Retracing the Reception of Greek Ideas on the Rainbow: Transformations in Pre-Modern Hebrew and Arabic Sources

Aristotle’s Meteorology and the Maimonidean Modes of Interpreting the Account of Creation Aviezer Ravitzky (bio) Editor’s Prefatory Note Aviezer Ravitzky’s “Aristotle’s Meteorology and the Maimonidean Modes of Interpreting the Account of Creation,” published in Hebrew more than a decade ago, quickly became a classic. It shows in an exemplary fashion how a theologicalphilosophical agenda shaped the interest of some Maimonidean scholars in thirteenth-century Provence in science and how they drew on that science to underpin their radical Maimonideanism, especially their naturalistic interpretation of Creation. It therefore appeared apposite to publish it in English translation in Aleph. We are grateful to Prof. Ravitzky for his kind and helpful cooperation. When Ravitzky wrote his paper, two works by Samuel Ibn Tibbon that occupy center stage in this article had not yet been published and Ravitzky read them in manuscript: the Hebrew translation of the Arabic text of Aristotle’s Meteorology, and the Commentary on Ecclesiastes. The first appeared in a critical edition by R. Fontaine in 1995; the second will soon appear in a [End Page 361] critical edition by James T. Robinson. The two scholars kindly collaborated with the translator in replacing the original references to the manuscripts with references to the critical editions (the original references to the manuscript are given in brackets). No other bibliographical updating has been introduced; the occasional additions by the translator are marked in square brackets. The paper was first published in Hebrew in Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 9 (1990), The Shlomo Pines Jubilee Volume, Part 2, pp. 225–50 (reprinted in A. Ravitzky, Maimonidean Essays (Heb.) (Jerusalem: Schocken Publishing House, 2006) pp. 139–156). Translated by Lenn J. Schramm. Abbreviations used: Otot, ed. Fontaine: Resianne Fontaine, Otot ha-shamayim: Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Version of Aristotle’s Meteorology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995). The manuscript used by Ravitzky, to which references are given in brackets, is Bibliothèque nationale de France, héb. 1892. Commentary on Ecclesiastes, ed. Robinson: James T. Robinson, Sefer Nefesh ha-Adam: Perush Qohelet le-Rabbi Shemuel b. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, forthcoming). The manuscript used by Ravitzky, to which references are given in brackets, is Parma 272. 1. The Hebrew Translation of the Meteorology As far as we know, Aristotle’s Meteorology was the first non-Jewish work of science/philosophy translated into Hebrew in the Middle Ages (in 1210). Rendered from Arabic into Hebrew by Samuel Ibn Tibbon, with the title Otot ha-šamayim, it has come down to us in several manuscripts. [End Page 362] Moritz Steinschneider, in his book on medieval Hebrew translations,1 calls attention to two astonishing facts associated with this translation: 1. The Meteorology—a work of relatively lesser importance, likely to interest only a small and restricted circle of scholars—was the first such work translated into Hebrew, even before key Aristotelian treatises such as the Physics and the Metaphysics. 2. The Hebrew translation was done directly from Aristotle’s text (in the Arabic version) and not from Ibn Rushd’s commentary on it.2 This is a rare phenomenon, given that the Hebrew translators tended to study Aristotelian texts through the lens of Muslim exegesis. In every other case, Ibn Rushd’s commentaries were published in Hebrew before the Aristotelian sources on which they were based.3 [End Page 363] To these we should add the following facts: 3. Ibn Tibbon undertook his translation even though he had the Aristotelian work only in the Arabic version of Yaḥya al-Biṭrīq.4 Yet Maimonides, in his letter to Ibn Tibbon, castigated the quality of al-Biṭrīq’s translations and denigrated them as literal and technical renderings that corrupted the sense of the text: “… this is how al-Biṭrīq interpreted the books of Aristotle or the book of Galen. Consequently his translation is extremely corrupṭ”5 Or, as Maimonides wrote elsewhere, “All of al-Biṭrīq’s … commentaries are lost books and anyone who studies them is wasting his time. No one should study them unless he has no alternative.”6 This warning did not prevent Ibn Tibbon from studying them, having “no...

