This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago]On: 16 March 2013, At: 05:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Al-Masaq: Islam and the MedievalMediterraneanPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calm20

Truth, Tradition and Religion. TheAssociation between Judaism and Islamand the Relation between Religion andPhilosophy in Medieval Jewish ThoughtGitit HolzmanVersion of record first published: 02 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: Gitit Holzman (2006): Truth, Tradition and Religion. The Association betweenJudaism and Islam and the Relation between Religion and Philosophy in Medieval Jewish Thought,Al-Masaq: Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean, 18:2, 191-200

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09503110600838676

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Al-Masaq, Vol. 18, No. 2, September 2006

Truth, Tradition and Religion. The Associationbetween Judaism and Islam and the Relation betweenReligion and Philosophy in Medieval Jewish Thought

GITIT HOLZMAN

ABSTRACT The paper presents the unique philosophy of Moshe Ben Joshua of Narbonne

(d. 1362), known as Moshe Narboni. Narboni wrote some fifteen different treatises

dealing with various subjects: philosophy, Kabbalah, Biblical exegesis and medicine. The

philosophical issues he addressed were logic, psychology, physics and metaphysics. Narboni

was a keen disciple of the outstanding Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides, as well as a

devoted commentator on works written by prominent Muslim philosophers: Al-Ghazali,

Ibn Bajja (Avempace) Ibn T_ufayl and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Narboni adopted the

Averroistic view, held also by Maimonides, maintaining that religion was founded on

philosophical principles, offering a popular adaptation of philosophy in favour of the

uneducated mass. He thus felt that Judaism and Islam were both truthful monotheistic

religions, teaching their adherents the same basic principles. However, he did regard

Judaism as superior in three major aspects: i) Judaism is more ancient than Islam, and

thus was the source for Islamic basic beliefs; ii) the Jewish law teaches the ideal way of life;

iii) the Hebrew language lends to the concept of the Deity.

Keywords: Moshe Ben Joshua of Narbonne (Moshe Narboni), philosopher;

Islam–Judaism; Judaism–Islam; Hebrew language

Scholars of Medieval Jewish thought may have already noticed the very different

motivation leading to the emergence of their field of interest, as opposed to the

motivation from which Greek philosophy had stemmed. Plato (d. 347 BC) and

Aristotle (d. 322 BC) both testified to the fact that it was human bewilderment

facing nature which eventually culminated in a systematic quest for answers,

namely philosophy. Plato stated:

Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.1

Correspondence: Gitit Holzman, Ma’aleh Ha-Rishonim 1, Zichron Ya’acov 30900, Israel.

E-mail: Gitit9@zahav.net.il

1The works of Plato, Theaetetus, selected and edited by Irwin Edman (New York: Random House, 1928),

p. 499.

ISSN 0950–3110 print/ISSN 1473–348X online/06/020191-10 � 2006 Society for the Medieval Mediterranean

DOI: 10.1080/09503110600838676

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013

Aristotle shared the same view, as he wrote:

For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began

to philosophize.2

He further explained:

They wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little

by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the

phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and the stars, and about the

genesis of the universe.3

Jewish philosophers, on the other hand, did not seem to be perplexed by nature

itself. Hence, Jewish philosophy did not emerge as a result of a natural human

instinct, nor was it the outcome of an internal Jewish process. The beginnings of

Medieval Jewish philosophy can be traced back to ninth-century Baghdad while its

decline came about in Italy in the fifteenth century; it was a spiritual movement

which successfully led to Jewish religious heritage and Greek and Muslim

rationalistic thought.4 Why were Jewish thinkers not perplexed by nature, as their

fellow Greeks were? The answer is simple. Jewish sacred texts provided

comprehensive answers to all the fundamental questions mentioned above. The

Bible gave a detailed story telling its version of the creation of the world; the Jewish

commandments explained the exact way in which one should arrange every aspect

of one’s life. Furthermore, Jewish tradition not only provided its believers with this

important information, it also explicitly prohibited any further investigation. The

sages said:

