Bernard Septimus, “A Prudent Ambiguity in Saadya Gaon’s Doctrines and Beliefs,” Harvard Theological Review, vol. 76, no. 2 (April 1983): 249-254

HTR 76:2 (1983) NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS A PRUDENT AMBIGUITY IN SAADYA GAON'S BOOK OF DOCTRINES AND BELIEFS Among the outstanding scholarly careers of the Jewish Mi Ages, none seems so dominated by polemic as that of Saadya G (882-942).1 His intellectual environment was crowded with a bewild ing array of rival religious groups and philosophical creeds engage vigorous debate. The chaotic variety and aggressiveness of intellect life in Saadya's Baghdad are frequently illustrated by the accou some remarkable theological debating societies given by a contemp Muslim visitor: At the first meeting there were present not only people of various [Islamic] sects, but also unbelievers, Magians, materialists, atheists, Jews and Christians, in short, unbelievers of all kinds. Each group had its own leader, whose task it was to defend its views, and every time one of the leaders entered the room, his followers rose to their feet and remained standing until he took his seat. In the meanwhile, the hall had become overcrowded with people. One of the unbelievers rose and said to the assembly: we are meeting here for a discussion. Its conditions are known to all. You, Muslims, are not allowed to argue from your books and prophetic traditions since we deny both. Everybody, therefore, has to limit himself to rational arguments. The whole assembly applauded these words. So you can imagine . . . that after these words I decided to withdraw. They proposed to me that I should attend another meeting in a different hall, but I found the same calamity there.2 1On Saadya's career and polemics, see: H. Malter, Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works (Philadelphia, 1921; reprint ed., New York: Hermon, 1969); S. Baron, "Saadia's Communal Activities," Saadya Anniversary Volume (= American Academyfor Jewish Research. Texts and Studies 2) (New York, 1943) 9-74; M. Zucker, Al Targum Rav Saadya Gaon la-Torah (New York: Feldheim, 1959); B. Z. Dinur, Yisrael ba-Golah (Tel-Aviv: Dviv, 1961) 1/2. 380-469. 2This source was quoted by R. Dozy, JA 2 (1853) 93. The translation is from A. Altmann's introduction to his selected translation of Saadya's Book of Doctrines and Beliefs (Oxford, 1946) 13. See also S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York: Columbia University, 1957) 5. 83. 250 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Add to the cast of controversialists some Jewish sectarian sketch will mirror nicely the many-fronted debate that enga in his philosophical masterpiece, the Book of Doctrines an There is only one major discrepancy: the polemic against Islam, described here as strident and brazen, is, in fact, muted and carefully camouflaged in Saadya's work. It is, of course, possible that written polemic required greater caution than oral debate. But it seems likely that this discrepancy also reflects different perceptions of polemical reality: freedom of expression may have seemed unbridled to a scandalized Muslim while, at the same time, quite constrained to a responsible dhimm7 leader who stood to suffer, along with his community, the consequences of incaution.4 In striking contrast to Saadya's treatment of Islam is his very explicit critique of Christianity. Upon completing a detailed refutation of the Trinity, Saadya devotes a short chapter to a kind of index to the anti-Christian polemic in his treatise: "Now these people . .. are divided into four groups [firaq.], three of which are the older while the fourth appeared only very recently" (11:7). Saadya then describes the Christology of the first three groups which, on the basis of other Arabic formulations, Wolfson succeeded in identifying as Monophysites, Nestorians, and Melkites. As for the fourth [group], it assigns to [their Messiah] the position of the prophets only and interprets the sonship ascribed by them to him just as we 3See J. Guttmann, Philosophies o' Judaism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964) 47-73; Altmann (above, n. 2) 11-22. The possibility has even been raised that Saadya attended some of these theological assemblies in Baghdad; see H. Davidson, "Saadia's List of Theories of the Soul," in A. Altmann, ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1967) 93-94. For a judicious survey of literature pertaining to Saadya's theology, see G. Vajda, "Les &tudes de philosophic juive du Moyen Age depuis la synthese de Julius Guttmann," HUCA 43 (1972) 130-38. 