The reception history of Aristotle's Meteorology in Samuel Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation of the Arabic version of the Aristotelian text and in the Hebrew encyclopedias of science and philosophy written during the thirteenth century is studied. Gershom ben Solomon's Shaʾar ha-Shamayim used Ibn Tibbon's translation as its major source, whereas Judah ben Solomon ha-Cohen's Midrash ha-Ḥoḵmah and Shemtov Ibn Falaquera's Deʾot ha-Filosofim relied on Ibn Rushd's two commentaries on Aristotle's Meteorology . Because the text that underlies Ibn Tibbon's translation and Ibn Rushd's commentaries, namely the Arabic paraphrase of Ibn al-Biṭrīq, presents Aristotle's views in a very unreliable fashion, Ibn Tibbon and Ibn Rushd both compared this version to Alexander's Commentary (in Arabic translation) on the Greek text and commented on the differences. The extent to which the Hebrew encyclopedists incorporated these observations in their own surveys is discussed.

Maimonides on the Knowability of the Heavens and of Their Mover (Guide 2:24) Gad Freudenthal (bio) Editor’s Introduction to the Forum A sentence from Maimonides’ Guide 2:24 haunts Maimonidean scholarship. Its understanding is intimately bound up with one’s appreciation of the very nature and aims of Maimonides’ philosophical project. This is why the correct understanding of this sentence has stirred heated controversies.1 It seemed appropriate to initiate a discussion of all the issues involved: this is the purpose of the present Aleph Forum. The history of the scholarly understanding of the sentence in question can be briefly recapitulated as follows.2 The Arabic original of the sentence, as seems to be found in all the manuscripts of Dalālat al-Ḥāʾirīn, is: [End Page 151] Pines translates this sentence as follows: For it is impossible for us to accede to the points starting from which conclusions may be drawn about the heavens; for the latter are too far away from us and too high in place and in rank. And even the general conclusion that may be drawn from them, namely that they prove the existence of their Mover, is a matter the knowledge of which cannot be reached by human intellects.4 Similar translations were proposed by Judah al-Ḥarizi and Salomon Munk.5 But many readers of the Guide (in its Arabic original), beginning with Samuel Ibn Tibbon, were of the opinion that this text flatly contradicts what Maimonides said elsewhere6 and therefore cannot possibly express his thought. This tradition begins with a gloss that Ibn Tibbon added to his translation of the Guide: Said Samuel Ibn Tibbon: It seems to me that something is missing here, whose sense is “but other things pertaining to them is a matter. ...” For it is inconceivable that he [Maimonides] would say of the proof [reʾayah] of the Mover [of the heavens] from their motion that it is unknowable [lit. cannot be apprehended]. For he drew on it as an [apodictic] demonstration [mofet] or as a strong proof [reʾayah ḥazaqah] in numerous places. Samuel Ibn Tibbon consequently suggests that Maimonides’ intended meaning is expressed by the following text (added words are in italics): [End Page 152] For it is impossible for us to accede to the points starting from which conclusions may be drawn about the heavens; for the latter are too far away from us and too high in place and in rank. The general conclusion that may be drawn from them is that they indicate the existence of their Mover, but other things pertaining to them are a matter the knowledge of which cannot be reached by human intellects. Samuel Ibn Tibbon put his conjectured emendation in a marginal note, but copyists soon incorporated it into the text of his Hebrew translation of the Guide. Consequently, whereas the Arabic text of the Guide, [End Page 153] followed by the major translators (al-Ḥarizi, Munk, Pines), states that the “existence of the Mover [of the Heavens] is a matter the knowledge of which cannot be reached by human intellects,” the standard editions of Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation state just the opposite. Many scholars accepted Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s understanding of the text: some simply because they knew the Guide only via the Hebrew translation, others because they took the Hebrew to reflect a better textual tradition and/or to have been endorsed by Maimonides himself, and also (with Ibn Tibbon) that only the emended reading is consistent with Maimonides’ general philosophy. Other scholars, on the contrary, took the Arabic text to be authentic and to be consistent with Maimonides’ global philosophy. An intermediate view was offered by R. Joseph Qafaḥ: Where most readers read la-amr, Qafaḥ read li-amr, thereby obtaining an understanding of the sentence summarized by Davidson as follows: Instead of having Maimonides say that the general proof from the heavens, namely, that they prove to us the existence of their mover, is something the knowledge of which cannot be attained by human intellect, Kafah’s translation has him say: “The general making of an inference from the heavens is that they prove to us [or show...

