Judah Rosenthal - Ḥiwi al-Balkhi A Comparative Study.pdf

IJIWI AL-BALKHI A Comparative Study

By JUDAH ROSENTHAL

College of Jewish Studies, Chicago

OF THE many Jewish rationalists and heretics of the ninth century only one is known to us by name, H.iwi al- Balkhi.' Both the derivation and the spelling of this name are uncertain. The name H.iwi is transmitted by old sources in the following ways: vr1in,2 t'1r,3 l'tn, ""lr4 and 4'ri.5 These names are not Hebrew.6

It is possible to explain '1'ri as a nickname for "heretic," because ir, ewir or w'im in Aramaic, La.. in Syriac and

- in Arabic means a viper, serpent, and a mischievous

I See I. Davidson, Saadia's Polemic against Hiwi al-Balkhi New York, 1915 29 ff.; L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies I (New York, 1928), 230; A. Marmorstein, "The Background of the Haggadah, HUCA (VI 1929), 157 ff.; Edmund Stein, -nirr p-p-in D:zr; nn in mnlp -!D (Tel-Aviv, 1937), 210 ff.; Judah Rosenthal, II! lwp'u'Np'Imn nyr-z"l ,'Diz rn uny-urribt, jur"a Yivo-Bleter, XXVI, 2 (New York, 1945), 240 ff.; idem. r1yD nsipnz nworx nrnni Horeb, IX (New York, 1946), 21 ff.

2 Kitab al-anwar wal-maraqib by Ya'kub al-Qirqisani, ed. by Leon Nemoy I (New York, 1939), p. 57 1.9.

3 Saadia, Amanat, ed. Landauer (Leyden, 1880), p. 37. 4Kitab ma'ani al-nafs, ed. Goldziher (Berlin, 1907), p. 16: nr ip

'Diznb% nn 9y i,t jir ;ryw 'i. An Arabic commentary on I Kings. (Quoted by Davidson, op. cit. 98): D:zmb% "bn i'bD I.-I.

5 Salman ben Yeruham in his commentary on Ecclesiastes. Quoted by Davidson, op. cit. 95.; an Arabic commentary on Numbers, ibid. Saadia in his Sefer Hagaluy (Harkavy, A., Studien und Mittheilungen, V, 177).

6 Hevia 2om as the name of the father of the king Orhoe of Edessa occurs in the Chronicon Edessenum of the 6th century. See Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, I, 388.

317

318 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

man. Heretics were called in Syriac ^.7 We have also to take into consideration the derivation from the Arabic { meaning "to gather something," corresponding to the Hebrew 9m.8 We find Jewish scholars named 9m in the late Gaonic period9 and Arabic books under the title t.A? tS5%U', meaning compendium.I0 The name Asaph is also found among the Syrians during the period under consideration. There is hence sufficient reason to assume that the Hebrew name of Hiwi was 9DN.II

The opponents of Hiwi in their polemics against him, even in books written in Hebrew, preferred the Arabic name because it sounded similar to win snake, heretic.12

The accepted spelling of Hiwi's name is Hayawaihi or Hayawayh.'3 The usual pronunciation "Hiwi" or "H.iwwi"

7 See Jacob Levy, Worterbuch iiber die Talmudim und Midrashim, II, 19 s. v. ln, nn, mrrn; R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus syriacus, p. 1210 s. v. 2. and Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, p. 681 s. v.

t See Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, p. 678 s. v. 9 See Jacob Mann, The Jews in Egypt I (Oxford, 1920), 40 n. 1;

idem. Texts and Studies, I (Cincinnati, 1931), 133. Steinschneider (JQR 0. S. XIII, 131) and Poznanski (I. c.) are mistaken when they assert that we do not find the name 'DS among Jews in postbiblical times.

'IO The Arabic physician Abu Bakr al-Razi (Razes) called his medical encyclopedia SA-I tA. See P. Kraus and S. Pintes, "Al-Razi" in The Encyclopedia of Islam., III, 1134. Cf. M. Steinschneider, Hebraische Uebersetzungen, p. 723. Hai Gaon published a book under the title -nn nbtnb. See Harkavy, in anyow nmirn (1896) III, 94-96; idem, oCwn oDzI Da VII, 1 in Gratz-Rabinowitz, ,7bnr 'w rin IV. B. Lewin, Ginze Kedem, III, 69ff.

II A scholar named qDr is mentioned by Bar Hebraeus in his Chronicon Syriacum. See Monatsschrift VI, (1857), 277; Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, II, 313. On the legendary Jewish physician Asaf Judaeus, see L. Venetianer, Asaf Judaeus, Budapest, 1915. Cf. J. Derenbourg, REJ, XXV, 249; S. A. Poznanski, Hagoren, VII, p. 113.

Is Cf. Derenbourg, 1. c. I3 Poznanski in Hagoren, VII, 113 n. 3. He vocalizes iP1!'. This

vocalization is accepted by Malter. See idem, Saadia Gaon. His Life and works, 384. Nemoy vocalizes ;;T. See idem, HUCA, Cincinnati,

HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL 319

is based on an incorrect analogy to the biblical name of a Canaanite tribe.14

Ijiwi al-Balkhi flourished in the second half of the ninth century in Balkh, Persia.'5 Few details of his life are known to us. We know that he was of Jewish origin,'6 but he be- longed neither to the Rabbanites nor to the Karaites.'7 Both factions of that period condemned him. Our information about him is based on the writings of his opponents. We learn that he wrote a polemical work in rhyme against the Bible, containing two hundred questions and difficulties.'8

1930, VII, 389 n. 322. Goldhizer vocalizes ;n05 M. See idem, Theologische Literaturzeitung 1916, 125-126.

14 Gen. 10.17; See Malter, loc. cit.; Davidson prefers the usual pronunciation Hiwi, which is accepted by the encyclopedias and therefore followed by the present writer.

15 The period of Hiwi's life is derived from a passage in Saadia's Sefer Hagaluy. This work was written by Saadia in the years of his expulsion after having been removed from the Gaonate by the Exilarch David ben Zakkai (931-934). Saadia states that by that time Ijiwi's book had already enjoyed popularity for more than sixty years, which would put the date of its compilation about 870. See Harkavy, Studien und Mittheilungen, V, 177. -ntrim owi:m t59m ji:9bn S~y nitm li 5D lnD buri o w '9. Cf. J. Mann, HUCA, XII-XIII, p. 412, note 3. Balkh is a city in Afghanistan not far from Buchara. It was a center of radical Manichaean sects. Manichaeism, Nestorian Christianity, Bud- dhism and Islam exerted an influence on the city. See El-Mas'udi's Historical Encyclopedia entitled Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems translated from the Arabic by A. Sprenger, I (1841), 241 ff. Cf. Flugel, Gustav L:, Mani und seine Lehre, 98; Enzyklopadie des Islam s.v. Balkh; Walter J. Fischel, "The Jews of Central Asia," Historia Judaica, VII (1945) pp. 46-47.

I6 See Saadia Sefer Hagaluy (Harkavy, loc. cit.): nuibo to '.. '7 Rapaport noticed that Ijiwi could not have been a follower of the

Karaites. See, idem, 3"D- nrinn note 31 (p. 146); The heretical rationalism of Hiwi in his explanations of miracles, as quoted by Ibn Ezra, could not have originated among the Karaites.

Is Saadia in his commentary on n?82V -9D quoted by Judah ben Barzilai (Ilthe century): orbn m mnD rm 113D b rn ORS nfrml ... nny. See idem, rrrv v9D by 1 -',! ed. Halberstamm, 21. Cf. further E. N. Adler and I. Broyde, "An Ancient Bookseller's Catalogue," JQR XIII, 54 (No. 71) where a lzVm nn mb= is mentioned. Poznanski, ibid., 329 (71) believes that it refers to Saadia's answer. Malter, op. cit. 387 argues against Poznanski, and holds that m:= rrin :nr can refer only


We do not know in what language the book of Hiwi was written; probably it was in Arabic, but the possibility should not be excluded that he wrote in an Aramaic dialect, since Aramaic was still used by Gentiles and Jews in Baby- lonia as late as the 11th century.'9

Both, Karaites and Rabbanites wrote polemics against him. They saw in his work a menace to Judaism. Qirqisani relates that the Sectarian Musa al-Zafrani (ninth century) wrote a book of replies to questions submitted to him by Hiwi.20 The Karaite exegete and polemist, Salman ben Yeruham, in his commentary on Ecclesiastes 7.16, rejects heretic charges made by Hiwi.2, He does not fail to curse Hiwi on this occasion.22 Old anonymous Arabic commen- taries on the Bible, which cannot be dated, mention questions and charges raised by Hiwi against the Bible. They likewise do not fail to curse him.23

Of the Rabbanites, Saadia, more than sixty years after IHiwi wrote his book, resumed the fight against him.24 The literary activity of Saadia was to a great extent dedicated

to Uiwi's book because of the missing of the word rii (Refutation) in the title of the book. From Saadia's answer we learn that Hiwi's book was written in rhymes. See idem, stanza 61: o'rin jiuwn o). -

I9 Saadia's Polemic, stanza 37: -m: 8i nnnxi nNxYii nxi. Cf. Pseudo- Bachya: op. cit., 16 (Davidson, op. cit., 99). Pseudo-Bachya gives a reason why Saadia did not answer Ijiwi in Arabic. But if Ijiwi became a Christian Gnostic, as proven, he would have written his book in the ninth century in Syriac. On Aramaic among Jews in Babylonia at the geonic period, see I. N. Epstein, Der Gaonische Kommentar zur Ordnung Tohorot, Berlin, 1915, 53 ff. rxo p'nv l: nniz Jim x^ nn I'm i:;m 1-ID00 -niD 'V-m llw nrl"8Y,^ iZ: l"n-Yi -In 11 llwim 116 oi-Dpo Nil DnD Iz-c -Nx n1cVw;l :1-10: q oixy w olnw nir-mnm qt4 w1n 1'.m Wxwr. Epstein writes: Aram&ische Dialekte waren uber ganz Babylonien bis tief herab in die erste Hdlfte des elften Jahrhunderts ziemlich verbreitet und gesprochen sowohl von Nichtjuden . . . als auch von Juden.

20 Qirqisani, loc. cit.: 46 y 5i 4 i LA t ly 4 4. Cf. HUCA VII, 389.

2X Davidson, op. cit., 94 f. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 95 ff. 24 See note 15.


to combating the religious schism which menaced Judaism. He wrote polemical works not only against Karaites but also against other adversaries of Rabbinical Judaism. One of his polemical works was directed solely against Hiwi,25 while he devoted much space to him also in other works.26 A fragment of his polemical work against Hiwi was discovered in the Genizah of Cairo. It has been edited three times, by I. Davidson, S. Poznanski and S. A. Wertheimer.27 It is impossible to determine the length of Saadia's work and we do not know if he replied to all of the two hundred questions which Hiwi propounded.28 The Genizah fragment is written in rhymed prose, and it contains about seventy- three stanzas of four rhymes each. Saadia's authorship of the Genizah fragment is well established by a threefold acrostic, which reads: (n)9: -vw 1 qjy N -II nY Pll 1M -ppP.29 It has been established that the Genizah fragment is a part of the polemical work which Saadia wrote against HIwi, since many of the questions set forth in the Genizah fragment are ascribed to Hiwi by other sources as well as by Saadia himself in his other works.30

25 Malter, op. cit. 260-271. 26 For references to Ijiwi in the work of Saadia, see Davidson, op.

cit.; 82. On p. 82 n. 4 v"wn%b zbnz has to be corrected into -rim zbnz mlp 1pt ',y, see Malter, op. cit. (385 1.5). Already Gratz noticed that a part of Saadia's polemic in his philosophical work Emunot III (ed. Slutski, 72-74) was directed against Ijiwi. See Gratz-Rabinowitz, III, 473-4.

27 Israel Davidson, Saadia's Polemic against Hiwi al-Balkhi. A fragment edited from a Genizah Mss. New York, 1915; S. Poznanski V ':n rn nibw by ilez n-yo -i niZln, Warsaw, 1916; S. A. Wertheimer, 0,31N)n JIx: Jerusalem, 1925, 17-68.