Every one who tries to know the following four things, it were better for

him if he had never come into the world, viz.: What is above and what is

beneath, what was before creation, and what will be after all will be

destroyed. And every one who does not revere the glory of his Creator,

it were better for him he had not come into the world.5

This ban, and the authoritative nature of the religious tradition, created a situation

in which much of the intellectual creativity of Jewish scholars was expressed in

reading the scriptures and reinterpreting them over and over again. Even the basic

philosophical dilemmas that were discussed within this tradition were formulated as

philological questions. A good example of that would be the argument regarding the

question of what was created first, heaven or earth. This question was in dispute

between the two major and opposing schools of thoughts which flourished in Israel

2The Complete Works of Aristotle, Metaphysics [Bollingen Series, LXXI 2] transl. by W. D. Ross (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1985), Bk I 982 b, p. 1554.3Ibid.4Julius Guttmann provides ample description of the rise of Jewish philosophy in the Islamic world, and

its Greek philosophical origins, see his Philosophies of Judaism, transl. by David W. Silverman (New York:

Schocken Books, 1973), pp. 53–68.5Babylonian Talmud, Tract Hagiga, Chapter II, the first Mishna, trans. into English by Michael L.

Rodkinson (Boston: The Talmud Society, 1918), p. 21.

192 Gitit Holzman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013

during the first century AD, the schools of Shammai and Hillel. The School of

Shammai said:

The heavens were created in the beginning, and afterwards the earth was

created, for it is written [Gen. I. 1]: ‘In the beginning God created the

heaven and the earth’.

But the School of Hillel said:

The earth was created in the beginning, and afterwards the heavens, for it is

written [Gen. II. 4]: ‘On the day that the Lord God made earth and

heaven’6.

No doubt this debate represents a difference in world views, as to what is more

important: this world or the metaphysical sphere. Nevertheless it manifested itself

as a hermeneutical disagreement.7

Notwithstanding the above, Jewish philosophy was motivated by perplexity, but

unlike Greek philosophy, this was not a perplexity caused by ‘‘obvious difficulties’’,

nor did it proliferate by looking at the moon, the sun or the stars. It arose once

Jewish philosophers became familiar with Greek philosophy, all the existential

questions it posed, and the variety of answers it offered. Therefore, it is no wonder

that the most prominent book of Medieval Jewish philosophy was entitled The

Guide of the Perplexed. The people it addressed were those who were amazed,

distressed, felt pain and fear caused by the confrontation between Jewish tradition

and ‘‘the science of the philosophers’’. These are the words of the author, Moses

Maimonides (d. 1204), in his introduction to the book:

For the purpose of this Treatise and of all those like it is the science of Law

in its true sense. Or rather its purpose is to give indications to a religious

man for whom the validity of our Law has become established in his soul

and has become actual in his belief – such a man being perfect in his

religion and character, and having studied the science of the philosophers

and come to know what they signify.

The human intellect having drawn him on and led him to dwell within its

province, he must have felt distressed by the externals of the Law . . .Hence

he would remain in a state of perplexity and confusion as to whether he

should follow his intellect, renounce what he knew concerning the terms in

question, and consequently consider that he has renounced the founda-

tions of the Law. Or he should hold fast to his understanding of these terms

and not let himself be drawn on together with his intellect, rather turning

his back on it and moving away from it, while at the same time perceiving

that he had brought loss to himself and harm to his religion. He would be

6Ibid., pp. 23–4.7A thorough discussion of this debate, as well as other ancient Jewish religious views regarding the

manner in which God had created this planet, can be found in the ninth chapter of Ephraim E. Urbach

monumental volume: The Sages, their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams

(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1975).

