z

P-)-)

z n-

rnl

. m n r ~ n

n i n

- ) ? :

- i - ) x n n i x

- . r m n

n r i n

;w

n r z

i m u n

w m r s i

m y ' 1 ~

n z 7

r ; I y n - )

n y r r i

5 : x

s i l p - m i n

r o r n y

r m n -

i r n o n

m u n

i n n

* m l

5 1 ~ ~

'mvv~~svn

'"

n~~ Irnrippi~7

ui

pr~1?1~l ~1wi nrm71;51b ;71ib

L~C~lIrm~~ U_(Yyi;~~jLl

yU5

~-yPrW> tY &z#~l(

J9

4

L;

.

~gL

68. On the

Kavod

doctrine

in

the

original

Saadianic

formulation,

see

A.

Altmann,

"Saadya's Theory of Revelation: Its Origin and Background," in Saadya Studies, ed. E. I. J.

Rosenthal

(Manchester,

1943),

pp.

4-25.


18/25

18

RONALD

C. KIENER

Paraphrase.:

..

Know

that

this

form

is

createdand

brought

new into exis-

tence,

and

so

are the Throneof the firmament nd

those

that

carry

t-all of

themare created.And the Creatorcreated hem from a shining ightand a

shiningsplendor,

o that it

would becomeclearto the sent

prophets

hat the

Creator,

may

His

mentionbe

glorified,

s

the

very

one that

speaks

with

him

and

the

very

one who sent

him,

as I

shall

explain

n

the

thirdscroll. But this

form

s a

wondrous

and

supernal

orm n the

image

of

the

lofty

andmarvelous

angels;

and

it is

awesome

n

its clear

and

bright

and illuminated

ppearance,

shining

n

its

light

like

the

light

of the Shekhinah.And for this reason

it is

called the Kavod

f the

Lord

and His

Shekhinah....

And

the

sages

called it

Shekhinah,

nd

many

imes he

light

shines orthwith neither

mage

nor form.

But theMaker,mayHismentionberaised, iftsupHisservant heprophet

and lifts

him

and

brings

him

up

and

honors

him

when He causeshim

to hear

His

word

from the

shining

and

illuminated

nd

wondrous

and

created

orm,

from the

shining ight

and

glittering

plendor.

And it

is

called he Kavod

f

the

Lord,

as I

have

explained.

Kitdb.:

Ouranswer

s

that

this

form

s

something

reated,

and that ikewise he

Throne,

the

firmament,

nd the carriers

of the

Throneare all created.God

created hem out

of

light

n

order

o

verify

o His

prophets

hat

it

was

He

who

inspired hem withHis words,as we shallexplain

n

the

third

chapter.

This

form

is

nobler than the

angels, magnificent

n

character,

resplendent

with

light,

which is

called

the

Kavod

of the Lord....

It is

this which the

sages

characterized

s

Shekhinah. ometimes

here

appears

light

without he

form

of

a

person.

God confers

distinction

n His

prophet

by allowing

him to heara

prophetic

evelation romthat

majestic

orm

created

out of

light

and called he

Kavodof the

Lord,

as we have

explained.

The observant reader should

note

that

through

extensive use of

parallel-

ism,

the

Paraphrase

accentuates a visual

light

motif,

thereby stressing

the

resplendent

and

permeated

nature of the

ubiquitous

Kavod.

This

glittering

and

resplendent

Kavod

establishes a divine immanence

that

easily

lends itself

to the creation of

a

visually startling cosmogony,

such as

is

contained

in the

German

pietists'

Kavod

doctrine.69

69. See

Dan,

Esoteric

Theology, pp.

84-103.

See M.

Idel,

"The

World

of

Angels

in Human

Form"

[Hebrew],

in

Jerusalem Studies

in

Jewish

Thought,

vol.

3,

Studies

in

Mysticism

Presented

to Isaiah

Tishby

(Jerusalem,

1983/84),

pp.

15-19,

in

which Judah Halevi

is

regarded

as

a

crucial

ideational

link between rationalists and the kabbalistic

theory

that the divine realm

appears

in

human form.

