Maimonides' Arabic Treatise on Logic Introduction

Author(s): Israel Efros

Source: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 34 (1966), pp. 155-
160
Published by: American Academy for Jewish Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3622394 .
Accessed: 24/01/2011 21:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajr. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Academy for Jewish Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research.

http://www.jstor.org
 MAIMONIDES' ARABIC TREATISE ON LOGIC
INTRODUCTION

By ISRAEL EFROS

I. THE FIND

In 1938, the American Academy for Jewish Research published

in its Proceedings my Maimonides' Treatise on Logic (to be
designated herein as MTL), containing the Arabic text together
with the Hebrew versions of Tibbon, Ahitub, and Vivas. The
Arabic text was based on two fragments: Ms. Paris extending
from the beginning almost to the end of ch. 7, and Ms. Oxford
beginning where Ms. Paris ends, breaking off at about the middle
of ch. 8 and adding a small fragment from ch. 11. The absence
of the other parts of the Arabic text, deplorable in itself, left
some obscurities in the Hebrew versions; but the scholarly world
knew no other manuscripts of this youthful work of Maimon-
ides, which is a brief compendium of Aristotelian logic and
philosophy. It was therefore with great satisfaction that we
greeted the publication of the complete Arabic text on the basis
of two similar manuscripts, found in Ankara and in Istanbul,
and, rather surprisingly, in Arabic characters, by Dr. Mubahat
Tiirker, together with an introduction in Turkish and in French
and a version in Turkish, first in Istanbul (1959-1960) and then,
in a corrected form in Ankara (1961).* We are now therefore
in a position to produce a complete critical edition of this work.
But let us first describe these manuscripts, and make some
* The title
page of the Istanbul-text carries the following inscription:
Mubahat Tiirker, Musd b. Maymun'un Makala fz Sind'at al Manfib'i, Review
of the Institute of Islamic Studies, Publications of the Faculty of Letters,
Istanbul University, v. III. Parts 1-2 (1959-1960). The inscription of the
Ankara-text reads: Musa ibn-i Meymuin'un Al-Makala ft Sind'at al-Mautib
inin ArpaqaAsli. Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi. Ankara- 1961.
I thank my colleague Prof. Lawrence Berman for calling my attention to
these publications.
155

Permission to include in Prof. Israel Efros's new edition of Maimonides'

Treatise on Logic, which is published in the present volume of the Proceedings,
readings from the two manuscripts in Arabic characters edited by Dr.
Miibahat Tiirker of the Faculty of Letters of the University of Ankara,
was kindly granted by Dr. Tiirker in the name of the Faculty.
156 EFROS [2]

textual notes which may also shed some light on other problems
pertaining to this work.

II. DESCRIPTION

The following orthographic and grammatical characteristics

are noteworthy as compared with our Ms. Paris. (1) ~,
1.J iinstead of Di', tnDD. (2) l}j instead of 1'5t. (3) 2J,
'DL, ,.,l1 instead of hibn, rnfinn, l'nhin. (4) bN:5, K,'9n
instead ,D 5z, KO ',. (5) e. g. rby instead of y1ltmiD1.
(6) a.y J\ instead of 'i ny,in. (7) j3< before a feminine
noun instead of ]lan, as in chapters 2, 4, 7, 10. (8) The general
use of the accusative, as is proper, after the Arabic 1jL' or the
like, as LJtl ~Jj ', L4. (ch. 2) where MS. Paris uses
the nominative. But sometimes the correspondence is in the
reverse, as twice in ch. 3: ,jl instead of Kr'ip. (9) Masculine
number for the "broken plural," e. g. d^.o i. in ch. 7,
instead of nlit D3: in Ms. Paris; and conversely JL,oI \ in
ch. 8 instead of l?mt 3yni:min Ms. Oxford which is only a con-
tinuation of Ms. Paris; J|I <.J twice in ch. 7 instead of
Knmt4 nnhi.. ..n.. nmK nin in Ms. Paris. But in this respect
there are inconsistencies also in Ms. Ankara, as in ch. 14:
c cs
i,c sb.. . .L
LI, \. .
As for the orthography of Mss. Paris and Oxford, see MTL,
introduction, pp. 4-5.