The author begins the chapter with intertextuality in Chazal exegesis, in order to better evaluate Samuel Ibn Tibbon's contribution and originality on the one hand, as well as his indebtedness to his predecessors on the other hand. He further continues with a short description of the medieval intellectual climate and the challenges it posed to Bible scholars of that period. Finally, he tries to outline Ibn Tibbon's response to these challenges, as expressed in his theory of interpretation, in the hermeneutic principles that guided his exegesis and in the methodical implementation of these guidelines in his reading of Biblical passages. Samuel Ibn Tibbon's approach to Bible interpretation is representative, in many ways, of the rationalistic exegesis that flourished in Spain and southern France during the 11th-15th century. Ibn Tibbon's contribution resides in the extensive and systematic way he implemented this understanding in his exegesis. Keywords: Chazal exegesis; intertextuality; rationalistic exegesis; Samuel Ibn Tibbon

»Vielmehr bietet [der Kommentar] auf höchstem Niveau eine substantielle Auseinandersetzung mit den Hintergründen, den Zusammenhängen, der Theorie und der Praxis des Grundgesetzes. Besseres lässt sich von einem Verfassungskommentar nicht sagen.“ Herbert Günther Staaatsanzeiger für das Land Hessen 2018 (50), 1494–1495

Samuel Ibn Tibbon is most famous for his Hebrew translation of Maimonides Guide of the Perplexed. However, he wrote original works as well, and laid the foundations for what is today called Maimonideanism. James T. Robinson provides the first English translation of Ibn Tibbons commentary on Ecclesiastes, which was the foundational work of the Maimonidean tradition.

Samuel ben Judah Ibn Tibbon, translator of theGuide of the Perplexedand of other treatises of Maimonides, is in many ways also the first interpreter of Maimonides' philosophic teaching. The orientation of his interpretation of Maimonides' philosophy is already seen in his early writings—epistles, critical notes appended to his translations of theGuide, a philosophic glossary and the introductions to his translations. His interpretation was extensively developed, however, in his later and more comprehensive treatises—theCommentary on EcclesiastesandMa'amar yiqqavu hamayim. These treatises are explicitly devoted to philosophic exegesis of biblical verses, but are deeply impregnated with the proper interpretation of Maimonides' philosophy and with its problematics. Samuel Ibn Tibbon's writing had a decisive influence on Maimonidean thinkers throughout the thirteenth century, among whom may be numbered the authors of two comprehensive commentaries on theGuide, Moses ben Solomon of Salerno, and Zerahiah ben Shealtiel Hen.

To present a brief report of the first steps that involved the process of the cultural translation and adaptation of the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, fourth edition to Brazilian Portuguese (BP). The process of translation and adaptation of this instrument was performed in the following steps: (1) translation of the original text (English) to Brazilian Portuguese (target culture) by two different sworn translators oriented towards our research goal; (2) parity analysis between both translations and design, by a group of experts, of a synthesis version; (3) back translation of the synthesis version by two other sworn translators who did not participate in step 1; and (4) Comparison between back-translation and the original version made by a group of specialists, thus shaping the pre-final adapted version of the EOWPVT-4. In the Brazilian version, the number of items from the original version was maintained and the cultural adaptation of the EOWPVT-4 to BP followed the steps recommended in the literature besides considering the differences in the socio-cultural context, showing no significant discrepancies regarding semantic equivalence. Relevant adaptations (e.g., items not representative within the Brazilian culture) were required during this process so that the instrument could be used with the same methodological rigor as the original instrument. The process of cultural adaptation of this instrument indicated that there was theoretical, semantic, idiomatic and cultural equivalence with the original version in English.