Religion and Philosophy in Medieval Jewish Thought 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013

left with those imaginary beliefs to which he owes his fear and difficulty and

would not cease to suffer from heartache and great perplexity.8

Greek philosophy was introduced to Jewish and Christian scholars of medieval

Europe through the translation of Greek philosophical texts into Arabic.9 The

encounter between the Muslim world and Greek culture was the product of Islamic

conquests in Asia and Africa; the Muslims gained control over major centres in

which Hellenistic scientific and philosophical texts were kept, taught and further

developed (i.e. Persia, Iraq, Syria, Palestine and Egypt). They were intrigued by

ancient wisdom, and, hoping to be able to understand its secrets and using it for

their own good, they initiated the translation of various texts into Arabic. One of the

prominent translators was H_unayn b. Ish

_aq (d. 260/873), a Christian scholar

who was appointed by Al-Ma’mun, Caliph of Baghdad (198–218/813–833), to

supervise translations from Greek and Syriac into Arabic, conducted in Bayt

al-H_ikma (House of Wisdom), the academy and library established by the Caliph.

H_unayn b. Ish

_aq, one of the great scholars of his time, was especially interested

in medicine, and thus promoted the translation of the works of Hippocrates (d. 377

BC), the Greek physician who became known as the founder of medicine, as well as

Galen (d. 201 AD), the second most famous Greek physician, whose views

dominated European medicine for over a thousand years. Both physicians excelled

in stressing the importance of observations and the careful study of the human body

in order to improve medical practice. Galen transmitted Hippocratic medicine to

the Renaissance, and wrote numerous volumes of his own, documenting his

experiments and explaining his theories. His writings reflect a belief in one God,

and express the view that the body is an instrument of the soul. This made him

appealing to the Fathers of the Church and to Arab and Hebrew scholars.10

Jewish scholars could thus read Greek philosophy and absorb the scientific

method in ninth-century Baghdad. While trying to meet the intellectual challenge

it presented they created Jewish versions of philosophical thinking and texts for the

first time. Maimonides obtained his philosophical and scientific education in

Islamic Spain, Morocco and Egypt. He, and the people to whom he addressed his

book, had read the works of Plato and Aristotle as well as those created by their

Greek disciples and Muslim commentators. Maimonides felt compelled to solve the

problems that a rationalistic world view and scientific knowledge had presented to

adherents of Jewish religious tradition. Indeed, a clash of cultures resulted in

‘‘severe perplexity’’ for some individuals who tried to absorb and adopt different

cultures. Julius Guttmann has explained the appeal that philosophy had for

8Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. with an introduction and notes by Shlomo Pines,

volumes I–II (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1963), I: 5–6.9A comprehensive study of this phenomenon is introduced in the collection of essays: The Introduction of

Arabic Philosophy into Europe, ed. Charles E. Butterworth and Blake Andree Kessel (Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1994).10On ancient Greek medicine check the following studies: Ludwig Edelstein, Ancient Medicine

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967); Wesley Smith, The Hippocratic Tradition (Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press, 1979).

194 Gitit Holzman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013

religious scholars, saying:

. . . the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophies appear as decisive

confirmations of the fundamental tenet of religious monotheism by

positing one God as the highest principle of reality.11

Nevertheless, the affinity between these world views could not hide the major

difference existing between religion and philosophy:

. . . these contrasting spiritual worlds show points of contact and of

opposition in equally strong measure. These points of agreement and

disagreement cannot simply be distributed over individual doctrines, as

they relate to the two systems rather than to points of details.12

Guttmann further elucidated that the points of contact relate to basic views over

mankind, relation between body and soul, relationship between physical and

metaphysical spheres, the meaning of supernatural providence, prophecy, ethics

and the essence of afterlife. Each and every one of these topics can be interpreted in

religious and philosophical ways, with significant differences between the two. This

made room for numerous intellectuals to offer unique versions of religious

philosophy or philosophical religion. Every scholar could come up with an original

synthesis of his own, yet one can classify these different solutions, and thus indicate

the few basic routes they followed.

Addressing that issue, Harry A. Wolfson claimed that there were three major

ways in which religious philosophers, be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim, aimed

at solving the clash between religious tradition and philosophical, rational thinking.

