11
Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations Yosef Tobi* University of Haifa Abstract During the last generation, there has been published no small or insignificant number of loose pages of different Judeo Arabic (henceforth: JA) translations of the Bible, preserved in the Cairo Genizah. The prevailing view among Judaic Studies scholars is that these translations predated the earliest JA Biblical translation known hitherto, namely, that produced by Rabbi Sa’adia Gaon (882-942). Sa’adia was familiar with these older translations and occasionally used them for his translation (tafs ır), but on the whole he composed his own translation with a view of being a cri- tique on their two main traits: (a) the phonetic orthography which does not fit the strict rules of classical Arabic grammar; (b) the literary translation, namely, giving an Arabic word for each Hebrew word, according to the order of the words in the Bible, and ignoring Arabic syntax. What is known about the life of the Jewish communities in the north-western regions of the Arabian Peninsula during the centuries that preceded Sa’adia mostly comes from early Muslim sources. We may conjecture that these translations already existed prior to the advent of Islam, that is to say, not later than the beginning of the seventh century. They were produced and used for teaching the Torah (Pentateuch), and for the Bible as a whole, in the schoolrooms where Jew- ish children were gathered in the Arabic speaking Jewish communities of north-western Arabia. A related genre of biblical translation written in non-classical JA is the S ˇ arh ˙ Alf az ˙ , that is to say, lists of difficult words in the Scripture according to their order in any given book with their Arabic translation. The didactic, or educational advantages of having these translations is proven as well by their wide-ranging commentaries found written for variant translations, and interspersed within the texts, and which have no other function in liturgy within the congregation. 1. Introduction Until a generation ago, the prevailing view among the community of Judaic Studies scholars was that Rabbi Sa‘adia Gaon (henceforth: RSG) (882–942) was the first to produce a Judeo-Arabic (henceforth: JA) translation of the Bible. 1 This translation, presumably, was made for the exigencies of the Jewish community living in oriental countries in the 10th century who had, to a great extent, already detached themselves from the Aramaic once spoken by them during the pre-Islamic period in those same countries in the third decade of the seventh century. In addition, the Hebrew language in which the sacred books were written was not sufficiently known by them for it to be comprehended. 2 Another explanation given for RSG’s work – albeit the opinion of only one man – is that the translation was not only written in Arabic from the standpoint of its tongue, but also from the standpoint of its script, and that it was generally used by Arab intellectuals who wished to know what was written in the Hebrew scriptures. According to this opinion, only afterwards was it copied (transliterated) into Hebrew characters, creating thereby the Judeo-Arabic script. This explanation is based mainly on R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s own words, who was well-acquainted with RSG’s JA translation and commentaries on the Bible. He wrote (cf. Genesis 2:11) that RSG ‘‘translated the Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

Yosef Tobi*University of Haifa

Abstract

During the last generation, there has been published no small or insignificant number of loosepages of different Judeo Arabic (henceforth: JA) translations of the Bible, preserved in the CairoGenizah. The prevailing view among Judaic Studies scholars is that these translations predated theearliest JA Biblical translation known hitherto, namely, that produced by Rabbi Sa’adia Gaon(882-942). Sa’adia was familiar with these older translations and occasionally used them for histranslation (tafs�ır), but on the whole he composed his own translation with a view of being a cri-tique on their two main traits: (a) the phonetic orthography which does not fit the strict rules ofclassical Arabic grammar; (b) the literary translation, namely, giving an Arabic word for eachHebrew word, according to the order of the words in the Bible, and ignoring Arabic syntax.

What is known about the life of the Jewish communities in the north-western regions of theArabian Peninsula during the centuries that preceded Sa’adia mostly comes from early Muslimsources. We may conjecture that these translations already existed prior to the advent of Islam,that is to say, not later than the beginning of the seventh century. They were produced and usedfor teaching the Torah (Pentateuch), and for the Bible as a whole, in the schoolrooms where Jew-ish children were gathered in the Arabic speaking Jewish communities of north-western Arabia. Arelated genre of biblical translation written in non-classical JA is the Sarh

˙Alf�az

˙, that is to say, lists

of difficult words in the Scripture according to their order in any given book with their Arabictranslation. The didactic, or educational advantages of having these translations is proven as wellby their wide-ranging commentaries found written for variant translations, and interspersed withinthe texts, and which have no other function in liturgy within the congregation.

1. Introduction

Until a generation ago, the prevailing view among the community of Judaic Studiesscholars was that Rabbi Sa‘adia Gaon (henceforth: RSG) (882–942) was the first toproduce a Judeo-Arabic (henceforth: JA) translation of the Bible.1 This translation,presumably, was made for the exigencies of the Jewish community living in orientalcountries in the 10th century who had, to a great extent, already detached themselvesfrom the Aramaic once spoken by them during the pre-Islamic period in those samecountries in the third decade of the seventh century. In addition, the Hebrew languagein which the sacred books were written was not sufficiently known by them for it to becomprehended.2 Another explanation given for RSG’s work – albeit the opinion of onlyone man – is that the translation was not only written in Arabic from the standpoint ofits tongue, but also from the standpoint of its script, and that it was generally used byArab intellectuals who wished to know what was written in the Hebrew scriptures.According to this opinion, only afterwards was it copied (transliterated) into Hebrewcharacters, creating thereby the Judeo-Arabic script. This explanation is based mainly onR. Abraham ibn Ezra’s own words, who was well-acquainted with RSG’s JA translationand commentaries on the Bible. He wrote (cf. Genesis 2:11) that RSG ‘‘translated the

Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Page 2: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

Pentateuch into the tongue of Ishmael, and in their writing’’ ( לאעמשיןושלבהרותהםגרתםתביתכבו ). Since no extant copies of RSG’s translation has come down unto us in Arabic

characters, some scholars have sought to amend the words of Ibn Ezra in one way or theother, in an effort to make them compatible with this fact, or else have suggested thatRSG prepared two editions of his translation: an Arabic translation in Hebrew characters,and an Arabic translation in Arabic characters.3

Notwithstanding, it would seem that the entire matter can be explained in a simplerway, just as we have endeavored to set forth in an earlier publication (Tobi 1993, pp.113–4). The words, ‘‘their writing’’ ( םתביתכ ), as brought down by Ibn Ezra, are not usedto denote a script written in Arabic characters (ductus, or what is otherwise known inArabic as مسر ), but rather to orthography, that is to say, the conventional spelling systemof a language. In other words, JA which is written with Hebrew characters is writtenwith the same strict rules of orthography that are used in classical Arabic (henceforth:CA) and which were finally redacted in the ninth century, rather than with those looserules formerly used in Judeo-Arabic script which preceded RSG, and which either ranparallel to those loose grammatical forms used in written Arabic, before the establishmentof the orthography that is now used in CA.

2. Discovery of Ancient Translation Fragments

This interpretation is consistent with other important findings – and quite possibly rattleswhat was conventionally thought of them – such as the fragments found in the CairoGeniza in Fusṭ�aṭ, Egypt,4 consisting of JA biblical translations that are not identical withany of the known JA translations, such as those made by RSG and R. Sem�u’el b. Ḥofn�i(Baghdad, 940?–1013), or Yehudah ibn Bil’am (Spain, 1000–1070). It isn’t so much thediscovery of these new translations which surprises us as it is their divergence from classi-cal medieval translations of JA literature, from the standpoint of orthography and themethods used in translation (see infra). It is true that many of these texts only becameknown to scholars at the end of the 19th century, but owing to the influences of ‘classi-cism’ which have ruled Arabic literature since generations past, and owing to its impactupon scholars of this literature up unto our present time, scholars of JA literature (begin-ning with the mid-19th century until this latter generation)5 have subsequentlyoverlooked Vulgar JA texts, just as they were customarily called by them – albeit unjustly– out of contempt stemming from arrogance and a lack of understanding. More disturb-ing than this, even when a fragment of a JA composition was published treating onpolemics (biblical), it had hardly been given credit as far as its orthography is concerned,but only in its content (Zucker, pp. 44–64).The first scholars to take a keen interest in ancient JA texts that were not written after

the rules befitting classical Arabic were Joshua Blau – he that has stood at the forefront ofmedieval JA research for the past 50 years, and his younger companion, Simon Hopkins,during the 1980s. This is based on letters of Jewish merchants written upon papyrus nolater than the ninth century.6 Nevertheless, the awareness of canonical texts written innon-classical JA burst out into the academic world only after fragments of biblical transla-tions were published in the beginning of the 1990s, taken from the book of Proverbs andfrom the books Genesis and Deuteronomy (Blau 1992 – Proverbs; Tobi 1993 – Genesisand Deuteronomy.). From that time until now, the aforementioned scholars, or otherslike them, have either published or identified many other fragments of biblical translationsin non-classical JA, including the translation of books that are not included in the ordin-ary liturgical collection, such as Jeremiah and Joshua (the latter being the work of a

226 Yosef Tobi

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

Page 3: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

Karaite!).7 Based on these translation fragments, it is clear that they encompassed all ofthe books of the Pentateuch, and that there was more than one complete translation ofthe Pentateuch, or even three separate translations.8

Along with these translations, it should be noted another ancient genre of biblicalcommentary written in non-classical JA, namely, Sarh

˙Alf�az

˙, that is to say, lists of difficult

words in the Scripture, usually, according to their order in any given book, and whichare translated into Arabic (for a detailed description, see Tobi 2006, pp. 31–2). Thesevocabulary lists prove most consummately that texts of biblical commentaries, whetherliteral translations or explanations of words, were not used for any liturgical need, butrather for an educational need; for the sake of understanding the Hebrew biblical textwhere and when their knowledge of Hebrew was limited. The wide use of these textsfor the study of the Bible and its understanding is attested to by vocabulary lists that werediscovered for the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which were usually not included inthe curriculum within the Jewish schools, and very few commentators have ever taken aninterest in them.9

Alongside these manuscripts of biblical commentaries in the Cairo Geniza, survivingtexts of other types of literature written in non-classical JA were also found: wroks ofmasora, polemics on the Hebrew Bible, an Arabic translation on the expanded AramaicTargum of the Ten Commandments, Halacha (Halah

˘ot¯Pesuqot

¯belonging to Rav Yehudai

Gaon), astrological forecasts for the Jewish year based on the twelve horoscopes, pre-des-tinies, medicinal works and even philosophy (For a detailed list, see Tobi 2006, p. 32).Evidence is to be found in all of these discoveries that ancient JA scripts served a greatand diverse literary function and that it wedged a deep peg, fixing itself within the Jewishcommunities which spoke Arabic.The publication of textual commentaries – for example, translations and Sarh

˙Alf�az

˙–

was usually accompanied by a detailed discussion that centered around three main ques-tions that had to do with them: (a) the method employed in translation; (b) the conven-tional spelling method used, meaning, its orthography; (c) their time and place ofexistence. Special articles were also dedicated to finding answers to these questions (Blauand Hopkins 2000; Hopkins 2002; Hopkins 2005; Tobi 2004; See also Hopkins 2009),while also a special lexicon has been created for translated texts (Kizel). In the followingpages, we shall deal with each of these questions.