In spite of more than a century of thorough investigation into the Greek translation of Joshua, there are still many riddles to be solved. One of these is the relationship between the Greek and Hebrew texts of Josh 13:2-5. The relationship between the Hebrew and Greek texts of Joshua has been subject to discussion for many decades. The natural understanding of the Hebrew text is that the area from the Shihor in the south until the territory of the Philistine city of Ekron in the north is considered to be Canaanite territory. The Greek text displays a number of smaller variants which may be classified as free renderings of a text similar to or identical with MT. In other cases the Greek Joshua apparently witnesses to a text different from MT, or he reflects an attempt of the Greek translator to make sense of Vorlage that was incomprehensible or corrupt. Keywords: Canaanite territory; Greek Joshua; Greek text; Hebrew text; Josh 13:2-5

The thirteenth-century Hebrew texts that discuss salinity all ultimately go back to Aristotle's treatment of the subject in theMeteorology. However, in these Hebrew texts the question of what exactly makes the sea salty is answered in diverging ways. The oldest of them, theOtot ha-Shamayim(1210), being the Hebrew translation of the Arabic paraphrase of theMeteorology, proposes various causes of the sea's salinity, to wit, the dry exhalation, the action of heat, and the admixture of an earthy substance. This is due partly to Aristotle's own ambiguity, and partly to the fact that his Greek commentators interpreted his words in different ways. Two later encyclopedias, theMidrash ha-Hokhma(c. 1245) and theDe'ot ha-Philosofim(c. 1275?) base their expositions of salinity on Ibn Rushd, whose two commentaries on theMeteorologycontain various theories. The first encyclopedia opts for the action of heat as the major cause in producing saltiness, whereas the second attempts to explain in which way the various causes are interrelated by advisedly combining Ibn Rushd's accounts.

