1. See Maker, H., Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works (Philadelphia, 1921);Google ScholarBaron, S. W., “Saadia's Communal Activities,” in Ancient and MedievalJewish History, ed. Feldman, L. (New Brunswick, N.J., 1972), pp. 95–127;Google Scholar and Mann, J., “A Fihrist of Sa'adya's Works,” Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 11 (1920–21); 423–428.Google Scholar

2. The Kitတb was edited in Arabic characters by S. Landauer (Leiden, 1860); and again in Hebrew characters with a modern Hebrew translation by Y. Kafah (Jerusalem, 1970), entitled Sefer ha-Nivfiar be-Emunot u-ve-De'ot. The Landauer edition abounds in errors, especially regarding biblical citations. By convention, the Arabic text of Landauer is the edition cited in this paper. An English translation of the Arabic was made by Rosenblatt, S., The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (New Haven, 1948).Google Scholar

3. Evidence of this editing process can be uncovered by comparing the Oxford and Leningrad recensions of the Judeo-Arabic text, in which the seventh treatise of the Kitāb appears in two significantly different forms, and in Saadiah's rather cumbersome method of occasionally referring to other parts of the Kitāb by treatise titles rather than sequence numbers. Landauer published the seventh treatise according to the Oxford recension. Bacher, W. published the Leningrad—then known as the “Petersburg”—recension of the seventh treatise in “Die zweite Version von Saadja's Abschnitt uber die Wiederbelebung der Todten,” in Festschrift zum achtzigsten Geburtstage Moritz Steinschneiders (Leipzig, 1896), Hebrew sec., pp. 98–112. See H. Malter, Saadia Gaon, p. 194.Google Scholar

4. For a recent analysis of these five usūll, see Watt, W. M., The Formative Period of Islamic Thought (Edinburgh, 1973), pp. 228–249.Google Scholar

5. See Wolfson, H. A., “Atomism in Saadia,” Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 37 (1946): 107–124.Google Scholar

6. Edited and annotated by I. Kitower (Josefow, 1885).

7. Such is the description by Scholem, G. in Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1946), p. 86.Google Scholar

8. Folio 140b. L. Dukes's emendation to dttqri'h is totally without justification, based on a need to place the date of the colophon within the life span of Berechiah ha-Nakdan. See Ewald, H. and Dukes, , Beiträge zur Geschichte der Aeltesten Auslegung und Sprachklārung desAlten Testamentes (Stuttgart, 1844), 2:16, n. 6.Google Scholar

9. See Malter, Saadia Gaon, p. 361.

10. An initial treatment of this MS was made by Bloch, P., “Die zweite Uebersetzung des Saadiahnischen Buches Emunoth wedeoth,” Monatsschrift für die Geschichle und Wissenschafl des Judenthums 19 (1870): 401–414, 449–456.Google ScholarSee Steinschneider, M., Die Hebraeischen Handschriften der K. Hof-und Staaisbibliothek (Munich, 1895), pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

11. MS Paris 669, for example.

12. MS Parma de Rossi 769; MS Munich 65/lc (fols. 20b–39a); MS Munich 120 (fols. 66b–69a); and MS Breslau 183, identified by Poznanski as MS Heidenheim 1, about which M. Steinschneider asked in 1893 “wo jetzt?” See Steinschneider's, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893), p. 440.Google Scholar

13. MS Warsaw 687, prepared by S. Poznanski before 1912 from MS Munich 42.

14. MS Oxford Bodl. 1224 (opp. 599; old 1185). See Neubauer, A., Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1886), 1:432.Google Scholar

15. Sefer ha-Tehiyyah ve-ha-Pedut (Mantua, 1556) is a reworking of the seventh treatise. Sefer ha-Pedut ve-ha-Purqan (Mantua, 1556), containing a large portion of the eighth treatise, was reprinted as least nine times, once under the title Sefer ha-Galut ve-ha-Pedut (Venice, 1634).

