Samuel Ibn Tibbon Research Articles

The Manuscript Tradition of Maimonides' Letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon

The Manuscript Tradition of Maimonides' Letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon

“MEMBERS OF THE COVENANT OF THE GUIDE”: READING MAIMONIDES IN CHRISTIAN TOLEDO

This article argues that Moses Maimonides's Guide of the Perplexed first became known to a Latin Christian audience in Toledo before 1220, and that the section of it translated as the Liber de parabolis et de mandatis in 1223–24 (Guide III.29–49) is the work of Samuel ibn Tibbon and Michael Scot. Moreover, the introduction to exegesis that prefaces the translation reflects the work of ibn Tibbon. The article considers the impact early contact with the Guide had, first in Toledo, and then in Paris and Provence. The Guide presented a God who worked through the principles of Aristotelian physics, and offered an incentive to translate and study those works of Aristotle and his interpreters that illuminated these questions. Texts translated in Toledo under the inspiration of the Guide became core texts for Paris scholastics. William of Auvergne, the first Parisian scholar to use the translation, would play a key role in the trial of the Talmud. And Cardinal Romanus, to whom the Liber de parabolis et de mandatis was dedicated, is implicated in the controversy of the Guide itself among Jews at Montpellier.

Dag Nikolaus Hasse and Amos Bertolacci (eds.), The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of Avicenna’s Physics and Cosmology, Scientia Graeco-Arabica, Band 23, Boston/Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2018, 549 pp. ISBN 9781614517740. Cloth: €119.95

Avicenna (Ibn Sina) greatly influenced later medieval thinking about the earth and the cosmos, not only in his own civilization, but also in Hebrew and Latin cultures. The studies presented in this volume discuss the reception of prominent theories by Avicenna from the early 11th century onwards by thinkers like Averroes, Fahraddin ar-Razi, Samuel ibn Tibbon or Albertus Magnus. Among the topics which receive particular attention are the definition and existence of motion and time. Other important topics are covered too, such as Avicenna's theories of vacuum, causality, elements, substantial change, minerals, floods and mountains. It emerges, among other things, that Avicenna inherited to the discussion an acute sense for the epistemological status of natural science and for the mental and concrete existence of its objects. The volume also addresses the philological and historical circumstances of the textual tradition and sheds light on the translators Dominicus Gundisalvi, Avendauth and Alfred of Sareshel in particular. The articles of this volume are presented by scholars who convened in 2013 to discuss their research on the influence of Avicenna's physics and cosmology in the Villa Vigoni, Italy.

Erudizione de’ confusi by Yedidya ben Moshe Recanati, a Late Renaissance Italian Translation of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed

In 1581, Yedidya ben Moshe Recanati—who lived in San Marino and Pesaro, in the North‑eastern regions of Italy—wrote an Italian translation (in Hebrew characters) of the Guide of the Perplexed, based on the Hebrew version by Samuel Ibn Tibbon. According to his words in the introduction, this work was destined for Jewish students who, thanks to the translation of difficult words and expressions of Maimonides’ book, could address Jewish and especially non‑Jewish scholars, in order to have further explanations, in particular on scientific matters. Yedidya Recanati was a brilliant and prolific scholar, though almost completely unknown; actually, his rich literary production—biblical exegesis, epistolography, lexicography and translations from and into Hebrew, besides scattered Halakhic response has never been printed. The translation of the Guide, whose title is Erudizione de’ confusi, is the evidence of the persistent importance of Maimonides’ work within Italian Judaism, even in a period of growing defiance toward rationalistic philosophy.

The Aim and Structure of Gershom ben Solomon’s Shaʿar ha-shamayim

Abstract Gershom ben Solomon’s very popular Shaʿar ha-shamayim (The Gate of Heaven), written in the Midi in the last quarter of the 13th century, differs from the two earlier 13th-century Hebrew encyclopedias in that it lays very strong emphasis on the empirical sublunar world (beginning with the elements and especially with the two Aristotelian exhalations), nearly ignoring the theory of the soul and metaphysics. This article argues that the clue to Gershom’s distinctive approach to the study of the world is to be found in Samuel ibn Tibbon’s Maʾamar yiqqawu ha-mayim (A Treatise on ‘Let the Water Gather’) of 1231. With this insight, we also realize that Gershom’s is an ‘encyclopedia’ of a new genre, really a personal philosophical work, whose numerous building blocks are arranged in accordance with a philosophical principle. In this respect, the work is that of a true philosopher-scientist, not of a mere compiler.