. Introduction Some grammarians have called the grammatical researches that take place between two languages “Comparative Grammar”, and some others have called it “Contrastive Grammar”, in a way that comparative grammar is a comparison of grammatical roles between two languages with the same roots that are now among dead languages and contrastive grammar is a comparison of grammatical constructions among two living languages, whether they have the same root or not. Despite the differences in interpretations and naming, such studies will pave the way for translators of the target language in translation and correct reading of the source text in order to find equivalents and discover and suggest the best alternatives in the translation process from one language to another. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the role of the manner in the syntactic structure of Arabic texts and how they are translated into Persian. In the educational texts of translation, either the issue of translating different kinds of manner from Arabic to Persian is not raised or in some sources only a brief explanation is provided and singular manner and manner adverbial sentence are often suggested to be translated in the form of adverbs/ adverbial groups. This article by using the capabilities of Persian language and based on existing Persian translations of Arabic texts, especially classical and contemporary translated Qur'ans, semantic equivalents and new grammatical constructions in Persian gives suggestions for translating this syntactic role (manner) And thus, more linguistic arrangements are made available for translators. Methodology This study compares singular manner and nominal and verbal manner adverbial sentences in Arabic and their grammatical roles of Persian translation in a comparative and statistical method. For this purpose, the main sources are considered on which the main research findings are based, and those are the famous traditional and contemporary translated Qur'ans. The scope of the study of Qur'anic samples is from the beginning of Surah Al-Baqarah to the end of Surah Al-Furqan. At first, from the above-mentioned sources, 150 singular manner samples and manner adverbial sentence samples are selected and then they are matched with the existing Persian translations. Then, it is determined what grammatical roles the singular manner and the manner adverbial sentences of Arabic get when translating into Persian. Also, by presenting statistical results in the form of tables and graphs, their frequency of application is made clear. Due to the fact that singular manner and manner adverbial sentences have more application and frequency than manner adverbial clause in Arabic texts, in this research, only the first two types have been discussed. The basis of our study in terms of grammatical roles in Persian translations are: Vahidian Kamyar (2019): Persian grammar books (1), and Givi & Anvari (2019): Persian grammar (1), and naming are based on these books. Discussion There are three types of manners in Arabic: singular manner, manner adverbial sentence (nominal/verbal), and clause (jar wa majrur [proposition and the word after that]). In the present study, a comparison is made between singular manner and manner adverbial sentence in Arabic and sematic equivalents and their equivalent grammatical constructions in Persian. Singular manner, in comparison with other constructions, is translated into Persian as an adverb. The example of this construct is worth paying attention to in the translation of the following verse: (obediently), (sneaky), (small), (obedient), (wandering), (immediately), (expressive), (unachievable), (blessed), (clean), (abandoned), (merciful) and … . Translation in the form of verbal complement or adverbial complement is the second most commonly used applied translation in which the presence of verbal complement of the sentence is obligatory and presence of the adverbial complement is optional and it can be omitted. But the number of adverbial complements is four times more than verbal complements. But some words that are singular manner and verbal complement that have been used in sentence cannot be omitted. The third most commonly used construct in translation of singular manner into Persian is sentence form. Sometimes in independent sentence form and mostly dependent sentences that when we explicate them, they can be placed in adjective position or adverb position. The fourth most commonly used construct in translation of singular manner into Persian is in predicate form; which means establishing a predicate relationship between the translated word with verbs like “ (is), (was), (become), (became)” and their derivatives. Another type of translation of singular manner is verb form. In eight cases of the studies samples, singular manner is translated into object form. The other types of manner are nominal and verbal sentences that in Persian are translated as dependent sentences. In the studied samples, except for seven cases which have been translated into Persian as independent sentences, the translation of other cases are in dependent sentence form; That is, out of a total of one hundred and fifty (150) manner adverbial sentences (nominal / verbal), one hundred and forty-three cases have been translated as dependent sentences and only seven cases have been translated into Persian as independent sentences. The number of nominal sentences is more than verbal sentences. A noteworthy point in translation of the manner of a sentence into Persian is that manner in Arabic texts, whether in the form of a nominal sentence or in the form of verbal sentence, is translated into Persian as a dependent sentence, rather than independent sentences. Since manner adverbial sentence is part of a larger semantic unit and in fact, it expresses agent in Arabic, therefore, if translation of the manner adverbial sentence is a part of the sentence (that means translation in the form of dependent sentence in Persian), it will be closer to the source language and matches the Persian sentence structure; consequently the reader makes a closer connection between Arabic sentence and its Persian translation and can be understood better. In addition, just as in the translation of the singular manner into Persian, in which the ratio of their translation as adverb was higher than other roles, manner adverbial sentences have been translated into Persian mostly as adverbial group rather than other rules. Conclusion Statistical-analytical analysis shows that singular manner and manner adverbial sentence, contrary to what is stated in the existing sources on translation and comparative studies of Persian grammar and Arabic syntax, are not translated only in adverb form in Persian; It can also be translated into other roles, but their translation as an adverb / adverbial group is both semantically more clear and more widely used by translators. From the selected samples of manner (singular and adverbial sentence) in Arabic texts and their Persian translations, it was determined that singular manner is translated into Persian in the form of adverb, adverbial complement, sentence, predicate, verb complement, verb, object And noun in the genitive case, among which translation into adverb of manner or adverbs with no signsàadverbial group common with adjective has a higher frequency in comparison with other types, also semantically adverb is a more appropriate equivalent for the singular manner in translation into Persian, because it expresses the modality of the subject or object when doing something or accepting a state. Among different types of sentence, whether the nominal sentence or verbal sentence, are translated into Persian as a dependent sentence, which is itself part of a larger semantic unit (compound sentence). Considering the status and role of the manner adverbial sentence in Arabic texts, its translation as a dependent sentence is better than other types of sentence (core sentence / independent sentence); As they have been translated in most of the analyzed samples, in the form of Persian-related sentences.