3. The Method Employed in Translation

This theme would appear to be the simplest of the three questions outlined above, seeingthat it is easy to check, based upon the many texts available to us and which show com-plete conformity in this matter. That is to say, the biblical word is exchanged in thetranslation by a different word, according to the set order of the words in the Scripture.The most important thing to remember in this context is that the translational syntax isnot a syntax bound to the rules prescribed in Arabic grammar, and not necessarily CA,but it is the syntax used in the original Hebrew text. This thing should not surprise us,for this method employed in translation is already known to us from the Aramaic Targumused in the Pentateuch, a translation attributed unto Onqelos. Moreover, the translatorshave found – albeit in rare situations – an Arabic word to define a Hebrew word,although, in reality, there isn’t an equivalent word in the Arabic language to semanticallydescribe the word that is used in Hebrew.A classic example of this is in the particle et

¯(Heb. תא ), which is a marker of the

definite direct object in Hebrew, between a verb and a definite noun. This preposition is

Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations 227

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

Page 4: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

unique to the Hebrew language and isn’t to be found in Arabic.10 It is important to notehere that whenever the Hebrew text omits the article et

¯as a preposition, so, too, the Ara-

bic translation will omit the word used as its equivalent. Meaning, the translator doesn’tascribe to this particular word any syntactic function derived from the rules of the Arabicsyntax, but rather takes up the same method of translation which puts the translated Ara-bic text in almost total subjugation to the original Hebrew text.An interesting phenomenon, wherein perhaps it can be adduced that several ancient JA

translations of the Hebrew Bible were made, is the fact that in the various translations areused different words to translate the article et

¯, such as: ייא (ayye), איא (ayy�a), תאייא (ayy�at),

אליא (‘il�a) and וד (d¯�u). Nevertheless, a particular translation will always make use of the

same word whenever translating the article et¯. All of these words are known from CA,

but are not used there to denote the accusative case.11 On the other hand, the word איא(ayy�a) is known from various Arabic dialects and is used to denote the accusative case(Morag).In a different matter related to syntax and which proves the close relationship of the

translated text with that of the original text from the standpoint of syntax is the literaltranslation of prepositions found in the Hebrew text, even though in Arabic the preposi-tion needed is different, or else the preposition doesn’t exist at all. For example, theHebrew phrase םהלרבד (He spoke to them) in Gen. 49:28 is translated םהלםלכ , while instandard Arabic it should be translated as םהמלכ (Tobi 1996, p. 486). By the way, oneshouldn’t try to explain this non-standard use of language in the colloquial dialect usedby the translator, seeing that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such use of thistype of language in the Arabic dialects spoken in the east. By this, one might concludethat our translators viewed the original Hebrew text as a sacred one in which nothingcould be altered, and that the translation must be a literal rendering; let this suffice forthe present.The interpretive trend of these translations becomes all too clear also owing to several

other phenomena: (a) there is a tendency to translate a certain biblical word with thesame Arabic word, but there is not complete consistency in this matter. Rather, at timesthe biblical word is translated in the same translated text with variant words, dependingon its context; (b) often they bring down in the translation (as also in the lists of Sarh

˙Alf�az˙) several synonyms one after the other for the Hebrew word. A similar phenomenon

isn’t to be found in the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, and it can be pre-sumed that this matter reflects different oral traditions touching the translation, rather thandifferent commentarial suggestions of the first composer of that translation. One must,therefore, conclude by this that the translation was first passed down by way of an oraltradition, and that he that put it down in writing afterwards recorded also the differenttraditions; (c) This is a phenomenon similar to the former one – being a common thingthat after the translation of a certain word there is suggested a variant translation, onlythat, in this case, it is preceded by the word לאקיו (literally: ‘‘And there are those whosay…’’), or ליקו (literally: ‘‘And it is said…’’); apparently, here, too, resonates a differentoral tradition concerning the text; (d) Occasionally, there is brought down in the trans-lated text a word that has no parallel in the Hebrew text, such as: אבחאויכנאםריעיכ(Genesis 3:10), which is translated: תי]ז[כותיבתכאואנא]ןאירוע[ןיא (Tobi 1993, p. 120). Asfor the last word, which has the meaning: ‘‘and I was ashamed,’’ it comes to explain whyAdam and his wife hid themselves, that is to say, because of their shame of being naked.Still, it is impossible to know whether or not this word was added by its first translator,or perhaps was added later by a scribe in the chain of tradition passed down either orallyor in writing for that particular translation; (e) Explicit extended commentaries exist that

