Steven Harvey

SOME NOTES ON “AVICENNA AMONG MEDIEVAL JEWS”

In an article published in Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 22 (2012), pp. 217–87, by Gad Freudenthal and Mauro Zonta, “Avicenna among Medieval Jews: the reception of Avicennas philosophical, scientific and medical writings in Jewish cultures, East and West,” the authors promise to present “a preliminary but comprehensive picture of Avicennas reception by medieval Jewish cultures.” As such, it seemed to offer the “comprehensive study” referred to as a desideratum by Zonta at the conclusion of his groundbreaking and very important survey, “Avicenna in medieval Jewish philosophy” (2002). Zonta explained that such a future “comprehensive study of the many and different interpretations given to his doctrines by Jewish thinkers would allow us to evaluate the real role played by [Avicenna] in medieval thought.” Surprisingly, the recent article adds little that is new to the previous studies of Zonta and others on the subject, and omits useful information found in them. The main point of the present notes is to try to correct several oversimplifications, questionable assumptions, and misleading statements in the article under consideration. Its purpose is to help readers of the article to attain a fuller and more accurate – although certainly not comprehensive – picture of the reception of Avicenna among medieval Jews.

Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics

The conventional view of the previous century that Averroes’ middle commentaries (talāḫīṣ) on Aristotle are all of the same form and style is no longer tenable. A full and accurate account of the similarities and differences among Averroes’ talāḫīṣ on Aristotle must consider all of them. Perhaps the least studied and least known of these middle commentaries is the one on the Nicomachean Ethics, a text which is extant today only in a critically edited medieval Hebrew translation and an as yet unedited medieval Latin translation. The two authors of the present article have each studied chapters of this commentary independently of each other and have reached different conclusions concerning its value. In this article they present a careful examination of the first book of Averroes’ commentary via its Hebrew translation and Latin translation (primarily through the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts of it) in comparison with the medieval Arabic translation of the Nicomachean Ethics that was used by Averroes (and in light of Aristotle’s Greek text). This study shows an Averroean middle commentary that is not very original and not particularly helpful, especially, for example, when compared to the quite different middle commentaries on Aristotle’s books on natural science. Indeed, he often seems to do little more than copy—not even paraphrase—the Arabic translation. On the other hand, Averroes does not hesitate to insert words as he copies in order to make the text clearer and easier to understand. Where lengthier explanations are needed, they too are attempted, at times in response to problematic translations in the Arabic text before him.

Are the Medieval Hebrew Translations of Averroes’ Commentaries on Aristotle Still of Value and Worth Editing?

It is now almost eighty years since Harry A. Wolfson submitted his original Plan for the Publication of a Corpus commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem to the Mediaeval Academy of America. In this Plan Wolfson argued for the importance of scholarly editions of all of Averroes commentaries, not only in the Arabic original, where available, but also in the medieval Hebrew and Latin translations, irrespective of whether or not the Arabic was still extant. This chapter considers to what extent it may be argued today that the medieval Hebrew translations of Averroes commentaries are still of value and worth editing. Among the Hebrew translations of the commentaries that are examined are those for which Averroes Arabic text is still extant, such as the Long Commentary on the Metaphysics , and those for which it is not, such as the Middle Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. . Keywords: Averroes commentaries; Long Commentary on the Metaphysics ; Mediaeval Academy of America; medieval Hebrew translations; Middle Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics

Commission VII: Jewish Philosophy (2008-2012)

This report of the Commission for Jewish Philosophy is based on information and personal bibliographies sent to the President of the Commission by over forty scholars in the field via the Questionnaire for SIEPM Commission Reports. Like the previous report that appeared in the Bulletin de philosophie medievale 49 (2007), 27-44, it is thus intended to be representative and not at all exhaustive. The report features a selected bibliography, arranged alphabetically by author, of over two hundred studies in the field of medieval Jewish Philosophy, written in Western languages between the years 2008-2012. In addition, it provides a list of editions and translations in the field that have appeared during this period, as well as a list of Ph.D. dissertations in the field. The report also mentions some of the most important international conferences that have taken place, and some of the major projects. In general, the authors have tried to present a picture of the study of medieval Jewish Philosophy over the past five years, what has been its focus, what it has accomplished, and where it seems to be going. Finally, the authors address certain important issues that were raised at the meeting of the Commission for Jewish Philosophy at the 2012 SIEPM Congress in Freising.

Creating a New Literary Genre

This chapter focuses on the importance of knowledge transfer from the world of Islam to the world of Judaism, for the study of medieval Jewish philosophy. It then explores the importance of the Hebrew philosophic manuscripts it describes, and to what extent Steinschneider was aware of their importance and made it known to his readers. The chapter describes how the Leiden catalogue differs from previous ones in presenting its works on Jewish philosophy. It compares the Leiden catalogue to later catalogues by Steinschneider and others to determine to what extent the later catalogues follow the purpose and structure of the Leiden one. After these comparisons, the chapter traces the use made of the catalogue by historians and bibliographers of medieval Jewish philosophy. It suggests in what sense it may be said to represent a new literary genre. Keywords:Hebrew manuscripts; medieval Jewish philosophy; Steinschneiders Leiden Catalogue