(PDF) The “Meteorological” Interpretation of the Creation Narrative: John Philoponus’s Legacy in Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Maimonides

Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Maimonides both utilized earlier sources when they interpreted the biblical creation narrative. Some of their exegetical solutions, including the idea that the “firmament” and the “waters above the firmament” referred to regions of the atmosphere, can be traced back to earlier Judeo-Arabic commentaries. The latter were based on early medieval miaphysite Syriac sources, particularly Jacob of Edessa’s Hexaemeron, and the exegetical tradition can be traced back ultimately to John Philoponus’ treatise on the creation of the world. Philoponus’ work was never translated to Syriac or Arabic as far as we know, but Philoponian ideas were transmitted in miaphysite Syriac exegetical literature. Nevertheless, we do find Philoponian exegetical solutions in Maimonides’ work which are absent in the presently known intermediary sources. It is possible that Maimonides “reinvented” these Philoponian ideas through a systematic and creative re-reading of the transmitted material. However, despite his reputation as a major initiator of the “meteorological” exegesis in Jewish tradition, Maimonides was less innovative than Ibn Ezra in applying meteorological theories to biblical exegesis.

Ta m á s V i s i The “Meteorological” Interpretation of the Creation Narrative: John Philoponus’s Legacy in Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Maimonides ABSTRACT: Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Maimonides both utilized earlier sources when they interpreted the biblical creation narrative. Some of their exegetical solutions, including the idea that the “firmament” and the “waters above the firmament” referred to regions of the atmosphere, can be traced back to earlier Judeo-Arabic commentaries. The latter were based on early medieval miaphysite Syriac sources, particularly Jacob of Edessa’s Hexaemeron, and the exegetical tradition can be traced back ultimately to John Philoponus’ treatise on the creation of the world. Philoponus’ work was never translated to Syriac or Arabic as far as we know, but Philoponian ideas were transmitted in miaphysite Syriac exegetical literature. Nevertheless, we do find Philoponian exegetical solutions in Maimonides’ work which are absent in the presently known intermediary sources. It is possible that Maimonides “reinvented” these Philoponian ideas through a systematic and creative re-reading of the transmitted material. However, despite his reputation as a major initiator of the “meteorological” exegesis in Jewish tradition, Maimonides was less innovative than Ibn Ezra in applying meteorological theories to biblical exegesis. Tamás Visi (Kurt and Ursula Schubert Centre for Jewish Studies, Palacky University, Olomouc) © Aleph 22.1-2 (2022) pp. 39– 99 39 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides In an earlier publication I have argued that some of the early medieval JudeoArabic biblical commentators utilized miaphysite Syriac sources when they commented on the first chapter of Genesis.1 In particular, al-Qirqisānī and Saadia Gaon followed the paradigm of the miaphysite Syriac biblical exegetes, especially Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), as they included scientific materials in their explanations of the creation narrative. The lost Judeo-Arabic commentary of Daʾūd al-Muqammaṣ on the creation story was probably the major intermediator of Syriac exegetical ideas to the Jewish authors. Moreover, this intellectual tradition can be traced back to John Philoponus’s treatise on the six days of creation (De opificio mundi, written in Alexandria, ca. 546–560 CE).2 Thus, the legacy of Philoponus is palpable in the scientific-philosophical biblical exegesis of Jews and miaphysite Christians in the Middle Ages. This paper will document the influence of the early medieval Syriac and Judeo-Arabic exegetical literature on the creation narrative in the works of Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Maimonides. Most of the biblical commentaries on the creation narrative that were written before Abraham Ibn Ezra and after the time of Saadia and al-Qirqisānī are lost. For this reason, we have almost no direct evidence of the itinerary of exegetical ideas from the early medieval Middle East to twelfth-century Andalusia. Due to the loss of intermediary sources the channels of transmission cannot be reconstructed with certainty, and therefore many of the arguments presented here will establish only probabilities and not definite facts. A further difficulty is that the most relevant works of Saadia and al-Qirqisānī are known only from Genizah fragments. For this reason, we are often left with parallel exegetical ideas in Syriac sources on the one hand and in Ibn Ezra or Maimonides on the other. The analysis below is based on the methodological assumption that the reoccurrence of the characteristic exegetical ideas of early medieval Syriac miaphysite authors in Ibn Ezra’s biblical commentaries and Maimonides’ Guide of 1 Tamás Visi, “The “Meteorological” Interpretation of the Creation Narrative from John 2 I quote Philoponus’s work according to the Teubner edition: Walter Reichardt (ed.), Philoponus to Saadia Gaon,” Aleph 21.2 (2021): 209–278. Joannis Philoponi de opificio mundi libri VII (Leipzig: Teubner, 1897) – hereafter “Philoponus, Opf., ed. Reichardt.” Reichardt’s edition of the Greek text is reprinted and accompanied with a German translation by Scholten in Johannes Philoponos, De opificio mundi – Über Erschaffung der Welt, ed. and tr. Clemens Scholten, vol. 1–3, Fontes Christiani, 23 (Freiburg and New York: Herder, 1997). 40 Tamás Visi the Perplexed strongly suggest that these ideas were transmitted from Syriac sources to the commentaries of Daʾūd al-Muqammaṣ, Saadia Gaon, and al-Qirqisānī, and later they found their way to twelfth-century Andalusia, where Ibn Ezra and Maimonides encountered them. In this way Philoponus’s legacy, too, reached these two giants of medieval Jewish biblical exegesis. However, the mere existence of “parallels” between Jewish and Christian texts will not be considered decisive evidence of direct contact in itself. It will be argued that the congruities between Philoponus’s biblical exegesis and medieval Jewish scientific biblical exegesis go far beyond “parallels”; there is a fundamental continuity between the approaches of Philoponus and later Jewish interpreters of the creation narrative. The very idea of reading the creation narrative as an Aristotelian scientific statement, rather than a Platonizing allegory, as Philo of Alexandria did, can be traced back to Philoponus. We have to believe Moses, as he did many miracles, but “the authority of the prophet should also be confirmed by the Sages among the Greeks and the best of their statements [lit. “oracles”],” Philoponus writes in the mid-sixth century.3 Ibn Ezra and Maimonides would certainly agree six centuries later. In Ibn Ezra’s Long Commentary on Genesis 1:1, we find a programmatic statement that is comparable to that of Philoponus: ‫ואנחנו נסמוך על דברי משה שנתן כמה אותות ומופתים שהוא שליח השם‬ ‫ רק אם מצאנו דברים לאנשי המחקר שיתנו ראיות‬,‫ ולא נוסיף ולא נגרע‬,‫יתברך‬ ‫ וככה אם מצאנו סודות בדברי‬.‫ והם כדברי משה אדונינו נשמח בהם‬,‫על דבריהם‬ .‫ אז נשמח‬,‫קדמונינו שהם דומים לסודות חכמי המחקר‬ We rely on the words of Moses, who proved with so many signs and miracles that he is the messenger of God, may He be blessed, and we do not add to them and do not subtract from them, but if we find that the words of men of investigation, who provided proofs for their views, are similar to the words of Moses, our lord, then we will rejoice. And how much shall we rejoice if we find esoteric teachings [lit. “secrets,” sodot] in the words of our ancestors which are similar to the esoteric teachings of the men of investigation!4 3 4 Philoponus, Opf., 2.13 ed. Reichardt, p. 79. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Long Commentary on Genesis 1:1, printed in Michael Friedlaender, Essays on the Writings of Abraham Ibn Ezra, vol. 4 (London: Society of Hebrew Literature, 1877), Hebrew part, p. 20. 41 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides This short text demonstrates that Ibn Ezra’s approach to the creation narrative was akin to that of Philoponus six centuries before. I will argue that this affinity is not mere coincidence: Ibn Ezra and Maimonides received exegetical ideas from earlier sources which were based ultimately on Philoponus’s treatise on the six days of creation. At the end of this study, I will argue that some of the “parallels” between Maimonides and Philoponus can be more easily explained as resulting from their similar exegetical approaches than as any transmission of Philoponus’s particular exegetical solutions to Maimonides. 1. From Iraq to Andalusia: Commentaries on the Creation Narrative before the Mid-Twelfth Century Let us summarize first the information we have about the mostly lost biblical commentaries on Genesis 1 that could possibly be intermediators between the early medieval Judeo-Arabic commentaries (al-Muqammaṣ, Saadia, al-Qirqisānī) and Ibn Ezra. 1.1 The circulation of Saadia’s commentary in the East and in the West The works of al-Muqammaṣ, Saadia Gaon, and al-Qirqisānī were received first in their place of origin, Mesopotamia. Samuel ben Ḥofni Gaon (d. 1013) wrote a long commentary on the Pentateuch. While it is often assumed that this commentary covered only those parts of the Pentateuch which Saadia left uncommented, there is evidence suggesting that Samuel commented on the entire text.5 The fact that Ibn Ezra cites Samuel ben Ḥofni’s interpretation of Genesis 3:1 suggests that the latter commented on the creation narrative, too.6 Ibn Ezra accused his commentary of being digressive and including scientific materials that were only loosely related to the biblical text.7 It is likely that Samuel ben 5 Aaron Greenbaum, The Biblical Commentary of Rav Samuel Ben Hofni According to Geniza Manuscripts (Jerusalem: Harav Kook Institute, 1978), pp. 24*–26*. 6 Cf. Weiser’s introduction in Abraham Ibn Ezra, Perušei ha-Torah le-Rabbeinu Avraham Ibn Ezra, ed. Asher Weiser (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1977), 69 (Hebrew). 7 See Irene Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible: Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Introduction to the Torah (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), pp. 134–138, and146. 42 Tamás Visi Ḥofni’s commentary on the creation narrative, if he indeed wrote one, followed Saadia’s suit and included scientific discussions.8 The works of Saadia Gaon circulated in Andalusia during the course of the eleventh century. Two citations from Saadia’s commentary on Genesis have been identified in Judah ben Barzilai of Barcelona’s commentary on Sefer Yeṣira.9 Saadia’s commentary about the creation of the elements is cited in an anonymous biblical commentary entitled Doršei Rešumot that was probably composed in thirteenth-century Christian Spain.10 Saadia’s views about the meaning of “firmament” (raqiaʿ ) are quoted as late as 1310 in Isaac ben Joseph Israeli’s astronomical work.11 In light of these facts, it is unsurprising that Ibn Ezra often refers to Saadia’s views in his commentary on the creation narrative (see below). 1.2 “Rav Yiṣḥaq” It seems that the commentary attributed to a certain Rav Yiṣḥaq covered only the creation narrative, similarly to the hexaemeron-type of texts written by al-Muqammaṣ, al-Qirqisānī, and numerous Christian authors. This work is known only from a few critical remarks that Ibn Ezra made about it. Ibn Ezra made sarcastic comments on the length of the work, and indicated that the 8 Cf. Joshua Blau, “Directions of Saadia Gaon and Samuel ben Ḥofni,” Peamim 23 (1985): 38–41 (Hebrew), and idem, “Textual comments to A. Greenbaum, The Biblical Commentary of Rav Samuel Ben Hofni According to Geniza Manuscripts, Jerusalem 1979,” Tarbiz 55 (1986): 279–291 (Hebrew), esp. p. 279. 9 Henry Malter, Saadia Gaon, His Life and Works (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1921), p. 312. 10 Y. Tzvi Langermann, “A Citation from Saadia’s Long Commentary to Genesis, in Hebrew Translation,” Aleph 4 (2004): 293–297. 11 See Y. Tzvi Langermann, “‘The Making of the Firmament’: R. Ḥayyim Israeli, R. Isaac Israeli and Maimonides,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought (Shlomo Pines Jubilee Volume) 7 (1988): 461–476 (Hebrew), on pp. 467–468. Isaac Israeli’s summary is quoted by Isaac Abrabanel in his commentary on Genesis 1:6, too. The summary misses the point that the “strong spherical body” (‫ )גוף כדורי חזק‬posited by Saadia is, in fact, a strong wind which keeps the earth in its place. The aforementioned Syriac miaphysite author, Jacob of Edessa, described the firmament in similar terms too, see Visi, “The ‘Meteorological’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative,” pp. 228–232 and 250–257. 43 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides author included much scientific material concerning plants and animals.12 Thus, Rav Yiṣḥaq’s commentary on the six days of creation must have been a scientific encyclopedia comparable to those of Jacob of Edessa, Moses bar Kepha (d. 903), al-Muqammaṣ, and al-Qirqisānī. The identity of Rav Yiṣḥaq is unclear. Ibn Ezra enumerates him among the “sages of the yeshivot in the kingdom of the Arabs” (‫חכמי הישיבות במלכות‬ ‫)ישמעאלים‬, and for that reason it is logical to assume that one of the early medieval geonim of Babylonia, or perhaps the leader of a North-African yeshiva, is meant. A Babylonian Gaon by the name of Yiṣḥaq Gaon is known from the seventh century and a Zadok Gaon, who was also called Yiṣḥaq, lived in the ninth century; Weiser has suggested that Ibn Ezra meant one of them.13 However, since both of them lived before Saadia, it is unlikely that either composed a long scientific commentary on Genesis 1, which is never mentioned by anyone before Ibn Ezra.14 In the secondary literature, Rav Yiṣḥaq is often identified with the famous philosopher and physician, Isaac Israeli (ca. 850–932[?]), whose “Treatise on Let the Waters Bring Forth” (cf. Genesis 1:20) is mentioned by Moses Ibn Ezra, and whose exegetical views on Genesis 1:2 and 1:10 are quoted by David Qimḥi (Radak) in his commentary on these verses.15 Moreover, a short text entitled Sefer Yeṣira is attributed to him in MS Munich, BSL, Cod. Hebr. 47, 12 Cf. Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible, pp. 145–146. 13 See the introduction to Ibn Ezra, Perušei ha-Torah, p. 64. 14 On Saadia’s role as an innovator in a number of literary genres, including biblical commentary, see Robert Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 235–248 and 300–315. Brody argues that Saadia’s holding of the office of Gaon brought about a clear shift in cultural patterns that resulted, among others, in the genre of Judeo-Arabic biblical commentaries. It is unlikely that any of the rather conservative geonim of the pre-Saadian period composed a long scientific commentary on the creation narrative in Judeo-Arabic. 15 Ibid., pp. 125–126; Uriel Simon, “Yishaki: A Spanish Biblical Commentator Whose ‘Book Should Be Burned’, according to Abraham ibn. Ezra,” in Minha le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna, ed. Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 154 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 300–317, on pp. 300–301. Moses Ibn Ezra’s mention of Israeli’s treatise is printed by Moritz Steinschneider, Catalogus librorum hebraeorum in bibliotheca Bodleiana (Berlin: Welt-verlag, 1931), col. 1116. 44 Tamás Visi fol. 325v–326v.16 Steinschneider identified this text with the aforementioned “Treatise on Let the Waters Bring Forth.”17 However, this short text is by no means a treatise on the meaning of Genesis 1:20; it is in fact an interpretation of several passages of Sefer Yeṣira. A serious objection against identifying “Rav Yiṣḥaq” with Isaac Israeli is that Isaac Israeli was never a “sage of a yeshiva” nor a halakhic authority (or a rabbi in the proper sense). On the other hand, since he was a contemporary of Saadia Gaon, it is understandable if Ibn Ezra treated him as a geonic author. Moreover, Isaac Israeli’s erudition in natural sciences and philosophy enabled him to write a long hexaemeron comparable to those of Saadia and al-Qirqisānī, and for this reason, the hypothesis that he indeed wrote such a work is plausible. On the other hand, no primary source states that Isaac Israeli authored any commentary on Genesis 1, and the few exegetical remarks quoted in the name of Isaac Israeli may have originated in his other writings. In the case that Israeli indeed wrote a commentary on the six days of the creation, then his work may have been an important predecessor of Saadia’s and al-Qirqisānī’s interpretations of the creation. But this alleged commentary is never mentioned by either Saadia or al-Qirqisānī, nor is it referred to in any other early medieval Judeo-Arabic or Hebrew texts about creation. Another possible candidate is Isaac ben Moses ben Sakri (or Sukri), who originated in Andalusia, but moved to Baghdad around 1070 and became the head of the yeshiva there. He fits the description provided by Ibn Ezra better than Isaac Israeli, but we do not know anything about his literary works.18 A Hebrew grammarian called Isaac ben Yashush of Toledo has also been suggested by Weiser. 19 Almost nothing is known of him, except that Ibn Ezra mentions him among other writers of Hebrew grammars. Yet another possible candidate is Isaac Ibn Ghiyyat, on whom see more below. Two elements of Ibn Ezra’s account of “Rav Yiṣḥaq” describe Isaac Ibn Ghiyyat quite accurately: (1) he was a head of a yeshiva in Lucena, Muslim Spain, 16 Cf. Alexander Altmann and Samuel Miklós Stern, Isaac Israeli: A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 107. 17 Steinschneider, Catalogus Bodleiana, col. 1116. 18 Cf. Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, p. 13. 19 Cf. Ibn Ezra, Perušei ha-Torah,p. 1, note 13. 45 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides and (2) the verbosity of his writings was noted by Moses Ibn Ezra,20 and his extant commentary on Ecclesiastes is indeed quite long;21 therefore, if he wrote a commentary on Genesis, one could expect it to have been long. On the other hand, he lived in eleventh-century Andalusia and thus he did not belong to the time and milieu of the geonim. In sum, the most likely candidate is still Isaac Israeli, although this identification is by no means unproblematic. It is possible that the identity of Rav Yiṣḥaq was unclear to Ibn Ezra and his contemporaries, too, and it is possible that this commentary was misattributed to Isaac Israeli by Ibn Ezra, David Qimḥi, and others. 