Quite

possibly

the

Paraphrase may

have

served

a similar

purpose.


19/25

HEBREW ARAPHRASE F

KITAB

AL-AMANAT

WA'L-I'TIQADAT

19

Another eature

of the

Paraphrase,

eft unmentioned

y

Moses b.

HIisdai,

is the infusion of

an esotericism nto Saadiah's

heology

of the

Godhead.

Typical

expressions

of this esotericist

spirit

appearthroughout

he second

treatise of

the

Paraphrase,

as

in

she-hu

daq mufla

ve-ne'elam

ve-hevyon

ve-ganus

ve-;afun

mi-kol,

"for

He is

subtly

wonderful

and hidden and

secreted

and

disguised

and concealedfrom all." This statement

s

accom-

panied by

a bold

panentheist

shift: she-hu

meqif

et kol

ha-'olam

ve-hu

meqayyem

me-'amidat

ha-kol,

"He

encompasses

all

the

universe

and

pre-

serves

[it]

by

the

endurance

of all."

70

Taken n

their

totality,

these

kinds of

passages

provided

a

firm

foundation

or

pietist speculations

egarding

he

nature and workingsof the divinity.71

Of

both doctrinal and

lexicographical

nterest are the

many

passages

from the Shir

ha-

Yibud

which are drawn

directly

from the

Paraphrase.

Thesetextual

adaptations

have been

fully

documented

by

A.

Berliner.72

ne

of

the most

powerful

and obvious

adaptations

appears

n the

hymn

for

the

fifth

day, establishing

another

strong

esoteric

theme.

Shir

ha-Yihud,

36:48-37:60 MS Vat.266,fol.33a:1

r=

nmo

i1rix

mrrn n

1o

w

rm

Kxx3

p--r

1-')

p

n

1

pon ?z o

Dlbi

n

? D n

t t n

3 1 I V

L D n

3 1 I V 3

L ? l v

L ? D

? I r l

I v y

L D n

L ? D n l j r ~ L Y

? D n

? D D ~n

. 1 1 3 1 /

* h 9 L

I n v i M ~ z

/

pin

i)r

nrr 3?

piny

?n

ip

t

n /

lin

x?

/

rin

r r

nnwm,

t

rxirm

nzl

rim

,

,

xi

1Kt,

L~3

vv1

71

Ibv1

71n

L~9

S1xi

l 717

1 j z ?

y ~ w

- l v x 7 1 1

y ~ u

X N l y ~ y l

r i x I N

r T y ~

a-) Dy- m

/

nmVnw

'

n

rmm

ninivly 'z nimt

1~rrIVL'

D ) 1~

IV'm r

rn

inrbw

n i n o i

7 i y n

t N x ,

m w n

I r r i

l ? z 1 L ) x x L x 3 3 N

i v x

. . .

L ? z n

t f t n

p i n y

a n u

p l i n

' l n

o i n y

o i n

- n o n

~~

. 1 1 3 1

L ? D n

- . 1 1 3 1 1

P - 3 n

L ? D n

n ~ m

3 1 m

3 1 1 m l

t * Y

r n i n i n n w r i ?

? i r ? z w

I V ; I 1 r ~ y

L ? n r T L y i

n i n

r i n m

r i m r i n

I ; l

t - ) x v

- ) 3 D n

i n i r b

. I 1 n o n

X ~ l - 1 1 3 . ) n X ~ l

h r u

Y

N)

? m ~

n r L r i m ~

n i n w v n n r i n i z i m ~ n i n n i v y u - n

1 z L i

? =

; n r i S I ~

n i v i n

r r n y i v 7 t a t L n

n i x L ? 3

n v 3 Y 7 v V r i

r r t n u I ' ~ D w

1 = 3

r m v a o

- i x n 3

r n x n N n ~ w

I r w r

; i n l y

70. MS

Vatican

266,

38a:2.

71.

Scholem,

Major

Trends,

pp.

108-109.


20/25

20 RONALD

C.