228 Yosef Tobi

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

Page 5: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

occasionally make-up an entire sentence or more, some of which are needed for under-standing the plain sense of the text, whereas others are based on exegeses of midrashicliterature by the Sages.A very interesting phenomena in the translations under discussion is the method of

translation used in personal names, whether those belonging to people or to nations orplaces (for texts wherein are translated personal names, see Tobi 2002, pp. 30–5; Tobi1997). As for personal names belonging to people, such names are not transcribed in sucha way that would have them replacing every biblical name with the known form of thesame name used in ancient Arabic literature (including the Qur’�an), for example: Abraham> Ibr�ah�ım; Isaac > Ish

˙�aq.12 A biblical name isn’t even translated according to its phonetic

sound, but rather according to its semantic meaning! For example, the name Judah which,based on Scripture, has as its meaning praise, as it is written (Genesis 29:35): ‘‘Now will Ipraise the Lord; wherefore, she called his name Judah,’’ is translated by S�akir ( רכאש ),which means ‘thanks’ (a verb!). This shows us that the purpose of the translations wascommentarial, or to teach the students in the elementary schools the semantic meaningbehind the names of biblical characters.In yet another matter of great interest is the translation of nations and eponyms, which,

occasionally, isn’t a translation that gives its semantic meaning, but rather an identificationof places mentioned in the Bible with other peoples and places that are known by thecontemporaneous geography of the time. This matter is especially seen in the translationof the 10th chapter of Genesis, a chapter filled with names of peoples and eponyms (TheArabic translation of this chapter has been dealt with by Tobi 2004/2005, pp. 118–21).The identification of biblical places with places that were still known at the time of the

translator is well-known, both, from the Aramaic translations of the Scriptures and fromRSG’s Arabic translation (Tafs�ır), for which cause RSG has been ‘merited’ with satiricalcriticism from his admirer Abraham ibn Ezra, the Jewish commentator from Spain wholived in the 12th century.13 Since, to this day, no comparative study in Arabic chroniclesor geography has been made on the identification of nations and eponyms with the trans-lations under discussion, particularly those which date back to the formative years ofIslam, we cannot say what these sources might have been which were used by the trans-lator: Whether it was an oral tradition of someone who lived in eastern countries, orperhaps someone who had drawn his sources from other written accounts.

4. Orthography14

We have already made note of the fact that not everything shown in Hebrew charactersfor Arabic words reflects what is customarily written in CA, nor does it reflect what iscustomarily written in classical JA from the Middle Ages and which had been the stan-dard in canonical JA literature between the 10th and 14th centuries. This matter findsexpression in different ways: (a) the widespread use of vowels (mater lectionis) that are notcompatible with anything prescribed in Arabic writing methods for the Middle Ages, andwhich are related to our discussion – namely, pre-CA (see infra), CA and classical JA. Onthe other hand, we are all too familiar with this phenomenon from ancient Hebrew texts(the Dead Sea scrolls) and from the Hebrew texts in the Geniza MSS., that is to say, thepractice of writing a word with an extreme plene scriptum. The sense here is not only tothe copyist adding mater lectionis symbols for short vowels, but of also doubling theHebrew letters for the vowel-like consonants, for example, ו (waw) and י (yod). However,it should also be pointed out that, along with that, the copyist sometimes omits themater lectionis in a long vowel; (b) the lack of consolidation and uniformity in spelling.

Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations 229

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

Page 6: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

Meaning, often the same word is written in different ways by the same copyist, andeven on the same line or on adjacent lines; and it goes without saying that the spellingis likely to change from one manuscript to another. This phenomenon also strengthensthe assumption that these texts were passed down orally, without any steady and cleartradition regarding their spellings; (c) the copyists of the texts under discussion do notmake use of diacritical marks above the Hebrew letters except in rare cases, particularly,for the letters צ)ض ) and ט)ظ ); (d) frequently, the Arabic letter lam (ل) is omittedwhen the definite article the in Arabic ( לא=لا ) comes before one of the sun letters15

(e.g., אמסא>אמסלא=ءآمسلأ = the heaven), whose use, in our case, suggests that thecopyist wrote down the word after hearing it read, rather than any set tradition ofwriting; (e) the Arabic hamza (ء) is usually omitted whenever it comes at the start of aword, or at its end, or sometimes even in the middle of a word; (f) on rare occasions,there is no substitute for the Arabic consonants of ض and ,ظ whereas the ordinaryHebrew letter ,ד which is the regular equivalent used in place of the Arabic consonant,د is also used for their replacement.16

Another important phenomenon related to linguistics and which characterizes ancienttranslations is the im�ala, namely, marking the fath

˙a long vowel, either in the middle of a

word or at its end, by the letter yod as a mater lectionis. This matter has mostly been notedby the scholars who published fragments belonging to these translations, and it has evenearned a place of special research.17