He explained that some considered them as two parallel ways leading to the same

truth, others stipulated that the truth obtained through revelation is superior to any

other knowledge, while a third group claimed that religious doctrines are truthful as

they can be methodically validated:

All the various views on the problem of faith and reason, however they may

be expressed, could be grouped together into three main theories, namely,

(i) the double faith theory, according to which the teachings of any of

the three Scriptures are to be accepted both as self-evident truths and as

rationally demonstrated truths; (ii) the single faith theory of the

authoritative type, according to which the teachings of any of the three

Scriptures are to be accepted primarily as self-evident truths; (iii) the single

faith theory of the rationalistic type, according to which the teachings of the

three Scriptures are to be accepted primarily as demonstrated truths.13

Elaborating on the different views is beyond the scope of this paper. I shall therefore

focus on presenting one way of tackling the topic in question, the most interesting

yet poorly discussed view of the fourteenth-century philosopher Moshe Ben Joshua

11Guttmann, 155.12Ibid., pp. 154–5.13Harry Austryn Wolfson, Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion (Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 583–4.

Religion and Philosophy in Medieval Jewish Thought 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013

of Narbonne (d. 1362).14 Moshe of Narbonne, known as Narboni, was born in the

southern France town of Perpignan, yet he spent most of his adult life wandering

between different Spanish cities, such as Cervera, Barcelona, Valencia, Toledo and

Soria. Narboni owed his everlasting fame in Jewish culture to his profound

commentary on Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed. This commentary was

composed between the years 1355 and 1362, and was his last work. Prior to

writing that volume he wrote some fifteen different treatises which dealt with

various subjects: philosophy, Kabbalah, Biblical exegesis and medicine. Most of his

philosophical enterprise was dedicated to hermeneutics of volumes composed by

prominent Muslim philosophers: Al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111), Ibn Bajja (known in

Latin Europe as Avempace, d. 533/1138), Ibn T_ufayl (d. 581/1185) and Ibn Rushd

(known in Latin Europe as Averroes, d. 595/1198).

Narboni’s original ideas are scattered throughout his numerous exegesis, and one

could rightly characterize this hermeneutic impulse as a typical Jewish feature since,

as argued earlier, Jews did not tend to create an autonomous philosophical

structure, but rather presented original ideas as being hinted in the Holy Scriptures.

It seems that this technique was deeply absorbed in Jewish education, and thus was

used in philosophical treatises created by non-Jewish scholars.

Amongst the philosophical issues that Narboni addressed were logic, psychology,

physics and metaphysics. A place of pride in his thought was occupied by theories

discussing the human soul and especially the intellect, perceived as the highest

faculty of the soul. Like some of his fellow Muslim and Jewish philosophers,

Narboni considered developing one’s intellect as the highway to attaining eternal

existing, in which one’s soul would be merged within the supreme intellectual

entity, namely God. Narboni could have found comfort in casting his gaze towards

the spiritual realm, since being a Jew in fourteenth-century Islamic Spain he shared

the sad fate of his community. This was the era of the notorious black plague; Jews

were accused of having caused the deadly disease and were expelled from their

houses.15 Narboni personally experienced persecution, siege and expulsion, which

was the major cause of his frequent change of venue. However, throughout this

ordeal he never stopped studying, writing and teaching. In fact, much of the

biographical data that is known about Narboni originates from prefaces appended

to his books, in which he discussed the difficult circumstances of writing. He thus

reports that his commentaries on Ibn T_ufayl’s Risalat H

_ayy b. Yaqz

_an and on Ibn

Rushd’s treatise on physics were created at the request of the scholars of his home

town Perpignan, and that he sent them his work. Other documents testify that

Narboni’s reputation spread beyond Perpignan, as Jewish scholars from Barcelona

and Seville wrote him letters, asking for his explanation of difficult philosophical

issues.