16. See MS Paris 669, MS Oxford Bodl. 1224, MS Breslau 183, and numerous fragments listed by Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, p. 440. Berechiah b. Natronai ha-Nakdan's Sefer ha-Hibbur, in The Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, ed. Gollancz, H (London, 1902), Hebrew sec. pp. 1–115, is similarly an epitome.Google Scholar

17. The first references to the Sefer Yeḙirah appear in the sixth century C.E. Saadiah composed a Judeo-Arabic commentary to this work which was translated into Hebrew a number of times beginning in the eleventh century. See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 443–448; Malter, Saadia Gaon, pp. 355–359; and Vajda, G., “Sa'adya Commentateur du Livre de la Creation” in Annuaire de l' École Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Paris, 1959 / 60), pp. 1–35.Google Scholar

18. Sefer Hakhmoni, ed. Castelli, D. (Florence, 1880)Google Scholar, written sometime between 946 and 982. See Sharf, A., The Universe of Shabbetai Donnolo (New York, 1976), pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

19. A full bibliography is provided by Wigoder, G. in his introduction to Bar Hiyya's The Meditation of the Sad Soul (New York, 1968), pp. 4–6.Google Scholar

20. Perusch Sepher Jezira, ed. Halberstam, S. J. (Berlin, 1885), written sometime in the first half of the twelfth century.Google Scholar

21. Twersky, I., “Aspects of the Social and Cultural History of Provencal Jewry,” in Jewish Society Through the Ages, ed. Ben-Sasson, H. H. and Ettinger (New York, 1969), pp. 195–202.Google Scholar

22. See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, p. 439; Malter, Saadia Gaon, pp. 370–373. Malter never published his promised critical edition. Whereas Ibn Tibbon followed the “Petersburg” recension, the Paraphrase is more faithful to the Oxford text. See Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, p. 441, and Landauer's introduction to the Kitāb, p. viii.

23. Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, editor's introduction, p. xli.

24. See Malter, Saadia Gaon, pp. 283–284, n. 607.

25. In general, the epitomes tended to pass over the cosmological treatises of the original Kitāb al-Amānāl, concentrating instead on the more “ethical” treatises, such as chapters 4, 5, and 6. See, for example, how the epitomist of MS Paris 669 opens the first treatise with the phrase “A version selected from the second scroll” (nusah me-'inyyan megillah sheniyah, fol. 8a), and then reduces more than thirty folio pages in MS Vatican 266 to one folio.

26. Ankori, Z., Karaites in Byzantium: The Formative Years, 970–1100 (New York, 1959), pp. 191–193.Google Scholar

27. His complaints may have been specifically directed at the Paraphrase. See his introduction to the translation of Babya Ibn Paquda's Hidayah, entitled Sefer Hovot ha-Levavot (Warsaw, 1875), p. 4.

28. For a treatment of this proof, see Wolfson, H. A., The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), pp. 374–382;Google Scholar and Davidson, H., “The Principle That a Finite Body Can Contain Only Finite Power,” in Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History, ed. Stein, and Loewe (University, Ala., 1979), pp. 75–92.Google Scholar

29. An unattested nifal form of TKL, derived from KLH with a performative tav: TaKhLit. Ben-Yehudah notes a paytanic hifil form of TKL. See Ben-Yehudah, E., Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis (New York, 1959), p. 7747a-b.Google Scholar

30. Ibn Tibbon retains the Arabic only once. See Sefer ha-Emunot, pp. 59 f.

31. On the Sefer Yezirah, see G. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 75–78; idem, Reshit ha-Qabbalah ve-Sefer ha-Bahir (Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 1–59.

32. On the terminology for “creation ex nihilo” in medieval Hebrew and Arabic philosophy, see Wolfson, H. A., “The Meaning of Ex Nihilo in the Church Fathers, Arabic and Hebrew Philosophy, and St. Thomas,” in Medieval Studies in Honor of J. D. M. Ford (Cambridge Mass., 1948), pp. 355–370;Google Scholar reprinted and cited from Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, ed. Twersky, and Williams, (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 1:207–221; and more recently The Philosophy of the Kalam, pp. 355–372.Google Scholar

33. In Ibn Gabirol's Keter Malkhul: li-mshokh meshekh ha-yesh min ha-ayin, “to draw up the film of the existent from the nothing.” See Ha-Shirah ha-'hrit be-Sefarad u-ve-Provans, ed. Schirmann, J. (Jerusalem, 1959), vol. 1, sec. 1:262.Google Scholar

34. See his comment to Genesis 1:1.

35. Judah al-Harizi also used the literal lo mi-davar in his translation of Maimonides' Guide. See his translation, also entitled Moreh Nevukhim, ed. Schlossberg, L. (London, 1851), vol. 2:20a, 21a. lGoogle Scholar

36. The Paraphrase was quite popular among mystics of the twelfth and thirteenth cen turies. Thus, we may further surmise that the popularity of this phrase amongst medieval kabbalists in more properly attributable to the Paraphrase than the Tibbonide translation. On the popularity of the phrase yesh me-ayin amongst kabbalists, see Scholem, Major Trends p. 25; idem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York, 1969), pp. 101 f.; idem, “Schopfung aus Nichts und Selbstverschrankung Gottes,” in Uber einige Grundbegriffe des Judenthums (Frankfurt a. M., 1970), pp. 53–89.