KIENER

Aside from the

hymn

for the fifth

day,

the

hymns

or

the

second,third,

fourth, sixth, and Sabbathday containphrasesand uniquewords lifted

from

the

Paraphrase.

Of

the

particular

nterest

are

the terms for the ten

Aristotelian

categories

(eser

ha-imriyyot;

Tibbonide eser

ma'amarot),

some

of

which

appear

n

the

passage

above.

These

terms

are

interesting,

or

they

represent

ne

of

the first

attempts

at

rendering

hese technical

philosophical

terms into

Hebrew.73

Very

few

of

these terms

persisted

into Tibbonide

Hebrew,

and

some,

such as eresh

for

"substance,"

re

unique

to

the Para-

phrase

and

the

Shir.74

Finally,

and most

dubiously,

we

may

infer

hat Abraham bn

Ezra-not

the most proficientArabist-was familiarwith the Paraphrase,f only for

the

fact

that

he

severely

criticized

he

Gaon

for his

verbosity.75

t

most,

then,

the

Paraphrase

was

cited or otherwiseutilized

by

scholars

n

Spain,

France,

and

Germany

n

the latter half

of

the twelfth

century.

?

c

?

72. Ketavim

Nivkharim

Jerusalem,

1945),

1:164-170.

73. The

Paraphrase

contains

two accounts

of

the

categories.

In both

instances

the Arabic

original

merely

mentions "the ten

categories"

without

going

into

details

or

naming

each

of the

categories.

The two

passages

occur

in

MS

Vatican

266,

fols. 34b:

1

and 39a:

1.

Below is a chart

comparing

the

Paraphrase

terms

with

the Tibbonide

terms,

derived

from

Judah

Ibn

Tibbon's

Be'ur

Millot

Zarot

in

the introduction

to

Sefer

ha-Emunot ve-ha-De'ot

(Josefow,

1885),

pp.

11-12.

Paraphrase

Ibn Tibbon

1. substance IVxm

,1p?)

3'y ,WVZ OYY

la. accident

1V

,5

,r,p

,ni

.

quantity

;

3.

quality

Tx Tx

4.

time

tat

'n,

5.

place

Ti

x

6.

relation

5Dte

5Dt

,o"t

7.

position

T

,11not

'01t

n

8.

possession

ninK

,T~m"p,-)

,

9.

action

nwis

W15Y1D

k

10.

passion

'vy

,1YD

5DA,)V

74. Ben-Yehuda'sedesh(Thesaurus,p. 78a) is based on Gollancz's renderingof Berechiah's

text,

and should

be

ignored.

75.

See

his

Yesod Mora

(Jerusalem, 1970),

p.

4,

and

Malter,

Saadia

Gaon,

p.

283,

n.

7.


21/25

HEBREW

ARAPHRASE

FKITAB

AL-AMANAT

WA'L-I'TIQADAT

21

In

the course

of the nineteenth

century,

three distinct theories

were

advancedas to the identity of the

paraphrasist.

1. P.

Bloch

proposed

hat the

paraphrasist

as also the

authorof

the

anony-

mous

Shir ha-

Yih.ud.76

. A.

Berliner

uggested

he

possibility

hat the

Paraphrase

nd

one of the

presentlyanonymous

Hebrew translationsof Saadiah'sJudeo-Arabic

commentary

to

the

Sefer

Ye;irah

(not

that of Moses

b.

Joseph

of

Lucena)77

were made

by

the same

individual.78

3. J.

Fiirst

proposed

that the

paraphrasist

was

none other

than

Berechiah

ha-Nakdan.Many nineteenth-centurycholarsadoptedthis position,

but it has now been

properly

discarded.

It should be noted that

in the

case of

Bloch's and Berliner's

proposals,

we would still be unable o

identify

he

paraphrasist.

At

best,

a new seriesof

linkages

would

be established that

might

help

to create

bibliographic

relationships.

Bloch's

theory

s

centeredaround

he term

yihiud,

unity,"

and its recur-

ring

use and

function in both the

Paraphrase

nd the

Shir

ha-Yibud.