Not much is known about his teachers, and besides his father who was the first to

teach him Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, Narboni hardly mentions any other

teachers. Narboni was indeed Maimonides’ disciple as well as a keen student of the

14A detailed account of Narboni’s life and his intellectual pursuit is presented in my thesis: ‘‘The theory

of intellect and soul in the thought of Rabbi Moshe Narboni, based on his commentaries on the writings

of Ibn Rushed, Ibn Tufayl, Ibn Bajja and Al-Ghazali’’, PhD Thesis, The Hebrew University of

Jerusalem, 1996 [Hebrew].15Yitzhak Baer described the problematic situation of Jewish–Spanish communities throughout the

fourteenth century, in the fourth chapter of his book: A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, translated

from the Hebrew by Louis Schoffman (Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1992).

196 Gitit Holzman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013

prominent Muslim philosophers. The treatises in which Narboni was interested

were devoted to abstract philosophical issues, and did not tackle the topics of

religious faith or Muslim tradition directly.

I shall now examine the way in which Narboni handled the theological questions

raised by the philosophical books he commented upon. Narboni’s theories were

inspired by ideas expressed by Ibn Rushd in his book Tahafut al-Tahafut

[Incoherence of the Incoherence].16 Ibn Rushd discussed the distinctions between

various religions, claiming that there was no fundamental difference between

Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He argued that they were all popular versions of

eternal truths which were best articulated by rationalistic philosophy:

In short, the philosophers believe that religious laws are necessary political

arts, the principles of which are taken from natural reason and inspiration,

especially in what is common to all religions, although religious differ here

more or less. The philosophers further hold that one must not object either

through a positive or through a negative statement to any of the general

religious principles, for instance whether it is obligatory to serve God or

not, and still more whether God does or does not exist, and they affirm this

also concerning the other religious principles, for instance bliss in the

beyond and its possibility; for all religions agree in the acceptance of

another existence after death, although they differ in the description of this

existence, just as they agree about the knowledge, attributed, and acts of

God, although they differ more or less in their utterances about the essence

and the acts of the Principle. All religions agree also about the acts

conducive to bliss in the next world, although they differ about the

determination of these acts.17

Ibn Rushd was sympathetic to the problematic situation of philosophers, who had

to spend their lives within societies whose members were not philosophically

trained, for the general public is only able to grasp philosophical knowledge in its

popular adaptation, that is, in the manner it was presented by the religious tradition

to which it belonged. Ibn Rushd encouraged philosophers to be involved with the

community. Philosophers were therefore directed to consciously choose a religion

which would be most beneficial to them, since there was no real difference between

religions; it was just historical circumstances which caused them to reach their

golden era in different periods; in his words:

. . .he is under the obligation to choose the best religion of his period, even

when they are all equally true for him, and he must believe that the best will

be abrogated by the introduction of a still better. Therefore the learned

who were instructing the people in Alexandria became Muhammedans

when Islam reached them, and the learned in the Roman Empire became

Christians when the religion of Jesus was instructed there. And nobody

16Averroes, Tahafot At-Tahafot, texte Arabe etabli par Maurice Bouyges (Beyrouth: Imprimerie

Catholique, 1903). An English translation was published by Simon Van Den Bergh: Averroes’ Tahafut

al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence), trans. from the Arabic with introduction and notes by

Simon Van Den Bergh (London: Luzac, 1969).17Bouyges, 581–2; Van Den Bergh, 359–60.

Religion and Philosophy in Medieval Jewish Thought 197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013

doubts that among the Israelites there were many learned men, and this is

apparent from the books which are found amongst the Israelites and which

are attributed to Solomon. And never has wisdom ceased among the

inspired, i.e. the prophets.18

In the passages quoted above, as well as in others, Ibn Rushd explained that the

different religions share the same basic beliefs, goals and means. They all teach the

existence of God and hold the doctrine of life after death. They address both

the common people and the intellectuals, aiming at improving everyone’s lives, and

enabling the capable ones to gain eternal spiritual life. Ibn Rushd explained that

those goals were achieved by formulating commandments which regulate social life.

The motivation for keeping social order is belief in God. Ibn Rushd emphasized

that the different religions establish common commandments in order to

strengthen this belief. They all have prayers, fasts and sacrifices.