1.3 Yefet ben Eli An early medieval Karaite commentator, Yefet ben Eli (ca. 960-ca. 1005), was read by Ibn Ezra.22 The importance of this Karaite author is underscored by the fact that he certainly drew from al-Qirqisānī.23 He even mentioned al-Muqammaṣ, thus he could have been a possible link between Ibn Ezra and the earlier Judeo-Arabic texts that transmitted exegetical and scientific materials drawn from Syriac sources.24 This influential Karaite commentary is well attested in manuscripts, although not yet edited. A study on the relationship between Yefet ben Eli and Ibn Ezra is a desideratum, and it cannot be attempted here. Nevertheless, having read Yefet’s commentary on Genesis 1:1–8 in one of the manuscripts (Paris, BNF, héb. 279, fol. 2r–31r), I can briefly state that there are indeed several interesting points of contact and parallels between Ibn Ezra and Yefet ben Eli, but to our disappointment, they are unrelated to the Philoponian legacy 20 See Steinschneider, Catalogus Bodleiana, col. 1111–1112. 21 The commentary was misattributed to Saadia Gaon and published as the Gaon’s work in Yosef Kafah (ed.), Ḥameš Megillot […] ʿim perušim ʿatiqim (Jerusalem: Ha-aguda le-haṣalat ginzei Teman and A. Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1962), pp. 161–296. 22 For a list of Ibn Ezra’s references to Yefet, consult Weiser’s introduction in Ibn Ezra, Perušei ha-Torah, pp. 63–64. 23 Cf. Daniel Frank, “Search Scripture Well:” Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East, Études sur le Judaïsme edieval, 39 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004), pp. 14–15 and passim. 24 Sarah Stroumsa, Dāwūd Ibn Marwān Al-Muqammiṣ’s Twenty Chapters (ʿIshrūn maqāla), (Leiden: Brill, 1989), pp. 16, n. 11 and 158, n. 24. 46 Tamás Visi of al-Muqammaṣ and al-Qirqisānī. Yefet ben Eli was not an accomplished scientist, and his commentary on the creation story has little scientific content. Thus, Yefet ben Eli’s commentary played no role in transmitting the Philoponian legacy to Ibn Ezra. 1.4 Isaac Ibn Ghiyyat Isaac Ibn Ghiyyat (1038–1089) was the head of the yeshiva of Lucena and authored a number of halakhic and grammatical works, many of which remained unfinished due to his untimely death, as one of his students, Moses Ibn Ezra relates.25 Ibn Ghiyyat’s Judeo-Arabic commentary on Ecclesiastes is extant.26 An interesting comment on the word ruaḥ in Ecclesiastes 1:6 mentions the theory, known from Syriac sources, that the “spirit of God” in Genesis 1:2 denotes the sphere of air that is under the sphere of elementary fire, as well as Saadia’s interpretation of ruaḥ ʾElohim in Genesis 1:2 as strong wind. Note especially the phrase tawassuṭ al-markaz (“positioning the center [in its place]”) which probably alludes to Saadia’s theory that the wind keeps the earth in the center of the universe: One of the scholars believes that it is the air which surrounds [the earth], for since [the biblical author] mentioned the sphere of fire, he then begins to describe the sphere of air which glides to the ether27 and he says “the air goes round and round” (cf. Ecclesiastes 1:6), and then he relates that it is molded by the whirling of the movement, saying: “to its roundness returns the air” (cf. ibid.). And someone else believes that it is the circulation and blowing of the wind, for continual motion as well as positioning the center [in its place] are only by the wind.28 25 The relevant text is printed by Steinschneider, Catalogus Bodleiana, col. 1111. 26 The evidence for Ibn Ghiyyat’s authorship is summarized in Shlomo Pines, “Four Extracts from Abu’l-Barakat Al-Baghdadi’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes,” Tarbiz 33 (1964): 198–213, on pp. 212–213 (Hebrew). 27 Reading ‫ לאלאת'יר‬instead of ‫ ;לאלת'יר‬see Pines, “Four Extracts,” 212. 28 Tr. Sarah Japhet (modified); cf. Sarah Japhet, “‘Goes to the South and Turns to the North’ (Ecclesiastes 1:6) : The Sources and History of the Exegetical Traditions,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 1 (1993/4): 289–322, here p. 319, note 92. Original: Kafah, Ḥameš Megillot, pp. 177–178. 47 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides This short text is an important piece of evidence of the eleventh-century Andalusian reception of Saadia’s exegesis of Genesis 1:2. There is no source indicating that Ibn Ghiyyat wrote a commentary on the creation story, unless the “Rav Yiṣḥaq” mentioned above is indeed Ibn Ghiyyat. 1.5 Moses Ibn Jiqatillah, Judah ibn Balaam, “Mar Hassan,” and Ibn Janāḥ Other Andalusian biblical commentators, who probably wrote commentaries on Genesis, but whose works are not extant include Moses Ibn Jiqatillah, Judah ibn Balaam, and a certain “Mar Hassan” mentioned by Ibn Ezra.29 They were likely to have drawn from Saadia’s commentary and they may have utilized other early medieval Judeo-Arabic sources, including al-Muqammaṣ and al-Qirqisānī.30 Unfortunately, these commentaries on the creation narrative are not preserved and only a few second-hand reports are available, chiefly in Ibn Ezra’s works. Thus, we cannot answer the question whether, and if so, to what degree, these commentators received the scientific elements and the Philoponian exegetical solutions. We find another possible piece of evidence in a linguistic text composed in eleventh-century Andalusia. It is a brief remark in Abū ’l-Walīd Marwān Ibn Janāḥ’s Hebrew lexicon on the word ‘firmament’ (raqiaʿ), stating that the Bible does not claim that the earth is flat.31 Refuting the flat earth theory was an important topic in al-Qirqisānī’s Tafsīr Berešit as well as in earlier miaphysite Christian commentaries by Moses bar Kepha, Jacob of Edessa, and John Philoponus.32 It is possible that Ibn Janāḥ included this remark in his lexicon, because he read about the debate concerning the sphericity of the earth in a Judeo-Arabic biblical commentary. 29 See Shlomo Sela, “La creación del mundo supralunar según Abraham Ibn Ezra: un estudio comparativo de sus dos comentarios a Génesis 1,14,” Sefarad 63 (2003): 147–181; here pp. 155–156. 30 On these commentaries in general, see Uriel Simon, “The Spanish School of Biblical Interpretation,” in Moreshet Sepharad: The Sephardi Legacy, vol. 1, ed. Haim Beinart (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), pp. 115–136. 31 Abū ’l-Walīd Marwān Ibn Janāḥ, Kitab al-’Usul – The Book of Hebrew Roots, ed. Adolf [Abraham] Neubauer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875), p. 689; cf. idem and Judah Ibn Tibbon (tr.), Sefer ha-shorashim, ed. Wilhelm Bacher (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1896), p. 487, s.v. ‫רקע‬. 32 See Visi, “The ‘Meteorological’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative.” 48 Tamás Visi 1.6 Ibn Ezra and the Legacy of Geonic and Karaite Exegesis The legacy of early medieval Geonic and Karaite biblical exegesis reached Abraham Ibn Ezra (ca. 1089-ca. 1167) in Andalusia, who was an accomplished scientist in addition to his erudition in Hebrew grammar, philology, and poetry. In his critical comments on the geonic commentaries we can identify a new cultural-literary ideal: the separation of biblical exegesis from scientific instruction. While Ibn Ezra utilized scientific concepts in his exegesis, he did not consider the genre of biblical commentary appropriate for transmitting the sciences and for this reason he disapproved of the centuries-old practice of expanding commentaries on Genesis 1 to scientific encyclopedias that was widely performed by Jewish and Christian commentators in the Early Middle Ages.33 Ibn Ezra complained that scientific proofs are missing in these works, and argued that it is better to learn the sciences from scientific books.34 Thus, he did not discuss, for example, the sphericity of the Earth or the hypothesis of the fifth element in his commentary on Genesis 1, although he did read the creation narrative through scientific and philosophical lenses, just as al-Muqammaṣ, al-Qirqisānī, and Saadia Gaon did. 2. The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Abraham Ibn Ezra 2.1 Ibn Ezra on the Creation Narrative Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the creation narrative is based on a few principles that he formulated in different contexts and applied very consistently to the creation narrative throughout the different versions of his commentaries on Genesis. The earliest is the so-called Short Commentary on the Pentateuch, or Sefer ha-Yašar, that Ibn Ezra wrote in Lucca between 1142 and 1145. He wrote the Long Commentary on Genesis in 1155–6 in Rouen.35 33 On the origins of this practice, see Clemens Scholten, “Weshalb wird die Schöpfungsgeschichte zum naturwisssenschaftlichen Bericht? Hexameronauslegung von Basilios von Cäsarea zu Johannes Philoponos,” Theologische Quartalschrift 177 (1997): 1–15. 34 Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible, pp. 145–146. 35 See Shlomo Sela and Gad Freudenthal, “Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Scholarly Writings: A Chronological Listing,” Aleph 6 (2006): 13–55. 49 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides A – The meaning of the divine names. In several works Ibn Ezra proposed the idea that the difference between the two basic Hebrew names of God, namely the tetragrammaton (YHWH) and ʾElohim, corresponds to two different types of relations God can have towards the world. The tetragrammaton referred to God as a transcendent deity who suspends the natural order of the world whenever He thinks it is the right thing to do so. As opposed to this, ʾElohim refers to divine power as mediated through the angelic hierarchy (or immaterial intellects) and natural order. In other words, ʾElohim is God as the guardian of the natural order of the world. For example, if God is identical with Aristotle’s Prime Mover, then His activity to keep the celestial spheres in motion would be described by the word ʾElohim, according to the implications of Ibn Ezra’s theory.36 Creation out of nothing was certainly not merely sustaining an already existing natural order. Therefore, any biblical statement about creation out of nothing would require using the tetragrammaton as the name of God. However, in the six-day creation narrative God is always called ʾElohim, including the famous opening verse: “In the beginning God (ʾElohim) created…” If we apply Ibn Ezra’s principle consistently, we cannot but conclude that the six-day creation narrative does not refer to creation out of nothing at all, but relates a natural process which took place within an ordinary framework of natural order: ʾElohim is a cause of this natural order, but does not suspend it for a moment. This was a radical and, as far as we know, unprecedented innovation of Abraham Ibn Ezra.37 Ibn Ezra was consistent and endorsed the radical consequences of his approach, as we shall see. The kernel of the idea is attested already in the short commentary on Exodus written around 1145 in Northern Italy: 36 David Rosin points out the similarity between Ibn Ezra’s and Judah ha-Levi’s views on this topic (cf. Kuzari IV, 15); Rosin, “Die Religionsphilosophie Abraham Ibn Esra’s,” MGWJ (1898): 17–33 and 58–73, here pp. 58–59. See also Abraham Lipshits, “Iyyun ve-ḥeqer be-ferushey Ibn Ezra le-Berešit, pereq 1” (An investigation of Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis 1), Sinai 134 (2005): 19–45. 37 Cf. Hermann Greive, Studien zum jüdischen Neuplatonismus: Die Religionsphilosophie des Abraham Ibn Ezra (Berlin and New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1973), pp. 55–57; MauriceRuben Hayoun, L’exégèse philosophique dans le judaïsme médiéval (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr-Paul Siebeck, 1992), p. 154. 50 Tamás Visi Pharaoh knew about the existence of ʾElohim, but he did not know this Name [the tetragrammaton]. This is why this Name is not found in the creation story and you will not find it in Ecclesiastes either.38 The same point is elaborated in more detail in Yesod morah, which Ibn Ezra composed in London in 1158, and in the Long Commentary on Genesis.39 The importance of this idea was duly noticed by medieval commentators.40 B – The creation narrative concerns only the sublunar world. This second principle follows logically from the first one. Ibn Ezra assumes, in accordance with the standard Aristotelian cosmology, that no natural changes modify the basic order of the celestial sphere, and therefore, dramatic natural changes can occur only in the sublunary world that is composed of the four elements and subject to coming into being and perishing. If (1) the biblical creation narrative relates a major change, and (2) the celestial spheres cannot undergo major changes, then (3) the creation narrative cannot concern the celestial spheres, and therefore, (4) the creation narrative concerns only the sublunar world. Whatever we read in Genesis 1, we have to look for its referent in the sublunar world.41 38 Short comm. on Ex 3: 13, see Leopold [Yehuda] Fleischer (ed.), Sefer Ibn Ezra le-sefer Šemot (Ibn Ezra’s [short] commentary on Exodus) (Vienna, n. p., 1926), p. 22. Cf. also Fleischer’s supercommentary (Mishneh Ezra) ad loc. on p. 21. Cf. also Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Ecclesiastes 12:14. 39 Ibn Ezra, Yesod morah ve-sod Torah, ed. Joseph Cohen and Uriel Simon, 2nd edition (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2007), pp. 204–205; Friedlaender, Essays, Hebrew part, pp. 23–24. 40 See Moshe min ha-Neʿarim’s supercommentary on Ibn Ezra ad Genesis 1:1, ed. Ofer Elior in Howard Kreisel (ed.), Five Early Commentators on R. Abraham Ibn Ezra: The Earliest Supercommentaries on Ibn Ezra’s Torah Commentary, The Goldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought Publication, 24 (Beer-Sheva: Hoṣaʾat ha-sefarim šel Universitat BenGurion ba-Negev, 2017), p. 48 (Hebrew). See also Dov Schwartz (ed.), Commentary on Yesod Mora: The Commentary of Mordekhai ben Eliezer Komtiyano on R. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Yesod Mora (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2010), p. 186. 41 This principle was also duly noticed by medieval supercommentators, see Kreisel, Five Early Commentators, pp. 37, 39, 40, 47. 51 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides C – “Meteorological” exegesis. Since the creation story refers only to sublunar processes (cf. B), Ibn Ezra interprets the words šamayim (heaven) and raqia‘ (firmament) in Genesis 1 as referring to parts of the atmosphere. Celestial changes in general are reinterpreted as atmospheric changes. When the biblical text states that God placed the celestial bodies in the firmament, Ibn Ezra interprets it as a change in the atmosphere that made the air transparent and enabled the celestial bodies to appear in the sky: God put the images of the celestial bodies into that part of the atmosphere which is called “firmament.” Consequently, Aristotelian meteorological theories have key importance in understanding the scientific content of the biblical text. Ibn Ezra reconstructs a unified natural process that concerns the arrangement of the four elements under the sphere of the Moon and the various changes in that arrangement caused by sunlight, the motion of the celestial bodies, and the heat of the reflected sunrays. The biblical creation narrative is understood by Ibn Ezra as a dramatized account of meteorological processes in the sublunary world.42 In sum, Ibn Ezra’s approach to the biblical text was clearly akin to that of Philoponus. The creation narrative was not an allegory of a spiritual world, as it had been for Philo of Alexandria over a millennium earlier, and would be for the Kabbalists a few decades after Ibn Ezra, but a record of the genesis of the physical world which could be interpreted in terms of natural processes.43 However, Ibn Ezra did not subscribe to two of Philoponus’s major propositions: he accepted the Aristotelian hypothesis of the fifth element and he did not consider Gen 1:1 as a sentence stating that creation was out of nothing. 2.2 Ibn Ezra’s Interpretation of Particular Passages The key innovations were also justified by grammatical and lexical arguments. Analyzing Genesis 1:1, Ibn Ezra came to the conclusion that the first sentence of the Bible was a subordinate temporal clause: “when God began 42 Cf. Short Commentary on Genesis 1:3 s.v. va-yomer, where Ibn Ezra interprets the phrase “and God said” as a poetic image that denotes the effortless divine will which is the ultimate cause of the natural order. 43 Cf. Amos Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986), p. 216. 52 Tamás Visi to create the heavens and earth…”44 Moreover, Ibn Ezra argued that the verb “to create” did not necessarily refer to creation out of nothing. Finally, taking the word “heavens” to be an equivalent of the “firmament” of Genesis 1:6–8, Ibn Ezra concluded that the text referred to a physical process within the sublunar world, and it presumed the existence of the celestial bodies. Thus, Genesis 1 was not an account of creation out of nothing in Ibn Ezra’s opinion, but a description of natural processes that lead to the emergence of the sublunary world that is familiar to us. As has been mentioned above, this was a radical and, as far as we know, unprecedented innovation of Abraham Ibn Ezra. Commenting on the word “firmament” in the Short Commentary on Genesis 1:6 Ibn Ezra writes: ‫ כי כאשר התחזק האור על הארץ והרוח יבש מהארץ נהפך‬.‫וזה הרקיע הוא האויר‬ ‫ וכן אמר במזמור עם נוטה שמים כיריעה המקרה במים‬.‫הלהט ונעשה הרקיע‬ ‫והזכיר העבים והרוח ויסוד ארץ והוא גבוה על המים וכן כתוב כי הוא על ימים‬ ‫ לרוקע הארץ על המים וכן כל הולך אל הים יורד יקרא וטעם הקורא למי‬.‫יסדה‬ .‫ ואחר כן וישפכם‬.‫ שיעלו והם עננים‬.‫הים‬ And this firmament is the air [hu ha-ʾavir] because as soon as the light became strong on the earth and the wind dried up [something] of the earth, the heat [lit. “flame”] was reflected, and the firmament was made. And similarly it is said in the psalm (Psalms 104:2) “He stretches the heavens like a curtain… the one who makes roofbeams of water”. And it mentions the clouds and the wind and the founding of that earth, which is higher than the water, and thus it is written, “for He founded it upon the seas” (Psalms 24:2) “the One Who extends the earth over the waters” (Psalms 136:6) and similarly, anyone who goes to the sea is called, “goer down.” The meaning of “the One Who calls to the waters of the sea” (Amos 5:8) – so that they should ascend – and they are the clouds – and afterwards, “and He pours them out.” 44 In the Long Commentary the grammatical analysis is slightly changed, but the interpretation of the content of the sentence is maintained. Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of this verse may have been influenced by his acceptance of the “Indian” doctrine of cyclic destruction and recreation of the sublunar world; cf. Sela, “La creación del mundo supralunar según Abraham Ibn Ezra,” pp. 176–177. 53 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides Similarly, in the Long Commentary on Genesis 1:6 he writes: ,‫ והרוח יבש המים מעל הארץ‬,‫והנכון בעיני כי הארץ היתה מכוסה במים‬ .‫ אז נראה‬,)‫א׳‬:‫ ויעבר אלהים רוח על הארץ וישוכו המים (בראשית ח׳‬:‫כדרך‬ ,‫ והוא האויר ההוה על הארץ במעשה אור השמש‬,‫ובעבור האור היה הרקיע‬ ‫ ויתחמם האויר הסמוך‬,‫כאשר יגיע אל הארץ יתהפך למעלה בעבור עובי הארץ‬ .‫אל הארץ‬ And my opinion is that the earth was covered with water, and the wind dried the water from the surface of the earth – just as [in the biblical verse] “and God sent a wind on the earth and the waters receded” [Genesis 8:1] – and then it [i.e., the earth] became visible. And the firmament came into being due to the light. And it [i.e., the firmament] is the air which came into being over the earth due to the work of the light of the Sun, as it [i.e., the light] reached the earth it was reflected upwards due to the thickness of earth, and it heated the air that was close to the earth. Despite his telegraphic style the main points Ibn Ezra makes in this paragraph can be clearly identified if we compare the two passages to each other and to the rest of the commentaries.45 Ibn Ezra envisions a natural process: (1) the surface of the earth was covered with water, (2) the wind [ruaḥ] dried up the waters from a part of the surface of the Earth, (3) the dried surfaces reflected the sunrays, (4) the reflected sunrays generated heat in the lower part of the air, (5) heat dried the air which became clear and transparent, and eventually all the celestial bodies became visible, (6) clouds were formed above in the air. According to Genesis 1:17 God placed the celestial bodies “in the firmament of the heavens.” Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of “firmament” as air is open to challenge on the basis of this verse: the Sun and the Moon are not situated in the atmosphere under the clouds, so “firmament” cannot mean “air” here. Ibn Ezra’s solution to this objection was a clever reinterpretation of the phrase “God placed.” Placing the celestial bodies “in the firmament” on the fourth day meant merely that they became visible in the air that was cleared by the heat. 45 Cf. Leo Prijs, Abraham Ibn Esra’s Kommentar zu Genesis, Kapitel I; Einleitung, Edition und Superkommentar (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1973), pp. 39–43, which carefully reconstructs Ibn Ezra’s interpretation. Note, however, that Prijs’s reconstruction of Saadia’s view is outdated, as it does not take into consideration Moshe Zucker’s edition of the Judeo-Arabic fragments of Saadia’s commentary on Genesis. 54 Tamás Visi Thus, the scientific sense of Genesis 1:17 is tied up with the scientific sense of Genesis 1:2–8. It was a more serious problem that Ibn Ezra’s theory apparently contradicted the order of the six days of creation, inasmuch as the dry lands were created only on the third day, after the creation of the firmament on the second; whereas Ibn Ezra’s reconstruction demands the opposite order (as the drying process was a cause of the genesis of the “firmament”). Ibn Ezra solved this problem by a truly radical reinterpretation of the chronology of creation, relying on an argument based on his views of Hebrew syntax. He argued that the Hebrew past tense could have the meaning of pluperfect: thus, the sentence “and God said, let the waters gather...” should be understood “and [before the third day] God had said, let the waters gather...” Therefore, despite the fact that the drying of the land is narrated as an event of day three, in fact it took place before the events of day two. 2.3 Ibn Ezra and Aristotelian Meteorology The aforementioned innovations enabled Ibn Ezra to connect the biblical verse to a piece of Aristotelian meteorological theory. Aristotle explains in Meteorology I,3 340a27–33 that the sunrays reflected from the surface of the earth heat the lower part of the atmosphere and prevent the formation of clouds there. Ibn Ezra uses this theory to explain the genesis of the “firmament” that is, the air separating the lower waters from the upper waters. If the creation narrative concerns only the sublunar world, then we may surmise that the celestial bodies, including the Sun, existed already at the very beginning of the process. Therefore, the Aristotelian idea about the Sun’s keeping the clouds off from the lower part of the atmosphere could be proposed as a scientific interpretation of Genesis 1:6–8. While the idea that “firmament” means “air” is not new at all, the connection to the Aristotelian theory of reflected sunrays is probably Ibn Ezra’s innovation, as it is not documented in earlier sources, such as Jacob of Edessa, Moses bar Kepha, Saadia, and al-Qirqisānī. Since they believed that the Sun was not yet created on day two of the creation and thus the sunrays could not possibly be reflected, it probably never crossed their mind to utilize this idea. Ibn Ezra’s radical reinterpretation of the creation narrative as a sublunary process enabled him to posit the sunrays as the cause of the “firmament.” Ibn Ezra may have encountered the Aristotelian theory of reflected heat in a number of sources, including the Letters of the Iḫwān al-Ṣafā, Ibn Sīnā’s writings on natural philosophy, and perhaps, Judeo-Arabic adaptations of 55 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides Ibn Sīnā’s writing on natural philosophy.46 Interestingly, meteorological theories were transmitted in commentaries on the creation narrative too, which were often scientific encyclopedias in the Early Middle Ages. Both of the aforementioned Syriac miaphysite authors, Jacob of Edessa and Moses bar Kepha, included long meteorological sections in their treatises on the six days of creation.47 Moreover, among the surviving fragments of al-Qirqisānī’s Tafsīr Berešit we find a discussion of the “exhalations” from the earth, and also a mention of the sunrays.48 Therefore, Ibn Ezra may have encountered this notion of Aristotelian meteorology in some of the encyclopedic commentaries on the creation narrative, such as the works of Samuel ben Ḥofni or “Rav Yiṣḥaq.” 2.4 What Did Ibn Ezra Find in His Sources? Ibn Ezra certainly encountered the idea that Genesis 1:1–2 relates the creation and the natural order of the four elements in earlier sources, such as Saadia’s commentary.49 This theme is so widespread in the commentaries that it makes no sense to trace it back to any particular source. Ibn Ezra must have found 46 Cf. Paul Lettinck, Aristotle’s Meteorology and Its Reception in the Arab World, Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus, 10 (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1999), pp. 54–57. On Abraham Ibn Daʾūd’s compendium of Ibn Sīnā’s natural philosophy, see Krisztina Szilágyi, “A Fragment of a Book of Physics from the David Kaufmann Genizah Collection (Budapest) and the Identity of Ibn Daud with Avendauth,” Aleph 16 (2016): 11–31; Krisztina Szilágyi and Y. Tzvi Langermann, “A Fragment of a Composition on Physics by Abraham Ibn Daud in Judeo-Arabic: An Edition of the Text,” Aleph 16 (2016): 33–38. 47 Jean Baptiste Chabot (ed.), Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron, seu in opus creationis libri septem, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 92, Syr. II.56, (Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae, 1928), pp. 78-94; Lorenz Schlimme, Der Hexaemeronkommentar des Moses bar Kepha: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Untersuchungen, Göttinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca 14 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977), vol. 2, pp. 863–880. 48 MS St. Petersburg, The National Library of Russia, Ms. EVR ARAB I 3143, fol. 12v and 36v and Ms. EVR. ARAB 3225 fol. 18r-v (mentioning the reflection of sunrays). As al-Qirqisānī cites some of the works of al-Kindī, he may have known the theory of the reflected sunrays heating the lower part of the atmosphere from al-Kindī’s treatise on this topic, cf. Lettinck, Aristotle’s Meteorology and Its Reception, pp. 50–53. 49 Saadia Gaon, Perush Rav Saadya gaon le-Bereshit (R. Saadia Gaon’s commentary on Genesis), ed. Moshe Zucker (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1984), pp. 27-30. 56 Tamás Visi discussions of the natures of the four elements, as well as the celestial spheres, in Saadia’s commentary on Genesis and perhaps in other sources too. Ibn Ezra explicitly rejected Saadia’s interpretation of Genesis 1:6–8 without explaining what exactly he found objectionable in the Gaon’s work. I have argued elsewhere that Saadia probably understood ruaḥ ʾelohim as a strong wind that keeps the earth in its place and brings rain upon divine order, and identified this wind with the “firmament” of Genesis 1:6–8.50 Dismissing Saadia’s views, Ibn Ezra wrote that “the Gaon said things about the firmament that never existed” [‫]אמר הגאון על הרקיע דברים שלא היו‬. Perhaps the target of the criticism was Saadia’s theory that the strong wind, that is, the firmament, kept the earth in its place. This was a piece of Stoic physics in Saadia’s thought, which probably looked absurd to Ibn Ezra, who accepted the Aristotelian explanation of the natural movements of the elements. 2.4.1 A Comment on the Hebrew Particle ʾet The basic function of the Hebrew particle ʾet is to indicate the direct object of the verb in a sentence. It marks the words “heavens” and “earth’” in the first sentence of the Bible as the direct objects of the verb “created.” Ibn Ezra adds the following comment: ‫ והוא סימן עם הפעול‬,‫וטעם את כמו עצם הדבר‬ And the meaning of ʾet is the substance of the thing, and it is the sign of the object of the action [paʿul] While the grammatical part of the comment is certainly relevant, it is unclear why Ibn Ezra believed that ʾet meant “substance of the thing,” too, and why this information was worthy of noting in the context of Genesis 1:1. Ibn Janāḥ’s Hebrew dictionary, which was a major source for Ibn Ezra, enumerates several usages of ʾet but it does not state that the particle can mean “substance” too. Therefore, we have to look for different sources.51 Saadia Gaon’s commentary on Genesis 1:1 is not preserved in its entirety, and the extant fragments do not contain any comment on ʾet. But the shorter recension of al-Qirqisānī’s commentary does contain a passage that is comparable to Ibn Ezra’s comment (for the full text, see Appendix, Text 1). 50 See Visi, “The ‘Meteorological’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative,” pp. 250-257 51 Ibn Janāḥ, Kitab al-’Usul, pp. 75–78; Sefer ha-shorashim, pp. 51–53. 57 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides ‫ ולו קאל ברא אלהים השמים והארץ‬,‫ ואת‬,‫מסלה פי קו' פי אלסמא ואלארץ' את‬ ‫לכאן פי דלך מקנע? אלג'ואב אן הד'ה כלמה מסתעמלה פי לג'ה אלעבראני‬ ,‫ ואת‬,‫] וקד זעם קום אן קו' את‬...[ ‫מענאהא איא ואלעבראני יסתעמלהא כתירא‬ ‫ וד'לך ליזיל קול מן ידעי אנהמא כ'לקתא מן ג'והר כאן‬,‫תעריף בכ'לקה ג'והרהא‬ ‫מוג'וד קבל ד'לך מן אלמכ'לוקאת הו אעראצ'המא דון ג'ירהמא‬ Question about [the text’s] saying ʾet and ve-ʾet concerning the heaven and earth: if it said “baraʾ ʾelohim ha-šamayim ve-ha-ʾareṣ” wouldn’t that be sufficient? Answer: this phrase is used in the Hebrew language in the same sense as [in Arabic] iyyā, but in Hebrew it is used more frequently […].52 And some think that saying ’et and ve-ʾet [Scripture] teaches us that their substances were created, in order to refute the statement of those who say that they were created from a substance that existed prior to the creatures. This [possibility can be excluded] only by the properties of these two [phrases, i.e., ʾet and ve-ʾet]. A major source of al-Qirqisānī was al-Muqammaṣ, whose work was based on earlier Syriac sources. Therefore, the possibility can be raised that this explanation of the particle was adopted from Syriac sources. At this point a short excursus about the history of Syriac language and literature is necessary. The Old Testament part of the Peshitta was translated from Hebrew, and at Genesis 1:1 it renders Hebrew ʾet as yat. This particle is used in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic texts as a marker of the direct object, an equivalent of Hebrew ʾet, but in Syriac the direct object is usually marked differently. The Peshitta Old Testament may have originated as a Jewish targum and in a few cases it employs yat as direct object marker, similarly to the practice of the Western Aramaic Jewish targumim, although not necessarily depending on them.53 However, Syriac readers were unfamiliar with the grammatical function of this particle and were puzzled by its occurrence in Peshitta, Genesis 1:1. It was Saint Ephrem in the fourth century, who interpreted yat as “substance” first: he explained Genesis 1:1 as “in 52 In the omitted passage al-Qirqisānī compares the Hebrew and the Arabic usages. 53 The theory that the Peshitta was originally a Jewish targum has been elaborated in M. P. Weitzman, The Syriac Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). At the same time, Weitzman argues that the usage of the particle yat does not constitute evidence of the Peshitta’s reliance on Jewish Palestinian Aramaic targumim, see ibid., p. 123. 58 Tamás Visi the beginning God created the substance of the heaven and the substance of the earth.”54 Ephrem used the substantialized form yata as a technical term meaning “substance” in his theological writings. In later Syriac exegetical literature, it has become a commonplace that yat means “substance.”55 Moses bar Kepha noticed that yat corresponds to Hebrew ʾet, and it marks the direct object of the verb.56 Nevertheless, Moses bar Kepha included the explanation that the function of yat is to emphasize that the substance of heaven and earth was created out of nothing in his commentary. Mar Ephrem and others say that yat is a phrase that denotes the substance [yata] and being [ʾitututa] and essence and nature and ousia57 of the thing talked about, just as Solomon said “God judges the yat of the righteous [yat zdiqe] and the yat of the wicked” (Eccl. 3:17), that is, God judges the existence and the heart of the righteous and the wicked. And this is how Moses said that “in the beginning God created the yat of the heaven and the yat of the earth [yat šmaya w-yat-ʾarʿa]”, that is, the substance [yata] and being and essence and ousia of the heaven and the earth, and of everything which is inside them – God created them out of nothing.58 In light of these facts, it seems very likely that al-Qirqisānī’s report of those who interpret ʾet as “substance” can be traced back to Syriac exegetical texts that were translated or summarized by al-Muqammaṣ. Moreover, this interpretation of ʾet was successfully transmitted to Andalusia and it found its way to Ibn Ezra’s commentary. Due to the loss of early Andalusian biblical commentaries, we 54 Cf. St. Ephrem the Syrian, Selected Prose Works, tr. Edward G. Matthews and Joseph P. Amar, ed. Kathleen McVey, Fathers of the Church, 91 (Washington, D. C: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), p. 74. 55 Cf. Taeke Jansma, “Investigation into the Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis: An Approach to the Exegesis of the Nestorian Church and to the Comparison of Nestorian and Jewish Exegesis,” Oudtestamentische Studiën 12 (1958): 69–181, here p. 101. 56 Paris, BNF, Syr. 241, fol. 35r-v, cf. the German tr. of Lorenz Schlimme, Der Hexaemeronkommentar des Moses bar Kepha: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Untersuchungen, Göttinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca 14 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977), vol. 1, pp. 133–134. 57 The Greek word ousia (“substance”) transcribed into Syriac letters. 58 Paris, BNF, Syr. 241, fol. 35r/b-35v/c; see Text 2 in the Appendix. 59 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides cannot document the transmission of this idea, but it is very likely that this idea was transmitted from Syriac sources to Ibn Ezra via al-Muqammaṣ. However, despite the fact that Ibn Ezra endorsed the idea that ʾet means “substance,” he rejected the theological interpretation of this word in Genesis 1:1 that al-Qirqisānī and the Syriac authors attributed to it. As has been mentioned, for Ibn Ezra Genesis 1:1 did not refer to creation out of nothing. He definitely believed that the substance of heaven and earth existed before the “beginning” of Genesis 1:1. 2.4.2 “Heaven” as the Elements Fire and Air Another rejected opinion was the notion that “heaven” in Gen 1:1 refers to the two upper elements while the “earth” refers to the two lower elements. As Joseph Kaspi, a supercommentator on Ibn Ezra, remarked, the earlier commentators had been concerned about the absence of any explicit enumeration of the four elements in the creation narrative, but Ibn Ezra was not puzzled by this.59 So he mentioned this view but did not endorse it: Ibn Ezra, Short Commentary on Genesis 1: 1 s. v. “ha-šamayim”. ‫ואחרים אמרו כי המים בכלל הארץ והרוח בכלל השמים‬ And others say that “earth” includes water and “heaven” includes air. In the continuation of the text Ibn Ezra dismisses this opinion and states that “heaven” means the “firmament,” which is a region of the atmosphere in his opinion (see below), while “earth” refers to the habitable part of the globe: thus, the first sentence of the creation narrative can be paraphrased as “in the beginning of God’s creating a region of the atmosphere and the dry surfaces of the Earth.” A statement similar to the rejected opinion occurs in a fragment that preserves Saadia’s discussion of the question why the creation of fire is not mentioned explicitly by the biblical text: Were one to ask: For what reason does it not mention the creation of fire? We answer him as follows: If he asks about the celestial fire, the Scripture already mentioned it in the creation of the celestial spheres, and if the reference is to the fire that is concealed in the parts of the Earth, 59 Joseph Kaspi, Parašat ha-Kesef on Ibn Ezra ad Genesis 1:1, ed. David Ben-Zazon in Kreisel, Five Early Supercommentaries, p. 39. 