4As far as I can see there are no explicit polemical references to Islam in Saadya's Book of Doctrines and Beliefs. M. Steinschneider (Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischen Sprache [Leipzig, 1877; reprint ed., Hildescheim: Ohms, 1966] 341) quotes Saadya's introduction which mentions the ridiculous belief of some ignorant people in Arabia that unless a man's camel is slaughtered over his grave, he will have to appear on foot on Judgment Day "und Vieles derart, was man besser verschweigt." However, the text reads: wa-mithlu hadhl,a kathhr mi-ma yadhaku minhu ("and many such ludicrous things"); see Kitab al-Amanat wa'l-l'tiqadat, S. Landauer, ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1880) 21; The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, S. Rosenblatt, trans. (New Haven: Yale University, 1948) 26; Altmann (above, n. 2) 43 n. 7. Saadya is referring to bedouin superstition, not Islamic theology. A recent survey with bibliography is M. Perlmann, "The Medieval Polemics between Islam and Judaism," in S. D. Goitein, ed., Religion in a Religious Age (Cambridge: Association for Jewish Studies, 1974) 103-38. NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS 251 interpret "Israel is my first-born son" (Exod 4:22) which is merely an ex sion of esteem and high regard and as others interpret the meaning of "A ham the friend of God." And this last group is subject, in the matter of r tation, to all that I shall mention in the third treatise of this book in the se on the abrogation (naskh) of the Law as well as to all that I shall mentio the eighth treatise on the coming of the Messiah.5 Saadya goes on to mention the sections of his work in which th of the first three sects are refuted. There is something strange about Saadya's description of the f group of "these people." The antecedent of "these people" w seem to be "the Trinitarians" who are refuted in the preceding but this fourth sect appears rather to represent a recent re Ebionite beliefs and a very obscure one-if, indeed, it existed Particularly intriguing is Saadya's statement that this sect e Jesus' sonship "as others interpret the meaning of 'Abraham th of God.'" Saadya is alluding to (though not quoting) Surah 4 the Qur'an. These "others" are therefore the Muslims.7 Now qur'anic illustration seems hardly to improve upon his first e Exod 4:22, which provides a clear biblical instance of God's s used metaphorically. Moreover, this seemingly gratuitous refere the Qur'an appears to be the only qur'anic reference in the entir of Doctrines and Beliefs. Why was Saadya so intent upon insi Muslims and the Qur'an just here? These peculiarities suggest the possibility that Saadya's dis of this obscure fourth sect served-at least in part-as a pret veiled communication on a more important opponent. His see redundant analogy to the Qur'an suggests a certain similarity be the fourth sect and the "others." And there is indeed a marked lel between the beliefs ascribed to this sect and those of Islam: both accept the unity of God and both claim that a later prophet abrogated 5Kitab al-Amanat, 90-91; Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 109. (I (1 have altered the translation slightly). The new edition of J. Kafih (Ha-Nibhar be-Emunot ube-De'ot [Jerusalem: Sura, 1970] 95) has nzaa (prophecy) in place of mn:a (sonship)-clearly an erroneous reading. For Wolfson's identifications, see his Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1977) 2. 407-14. 6Wolfson (ibid.) suggests that this group represented a recent Christian attempt at accommodation to Muslim unitarianism. But there is only one other reference, itself tenuous, corroborating the existence of such a group; see H. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1976) 347. 7See Wolfson, Studies. Cf. Isa 41:8; A Geiger, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen (Leipzig: Kaufmann, 1902) 119-20; Saadya Gaon, Tafsir Sefer Yeshayahu (H. Derenbourg, ed.; Paris: Libraire de la Societ6 Asiatique, 1896) 61. 252 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW the Law and the covenant with Israel.8 Their refutation will thus follow similar lines and will frequently even overlap. When Saadya says that the refutation of "this last group" is to be found in his sections on the abrogation of the Law and the coming of the Messiah, he is-while ostensibly indexing the most obscure side of his anti-Christian polemic-in effect, guiding the reader to his argument about Islam. It would seem that Saadya's wording has even made it possible to construe his "last group"-the one refuted in the sections on abrogation (naskh) and the Messiah-including those analogous "others"the Muslims. For, if we take the passage in its obvious sense, naskh (abrogation) must refer exclusively to Christianity's suspension of the Law. Naskh, however, is a primarily Muslim term for (among other things) the replacement of previous revealed religions, by Islam, and there are important arguments in Saadya's section on abrogation directed solely against the Muslim naskh.9 Saadya's statement that "all that I will mention . . . on the abrogation of the Law" refutes "this last group" is thus false unless "this last group" includes Islam. Our passage may, therefore, represent a cautious attempt on Saadya's part to direct the reader to his anti-Muslim polemic. Such caution is similarly in evidence in the anti-Muslim passages themselves-in the following, for example: 8M. Ventura (La Philosophie de Saadia Gaon [Paris: Vrin, 1934] 185-86) even suggested the possibility that this group might refer to Islam and its view of Jesus. This group, however, gives a figurative interpretation to "the sonship ascribed by them to [their Messiah]" while Islam simply denies that Jesus is the son of God; see Qur'an 9:30 and 4:171. Wolfson (Studies) suggests that Saadya's allusion to Muslims and the Qur'an was meant to indicate that this new Christian group represents an accommodation to the Muslim environment. 9Saadya discusses naskh in 3:7-10. In Muslim works, naskh generally refers to particular instances of abrogation within the realm of qur'anic revelation. Only rarely is it applied to the abrogation of pre-Islamic revelations. But this latter sense is the one uppermost in the minds of Jewish polemicists; see: J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (Oxford: Oxford University, 1977) 201; Steinschneider, Polemische iund apologetislhe Literatur, 322-25; A. H. Halkin, Iggeret Teman le-Rabbenu Mosheh B. Maimon (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952) xv. For rebuttal of what must be a Muslim argument on the section on naskh, see below, n. 10; see too Kitab al-,4Amna-t, 3/8 134; Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 166: "I have encountered people that asked: 'Who is this person of whom it is said: "And a messenger is sent among the nations: Rise up and let us rise against her [Edom] in battle'" (Obad 1:1)?" (I have altered the translation slightly). The "people" who raised this question were probably Muslim polemicists who took this verse as a prediction of the battle against Byzantium ("Edom") set in motion by Muhammad (the "messenger"). Cf. Kafih, Ha-Nibhar be-Ermunot ube-De'ot, 138 n. 73. See too the discussion of alteration of the qiblah in Kitab al-Amatdnat, 3/9 138; and Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 171, which makes sense only in the context of the polemic with Islam. NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS 253 Among the proponents of abrogation are some who adduce arguments Biblical verses .... The first of these is the statement of the Torah, "an Moses] said: The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them shined forth from Mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy 33:2)." But [in fact] these three are names of Mount Sinai.10 Saadya says nothing of the identity of these proponents of abro even the grounds upon which they claim support in Deut 3 simply proceeds to provide philological and geographical suppor final assertion. For the reader who does not already know that this verse was taken by Muslim polemicists to refer to the successive revela- tions of Judaism (Sinai), Christianity (Seir), and finally Islam (Paran = Mecca), the whole argument is incomprehensible." In his section on Redemption, Saadya could be still more prudent. Although the issue of Israel's lowly state in exile and whether that state is ever to end in Messianic redemption was of considerable importance in the Jewish-Muslim debate, it had its origins in the Jewish-Christian debate. All of the argumentation in Saadya's section on Redemption fits perfectly the terms of that latter controversy. Only a passing remark, inserted by Saadya in a completely different section, allows a reader (with Daniel open before him) to deduce that Israel's redemption is to follow the downfall of "the Arab kingdom."12 Although Saadya's standard term for redemption, in the Book of Doctrines and Beliefs, is the Arabic furqan, in this passage he substitutes the Hebrew yeshu'ah-probably a further discretion.13 Although abrogation and redemption are the only issues in which Saadya's argument is with Islam as a whole, there are other issues on which he rejected "orthodox"-as opposed to Mu'atazilite -doctrine. But here too Saadya's "art of writing" remains similar. As Professor Harry Wolfson pointed out, there is no direct criticism on the orthodox Muslim doctrine of attributes in Saadya, but it is implied in his criticism of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Similarly, criticism of the orthodox Muslim doctrine of an uncreated Word (in the sense of an uncreated Qur'an) is implied by Saadya in his criticism of the Christian 10Kitab al-Amanat 3/8 133; Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 164-65. (I have altered the translation slightly). 1iSee, e.g., Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur; 317-19; Halkin, Iggeret Teman, xvii-xviii. 12The eighth section of Saadya's work deals extensively with redemption. This passage occurs in the section on resurrection; see: Kitab al-Amanat 7/3 215-16; Book of Belies and Opinions, 270; Dan 11:36-12:1. These verses were commonly referred, by Jewish exegetes in the Arabic world, to Islamic history; see: Halkin, Iggeret Teman, 80 n. 104; B. Septimus, "Petrus Alfonsi on the Cult at Mecca," Speculum 56 (1981) 528. 13On the term "yeshu'ah" see S. D. Goitein, "'Meeting in Jerusalem': Messianic Expectations in the Letters of the Cairo Geniza," AJS Review 4 (1979) 49-57. 254 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW doctrine of an uncreated Word (in the sense of an uncreate existent Christ).14 Saadya's strategy is thus consistent througho Book of Doctrines and Beliefs-to camouflage polemic against Isla theologically parallel but politically prudent polemic against Chr ity.15 BERNARD SEPTIMUS Harvard University 14H. Wolfson, Repercussions of the Kalam in Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge: H University, 1979) 13, 87. 15See too the conclusion to section eight (Kitab al-Amainat, 254; Book of Bel Opinions, 322) in which Saadya once again refers to his arguments on redemption and God's unity as directed against Christianity. Steinschneider (Polemische und apologetische Literatur, 244) points out that the t of Jews in Arabic lands to write in Arabic, rather than Hebrew, inhibited op Muslim polemic. But fear of denunciation could inhibit polemic even in Hebre ings; see, e.g., Teshubot ha-Rambam, J. Blau, ed. (Jerusalem, 1960) 2. 726. The of Jewish anti-Muslim polemic was noted by Simon b. Zema Duran (Qeshet u [Leghorn, 1740] 25b), who attributed it to fear of reprisal. (It is interesting that who fled from Christian Spain to Muslim North Africa in the wake of the antiriots of 1391, nevertheless considers Spanish Christians much more willing to open polemic than Muslims.) Duran was writing in a much less tolerant perio Saadya's but his explanation is relevant to earlier periods as well. The tenth-centu ite Yefet b. Ali complains that the Jew under Islam "is not able to speak when h fied and calumniated concerning his religion" (wa-la yaqduru yatakallamu idha shu tu'ina 'ald dinihi). See his Commentary on the Book of Daniel (D. S., ed. and trans goliouth; Oxford: Oxford University, 1889) 78 (Arabic) p. 37 (English-this sen not fully translated). See also the comment of Moses ibn Ezra quoted by U. Simon Approaches to the Book of Pslams (Hebrew; Ramat Gan: Bar Ibn University 153-54 n. 84. According to Maimonides (Iggeret Teman, 96), it is the need to silent in the face of Muslim charges that makes life under Islam difficult to end also: ibid., n. 142; ibid, p. 106 and n. 159; and the translation by N. Stillman, The Arab Lands (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1979) 241-42, 246. Maim would probably not have agreed with the assessment of Perlmann (Medieval P 122) that "above all, the low rate of direct Islamic challenge seems to have had it in minimizing direct Jewish reaction." Certainly Saadya must have felt at least a lenged" by Islam as by Christianity.