In his commentary on Ibn T_ufayl’s Risalat H

_ayy b. Yaqz

_an,19 Rabbi Moshe of

Narbonne quoted a Hebrew translation of the paragraph cited above, and expressed

similar views. Regarding the disparity between religions, Narboni explained that

this was a consequence of the different times and places in which people live, and

the variety of ethnic groups to which they belonged. He acknowledged the fact that

Judaism and Islam held different views and concepts, but claimed that the reason

for these differences was the different customs typical to each religion, and those

were caused by circumstances within which they functioned:

A certain religious law can be contradicting to laws of another religion, and

that is due to the different places and nations. Different religious laws

create difference of faith, and that is the reason for disputes and wars.20

It is remarkable that Narboni expressed what may be referred to as a ‘‘behavioural’’

analysis of religious phenomena, claiming that the difference of faith is a result of

different customs, and not the other way around as one could expect. Narboni

maintained that religious diversity is the outcome of different times, places and

ethnic groups. In this passage Narboni may have insinuated what in other

paragraphs was stated explicitly; in his opinion there was no significant gap between

18Bouyges, 583; Van Den Bergh, 360–61.19Ibn T

_ufayl’s book was published by the French scholar Leon Gauthier: Hayy Ben Yaqdhan, roman

philosophique d’Ibn Thofail, texte arabe avec les variants des manuscrits et de plusieurs editions, et traduction

francaise (Beyrouth, 1936; second edition). For an English version of that treatise see: Ibn T_ufayl’s H

_ayy

Ibn Yaqz_an, A Philosophical Tale, translated with introduction and notes by Lenn Evan Goodman

(New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc. 1972). H_ayy b. Yaqz

_an was created and published sometime

towards the end of the twelfth century. See also Ana M. Montero’s ‘‘A possible connection between the

philosophy of the Castilian king Alfonso X and the Risalat H_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an by Ibn T

_ufayl’’, Al-Masaq:

Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean, 18, i (2006): 1–26. The Hebrew version of that treatise was

available at the beginning of the fourteenth century, yet the translator remained anonymous. The

Hebrew translation as well as Narboni’s commentary, which was completed by 1349, were never

published in print. Several copies of manuscripts of the Hebrew version and the commentary are

available nowadays. For the purpose of this study I have made use of a manuscript found in library of

Berlin, no. 119 in the Catalogue prepared by Steinschneider: Berlin. Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin.

Verzeichnis der Hebraischen Handschriften, volumes I–II, ed. Moritz Steinschneider (Berlin: Buchdruckerei

der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1878–1897).20Berlin Ms. no. 119, p. 135 a (my translation).

198 Gitit Holzman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013

Judaism and Islam. That is, whatever differences existed between the two religions

were not essential differences which touch their core, but rather accidental,

minor ones.

As opposed to Ibn Rushd who referred to the three monotheistic religions,

Narboni discussed only Judaism and Islam. It seems that being under the influence

of Maimonides, Narboni believed that these two were the only true monotheistic

religions, while Christianity was problematic because of the Trinity doctrine.21

Maimonides further believed that the Jewish law, the Torah, was the best religious

law, and actually the one and only perfect law:

For when a thing is as perfect as it is possible to be within its species, it is

impossible that within that species there should be found another thing

that does not fall short of that perfection either because of excess or

deficiency . . .Things are similar with regard to this Law, as is clear from its

equibalance. For it says: ‘‘Just statutes and judgments’’ (Deut. 4:8); now

you know that the meaning of ‘‘just’’ is equibalanced.22

Maimonides explained that some religious laws put an impossible burden on their

adherents (hinting at the Christian laws of priesthood), while others encourage their

believers to conduct a frivolous lifestyle (referring to Islam, which was in favour of

polygamy and excessive eating, etc.). In his opinion, the ingenuity of Jewish Torah

lay therefore in its perfect and unique balance, not imposing impossible laws on the

one hand, yet restraining one’s lust on the other, in order to enable spiritual growth.