The

termyihud s indeeda newcreationof theParaphrase,ndtheShirha-Yihiud

does

employ

t

prominently.

But this is

hardly

an

adequate

basis

upon

which

to draw the conclusions

that

Bloch did.

Rather,

as Berliner

suggested

n

response

o

Bloch,

it

might

be more

appropriate

o assume

hat the author

of the

Shir

had the

Paraphrase

efore him and drew

from

it in

a

variety

of

ways.

Berliner's

heory

deserves urther onsideration.

Though

both the Para-

phrase

and the

Sefer

Ye;irah

ranslation tand outside TibbonideHebrew

syntaxandvocabulary,no correlation an be establishedon thisfact alone.

The

Sefer

Ye;irah

ranslationdoes

contain

Arabisms

and

paytanic

terms,79

but

at best this

merely

establishesa similarculturaland

linguistic

environ-

ment for the

two works. It

may

be that the two works are

from the

same

hand,

but that

brings

us no closer

to

knowing

the date or location of the

translator.

76.

Bloch,

"Die zweite

Uebersetzung,"

pp.

453-456.

77.

Steinschneider,

Hebraeischen

Uebersetzungen,

pp.

443-448.

78.

Ketavim,

1:159 f.

79.

Steinschneider,

Hebraeischen

Uebersetzungen, pp.

447-448.


22/25

22

RONALD

C. KIENER

Two

scholars n the

twentieth

entury

madeundocumented ssertions s

to the geographicoriginsof the Paraphrase.N. Porges suggested hat the

Paraphrase

erived rom

Babylonia,s8

nd Malter

put

forward he

sugges-

tion of Palestinian

origins."

There are

good

reasons for

accepting

their

general

nclination o

ascribe

an Eastern

origin

for the

Paraphrase,hough

not as far east as

they suggest.

The

language

and

stylistic

peculiarities

of the

Paraphrase

uniformly

point

away

from

Spain/Provence

nd toward he East. The Kallirite ermi-

nology

of

the

Paraphrase

was unknown

amongst

Spanish heologians

of

the

tenth and eleventh

centuries,

and

Spanish

paytanim completely

avoided

Easternstyles of rhyme,meter,and vocabulary.Spanish poetrymay be

described

as

"neoclassical,"

ending

toward biblical form and Arabic

rhyming

patterns

while

avoiding

an

undueamountof

neologistic

pyrotech-

nics.82AbrahamBar

IHiyya

d.

after

1136),

the

great

Hebrew-writing

re-

Tibbonide

Spanishphilosopher,

haresnot a

single

vocabulary

tem

with

the

Kallirian Hebrew

of

the

Paraphrase.83

Western

Europe,

soon to be the

recipient

f

the

Tibbonide

undertaking,

was not the home

of

the

Paraphrase,

though

it would

be

used

extensively

by

philosophers

and their

literary

opponents

n

Spain

and France

during

he

first

roundof the Maimonidean

controversy.

In

fact,

though

the Tibbonide translation

was available

by

1186,

a full

generation

ater the text of

choice

in

Spain,

Provence,

and

Germany

remained he

Paraphrase.84

80.

Zeitschrift

fiir

hebraeische

Bibliographie

7

(1903):

38.

81.

Saadia

Gaon,

p.

361.

82. See Schirmann's

introduction,

Ha-Shirah

ha-'Ivrit,

1:23-55,

especially

40-42.

83. Such a blanket

statement is

possible

thanks to two studies

by

I.

Efros: "Studies

in

Pre-Tibbonian

Philosophical Terminology,"

Jewish

Quarterly

Review, n.s. 17

(1926/27):

129-164, 323-368,

and

"More About Abraham b.

Hiyya's Philosophical

Terminology,"

ibid.,

n.s.

20

(1929/30):

113-138.

84. The

instigator

of the

controversy

in

Spain,

Rabbi Meir

b.

Todros

ha-Levi Abulafia

(1170?-1244),

cites Saadiah from

the

Paraphrase

version.

See Kitab

al-Rasd'li,

ed.

J.

Brill

(Paris,

1871),

pp.