60 Tamás Visi i.e., water, stone, dust, trees, and the like, for, because the Scripture mentioned the creation of the carrier to us, it suffices without mentioning the creation of fire itself. The case is similar regarding water. Were the Scripture not to have mentioned the creation of water, we would have sufficed with just the mentioning of the creation of the carrier alone, for water itself is a feeble body that cannot persist independently.60 By the “carrier of the water” mentioned in the text, Saadia certainly meant the earth. This is corroborated by another remark that the creation of heaven and earth implies that “everything in between them be created [as well]; for water and air are things that can only exist by means of something created and the Heavens and Earth are created.”61 Thus, Saadia’s statement implies that the creation of heaven and earth includes the creation of all the four elements, and fire is associated with “heaven” while water is implied by “earth” in Genesis 1:1. The text is fragmentary; it is possible that the original version contained a clearer statement about “heaven” denoting fire and air and “earth” denoting earth and water. Interestingly, the opinion rejected by Ibn Ezra appears in a clearer form in both Jacob of Edessa’s Hexaemeron, and in Moses bar Kepha’s work too. For the sake of brevity, I quote only the latter: MS Paris, BNF, Syr. 241, fol 36r/b ‫ܠܡ ܫܡܝܐ ܗܪܟܐ ܐܠܐܪ ܘܢܘܪܐ ܡܫܡܗ ܡܘܫܐ ܐܪܥܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܠܪܥܐ ܘܠܡܝܐ ܩܪܐ‬ Indeed, it is air and fire that Moses calls here “heaven,” and earth and water he calls “earth.” It is likely that this opinion, which circulated among Syriac commentators, was transmitted to Ibn Ezra via al-Muqammaṣ and perhaps Saadia Gaon. The most probable scenario is that al-Muqammaṣ mentioned (perhaps endorsed) this view in his Judeo-Arabic commentary and Saadia read it there. It is also possible that some secondary Syriac source, such as Moses bar Kepha’s summary, reached Saadia through some unknown channel. 60 Saadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis, ed. Zucker, p. 29. English tr.: Michael Linetzky, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon’s Commentary on the Book of Creation (Northvale, New Jersey and Jerusalem: Jason Aronson Inc., 2002), p. 59. 61 Ibid., p. 54. 61 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides Interestingly, a similar idea is proposed also by an elder Christian contemporary of Ibn Ezra, namely Pierre Abelard. Writing between 1129 and 1142 in Northern France, thus before Ibn Ezra wrote his commentary in Italy, Abelard states: Coeli et terrae nomine hoc loco quatuor elementa comprehendi arbitor, ex quibus tamquam materiali primordio caetera omnia corpora constat esse composita. Coelum quidem duo levia elementa, ignem videlicet atque aerem dicit. Reliqua vero duo quae gravia sunt terram generaliter vocat.62 In my opinion the four elements are meant by the names “heaven and earth” in this place [i.e., Gen 1:1], as a primordial matter out of which all the other bodies are composed. The two light elements, namely fire and air, he [Moses / Scripture] calls “heaven.” The other two, which are heavy, he calls “earth” in a general manner. From a purely chronological point of view the “others” mentioned by Ibn Ezra, whom he said to have held the same view, could refer to Abelard. Ibn Ezra had contacts with Christian scholars, and for that reason, it is possible in principle that he could have obtained information about Abelard’s work.63 However, even if Ibn Ezra did access Abelard’s Latin treatise somehow, it is very unlikely that he felt obliged to refute it: Latin writers were no part of his literary universe, they were not authorities whose opinions were to be taken into account and refuted, the sole exception being a few critical remarks on Latin Bible translations.64 Ibn Ezra did not expect his readers to be familiar with 62 Mary Foster Romig, “A Critical Edition of Peter Abelard’s Expositio in Hexameron” (PhD dissertation, University of Southern California, 1981), p. 9, corresponding to Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris, 1844–1864), vol. 178, co. 733. 63 Cf. Shlomo Sela, Abraham Ibn Ezra and the Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 22–27; Renate Smithuis, “Science in Normandy and England under the Angevins: The Creation of Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Latin Works on Astronomy and Astrology,” in Hebrew to Latin-Latin to Hebrew: The Mirroring of Two Cultures in the Age of Humanism, ed. G. Busi (Berlin and Turin: Nino Aragno, 2006), pp. 23–57; Charles Burnett, “Béziers as an Astronomical Center for Jews and Christians in the Mid-Twelfth Century,” Aleph 17 (2017): 197–219. 64 Cf. Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible, pp. 55-63 and 158-162. Ibn Ezra criticizes the Latin translation of Genesis 37:35 in the Short Commentary ad loc. 62 Tamás Visi contemporary Latin theological literature, but he calculated with the possibility that his audience might read Saadia’s commentary and other Jewish exegetical literature, and for this reason, he regularly pointed out his disagreements with the Gaon and other Rabbanite or Karaite commentators. Therefore, it is much more likely that Ibn Ezra encountered this opinion in Saadia’s commentary or some other Jewish work that was ultimately based on Syriac sources. 2.4.3 The concentric arrangement of the four elements Whereas the idea that the four elements are mentioned somehow in the biblical creation narrative has been a common place in Christian exegetical literature since the Hexaemeron of St. Basil, a systematic attempt to discover the four elements and their arrangement in concentric spheres in the biblical text was attempted consistently by John Philoponus for the first time, as argued by Clemens Scholten.65 Philoponus argued that Genesis 1:2 implies that all the surface of the earth was covered by water, and this was possible only if the earth was spherical. Philoponus also emphasized that Moses describes the four elements in the “correct order,” that is to say, according to their natural places. As I have argued elsewhere, Jacob of Edessa took over this idea from Philoponus and compared the concentric arrangement of the spheres to an egg. The same idea, including the comparison to the egg, appears in al-Qirqisānī’s commentaries on Genesis. It is very likely that al-Qirqisānī drew this material from al-Muqammaṣ’s lost commentary, which adapted it from Syriac sources, perhaps directly from Jacob of Edessa.66 A surviving fragment of Saadia’s commentary on Genesis 1:2 also summarizes the idea that Genesis 1:2 teaches that the earth was covered by water on all sides, and this implies that the earth was spherical: 65 Clemens Scholten, Antike Naturphilosophie und christliche Kosmologie in der Schrift “de opificio mundi” des Johannes Philoponos, Patristische Texte und Studien, 45 (Berlin and New York, 1996), pp. 185–190 and 230–233; see also Birgitta Elweskiöld, John Philoponus against Cosmas Indicopleustes: A Christian Controversy on the Structure of the World in Sixth-Century Alexandria (Lund: Lund University, 2005), p. 105. On Jacob of Edessa’s adaption of this idea, see Marina Greatrex, “Memre One, Two and Four of the Hexaemeron of Jacob of Edessa: Introduction, Translation and Text” (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wales, Cardiff, 2000), vol. 1, pp. 75–76. 66 Cf. Visi, “The ‘Meteorological Interpretation’ of the Creation Narrative,” pp. 243 and 262. 63 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides Tohu refers to the Earth and it is the dust that covers the Earth from all its sides. What indicates to us that tohu refers to the circumference is that it says of the land of Edom: “And He stretched around it a qaw of tohu and stones of bohu” (Isaiah 34:11). Now qaw is a band the builder stretches and by which he records area and measurements as it says: “And yet the measuring line shall yet go out straight forward” (Jeremiah 31:39). However, the dust was covered with water and I have translated tohu accordingly [i.e., as “inundating”]. Bohu refers to the center, i.e., the center of the Earth, in the middle point of its inside and it is the hard stone on which all sides of the Earth are founded. Another proof that the word has this meaning is that it says: “And the stones of bohu” (Isaiah 34:11). However, it was engulfed by water like anything that is so, i.e., that is on the surface of the bottom. Now tohu and bohu make up the diameters of the Earth and its boundaries and the water surrounds them. And by saying ve-ḥošeḵ he means the air. […] if the entire Earth is spherical and round, where is the face and where is the back? I say that its face is the side on which God declared in His wisdom that man be created.67 The theory that the biblical creation narrative teaches the concentric arrangement of the four elements appears in Ibn Ezra’s commentary, too. Ibn Ezra probably read it in Saadia’s commentary and endorsed this opinion. .‫ ואת הארץ – שהיתה מכוסה במים‬,‫ את השמים – הם העליונים על הרקיע‬:‫ופירוש‬ ‫ והארץ היתה‬,‫ והוא למעלה על גלגל המים‬,‫כי גלגל האש למעלה על גלגל הרוח‬ ‫ ובחפץ השם יבשה הרוח קצת מהמים המכסים את הארץ‬.‫תחת תהום‬ Explanation: “the heavens” – these are the upper [strata] above the firmament, “and the earth” – which was covered by water, for the sphere of the fire is above the sphere of air [ruaḥ] which is above the sphere of water, and the earth was under tehom [deep water]. And by the Will of God the wind dried some of the water that covered the earth. 67 Saadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis, ed. Zucker, p. 28-29; English tr.: Linetsky, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon’s Commentary, pp. 54–55 and 57 modified. On the fourth element, that is, elementary fire, which Saadia identified with heaven, and which surrounded the other three elements in his view, see the previous section. 64 Tamás Visi In sum, this important exegetical idea was transmitted from Philoponus to Ibn Ezra, and the route of transmission can be reconstructed with a reasonable degree of probability. Philoponus was read by Jacob of Edessa, whose Syriac work was probably summarized in Daʾūd al-Muqammaṣ’s Judeo-Arabic explanation of the creation narrative. This latter work must have been Saadia Gaon’s source, and Ibn Ezra read and utilized Saadia’s commentary on Genesis. 2.4.4 The Firmament is Air Another opinion that Ibn Ezra endorsed was the idea that the “firmament” (raqia‘) referred to the air which separated the lower waters from the vapors of which the clouds were formed. Commenting on Genesis 1:6, Ibn Ezra wrote “and this firmament is the air [‫]וזה הרקיע הוא האויר‬.” As has been discussed elsewhere, Jacob of Edessa proposed a refined theory of three different kinds of air, and he identified the biblical firmament with one of them. Moses bar Kepha gave a simplified summary of his view: “For Master Jacob of Edessa says that the firmament is this air, which is firm and steadfast and surrounds the earth.”68 Jacob of Edessa’s theory was based on Philoponus’ De opificio mundi.69 I have argued that Saadia’s own interpretation of the “firmament” was a modified version of this view.70 Similarly, the idea that the upper waters referred to clouds and vapors had circulated among Christian exegetes since the days of St. Basil of Caesarea (330–379), and was endorsed by Jacob of Edessa, Moses bar Kepha, and probably by Saadia Gaon too.71 It is possible that a short summary of Jacob of Edessa’s original opinion, similar to Moses bar Kepha’s sentence quoted in the previous paragraph, was included in Saadia’s commentary, or perhaps in Samuel ben Ḥofni’s commentary or in the hexaemeron-like work of “Rav Isaac.” The idea probably came from miaphysite Syriac sources (Jacob of Edessa, or compendia using his work similar to the late-ninth century hexaemeron of Moses bar Kepha) via al-Muqammaṣ’s Judeo-Arabic commentary or from some other, unknown source. Ibn Ezra 68 MS Paris, BNF, Syr. 241, fol. 59v/d-60r/a; see Text 1 in Appendix 1 of Visi, “The ‘Meteorological’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative.” 69 See Marina Wilks, “Jacob of Edessa’s Use of Greek Philosophy in His Hexaemeron,” in Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day, ed. R.B. Ter Haar Romeny (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), pp. 223–238, here 226–228. 70 Visi, “The ‘Meteorological’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative,” pp. 250-257 71 See ibid., p. 229. 65 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides probably read it, endorsed this opinion, and built a more systematic scientific theory around it. 2.4.5 Vapors in the Air Jacob of Edessa, following the lead of Gregory of Nyssa and John Philoponus, posited a mixture of the four elements at the time of the creation, and he envisioned a process of purification in the course of creation.72 The mixed elements gradually found their natural places, forming concentric spheres around the center of the universe. Jacob explains that the creation of light on the first day amounted to the separation of the sphere of elementary fire, but the atmosphere remained dark due to the presence of thick watery vapors until the second day when the firmament, that is, air, was separated and purified: “And darkness,” he says, “was over the face of the abyss of water.” This was what surrounded the earth, because [the water] was mixed with the air above it, and formed with it almost entirely one body, and the gloom and dense darkness formed shadow above them, for the air was not yet pure for illuminating light to pass through it, nor heat, which dissipates the gloom, because indeed the element of fire was not yet purified nor wholly clean of the water and air below it. Thus, because of these things, darkness up until now poured out above the abyss which was concealing the earth, and this was what made it all the more invisible.73 Ibn Ezra’s interpretation also includes the idea that the atmosphere was dark due to the presence of vapors, and the creation of the firmament amounted to making the atmosphere transparent by separating air from water (Long Commentary on Genesis 1:2): ‫ והנה סמך‬,‫ורוח אלהים מרחפת – בעבור שחפץ י"י להיות אדם בארץ שהוא העיקר‬ ‫ ויולך י"י‬:‫ כמו‬,‫ שהרוח רחפה ויבשה מכדור המים‬:‫ והטעם‬.‫הרוח אל השם הנכבד‬ ‫כ"א) ואז סרה חשכת מים והיה האור‬:‫את הים ברוח קדים עזה כל הלילה (שמות י"ד‬ 72 See Greatrex, “Memre One, Two and Four,” vol. 1, pp. 66–69; cf. Elweskiöld, John Philoponus against Cosmas Indicopleustes, pp. 24–25; Scholten, Antike Naturphilosophie und christliche Kosmologie, pp. 222 and 233. 73 Jacob of Edessa, Hexaemeron, ed. Chabot, pp. 69-70; English tr.: Greatrex, “Memre One, Two and Four,” vol. 2, p. 37. 66 Tamás Visi “And ruaḥ ʾElohim hovered [over the surface of the waters]” – since it was God’s will that humans should exist on earth, because that was the essential [purpose of creation], that is why ruaḥ is attached to the noble name [of God]. And the meaning [of the verse] is that the wind hovered and dried [a part] of the sphere of the water, just as [in the verse] “And the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land” (Exodus 14:21 NIV). So, then the darkness of water was removed, and there was light. It is possible that the idea we find in Syriac sources was transmitted to Ibn Ezra via early medieval Judeo-Arabic commentaries. Unfortunately, there is no extant evidence to corroborate this hypothesis. 2.5 Ibn Ezra and the Philoponian Legacy: Summary Interpreting the biblical creation narrative in terms of natural sciences and philosophy was by no means an innovation of Abraham Ibn Ezra. He found this approach in his sources: in Saadia’s commentary on Genesis, in other geonic authors, such as Samuel ben Ḥofni Gaon and “Rav Isaac,” and perhaps in the works of his Andalusian predecessors, Ibn Ghiyyat, Moses Ibn Jiqatillah, or Judah Ibn Balaam. As has been argued, this approach can be traced back to earlier miaphysite Syriac sources, and ultimately to John Philoponus’s treatise on the six days of creation.74 Some of the key elements of Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of Genesis 1 were taken from earlier sources, while others were probably his own innovations. The idea that the creation narrative referred to the four elements arranged in concentric spheres, and that the “firmament” of Genesis 1:6–8 referred to the air separating the lower waters from the clouds are all attested in earlier sources and therefore, it is likely that Ibn Ezra simply drew them from Saadia’s commentary or other sources. Similarly, the notion that a physical process of “purification” and separation of the four elements took place and it made the atmosphere transparent is attested in Syriac sources, although its transmission to JudeoArabic commentaries cannot be proven. On the other hand, we find unprecedented ideas in Ibn Ezra’s commentary, too. The elements taken from earlier sources have been integrated into a radicalized scientific understanding of the creation story. The new approach can be characterized 74 See Visi, “The ‘Meteorological’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative.” 67 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides by three key statements of Ibn Ezra: (1) Genesis 1 does not refer to creation ex nihilo, but presupposes the existence of the celestial bodies, (2) the creation narrative relates only changes that took place in the sublunar world, (3) the drying of the land narrated on day three of the creation took place, in reality, before day two. These innovative elements allowed Ibn Ezra to utilize Aristotelian meteorology in a more direct manner. Once it is accepted that Genesis 1 presupposes the existence of the Sun, Aristotle’s theory about the sunrays’ reflection from the surface of the earth and their drying of the lower part of the atmosphere could be proposed as an interpretation of Genesis 1:3–5 and 6–8, and so Ibn Ezra referred to this theory in his short commentary on Genesis 1:6. As shall be argued below, Ibn Ezra’s exegesis opened the door for a wider utilization of meteorological ideas in biblical exegesis, and may have inspired thirteen- and fourteenth-century exegetes, such as Samuel Ibn Tibbon, David Qimḥi, and some of his thirteenthand fourteenth-century supercommentators. 