Narboni was familiar with this concept, quoted Maimonides’ words and seemed

to agree with his view. In his commentary on Risalat H_ayy b. Yaqz

_an, Narboni

argued that despite the affinity between Judaism and Islam, the Torah is superior to

the Qur’an. In addition he emphasized the special sacred qualities of the Hebrew

language. Thus, the Hebrew names of God, he claimed, grasp his entity in a way

that was impossible in Arabic or in any other language.

How could this coincide with Ibn Rushd’s views concerning the basic parity

between religions, which he quotes? Indeed, it seems impossible to reconcile

Narboni’s propensity to see Judaism and Islam as equals with emphasis on the

superiority of the Jewish law and the Hebrew language. A solution to this dilemma

can be drawn from an idea Narboni presented in his commentary to one of Ibn

Rushd’s epistles.23 In the commentary to the tenth chapter of Ibn Rushd’s Epistle on

the Possibility of Conjunction with the Active Intellect, Narboni referred to a Qur’anicverse quoted by Ibn Rushd. He asks:

Now how is it that a verse from their Law accords with the secrets of

reality? And how it is that statements from that Law offer instruction in the

divine secrets?24

21Kreisl has discussed and explained Maimonides’ view over Christianity and Islam: Howard T. Kreisel,

‘‘Maimonides on Christianity and Islam’’, Jewish Civilization, Essays and Studies, 3 (1985): 153–62.22Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter 39, II: 380.23The Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction with the Active Intellect by Ibn Rushd with the Commentary of

Moses Narboni, a Critical Edition and Annotated Translation by Kalman P. Bland (New York: The

Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982).24Ibid., 62.

Religion and Philosophy in Medieval Jewish Thought 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013

In order to explain the validity and truthfulness of the Qur’an, Narboni quoted the

Guide of the Perplexed (part II, chapter 40), where Maimonides suggested that the

Qur’an was a work of plagiarism, its source being the Torah. Thus he could account

for the fact that the Qur’an contained true divine concepts, even though in his

opinion Muh_ammad himself was not a genuine prophet. Narboni shared this view

with Maimonides. Referring to the dilemma presented above, we could conclude

that Narboni maintained that Judaism and Islam were equal to each other. Yet

Judaism did have a major advantage, being the source of the younger faith.

A different solution to the same dilemma could be derived from the Risalat H_ayy

b. Yaqz_an commentary; Narboni distinguished between two kinds of expressions:

verbal and mental. He explained that words and concepts could never actually

grasp the spiritual world, and that any verbal description of a spiritual experience

would necessarily be a distorted one.25 Throughout his work Narboni made a

distinction between intellectual understandings of spiritual entities and unmediated

experience, direct and intimate contact with God.

It seems that Narboni felt that the Deity is one, as is the bare experience of those

who cleave to it. There are numerous ways of describing this Deity followed by

a discussion and analysis; to some extent each one distorting the initial experience.

In his view, Hebrew (the prayers as well as the laws) twists the basic religious

experience. However, in spite of the fact that Judaism has this advantage over Islam,

in their essence these two monotheistic religions are basically equal to each other.

Regarding the question of the relation between religion and philosophy we could

conclude by saying that Narboni adopted the Averroestic view, holding that religion

was founded on philosophical principles, offering a popular adaptation of

philosophy in favour of the uneducated community. Ibn Rushd did not give

importance to national or traditional identities, believing that mankind could be

divided into two main groups: the small elite section of philosophers, and the vast

majority of ordinary people. He seemed to share this basic concept, though he did

believe that one group of people was superior to others, those who followed the

Mosaic law and adhered to Jewish tradition.26

25Berlin Ms. no. 119, p. 149 a.26Narboni never claimed that Jews had any innate advantage over other ethnic groups. He rather

assumed there would be no difference between people who would join Judaism, and those born into it.

200 Gitit Holzman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go]

at 0

5:45

16

Mar

ch 2

013