28 Davidson assumes that Saadia's work contained about 460 stanzas (idem, 34). It means that the published Genizah-fragment is only about one-sixth or one-seventh of the work. But Davidson's assump- tion is very vague. Saadia sometimes devotes five stanzas to one question and sometimes he deals with several questions in one stanza. Cf. stanza 21 and stanzas 36-40.

29 Davidson, op. cit. 34. Cf. J. Mann, Texts and Studies, II, 117-118. 30 See notes 44, 68, 71, 76.


Some Hebrew chronicles and philosophical works of the Middle Ages and Abraham ibn Ezra in his commentary on the Pentateuch have rescued the name of Hiwi from oblivion.3'

According to Abraham ibn Daud, who wrote his chronicle about three hundred years after IIiwi, the influence of the latter on Eastern Jewry was very great, and a Bible expurgated by him was used as a textbook in schoolS.32 -nn 'DD y s\nb llnnnD'U rlw n1y) n -ilynl nn 1-i-ir nn mn lm lnwzr m ii9"sn orm -nn

'D mnv -y rlnnibl MI'0onrinm ulllS v r'DDlil' : im UR

It is incredible that Hiwi's compilation of the two hundred biblical questions could have been used as a textbook in schools. We must take the words of ibn Daud cum grano salis.33 We do not find in Saadia's writings the testi- mony to which ibn Daud refers. Besides, as will appear later, it is probable that Hiwi became a Gnostic Christian.34 Therefore, the statement of ibn Daud lacks plausibility.

From the polemical material against Ijiwi al-Balkhi available to us today, we see that his main concern was to question the authority of the Bible. Ijiwi criticized the biblical conception of God, and the biblical command-

3I Pseudo-Bachya (11th century), op. cit. The Ijiwi passage is quoted by Davidson, op. cit. 99; Moses ibn Ezra (1070-1139) in his Arabic work np-pn%iw tmvnm z np-in nm or owv; nmnry (Davidson, 99-100); Abraham ibn Ezra (1092-1167) in his commentary on Gen. 1.1; 3.9; Ex. 14.27; 16.13; 34.29. Abraham ibn Daud (1110-1180) in his C9o nlnpn, Medieval Jewish Chronicles, ed. A. Neubauer, I, 66. For later sources see Davidson, op. cit. 102 ff.

32 See, A. Neubauer, op. cit. Cf. Saul Lieberman po'n v-rir 28; B. M. Lewin, Ginze Kedem VI, 14.

33 On the reliability of Ibn Daud as an historian see -pi-io 'n -in npin rinr intrim :nib' x#Rt, %wniw nvnn i~ nbix, V, 96-97;

I. Elbogen, "Abraham ibn Daud als Geschichtsschreiber." Festschrift. zu J. Guttmanns 70. Geburtstag, 1915, p. 199 sq.

34 See below.

IIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL 323

ments and stories. The charges and questions of Hiwi may be summarized and subdivided into the following groups:

A. God is unjust, without affection and favors evil. 1. He accepted the gift of Abel, but rejected without

reason that of Cain.35 2. The people of the earth and all the animals were

destroyed in the flood, although they were guiltless.36 3. Why does God never refrain from inflicting punishment

on the world?37

35 Stanza 5. The question why God did not accept the offerings of Cain was disputed in ancient times. The reason given in Gen. 4.7 is difficult to understand. The Septuagint offers here another text. Philo deals with this question, and his answer corresponds to that of the rabbis, namely that Abel brought his offerings from the best of his sheep while Cain brought his from the worst fruits of earth. See Philo, "De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini," 88 (Loeb Classical Library, II, 160) "A/,eX bf' -'VEyKEV oV rd abra ovU ronv abrbv rp6rov, &XX' avrl je.v a6PvXXov ('/AiIvXa, aVTt be' VfWrepTWV KaL bevrepeLwv 1rpeoa,Bvepa Kat irpwna, &Vrt% U 70OEV7-KOTrWV Eppw/Aeva Kal rtmrepa Julian the Apostate discusses the same question in his book against the Christians. See Kara raXtXatcozv (Loeb Classical Library, III, 418) Saadia's answer: mo-ph ann 'n onn rtam 11rhvri 1 ' =I ilmn mvnn Z corresponds to

that of the Midrash. See Gen. r.22.5 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 207-8): . . . In:n~nw iitx ni-iizan mri oa wa: in . . nilovn In 'IIrirn-lbri -ln9 1-1 I1vmrow In.

36 Stanza 25. Cf. Pseudo Philo (Fragments, Philo, ed. Yonge, IV, 277): "Why is it that God when He threatens to extirpate mankind does also destroy the irrational animals?" The rabbis tried to justify the destruction of animals in the flood. See Sanhedrin 108a: nvrwn z by rnin imn by nnnn iyly:nmw nthn lini, -i'b ynibn ~yiD-r,, nbt -IV= i 1R ... svn in-ip In yinn =mi oDwn n n nn rin nnnm br.n o-ib on.. . nn

n-I btron owe rvzy o-e D-T v b6 m mi mb rin n 1 Vm pi. Cf. Gen. r., 28.6: D?Vx mirnr6 im noim 1z t o-Win 1- ', ' nnin n DI t6bt -Iy- nl:nnni nz Hn OnI: JlVrl -nbt Imnn rzy J1Vrl OD y: N nlnnni I9pip ixl '=-I' own O I-'ty '=-I . . . ,DU: D-I0nS JD'96 O"p) -nr -12b '= -.I ... irxli Cy D3 )nn arwn oy i9D r Inmn -I-I on;vlyn. Cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, V, 180, n. 32.

37 Stanza 24. The question is based on rabbinic conceptions and interpretations. See Mekilta, enmvr- snnow (ed. Lauterbach, III, 205):


4. Why did God save Noah, who was no better than his contemporaries?38

5. Wherein was Sodom more iniquitous than other cities that it should have met with such severe punishment?39 6. Why did Jacob suffer so much?40

ly\p \"9 n p: 1': J,br) -p)Wz"in 1'Nn 1D t 1 _,, n zwrY nnwD nzw. See also Gen. r. 11.10... wyv-i nzb6nn b6 nm? nb6 1n1v uly nm6nn 'mz * rl"np 3Z)ywn W 1mzy' n puni; Pes. r. ch. 23, 41 (ed. Friedman, pp. 120b, 174a). Cf. Monatsschrift 44, 564.

38 Stanzas 26-27: rn r Wb rith ruir' D'9osD D Py- D ?KtWJ 3w 1 yiTD flnfl on b6 bimi. According to Marcion Noah will not be redeemed at the

Last Judgment. See Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, I, 27.3: Marcion dicit, Cain et eos qui similes sunt ei . . . salvatos esse a domino ... Abel autem et Enoch et Noe ... non participasse salutem. . . Cf. Adolf von Harnack, Marcion; das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott. Eine Monograaphie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche, 1921, p. 117. The conduct of Noah was criticized in ancient times. The Church-fathers tried to prove that Noah was not drunk. They allegorized the verses Gen. 9.21 ff. Cf. L. Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testaments in der christlichen Kirche, 165. In the rabbinic literature there were different views about the piety of Noah. See Sanh. 108a: wbt n3 n) nriin ri*t 'IDlN W'pih wni o-iri ni-ii-i 6in rsnririn prii, -ib rsni-iri rrn wnn pnx ... o-nn nrniin V"Di rinniirm. Cf. Tanhuma B. I, 32. The conception that Noah was a just man is to be found in the apocryphic literature. See the Book of Jubilees, 5.19. Cf. Ginzberg, op. cit. V, 178, n. 28.

39 Stanzas 57-58: ninimn ~i nmonn onn'm rin: in- nbt rrny oi-wcD onin6lw D onrilmm. Marcion also criticized the destruction of Sodom by God. According to Marcion the Sodomites will be redeemed at the Last Judgment. See Irenaeus, loc. cit.: Marcion dicit:... Sodomitas salvatas esse a domino. Cf. Irenaeus, op. cit. IV, 28.1. Tertullian, op. cit. IV, 59 f. Cf. further Harnack, op. cit. 95, 117, 141. The Rabbis emphasized the sins of the Sodomites. See Sanh. 10.3: ie 'tW nyn On'D n,nswm *m trym ',I nrny '1i%m obtrni. Cf. Gen. r. 40.7; Tanhuma

in'. See however, Tosefta Sabbat 8 (end): mD= ? je 1i ltI3im nlirn 'ni flflnfD b 6i nlhI3ip3 J iy irnrztn' 1imnD p1: o",1JDi3 1fli lintl D rl1

40 Stanzas 70-73. The rabbis tried to give an answer to the question of the sufferings of Jacob. See Gen. r. 84.3: o-p,r?nv nyva ene en nnb Drli Ipinn btivW 1-1 b -inb rD1rAopmlH 1ODU lotU- ranp 61iWa -anw' OvWpan by apy, lrnbt ]DV Ji y-i-n rlrl o61ya rlliwn nw9 Iwpaw b6bt btln9 linyi

Dl', iW 1)LD 19 1111r mn O1i3pm nmvwm mv-'p'aw. Cf. nmrwin nrnb ed. Buber, 121: o-p-wn iD exln ne pi ... nfl 19lDWth -113n ' p, ' MpDnv 'nD 'n nf 1i1io1 . .. 1iyox mD:) apy, pil . .. mln iliomi onlnym 1riytm.

I*IWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL 325

7. Why did God subject the innocent offspring of Abraham to bondage in Egypt?4I

8. Why did God prohibit the descendants of Lot and his daughters, the Moabites and Ammonites, from being admitted into the assembly of the Lord? God caused Lot and his daughters to commit incest.42

9. Why is the life of man full of suffering?43 10. Why did not God make man live forever?44

4' Stanzas 47-49. The question why God punishes the children for the sins of the parents is an old heretic charge. See Origen, contra Celsum, VIII, 40: Julian the Apostate, op. cit. 106 E (Loeb Classical Li- brary, III, 345). The rabbis emphasized that God punishes the children only when they follow the course of their parents. See the addition of Onkelos to Ex. 20.5: Irnami nnn non bv= I'n9Wn -D. See also Sanh. 27b: I,tmbtvz onn ,= ozy nlzKt -Iplm wmrn . . . DIM by n1am Inwrs tl 1)2- =zn7 oD-rJn orninm1 'wyn. Cf. L. Ginzberg, die Haggada bei den Kirchen- vatern. Exodus. Poznanski Jubilee Volume 208-209; Idem, Legends of the Jews, VI, 40 n. 217. The answer of Saadia that God repaid the children of Abraham for their sufferings corresponds to the opinion of the rabbis. See Seder Eliyahu Zuta, XI ~imnWv ' inwhmD IK r I -noD' 1'. Cf. Saadia, Emunot, VI (Ed. Slutski, p. 100): O'n mi . . . wnivn Om]

'n-inKa 1:'mni IniD] IyDi -inK -iWK: ro on-iinn rninm mKbt ;1iy. 42 Stanzas 59-60. Lot and his daughters found defenders among the

rabbis and also in the church. See Gen. r. 51.8 and 10. K99 In nrn 'i D'Dt?W OW6 m' nmr ovr mn',n it Kl riimy nii nnn niK. Cf. Yalkut Shimeoni I, 808. Clemens of Alexandria blames the daughters of Lot for the sin of incest. See, idem, Pedagogus, II, 9 (Ante Nicene Christian Library, N. Y. 1890, II, 258). Lot is considered one of the just men in the apocryphic literature. See Wisdom of Solomon, 10.6. See also Pseudo- Philo in the edition of the works of Philo by C. C. Yonge, vol. IV, 278. Cf. Ginzberg, op. cit. V, 243 n. 288.

43 Stanzas 10-11. One of the charges of Marcion was that God of the 0. T. is the "conditor malorum" and enjoys the sufferings of men. See Harnack, op. cit. 85 ff. 95, 141. The rabbis justified the creation of sufferings as a medium of chastisement from sins. See Sifre Deut. 32: 1Wy 1 'K I 'bt r i b OD nwr W oTm1n3Tt i11m Di"Inni, fiDo-= Dn W Kn' O'niD' owwn -iviK Inmw"n '-i,' 'or .- . . i9 inmz u-o-aD" i9 inm nami r-r=w 173y I rb tn 11- 'D 'y in olpD by rn=)v opnDn 1).6. The answer given by Saadia: oD1" D'n1V nw 'fl rii y-i is based on the Sifre. Cf. however Gen. r. 9.10 where we find another reason for the creation of sufferings, namely: brimt -n rinu I-no" nin 'Di -'11" n-n it rKt mir mmrl

44 Stanzas 12-15: 'ibtv -ri Mil ryi DlOUt mn b6 nnT?3 '. Cf. Emunot, IV


11. Why did not God make man holy and pure?45 12. Why did He implant evil in man?46 13. Why did not God destroy the evil spirit in man?47

B. God is not omniscient.

14. He did not know where Adam was whenR he was hiding in the garden of Eden. (Gen. 3.9.)48

(ed. Slutski, 76-77) n'nn nw m' rnz wmnnKi v'n '' 1rwzY mn3ni. Cf. note 43.