14,

36-37,

57.

Brill

was

unaware

of

the existence

of the

Paraphrase;

see

ibid.,

p.

137n. On

Abulafia,

see B.

Septimus,

Hispano-Jewish

Culture in

Transition:

The Career and

Controversies

of

Ramah

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1982);

and

on the

controversy

in

general,

see

Y.

Baer,

A

History of

the Jews in

Christian

Spain

(Philadelphia,

1961-66),

1:96-110.

In

Provence,

both Aaron

b.

Meshullam

(d.

1210)

and

the

Tosafist Samson

b. Abraham of Sens

(ca.

1155-1225)

quoted

from the seventh treatise

of the

Paraphrase;

see

Kitab al-Rasd'il:57,

pp.

136-137. Interestingly, D. Silver claimed that a Saadianic interpretationof Maimonides which

was current

during

the

early controversy

illustrated

"the

quick proliferation

of ideas

through

[the

Tibbonide]

translation"

(Maimonidean

Criticism

and

the

Maimonidean

Controversy


23/25


24/25

24

RONALD

C. KIENER

In

only

one

part

of

Europe

did

Kallirian/Palestinian

tyles

take root.

In

the

ninth

century, liturgicalpoetry

of a Palestinianmold blossomed

in

Venosaand

Oria,

southern

Italy.87

Nowhere else

in

Byzantium

were these

Palestinian

tyles

emulated.88

n

1054,

a

descendantof

the first

Byzantine

paytanimcomposed

a

narrative

history

of

his

family's

exploits

in

rhymed

saj'-like

couplets.

This

"Chronicle

of

Abhima'ag

b.

Paltiel)"

contains

numerous

neologisms

reminiscent f

Kallirite

creativity;

however,

none

of

the

unique coinages

of the

Paraphrase ppear

n

the

Chronicle.89

Even more

interesting

s

the fact that

eleventh-century

yzantium

was

witness to an

amazing literary

and social

phenomenon

which

Z. Ankori

termed"theByzantineKaraiteLiteraryProject."Thisprojectwasa massive

undertaking

which had

as

its

goal

the translation nto Hebrewof the entire

Arabic Karaite

ibrary.90

Unlike the later

Tibbonide

project

sponsored

by

Meshullamb. Jacob of

Lunel,

the

Byzantine

ffort was

not

brought

about

by

an

unfamiliarity

with

Arabic

amongstByzantine

partisans.

The desired

audiencewas

not

internal,

but external.Set

in

motion

by

Tobias b. Moses

"the

Translator,"

he

Byzantine

Karaite

Literary Project

"was a well-

calculatedand

well-planned

ommunal

undertaking" esigned

to

win the

literature

ascribed to the

so-called

Iyyun

circle;

see

G.

Scholem,

Les

Origines

de

la Kabbale

(Paris,

1966),

pp.

327-367.

In one

of

the

Iyyun

texts,

the

Tefillah

le-Rav

Nehunya

ben

ha-

Qanah,

the

sefirot

are described as

balaqim

she-einam

mithalqim

("indivisible

particles";

see

Scholem,

Origines

de la

Kabbale,

p.

274,

n.

109);

this is

precisely

the

Paraphrase

definition of the

"eternal

spiritual

beings,"

or

atoms,

of Plato's

theory

of

creation

(MS

Vatican

266,

fol.

18a:2;

Ibn Tibbon:

ha-halakim

asher lo

yehalku).

In this

way

the

sefirot

were defined

as

eternal

spiritual

entities,

a definition which

remained

valid

for later

generations.

Zoharic

meditations

on

the tenth

sefirah, Kingdom

(malkhut),

also resort to visual

imagery

and

panentheist

notions,

but

no

direct tie to the

Paraphrase

can

yet

be

established.

On the

Shekhinah

in the

Sefer

ha-Zohar, see I. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 3d ed. (Jerusalem, 1971), 1:219-231. The four-

teenth-century

kabbalist Menalem Recanati

quotes

the

Paraphrase

in

kiener paraphrase art nj 1986

Documents