It is important to note that from studies conducted in recent years on pre-Islamic Ara-bic inscriptions, as well as from Arabic texts written during the formative years of Islambefore the consolidation of what is called CA grammar and orthography, towards the endof the ninth century and the beginning of the 10th century, parallelisms can be found tothese phenomena as far as orthography is concerned in ancient JA texts. The phenome-non strengthens the theory which we shall discuss further along, viz. that all of these textsare from the formative years of Islam, and certainly before RSG.18 Recently, these phe-nomena are mentioned in order to explain what appear to be divergent Arabic translitera-tions of words borrowed from either Hebrew or Aramaic. For example, the letter y�a’ (ي)in the Arabic word sayt:�an is explained as a vowel which comes to signify an extendedvowel sound, combined with the phenomenon of im�ala (a>e), and only after time didthis letter come to act as if it were a consonant. Such is also the case with regard to they�a’ in the proper name םיהארבא (Ibr�ah�ım), which originally came to signify the longvowel-sound after the letter h�a’, as is the manner of the im�ala, and after time its applica-tion came to be understood as a mater lectionis, signifying the long Arabic vowel of kasrah(see Puin; Reynolds, pp. 7 and 22, n. 38).As stated above, RSG established a method of writing JA script by rigidly applying

to it the same rules that are prescribed for writing CA, and which rules became final-ized shortly before him. This method quickly spread itself throughout all Jewish com-munities. Even so, it ought to be remembered that this script is not fully compatiblewith the Arabic script, sometimes even in matters that are of no small importance. Forexample, the JA equivalent of the Arabic consonant خ – a letter created from the ,حover which has been placed a diacritical point – isn’t a ח (h

˙et), but rather a כ (kaf),

according to what is prescribed for the Hebrew language where the phonetic sound ofkh and the phonetic sound of k are represented by the letter ,כ and they aredistinguished only by a dot within it, or else without it (cf. Blau 1988, p. 160; Tobi2006, pp. 24–8). It is clear therefore that RSG relied upon a tradition that precededthe writing of Arabic in Hebrew characters, and that he did not give-in completely tothe orthography used in CA.

230 Yosef Tobi

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

Page 7: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

5. When and Where These Translations Came Into Being

The very fact that these are JA texts would clearly suggest that these translations weremeant to fill a commentarial need within a Jewish community that spoke Arabic, and thatthey were not made purely for an academic function or need. Their purpose was to sup-ply the members of a community with a comprehensible text that explains the originalHebrew biblical text which hadn’t been sufficiently clear to them beforehand. One mustnot assume that the intent here is to reading it in the congregation within the synagogueon Sabbath days and on festival days, alongside the regular weekly lections of the Torah(Pentateuch) and Haftara (the concluding reading from the Prophets), seeing that onlyAramaic was permitted to be used in the synagogue, while Arabic texts were never readin the synagogue alongside the Hebrew and Aramaic, even though the Geniza manu-scripts are full of translated texts that have survived. These consist not only of translationsmade for biblical books, but also of prayers (see infra) (For JA translations of the prayertexts and liturgies, see Tobi 1999, 2008a). This is also testified by the wide-ranging com-mentaries found written for variant translations and interspersed within the texts, whichhave no place in liturgy within the congregation. The other possibility, then, is that thesetranslations were made with a pedagogic need in mind, that is to say, for the tender stu-dents in the schools of Arabic-speaking communities. Thus we can also assume from thefact that the late JA translations (the sarh

˙s) were studied in the schools by children in

communities of Jews in eastern countries and in North Africa, at least from the 16th cen-tury until the middle of the 20th century.In order to determine the time of these translations, we must take into consideration

two important facts. The first: From the time that these surviving translations were firstpublished, it became clear that RSG knew of these translations, as can be adduced by hismaking use of identical Arabic words in his translation, not only of common or simplewords, but also of uncommon words (see, for example, Blau 1992, pp. 33–4; Tobi 1993,p. 112). In addition, it is inconceivable that the translations under discussion were madeduring the time of RSG or after him, seeing that his method, as far as spelling and trans-lation are concerned, was received quickly throughout all Jewish communities that spokeArabic, and not only because of his prestige as the most important spiritual leader of thepeople of Israel in his day. Rather, it was also because of the easy orthographic methodwhich he established. The most probable conclusion is that these translations had spreadthroughout the Jewish communities in the east long before RSG. Yet, since he was notpleased with them, whether on account of its spelling method or on account of its unin-telligible literal translation, he sought to dismiss them by bringing before his people aproper JA translation, which an enlightened Jew of his generation could be proud of. Inhis translation, RSG sought to preserve also the rules of grammar, syntax and the Arabicstyle, for which reason his translation was not always congruous with the biblical text.Subsequently, he put into his translation his views on matters of religion, linguistics, liter-ature and philosophy (see, e.g., Tobi 2008b).The second fact comes from testimony gathered from a question which was posed to

R. Nat˙urnai Gaon in Baghdad in the middle of the ninth century regarding the members

of a certain congregation who wanted to read in the synagogue, in conjunction with theHebrew reading of the Torah, the Arabic translation (tafs�ır) in place of the Aramaic Tar-gum. R. Nat

˙urnai rejects this altogether, by which we can learn that several generations

prior to RSG there already existed an Arabic translation that was well-known to the Jew-ish community who sought to give it liturgical status within the synagogue (see Tobi2002, pp. 26–7).

Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations 231

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

Page 8: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

By way of conjecture, and which can also be substantiated by early Islamic sources, wecan say that the first JA translation was composed in the Arabian Peninsula before theadvent of Islam. It is well-known that in the north-western part of the Arabian Peninsulawere important Jewish communities, the most famous of which being Yat

¯rib (later called

al-Mad�ına after Muh˙ammad migrated there in the year 622), H

˘aybar, Taym�a, al-‘Ul�a and

H˙igra (today, Mad�ayin S

˙�alih

˙). Taym�a and Yat

¯rib were centers of Jewish learning. Muslim

sources tell of a Jewish ‘house of study’ in Yat¯rib wherein also studied Arab children,

among whom was a certain Zayd b. Th�abit, he that eventually became the secretary andscrivener of Muh

˙ammad (see Lecker). Likewise, there are more than a few intimations

showing that there once existed an Arabic translation of the Pentateuch in the Jewish dia-lect known as Yah�udiyya (for all of this, see Tobi 2002, pp. 17–26. Concerning theYah�udiyya dialect, see Newby). This is not at all surprising, for at least as early as the firstcentury CE Jewish communities have maintained a system of education for childrenwhich included the study of the Torah in the spoken language of their place. We areunable to determine if the translation was originally done orally and passed down in thisway generation after generation, and only later put down in writing; whether it was inthe Arabian Peninsula or in other Jewish communities in the east where the majority ofJews in the Arabian Peninsula had either been expelled or fled following the rise of Islam.Thus, in any case, the late JA sarh

˙s were created for the books of the Hebrew Bible in

eastern communities and in North Africa within the framework of teaching children, orelse within the framework of instructing elders in the synagogues. At any rate, theorthography of the translated texts herein discussed and which have come down unto us,usually written upon parchment and not upon paper, are older than the system of spellingused in ‘classical’ JA as fixed by RSG in the first half of the 10th century. As stated, manyof the orthographic phenomena that are revealed in these texts are known from Arabictexts transcribed in Arabic characters before the advent of Islam and during its formativeyears. By this we can conclude that their transformation into writing was done before thetime of RSG. It would seem that there is a place for conducting a precise comparativestudy between the two types of texts – the Jewish ones and the Muslim-Arab ones – soas to better understand their orthography (compare Tobi 2004).Let us point out that the language used in these translations, from a perspective of lexi-

cology and semantics, doesn’t reveal any signs of a colloquial language, a phenomenonthat typifies the sarh

˙s of late period. It would seem that we can also find parallelisms of

this kind with Arabic poetry of the g�ahiliyya, which probably was written in a higher styleof language than that of the Arab dialects for the same period, a language which, accordingto scholars, was common to all the tribes of Arabia (see, e.g., Donner, pp. 36–8).

Conclusion

Like the new trend of studying the ancient Arabic language and the study of the Qur’�anin its historical and social context, a trend that promotes new understandings with respectto this language and the manner in which the Qur’�an was created, so, too, the JA transla-tions which came before RSG reveal a wide range of cultural and linguistic expansionamong the Jewish people, an expansion that hasn’t been known till now, seeing that itdisappeared completely owing to the sheer strength of RSG and all those who walked inhis footsteps. Of course, it must also be remembered that all the surviving texts of transla-tions that are known up until now have come from the storehouses of the Cairo Geniza,and we are still far from disclosing all that is to be disclosed in the old survivingtranslations taken from these storehouses.

232 Yosef Tobi

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

Page 9: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

Short Biography

Yosef Tobi is a professor (emeritus) of medieval Hebrew poetry in the University of Haifa,Israel, and the Head of Ben-Shalom Center for the Study of the Jews of Yemen in BenZvi Institute, Jerusalem. His main scholarly fields treat on the spiritual, cultural and histori-cal affinities between Judaism and Islam, during the Middle Ages and modern time. Hismain publications: The Jews of Yemen: Studies in Their History and Culture (Brill, Leiden,1999) The Judeo-Arabic Literature in Tunisia 1850–1950 (Tel Aviv 2000, Hebrew); Proximityand Distance: Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Poetry (Brill, Leiden, 2004); Between Hebrew andArabic Poetry: Studies in the Spanish Hebrew Medieval Poetry (Brill, Leiden, 2010).

Notes

* Correspondence address: Yosef Tobi, Hebrew & Comparative Literature, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905,Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

1 The term Judeo-Arabic in this context refers to the text that is written in the Arabic language, while the scriptitself is not the typical Arabic script, but rather the Hebrew script.2 R. Sa‘adia Gaon testifies in several places in his writings on the difficulty in understanding the Hebrew of sacredtexts, one of which places is the Hebrew and Arabic introduction to his Egron (known, in the second edition of thecomposition, by its Arabic name: Kit�ab us

˙�ul al-si‘r al-‘ibr�an�ı). See Allony, pp. 150–3, 158–9.

3 For a detailed analysis of the opinions expressed on this subject, see: Blau 1992, pp. 39–41; Blau and Hopkins2000, p. 7; Tobi 2006, p. 24.4 The sense here is to the immense collection of leaflets and pages from books and documents preserved in anupper-storeyed room of a Jewish synagogue in Fust

˙�at˙of old Cairo, according to the Jewish tradition of not casting

out into the waste bin or destroying texts that are inscribed in Hebrew characters, on account of the sanctity of theHebrew letters, without any consideration for the subject matter. Hundreds of thousands of pages that were amassedin this Geniza, beginning from the ninth century CE to the 19th century, were taken out from there in the 1890sand transferred mainly to the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge in England where they serve as an inexhaustiblesource of revolutionary research in all fields of Judaic studies.5 It should be remembered that many of the people aspiring to the Wissenschaft des Judenthums, who dealt withmedieval JA texts were the students of the renowned orientalist, H. L. Fleischer, from Leipzig University inGermany, and they viewed CA and its rules of grammar as the highest standard to be emulated in the Arabic ton-gue, until at length many of them had it as their practice to publish JA texts strictly in Arabic characters. For thepeople aspiring to the Wissenschaft des Judenthums out of Fleischer’s students, see Schorsch.6 Concerning these letters, see Blau and Hopkins 1984, 1987. For a comprehensive discussion on Arabic letterswritten on papyri, see Grob 2010. To our great dismay, the author doesn’t include in her book a discussion aboutthe orthography of such texts, excepting a short remark (pp. 128–9).7 For a detailed list of all of these fragments, categorically arranged according to the books of the Bible, see Tobi2006, p. 31.8 See Tobi 1996. As to the possibility of there being a third translation, I have relied upon translation fragmentsbelonging to the book of Exodus and which have yet to be published.9 For the Sarh

˙Alf�az

˙belonging to these two books, see Tobi 2006, pp. 55–66. For a comprehensive discussion on

the genre of Sarh˙Alf�az

˙, see Eldar.