45 Stanzas 16-18: rinni w3v... I,X' mi 1'% Wvnp. Marcion also called the human body "stercoribus infersa." See Tertullian, Adversus Mar- cionem I, 29, III, II, IV, 21. Cf. Harnack, op. cit. 97. The Manichaeans also held that the human body was not the creation of God but of Satan. Saadia, Emunot IV (76), VI (100). Cf. also notes 43-44.

46 Stanza 19: niD" %m nl mn humD nily. Here the problem of free will and justice is touched. Evidently I.iwi did not believe in free will. He deals with the same problem from the angle of foreknowledge of God. See below note 101. Philo wrote a special treatise on this subject "Quod omnis probus liber sit" (Loeb Classical Library, IX, 10 ff.). The question was dealt with by the Rabbis. See Seder Elijaku Zuta, 12 (ed. Friedman, 193): ynn t,v nN3'pn bru ;'D n -umn ot. The Midrash permits Cain to defend his crime with the excuse that the evil spirit who was created by God prompted his deed. See Tanhuma nvwu 9: . n.. -r' '. nwi3 hn?iml 'nn F m ' lo 1'? l. But the rabbis emphasized at the same time the free will of men. See Aboth 3.15: 'nm Won

47 Stanza 30: i'myn t' n,6 nw-i y3Pn n' by. Marcion called the Satan angelus creatoris and God actor diabolis. See Tertullian, op. cit. V, 16; II 10, cf. Davidson considers stanzas 19 and 30 one question. See Davidson, Saadia's Polemic against Hiwi Al-Balkhi, p. 24.8 where 20 in parenthesis is apparently a misprint for 30. In reality stanzas 19 and 30 contain two different questions. Stanza 19: lir mnmvnn nnbt rnlyi -iw i3 refers to Gen. 6.5 and stanza 30 refers to Gen. 8.21. The question: ivm3yn b' nnv nwi- y-mn mr by which is based on Gen. 8.21 refers to the time after the deluge. Ijiwi asked why God did not destroy Satan (evil spirit) in the deluge when He destroyed all who sinned. Cf. Poznanski, ZHB XIX (1916), 4.

48 See Ibn Ezras commentary on Gen. 3.9. (In his longer commentary on Gen. ed. Friedlander, p. 39): niyv '9i5 nwrw 'ninn nmnny ipnnv,

. -i 1e6nn9 o-int M: lW iznin nnxi p.-.. bx min Hi b6 . The same charge was made by Marcion. See Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem,


15. He did not know where Abel was. (Gen. 4.9.)49 16. He did not foresee that mankind would commit evil and be disobedient to His commands, because He later regretted that He had created man. (Gen. 6.6.)5O 17. He put Abraham to the test, thereby showing clearly He did not know whether Abraham would fulfill His command.(Gen. 22.1..)5I

IV, 20. Cf. Harnack, op. cit. 39 ff. The Manichaeans also charged the biblical God. with ignorance. See Alfaric, op. cit. II, 142. Cf. also the note 49 below. The rabbis explained ni'K of Gen. 3.9: What hap- pened to you? Gen. r. 19.9: 1i mnn lR Cf. also n"ri nm D'11pi rntn in Dcp1,v' 'm III, 14 no-Iny- innu I". Cf. y-m '1,, now 4. Philo tried to explain this difficulty. See Quaestiones in Genesin. (The Works of Philo, ed. C. D. Yonge, IV, 319).

49 Stanza 6. The same charge was made by Marcion. See Harnack, op. cit., 93: De Cain scisitatur ubinam frater eius. The rabbinic point of view is known. See Rashi s. 1. wr sibt nn2 -i my Diz' I'mm V 'Kt.

So Stanza 20: ... jrnn onivmo onri Irnmi nvy ir m ,nr 'z mniv npv owsyn nxynv. This charge is connected with the one that God changes his mind, a charge which Philo tried to repudiate in a special treatise, Quod deus sit immutabilis, 21. Celsus and Marcion based on Gen. 6.6 their charge that God is not omniscient, since He repents. See Origen, Contra Celsum, VI, 58; Tertullian, op. cit. II, 28: Mutavit sententiam creator ... paenituit in aliquo creatorem ... nesciit qualis adlegeret. Cf. Harnack, op. cit., 93. The rabbis felt the difficulty of this passage. See Tanhuma B. I. 30: 'n

.1p-in rnn- 'rmin, n nim r* m n y 'z 'i Dfnr Dfnri 1ilz nw4 rinT1 'ni . .. . fln K ntWp vy lp n.n Ij n i 13 K rrnri' onmim 1p6 Cf. Gen. r. 27.4: orim 1'K i :D nwrn-p 1m yvin, - nm m -i nn mz 1159 5K nxynr inD w nomI I9 -IDm -I9Ir nK ntAl- rriprI cr'mm.

5' Stanzas 63-64. H.iwi derives from onnrr nKt rm 0'%Rml Gen. 22.12 that God is not omniscient. The charge that God is not omniscient because of his testing Abraham was made also by Marcion and Simon Magus of the Clementine Homilies. See Harnack, op. cit. 94: Marcion: Deus nunc se cognovisse dicit quia Abraham timeat deum qui antea ignoraverit. Clementine Homilies, III, 39. Saadia's answer rnyi nr,iy vnBn 'nyinin corresponds to the version in the Book of Jubilees, XVIII. 11. The Vulgate and the Peshitto too translate 'nylv niny as a causative, as if it were written 'nyn5i. The rabbis already felt the difficulty in ascribing testing to God and therefore explained nm in the meaning of MM3 to elevate. See Gen. r. 55.6 nwt Dci, '-i- *nrmb n wnU btml

rm'D iv D3z i9m. In the same manner they explained niDi -in n: of Ex. 15.25 and 20.20. See Mekilta, Bahodesh, 9 (ed. Lauterbach, II, 272): c:n in: i:monn1D r D


C. God is not omnipotent

18. He was afraid of Adam. He did not permit Adam to eat of the tree of life. (Gen. 3.22.)52 19. After Adam and Eve were driven out of Paradise, God placed at the east of it the Cherubim and the flaming sword. Why did He not use other means or why did He not make Adam forget the way to Paradise (Gen. 3.24.)?53 20. Why was He afraid of the builders of the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11.6.)?54 21. Why did He change the name of Abram to Abraham (Gen. 17.5.)? It indicates that He had to resort to magic since He Himself could not alter fate.55

52 Stanzas 1-4. In these stanzas Ijiwi points out two arguments to prove the fear of God. The first are the verses Gen. 2.17 and 3.22. The Gnostics proved from the prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge and from the tree of life, the fear of God. See Origen, Contra Celsum IV, 40; Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, III, 23.6. Porphyry, related by Severianus, de mundi creatione, ed. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 56, p. 494. For the second argument see the following note.

53 Stanzas 2-4. Cf. Benjamin Lewin, 'zmrn iin by 3-D: nlnlvno nryn, ibnv, n=n6 ni-wri VI, 159; nflDfln nonn nw'bpi in crovrr in) III, 14.

54 Stanzas 31-34. Hiwi identified the builders of the Tower of Babel (Gen. XI) with the wmim ' and ' of Gen. 6.2.4. This conception corresponds to that of Pseudo-Eupolemus (See Freudenthal, Jacob, Alexander Polyhistor, 92-93). The conception that the builders of the rower wanted to fight against God is found in the Talmud. See Sanhedrin 109a: msiv w ':n -wme -ry no . . . Ynyi pin m.-6 1,bt rnzmn -n- nim--1-np Inm -D3 Y-Jr ym r6y:n inzw n3w. Cf. -irn -wD ed. Goldschmidt, 28 f. The story of the Tower was criticised by contemporaries of Philo. See, Philo, de confusione linguarum, ch. 2. Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum IV, 21; Julian Apostate, op. cit. 135B. (Loeb Classical Library, III, 350) 4,OtL ,itv g yap 'yo6 Kat Trovro rapaErMrlws &KELVW AvG2Aes etvac.

5s Stanza 42. Hiwi proves the weakness of the biblical God from His ina- bility to change the destiny of Abraham without changing his name. Philo wrote a special treatise on this subject. He mentions men who ridiculed the changing of the name of Abram to Abraham. See, idem, de mutatione nominum, 61 (Loeb Classical Library, V, 173): Ka' 7rpWr/7V J7KOvoca XXEVA&OVTOS KaLi KaTaKEpTO,o0VVTOS avApOS aLGOV KaL aoe/3ovs os

Ag6XMa Myev- - Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Trypho, chp. 113. Ante Nicene Christian Library, (New York, 1890) I, 255. The rabbis


D. God changes His mind, which is a sign that He is neither omniscient nor consistent.

22. Originally it was permissible to marry a sister, but later God forbade it.56 23. God did not punish Cain with death for the murder of his brother Abel. Nevertheless, He later commanded: "Who sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." (Gen. 4.12.)57 24. Originally everyone was permitted to offer sacrifices. Later, however, these were restricted to the priests.58 25. God forbade work on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, He permitted the offering of sacrifices on the Sabbath in the Temple.59

explained the change of the name of Abraham by other reasons. See b. Ber. 13a: iz9 m4 nvy: 9qDm10ni wit ,w4 ny3rrinn arrnt4 tort an:1 1rlz o7iyn. Cf. Tosefta Berakot 1.13. The Tosefta stresses that there was no difference between the names. anit and anrnw: inrino '.9 iy 141,I 1;y n:nm t49v -y ann4 mn, . . . n=6 4i t m)e R:i rt4 annt4 arrmt wrpi 1Dy ninmm oint . Cf. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews V, 232-3.

56 Emunot III (ed. Slutski, p. 69) vr '-mm rl'rl1'nt fl one '2 rlnnrpj ~Io . 57 Emunot III (ed. Slutski, p. 70) mi y3 1Mrl i1= Pn P -Y 1J1 ri:,n

nxT- mT:rin ;' -nnm 1rf - Cf. Stanza 7: t6 1w'fl r1i? 16 ;rwi ?nnv3. The meaning of this question is rather obscure. The subject in stanza 6 is Cain, but the question why God did not preserve Cain does not make sense. Davidson therefore refers the question to Abel. But his translation is forced and does not fit into the text. It would afford better sense, if we should eliminate the first t6 so that it should read ?nnv3 t6 13 r mvrz, w . The Mss. shows many deleted passages and cor- rections. Benjamin Lewin saw the difficulty of this passage and he read: nnr. t6 i3ni rmvx t6 rw why did God not destroy Cain? See

wir? ri=nf wrn i VI, 160. Cf. the Geonic responsa in rwiv rnnp by A. S. Wertheimer, p. 69: p rpi mne Inm. Cf. Philo, Quaestiones in Genesin, 76 (Yonge, IV, 322). According to Marcion Cain will be redeemed at the Last Judgment, but not Abel. See Harnack, op. cit. 117.

s8 Ibid.: rnjir Yin 6Z aym Iz nm a-m i: 1pp mixv ,n nwv8omr 1~.

59 Ibid.: ri ;yn inn non : n-i p,i n'iy'n-. The conception of the rabbis was that sacrifices are among the laws which are stronger


26. God first commanded Abraham to offer his son, but when Abraham was about to fulfill the command God prevented him from so doing.60 27. God first said to Balaam: "Don't go with them," but later the angel said to him: "Go with them." (Num. 22.12.20.)6, 28. God first said to Hezekiah: "You will die and not live." Later, however, he said to him: "I will give you fifteen years more to live." (Isaiah 38.1.5.)62 29. God first chose the first-born as His servants, but later He changed His mind and chose the Levites in their stead. (Num. 8.18.)63 30. God forbade work on the sabbath, nevertheless, He

than the law which probhibits work on sabbath. nar nnri nlmy. See Shab. 132b, Yeb. 7a. Cf. Matthew 12.5. See Das Evangelium nach Matthaus erlautert nach Talmud und Midrash, von H. L. Strack und P. Billerbeck, 620 f. Cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, VI, 41.