37. Moses b. Hisdai (Taku), who had the Paraphrase before him, complained that Saadiah “could have written in five tracts what he writes in fifteen.” See MS Paris H711:14a, published by Dan, J. in facsimile form as KeTAV TAMIM (Jerusalem, 1984).Google Scholar

38. B.T. Bava Batra 6a.

39. J.T. Sukkah 55a.

40. Tosefta Bava Batra 4:6.

41. From gastra, B.T. Shabbat Ola.

42. From tarqa, Targum Proverbs 25:24.

43. Saadiah mentions Kallir in his Agron (ed. N. Allony [Jerusalem, 1969], p. 154), which was composed in 902 (see Allony's introduction, p. 23). He mentions Kallir again as an “ancient” poet in his commentary to the Sefer Yefirah entitled Kitāb al-Mabādi (ed. Kafah, [Jerusalem, 1972], p. 49);Google Scholar which was written in 931 (ibid., p. 86).

44. Habermann, A. M., Toledot ha-Piyyuf ve-ha-Shirah (Ramat Gan, 1972), 1:40–49;Google Scholar and 2:11, 23. On Kallirian style in Byzantine Italy, see Schirmann, J., Studies in the History of Hebrew Poetry and Drama [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1979), 2:18–29.Google Scholar

45. But see Zulay, M., Ha-Askolah ha-Payfanit shel Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on (Jerusalem, 1964).Google Scholar

46. Commentary to Ecclesiastes 5:1. See Zulay, Ha-Askokah, pp. 16–18; and Zunz's, L. still valuable treatment in Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie (Berlin, 1865), pp. 29–64.Google Scholar

47. Zunz, L., Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1876), 3:234–237, and Bloch, “Die zweite Uebersetzung,” pp. 412–414, 452f.Google Scholar

48. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 6O38a-b.

49. From Ps. 94:19. See Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, pp. 7620b–7621a.

50. Literally, “to think subtly.”

51. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 6250b. On the -on ending in Saadianic poetry, see Zulay, Ha-Askolah, pp. 38–39.

52. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 3898b.

53. For the date of composition of these two works, see Gollancz's introduction, Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, p. 1.

54. See the exchange between Jacobs, and Neubauer, A. in Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s. 1 (1889): 182–183, and 2 (1890): 322–333, 520–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. See Ethical Treatises of Berakhya. p. 1. On Meshullam, see Twersky, I., Rabad of Posquières (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), p. 12–14.Google Scholar

56. Furst, , Bibliotheca Judaica (Leipzig, 1863), 2:210; Ewald and Dukes, Beiträge 2:16 n 6.Google Scholar

57. On Berechiah's knowledge of Arabic, see Gollancz in Ethical Treatises, pp. xxxix–xl. An early and fairly accurate bibliography of Berechiah's works is provided by Gross, H., Gallia Judaica (Paris, 1897), 2:180–185.Google Scholar See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 958–962. Berechiah also composed poetry; see Davidson, I., Thesaurus of Medieval Hebrew Poetry (New York, 1933), vol. 4, s.v. “Berakhyah b. Natronay ha-Naqdan.”Google Scholar

58. Steinschneider, , Hebraeische Bibliographie 3 (1860): 44, n. 1; and Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, p. 440.Google Scholar

59. Zunz, Bloch (for his own reasons), Neubauer, Gollancz, Steinschneider, Maker, and Porges were all in agreement on this point.

