Wechsler, Michael G.

English

Open Access LMU ( Ludwig-Maximilians-Univ. München)

29 JAN 2019Edward Pococke, by François Morellon de La Cave,after W. Greene, line engraving, mid 18th century, ©National Portrait Gallery, London, NPG D40289Porta Mosis: an annotated edition of sixsections of Maimonides’ Mishnah commentarywith the Arabic text in Hebrew characters and aLatin translationEdward Pococke and the Emergence of (Judaeo-)ArabicStudies in Late-Renaissance Europe 2by M.G. WechslerAt the dawning of the 17th century, in England and the West generally, Arabic studies—and even more so the study ofJewish texts in Arabic—was still very much in its infancy. This was due in no small part to the relative paucity of Arabicmanuscripts in Western libraries and the consequent limitations on access to Arabic texts faced by late-Renaissancescholars (whose interest in Arabic texts at this point was also largely dominated by ecclesiastical concerns and Bibletranslation in particular). Onto this scene stepped Edward Pococke (1604–91), an alumnus of Corpus Christi College atOxford and ordained priest in the Church of England whose interest and training in Semitic languages ultimately led to hisappointment as Oxford’s first (Laudian) Professor of Arabic. He also spent several years in Constantinople and Aleppo,during which time he collected hundreds of Oriental manuscripts (purchased by Oxford in 1693). Through his teaching,writing, and manuscript collecting Pococke thus played a seminal role in the European flowering of Arabic studies,facilitating Western scholarship’s exposure to and appreciation of the rich literary heritage of Arabic—and not only ofChristian and Muslim Arabic literature, but also, even at that early stage, of Jewish Arabic literature, from which he citedprofusely (both text and translation) in his published works.Pococke’s pioneering activity in this field was first impressed upon me during the course of my work on an edition(published by Magnes, 2010) of the Judaeo-Arabic commentaries on Ruth and Esther by Tanḥum ha-Yerushalmi (d.1291, Fustat), the last known exegete of the “rationalistic” school to write in Judaeo-Arabic. Pococke was the first toacquire manuscripts of Tanḥum’s work for western scholarship (including the unique manuscript on which my edition wasbased). He also was first to quote or refer to Tanḥum in publication (as he does more than 200 times in his Porta Mosis,which includes extracts from the Arabic commentary of Maimonides on the Mishnah, and commentaries on Hosea, Joel,Micah, and Malachi, all in the service of elucidating the biblical text). When preparing the bibliography of Karaite ArabicBible translation for Biblia Arabica, I was reminded anew of Pococke’s industry in filling this seminal role, this time inutilizing the anonymous recension of Yefet b. Eli’s Judaeo-Arabic translation of the Latter Prophets contained in Ms.Huntington 206 of the Bodleian Library.The first to actually recognize the translation in this manuscript as that of Yefetwas not Pococke, but the American scholar and well-known editor/translator ofsynagogue liturgy Philip Birnbaum (1904–88). He discussed this attribution in hisedition (comprising his PhD dissertation) of Yefet’s commentary on Hosea (pp. l–lvii). There he signals in a footnote (p. li, n. 118) that Pococke “was the first tomake use of this manuscript in his commentary on Hosea (Oxford, 1685).”Once alerted to this fact, I eagerly turned to Pococke’s works to see exactly whatuse he had made of the manuscript and found that he had in fact utilized it in allfour of his commentaries on the Minor Prophets, beginning with Micah andMalachi (both published in 1677), followed by Hosea (1685) and then Joel (1691).Since the study of Karaism—especially its Judaeo-Arabic heritage—was still in itsinfancy among European Christian scholars in Pococke’s day, he neitheridentified the translation with Yefet (though he knew the name Yefet from Ibn Ezra;cf. his comm. on Micah 6:9) nor even raised the possibility of its Karaiteprovenance, but instead left its authorship in question, noting its divergence fromthe Judaeo-Arabic translation of Saadia while affirming its “antiquity” (from hispreface to Micah, p. ix):There is no name of the author expressed (that I find) in the copy. Whether itbe the work of R. Saadiah Haggaon … I have reason to doubt, seeing theprophecy of Isaiah, which is in the same volume, differs from what I find in another copy of that prophecy, which bears his name. And it is certain that others ofthe Jews, besides him, did translate the Scriptures (or part of them) into that