60 Ibid.: . iliyi ovr ;i~y;n pnx, by mrrint6 ri mnl nmiv ;in n,mmn> nIY3.;l be 1ri on it nzm pz -inn. The Midrash puts the same charge in the mouth of Abraham. See Gen. r. 56.7: wnp' pnrn z " nvt4 bi=4 I' nrin i 't ii io nm iryi I-ry mn n1 - 4 n - nip ' nimm mrnim y?t 1 iy;ri it. The answer of the Midrash to this charge is that Abraham misunderstood the command of God: riryn t6 ?31onv 1 n 1I mlnnmr m'snp'Dt.

6I Ibid.: l: imnw rnmy 1in 4'7 p'= mnir by ayi= " iinn nivr in nrii owmwn my l7 1-inni. This question was already dealt with in the rabbinic literature. See Makkot lOb: ... i* m *lzle1'm n 1T: rari 13 DT-m 1nni one4 J Dip wnr Darmy 1 'n t r wnii nrnnnr In. Cf. Tanhuma B. IV, 139. The answer of Saadia was: wiv" D'oV34n omt1 my nzl ly3 D IV1 D'V4o21 'z fix.

62 Ibid. The rabbinic point of view was that penitence can change the verdict of God. See R. H. 17b: -ir ny-ipmz miwn rilrn lrn', i1 D-i Kv iz'i. Hiskia repented his sins, he prayed to God and prac- tised charity, thereupon God prolonged his life, see Y. Sanh X, 2; Lev. r. 10.5. Cf. Tertullian op. cit. II, 17.

63 Ibid. The opinion of the rabbis was that the firstborn forfeited their rights because of their sins. They were the first to offer sacrifices to the golden calf. See Y. Meg. 1.11. nin,1'm i't4 o'wn nron '-i inI

HIWI AL-BLAKHI-ROSENTHAL 331

permitted Joshua to fight on the sabbath when he besieged Jericho. (Joshua 6.)64 31. God first chose the Tabernacle as the place of His glory, but later God chose the Temple as His seat.65 32. God first blessed men with power to subdue the earth, but later destroyed them. (Gen. 1.28;7.23)66 33. God promised Palestine to Isaac. Nevertheless he permitted Hagar to give birth to Ishmael who annulled the promise to Isaac. (Gen. 16.15; 17.8.19; 26.3.)67 34. God blessed Jacob, but made the children of Esau more prosperous than the children of Jacob. (Gen. 28.13 f.)68

64 The Church-Fathers derived from the violation of the Law of Sabbat by Joshua during the siege of Jericho the proof that the laws of the Torah were temporary and not eternal as held by the Jews. See Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, IV. (The Ante Nicene Christian Library III, 155). The same charge was made by Marcion. See Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, II, 21. Cf. Harnack, op. cit. 93. The rabbis tried to justify the action of Joshua. See Num. r. 14.5: 'rvwi niyv DorK K"T n. nv Kim D'1DK fD T' 9 yrn' -1D.

6s Ibid. According to the rabbis the temple was one of the objects the creation of which was planned even before the creation of the world. See Pes. 54a; Gen. r. I, 4 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 6): wKimn D'1mx ,iyn W-1p.m, mw .. . 61y.-, w1mv Up

66 Stanzas 22-23. &' Do- n: 1' ... .1=D 'iM1KT rflfl? 1r rnriln n'in. Stanza 22 may be considered a continuation of stanza 20. Hiwi proved that God is not omniscient, because He first blessed the first generation and later destroyed it. This charge, like the following one, may be considered as the continuation of the previous. They deal with the problem, of God changing his mind.

67 Stanza 50: 1'DU; iK?Zv - lmyv 'y?' +15v 68 Stanzas 66-68: qlyi~n I nO. . . I ny'M Urns, u-y iKnr ID n:nv

.u.. r1nKD inK 1ViinK. Cf. Emunot III (ed. Slutski, 74): K1-Tv -iy -nKfn

. p.. ;I+pfl nT flKT -mi1m nptnmn nw1KT nKw1. Hiwi wanted to prove that God annulled His first blessing of the patriarchs. He brings two proofs: 1. Jacob was a wanderer. The blessings of his father Isaac were not fulfilled. 2. The Jews, the children of Jacob are slaves of the Romans, the descendants of Esau. We find the same argument in the book of Julian the Apostate, op. cit. 209D (Loeb Classical Library, III, 378-9). Cf. J. Guttmann, Monatsschrift, XXVIII, 298.


35. God promised Palestine to the children of Israel, but swore afterwards that He would not let them enter it. (Num. 14.29 ff.)69

E. God likes blood and sacrifices.

36. Fat and blood are accepted by God as sweet savor.70 37. God delights in candles, songs, shewbread, the smell of incense, the offering of flowers and wine, oil and fruit. He likes to dwell in a Temple.71

69 From an Arabic commentary on Numbers 14.23. Davidson, 95-96. Cf. Poznanski, Hagoren VII, 123. See above note 67.

70 Stanza 28: nnp-ii i1x: 1'K OUl Mn by nr'wi. Cf. Emunot III (ed. Slutski 72): iK n1,,nmn Wirno OK n1umipr 1i7D -nmym 1,7,= ?Y 'i1K 'Y'n-I mn;nn o., nnwpm9. See also Salman ben Yerulam's commentary on Eccl. 7.16. (Davidson, 94). Marcion's criticism of sacrifices is known. See Tertullian, op. cit. II, 22 cf. The rabbis tried to in various ways to justify sacrifices. One point of view was that sacrifices purify the man who offers them. See Lev. r. 30.12: nn9 't I Wa -Om ownm In uzv9m 'ni t ODrnt n o'mm rxnrp n-mnn -IO npI " yom (y T CiW) ... Yfz D-1K D1fL 'm &'K 6mW KD?Z) Mvn D'I - TDVTK I9Tm J'iK 1Inpn. Another point of view was that sacrifices were a necessary concession to the low standard of the people freed from Egyptian slavery. See Lev. r. 22.5: wmxip D'KwD 1irn1 w'2xon try 'inm wDu1in ?K1W' 1TV' 16 "3 s1p? I'm' pint ;. . . .on .m1DxK l D,"1p O'-1'pD 1'f1 ... 0-.,Y6 t?yn r'ris 1r1m ... rmnm yp nY i. Clemens in his Recognitions held the point of view of the Talmud. See idem, XXXVI. We find the same point of view in More Nebukim of Maimonides. See, More, III, 17. For Saadia's answer see Malter, op. cit. 210, n. 482.

7' Emunot, III end (ed. Slutski, 73): pmoixi -'Tvyvv -3n, 'W1n. Marcion and Mani made the same charges. See Harnack, op. cit. 93, 100. Alfaric, op. cit. II, 142. 0. G. von Wesendonk, die Lehre des MVani, 43. For the rabbinic point of view see previous note. Cf. Ex. r. 34.1: rn1m.: 1 i ??lKnl pinn IDw' 7 nvy nvvD n'mp -inW -TyVm K- .1.:. pVO D -' nVY nm1K NIm o:innni o0n1y v n"n'p-T iW; Num. r. 15.4: i`K

mmnvKU 1-Tiz 11 rKnW &'K t D6 = rn 1-ix "KW KUpf ibid. 5: ,n. t6v InlK nliMn Kt'K 19 'nmDK Ki ... rn1nm 1-ix to-l iw *I-x1 Inil . Tanhuma B. IV, 23b-24a: uoz9 rmimn ln-c mirT nm lil :Vpn. According to the rabbis the purpose of revealing to Ezekiel the heavenly throne was to demonstrate to him that God is not in need of the services performed in the Temple, since innumerable hosts of angels minister to Him in heaven; hence it is for Israel's sake that the Temple will be rebuilt. See Seder Eliyahu Rabba, 6, ed. Friedman, 34. Cf. Ex. r. 34.1.


F. The Bible is full of anthropomorphisms.72

38. God rested after His work.73 39. God walked up and down.74 40. God renders women barren and likewise makes them give birth to children.75

72 The entire criticism of Marcion of the biblical God is based on the anthropomorphisms ascribed to Him in the 0. T. Marcion rejected the allegorical interpretation of the 0. T. by the Church. He claimed M' 5civ aMXXyopewv rTv ypa4n'v. See Harnack, op. cit. 62, 84. Celsus and Porphyry also criticised the same anthropomorphisms. See Origen, Contra Celsum IV, 71 ff.: Celsus . . . ridicules those passages which speak of God's words of anger addressed to the sinners and of treatments delivered against sinners. Celsus criticised the resting of God in the seventh day. See Origen, op. cit., VI, 61. Porphyry proved from Ex. 31.18 the admissibility of creating idols in the image of a man, since God is presented as having fingers. See Harnack, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahr- hunderts, 88.

73 Stanza 21: iinnm rZmr n w3vn m'n nv nwo. The problem of God resting occupied the minds of previous generations. Philo, as well as the Rabbis explained nimnvl and n'in as causative verbs. It means God made the world rest. See Philo, Legum allegoriae I, 18 (Loeb Classical Library I, 156): 6t7XWbo-aev 6 Trl 7ravwv o Oeos ov 7rae-ra irouov, Gen. r. 10.8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck. 86): 'n nom 1? m' lnzmin

iM 1n IM nv1 ... lvily nK -T"mp,D Km -y'1'm M, iVym 1 . . .

'n= lnzw l.. . .Kwlru '1.n 'D1' 'O Umn 1 '1- 'O mZ?? r6?ol nnflfl 1W nfww ,ywn Omliny1 n3n nTT3 u.I- 7n:, pnnp. See also Mekilta, Bahodesh 7 (ed. Lauterbach, III 255): noKw nmn tmi -Ty', 1 V6 W1 r yl ywn olf nfl K:inW lt):c ip ninzl I,M 9 161A KiK bywn Ol nin ,31~ n Io . . .z YVI'l 1Y"' Mi mywm n3n oDw -niwym niy . The answer of Saadia: l3ins w'ml ni nn,

goes back to the Midrash. In his Emunot Saadia gives another explanation of mnl nimnv. See Emunot, ed. Slutski 54. Ki rnyimnil t nmnvn VIIlrlvll -131,- K8:cl, nln'ty MllinK ,NMm rvr.

74 Stanza 21: in3i v ninl niyn -rin bybl. Cf. also Emunot, ed. Slutski, 53 where Saadia writes: i~ n'nrw lpnm Ki1 Ov) irm 1,mml Kflmnn 'O mvTn bYl ntr nIODIil ?VDyD Ki nmw' ti om rini nx. Some of the Tannaim denied that God ever came down from heaven. See Suk. 5a: m' 61iO nvvi ,n'zW n-l-'.

75 Stanza 64: 8inil lyi oyu. It may refer to Gen. 16.2, 20.18, Isa. 66.9. Ijiwi probably wanted to prove from Isa. 66.9 the divine birth of Jesus. This passage is another proof that Hiwi was a Christian.


41. God is represented as having affections.76 42. God is represented as eating and accepting bribes.77

G. God does not work miracles. 43. There was nothing miraculous in the Israelites' crossing the Red Sea. The fact was that Moses kntew the ebb and the flow of the tides while the Egyptians did not. 78 44. Manna was not a miraculous food. It was the Persian plant Tarnjabin found in the deserts of the Near East.79

76 Stanza 21: innn nlV 19pi 19 pzi li3vnr w'xyn nnv rxynn nrtw. See notes 51, 73, 74. Cf. Emunot, ed. Slutski, 51: by pm Iz nnim rpv ,np'r rpr' K nnn wiv -inim wD'NpvT D n.I n. Saadia denies

any attributes to God. 77 Stanzas 51-56: iK r n rrn mn r nmwi ... DnFi -nw 'z n-iv,t

unF izmv mmKw. This charge is based on Gen. 18.8. Anastasius the Sinaite was asked the same question by an heretic. The rabbinic explanation of ~i:K is known. The angels niade it appear as if they ate. See Pseudo-Jonathan s. 1. Gen. r. 48.14 and Baba Mez. 86b: wnz iwi3 1I,KW.