III. TEXTUAL NOTES

The following notes deal with the Arabic material which was
hitherto unknown, namely the part beginning with ch. 8. They
aim (1) to correct scribal errors, which in some cases may point
to an original Arabic text in Hebrew script, (2) to shed light on
[3] MAIMONIDES' ARABIC TREATISE ON LOGIC 157

variations among the Hebrew versions, and (3) to deal with the
question of the independence of the Vivas-version.
1. Ch. 8: ;:m l'P' l N,D r 'xtmn6H1. The word 5c'wn is an
error. Tibbon has the impossible statement nor;n n n'r;mmm
o

onn. Now in MTL p. 14, I argued that Tibbon must have been
misled by a scribal error in his Arabic text which was, like our
MS. Oxford, n3 1'p'K ',D n'r and I suggested that
mwrnSi%,
we should read not 5grsni1l but 5ttLn s1i, 'and there is no
contention for superiority among them.' This is confirmed by
the new text, where the reading however is r,xtsn til. The
mistaking of the dot above the sad for a yod gave rise to an
erroneous Arabic transcription, thus indicating an original
Hebrew script. Ahitub's version is based on the same misreading
as that of Tibbon. The fact that Vivas alone has the correct
rendering (see MLT p. 10) shows, as against Simonsen, the
independence of his version.
2. Ch. 8: 5iNt' ni6lpy5 trrnnK tonD,
'
nDnnrpo l'n'r mI.
Instead of brniz we must read lnnfrm. Thus Tibbon: mn ,'
nintwi nliDwl omlr nnrinp mTnlpnm nn,. The n disappeared
and the misreading of 5 for z points to a Hebrew script.
3. In ch. 8 we read in Tibbon inmn I'Yn nrr1,',Sx wnpn. In
MTL, p. 15, I conjectured that for the term inDm;, for which
Ahitub, as emended, has z33n,the Arabic original must have
been TnDt. This is confirmed by the new text, where the spelling
however is n6im1. Similarly in ch. 13 where, for Tibbon's
'-inD3,the Arabic has ;NDtS, but also 9'QSnb which Ahitub
renders by ,msin;n.
4. Ch. 9: ',Dnnml Dzv6b. Read ,D'nSrw. Tibbon: mnlnn
Nminml (thus also in Moreh Nebukim I, 1). Similarly in ch. 13:
oDnnl 5ziN D'1,r D'Dnn 1]KiDNN iDWlm, read in both places
Dtun.
5. Ch. 9: y^iyK 1D -rypKwn, bNnsn 1s IKtn. For ?ny%mwe
must of course read gr'n . Tibbon: yri,n ID n,y. As for the
158 EFROS [4]

meaning of %wtmwhich is not reflected in the versions, see

Maimonides' pBnprl. m1D (ed. J. Holzer), p. 4: (inyipTar = ) brat
1mand note 22 of the editor.
bmDD
6. Ch. 9: Nmmn vni i ,
N"ir n n1t- 't)I 'nr n~m ,-i'm 1
abijNa n3nmn.This statement is missing both in Tibbon and
in Ahitub and is rendered only by Vivas, proving that he trans-
lated directly from the Arabic. His rendering is: wnl rDnnm
' nnmmtonn nr
mn,rn lmamamin~ pinm rnr. After this state-
ment, the Arabic reads Hit i bYx 1K Dmlyml. This is rendered
by Tibbon: Wm : Wn1W' pynli, and by Ahitub: r)a i -p'py,
both apparently reading DDa instead of Hri which again may
point to an original Hebrew script. Vivas alone translates
correctly: l]trm i: mntW 'z p'l, showing again his direct transla-
tion from the Arabic.
7. Ch. 10: n"D yia' 15 -mr i 1. Read Y35. Tibbon: 51i

8. Ch. 10:,nniN DDmm D:mi1. For ~i read tN. Tibbon: ,z

1lTUnhaD.
9. Ch. 11: p,'txil i1nm '1IDD1. Tibbon has nmin for
p,'rxl and Ahitub: narnm. Vivas alone renders faithfully:
*nnmrnlw;m mtmn, showing the independence of his translation.
Similarly later in this chapter, for the Arabic rfintrp3n,Tibbon
has mnyp, and Ahitub: l'nyrn, both perhaps reading imTprn;
whereas Vivas alone renders correctly nm=nl. Similarly at the
beginning of ch. 13, for the Arabic ,n':zt, Vivas alone gives
the correct word: 1i:nn, whereas Tibbon has lppn and Ahitub:
ynp;. See Millot Higgayon (ed. Leon Roth and D. H. Baneth)
ch. 13, n. 1. Similarly, later in ch. 13, Tibbon gives as an illus-
tration of homonymity the word "dog" as applying to a star
and to an animal, and Ahitub offers the terms 'r and wy - all
of these illustrations are not found in the original, nor in Vivas.
All this, I believe, proves Vivas' direct version from the Arabic,
though not without stylistic influences of Tibbon.
[5] MAIMONIDES' ARABIC TREATISE ON LOGIC 159