10 In biblical Aramaic we find the Aramaic calque תי for the Hebrew תא only once, with a suffix: ןוהתי (Daniel3:12). However, in Aramaic biblical translations (Onqelos for the Pentateuch and Yonathan b. ‘Uzziel for theProphets and Hagiography) תי is regularly brought as the translation of תא .11 For a discussion on the different translations of the article et

¯, see Tobi 1993, pp. 89–90; Tobi 1996, p. 486. As

known, also in the late JA translations (i.e., the Sarh˙), beginning from the 16th century onward, the article et

¯is

translated with different Arabic variations, just as the scholars who have dealt with these translations have pointedout (for a detailed description, see Tobi 1993, p. 89, n. 7).12 As known, scholars have been reluctant to find a satisfactory answer as to why changes occurred in the forms ofbiblical names transcribed into ancient Arabic literature. It is generally assumed that they were transmitted to theArabs by way of the Aramaic-speaking Christians (Horovitz), even though in recent years orthographic explanationsare being suggested for these changes.13 In his commentary on Genesis 2:11, regarding the identification of eponyms and peoples, he writes: ‘‘He (i.e.,RSG) doesn’t have an oral tradition […] perhaps he has a vision in a dream, while he has already erred with respectto certain places […]; therefore, we will not rely on his dreams.’’

Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations 233

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

Page 10: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

14 All that is stated here, in this paragraph, refers not only to the ancient translated texts, but to all texts from theother literary genres mentioned above.15 The Arabic letter l�am is omitted when the definite article the comes before a word whose first letter is one offollowing 14 consonants: نلظطضصشسزرذدثت16 For a more complete description of orthography used in ancient translations, see Tobi 1993, pp. 100–5, 1996,pp. 484–5, 2002, pp. 29–30.17 Hopkins 2005. The occurrence of the im�ala in colloquial dialects is well known; it has already been treated uponin great detail by Levin 1971; Levin 1998, chapters 13 and 14.18 See Tobi 2004, 2004/2005, pp. 122–4. For the orthography of pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions and the orthogra-phy used by the early generations after the advent of Islam, see Macdonald; Robin. As Hamd

¯�an�i (10th century) tes-

tifies, similar phenomena were characteristic of the ancient Sabaean writing as well; see Hamd¯�an�i, pp. 122–3

(English translation, Faris, pp. 72–3).

Works Cited

Allony, Neh˙emia (ed.) (1969). Ha-Egron: Kit�ab Us

˙�ul al-Si‘r al-‘Ibr�an�i by Rav Sa‘adia Ga’on. Jerusalem: The Academy

of Hebrew Language (Hebrew).Blau, Joshua (1988). On Changes in the Orthography System of Judaeo-Arabic in the Middle Ages, Te‘udah, 6, pp.159–62 (Hebrew).

——. (1992). On a Fragment of the Oldest Judaeo-Arabic Bible Translation Extant. In: J. Blau and S. C. Reif(eds.), Genizah Research after Ninety Years: The Case of Judaeo-Arabic, pp. 31–9. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

——. (1999). The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic: A Study of the Origins of Neo-Arabic and MiddleArabic. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.

—— & Hopkins, Simon (1984). On Early Judeao-Arabic Orthography, ZAL, 12, pp. 9–27.—— & ——. (1987). Judaeo-Arabic Papyri Collected, Edited, Translated and Analyzed, JSAI, 9, pp. 87–160.—— & ——. (2000). Ancient Judaeo-Arabic Biblical Translations, Pe‘amim, 83, pp. 4–14 (Hebrew).Donner, Fred M. (2008). The Qur’�an in Recent Scholarship: Challenges and Desiderata. In: Gabriel Said Reynolds(ed.), The Qur’�an in Its Historical Context, pp. 29–50. London-New York: Routledge.

Eldar, Ilan (2001). Biblical Glossography in the Arabic Speaking Area in the East, Ha-‘Ivrit ve-Ah˙yoteha, 1: pp. 23–

37 (Hebrew).Faris, Nabih Amin (1938). The Antiquities of South Arabia being a Translation […] of the Eighth Book of Al-Hamd�an�ı’sal-Ikl�ıl. Princeton: Princeton UP. [An English Translation of Hamd

¯�an�ı 1940].