78 This explanation of the miracle by Hiwi is ascribed to him by the Karaite Joseph ben Abraham ha-Kohen al-Basir in his book nDnn 'InD (quoted by Davidson, 98) and by Abraham ibn Ezra in his commentary on Ex. 14.27. Artapanus, a Jewish Hellenist of Alexandria (second century B. C. E.) rationalised the crossing of the Red Sea. See C. Muller, Fragm. hist. graec. III, 223. Mq,44Tras /LEv ol'v -yeclv, W'ElpOV ovTa io-v Mwvwov r7s Xwpas rXv 77 yrwTLv rtpv oavra bLa t'qpas rijs OaXak7os ro 7rXiOos 7repacwoaL Cf. German translation by Paul Riessler in his Altjudisches Schrifttum, p. 191. Cf. Judah Halevi's refutation of attempts to explain the miracles in a rationalistic way: mi p9D . . . 27 n Dn u 'K '9 '1W1 'pnwKi 3T 1 iynr 'It9ini nK O'Dnp'9D~ rni'py int ... Im'In NKi ri'nnnv Ki1'9Wsm (Kusari, ed. Is. Metz, 14).

79 Ibn Ezra on Ex. 16.13. Cf. the edition of Ibn Ezra's commentary on Ex. by J. Fleischer (Vienna, 1926) p. 108: ~i ymn1D 'r'n rvYy ipnnrz

bti' K1Uin InD '97;4 l:2?Kl Or:m 01, y mrli lnn nt ru:n z9 -inKW r'nnK nml, ,IKm lrnnrU KIA1 p':n-n mK:pri nitID19 "'rv D=r:^ Ion llDn.- M-iy Y-1Km itor ay . . . OWz' npv Kmi.-I Inn ' p'D '9 min9 nrw '9. Cf. Fleischer, niv nwm Inn iwia y'min in rrnr;r nivi L. Blau-Festschrift, Vienna, 1926, 241-243. Baidawi, one of the commentators of the Koran, also explains the miracle of Manna in a natural way. He identifies Manna with the plant

- .. _i(Baidawi on the Koran II, 54) See Lanes's Arabic-English Dictionary, I, 306. Cf. Emunot, introduction, ed. Slutski, 12: mrir n3

p..-I pD9z m -ni' -m mm n nxi z 6= nml m -isni lon nim 1,3y '. An


45. The face of Moses was "horny" when he came down from Mount Sinai because it was wizened by long fasting.8-

H. The Bible admits the existence of many gods.80a

46. The Godhead is represented as three.8' 47. God chose Israel as His own portion but gave the other nations into the care of the other gods.82 Irish monk of the seventh century tried to explain the miracle of Manna rationalistically. According to him Manna was hail. Augustine in his treatise de mirabilibus scripturae sacrae libri tres. See G. Diestel, Bibel und Naturkunde, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1863, 292.

8o Ibn Ezra on Ex. 34.29: 5zm K5W -lZwy z nto yW9 in ninsy ipnim,

ni-,ylDD189m i',n = ibv"i Dyi I,pm inz ri niv', ,nv 3D in. It is missing in the commentary on Ex. ed. by J. Fleischer. See ibid, P. 333.

8oa The pagan adversaries of monotheism held that both Judaism and Christianity admit the existence of many gods. Porphyry proved from the verse 55pn K5 w',5 Ex. 22.27(28) which the LXX translates literally eovs oiv KaKoXO'Y7OElS traces of polytheism in the 0. T. See Harnack, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts, p. 90. Porphyry quoted also Deut. 13.3, Josh. 24.14 and Jer. 7.6 as a proof of polytheism in the Bible. See Harnack, 1. c. According to the Talmud the gnostics and poly- theists drew their criticism of Jewish monotheism also from other passages in the Bible. See Sanh. 38b: D'1sm onDirlwn OlpnD 5D ... WNm'l 12' Du-K nvy3. Comp. Men. 100a; Y. Ber. IX, 1 and Gen. r. 8, ed. Theodor-Albeck, 61 ff. also Ex. r. 29: i15K u,nn 1'n5K '- 'mm WinD I'lli 15 1noK mv5 o,m5 inK 051ya W' nl,.l5K 15 1n DIk4 'K5hW -I m

.. DK D'-2'n1? min2 tow on5 01 D'5K 51p oy ymTn. For discussions between rabbis and heretics about polytheistic passages in the Bible, see A. Buchler, "Ueber die Minim von Sephoris und Tiberias im zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert," in Hermann-Cohen-Festschrift, 271 ff. Cf. also Pesikta de R. Kahana ed. Buber, 188a: nrrw 'Dihn K5K 0'5 I'm. See notes 81-83.

8I Stanza 50: 5z'vvi D'-n 5K mw5%5 n1vn' 589r5 npw) UnYK t rinrK. Cf. Ibn Ezra on Gen. 18.6. K51 ) torm -inK ton OwvK owZ ) '915DK nxt p n3 ,in-ID O'DKIDU NW 1lK2'l imnrz n73m 1 n. See Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Trypho, chp. 56. In his discussion with the Jew Trypho, Justin wants to prove the Trinity from Gen 18. The rabbinic point of view is defended by Trypho and it is that the three men of Gen. 18.2 do not include God. See Shebu. 35b yin wrT-p on-imK2 mninm w'ni?Kv mlov i 91imi K8m '-i w: . .. 1,3'yn In snKi Km OKi 3mK -intin nmw ~in minv -.Ir iKb'n -t nnbt an,3'n Gen. r. 48.10.

82 Stanzas 36-40: '-i pin W't D'zTnwn w',nbt 'pn n9D 19 no O'Dwr 11'UI '-6 I nrnm D'Knp-p -inn p'mn 'K wm' rnnt4 p ... wn6 nmwm


48. God commanded sacrifices to be made on the Day of Atonement to a demon (i. e. Azazel).83

I. The Bible contains contradictions.84

49. Gen. 15.5 contradicts Deut. 7.7.85 50. II Sam. 24.9 contradicts I. Chron. 21.5.86 D'9DDM f:lW VNW1 ... 1'WVDl 1'Nlm oi O'Kl^ i: '9 ]'lpn j Yl1 DK1 iMr i1i2n1 ir-T- 1--T by O 't D l-i 1.m ... imnn lw"p inlm oyv u-inim. See also the anonymous Arabic commentary on Deut. 32.9 quoted by David- son (96-97). Julian the Apostate based his charge of polytheism in the 0. T. on the same argument. See idem, op. cit. 99E (Loeb Classical Library, III, 340): Twv be' 'aXXwv O6vOv, 657rcos 7lv' OLif1LOL 6LoLKO-VVTat Oeois, o'v' 7tVTLVO9V AVwetav 7re7ro1rcwac According to rabbinic sources God appointed angels as rulers of all the nations after the building of the Tower of Babel but He preserved for Himself only the rule of the people of Israel. See PRE, Chp. 24: 99 iKrW'1 nniUm i nK 99 by 116D runi ipnn. See also Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 11.8 and Deut. 32.8-9. The official rabbinic writings contest the conception that Deut. 4.19 admits the justification of worship of the heavenly bodies and the angels. It is maintained that the sages who translated the Bible into Greek permitted themselves a very free rendering of Deut. 4.19 in order to obviate any misunderstanding. Cf. Mekilta KnD9 (ed. Lauterbach I, 112); Y. Meg. I, 9; B. Meg. 9a; Masseket Soferim 5. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, V, 205.

83 Emunot (ed. Slutski, 73): or8n itntyb 88p I8,m -Ivb 121pr sywvn-, 0'19DD. It was also one of the charges of Julian the Apostate. See idem, op. cit. 299B (Loeb Classical Library, III, 402): T7rep be a7ro- Tpoiratwv -7raKov7av raXv 6ova Xeyer See also the edition of C. I. Neumann, Julianus contra Christianos (Leipzig, 1880), 217. Neumann quotes Cyrillus of Alexandria (Fifth Century), who held that according to Julian Moses sacrificed to the di averrunci, deities who avert evil in contradiction to idols as expressed in Ex. 22.19. Julian translated con- trary to the LXX itmty not with a97ro7ro,uraLos but with eot a9rorpo- lraoLo. See also Joma 67b: i'w ov8iy n'Wv i wn D"n-i rn-iin nippn nK ninvnn rsyi ... on. Lev. r. 22; Maimonides, More Nebukim III, 32.

84 Since very early times the harmonization of contradictions in the Bible was one of the hermeneutics. The rabbis and the Church tried to harmonize contradictions. In the Gaonic period the literature of harmonization of contradictions in the Bible was increasing, which was a sign of the challenge of the Bible by various heretics. See HUCA XIV (1939) 339; Ginze Kedem, V (1934) 145.

85 Stanza 43: See also Saadia's translation of Deut. 7.7: orem D ,ylin DUnn Dpm unmK in oynn. For other rabbinic interpretations of D

uYnn one see Hul. 89a and nty,'i , nnawn. ed. Enelow, 181. 86 Emunot III (ed. Slutski, 72): n im pin;-rr nxpD -nr i m Nwr1


51. I Kings 7.13-14 contradicts II Chron. 2.13.87 52. II Kings 8.17 ff. contradicts II Chron. 29.2.88

J. Many commandments, statements and stories of the Bible lack reason.

53. Many commandments of the Bible lack detailed instructions as to how to fulfill them (mnixn rvrr). They lack also a rational motivation (mnixn '3yu). 89 . . . insnD rz" wswmw. See Saadia's commentary on the Barayta of R. Ishmael, ed. Muller (Oevres completes IX, 83). See also Pesikta Rabbati 44a; Jalkut Shimeoni, II, 165. Cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, VI, 270 n. 120.

87 Ascribed to Hiwi by an anonymous Arabic commentary on I Kings (Davidson, 98). This contradiction was also dealt with by the rabbis and by the Church fathers. See Ginzberg, op. cit. 295, n. 61.

88 Emunot III (ed. Slutski 72): i n wr i wnz ;rt in'w' a,1 o''ti i wmv pn3 Irn pim 'nW m pW i 'IW rvi. Ahazia could not be aged 42 years at the death of his father, because the latter was only 40 years old when he died. This difficulty was already noticed by the rabbis. See Tosefta Sota 12.3; Seder Olam Rabba XVIII (ed. Ratner, 73). Cf. the "Oldest Collection of the Bible Difficulties by a Jew," JQR XIII (O.S.), 361.

89 0-imanD nlYon 'wr1 na -11KW mlnn mtm :9Dn jrtnrni 0-1spo ONKt Mn nY) 'It in. It is evident from the answer of Saadia that Hiwi made two criticisms of the Bible: one concerning the lack of nison 'Wvr and the other concerning the lack of niso; ny. Concerning the first charge it is known that the rabbis based on the lack of nison vWrvm their contention that the oral law (rm ynv mni) is on an equal status with the written law (an:w ;rrin). See Sifra on Lev. 26.46: )n: nflyin 'nww nn3n ;lin; ;lmin;l -3nzn)v 11)3n ;lwvn -I' 3'D vmn . . . -,I ipz 'LAI ann 'LA iKvW'9 mrl ,',D mwo 1y'W1 "i'priprl l Cf. Tanhuma, Noah annza inn nwm 9 iynv nni ni9:. Concerning the second charge, the lack of niso n;yu the rabbis were divided in the opinion if it is admissible to search after a rational motivation of the commandments. See Sanh. 21b: iWz) lnYu 1i1n) n1tvipo n nvl ;mnin;m Oyu 12n) ti~ rn 9Dn pns, -i-K 61ym 9ri) I.n- See also Pes. 119a: nDzw on imll ;lr . ... p'ny nD=6 nrin Oyu Inr, ' nin vor

-1pbny. Yoma 67b: vnilDn bnipin nK ... p-1 n n-iliui ;lon nsYini tuyv nrn~i -i,tn niOKi I;n iRw jm,by n'WO lDw;iw 0-n-1 j9 Inl bn-p-p -i mK -i mK in on riln wSyn -irzn KDW1v ninvn;m -rYWI y-iiY onn nmnD1 nrwi. Cf. Hag. 13a; Cant. r. 1.17. See also Bet ha-Mid- rasch by A. Jellinek, V, 45: -n )Dn itvw9 nirn nyu n"n1p1; wIn? K1f n'nyf ON'rin )D --i'tn ?vwn no )Dn nrnti v n nto See Die Dikduke Ha-Teamim des Ahron ben Moscheh ben Ascher . . . von S. Baer und H. L. Strack, 53: . . . 0o81)n tKil ODniDc 1-m-1 r;mbv ;mi Oyu l Wno n iwrll iKWb OK1


54. What is the reason for the punishment inflicted on Cain?90 55. What was the meaning of the vision of Abraham during the "covenant of pieces?"9' 56. Why does the Bible dedicate so much space to the story of Eleazar, the servant of Abraham?92 57. Why did Abraham accept the command of God to sacrifice his own son?93 58. Why did Jacob marry four wives? Would not the history of the Jewish people have had another course if he had married only one wife?94 59. Why should the ashes of a red heifer cleanse the unclean and vice versa?95

60. How could the breaking of the head of the heifer atone for the people when they committed no crime?s6

in wyt r l nil 14 W ' t6 rhiD 1i~l w -pDi vni ir lnnit'n. Cf. further Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Hilkot Meila 8.8; Hilkot Mikvaot 11.12.