3. Maimonides’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative: Sources and Innovations 3.1 Maimonides’ Sources The sources available for Maimonides in Andalusia were the same as those available for Ibn Ezra (see 1.2.1 above). It has been debated for a long time whether he read Ibn Ezra’s commentaries: chronologically, this is possible, but there is no unambiguous evidence for any direct reliance on Ibn Ezra, such as an explicit reference or a close parallel that cannot be explained otherwise.75 In 75 Cf. Isadore Twersky, “Did Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra influence Maimonides?”, in Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a Twelfth Century Jewish Polymath, ed. Isadore Twersky and Jay M. Harris (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1993), Hebrew section, pp. 21–48; Mordecai Z. Cohen, Opening the Gates of Interpretation: Maimonides’ Biblical Hermeneutics in Light of His Geonic-Andalusian Heritage and Muslim Milieu (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011), pp. 25–26. Norman Roth has recently argued for Maimonides’ familiarity with Ibn Ezra’s writings: Norman Roth, The Bible and Jews in Medieval Spain (London and New York: Routledge, 2021), pp. 130–132. However, his arguments are open to challenge. The observation that both Ibn Ezra and Maimonides utilized the philosophical concept of forms (cf. p. 131) is correct, but it does not prove at all that Maimonides was familiar with Ibn Ezra’s writings, as he could have adapted the term and the concept from a range of different sources too. Similar theories of knowledge 68 Tamás Visi particular, a comparison of Maimonides’ interpretation of Genesis 1 to that of Ibn Ezra strongly suggests that the former knew nothing about the latter: the similar elements are all present in earlier sources accessible to both (see below), while Ibn Ezra’s innovations have no resonances in Maimonides’ work. Maimonides settled in Fustat, Egypt, in the late 1160s. He may have accessed the commentaries of al-Muqammaṣ and al-Qirqisānī directly there, as fragments of both works have been found in the Cairo Genizah, where Maimonides’ autograph fragments have also surfaced. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that Maimonides had direct access to the hexaemeron literature of miaphysite Syriac authors, or to John Philoponus’s treatise on the six days of creation. None of these texts were available in Arabic translation nor were they well known among Coptic Christians in the twelfth century, as far as we know. 76 Maimonides may have read Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Christian Arabic biblical commentaries, but these commentaries followed the Nestorian tradition and played no role in the transmission of Philoponian exegesis.77 The chances that Maimonides accessed Syriac or Greek texts in the original languages are negligible. 3.2 The Account of Creation as a Scientific Encyclopedia We have seen that Ibn Ezra criticized his predecessors for mixing scientific discussions with biblical exegesis. The targets of this criticism were the encyclopedia-like long commentaries on Genesis 1 that had been composed by Christians and Jews in the Early Middle Ages (see above, 1.1–6). Maimonides was much more conservative in this respect than Ibn Ezra. He apparently had no qualms about the encyclopedia-like commentaries; on the contrary, he suggested that the esoteric rabbinic tradition that is referred to by the name maʿaseh berešit (“The Work of Creation”) in the Mishnah and the Talmud was, in fact, such an encyclopedic commentary on the six days of creation. In his Commentary on the Mishnah Maimonides flatly stated that (p. 130) indicate only that they shared the same Andalusian intellectual background. Roth enlists a few similarities in exegetical solutions, but since many of the earlier Andalusian biblical commentaries have been lost, we cannot be certain whether Maimonides read Ibn Ezra’s commentaries or the works of his Andalusian predecessors. On the other hand, Roth is certainly right in pointing out that we do not find the slightest trace of influence in topics where we would expect it, such as the interpretation of creation (p. 132). 76 See Visi, “The ‘Meteorological Interpretation’ of the Creation Narrative,” pp. 222–225. 77 Cf. ibid. 69 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides maʿaseh berešit is the “science of nature” [al-ʿilm al-ṭabīʿī].78 The same is declared again in the introductory chapter of the Guide, but some more details are provided: Maimonides envisions maʿaseh berešit as the talmudic rabbis’ exegesis of the creation narrative which they transmitted orally to a few students worthy of it.79 Later, especially in Guide 2.30, Maimonides cautiously revealed some of the elements of the lost esoteric interpretation of the creation narrative. The Maimonidean understanding of maʿaseh berešit caused bafflement among some readers. As the late Herbert A. Davidson put it: It is hard to avoid a sense of bafflement. […] [T]he content of his discoveries, as far as one can see, is banal and anticlimactic. One profound secret turns out to be the commonplace division of the visible universe into two parts, and a second set of secrets is the Aristotelian physical theory of the four sublunar elements.80 Perhaps a more sympathetic disposition towards Maimonides’ exegesis can be achieved, if we take into consideration that he probably saw earlier Judeo-Arabic commentaries, such as that of al-Muqammaṣ, al-Qirqisānī, or possibly Samuel ben Ḥofni Gaon, which included long treatises on scientific matters and could be perceived as summaries of natural sciences. Maimonides probably believed that the ancient rabbis had followed a similar course: they taught natural sciences by expounding the biblical text. The creation narrative was perceived as a very short and terse account of nature. Thus, the “secrets” of maʿaseh berešit were indeed standard scientific doctrines. Their esoteric status was probably a simple consequence of the esoteric status of the natural sciences as such: if rains, droughts, or earthquakes are brought about by natural processes, the biblical image of God punishing or rewarding human beings by such means is challenged.81 78 Cf. Herbert A. Davidson, Moses Maimonides: The Man and His Work (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 340–341. 79 On Maimonides’ concept of maʿaseh berešit, see Sara Klein-Braslavy, Maimonides’ Commentary on the Creation Story (Jerusalem: The Bible Association, 1978), pp. 66–69 (Hebrew). 80 Davidson, Moses Maimonides, p. 344. 81 This is pointed out, for example, in Shemtov Ibn Shaprut’s commentary on Guide 2.30. See also Aviezer Ravitzky, “Aristotle’s Meteorology and the Maimonidean Modes of Interpreting the Account of Creation,” tr. Lenn J. Schramm, Aleph 8 (2008): 361–400, here pp. 371–374. 70 Tamás Visi 3.3 “In the Beginning” and the Four Elements It has already been suggested that Maimonides took elements from Syriac biblical exegesis via al-Muqammaṣ’s lost commentary on the six days of creation.82 A compelling example is the interpretation of the word “in the beginning”: Maimonides explains that this phrase should not be taken to mean “in time.” A similar explanation is found in the short commentary on Genesis 1:1 by al-Qirqisānī: “And not in time [did God create the world] because had He created it in time, it would follow necessarily that time existed prior to it. But time was created together with the heavens and earth” [‫ולא פי זמאן אד לו כ'לקה‬ ‫]פי זמאן לוג'ב אן יכון אלזמאן מתקדם לה בל אלזמאן כ'לק מע אלסמא ואלארץ‬.83 The miaphysite Syriac author, Moses bar Kepha also states that “not in time did God create heaven and earth” [‫]ܕܠܘ ܒܙܒܢܐ ܒܪܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܫܡܝܐ ܘܐܪܥܐ‬.84 Again, the most likely hypothesis is that al-Qirqisānī’s comment is based on al-Muqammaṣ’s lost work, which, in turn, is based on a Syriac source similar to the Hexaemeron of Moses bar Kepha. The argument can be traced back ultimately to John Philoponus and St. Basil.85 As has been mentioned above (see 2.4.5), Jacob of Edessa interpreted the first two days of creation as natural processes that took place among the four elements: they had been in a chaotic state at the beginning but began to move to their natural places, which brought a rudimentary order into chaos. We do not have evidence for the transmission of this idea to early medieval Judeo-Arabic commentaries. Nevertheless, Maimonides made similar statements, albeit in a more systematic manner: he envisioned the whole process of creation, save for the first instant, which was a true creation ex nihilo, as a unified natural process.86 Maimonides summarizes the matter thus: 82 See especially, Sarah Stroumsa, “The Impact of Syriac Tradition on Early Judeo Arabic Bible Exegesis,” Aram 3 (1991): 83–96. The phrase “in the beginning” is analyzed in detail. 83 MS London, British Library Or 2492, fol. 1v 84 MS Paris, BNF, Syr. 241, fol. 32r/a. 85 See Philoponus, Opf. 1.3 , ed. Reichardt, pp. 7–11, partly on the basis of St. Basil’s first homily on Hexaemeron, arguing for the thesis that “beginning” does not refer to any part of time. The idea occurs in a dyophysite Syriac commentary by Ishoʿdad of Merv, too, who vaguely refers to Theodore of Mopsuestia as his source; cf. Stroumsa, “The Impact of Syriac Tradition,” p. 92. Perhaps the dyophysite writers took this notion from St. Basil’s Hexaemeron. 86 Cf. Ravitzky, “Aristotle’s Meteorology and the Maimonidean Modes,” pp. 368–374. 71 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides The elements intermix in consequence of the motion of the sphere, and their combinations vary because of light and darkness. The first combination that is produced by them is constituted by two exhalations, which are the first causes of all the meteorological phenomena among which rain figures. They are also the causes of minerals and, after them, of the compositions of the plants and, after those, of that of the living beings; the final composition being that of man.87 Maimonides’ statement is similar to Ibn Ezra’s explanation of creation as a natural process. However, Maimonides’ account is less radical than that of Ibn Ezra inasmuch as the former takes Genesis 1:1 to refer to creation out of nothing while the latter abandons this view. A specific problem was the apparent absence of any reference to “fire” in the account. Saadia worried that this absence might support the view of some people (Zoroastrians?) that fire was uncreated, and it was a divine element.88 As has been mentioned, Saadia identified “heavens” with the sphere of elementary fire. Jacob of Edessa also claimed that “heavens” referred to the elements of fire and air, and this opinion was reported by Moses bar Kepha, and much later, by Ibn Ezra too (see 2.4.2). Another attempt was to derive the sphere of the elementary fire from ruaḥ: al-Qirqisānī argued that the upper part of the atmosphere was heated by the movement of the celestial spheres and this heating resulted in the generation of elementary fire.89 Philoponus also associated elementary fire with the “spirit [pneuma] of God”: he explained that pneuma referred to the hot exhalation mentioned in Aristotle’s Meteorology, and this hot and dry exhalation was the origin of both winds and the sphere of elementary fire.90 Maimonides also addressed the problem of identifying fire in the creation narrative, but his solution departed from that of his predecessors: he identified “darkness” (ḥošeḵ) as a technical term denoting elementary fire. As he explains, 87 Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, tr. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1963), p. 354. 88 Saadia Gaon, Sefer Yeṣira (Kitāb al-Mabādiʾ) ʿim peruš Rabbenu Saʿadya b”r Yosef Fayyumi (Sefer Yeṣira with Saadia Gaon’s Commentary), ed. Yosef Qafah (Jerusalem: Ha-vaʿad le-hoṣaʾat sifrei RaSag, 1972), p. 59. 89 MS London, British Library Or 2492, fol. 12r. 90 Cf. Visi, “The ‘Meteorological’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative,” pp. 220–221. 72 Tamás Visi this fire is not bright by its own nature, and that is why “darkness” is an appropriate name for it.91 It has been argued above that the exegetical idea that Genesis 1:2 teaches the concentric arrangement of the four elements according to their natural places was transmitted from Philoponus to Abraham Ibn Ezra. Given the fact that Maimonides could access the same sources as Ibn Ezra did, it is of little surprise that the same idea is stated in his exegesis of Genesis 1:2 too: The elements are mentioned according to their natural position; namely, first the earth, then the water that is above it, then the air that adheres to the water, then the fire that is above the air. For in view of the specification of the air as being over the face of the waters, darkness that is upon the face of the deep is indubitably above the spirit.92 Maimonides may have read the relevant passages of Saadia’s commentary on Genesis, and it is even possible that he read it in al-Qirqisānī’s or al-Muqammaṣ’s commentaries. 3.4 The Firmament and the Waters A key idea of Maimonides is that the “firmament” of Gen 1:6–8 is a structure of the sublunar world, and as such, it is a meteorological entity: The words, And God called the firmament Heaven, is intended, according to what I have explained to you, to make clear that the term is equivocal and that the heaven mentioned in the first place, in the words the heaven and the earth, is not what is generally named heaven. […] Thus it has become clear that there was a certain common matter, which it names water. Afterwards it was divided into three forms; a part of it turned into one thing, namely, the seas; another part of it turned into another thing, namely, the firmament; a third part turned into a thing that is above the firmament.93 91 Maimonides, Guide 2.30, tr. Pines, p. 351. 92 Ibid. 93 Maimonides, Guide 2.30, tr. Pines, p. 352. 73 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides Employing an allusive, “esoteric” way of writing, Maimonides shies away from saying explicitly that the “firmament” is a region of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, it is not particularly difficult to decode the message: if the “firmament” is made of the same matter as the seas, then it cannot be any part of the celestial spheres, since the matter of the celestial spheres is radically different from the matter of the sublunar world, as every competent Aristotelian reader knows.94 This leaves the reader with two options: the “firmament” either belongs to the earth or to the atmosphere, the latter being the subject matter of the Aristotelian science of meteorology. Maimonides adds the remark: “all this is outside the earth,” positing the firmament in the atmosphere unambiguously.95 A cryptic remark made a few lines earlier strongly suggests that Maimonides identified the “firmament” with a region of the atmosphere: In this way it makes it clear to you that first water of which it is said, over the face of the waters, is not the water that is in the seas, but that part of the water situated above the air was differentiated by means of a certain form, whereas another part is this water here.96 The phrase “that part of it [i.e. water] […] situated above the air” (‫] פוק‬...[ ‫בעצ'ה‬ ‫ )אלהוא‬is obviously a paraphrase of the biblical “waters above the firmament.” Consequently, this remark identifies the firmament with some sort of air. This remark is consistent with the previous point and can be read as a specification of it: the firmament is a meteorological structure, and more precisely, it is a certain air. Medieval commentators of the Guide offered several specific interpretations of Maimonides’ cryptic remarks, identifying various regions of the atmosphere as “firmament” and “waters above the firmament.”97 This general exegetical strategy is very close to that of Ibn Ezra, but it is no evidence of Ibn Ezra’s influence on Maimonides, as the similarity can be 94 See Sara Klein-Braslavy, Maimonides as Biblical Interpreter (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2011), pp. 28–34. 95 Maimonides, Guide 2.30, tr. Pines, p. 352, note 46. In the main text Pines preferred a stylistically better but less precise translation; the original reads: ‫והד'א כלה כ'ארג'אً ען‬ ‫( 'אלארץ‬Moses Maimonides, Dalālat al-ḥā’irīn, ed. Solomon Munk, rev. Issachar Joel (Jerusalem: Judah Junovitch, 1930/31), p. 247, line 26–27. 96 Maimonides, Guide 2.30, tr. Pines, p. 352. 97 See Klein-Braslavy, Maimonides as Biblical Interpreter, pp. 34–38. 74 Tamás Visi explained through common Judeo-Arabic sources. An obvious candidate is Saadia Gaon’s commentary on Genesis; the Gaon’s “vortex theory” of the ruaḥ ascribed the separation of lower waters from upper waters to the ruaḥ, which was understood as a modified form of the element air. Moreover, as has been argued, Saadia’s theory probably derived from Jacob of Edessa’s theory of the firmament as air, which Saadia probably encountered in al-Muqammaṣ’s work on the six days of creation.98 Maimonides may have read al-Muqammaṣ’s work directly too (see 3.1 above). In any case, Maimonides restated the same idea in different terms that suited his own intellectual project of recovering the lost esoteric tradition of maʿaseh berešit. There is, nevertheless, some ambiguity due to the following words: […] all the stars as well as the sun and the moon are situated within the sphere – as there is no vacuum in the world – and that they are not located upon the surface of a sphere, as the vulgar imagine. This appears from his saying: in the firmament of the heaven, and not: upon the firmament of the heaven. Thus it has become clear that there was a certain common matter, which it [i.e., the biblical text—T.V.] names water. Afterwards it was divided into three forms; a part of it turned into one thing, namely, the seas; another part of it turned into another thing, namely, the firmament; a third part turned into a thing that is above the firmament.99 The reference to the “common matter” and the mention of the “firmament” and the “thing that is above the firmament” suggest that Maimonides may have in mind the Aristotelian doctrine about the different matters of which the celestial spheres and the sublunar world are built respectively. Perhaps the “water” that is “above the firmament” refers to the fifth element, which is the common matter of the celestial spheres according to Aristotle. An advantage of this interpretation is that using the word “water” in the sense of “celestial matter” is clearly a case of equivocation, unlike the alternative interpretation, which implies that the equivocal sense of water is cloud, rain, or water in potentia.100 There were 98 See Visi, “The ‘Meteorological’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative,” pp. 257–258. 99 Maimonides, Guide 2.30, tr. Pines, p. 352. 100 Cf. Klein-Braslavy, Maimonides as Biblical Interpreter, p. 35 and cf. Langermann, “The Making of the Firmament,” pp. 474–475. Langermann’s opinion is supported by the 75 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides indeed some interpreters who identified the “water above the firmament” with celestial matter and “firmament” with a lower region of the celestial spheres.101 Philoponus’s final interpretation of “water” and “firmament” is similar to this position to some degree. 