60. For the date of composition of this work, see Rosenthal's, Y. introduction in Sefer Milhamot ha-Shem (Jerusalem, 1963), p. viii.Google Scholar

61. See Rosenthal's introduction, Milhamot ha-Shem, p. ix.

62. Milhamot ha-Shem, pp. 157, 159, 161, et al.

63. Saadia Gaon, p. 368.

64. The poem was published with critical commentary by Habermann, A. in Shirei ha-Yihud ve-ha-Kavod (Jerusalem, 1948), pp. 13–45.Google Scholar For a recent discussion of the poem's position in German pietist tradition, see Dan, J., The Esoteric Theology of Ashkenazi Ifasidism [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1968), 47–48.Google Scholar

65. On this individual, see Epstein, J., “Moise Tako b. Hisdai et son Ketab Tamim,” Revue des etudes juives 61 (1911): 60–70;Google Scholar and more recently Dan's, J. introduction to the facsimile edition of the Ketav Tamim (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. vii–xxvii.Google Scholar

66. This verse of the Shir contains the acrostic “Samuel.”

67. MS Paris H711: 54a.

68. On the Kavod doctrine in the original Saadianic formulation, see Altmann, A., “Saadya's Theory of Revelation: Its Origin and Background,” in Saadya Studies, ed. Rosenthal, E. I.J. (Manchester, 1943), pp. 4–25.Google Scholar

69. See Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 84–103. See Idel, M., “The World of Angels in Human Form” [Hebrew], in Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, vol. 3, Studies in Mysticism Presented to Isaiah Tishby (Jerusalem, 1983 / 84), pp. 15–19, in which Judah Halevi is regarded as a crucial ideational link between rationalists and the kabbalistic theory that the divine realm appears in human form. Quite possibly the Paraphrase may have served a similar purpose.Google Scholar

70. MS Vatican 266, 38a:2.

71. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 108–109.

72. Ketavim Nivharim (Jerusalem, 1945), 1:164–170.

73. The Paraphrase contains two accounts of the categories. In both instances the Arabic original merely mentions “the ten categories” without going into details or naming each of the categories. The two passages occur in MS Vatican 266, fols. 34b: 1 and 39a: 1. Below is a chart comparing the Paraphrase terms with the Tibbonide terms, derived from Judah Ibn Tibbon's Be'ur Millot Zarot in the introduction to Sefer ha-Emunot ve-ha-De'ol (Josefow, 1885), pp. 11–12. Paraphase Ibn Tibbon 1. substance la. accident 2. quantity 3. quality 4. time 5. place 6. relation 7. position 8. possession 9. action 10. passion

74. Ben-Yehuda's edesh (Thesaurus, p. 78a) is based on Gollancz's rendering of Berechiah's text, and should be ignored.

75. See his Yesod Mora (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 4, and Malter, Saadia Gaon, p. 283, n. 7.

76. Bloch, “Die zweite Uebersetzung,” pp. 453–456.

77. Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 443–448.

78. Ketavim, 1:159 f.

79. Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 447–448.

80. Zeitschrift für hebraeische Bibliographic 7 (1903): 38.

81. Saadia Gaon, p. 361.

82. See Schirmann's introduction, Ha-Shirah ha-'Ivrit, 1:23–55, especially 40–42.

83. Such a blanket statement is possible thanks to two studies by I. Efros: “Studies in Pre-Tibbonian Philosophical Terminology,” Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 17 (1926/27): 129–164, 323–368, and “More About Abraham b. Hiyya's Philosophical Terminology,” ibid, n.s. 20(1929/30): 113–138.

84. The instigator of the controversy in Spain, Rabbi Meir b. Todros ha-Levi Abulafia (11707–1244), cites Saadiah from the Paraphrase version. See Kitāb al-Rasā'il, ed. Brill, J. (Paris, 1871), pp. 14, 36–37, 57.Google Scholar Brill was unaware of the existence of the Paraphrase; see ibid., p. 137n. On Abulafia, see Septimus, B., Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and Controversies of Ramah (Cambridge, Mass., 1982);Google Scholar and on the controversy in general, see Baer, Y., A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1961–66), 1:96–110.Google ScholarIn Provence, both Aaron b. Meshuilam (d. 1210) and the Tosafist Samson b. Abraham of Sens (ca. 1155–1225) quoted from the seventh treatise of the Paraphrase; see Kitab al-Rasa'il:Sl, pp. 136–137. Interestingly, Silver, D. claimed that a Saadianic interpretation of Maimonides which was current during the early controversy illustrated “the quick proliferation of ideas through [the Tibbonide] translation” (Maimonidean Criticism and the Maimonidean Controversy [Leiden, 1965], pp. 119–120).Google Scholar Silver was thus also unaware of the existence of the Paraphrase. In Germany, there is Moses b. Hisdai in his Ketav Tamim, written sometime between 1210 and 1234. Also, see the comments by Urbach, E., “The Participation of German and French Scholars in the Controversy About Maimonides and His Works” [Hebrew], Zion 12 (1947 / 48): 150–154.Google Scholar