90 Stanza 6: ninn 1K i K l iy. The active participle rnri has here the meaning of "a wanderer" and it refers to the punishment of Cain to be a wanderer -in y3 (Gen. 4.14). Saadia holds that Cain was not punished for the murder of Abel but for his arrogance. See note 57. We find the same question in the collection of questions addressed to a Gaon. See mn7W nzYnp by A. S. Wertheimer, 69: mn'-in wy wri' rnK

9I Stanzas 44-46: ur'3y n3nni m r o-nrrx nom nyto. The covenant of pieces is criticised here. See note 185.

92 Stanza 35: r'on zK mSpy ... Durru-i 1 I.Mnz' D'M n OD'T 1pTYp 0113 nDl'9 l9 mnn. The rabbis dealt with this question. See Sifra Shemini 5; Gen. r. 60.8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 650).

93 Stanzas 61-62: rinro n =) i~ Innnn im mul' ', Dni 'rnW9' rnDli nnn. Davidson (p. 72, n. 235) holds that it refers to Isaac but Poznanski proved that it could refer only to Abraham. See ZHB, XIX, 7 and idem, Amm rn ny )SDn nimmwr, 36, n. 3.

94 Stanza 69: nnzina min it itKap i? . . . nli OKl atin rn lOK D',nw. 95 Emunot III (ed. Slutski, 73): nsmiayn r wnw r'own. It is an old

heretic question which the rabbis tried to answer. See Tahnuma B. IV, 1 16: . . . mnw9 . . . Iniw lmKlipin mn amm uOi=D um,9y wnm ynm ix U-IM- onn Cf. Num. r. 19(3).

96 Emunot III (ed. Slutski, 74): nriny mizy by n im 'vvyni. The


61. Why did God make His light dwell among men, and leave His angels without light?97 62. Circumcision is without reason. It is simply mutila- tion.98 63. There is no mention of reward and punishment in the future world in the Bible.99 64. God did not create the world ex nihilo.Ioo

rabbis dealt with this question. See Sifre on Deut. ?210; Sota 46b. Cf. Ginzberg, op. cit. V, 357 n. 296.

97 Emunot III (ed. Slutski 72): nrn n 1m noni ,w' in 9m ' wnni -iA min D'wn?1r wzm 1nn 'nS - n p' lnuA. See also Saadia's commentary on .riwn ni9D (Quoted by Judah ben Barzilai in his commentary on rnrr n9 ed. Halberstamm, pp. 21, 234). Cf. Du1nion nYlr ed. Lewin, I, 17. This question occupied the minds of the rabbis. See Tanhuma B. II, 94: ,i6 61y Vw lIZlx rn9 1D IDnwn :IDn 'w VVr wD'DV m minon Inrw owlnnn rir nnrrri y no rir. Cf. Hagoren, VII, 120.

98 Stanza 41: n rnvw i rn n by nryi. Cf. Emunot III (ed. Slutski 73): ri,wi inuvinn m3'- i lu y i vwn' 1'S nlix nlwr'W 'p'=W-n i Dw rrrr yrr7 nnn l:nn nVl1' nVwi: D'?n l3r . Circumcision was since ancient times a subject of criticism by the Gentiles against the Jews See Strabo, Geographie, 16.2, 37; Apion, Josephus, contra Apionem, II, 13 (Loeb Classical Library, I, 346): Kal T'fIv TCOv aol&o)v XXevaUet ireprTO/iv. See Th. Reinach, Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains, index s.v. circumcision. Also the Church Fathers fought against circumcision. See Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Trypho, 19.30. Cf. Ginzberg, op. cit. V, 268-269.

99 Emunot III (ed. Slutski 74): m'i m b rni' -iv 0 3 D'VIr, N3f 6w my. Gratz and J. Guttmann are of the opinion that questions 11 and 12 of the 3rd chapter of Emunot are of Christian and Is- lamic origin respectively. E. Stein is of the opinion that these questions go back to Ijiwi. See Gratz-Rabinowitz, III, 473; J. Guttmann, Monats- schrift, 28, 298; E. Stein in min'1p -wo, 221. According to Josephus the Sadducees did not believe in a future life and in reward and punishment after death, see Antiquities of the Jews 18, 1, 3-4. Marcion also held that the Old Testament does not mention reward in the future life. See Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem: III, 24; coeleste regnum non pre- dicatum est apud creatorem. The Manichaeans also maintained that the Scripture does not mention future life.

IOO Pseudo Biachya, op. cit. ed. Goldziher, 16.11.20-24. (Davidson 99). HIiwi explained ni iinn as the material from which God created the world. See Poznanski, Hagoren, VII, 116-117. Cf. Emunot, introduction, p. 20, where it is evident that Saadia. disputes Uiwi's opinion of


65. Man has no free-will; everything is predestined.IoI It must be admitted that of these sixty-five questions,

not all can be referred with certainty to Hiwi's.102 Some of those listed above as separate queries may really be duplicates of one another.IO3 Davidson counted only forty-seven questions'04 and Poznanski only forty-four.I05 For our own part, we have included all hypothetical questions of Hiwi, and all those mentioned at the end of the third chapter of Amanat by Saadia.

An analysis of the questions and difficulties dealt with by Hiwi shows that the majority of them may be found in other non-Jewish and Jewish sources.

Injustice, wickedness, ignorance, weakness, falsity, fond- ness for blood, sacrifices, on the part of God, and anthro- pomorphism, polytheism, inconsistency and illogicality in the Bible were charges levelled previously by Marcion,

the creation of the world. It seems that Hiwi did not believe in creatio ex nihilo. Neither did Marcion believe in it. See Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem I, 155 creator mundum ex aliqua materia subiacente molitus est. Ibn ar-Ravendi, the Islamic heretic of Jewish origin, a contemporary of Uliwi also denied creatio ex nihilo.

IOI According to Moses ibn Ezra in his work tbu6bt .9 npnn' m enn np'pnmi (Quoted by Davidson, 99-100). Marcion also denied free will. Harnack op. cit. 97-98: Si scivit non est in culpa is qui prescientiam dei vitare non potuit . . . sed ille qui talem condidit. According to Moses ibn Ezra, H.iwi was under the influence of the Islamic sect of Gabariya which denied free will.

102 Gratz (I. c.) and J. Guttmann (I. c.) do not ascribe the last two of the twelve questions in the 3rd chapter of Emunot III (ed. Slutski 73-74) to Hiwi. See above note 99. Poznanski ascribes to Uiwi only the questions 4, 7 and 11. See idem z:nn 'iin by i'on niirvn 13 n. 2. Until recently no one has ascribed the ten questions dealing with the abrogation of the law to Hiwi rintim 'nis iun Emunot, III (ed. Slutski 69-70). See however above note 57 where we have evidence that one of the questions dealt with by Saadia goes back to Hiwi. We are entitled to ascribe the others also to him.

103 The questions 9 and 11; 12, 13 and 64; 14, 15 and 53; 36 and 57; 38 and 40.

I04 Davidson, 26. IO5 Poznanski, op. cit. 13. n. 2.


Celsus, Porphyry, Julian the Apostate, the Gnostics and the Manichaeans.io6

Rabbinic literature is full of allusions to criticisms of the Bible made by various heretics.107 Indeed, the rabbis found it necessary to pay special attention to the re- conciliation of seeming contradictions in the Scriptural text.'o8

It is therefore impossible to see any originality in most of Hiwi's charges. Even in the rationalistic explanation of miracles he was not original. The miracle of the crossing or the Red Sea was already rationalized by Artapanus, the Jewish Hellenistic writer of the second century B. C. E.IO9 Similarly, the miracle of manna in the desert was explained rationalistically by an Irish monk of the seventh century C. E. ;IIO while Saadia, ardent opponent of Hiwi, though he was, tried nevertheless to rationalize miracles."', It was, in fact, a common rationalism of the period which influenced Hiwi and Saadia alike.

io6 See Marmorstein, op. cit. E. Stein, op. cit., Edward J. Young, Celsus and the Old Testament, The Westminster Theological Journal, VI, 2 (May 1944). See also the notes to the enumerated questions of Ijiwi in the present paper and notes 138-143.

I07 See A. Marmorstein, "The Background of the Haggadah", HUCA, VI, 145 ff.

I08 See note 84. I09 See note 78. -O See note 79. Rationalistic explanation of the miracles related in

the Bible occupies the minds of scholars until today. For modern explanation of Manna see, F. S. Bodenheimer, The Manna of Sinai, The Biblical Archaeologist, X, 1 (1947), 2 ff. Major Claude S. Jarvis who was Governor of Sinai for fourteen years reported that he once witnessed the miracle of striking water from the rock in the desert. See C. S. Jarvis, Yesterday and To-day in Sinai, 1932, 174; idem, The Israelites in Sinai, Antiquity, VI (1932), 434 ff.

III See Ibn Ezra on Gen. 3.1: i'tv i9 vnnn t li ti n-i im nvwi -n- b6 linen ca wvn z ri' In= rin onem oe Z ny-n nii. Cf.

Abraham S. Halkin, "Saadia's Exegesis and Polemics," Rab Saadia Gaon, Studies in His Honor. Edited by Louis Finkelstein. New York, 1944, 117ff.


The originality of Hiwi lies in his heresy. He is the only Jewish heretic known to us who compiled such a list of difficulties and queries. Many attempts have been made to trace the immediate sources from which he drew his arguments against the Bible.112 The purpose of the present study is to call attention to parallels to Hiwi's attacks in the contemporary literature of various heretical origins.

(To be continued)

112 See note 1.

HIlWI AL-BALKHI A Comparative Study

(Continued from JQR, N. S. XXXVIII [1948] 317-342) By JUDAH ROSENTHAL

College of Jewish Studies, Chicago The ZOROASTRIANS.

Pseudo-Bachya (eleventh century) makes Hiwi a follower of the Magi, which means that he was a Zoroastrian."13 This is repeated by Maimon ibn Danan (second half of the fifteenth century) in his chronicle. nrl-In CUoD WY -.II4 The theory of Zoroastrian influence on Hiwi deserves attention.

The conquest of Persia by Islam in the middle of the seventh century resulted in the downfall of Zoroastrianism as the national religion of Persia. But the conversion to Islam did not take place at once. We have ample evidence of the survival of the Zoroastrian religion during the following three centuries.IIS

The polemical literature of the eighth and ninth centuries, as well as the Gaonic literature, has numerous references to Zoroastrians.1"6 The latter took part in religious disputa- tions in the defense of their High God Ormuzd.1I7 They maintained that the Bible and all religions based on reve- lation, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, were the work of the devil Ahriman. The diabolic origin of the Bible is asserted throughout the Pahlavi literature of the period.118

11 Cf. Davidson, op. cit. 99. '-I81 ni r:j WU b nSrn:U na-n n,- mn Dl fw #ws:9, n sznn rwai3

. . . m r a nrnvm niln 'n s1i .1rn7 rinii nt rivn nrlin 127D. Cf. Davidson, op. cit. 103-104.

IIs For Zoroastrianism in Persia after the Islamic conquest, see William Jackson, Zoroastrian Studies, 177 ff.; Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, by W. Geiger and E. Kuhn, II, 553 if.; J. Guttmann, Die Philosophie des Judentums, 59 f.