102 Perhaps, the ambiguities of Maimonides’ interpretation can be understood as instances of the “flashes” mentioned in the introductory chapter of the Guide (“You should not think that these great secrets are fully and completely known to anyone among us. They are not. But sometimes truth flashes out…”) and a contradiction due to the seventh cause (“…in the case of certain dicta this necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of a certain premise, whereas in another place necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of another premise contradicting the first one”).103 In Flash One, Maimonides saw the “firmament” and the “water above the firmament” as references to regions of the atmosphere, whereas in Flash Two he identified “water above the firmament” with the matter of the celestial spheres. Perhaps he just wrote down both interpretations regardless of the contradiction between them.104 In sum, Maimonides, in all likelihood, encountered the following exegetical themes in his sources: (a) The word “beginning” does not mean that the world was created “in time.” (b) The first verses of Genesis describe the creation of the four elements and indicate the natural order of the elements in accordance with Aristotle’s theory. consideration that “water” taken in the sense of “water in potentia” is hardly a genuine instance of equivocation according to Aristotle’s Categories 1.1, which requires two unrelated definitions for the two different senses of the same word. 101 See Langermann, “The Making of the Firmament,” pp. 472–475 and idem, “A Mistaken Anticipation in Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Translation of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed,” Da‘at 84 (2017): 21–34 (Hebrew), here pp. 30–31. 102 See Visi, “The ‘Meteorological’ Interpretation of the Creation Narrative,” pp. 219–221. 103 Maimonides, Guide 2.30, tr. Pines, pp. 7 and 18. 104 On “flashes” in Maimonides’ biblical exegesis, see Josef Stern, The Matter and Form of Maimonides’ Guide (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 2013), pp. 94–96. 76 Tamás Visi (c) The firmament was a region of the atmosphere. (d) The upper waters were vapors, clouds, and similar meteorological phenomena. Maimonides’ own interpretation integrates these elements into a coherent Aristotelian approach to analyze the natural processes that took place right after the creation of the universe out of nothing. 3.5 Attributing Equivocal Usages to Hebrew Words in Biblical Exegesis The idea that the same word can have more than one meanings was nothing new by Maimonides’ time: the polysemy of words and phrases had been discussed in religious law, in lexicography, and in literary criticism by various Jewish intellectual in manifold ways, sometimes in a highly sophisticated manner.105 A particularly important predecessor of Maimonides was Moses Ibn Ezra, whose The Book of the Garden analyzes a number of Biblical Hebrew words referring primarily to the parts of the human body, but also used in extended and metaphorical senses.106 Nevertheless, Maimonides’ way of conceptualizing the polysemy of biblical word was a genuine innovation. Maimonides deliberately chose to introduce logical terms into biblical exegesis. While Moses Ibn Ezra approached multivalent biblical words as metaphors and thus linked exegesis to literary criticism, Maimonides suggested that exegetical problems are similar to logical riddles and need similar methods to solve them. One of the central insights of Maimonides’ The Guide of the Perplexed is that exegetical problems can be solved by identifying equivocal usages of Biblical Hebrew words. At the very beginning of the first part of the Guide, Maimonides declares that the main purpose of his work is “to explain the meanings of certain words” occurring in the Bible and that some of these words are “equivocal” while others are “derivative” or “amphibolous.” The three terms (“equivocal,” 105 For example, in the context of religious law, the rabbis clarified the range of the possible meanings of the words “vegetables” and “meat” by analyzing everyday situations in which the words may or may not be used. This method cannot but remind the modern reader of Wittgensteinian language games. See Mishnah, Nedarim 7:1, Babylonian Talmud, Hullin 104a and Rashi ad loc., s. v. mineh huʾ. 106 On this work, see Paul B. Fenton, Philosophie et Exégèse dans le Jardin de la métaphore de Moïse Ibn ‘Ezra, Philosophe et Poète Andalou du XIIe Siècle (Leiden: Brill, 1996). 77 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides “derivative,” and “amphibolous”) are all taken from the second chapter of al-Fārābī’s paraphrase of Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutation, a work that aims at dispelling logical fallacies.107 This fact suggests that Maimonides had in mind the Sophistical Refutations when he wrote these lines of the Guide, and more generally, he saw analogies between exegetical problems and logical puzzles. Aristotelian philosophers invented the theory of equivocation in order to deal with sophistical inferences that look formally correct at first sight but lead to absurd conclusions. The task of the logician was to find the error in the inference, and the Aristotelian theory of equivocation was a tool designed to help doing this. Once it is realized that a certain word is used equivocally in the argument, it is easy to show why the inference is invalid. Maimonides’ central insight was that the same can be said mutatis mutandis about some of the exegetical problems of the Hebrew Bible, too. There are puzzling passages in the Bible that suggest anthropomorphism and other problematic doctrines, such as the presence of water in the celestial spheres (cf. Genesis 1:6–8). However, once the reader realizes that some of the key terms are used equivocally in the Bible, the puzzles can be easily solved. 3.5.1 Equivocal Terms in the Creation Narrative: Earth, Darkness, Heavens, Firmament, and Water Employing the method of equivocal interpretation of key terms generated the most significant innovations in Maimonides’ exegesis of the creation story. Maimonides took the recurrent phrase “and God called…” as an indicator that a given word is meant equivocally in the biblical text. According to this criterion, “earth,” “heavens,” and “water” are all to be understood in more than one sense. Maimonides hints at the divergent meanings of these terms: (1) “earth” means the sublunar world in Genesis 1:1 but it refers to the element earth later on. (2) “darkness” refers to the elementary fire in Genesis 1:2, but it also means the absence of light later on. 107 Al-Fārābī, al-Manṭiq ʿinda l-Fārābī, ed. Rafīq al-ʿAjam, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar al-Machreq, 1986), pp. 132–133. The three words occur in exactly the same form as in Maimonides, and the explanations that al-Fārābī provides are also similar. The extant Arab translations of Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations use different words; cf. Manṭiq Arisṭū, ed. A. Badawi (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, 1952), pp. 790–795. 78 Tamás Visi (3) “heavens” means the celestial spheres in Genesis 1:1 but it refers to parts of the atmosphere and is used as a synonym of “firmament” later on. (4) “water” may mean the element water, but it also refers to modified forms of the element, such as vapors, clouds, and the like, and thus the word may designate parts of the atmosphere too (or, perhaps, to the “fifth element,” that is, the matter of the celestial spheres too, see 2.4 above). The absence of “light” from this list is remarkable.108 As God called the light “day” (Genesis 1:5), one has to assume, following Maimonides’ instructions, that “light” is also an equivocal term in the creation narrative. Sara KleinBraslavy has argued that for Maimonides “light” meant both the celestial bodies and the light they were radiating: the “light” created on the first day should be taken in the first sense, but after verse 5 it should be taken in the second sense.109 Maimonides remarks that “heavens” and “firmament” are both used equivocally and are interchangeable in a sense: just as “heavens” may refer to parts of the atmosphere, “firmament” may equivocally refer to the celestial spheres. Did Maimonides take these distinctions from earlier sources? On the basis of the available evidence the answer is “mostly not.” I am not aware of any precedents of Maimonides’ idea that the phrase “and God called…” alludes to the equivocal usage of Hebrew words in the creation narrative. Nor is his explanation of “earth” and “darkness” clearly paralleled in earlier sources. On the other hand, we find striking parallels in Philoponus’s treatise on the six days of creation, where the words “heaven,” “firmament,” and “water” are declared to be equivocal terms. Let us see the details. 3.5.2 Philoponus and Maimonides on Equivocal Terms in the Creation Narrative Chapter 14 of the third part of Philoponus’s De opificio mundi is entitled “that the word ‘water’ is used in many senses by the divine Scripture and that it denotes also the air and the heaven and the abyss.” Philoponus explains: 108 “Light” is not discussed in the lexical chapters of the first part of the Guide either. On the possible reasons for this absence, see Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Why There is No Discussion of the Equivocal Term ’or (light) in The Guide of the Perplexed?” in idem, In and Around Maimonides: Original Essays (n. p.: Gorgias Press, 2021), pp. 71–90. 109 Klein-Braslavy, Maimonides’ Commentary on the Creation Story, pp. 155–159, and cf. pp. 180–195. 79 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides Even the air is called water of which an example is: “Abyss calls to abyss at the roar of your waterfalls” (Psalms 41:8 LXX [42:8 TM])110 – the upper “abyss,” that’s the water, so it signifies the air which easily turns into water, and it borrows the name “abyss” from the lower water on account of the vapors that go upwards from it. Similar is “who calls for the water of the sea and pours it out over the face of the entire Earth” (Amos 5:8 LXX). And the “roar of your waterfalls” refers to the thunder that is generated when the waters are showered down; because Scripture customarily calls “waterfalls” [katarakta] the water that goes down from above, as is said about the cataclysm [i.e., the Flood]: “all the fountains of the abyss burst forth, and the waterfalls [katarakta] of the heavens were opened” (Genesis 7:11 LXX)111 and these words signify both the water that flooded the earth from below and the waters that fell from the air. As we have already said, “heavens” has many meanings, one of them being “air,” which reaches up to the heaven as if it was joined to it. [….]112 From all these it is clear that the interval that reaches from the earth to the heavens is called “firmament” by the Scripture and also “heaven” which is sometimes equivocally [homōnumōs] called “firmament” too.113 This short passage demonstrates that Philoponus supposed that the words “heaven,” “firmament,” and “water” were all used in many senses by the Bible, and each of them could refer to the atmosphere or parts of it. Philoponus employs the Aristotelian term “equivocation,” too, and states that “heavens” and “firmament” are not the same, but both can refer to the other “equivocally.” This idea is closely paralleled in Maimonides: The words, And God called the firmament Heaven, is intended, according to what I have explained to you, to make clear that the term is equivocal, and that the heaven mentioned in the first place, in the words 110 In modern European translations, this verse is sometimes Psalms 42:7; in the Septuagint it is Psalms 41:8 (Philoponus read the Septuagint, needless to say.). 111 In the Masoretic text we have ʾaruvot ha-mayim, “windows of waters.” 112 In the omitted passage Philoponus quotes further biblical prooftexts, including Daniel 4:20, Genesis 27:28, Deuteronomy 28:23-24, and Exodus 9:8-10. 113 Philoponus, Opf. 3.14, ed. Reichardt, pp. 150–152. 80 Tamás Visi the heaven and the earth, is not what is generally named heaven. It has rendered this signification even more certain by the use of the words, In the face of the firmament of heaven, whereby it meant to make clear that the firmament is not the heaven. Because of this equivocality of the terms, the true heaven is sometimes likewise called firmament, just as the true firmament is called heaven.114 Philoponus declares that the word “water” is also used “equivocally” and that the waters above and below the firmament differ not only in location but in nature too: Since “water” is said in manifold ways equivocally [kath’ homōnumian], it is appropriate if we discuss here the other equivocal meaning of “water,” too. If there are two heavens separated in respect of place, without touching each other, and Moses says that there are “waters” between them – even though they say that the spheres of the second [heaven] are touching each other, as if they were one part – and it is necessary that the whole interval between the two heavens is without vacuum, since there is no vacuum anywhere among the beings, then, most certainly [the thing filling the interval] is that body, which Moses called “water.” Just as the case of the air which fills what is in between the earth and the firmament, and the [air] and the water are commonly called “waters” in this [biblical verse:] “Let the waters produce reptiles of living souls, and birds that fly above the earth across the firmament of the heaven” (Genesis 1:20 LXX), because both substances are wet and fluid and transparent. On the basis of this analogy Moses calls the substance which fills the interval between the two heavens equivocally [homōnumōs] “water.” […] [The biblical text] does not say “God separated the water into two, and the one below the firmament remained as it was, whereas the other one, which was with the firmament, was lifted up.” On the contrary, God made the firmament a sort of border between the two waters, that were separated, as I have already said, in respect of both place and substance [kai tois topois kai tais ousiais], sharing only the common name [scil. “water”]. […] And from this it becomes clear again that “water” refers to air too by way of 114 Maimonides, Guide 2.30, tr. Pines, p. 352. 81 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides synecdoche,115 since it is not only water that exists under the firmament, but the air, which is in between the two of them, also gets close to it [scil. the firmament], even more than water does. Nevertheless, subsuming [air] under the visible [element], Moses called the whole thing “water.”116 Philoponus is involved in a microexegesis of Gen 1:20 here: the LXX text can be understood to say that “water” produced both fish and birds – but birds live in the air and not in water, so why are they produced by water? Philoponus suggests that birds were in fact produced by air. The word “water” means: (1) water, (2) air; in other words, “water” is also a term referring to air in the Bible. In another passage, Philoponus suggests that perhaps the Hebrew language doesn’t have a word for “air” and that is why Moses used the word “water” to denote “air” too.117 Philoponus posits a third equivocal meaning of “water”: it may refer to a celestial material that fills the void between the celestial spheres and the “first heaven” that Philoponus, and other Christian thinkers, hypothesized on theological grounds. In this context, Philoponus interprets the “heavens” of Genesis 1:1 to refer to this supernatural “first heaven” of Christian theology, while the “firmament” of Genesis 1:6–8 refers to the abode of the celestial bodies described by Ptolemaic astronomy. However, to complicate the matter further, in some contexts Philoponus identified the “first heaven” of Christian theology with the starless uppermost sphere of Ptolemaic cosmology.118 Maimonides also differentiated three equivocal meanings of “water.” He differs from Philoponus inasmuch as he does not posit a “first heaven” above the celestial bodies; the Christian theological considerations were not his concern. Nevertheless, in a way strikingly similar to Philoponus, he emphasizes that the upper and lower water differ in nature and not only in place: Among the things you ought to know is that the words, And He divided between the waters, and so on [Gen 1:7], do not refer merely to a division in place in which one part is located above and one below, while both 115 Synecdoche is a rhetorical figure, saying the part instead of the whole (in the present case, instead of “water-air mixture” Moses says “water”). 116 Philoponus, Opf. 3.15-16, ed. Reichardt, pp. 153–154 and 155–156. 117 Philoponus, Opf. 3.5, ed. Reichardt, p. 120, cf. 5.2 p. 211. 118 See Elweskiöld, John Philoponus against Cosmas Indicopleustes, pp. 112–115. 82 Tamás Visi have the same nature. The correct interpretation of these words is that He made a natural division between both of them – I mean with regard to their form – making one part, that which He first calls water, into one particular thing by means of the natural form with which He invested it, and bestowing upon the other part a different form, that latter part being water proper. Hence it says: And the gathering of the waters He called seas. In this way it makes it clear to you that the first water of which it is said, over the face of the waters, is not the water that is in the seas, but that part of the water situated above the air was differentiated by means of a certain form, whereas another part is this water here. […] that which is above the firmament is called water in name only and that it is not the specific water known to us.119 As has been mentioned above, some interpretations suppose that Maimonides identified the “waters above the firmament” with celestial matter. An early fourteenth-century reader of the Guide, Judah ben Benjamin Ibn Roqques attributed to Maimonides the exegetical position that the “heavens” referred to the starless outermost sphere, whereas the “firmament” denoted the eight spheres that contained celestial bodies.120 This interpretation is very close to Philoponus’s interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:6–8. The ideas that Maimonides apparently shared with Philoponus are not represented either in the Syriac works of Jacob of Edessa and Moses bar Kepha or in the Judeo-Arabic commentaries based on them. The idea that firmament and heaven can mean different things on the one hand, and both can refer to air or parts of the atmosphere does occur in the intermediary sources,121 but it is never treated in such a systematic and focused manner and never conceptualized as cases of Aristotelian equivocation. Ibn Ezra merely says that šamayim is a synonym of raqiaʿ and it refers to the atmosphere even in Genesis 1:1; it is the phrase “heavens of heavens” šmei šamayim that denotes the celestial spheres.122 119 Maimonides, Guide 2.30, tr. Pines, pp. 352–353. 120 See Doron Forte, “The ‘Question and the Answer’ of R. Judah b. Benjamin Ibn Rokash,” Kovetz al-Yad 21 (2012): 47–137 (Hebrew), here p. 63. 