Review of Scholarly Research on Yefet Ben 'Eli
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marzena ZAWANOWSKA UniversityofWarsaw REVIEW OF SCHOLARLY RESEARCH ON YEFET BEN ‘ELI AND HIS WORKS RÉSUMÉ L’un des interprètes karaïtes de l’Écriture les plus importants de la période classique fut Yefet ha-Levī Ben ‘Eli. Ses commentaires bibliques constituent le meilleur exemple de la maturité de l’exégèse karaïte médiévale, qui a atteint son apogée à l’école karaïte de Jérusalem, au tournant des Xe et XIe siècles. Cet article passe en revue de façon détaillée les travaux d’érudition sur cet exégète, y compris des édi- tions critiques et des traductions de ses compositions exégétiques, ainsi que des travaux universitaires inédits consacrés à lui et à son œuvre. L’article décrit de façon systématique et, autant que possible, dans l’ordre chronologique les principales réa- lisations de divers savants et le contenu de leurs ouvrages respectifs. ABSTRACT One of the most central Karaite interpreters of Scripture of the early classical period was Yefet ha-Levī Ben ‘Eli whose biblical commentaries are the finest example of the mature stage of Karaite exegesis, which reached its peak in the Jerusalem Karaite school at the turn of the tenth and eleventh centuries. The article presents a detailed review of works of scholarship on this exegete, including critical editions and trans- lations of his exegetical compositions as well as unpublished Masters’ theses and Ph.D. dissertations devoted to him and his oeuvre. The outline describes, in a sys- tematic way, the main accomplishments of various scholars and the content of their works on an individual basis and, as far as possible, in chronological order. 1. Introduction Since its advent in the ninth century CE, Karaism has been an inherent part of Jewish culture that exercised a productive influence on it as well. Yet, despite its importance for understanding Jewish intellectual tradition as a whole, the Karaite movement was often looked upon by Jewish traditional- ists as both a marginal and alien sect, whose achievements were not worthy Revuedesétudesjuives,173(1-2),janvier-juin2014,pp.97-138. doi:10.2143/REJ.173.1.3030667 997104.indb7104.indb 9977 112/08/142/08/14 008:438:43 98 REVIEWOFSCHOLARLYRESEARCHONYEFETBEN‘ELIANDHISWORKS of special attention. This approach also affected, to a certain degree, scholars of Judaism. As a result, many of the Karaites’ major works remained for a long time unedited and unpublished, and consequently unknown to the wider scholarly public.1 Nevertheless, already in the early twentieth century there was strong interest among Judaists such as Jacob Mann, Leon Nemoy and others in the literary and historical achievements of the Karaites. These pioneering schol- ars laid the foundation for the field of Karaite studies at large and for its integration within Jewish, Islamic and Religious studies. Recent scholarship has been attempting to bring major Karaite texts into further light while analyzing them in a broader historical, sociological, and literary context. In turn, this has inevitably been bringing about a reappraisal of Jewish culture as a whole. In the following is a detailed review of works of scholarship on the most central Karaite exegete of the mid-tenth to the early-eleventh century Yefet Ben ʻEli and his oeuvre. The review does not refer to numerous general works about Karaism and its intellectual achievements, which have been surveyed elsewhere.2 1. This article was prepared for publication within the framework of the DFG-DIP grant project (2013-17) BibliaArabica:TheBibleinArabicamongJews,ChristiansandMuslims (Project initiators: Camilla Adang, Meira Polliack, Sabine Schmidtke). Its draft was pre- sented at the Workshop “Karaite Studies — the State of the Field” (Beer Sheva, 27 Febru- ary-1 March 2012). I would like to express my gratitude especially to Prof. Meira Polliack, but also to Prof. Michael Wechsler, Dr. James T. Robinson, Dr. Miriam Goldstein and Kees de Vreugd for having read the final draft of this paper, suggested certain improvements, and directed my attention to additional unpublished works. Special thanks are also due to Oded Zinger for helping me to gain access to one of the unpublished Ph.D. dissertations. 2. For a general overview of scholarly research on Karaism, Karaite literature and exege- sis, see esp. B. D. WALFISH and M. KIZILOV, BibliographiaKaraitica.AnAnnotatedBibliog- raphyofKaraitesandKaraism, Leiden, 2011. See also H. BEN-SHAMMAI, “Karaites and the Orient — Trends in the Study of Karaites and Karaism”, Peʻamim 89 (2001), p. 5-18 (Hebrew); ID., “The Scholarly Study of Karaism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries”, in M. POLLIACK (ed.), KaraiteJudaism:AGuidetoitsHistoryandLiterarySources, Leiden, 2003, p. 9-24; A. DUBIŃSKI, “The Beginnings of Scholarly Interest in Karaite Language and Literature in Europe until the End of the 19th Century”, PrzeglądOrientalistyczny 2/30 (1959), p. 135-144 (Polish); D. FRANK, “The Study of Medieval Karaism 1959-89”, Bulletin of Judaeo-GreekStudies 6 (1990), p. 15-23; ID., “The Study of Medieval Karaism”, in N. DE LANGE (ed.), HebrewScholarshipandtheMedievalWorld, Cambridge, 2001, p. 3-22; ID., “Karaite Exegesis”, in M. SAEBØ (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, Gottingen, 2000, p. 110-128; ID., SearchScriptureWell:KaraiteExegetesand the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East, Leiden, 2004, p. 1-32; M. GOLDSTEIN, The Pentateuch Exegesis of the Karaite Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ and Abū al-Faraj Hārūn: an Examination of Method in the Context of the Contemporaneous Literary and Exegetical Approaches of Jews, Christians and Muslims, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006, p. 18-24; D. J. LASKER, “Karaites, Developments 997104.indb7104.indb 9988 112/08/142/08/14 008:438:43 REVIEWOFSCHOLARLYRESEARCHONYEFETBEN‘ELIANDHISWORKS 99 The outline below describes, in a systematic way, the main accomplish- ments of various scholars and the content of their works on an individual basis and, as far as possible, in chronological order. This method obviously requires schematization and simplification, since the publications of various scholars frequently overlap temporally, whereas their studies usually cover more than one period, as delimited for the sake of this review. 2. Yefet Ben ʻEli: Between Scholarly Amnesia and Ideological Antagonism One of the most preeminent and prolific Karaite commentators of the early classical period was Yefet ha-Levī Ben ‘Eli whose biblical commen- tary is the finest example of the mature stage of Karaite exegesis, which reached its peak in the Jerusalem Karaite school at the turn of the tenth and eleventh centuries. Yefet’s work is a singular example in the history of the Jewish exegesis of the Holy Scriptures of a continuous translation and com- mentary of the entire Hebrew Bible.3 Yet despite the vital role he played in consolidating classical Karaite exegesis and the major impact his works had on subsequent Jewish exegesis as a whole, over time Yefet gradually sank into oblivion among non-Karaite 1970-1988”, in EJYearbook1988-89, Jerusalem, 1990, p. 366-367; ID., “Karaism and Jewish Studies”, in M. FRIEDMAN (ed.), JewishCultureinMuslimLandsandCairoGenizaStudies 1, Tel Aviv, 2000, p. 1-29 (Hebrew); M. POLLIACK, “Medieval Karaism”, in M. GOODMAN, J. COHEN and D. SORKIN (eds),TheOxfordHandbookofJewishStudies, Oxford, 2002, p. 295- 326; EAD. (ed.), KaraiteJudaism, op.cit.; EAD., “Wherein Lies the Pesher? Re-questioning the Connection Between Medieval Karaite and Qumranic Modes of Biblical Interpretation”, Jewish StudiesanInternetJournal 4 (2005), p. 151-200 (152-153); G. TAMANI, “Lo stato attuale degli studi sul caraismo”, AnnalidellafacolàdiLettereefilosofiadellʼUniversitàdi Padova 2 (1977), p. 325-345; M. ZAWANOWSKA, “Outline of the State of Research on the Early Karaism — Basic Problems, Breakthrough Achievements and Major Challenges”, in VolumeVof aSupplementtoStudiaJudaica, Cracow, 2010, p. 163-176 (Polish). 3. This can be attested to by the words of Simḥah Isaac Luzki, who declares: “Yefet ha-Levi, known as Abū ʻAli, composed a commentary on the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings, which today is in our hands”. See J. MANN, TextsandStudiesinJewishHistory andLiterature, vol. 2: Karaitica, Philadelphia, 1935; repr. New York, 1972, p. 1414. For the plethora of Mss. (over 740 manuscripts indexed by the NLI website), see http://nli.org.il. Cf. M. G. WECHSLER, “Japheth (Abū ʻAlī Ḥasan) ben Eli”, in EncyclopediaofJewsinthe IslamicWorld, 4 vols., Leiden, 2010, vol. 3, p. 404-406. Until now, only Yefet’s commentary on Lamentations might not have been found or identified yet, though there are three Mss. that according to the catalogue “ALEPH” include passages from Yefet’s commentary on this book. See H. BEN-SHAMMAI, “Japheth ben Eli ha-Levi”, in EncyclopaediaJudaica, 2nd ed., 22 vols., Detroit, New York, San Francisco, New Haven, Waterville, London, 2006-07, vol. 11, p. 86-87 (p. 86). Cf. also FRANK, Search, op.cit., p. 250, n. 10. 997104.indb7104.indb 9999 112/08/142/08/14 008:438:43 100 REVIEWOFSCHOLARLYRESEARCHONYEFETBEN‘ELIANDHISWORKS — and to a certain extent even Karaite — authors. Baruch Spinoza, for example, when referring to certain concepts related to the question of the authorship of the Torah, promulgated initially by Yefet and apparently repeated by Abraham Ibn Ezra, completely ignores the former and attributes them to the latter. Thus, he states that “Aben Ezra (...) was the first, so far as I know, to treat of this opinion”.4 There were complex reasons for this “scholarly amnesia” which cannot be elaborated in this context, most notably the Judaeo-Arabic language in which his works were written, but also sheer size of the materials he left behind and their accessibility.5 Some of the scholars formulated the hypoth- esis that it was interalia due to the fact that he had been “overshadowed by Saʻadyah”.6 Be it as it may, these led over time to a general ignorance of his Bible exegesis and its significant contribution. 4. See B. DE SPINOZA,Tractatus-Theologico-Politicus,TractatusPoliticus, Translated from the Latin, with an Introduction by R. H. M. Elwes, London, 1891, p. 145 (8:4).