II6 See Edward C. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, vol. I (Cam- bridge, 1929) 200 ff., 206 f.; wnnn 1 nipins niAn ed. J. Muller, Cracow, 1893, p. 21.

I7 L. H. Gray, The Jew in Pahlavi Literature, 2. sr8 Gray, ibid.; James Darmstetter, REJ XVIII, 3.

419


An important Zoroastrian polemical work written in the Pahlavi language dates back to the second half of the ninth century."I9 The name of the book is Shikand Gumanik Vijar, meaning "doubt dispelling explanation," and it was written by one of the last defenders of Zoroastrianism in Persia, Martan Faruk.

The work of Martan Faruk, although available in an English translation, has attracted little attention among Jewish scholars.120 David Kaufmann was the first to consider it a source of Ijiwi's heresy.12I Davidson on the other hand, made but little use of it in his edition of Saadia's reply to IjiWi,I22 while Edmund Stein in his recent study of Hiwi likewise underestimates it.I23

The chief purpose of Martan Faruk's work was to refute the teachings of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Manich- aeism. He points out the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in the Scriptures of other religions. Chapters 13 and 14 of the compilation deal specifically with the Old Testament and the Jewish religion. The former treats of the story of creation as told in the Bible. The main counter arguments adduced by Martan Faruk are:

1) The narrative lacks details about the position and limits of the earth. (Was the earth limited or not? If so,

ri9 By Pahlavi we understand the language of Persian literature from the middle of the third century until the Islamic conquest of Persia. Pahlavi is identical with Parthian or Middle-Persian. Cf., Grundriss, I, 1.249.

120 The original Pahlavi text of this work has not yet been discovered. Only the Pazdan-Sanskrit version of this work dating from the 12th century is in existence. The Pazdan and Sanskrit texts were published in the year 1887 in Bombay. An English translation of this work by E. W. West appeared in the Sacred Books of the East, vol. XXIV (Ox- ford, 1885) pp. 116-251. See Grundriss, II, 116-7.

1,I REJ, XXII, 287-288. A French translation by James Darmesteter of chaps. XIII-XIV, which appeared in REJ XVIII, 1-15, attracted the attention of Kaufmann and he compared the attacks of Martin Faruk against the Bible with the criticisms of Uiwi.

022 Davidson, op. cit. 29 f., 80-82. That Davidson made little use of Martan Faruk's work is evident from his scanty excerpts from it.

223 Stein, loc. cit., 215.


what lay outside of it? If not whither did infinity reach ?)124

2) It lacks a description of God.'2S 3) If all that God had to do was to say: "You shall

come into existence, why did it take Him six days to create the world? If it took Him a full six days to create the world,

124 For the Zoroastrian conception of time and space see Grundriss, II, 629-630. The opinion found in Mishna Hag. II, 2: 'n iznonm i: nint6 --i a"96 no nv6i no ;19y,6 no 6iy ic mn Hi~ i98 (8nnn) m-1 wo:n- may be understood as a rabbinic attitude to such questions. Cf. "The Oldest Collection of Bible Difficulties by a Jew," JQR (O.S.), XIII, 359: n'r 10lpD nU' lvn lopi 1ne I'M -lii ? 6y . .. .rIi ?^ v m' 1 3V D' iq

* . .pnn 'Z 1n nin 1'DrT lw -ipmn 'z Yi: -To In... ivl n, pl%n' 1l?.. 125 In Zoroastrianism an anthropomorphic conception of the ruling

gods prevailed. See J. Scheftelowitz, Die altpersische Religion und das Judentum, 7. The anthropomorphic literature of the gaonic period, the Mysticism of the Yorde Merkabah, developed under the influence of such questions. Cf. P. Bloch, "Die jiidische Mystik und Kabbala," in WVinter und Wunsche, III, 223 ff.; G. Sholem, Major Trends in Jew- ish Mysticism, 62 ff. The passages 50-63 and 68-91 form a long discussion against the biblical conception of God, particularly as it is expressed in the narrative of the creation of light. The author tries to show that the story of the creation of light as told in the Bible implies a dualistic conception of God, and that the God of the Bible is inferior and weaker than Ormuzd (Zoroastrians held that their religion was monotheistic. See Grundriss, II, 629-630). The story of the creation played a great role in the development of Jewish mysticism. Rabbinic Judaism solved the difficulties dealt with by our author through the conception that light was not created by God, but that it emanated from God's splendor. God's splendor was the beginning of all creation. See Gen. r. 3.4 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 20): gpoym ino inim m-m p1no 190D ,ly 61ln xpDoD rn il't p'^ntm n6vz .m. Philo expresses the same view in words similar to those of the Haggadah. See Freudenthal. Alexander Polyhistor. I, 71. Ch. Albeck, Introduction to Gen. r. p. 86. Many haggadic sayings express the opinion that light was not created at the same time as the world, but that it had existed before. See Bahir, 3 (quoted by Kasher in his n6rv nnin s. 1.): nnnvi 'moirnl -R J16D -IV ;rny bt-11.1 -11m. nt 1OU1lpt "'B9tl : ''1m., rh 0' nhn 61y" -.1ri Dp

,13Y 'hl' ,im "-n n:8:z.r nn1ho m'x ;'tl nrzrv minzn. The opinion expressed in the Kabbalah is that darkness was not created, but that it arose through mixox. See ni'xt nrio ed. Jellinek 2: ,vy ninv 'Isymi -,i D== n6 z) ' ". Cf. D. Neumark, Geschichte der juid. mittel-

alterlichen Philosophie, I, 195. For the rabbinic sources in this subject, see Kasher's ;1v n.iin s. 1. In general the rabbis limited the discussion of cosmogonic problems. See Hag. l1b: awn wini nvynn pwirv 1pt. Cf. Gen. r. 1.10. Cf. further Hag. 13a and Gen. r. 8.2.


then it is scarcely plausible to speak of His creating it from nothing.126

4) How could the days have been numbered before the creation of the sun? The Bible says expressly that the sun was created only on the fourth day.127

5) Why did God rest on the seventh day?"28 6) There existed already in the first days of the created

world a contradiction between the will of God and the will and the desire of Adam and Eve. If despite God's will that Adam and Eve should obey Him, they nevertheless dis- obeyed Him, it is obvious that He was not omnipotent. If, on the other hand, it was His will that they should disobey and turn away from him, then there is a patent contradiction between His command and His will.129

126 The conception of creatio ex nihilo is here attacked. The advocates of Zoroastrianism believed in two eternal material elements, in eternal light and eternal darkness. See Grundriss, III, 668.

127 This question was already dealt with in the apocryphic and hellenistic literature. According to the Book of Jubilees God created light on the first day of creation, II, 2. Philo came to the conclusion that time is more recent than the world. He writes: "It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days or in space of time at all. Why? Because every period of time is a series of days and nights, and these can only be made such by the movement of the sun as it goes over and under the earth, but the sun is a part of heaven, so that time is confessedly more recent than the world." (Legum allegoria, I, 2 ff.). The Gnostics also pointed to this inconsistency in the story of Crea- tion. Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, VI, 60. The point of view of the Haggada was that the sun and celestial spheres were created on the first day. Cf. Hag. 12a: irn ti7 I1WKin D1' m 11= nriKmn In In K lrn vwinc, -1'TY 1:DirOrlp. Gen. r. 3.5: -rD mn'NW -16o . . npmnn 'N'1y r'n' pi nip Dolmt. Cf. J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor. I, 72; Pseudo- Bachya, Wvm nrn-nn ed. Broyde, 8; Maimonides, More Nebukim II, 30: vDnv.-i nit 1x'n onil-)Ip nibt 1x trn1 mrby mvjplrv rnD pinnn mnw-l

I28 See note 73. 129 The author here touches upon the most complicated philosophical

and theological problem, that of divine foreknowledge and free will. The Rabbinic point of view was that the foreknowledge of God is not causative, and is expressed in the saying: milnn nrwvnm iDx i:, Aboth, 3.15 (19). Cf. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, by Ch. Taylor, 59, n. 38. Philo also emphasized the free will of every man. See idem, Quod omnis probus liber sit, 1. Josephus, however relates that the Pharisees also believed in fate. He tries to harmonize their belief in fate with their belief in


7) For what purpose was the Garden of Eden created? Did not God foresee that Adam would be expelled from it?130

8) For what purpose did God create the tree of knowledge if he forbade Adam and Eve to eat of its fruit? It is evident from God's injunction and command not to eat of the tree of knowledge that he wanted men to remain ignorant and that ignorance was desired by Him more then knowledge and wisdom.131

9) It is evident that God is not omniscient because when he came to the Garden of Eden he raised his voice and asked Adam: "Where are you?" God apparently did not know where Adam was.'32

10) Similarly, from the fact that despite His threat, Adam and Eve ate of the tree and not only did not die but became more intelligent than before and were better able

free will. (Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 1.3). The contradiction between foreknowledge and free will was already pointed out by Marcion. See Tertullian, C. Marcionem, II 5 ff.; Harnack, op. cit. 97-98. Cf. Fur- ther, P. Alfaric, op. cit. II, 143, where it is related that the Manichaean Addas, a pupil of Mani, made the same charges against God. Peter in the Clementine Homilies defends the free will of man against Simon Magus. (Clementine Homilies, XX, 3).

130 Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Philo did not take the paradise story literally, but explained it allegorically. See Legum allegoria, I, 28-30; de Plantatione Noe 8; for the allegorical explanation of the paradise story in later literature, see Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, V, 91, n. 50.

'3' The Gnostics attacked the prohibition of eating of the tree of knowledge, proving from it the jealousy of God. See Origen, C. Celsum, IV, 40. Irenaeus, C. Haereses, III, 23.6; Clementine Homilies, III, 39. Hiwi al-Balkhi repeated the charges of the Gnostics. See note 52. The Haggadah maintained that before the fall, divine wisdom was bestowed upon Adam of which God deprived him afterwards. The forbidden fruit gave him human knowledge, but he was deprived of true knowledge and Godlike wisdom because of it. Ginzberg, op. cit. V, 118. Cf. Yalkut Shimeoni, I, 34: mnnu I-Inno rr TKu 1n. Death is, according to this Midrash, not a result of the fall.

132 The same charge was made by Marcion, see Terutllian, C. Mar- cionem, IV, 20; Cf. Harnack, op. cit. 93 f. The Manichaeans also charged the biblical God with ignorance, Alfaric, op. cit. II, 142. Cf. notes 48-51.


to discern between good and evil, it is again apparent that God is not omnipotent.'33

In the 14th chapter, Martan Faruk continues his charges and attacks on the God of the Old Testament. He assails the anthropomorphisms in the Bible and cites in evidence a number of passages. God is full of vengeance, wrath and anger. He is without compassion and is cruel.'34 He killed hundreds of thousands of men in one night.135 He changes His mind and repents.'36 These charges are based on passages from the Bible and on talmudic legends.137

I33 Many reasons are given in rabbinic, and also in patristic literature, why Adam did not die on the day he sinned, as God had threat- ened. See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, V, 98, n. 72. From Gen. r. s. 1. it is evident that the rabbis emphasized the end of verse Gen. 2-17: ninn nilt and not the beginning: lI:D rnil z. Cf. Pseudo-Jonathan s. 1. bivp =,nmn ;iri btn"rn ni and Pesikta Zutarta s. l. imn lIPb oar D ninr w'nrn. Cf. further, Tora Shlemah, 233, n. 243.

134 These charges based on many biblical passages, such as Ex. 20.5, Deut. 32.25, 41, Isa. 47.3, 30.27-30, Ezek. 25.14-17, Micah 5.14 and many others, are of Gnostic origin. Comp. Origen, Contra Celsum, IV, 71 ff., IV, 36; Julian the Apostate, op. cit. 106E (Loeb Classical Library, III, 344, idem; 160D (p. 362), 161A (ibid. p. 364-365); Clementine Homilies, II, 39 ff. Cf. A. Marmorstein, "The Background of the Haggadah," HUCA, VI (1929), 151. Cf. the criticism of the Islamic heretic of Jewish descent of the ninth century, ar-Ravendi, concerning the anger of God, Der Islam XIX (1931), p. 13.

I35 Julian the Apostate criticized the situation in which, because a few transgressed the laws promulgated by God, all whom Moses brought out of Egypt were to die in the desert. See Julian the Apostate, op. cit. 161A (Loeb Classical Library, III, 364).