Avicenna in Medieval Hebrew Translation: Ṭodros Ṭodrosi’s Translation of Kitāb al-Najāt, on Psychology and Metaphysics By Gabriella Elgrably-Berzin

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.

PHILOSOPHY AND MEDICINE IN JEWISH PROVENCE,ANNO1199: SAMUEL IBN TIBBON AND DOEG THE EDOMITE TRANSLATING GALEN'STEGNI

AbstractGalen'sTechnê iatrikê(Tegni, for short) was translated into Hebrew three times. The first two translations were executed in the Midi, around the year 1199: once from Constantine the African's Latin version, by an anonymous physician who used the pseudonym “Doeg the Edomite”; and a second time from Arabic, by Samuel Ibn Tibbon in Béziers, using as hisVorlageḤunayn Ibn Isḥāq's Arabic version (al-Ṣināʿa al-saġīra), accompanied by ʿAlī Ibn Riḍwān's commentary. (Samuel Ibn Tibbon's authorship of this translation has been called into doubt, but is reestablished in a paper by Gad Freudenthal in this issue ofASP.) A third translation, again from Latin and including Ibn Riḍwān's commentary, was done by Hillel ben Samuel in Rome, in the late thirteenth century, but is not considered in this paper.We present theTegniand discuss its history. We then ask why this work was translated into Hebrew twice, at precisely the same time and area. We show that both translators responded to the need of Jewish physicians who read only Hebrew. Doeg's translation was part of his vast project of making the greater part of the Salernitan corpus available in Hebrew. Samuel Ibn Tibbon translated theTegniwith Ibn Riḍwān's commentary both because he was responding to a social need and because he was in the process of switching his profession from physician to translator of philosophic works. Galen's medico-philosophic text was a perfect fit for his intellectual evolution from a philosophically minded physician to a philosopher-scientist.

SAMUEL IBN TIBBON AS THE AUTHOR OF MELAḴAH QEṬANAH, THE HEBREW TRANSLATION FROM ARABIC OF GALEN'S TEGNI: PROBES INTO THE EVOLUTION OF HIS PHILOSOPHICAL TERMINOLOGY

AbstractSamuel Ibn Tibbon (d. c. 1231) is best known as the translator of Maimonides's Guide of the Perplexed and as the author of the bold and ambitious cosmogonic work of Avicennian inspiration Ma'amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim (A treatise on ‘Let the water gather’; 1231). His authorship (in 1199) of the Arabic-into-Hebrew translation of Galen's Tegni with Ibn Riḍwān's commentary, known as al-Ṣināʿa al-ṣaġīra (= Small Art), is attested by the colophons of two manuscripts, but has recently been denied. The question is not unimportant, because if Ibn Tibbon indeed is the author of this translation then, as Steinschneider observed, ʿAlī Ibn Riḍwān's commentary is the first Arabic-into-Hebrew translation of a work by a Muslim writer. In this article I invalidate the arguments against Ibn Tibbon's authorship of the translation and, on the contrary, I positively show that a systematic consideration of the evidence unambiguously confirms it. The inquiry is notably based on probes into the evolution of Ibn Tibbon's philosophical vocabulary, whose results, it is hoped, will be useful beyond the immediate aim that has triggered them. This article accompanies Gad Freudenthal and Resianne Fontaine, “Philosophy and medicine in Jewish Provence, Anno 1199: Samuel Ibn Tibbon and Doeg the Edomite translating Galen's Tegni,” published in this issue of ASP, 26 (2016), pp. 1–26.

Back to the Sources: Alternative Versions of Maimonides' Letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon and Their Neglected Significance

Back to the Sources: Alternative Versions of Maimonides' Letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon and Their Neglected Significance

Reading Other People Reading Other People's Scripture: The Influence of Religious Polemic on Jewish Biblical Exegesis

Research Article| September 01 2012 Reading Other People Reading Other People's Scripture: The Influence of Religious Polemic on Jewish Biblical Exegesis James T. Robinson James T. Robinson University of Chicago jtr@uchicago.edu James T. Robinson, PhD (2002) in NELC, Harvard University, is associate professor of the history of Judaism at The University of Chicago, The Divinity School. He has published extensively on medieval Jewish philosophy and exegesis, including Samuel ibn Tibbon's Commentary on Ecclesiastes: The Book of the Soul of Man (Mohr Siebeck, 2007), and Asceticism, Eschatology, Opposition to Philosophy: The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Salmon b. Yeroham on Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) (Brill, 2012). Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google English Language Notes (2012) 50 (2): 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-50.2.77 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation James T. Robinson; Reading Other People Reading Other People's Scripture: The Influence of Religious Polemic on Jewish Biblical Exegesis. English Language Notes 1 September 2012; 50 (2): 77–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-50.2.77 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsEnglish Language Notes Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2012 Regents of the University of Colorado2012 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Moses Ibn Tibbon's <em>Answers to Queries on Physics</em>: Sources and Problems

This is a preliminary presentation of Moses Ibn Tibbon’s Answers to Queries on Physics , to be followed by an edition and English translation of the text. This treatise, preserved in a single manuscript, was inspired by queries sent to Ibn Tibbon by his nephew, probably Jacob ben Makhir. Ibn Tibbon shaped his answers as an introduction to Aristotelian natural science, apparently aiming at an all-inclusive, if concise, presentation of sublunar physics and cosmology. Into this he incorporates some astrology and metaphysics, as well as an interpretation of Jacob’s ladder. The Answers collates the interpretations of Aristotle by Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, and Samuel Ibn Tibbon. Some problems implied by Ibn Tibbon’s treatment of their theories are discussed. The Answers does more than simply add to our knowledge of Moses Ibn Tibbon’s science and of the Tibbon family’s customary method of study. It also offers the possibility of understanding the study of natural philosophy among Jews during the years that separate Moses Ibn Tibbon from the fourteenth century. Pointing out some difficulties in the basic assumptions of Aristotelian theory, Answers may be a precursor of the attitudes of the scholars of that later time and their sophisticated discussions of the same difficulties.

Gersonides on the Dis-/order of the Sublunar World and on Providence

Gersonides believed that the material world, which he took to have been created by a voluntary act by the deity, is the best possible one. One aspect of the excellence of the world is the providence the deity exerts over all living beings, perfecting each so as to preserve its existence for the longest possible time. On the most basic level, that of matter, any living being would indeed disintegrate were it not sustained by a power external to matter itself. Gersonides follows a very long tradition, codified notably in Meteorologica 4, holding that all composite substances necessarily decay and corrupt, as a result of the strife between their opposing components (elements and qualities). He goes out of his way to emphasize this inherent tendency of composite substances to decay, drawing on Meteorologica 4 much more frequently than most writers. This line of argument is consistent with (or even derives from) his view of the primeval quasi-matter without form, which is sheer privation and deficiency, out of which the deity formed the material world. Fortunately, providence counterbalances this built-in tendency of sublunar substances to disintegrate through the influences (programmed at creation) reaching them from the stars. A brief comparison with views of Samuel Ibn Tibbon leads to the argument that Gersonides underscored the theory of matter of Meteorologica 4 in order to aggrandize the role of providence.

Samuel Ibn Tibbon'sPeruš ha-Millot ha-Zarotand al-Fārābī'sEisagogeandCategories

Samuel Ibn Tibbon's Perus ha-Millot ha-Zarot was one of the most popular and widely used Jewish philosophical reference works during the Middle Ages and survives in more than 50 manuscripts. It was read both as a glossary to his Hebrew translation of the Guide of the Perplexed and as a general introduction to philosophy. The definitions that Ibn Tibbon provides, which range over the full curriculum of medieval philosophy and science, were not always original. On the contrary, he borrowed freely from Arabic philosophical and scientific texts. Ibn Tibbon's use of al-Fārābī's Eisagoge and Categories , which he often translates word for word, is identified and explained. Drawing on this dependence, it is shown that Ibn Tibbon's text survives in four distinct recensions, each of which represents a different stage in the writing and transmission of this seminal lexicon of Hebrew philosophy and science.

Editor's Introduction to the Forum

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...

Aristotle'sMeteorologyand the Maimonidean Modes of Interpreting the Account of Creation

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...