language, and therefore if it be any where by me cited as his, it is not positivelyaffirm’d, and I almost think it is not his. Whose ever it be, it seems to be of some antiquity, for it is not of late years that the Jews have used to write in Arabick,as formerly they did ….Pococke’s vacillation regarding the Saadianic authorship of this manuscript—and the degree to which he was hampered on this matter by his unfamiliarity with theKaraite Judaeo-Arabic heritage (most manuscript sources of which were still beyond the reach of Western scholarship)—is indeed reflected throughout hiscommentaries, where his citations from the manuscript are prefaced by statements ranging from probable attribution to Saadia (as in his comment on Micah 1:8:“And with him agreeth an Arab version of Rabbi Saadias (as is probable) …”) to non-Saadianic anonymity (as in his comment on Joel 2:29: “in the same manner doththe Arabick MS. Version understand it”). In one instance—comprising Pococke’s lengthiest citation from this manuscript that I’ve found—he gives not only the entire14.10.24, 15:30 Edward Pococke and the Emergence of (Judaeo-)Arabic Studies in Late-Renaissance Europe – Biblia Arabicahttps://biblia-arabica.com/edward-pococke-and-the-emergence-of-judaeo-arabic-studies-in-late-renaissance-europe/ 1/2Ms. Huntington 206, Photo: © Bodleian Libraries, University of OxfordJudaeo-Arabic translation of the verse (Hosea 6:9), but also the exegetical note that follows it in the manuscript, after which he takes the opportunity to adducefurther evidence for Saadia’s authorship:This Translation, and this Note, seems an argument that this Translation is R. Saadiah’s, tho’ in the copy that we use, we find not his name expressed;because R. David Kimchi takes notice that by R. Saadiah the word כחכי Cechacce was so rendered ….Of course, had Pococke been familiar with Yefet’s work on Hosea, he would haveknown that both the translation and the “note” were his (the latter being anabridged extract from Yefet’s full comment), regardless of whether the famousProvençal scholar David Qimḥi (ca. 1160–ca. 1235) is right that the sameinterpretation was shared by Saadia. In the passage of his commentary on Hoseato which Pococke refers, Qimḥi himself likely had Yefet in mind—though aselsewhere, and like other medieval Rabbanite exegetes, he refrains from explicitlyidentifying his Karaite source(s)—since he prefaces the view with attribution to“interpreters” (ויש מפרשים), and only after giving the view notes that Saadiainterpreted the passage likewise (וכן פירשו רב סעדיה גאון ז״ל). That Saadia didindeed hold this view, moreover, may be open to question, considering that theonly testimony to such (at least according to Ratzaby, מפירושי רב סעדיה למקרא) isQimḥi’s comment—assuming also that the concluding attribution to Saadia isgenuinely his.At any rate, as Pococke’s use of this manuscript bears out, the printed history ofJudaeo-Arabic Bible translation—both Karaite and Rabbanite—as well as thecontribution of such to the history of biblical interpretation, extends well beyonddiscrete editions, chrestomathic excerpts, and devoted studies of Judaeo-Arabictranslation to the much smaller citations tucked away and hidden from viewamidst the pages of works dealing with more comprehensive topics thantranslation alone—including early modern works, like Pococke’s biblicalcommentaries, printed more than three centuries ago.Michael G. Wechsler is a full professor in the Bible Program at the MoodyBible Institute in Chicago. His current research centers on the publication ofJudaeo-Arabic exegetical literature as well as the study of theintercommunal and interconfessional interplay of ideas more generallyreflected in Near-Eastern exegetical literature (Jewish and Christian).Arabic Bible, Arabic Bible Translations, Arabic Studies, Bible in Arabic, Edward Pococke, Judaeo-Arabic, M.G. Wechsler, Muslim Bible, Yefet ibn Eli14.10.24, 15:30 Edward Pococke and the Emergence of (Judaeo-)Arabic Studies in Late-Renaissance Europe – Biblia Arabicahttps://biblia-arabica.com/edward-pococke-and-the-emergence-of-judaeo-arabic-studies-in-late-renaissance-europe/ 2/2

Edward Pococke and the Emergence of (Judaeo-)Arabic Studies in Late-Renaissance Europe

https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/121796/1/Edward_Pococke_and_the_Emergence_of__Judaeo-_Arabic_Studies_in_Late-Renaissance_Europe_%E2%80%93_Biblia_Arabica.pdf

Edward Pococke and the Emergence of (Judaeo-)Arabic Studies in Late-Renaissance Europe

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Access LMU ( Ludwig-Maximilians-Univ. München)