85. See Dan, Esoteric Theology, p. 23, n. 5; idem, Studies in Ashkenazi-Hasidic Literature [Hebrew] (Ramat Gan, 1975), p. 32, n. 9; Scholem, Major Trends, p. 86; and Weinstock, I., “Ha-im Hayah Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on Ba'al Sod?” in Be-Ma'agalei ha-Nigleh ve-ha-Nistar (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 81–106. It may be that Saadiah became known as a mystic in later times through a pseudo-Saadianic German pietist commentary to the Sefer Yezirah that was partially published in the Mantua 1562 edition of the Sefer Yezirah.Google Scholar

86. Aside from the Shir ha-Yiḥud, the oldest extant work that can be directly linked to the Ashkenazi Hasidim (see Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 47–48), the Paraphrase appears in at least two other German pietist works: Judah he-Hasid's Sefer tfasidim, ed. Wistinetzki, J. (Frankfurt a. M., 1924), pp. 38–39, contains a portion of the fifth treatise (MS Vatican 266, fols. 74b: 1–75a: 1 and 71a:2);Google Scholar see also Eleazar of Worms's Sefer ha-Roqeah ha-Gadol (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 33–36. Even the very penitential terminology of the Roqeah draws from the fifth treatise of the Paraphrase, which abounds with the terms hasid and moreh. See Marcus, I., Piety and Society (Leiden, 1981), pp. 109–129, 144–145.Google Scholar The pietist R. Abraham b. Azriel quotes a long passage from the ninth treatise of the Paraphrase in the midst of a discussion of Maimonidean issues. See Urbach, “Participation of German and French Scholars,” pp. 150–152. As Scholem has pointed out, the demanding pietist insistence upon strict and even legally excessive observance of the Law is also rooted in the Paraphrase's formulations on the topic. See Scholem, Major Trends, p. 97, and MS Vatican 266, fol. 72b:2. The Paraphrase is also quoted in the literature ascribed to the so-called Iyyun circle; see Scholem, G., Les Origines de la Kabbale (Paris, 1966), pp. 327–367.Google Scholar In one of the Iyyun texts, the Tefillah le-Rav Nefiunya ben ha- Qanah, the seflrot are described as ftalaqim she-einam mithalqim (“indivisible particles”; see Scholem, Origines de la Kabbale, p. 274, n. 109); this is precisely the Paraphrase definition of the “eternal spiritual beings,” or atoms, of Plato's theory of creation (MS Vatican 266, fol. 18a:2; Ibn Tibbon: ha-halakim asher lo yehalku). In this way the sejirot were defined as eternal spiritual entities, a definition which remained valid for later generations. Zoharic meditations on the tenth sefirah, Kingdom (malkhui), also resort to visual imagery and panentheist notions, but no direct tie to the Paraphrase can yet be established. On the Shekhinah in the Sefer ha-Zohar, see Tishby, I., Mishnat ha-Zohar, 3d ed. (Jerusalem, 1971), 1:219–231. The fourteenth- century kabbalist Menahem Recanati quotes the Paraphrase in his Bible commentary in defense of the kabbalistic doctrine of shemifot (“cosmic cycles”); see Perush Rabbenu Menahem me-Reqanati (Lublin, 1605), sec. Behar: 31a-b, and cf. MS Vatican 266, fol. 14b:l–2.Google Scholar

87. Sharf, A., Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (New York, 1971), pp. 171–172; and Schirmann, Studies, 2:9–16.Google Scholar

88. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry, p. 174.

89. This Chronicle was first published as Sefer ha-Yuḥasin by A. Neubauer in Medieval Jewish Chronicles, 2:111–132: Notice should be taken of the word nimus in the Chronicle, not as “school of thought” (Paraphrase) or “law” (Bar Hiyya; see Wolfson, H., “Additional Notes to the Article on the Classification of Sciences in Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” Hebrew Union College Annual 3 [1926]: 374–375), but as “road, way.”Google Scholar See Mirkin, R., ed., Megillat Afiima'az Me'ubedet u-Mugeshet ke-Homer le-Milon (Jerusalem, 1965), p. 139.Google Scholar

90. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, pp. 354–452.

91. Ibid., p. 416.

92. Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 14–20.

93. Tobias b. Eliezer, the most important Rabbanite homilist of Byzantine Jewry, is typical in his ignorance of Arabic. See Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, p. 290, n. 114.