Samuel Ibn Tibbon's Commentary on Ecclesiastes: The Book of the Soul of Man (review)

Samuel Ibn Tibbon's Commentary on Ecclesiastes: The Book of the Soul of Man (review)

Samuel Ibn Tibbon's Avicennian Theory of an Eternal World

Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Maʾamar Yiqqawu ha-mayim (completed ca. 1231) puts forward an original cosmogony, a synthesis of the thesis of ḥiddus ha-ʿolam (the world came to be ab novo after not having been) and the thesis that the world is eternal. Ibn Tibbon holds that not only the separate forms (the deity and the intelligences) are eternal, but so are the material heavenly bodies as well. The book of Genesis is to be understood not as an account of the creation of reality as a whole, but as a description of the coming-to-be of the sublunar world only. The decisive phase of this coming-to-be was the emergence (through an entirely natural process) of dry land from beneath the water that initially surrounded the terrestrial globe. Subsequently, all plants and animals, including humankind, came to be naturally. Once this process was completed, a reverse natural process set in and the terrestrial globe again became entirely covered with water, just as on the “eve of creation.” Then the same natural process of the coming to-be of the sublunar world began all over again; and so on infinitely. In other words, the process of “creation” described in Genesis was not a singular, one-time episode. Rather, Genesis describes one typical “phase” in an infinite, eternally recurring process. The life-span of each individual sublunar world is limited, but the chain of coming-to-be and destruction of successive sublunar worlds is infinite; the encompassing celestial world remains eternally selfsame. Thus each individual sublunar world is “new” ( meḥuddas ), whereas the supralunar world and the series of successive sublunar worlds within it—and hence “the world” in a more general sense—have existed since all eternity. Ibn Tibbon worked out this audacious, entirely naturalistic theory on the basis of Ibn Sīnā’s natural philosophy. He also supported it from various Jewish authoritative texts, thereby showing that it was compatible with the Jewish tradition.

A Newly Discovered Arabic-Hebrew Medieval Philosophical Dictionary, Including Key-Terms of Maimonides' Guide

AbstractThe manuscript of Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, A. II. 12, includes (on folios 213r–217v) a short Hebrew dictionary of 39 philosophical terms. 23 of these terms can be found in the introduction to part two of Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed, which has been copied in full lenght in the manuscript as well (according to Samuel Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation). The dictionary was probably written in the second half of the 13th century by an anonymous scribe and has been unknown to scholars until now. This article offers a critical edition of the original text of the dictionary, with a facsimile reproduction of the relevant folios as well as an English annotated summary of its content.

Community, Covenant and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications (review)

The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy, by Robert Eisen. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 324 pp. $60.00. This is a good idea for a book, and it is well executed throughout. Eisen takes six thinkers, some very well known, others less so, and examines their views on the enigmatic Book of Job. The thinkers are Saadya Gaon, Maimonides (definitely the kingpin in terms of his influence on the whole exercise), Samuel ibn Tibbon, Zerahiah Hen, Gersonides, and Simon ben Zemah Duran. Readers will find things to disagree with on occasion in Eisen's analysis, but he is pretty close to these authors and has a shrewd grasp of where their main points are, and where their weaknesses are also. His main theme, and it is a valuable one, is that we should not strictly demarcate between philosophy and theology during this period. There has been a tendency to regard philosophers looking at a topic like suffering as though they were doing something entirely different from their theological peers, and yet they often have considerable light to throw on the Bible, despite (or perhaps due to) their philosophical approach. Eisen seeks to buttress this view with a brief examination of some modern thinkers on Job and how they relate to the medieval discussion. This chapter does not to my mind really come off; it is too short to establish its aim and does not have the space to convince the reader that the problematic today and in the past is the same. Eisen asks an interesting question in this book, but it seems to me that he offers the wrong reason for the right answer. The question is whether in understanding medieval theological issues it is helpful to examine at least some of the philosophical texts. The answer is surely that these texts often are very revealing of aspects of the Bible, even if they do not use traditional theological techniques to establish their conclusions. Eisen's conclusion is that philosophy and theology are nor so different after all, and both contain insights when used to examine the Bible. In the Middle Ages the idea that philosophy and theology are similar in approach would have been regarded with horror. Thinkers then spent a good deal of time sharply distinguishing between different forms of thought, and the boundaries between grammar, logic, philosophy, theology, law and so on were drawn so as to establish a wide chasm between all these different techniques. Indeed, it was taken to be the mark of an educated person to be able to distinguish between these different forms of thought. …

The Problem of Anthropomorphism in a Hitherto Unknown Passage from Samuel ibn Tibbon's Ma'amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim and in a Newly-Discovered Letter by David ben Saul

In this paper I will be chiefly concerned with a hitherto unknown passage from Samuel Ibn Tibbon's (ca. 1160 ca. 1232) philosophical-exegetical work, Ma'amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim (Treatise 'Let the Waters be Gathered').1 The passage has the character of a short independent work, which probably was incorporated by Ibn Tibbon into an already existing version of MYM. It is of considerable interest for a number of reasons.