136 This charge could also be based on the ten changes enumerated by Saadia in his Emunot at the end of the third chapter (Emunot, ed. Slutzki, 69-70). The following may be added: It is forbidden, according to the Law, to make images, but God Himself told Moses to erect the brass serpent (Cf. M.R.H, 3.8; Sapientia Solomonis, 16.7). God commanded through Moses that sacrifices be brought to Him, but He later expressed through the prophets His dissatisfaction with sacrifices. Shikand Gumanik Vijar, Chp. XIV, 32-33. This charge is based mainly on Gen. 6.6; I Sam. 15.11 and on the story of Jonah. In the time of Philo people made the same charges. Philo wrote a special treatise Quod deus sit immutabilis, in order to prove that God does not change his mind. Cf. ibid. 21. The same charge was repeated by Marcion, Celsus and others. See Tertullian, C. Marcionem, II, 24; Origen, C. Celsum, VI, 58. Cf. Harnack, op. cit. pp. 92-93. UIiwi repeated the charge. See notes 56-69.

I37 See Josef Perles, Monatsschrift, (XXII, 1873), 20 ff.; The Treatise

1IWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL 425

It is superfluous to add that these charges are not original. They can be traced to the works of Marcion,'38 Celsus,139 Porphyry,140 Mani,141 Julian the Apostate,142 and to the arguments of Simon Magus as reported in the Clementine Homilies.143 As a Zoroastrian source, the argument of light plays an important role in this controversy.

Martan Faruk must have been a man of remarkable erudition. He was well acquainted with many portions of the Bible and with the apocryphal, pseudepigraphic and haggadic literature.144 Many problems pertaining to the sources from which he drew his information are still unsolved.145 He probably drew his knowledge of the Bible

Taanit of the Babylonian Talmud Critically Edited... by Henry Malter (New York, 1930), p. 111. Cf. note 146.

I38 Harnack, op. cit. 84 ff., 147 ff.; A. Marmorstein, loc. cit., Edmund Stein,"Alttestamentliche Kritik in der spaethellenistischen literatur," in Collectanea Theologica Societatis Theologorum Polonorum, XVI (1935).

139 See Catholic Encyclopedia s. v. "Celsus the Platonic"; Real- Encyclopadies der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, s. v. "Celsus" No. 20; Edward J. Young, "Celsus and the Old Testament," The Westminster Theological Journal, VI, 2 (1944) 179 ff; E. Stein, op. cit.

140 A. V. Harnack, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts; tJatholic Encyclopedia s. v. "Neo- platonism," IV, "Porphyry"; Stein, op. cit.

141 See Flugel, G. L., Mani, seine Lehren und seine Schriften, (1862), Alfaric, op. cit. 1, 122; II, 143. 0. G. von Wesendonk, op. cit.

142 The book Kcar& FaXvXaLwv deals with the Old Testament, and it is preserved in the work Against Julian by Cyril of Alexandria (first half of the fifth century). The works of Julian are edited in the Loeb Classical Library with an English translation by Wilmar Cave Wright. Cf. Stein, op. cit.

143 See Catholic Encyclopedia s. v. "Clementines." According to A. V. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, p. 62, the Clementines were written at the beginning of the fourth century. The date of the Clementines is a matter of controversy among Church historians. The Clementines is a polemical work against the neo-platonic school of Porphyry and his disciples. Cf. REJ, XL (1900) 89 ff.: Les elements juifs dans les Pseudo-Clementines.

144 The familiarity of Martan Faruk with the Talmud is not astonish- ing. The author of another Zoroastrian theological work also seems to have known the Gemara. See Sacred Books of the East, XLVII, 119-120. Cf. Gray, Louis H., The Jew in Pahlavi Literature, 3.

145 Darmesteter, REJ, XVIII, 5.


from a Syriac version.146 A lively interchange between Persian and Syriac literature, especially the eastern Nesto- rian branch of the latter, took place in the previous centuries and continued until the ninth century.'47 We know that Nestorian jurisprudence was under the influence of the talmudic law..48 It is correct, therefore, to assume that Syriac writings formed the channel through which the knowledge of the Bible and talmudic legends reached Martan Faruk, who was one of the last defenders of Zoroastrianism.

The work of Martan Faruk could have been known to Hiwi in Balkh, which was the seat of radical Manichaean sects.

ISLAMIC ATHEISTS

Other heretic influences must receive consideration, since the Near East of the eighth and ninth centuries teemed with various Islamic heretics called Zindiqs.

Islamic heretics of the ninth century drew their arguments from Zoroastrian sources. The radical sectarians of Islam in the first centuries of its existence, such as the Carmatians, Ismailiya and others, were Zoroastrians in disguise, who wanted to undermine Islam through Zoroas- trian ideas.I49 The famous legend of the three impostors,

146 According to Maimonides the Bible was translated into Persian hundreds of years before Mohammed. See jwn nmbt in Kobetz ed. Lich- tenberg, II, 3: pril js p6il nsnnm j1ivr mvbt j1ivi mvp'mym ^nninn~blmi 0 D nlbn 0D: %o19 mnyv omlp ryi. Also Theodoret (fifth century) alludes to a Persian rendition of the Bible. See Gray, op. cit. 7, n. 1. Theodoret seems to be unreliable. He mentions many other fictitious translations. A Persian work of the 11th century, the Dabistan contains fragments of a Persian translation of the book of Genesis. See The Dabistan or School of Manners, Paris, 1843, II, 299.

147A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 105, 115, 125, 215, 296.

148 V. Aptowitzer, die syrischen Rechtsbacher und das mosaisch- talmudische Recht, 2 ff.

'49 D. Chwolson, die Ssabier und der Ssabismus (St. Petersburg, 1856),


Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, which appeared in the 12th century in Western Europe, and which was ascribed to the Emperor Frederick the Second, probably goes back to a Zoroastrian source.'50 The social-revolutionaries of the ninth and tenth centuries in the Near East, the Carmatians, already knew this legend.'5' Such a legend could originate only among the remnants of the fire-worshippers. They considered the founders of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as impostors. In the works of Arabic authors of the ninth century there are many references to Zindiks (heretics)152 and their criticisms of the Bible.

Ali ibn Rabban at-Tabari (847-861) writes in his Book of Religion and Empire:'53 "The wicked Zindiks have used abuses against the Scriptures saying: The Wise and Merci- ful One (God) could not have revealed such things nor have ordered such prescriptions dealing with the sprin-

I, 288. Ibn al-Mukaffa, the translator of the book Kalila We-Dimna from Pahlavi into Arabic was one of the most learned men during the reign of Al Mansur (712-775) but suspected of Zindikism, or free thinking. Al Mansur is reported to have said: "I never found a book on Zindikism which did not owe its origin to Ibn al-Mukaffa."

ISO See Massignon, Louis, "Esquisse d'une bibliographie Quarmate" in A Volume of Oriental Studies presented to E. G. Browne, p. 336.

1S' Massignon, Louis, Revue de l'histoire des religions, LXXXII, 74-78. The story of three impostors who will appear before the coming of Messiah, is to be found in the early-medieval apocalyptic literature, a fact overlooked by scholars dealing with this problem. See nnmx -iy n'vz, (published by M. Higger in his nnzr nl:in, 125-130) ninir nIvy D6lpm nini-i 6va D'DAn nW6v mro

-rapm 11im nimn .ypm n-lp 6iypi nlSt ypil Dl:m 'Y'Dlo I9 O'Nzly DI-I 0-i m 111Doxy oww .-I D-1 Op,ya 0-N101m Dnp,y1 nmliDm D'D 0-30 D'wri. Cf. r 'w-riz) by Judah Kauffmann (Jerusalem, 1943), p. 315. See also m'rvi ninim (publ. by A. Jellinek in his w-v,v nz II, 58): o-imiz o'6vn rv

-oy,I+ ;T'rpT vny 1pwri nrii O'lp0Z'1Y im H1U l: Ni O'lpm N0,1 0-n11 Doxy OD2p 0'R) O" lon-3

0,M'3-1 6ilyn nilm 0o-1m1 nl'-Ui: 0' wD1oynw. Cf. Kauffmann, op. cit. p. 318.

IS} About the meaning of the word "zindiq," see E. G. Browne, A Litera.ry History of Persia (Cambridge, 1929), I, 159.

I53 The Book of Religion and Empire, by Ali Tabari, translated by Mingana (1922), pp. 51-52. Cf. ibid. 10, 165 f.; ZDMG, LXXXV, 38ff.


kling of blood on the Altar'54 and on the garment of the priests and the imams;I55 with the burning of bones, with the obscenities and garbage mentioned therein ;I5C with persistency in anger and wrath ;157 with the order to desert the houses when their walls shine with white, because this would be a leprosy affecting these houses;158 with the command to group of Israelites to march against another with swords and to fight with endurance among themselves until they perished in striking and beating one another.I59 Moses ordered that the tribes should curse each other. Moses did not leave any of them without curses . o . v0 Ezekiel shaved his head and his beard.. i6I Hosea married a loose woman.. "?Ii2

'54 It is known that the Gnostics rejected animal sacrifices and criticized the God of the 0. T. because of it. See Clementine Homilies, III, 45. Cf. 0. G. von Wesendonk, op. cit., 42 f. The point of view of the rabbis was that God demanded animal sacrifices for the good of men. See Lev. r. 30.12: . . . oznizt1 i': Dm4onm 'rwix nrimp nmn. See also Lev. r. 22.5; Maimonides, More Nebukim III, 32; Saadia, Emunot, ed. Slutski 72; Cf. AMarmorstein, HUCA, VI, 174 ff. See note 220.

I55 Lev. 8.30. xS6 II Kings 23.20; II Chron. 34.5. 157 See note 134. is8 Lev. 14.33 ff. See note 222. 1S9 Ex. 32.27-29. The rabbis tried to justify the action of Moses.

See Seder Elijahu, R. 4 (ed. Friedman, 17): bp 1' p-ix rin yrn' m mn nmVr 1 Irnly nm V'14o nm ws u'14 3In8 wnin IN oN -wnm %xy: ,'lm

n1h.1no nm-ipl yiiW nnm vvi nAi-inv1Crm w'mnNZ I.-:D mD a-im :'mw ir' ,' ,I~Yz) iw -nii ri~n ::DD i nnX or: om nvir lnrin nmr m)8D. Tanhuma, Ki Tissa: wnnrnDn nm - -ln n 'lAn VN3 qll'l lCy IVY liJ~ym nm np,1 -IVY m -1,X: o-n. i w-y1 , "n i01 ~Iym lnVY0. lDnnvl NHi 1i 'n nwrinlcz wC,nl -rn nrrn. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, op. cit. III, 130; VI, 54.

'0 Lev. 26.16-44; Deut. 27.11-26; Deut. 28.15-68. I6I Ex. 5.1. Maimonides deals with the shaving of the beard by

Ezekiel in his More Nebukim. His opinion is that it was only a vision. See More Nebukim, II, 46.

z62 lIbs. 1.2. We find the same charge in the collection of "Bible Difficulties" (JQR, XIII, 368): nmtr iz . .. D'i30 yvlnwix no Nir D

.7YI . rnr nnpi 'OVrl '' rr,-yr. The rabbis tried to justify the command of God to Hosea to marry an adulteress. See Pes. 87a: -in .1t l?li nc1VYm no ,'3p, nw nm nl The opinion of; Ma:imonid Yes 1ith Ott Im by;n inniw 1,iw ilrim wmnr. oz0to3. 19 -rimn ruit nwN ripi 19 i9 -ioim iKmw' niw xv iN qK nliW6 91z' min. The opinion of Maimonides is that


The most important Zindik (Islamic heretic) of the ninth century was Ibn ar-Ravendi.'63 In his Book of Emeralds he severely attacked Islam. He says: "It is clear that reason is the greatest gift of God to his creatures. The miracles of the prophets including those of Muhammad were deceptions. There are mainy kinds of deception: among them are such which it is difficult to recognize as deceptions. The prophets were only magicians."I64

An Arabic author of the twelfth century, Ibn al-Djawzi, relates that Ravendi did not believe in creation ex nihilo and that he wrote a book on the eternity of matter. Incidentally, al-Djawzi

Documents

Judah Rosenthal - Ḥiwi al-Balkhi A Comparative Study.pdf