This appendix section contains a list of Arabic and Hebrew Texts that occur in the book Looking Back at al-Andalus: The Poetics of Loss and Nostalgia in Medieval Arabic and Hebrew Literature. The book examines the literary definition of al-Andalus by taking into account the role of memory, language, and literary convention in analyses of texts composed following cultural and political challenges to Arab hegemony in the Iberian Peninsula.Keywords: al-Andalus; Arabic text; Hebrew text; Iberian Peninsula; literary convention; memory

This chapter discusses a number of characteristic aspects of Ibn Tibbon's relationship to Maimonides. It begins with Maimonides' interpretation of Judaism as a philosophical religion. Next the chapter discusses how Ibn Tibbon presents himself and his work in relation to Maimonides and in relation to the philosophical-exegetical project that underlies the Guide . Then it explains the relationship between the interpretation of Judaism as a philosophical religion and Ibn Tibbon's part in translating the works of the Arabic falasifa . The author situates Ibn Tibbon's contribution in the context of the history of philosophy in Arabic and Hebrew and to clarify the connection between his contribution and the works of al-Fārābī and Maimonides. The opposition which the interpretation of Judaism as a philosophical religion aroused in the early thirteenth century are also briefly considered. Finally, the chapter mentions a further aspect: Ibn Tibbon's extensive criticism of Maimonides. Keywords: Arabic falasifa; Judaism; Maimonides; philosophical religion; Samuel Ibn Tibbon

The first references in Hebrew to al-Biṭrūjī's On the Principles of Astronomy , which are found in Samuel Ibn Tibbon's Perus ha-millot ha-zarot, Commentary on Ecclesiastes , and Maʾamar yiqqawu ha-mayim , are identified and discussed briefly. These references are placed in the context of the history of al-Biṭrūjī's influence on medieval Jewish philosophy and science. The significance of Ibn Tibbon's discussion of al- Biṭrūjī and astronomy in general, in connection with Ezekiel 1 and the work of the chariot, is considered. Annotated translations of each of the texts are provided, along with an edition of the previously unpublished Hebrew text from the Commentary on Ecclesiastes .

Avicenna made a late entry into medieval Hebrew philosophy; the Andalusian roots and Averroan orientation of most Jewish thinkers did not make for a sympathetic audience. Small portions of the Avicennan corpus were rendered into Hebrew by Samuel Ibn Tibbon and Shem Tov Falaquera. A good deal of Avicennan thought was accessible by way of citations in Averroes. In the beginning of the fourteenth century, Todros Todrosi decided to produce Hebrew translations of the sections on psychology and metaphysics from al-Najāt. His translations are the subject of the book under review by Gabriella Elgrably-Berzin. Hers is a study of the translation of philosophical texts, not one in the history of philosophy. There is an introductory survey of the Hebrew translation movement, and additional probes into the historical and philological circumstances of these translations. I call attention in particular to the fine essay on ‘The Hebrew Tradition of Literalism’, outlining the efforts made to produce translations that are as close as possible to the Arabic, beginning with Judah Ibn Tibbon, who had the advantage of growing up in an arabophone culture. The translations carried on with Judah’s descendants and their followers, who, however well they may have learned the Arabic language, were increasingly removed from an Arabic speaking environment and more likely to be led to inaccuracies. The bulk of the book, however, is taken up by critical editions of Todrosi’s translations and its philological analysis. The latter still relies a good deal, as it must, on the pioneering work of Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. Berzin amasses a veritable thesaurus of Arabic words, especially those considered to be ‘technical terms’, and their Hebrew equivalents. To her great credit, she includes Hebrew texts by Levi Gersonides, who though not a translator, was a brilliant philosopher and scientist, and someone who had closely examined Avicenna’s opinions.