10. In ch. 11 we read in Tibbon: Trnlr1'nl)Y D yll KHmn

rnp
13Dtl y''rw ny ntw ,l'il 1... rlln.
. For the second yr,
we have in the Arabic ixn, and perhaps we should read xnm
or rxnn,as for the first yr''. But both Ahitub and Vivas give a
different expression in the second case and it may therefore be
that we should read spn'.
11. Ch. 13, at the beginning, for Ar. inoD, Tibbon l'3p, see
above note 9.
12. Ch. 13: fri,n' D ,
n' ynD5D. Read nrx'. Tibbon: l'y i:
ov 1? WV'.
'nD DW
13. Ch. 13: fisnnn n ir, yjnDgYm 'p oan. Read riimx
nm5jn. Tibbon: nnrmo nn2;m-rnl"mo
I^Y i pny3 D-nM.
14. Ch. 13, near the end 'jN5 '^y KDDK nt-1n
a,1vi.l lp'
For lp'1iPread l1ip:'. Thus all three versions read ip,nynr.
15. Ch. 14, at the beginning: nib'o:b ~DK . D4y ]ID KD tpK.
Tibbon renders nln6r niDimn ,Dn,D 'rln,pn and also later in the
same chapter nlDmin niDmi,n ,nDn 1i for the Arabic ti'1jb.
Ahitub however translates correctly 1z n3mDwr and Vivas mniDlpr.
Tibbon apparently misread fi'OfOr. Cf. his repeated usage
of this term in the second, above-mentioned reference: 'Dn 1pl
iD tI i:4 n I1lD tW 1 D'fi1 nu1nnnT inim
1 1 D W n nlVin
for the Arabic l1Klpi n'Nt n yz I'n i' 14K K DK i m y A1
t
am:; y,r i,D K D D =Dn. Tibbon's reading of a D instead of a :
shows that his Arabic text was in Hebrew script.
16. Ch. 14, near the beginning, in connection with the first
meaning of logos, Tibbon has nrlimnn T6'~1,Ahitub: mnnDlH;y-71,
and Vivas: mnlT nrip'l. One would expect therefore an Arabic
word like lip'l or 6y1i, and particularly 'np' as in the parallel
passage in Maimonides' Shemonah Peraqim end of ch. 1 and in
the last chapter of the Moreh Nebukim. But how to account for
the word niri. Read perhaps -l'i. If so, it would again point
to an original Arabic script.
160 EFROS [6]

Other, more obvious, corrections the reader will find on the

pages of the text between the text and the variants.
Two points seem to follow from these notes: (1) the Turkish
manuscripts are probably a transcription from a Hebrew script,
for which see notes 1, 2, 6, 15, 16; (2) Vivas' version was done
directly from the Arabic, for which see notes 1, 6, 9 and also
MTL, p. 10.
The textual apparatus shows the deviations of Arabic manu-
scripts and Hebrew translators. Where the difference in the
versions can be accounted for by an Arabic word which is close
to that of our text, that word is added as the basis of the variant.
Thus at the very beginning: ,rrin =" 51z [h,nn, or in ch. 3:
^no: = N DD] [r^nD.

IV. SYMBOLS

- the Ahitub-version as edited in MTL.

3" - the Ankara-manuscript of the Arabic text.
D' - the Istanbul-manuscript of the Arabic text.
i - the Deinard-manuscript of Ahitub, Ms. D 547.
- the Venice-edition of Tibbon.
- Ms. Paris 1201 of Vivas.
-
prefixed with abbreviation-marks to another letter refers
to a marginal gloss in the Ms. of which that letter is
the symbol.
y - Ms. Paris 1202 and Ms. Oxford Opp. Add. 4?151.
p - Ms. Vatican Ebr. 349 of Ahitub.
n - the Tibbon-version as edited in MTL.
( )- omission.
[ - addition.
Numerals in the variants indicate a different order of
the words.