Grob, Eva Mira (2010). Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters on Papyrus: Form and Function, Content andContext. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Hamd�an�ı, Ab�ı Muh˙ammad al-H

˙asan (1940). Al-Ikl�ıl, al-guz’ al-t

¯�ani. Ed. Nab�ıh Am�ın F�aris. Princeton: Princeton

UP (Arabic).Hopkins, Simon (2002). On the Vorlage of an Early Judaeo-Arabic Translation of Proverbs. JSAI, 27, pp. 369–74.——. (2005). On im�ala of Medial and Final �a in Early Judaeo-Arabic. In: Jordi Aguade, Angeles Vicente and LeilaAbu (eds.), Sacrum Arabo-Semiticum: Homenaje al Profesor Federico Corriente en su 65, pp. 195–214. Zaragoza: Insti-tuto de Estudios Islamicos y del Proximo Oriente.

——. (2009). Judeo-Arabic Inscriptions from Northern Arabia. In: Werner Arnold, Michael Jursa, Walter W.,Miiller, and Stephane Prochazka (eds.), Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien und Sokotra in MemoriamAlexander Sima, pp. 125–36. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Horovitz, Joseph (1925). Jewish Proper Names and derivatives in the Koran, HUCA, 2, pp. 145–227.Kizel, Ta’ir (2011). A Judeo-Arabic Dictionary of the Ancient Biblical Judeo-Arabic Translations. In: Ayelet Oett-inger and Danny Bar-Maoz (eds.), Mit

˙t˙uv Yosef: Yosef Tobi Jubilee Volume, III: Medieval and Modern Judeo-Arabic

Literature; Middle Eastern Jewish Communities, pp. 11–40. Haifa: University of Haifa (Hebrew).Lecker, Michael (1997). Zayd b. Th�abit, ‘a Jew with Two Sidelocks’: Judaism and literacy in Pre-Islamic Medina(Yathrib). JNES, 56, pp. 259–73 (Reprinted in: Michael Lecker (1998), Jews and Arabs in Pre- and Early IslamicArabia, Coll. Variorum, Aldershot: Ashgate, III).

Levin, Aryeh (1971). The Im�alah in Arabic Dailects, Dissertation, Hebrew University.——. (1998). Arabic Linguistic Thought and Dialectology. Jerusalem: Magnes.Macdonald, Michael M. C. (2000). Reflections on the Linguistic Map of Pre-Islamic Arabia, Arabian Archaeologyand Epigraphy, 11, pp. 28–79.

Morag, Shelomo (1951). On the Preposition uiiia in Arabic Dialects and its Hebrew Parallels, Tarbiz, 22, pp. 120–3(Hebrew).

Newby, Gordon D. (1971). Observations about an Early Judaeo-Arabic, JQR, 61, pp. 214–21.Puin, G. R. (1996). Observations on Early Qur’�an Manuscripts in S

˙an‘�a. In: S. Wild (ed.), The Qur’�an as Text.

Leiden: Brill, pp. 107–11.Reynolds, Gabriel Said (2000). Introduction: Qur’�anic Studies and its Controversies. In: G. S. Reynolds (ed.), TheQur’�an in Its Historical Context, pp. 1–25. London-New York: Routledge.

234 Yosef Tobi

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x

Page 11: Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations

Robin, Christian (2001). Les Inscriptions de l’Arabie Antique et les etudes arabes, Arabica, 48, pp. 509–77.Schorsch, Ismar (2010). Converging Cognates: the Intersection of Jewish and Islamic Studies in Nineteenth CenturyGermany, Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, 55, pp. 3–36.

Tobi, Yosef (1993). Pre-Sa’adianic Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch, Massorot, 7, pp. 87–127 (Hebrew).——. (1996). Another Popular Judeo-Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch. In: Moshe Bar-Asher (ed.), Studies inHebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag, pp. 483–501. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew).

——. (1997). The Translation of Proper Names in Medieval Judeo-Arabic Translation of the Bible Cairo Genizah:One Hundred Years of Discovery and Research, Bulletin of the Israeli Academic Center in Cairo, 21 (Ed. Sasson Some-kh.), pp. 18–22.

——. (1999). The Role of Arabic in Jewish Liturgy and Literature according to Geniza Texts, Te‘�uda, 15, pp. 47–67 (Hebrew).

——. (2002). On the Antiquity of the Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations and a New Piece of an Ancient Judeo-Arabic Translation to the Pentateuch, Ben ‘Ever La-‘Arav, 2, pp. 17–60 (Hebrew).

——. (2004). The Orthography of the Pre-Saadianic Judaeo-Arabic Compared with the Orthography of theInscriptions of Pre-Islamic Arabia, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 34, pp. 343–9.

——. (2004/2005). Ancient Judeo-Arabic Translation to the Pentateuch: New Fragments, Ha-‘Ivrit ve-Ah˙yoteha,

4/5, pp. 115–43 (Hebrew).——. (2006). Poetry. Judeo-Arabic Literature and the Geniza. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.——. (2008a). Judeo-Arabic Translations of Permanent Prayers, Massoret Ha-Piyyut, 4, pp. 169–203 (Hebrew).——. (2008b). The Implement of Ta’w�ıl in Sa‘adia’s Ga’on’s Tafs�ır. In: A. Maman, S. E. Fassberg and Y. Breuer(eds.), Sha‘arei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aranaic and Jewish languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, pp. 140–61.Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew).

Zucker, Moshe (1959). On the Rav Sa‘adia’s Translation to the Pentateuch. New York: Feldheim (Hebrew).

Early Judeo-Arabic Biblical Translations 235

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/4 (2012): 225–235, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00350.x