121 See especially the catalogue of the possible meanings of “heaven” in Moses bar Kepha; cf. Lorenz Schlime, Der Hexaemeronkommentar des Moses bar Kepha (Wiesbaden: O. Harrasowitz, 1977), p. 649. 122 Ibn Ezra, Short Commentary on Genesis 1:1. 83 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides The idea that either šamayim or raqiaʿ is used equivocally in the creation narrative is totally absent from Ibn Ezra’s commentaries. Perhaps the closest parallel to Maimonides (and Philoponus) occurs in Ibn Janāḥ’s Hebrew lexicon: he claims that the lower heaven (al-samāʾ al-dunyā) is called in Hebrew raqiaʿ and the Arabs extend this usage of the word and call every heavenly sphere raqīʿ, that is, firmament, the Arabic cognate of the word.123 Maimonides may have known this text and may have taken inspiration from it. Still, Ibn Janāḥ’s brief remarks are quite far from the focused and systematic discussion of the equivocation of these words we find in Guide 2.30. As has been mentioned above, the chances that Maimonides accessed Philoponus’s work directly are negligible. Due to the fragmentary nature of the evidence, it is not impossible that some lost Syriac sources transmitted these Philoponian ideas to some lost Judeo-Arabic sources, which were read by Maimonides. However, the chances of this scenario are very low. How to explain the striking resemblances between the two thinkers then? We shall address this question in the next section. 4. A Chain of Transmission To sum up the results of our investigations so far, exegetical and scientific ideas were possibly transmitted from John Philoponus’s De opificio mundi to Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Maimonides via early medieval JudeoArabic commentaries that were based on miaphysite Syriac texts, which were ultimately based on Philoponus’s work. Ibn Ezra certainly read Saadia Gaon’s commentary on Genesis; Maimonides may have done so too, and since fragments of al-Muqammaṣ and al-Qirqisānī were found in the Cairo Genizah, it is possible that Maimonides read these texts as well. Both Ibn Ezra and Maimonides referred to two earlier Andalusian biblical commentators, Judah ibn Balaam and Moses Ibn Jiqatillah, whose works were not preserved to a sufficient degree, but, nevertheless, we have to consider that they may have transmitted some of the earlier Judeo-Arabic commentators’ legacy to the twelfth-century Andalusian readers. The following chain of transmission can be reconstructed: 123 Ibn Janāḥ, Kitab al-’Usūl, p. 689. 84 Tamás Visi Philoponus, Opf. (Greek, Alexandria, ca. 546–560) Jacob of Edessa, Hexaemeron (Syriac, Syria, ca. 700–708) Daʾūd al-Muqammaṣ, Book of Creation** (Judeo-Arabic, N-Mesopotamia, 9th c.) Moses bar Kepha, Hexaemeron (Syriac, N-Mesopotamia ca. 903) Saadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis* (Judeo-Arabic, Baghdad, before 931) al-Qirqisānī, Tafsīr Berešit* (Judeo-Arabic, Mesopotamia, ca. 939) Moses Ibn Jiqatillah, Commentary on Genesis** (?) (Judeo-Arabic, Andalusia, 11th century) Judah ibn Balaam, Commentary on Genesis** (?) (Judeo-Arabic, Andalusia, 11th century) Abraham Ibn Ezra, Short Commentary on Genesis (Hebrew, Lucca, Italy, ca. 1142–1145) Moses Mamonides, The Guide of the Perplexed (Judeo-Arabic, Fustat, Egypt, ca. 1190) * Fragmented text ** Lost or nearly completely lost text Certain influence (explicit reference) Probable influence 85 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides 4.1 Maimonides and the Philoponian Paradigm: Persisting Problems As has been shown, much of the Maimonidean exegesis of Genesis 1 can be traced back to earlier Judeo-Arabic and Syriac sources, and ultimately to John Philoponus’s treatise on the six days of creation. However, some of the resemblances between Philoponus’s interpretation of the creation narrative and that of Maimonides are quite enigmatic. The kernel of the problem is that the material that was transmitted by Jacob of Edessa and his successors do not include the method of equivocal interpretation of biblical words. Still, Maimonides proposes equivocal interpretations of the words “heavens,” “firmament,” and “water,” just as Philoponus did some six centuries before him! This is a significant parallel between Philoponus and Maimonides, but it is absent in the intermediary sources. There are three possible ways of explaining this: (1) The similarities are due to chance, that is to say, a series of processes that were not related to each other but produced similar results. The idea that the Aristotelian theory of equivocation could be used to solve exegetical problems in Genesis 1 could have occurred to both Philoponus and Maimonides independently of each other. (2) Since Maimonides did receive a part of Philoponus’s legacy, he could have attempted to systematize, augment, and reformulate it on the basis of the sources that were at his disposal, which were, to a large degree, the same as Philoponus’s resources, such as Aristotle’s Categories, Meteorology, and Physics, as well as arguments for and against the eternity of the world, and some doctrines of Neoplatonic metaphysics. Attempting to improve the “meteorological” exegesis that he found in Judeo-Arabic sources, Maimonides reinvented some of the elements of Philoponus’s exegesis that were lost in the course of the transmission. He succeeded in identifying theoretical and methodological positions very similar to those of Philoponus, partly because he had a systematic scientific-philosophical approach to the whole field of exegesis, and partly because he relied on the same sources as Philoponus had. In this way, he could easily identify and eliminate those elements of the earlier texts that could not be accommodated in Aristotelian natural philosophy, such as the “Stoic” elements of Saadia’s commentary, and replace them with new notions that suited his Aristotelian commitments. As a matter of fact, Maimonides himself understood his own exegesis of Genesis 1 as retrieval of a lost tradition. As has been mentioned, among the 86 Tamás Visi rabbis of the talmudic period an esoteric lore called maʿaseh berešit (“work of the creation”) circulated, but its content had sunk into oblivion by medieval times. Maimonides believed that he could reconstruct the lost tradition: the maʿaseh berešit was, in his opinion, a scientific exegesis of the creation narrative on the basis of Aristotelian natural philosophy. And indeed, granted that the hypothesis proposed here is correct, Maimonides was right inasmuch as he did manage to reconstruct a partly lost tradition, that of Philoponian exegesis. The latter may not have had much in common with rabbinic esoteric lore, but we cannot blame Maimonides for misidentifying his discovery as maʿaseh berešit: Columbus also believed that he had found India. (3) The chain of transmission reconstructed above may not have been the only way Philoponian ideas were transmitted. Notions from Philoponus’s De opificio mundi probably influenced a dyophysite Syriac writer in tenth-century Mesopotamia independently of Jacob of Edessa (see Excursus). Thus, it is possible that a summary or translation of Philoponus’s De opificio mundi existed in Syriac or Arabic, even if it has not been spotted yet by modern scholars. 4.2. Reinventing Philoponus In my opinion, the second alternative is the most likely. The third option is just a dim possibility, while the first option is unlikely in light of the fact that Maimonides, just as Ibn Ezra before him, did encounter Philoponian exegetical ideas in earlier Judeo-Arabic sources. He endorsed the scientific approach to the creation narrative. His actual interpretation of the creation narrative can be modeled as an attempt to reformulate the received exegetical tradition in a more systematic manner on the basis of Aristotle’s natural philosophy. Accordingly, Maimonides explored the earlier exegetical solutions from an Aristotelian point of view, and he discovered that the explanations of “heaven,” “firmament,” and “water” are based on the unspoken premise that these words are used equivocally in the Bible. Maimonides made the hidden premise explicit and due to his strong background in Aristotelian philosophy, he conceptualized it in terms of the Aristotelian theory of equivocation. In this way he arrived at formulas that are surprisingly similar to those of Philoponus over half a millennium before him, despite the fact that he never read Philoponus’s work. But Maimonides did something more: he generalized the method of equivocal interpretation. First, he looked for further instances of equivocation in the creation story, and found “earth” and “darkness,” in addition to the examples he took over from his sources. Moreover, he applied this method 87 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides to another major topic of biblical theology, the anthropomorphic expressions concerning God. Eventually, identifying equivocations in biblical words became a cornerstone of his biblical exegesis and the central topic of the first part of the Guide of the Perplexed. 5. Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, and the “Meteorological” Exegesis of the Creation Narrative It is generally assumed that in Guide 2.30, Maimonides inserted implicit advice to study Aristotle’s Meteorology in order to understand the meaning of the biblical creation story. As Sara Klein-Braslavy remarked: “Aristotle’s Meteorology is precisely the semantic hinge of the creation story.”124 Aviezer Ravitzky has argued that this remark of Maimonides encouraged Samuel Ibn Tibbon to translate Aristotle’s Meteorology into Hebrew, thus launching his project of translating Aristotelian philosophical texts to Hebrew.125 This view has been challenged by Y. Tzvi Langermann.126 Following Rabbi Yosef Kafah’s translation of the Guide, Langermann points out that the JudeoArabic original of the text does not mention Aristotle’s Meteorology at all. It is Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation that added the phrase sefer ʾotot ha-šamayim “the book of Meteorology” [lit. “signs of the heaven”] to the text. The Arabic original contains merely the word ʾāṯār (“signs”) which does not mean “meteorology” unless it is accompanied by the adjective al-ʿulwiyya (“signs high above” / “atmospheric phenomena”). Without this adjective, ʾāṯār means “traces,” “signs” or “wise sayings” (comparable to Latin dicta memorabilia), or even “traditions” in the sense of transmitted sayings; the latter perfectly fits the context as Maimonides mentions rabbinic traditions earlier. 124 Klein-Braslavy, Maimonides’ Commentary on the Creation Story, p. 66 (Hebrew). 125 Aviezer Ravitzky, “The Thought of R. Zerahiah b. Isaac b. Shealtiel Hen and the Maimonidean-Tibbonian Philosophy in the 13th Century” (Hebrew) (Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 224–225; Ravitzky, “Aristotle’s Meteorology and the Maimonidean Modes,” pp. 368–371. 126 Langermann, “The Making of the Firmament,” pp. 473–474 and especially idem, “A Mistaken Anticipation.” A summary of the argument in English appears in idem, “Rabbi Yosef Qafih’s Modern Medieval Translation of the Guide,” in Maimonides’ “Guide of the Perplexed” in Translation, ed. Josef Stern, James T. Robinson and Yonatan Shemesh (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), pp. 257–278, here pp. 263–267. 88 Tamás Visi Thus, Pines’ translation of the relevant section, “you […] understand all that has been demonstrated in the ‘Meteorologica’ and examine everything that people have said about every point mentioned in that work,”127 should be modified thus: ‫ופהמת כל מא תברהן פי אלאת'אר ותטלעת עלי כל מא קאלת אלנאס פי כל שי מנהא‬ […] and you understand all that has been demonstrated in the traditions [al-ʾāṯār] and examine everything that people have said about every point of those things. This interpretation is supported by al-Ḥarīzī’s translation, too, who rendered ʾāṯār as “signs of wisdom.”128 One may wonder whether Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s manuscript read kitāb ʾāṯār al-ʿulwiyya here. Such a variant reading is not attested in the Arabic manuscripts. According to Langermann, it is more likely that Ibn Tibbon unconsciously mistranslated this phrase: Ibn Tibbon was profoundly interested in Aristotelian meteorology, and he read his own interest into the text of the Guide. While the mainstream view is that Maimonides’ remark sparked Ibn Tibbon’s interest in meteorology, Langermann argues that the causal relationship worked in the opposite direction: Ibn Tibbon’s interest came first, and it caused the Hebrew (mis)translation that made Maimonides advertise Aristotelian meteorology.129 From a chronological point of view Langermann’s proposal is problematic, but not untenable: Ibn Tibbon finished translating the Meteorology around 1210, while the first version of the translation of the Guide was completed in November 1204, and this version already included the problematic remark on “the book of Meteorology,” although Ibn Tibbon changed the relevant Hebrew phrase later.130 Thus, the (mis)translation of the relevant passage 127 Maimonides, Guide 2.30, tr. Pines, p. 353. 128 ‫ ;ותבין כל מה שבא עליו מופת מאותות החכמה ותשקיף כל מה שדברו בני אדם בכל ענין מהם‬see Langermann, “A Mistaken Anticipation,” p. 28. 129 Ibid., pp. 22–24. 130 On the date of Ibn Tibbon’s translation of the Meteorology, see Resianne Fontaine, Otot Ha-Shamayim: Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Version of Aristotle’s Meteorology (Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. ix-xi; on the phases of the translation of the Guide and on changing the phrases ‫ הדרכים העליונים‬and ‫ אותות עליונות‬to ‫אותות השמים‬, see Carlos Fraenkel, From Maimonides to Samuel Ibn Tibbon: The Transformation of the Dalālat al-Ḥā’irīn into the Moreh ha-Nevukhim (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2007), pp. 57–60, 80–85, and esp. 94–96 (Hebrew). 89 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides of the Guide as “the book of Meteorology” probably predates the translation of the Meteorology to Hebrew. Nevertheless, there are sources indicating that Ibn Tibbon was an accomplished intellectual with independent opinions by the time he began translating the Guide.131 Therefore, it is possible that his enthusiasm for Aristotelian meteorology had emerged earlier. Langermann’s reconstruction is not particularly popular among scholars today, but the results of the present investigations support it. As has been shown, Maimonides’ interpretation of Genesis 1 does not contain any specific meteorological idea that was not already present in his sources (see above, 3.34). The same is not true of Ibn Ezra: his Short Commentary on Gen 1:6 clearly utilizes the Aristotelian theory of reflected sunrays drying the lower part of the atmosphere (cf. Aristotle, Meteorology 1.3) which is absent in earlier sources (see above, 2.3). As has been argued above, this is an innovation which depends on Ibn Ezra’s radicalized understanding of Genesis 1 to be an account of a sublunar process that presupposes the existence of the celestial bodies (see above, 2.5). Once you accept that the Sun had existed before the “creation” of light narrated in Genesis 1:3–5, you can proceed to utilize Aristotle’s theory of the reflected sunrays in your interpretation of the biblical verses, and that is exactly what Ibn Ezra did. Other commentators, including Maimonides, did not suppose that the Sun had existed before the biblical process of creation began, and consequently they could not utilize the meteorological theory in that way. The conclusion suggested by the evidence is that the most significant initiator of the Jewish “meteorological” interpretation of the creation narrative in the twelfth century was not Maimonides, but Ibn Ezra. It was the latter, and not the former, who extended the scope of meteorological theories in biblical exegesis (cf. above, 2.3). Maimonides’ supposed statement about the importance of the “book of Meteorology” is not backed by his own exegetical practice. In light of this consideration, Ibn Tibbon’s rendering of the above-mentioned sentence of the Guide is indeed more likely a mistranslation than evidence of a different variant reading in the Arabic original. Moreover, Ibn Tibbon’s remarkable interest in Aristotelian meteorology can be explained without the assumption that Maimonides influenced him in 131 See Fraenkel, From Maimonides to Samuel Ibn Tibbon, pp. 55–56; Aviezer Ravitzky, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed,” AJS Review 6 (1981): 87–123, here pp. 94–100 about Ibn Tibbon’s letter on providence written around 1199. 90 Tamás Visi this respect. The works of Ibn Ezra were enthusiastically received in Provence.132 Samuel Ibn Tibbon repeatedly cites Ibn Ezra in his Maʾamar Yiqqawu ha-mayim and builds on his interpretation of the biblical text.133 Therefore, his interest in meteorology may have originated in his reading of Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the creation story. The hypothesis that Maimonides sparked his interest in meteorology is unnecessary. The causal relationship may have indeed worked the other direction: once Ibn Tibbon was convinced that Aristotelian meteorology was the semantic key of the creation narrative, he read this idea into the text of the Guide. In any case, Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew version of this sentence convinced generations of medieval Jewish philosophers to come that Maimonides’ authority stood behind the meteorological approach to the creation story. 6. Conclusion: The Transmission and Transformation of Philoponus’s Exegesis of the Creation Narrative The Philoponian exegesis of the six days of creation was both simplified and augmented with new elements throughout its reception history. Philoponus’s polemic against literalist Christian authors who rejected Greek sciences as “the foolish wisdom of the world” (cf. 1Corinthians 1:20), was received in Syriac texts by Jacob of Edessa and Moses bar Kepha, and it is discussed extensively by al-Qirqisānī. However, after al-Qirqisānī, this topic disappears from Jewish biblical commentaries, and for Yefet ben Eli, for Abraham Ibn Ezra, or for Maimonides the sphericity of the earth was not a topic to be discussed in a commentary on Genesis 1. The method of equivocal interpretation of Hebrew words disappeared even faster. Jacob of Edessa assumed implicitly and sometimes stated explicitly that Scripture uses the same word for different things, but he did not elaborate on 132 Jedaiah ha-Penini in his Letter of Apology (Montpellier, 1305) writes: “Our fathers have told us about the joy of the great men, pious ones and rabbis in this land when he [i.e., Ibn Ezra] visited them.” (See Tamás Visi, “Ibn Ezra, a Maimonidean Authority: The Evidence of the Early Ibn Ezra Supercommentaries,” in The Cultures of Maimonideanism: New Approaches to the History of Jewish Thought, ed. James T. Robinson, Supplements to The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 9 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009), pp. 89–131, here p. 100. 133 See Gad Freudenthal, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory of an Eternal World,” Aleph 8 (2008): 41–129, here pp. 89, n. 85 and 98–99. 91 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides this topic, nor did he indicate its relation to Aristotelian logic. In light of this it is not surprising that in the works of the Jewish exegetes we do not find any trace of the Philoponian method: this piece of the paradigm was poorly represented in the Syriac sources on which the Jewish texts were based. However, the method miraculously reappeared in Maimonides’ Guide. This is an enigma: the most likely explanation is that Maimonides reinvented the method on the basis of the materials he found in earlier sources (see 4.1–2 above). The “meteorological” interpretation fared better but underwent a significant modification. The notion that the first verses of Genesis talk about the creation of the four elements and their arrangement in concentric circles was transmitted relatively easily and it is widely attested in Jewish sources too. Philoponus claimed that “water” could refer to (1) some kind of air and (2) to a material of the celestial regions. The first option suggested that the “waters over the firmament” could denote some “watery” parts of the atmosphere, presumably where clouds are formed, and consequently, the “firmament” would be a lower region of the atmosphere. The second option suggested that the firmament could be the celestial spheres, while the “waters over the firmament” could denote a celestial material posited above the spheres. Philoponus chose this latter approach when he commented on Genesis 1:6–8, but Jacob of Edessa preferred the first option and interpreted the biblical verses accordingly in his Hexaemeron. Early JudeoArabic commentators received Jacob of Edessa’s interpretation. Ibn Ezra encountered Jacob of Edessa’s modified version of the “meteorological” interpretation, probably in Saadia’s commentary, and developed it further to new directions. Radicalizing the idea that the creation narrative related a physical process, Ibn Ezra declared that the whole process concerned only the sublunar world and it presupposed the pre-existence of the celestial bodies. This exegetical position enabled him to incorporate a further bit of Aristotelian meteorology into his interpretation: the theory that reflected sunrays dried the lower part of the atmosphere and generated the biblical “firmament,” which was a kind of air (see 2.3). Ibn Ezra’s approach was reinforced by a reference to Aristotle’s Meteorology in Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation of Maimonides’ Guide which is absent in the Arabic original. Despite his reputation as a major initiator of the “meteorological” exegesis in Jewish tradition, Maimonides was much less innovative than Ibn Ezra in applying meteorological theories to biblical exegesis. He probably found the idea that the “firmament” and the “waters above the firmament” referred to regions of the atmosphere in earlier sources, and interpreted the relevant biblical texts 92 Tamás Visi accordingly. However, a passage suggests that the “waters above the firmament” refers to celestial matter in his opinion. If this interpretation is correct, then, most enigmatically, Maimonides again proposed an interpretation that was closer to Philoponus’s original exegesis than to the transmitted versions. EXCURSUS Philoponian Lore in Emmanuel Bar Shahhare’s Hexaemeron? Emmanuel bar Shahhare was a dyophysite (“Nestorian”) writer who lived in Iraq during the second half of the tenth century.134 He wrote his versified Hexaemeron around 980, that is to say, decades after Saadia Gaon’s passing away. Thus, for chronological reasons he could not be a source of al-Muqammaṣ, al-Qirqisānī, or Saadia Gaon. The significance of his work lies in the fact that he reports an opinion which resembles that of Philoponus in De opificio mundi which is, nevertheless, not summarized by Jacob of Edessa. There are only few studies on Emmanuel bar Shahhare and his work is only partially edited.135 The analysis below relies on a single manuscript (MS Vatican, Vat. Sir. 182) of the work. The scientific sources of his work are quite enigmatic and demand further studies.136 He reports a number of opinions using phrases like “and others say.” Some of these reported opinions are highly interesting but of unclear origin. For example, he mentions a theory that the universe continuously moves in an 134 Cf. Erik ten Napel, “Some Remarks on the Hexaemeral Literature in Syriac,” in IV Symposium Syriacum, 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Groningen – Oosterhesselen 10–12 September), ed. Han J.W. Drijvers, René Lavenant, Corrie Molenberg, and Gerrit J. Reinink, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987), pp. 57–69. 135 Selections from this text are printed in Jacques Eugène Manna, ed., Morceaux choisis de littérature araméenne (Mosul: Imprimerie des pères dominicains, 1901), vol. 2, pp. 143-207. 136 Cf. Erik ten Napel, “Influence of Greek Philosophy and Science in Emmanuel Bar Shahhare’s Hexaemeron” in III Symposium Syriacum, 1980: Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures (Goslar 7–11 Septembre 1980), ed. René Lavenant, Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 221 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1983), pp. 109–118. 93 The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides infinite void (see Text 3/a in Appendix 1 below).137 Another reported theory explains the earth’s central position in the universe by hypothesizing a kind of magnetic attraction between the celestial spheres and the earth: since the earth is exposed to the same force of attraction on each side, it remains unmoved in the middle (see Text 3/c in Appendix 1). In his Eighth Poem [memra], Emmanuel bar Shahhare discusses the fourth day of creation, when God put the celestial bodies in the “firmament.” He mentions several theories concerning the movement of the celestial bodies. One of the opinions mentioned clearly recall Philoponus’s famous impetus theory. Emmanuel writes (see Text 3/b in the Appendix below): Just as an arrow when a man shoots it, will not fall at all, until the vigor [ḥēfā] of the force [ḥaylā] of the man, who shot it, is exhausted, [moreover,] as the vigor of the force of the one who throws a stone is exhausted [the stone] sinks and descends since the force of the thrower is finished.138 This is an illustration of the Creator whose force, that is not exhausted, carries the whole world. There is no exhaustion of the force of the Creator who holds the world, for if it was exhausted, the world would fall like a stone. A finite force that has a measure will also be exhausted, its activities and forces will stop. The force of the Creator lacks nothing and is not weakened, and by it the heaven and earth stand, and everything between them. This text clearly compares the movement of heaven to projectiles and explains that such objects move as long as the “vigor of the force” of the cause of the 137 A similar theory, perhaps of Indian origin, was mentioned and refuted by some of the early Muʿtazila, Abū l-Huḏayl (752–842), and Ibrāhīm al-Naẓẓām (ca. 775 - ca. 845); see Josef van Ess, Theology and Society in the Second and Third Centuries of the Hijra, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), p. 257. The theory and its refutation is mentioned in al-Qirqisānī’s long commentary on the creation too (Tafsīr Berešit, “earth” chapter 4, The National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, Russia Ms. EVR ARAB I 3225, fol. 2v–3r.) 138 Literally: “together with the exhaustion of the vigor of the force of the one who throws a stone / is the sinking and descent [of the stone] as the force of the thrower is finished.” 94 Tamás Visi movement is not exhausted. The theory is clearly based on Philoponus’s impetus theory. Richard Sorabji has argued that it was only in De opificio mundi that Philoponus connected all the fields of dynamics and gave a very brief but powerful account of the theory that God “implanted” a “motive power” into the heavenly bodies which keeps them in motion.139 Philoponus’s impetus theory was partly known in the Arab world.140 The argument that “finite bodies can contain only a finite power” was a muchdiscussed proof for the creation of the world. However, Philoponus’s account of the motive power inserted by God into the heavenly bodies in De opificio mundi was not translated as far we know. Nor was it summarized in Jacob of Edessa’s work. Still, Emmanuel bar Shahhare apparently was familiar with it. Moreover, the fact that he mentioned it in the context of the creation story as an explanation of the work of the fourth day – and not as an argument for creation in the general context of philosophical arguments for and against creation – suggests that he found it in a text on the Hexaemeron. Again, one may wonder whether Emmanuel bar Shahare connected the dots and successfully reinvented the non-transmitted part of Philoponus’s theory on the basis of the information that was available to him, or whether a Syriac translation or summary of Philoponus’s De opificio mundi existed, after all, in the tenth century, even if it remains undetected in our sources. Further research is needed to clarify this matter. APPENDIX Text 1 Jacob al-Qirqisānī, Short Commentary on Genesis A – London, British Library Or 2492, fol. 10v B – The National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, Russia Ms. EVR ARAB I 1366, fol. 9v-10r 139 Philoponus, Opf 1.12, ed. Reichardt, pp. 28–29; cf. Richard Sorabji, Matter, Space, and Motion: Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel (London: Duckworth, 1988), pp. 232–233. 140 Cf. Shlomo Pines, “Les précurseurs musulmans de la théorie de l’impetus,” Archeion 21 (1938): 298–306; Fritz Zimmermann, “Philoponus’ Impetus Theory in the Arabic Tradition,” in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, ed. Richard Sorabji, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 56, Issue Supplement 103 (February 2013), pp. 161–169. 95 ‫‪The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides‬‬ ‫מסלה פי קו' פי אלסמא ואלארץ' את‪ ,‬ואת‪ ,‬ולו קאל ברא אלהים השמים והארץ לכאן פי‬ ‫דלך מקנע? אלג'ואב אן הד'ה כלמה מסתעמלה פי לג'ה אלעבראני מענאהא איא ואלעבראני‬ ‫יסתעמלהא כתירא פי כל מא וקע עליה אלפעל וקד יסתעמלהא אלערבי פי בעץ' אלמואצ'ע‬ ‫לא פי כתרה" אלעבראני מתל מא יקול אלעבראני הלא את השמים ואת הארץ אני מלא‬ ‫וליס יקול פי אלערבי אני מלא איא אלסמאואת בל יקול אני מלא אלסמא ואלארץ'‪ .‬וקד זעם‬ ‫קום אן קו' את ואת תעריף בכ'לקה ג'והרהא‪ ,‬וד'לך ליזיל קול מן ידעי אנהמא כ'לקתא‪ 141‬מן‬ ‫ג'והר כאן מוג'וד קבל ד'לך מן אלמכ'לוקאת הו אעראצ'המא דון ג'ירהמא‬ ‫‪Text 2‬‬ ‫‪Moses bar Kepha, Hexaemeron, Ms Paris, BNF, Syr. 241, fol. 35r/b‬‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܚܪܢܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ ܕܡܫܘܕܥܐ ܝܬܐ ܘܐܝܬܘܬܐ ܘܩܘܡܐ ܘܟܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܡ ܼܪܝܢ ܕܝܬ ܒܪܬ ܩܐܠ‬ ‫ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘܐܘܣܝܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܐܡܪ ܫܠܝܡܘܢ ܕܝܬ ܵ‬ ‫ܕܡܬܐܡܪܐ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܐܝܟ ܿ‬ ‫ܙܕܝܩܐ ܘܝܬ ܪܫܝܥܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܐܢ‬ ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ ܡܘܫܐ ܕܒܪܝܫܝܬ ܒܪܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܝܬ‬ ‫̄ܗ ܠܝܬܗܘܢ ܘܠܒܗܘܢ ܕܙܕܝܩܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܪܫܝܥܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܐܢ ܘܗܕܐ ܼ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܫܡܝܐ ܘܝܬ [‪ ]fol. 35v/c‬ܐܪܥܐ ܗ ܝܬܐ ܘܐܝܬܘܬܐ ܘܩܢܘܡܐ ܘܟܝܢܐ ܘܐܘܣܝܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘܕܐܪܥܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܗܠܝܢ ܕܒܓܘܗܝܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܒܪܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܡܢ ܐܠ ܡܕܡ‬ ‫‪Text 3‬‬ ‫)‪Emmanuel bar Shahhare, Hymn 8 (On the Fourth Day of Creation‬‬ ‫‪Vatican, BAV, Vat. Sir. 182‬‬ ‫‪Fol. 64r‬‬ ‫‪Text 3/a‬‬ ‫>‪<The universe falls in empty space‬‬ ‫ܐܚ̈ܪܢܐ ܐܡܪܘ ܕܗܐ ܼܡܢ ܕܐܬܒܪܝ ܥܠܡܐ ܘܠܟܐ‬ ‫ܢܬܥ ܿ‬ ‫ܢܚܬ ܫܡܝܐ ܘܐܪܥܐ ܘܟܠܡܐ ܕܒܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܫܡܝܐ ܘܐܪܥܐ ܒܕܡܘܬ ܡܫܟܢܐ ܗܐ ܐܣܝܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܢܬܥܝܢ ܢܚܬܝܢ ܒܐܬܪܐ ܣܦܝܩܐ ܕܠܝܬ ܠܗ ܣܟܐ‬ ‫ܐܠ ܐܝܬ ܡܕܡ ܕܦܓܥ ܗܘ ܒܗܘܢ ܕܢܟܐܠ ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫קלקתא ‪141 B‬‬ ‫‪96‬‬ ‫‪Tamás Visi‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܡܢ ܕܒܓܘܗܘܢ ܐܠ ܣܟ ܝܕܥܝܢ ܕܢܬܥܝܢ ܢܚܬܝܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܐܢܗܘ ܐܪܐ ܕܗܟܢ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܗܕ ܕܐܡܪܬܘܢ‬ ‫ܟܕ ܐܢܫ ܢܫܕܐ ܠܒܢܬܐ ܼܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܠܘܬܗ ܬܪܗܛ‬ ‫ܐܠ ܓܝܪ ܡܨܝܐ ܠܒܢܬܐ ܕܫܕܝܬ ܕܬܚܘܬ ܐܠܪܥܐ‬ ‫ܐܐܠ ܪܗܛܐ ܟܕ ܐܠ ܡܢܝܥ ܡܕܪܟܐ ܐܠܪܥܐ‬ ‫ܠܦܘܬ ܓܝܪ ܝܘܩܪܗ ܕܐܝܢܐ ܕܪܒܘ ܡܣܪܗܒ ܿ‬ ‫ܢܚܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܢܐ ܕܩܠܝܠ ܡܬܝܢ ܡܢܗ ܒܝܕ ܡܚܬܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܒܢܬܐ ܗܟܝܠ ܛܒ ܩܠܝܐܠ ܒܦܚܡܐ ܕܐܪܥܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܠ ܵܘ ̇ܐܠ ̇‬ ‫ܠܗ ܕܬܕܪܟ ܐܠܪܥܐ ܒܚܕ ܼܡܢ ܦܘ̈ܪܣܝܢ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܗܐ ܼܡܢ ܟܕܘ ܚܙܝܢܢ ܠܗ ܠܗ ܠܠܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܪܗܛܐ ܢܬܥܐ ܘܡܛܝܐ ܐܠܪܥܐ ܒܪܦܦ ܥܝܢܐ‬ ‫‪Fol. 64v‬‬ ‫ܗܐ ܼܡܢ ܟܕܘ ܐܫܬܪܝ ܣܥܝܟܘܢ ܩܠܝܐܠܝܬ‬ ‫‪Text 3/b‬‬ ‫‪<God’s power keeps the world moving just as a projectile is moved by the‬‬ ‫>‪thrower’s force‬‬ ‫ܐܘܕܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܥܡܢ ܕܚܝܠ ܒܪܘܝܐ ܛܥܝܢ ܠܗ ܠܥܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܕܐܚܝܕ ܠܗ ܼܡܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܐܠ ܓܝܪ ܪܒܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܕܒܪܝܗ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘܗܐ ܬ̈ܪܬܝܗܝܢ ܦܫܝܩܢ ܠܚܝܠܗ ܕܐܚܝܕ ܟܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܟܡܐ ܕܓܐܪܐ ܟܕܪ ܐܢܫ ܢܫܕܐ ܐܠ ܣܟ ܢܦܠ‬ ‫ܥܕܡܐ ܕܫܠܡ ܚܐܦܐ ܕܚܝܐܠ ܕܐܢܫܐ ܕܫܕܝܗܝ‬ ‫ܥܡ ܫܘܠܡܐ ܕܚܐܦܐ ܕܚܝܠܗ ܕܫܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܢܬܥܐ ܘܢܚܬܐ ܒܕܐܫܬܠܝܬ ̇‬ ‫ܫܕܝܗ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܼܡܢ ܚܝܠ‬ ‫ܗܟܘܬ ܗܟܝܠ ܣܒ ܬܚܘܝܬܐ ܥܠ ܒܪܘܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܝܠܗ ܛܥܝܢ ܠܗ ܠܥܠܡܐ ܟܠܗ ܕܐܠ ܫܘܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܠܝܬ ܫܘܠܡܐ ܠܚܝܠ ܒܪܘܝܐ ܕܠܒܝܟ ܥܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܫܠܡ ܠܗ ܢܦܠ ܥܠܡܐ ܒܕܡܘܬ ܟܐܦܐ‬ ‫ܚܝܐܠ ܡܣܝܟܐ ܘܕܐܝܬ ܠܗ ܡܟܝܠ ܐܦ ܫܘܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ̈‬ ‫ܠܥܒܝܕܐ ܘܥܒܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܚܝܠܗܘܢ ܒܛܠ‬ ‫ܚܝܠ ܒܪܘܝܐ ܐܠ ܣܟ ܡܘܦܐ ܘܐܠ ܡܬܡܚܠ‬ ‫ܘܒܗܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܩܝܡܝܢ ܫܡܝܐ ܘܐܪܥܐ ܘܟܠܡܐ ܕܒܗܘܢ‬ ‫‪97‬‬ ‫‪The “Meteorological” Interpretation of Creation : From Philoponus to A. Ibn Ezra and M. Maimonides‬‬ ‫‪Text 3/c‬‬ ‫>‪<Heaven attracts earth just as a magnet attracts iron‬‬ ‫ܐܡܪܘ ܕܒܕܡܘܬ ܟܐܦܐ ܢܬܦܬ ܦܪܙܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܚ̈ܪܢܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܠܫܡܝܐ ܚܝܐܠ ܕܢܬܦ ܐܠܪܥܐ ܠܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܢܬܦ ܚܝܐܠ ܕܩܢܐ ܫܡܝܐ ܐܠܪܥܐ ܨܐܕܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܘܡܢ ܟܠ ̈‬ ‫ܦܢܝܢ ܒܚܕܐ ܫܘܝܘ ܫܡܝܐ ܪܚܝܩ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘܒܠ ܚܕ ܓܒܐ ܢܬܦ ܨܐܕܘܗ ܐܠܪܥܐ ܒܚܝܠܗ‬ ‫ܓܒܝܢ ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܩܝܡܐ ܙܪܝܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܠ ܣܟ ܕܒܩܐ ܒܚܕ ܼܡܢ‬ ‫ܘܬܚܘܝܬ ܗܕܐ ܨܒܘܬܐ ܕܦܪܙܐܠ ܟܕ ܡܬܬܣܝܡܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܟܐܦܐ ܐܪܒܥ ܐܪܐ ܕܡܓܢܛܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܡܨܥܬ‬ ‫ܟܠ ܚܕܐ ܢܬܦܐ ܡܢܬܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܡܢܗ ܕܨܒܘܬ ܦܪܙܐܠ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܐܠ ܕܒܩܐ ܒܚܕ ܡܢ ̈‬ ‫ܩܘܦܣܐ ܕܡܓܢܛܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܗܟܢܐ ܠܡ ܫܡܝܐ ܢܬܦܐ ܘܠܒܟܐ ܐܠܪܥܐ‬ ‫ܒܚܝܐܠ ܕܐܝܬ ̇‬ ‫ܒܗ ܕܐܡܝܢ ܢܬܦ ܠܟܝܢ ܐܪܥܐ‬ ‫‪98‬‬ Tamás Visi Acknowledgments An early draft of this paper was read and discussed at the one-day colloquium “The Science of ‘Meteorology’ in Medieval Scriptural Exegesis” at CNRSSPHERE-CHSPAM, Paris, organized by Gad Freudenthal (12 June 2014). Another version was read and discussed at the Olomouc-Jerusalem Week 2021 organized by Ivana Cahová (Kurt and Ursula Schubert Center for Jewish Studies, Palacky University, Olomouc) and Eli Lederhendler (Mandel Institute, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and at the Oxford Seminar of Advanced Jewish Studies, “Philosophy in Scripture: Jewish Philosophical Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in the Late Medieval Period” cohort (convened by Paul B. Fenton and Raphael Dascalu) at the Ocford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, April-June 2022. I would like to thank the organizers and all the participants of the aforementioned events for criticism and suggestions. I am also grateful to György Geréby, Resianne Fontaine and Reimund Leicht, as well as the two anonymous reviewers, for their insightful comments, and to Leigh Chipman for copy-editing the text. Addendum (added in proof) Charlotte Köckert has convincingly argued that Gregory of Nyssa (d. 395) utilized the logical notion of equivocation in his interpretation of the creation narrative distinctly from both literal and allegorical exegesis (see Köckert, Christliche Kosmologie und kaiserzeitliche Philosophie, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 56, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 485-488). The relevant work of Gregory of Nyssa was translated to Arabic in the eleventh century, probably by ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Faḍl. Theoretically, it is possible that Maimonides read this Arabic translation of Gregory’s Hexaemeron and was inspired by the equivocal interpretation of the word “water” in that work. The Arabic translation is unedited; the relevant passage can be consulted in Ms Paris, BNF, Arab. 134, fol. 182r-183r (corresponding to PG 44:81C-85A and GNO 4/1 ed. Drobner, pp. 32-35); ‘equivocation’ is translated as mušārakat al-ism. Whether Maimonides indeed read this text is a question for further research. 99

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The “Meteorological” Interpretation of the Creation Narrative: John Philoponus’s Legacy in Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Maimonides

The “Meteorological” Interpretation of the Creation Narrative: John Philoponus’s Legacy in Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Maimonides

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS