Abstract
While the biblical commentaries of Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1167) aroused interest soon after his death, research into his scientific corpus began only in the closing years of the past century.1 In the present century, José María Millás Vallicrosa, a distinguished Spanish historian of the sciences, focused attention on Abraham bar Hiyya and on Abraham ibn Ezra, and used the term “encyclopedic” to describe the scientific output of both twelfth-century Jewish intellectuals.2 This term is quite appropriate with regard to Bar Hiyya, the author of the first Hebrew encyclopedia of the sciences,3 but the claim that it applies to Ibn Ezra is not so clear. Millás Vallicrosa, for his part, did not add any comment or explanation to corroborate his statement on the encyclopedic character of Ibn Ezra’s scientific writing. In fact, he was mainly interested in the Latin works of Ibn Ezra and paid little attention to his Hebrew work, the most significant and important part of his scientific production. Against Millás’ claim, it ought to be considered that Ibn Ezra never wrote an encyclopedia, and that, on the contrary, his scientific corpus, as we shall see, consists mainly of multiple short treatises. The question whether the term “encyclopedic” fits the scientific production of Ibn Ezra thus requires further examination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See, esp., Moritz Steinschneider, “Abraham Ibn Esra (Abraham Judaeus, Avenare),” Supplement zur Zcitschrift für Mathematik und Physik 25 (1880): 59–128 (reprint, Gesammelte Schriften [Berlin 1925], 407–98).
See also Moritz Steinschneider, “Abraham Judaeus — Savasorda und Ibn Esra,” Supplement zur Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik 22 (1867): 1–44 (reprint, Gesammelte Schriften, 327–87);
and David Rosin, “Die Religionsphilosophie Abraham Ibn Esra’s,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 42 (1898): 250–1.
See his “La obra enciclopédica de R. Abraham bar Hiyya,” in Estudios sobre historia de la ciencia española (Barcelona, 1949), Vol. 1, 219–62 (reprint, Madrid, 1987); and idem, “The Work of Abraham ibn Ezra in Astronomy” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 9 (1938): 306–22. Note, however, that the encyclopedic nature of Abraham bar Ḥiyya’s scientific work is openly proclaimed in the title of the first article, but that of Ibn Ezra is not mentioned in the title of the second article. In the article on Ibn Ezra, Millás Vallicrosa mentions without much explanation the encyclopedic feature of Ibn Ezra’s scientific work.
See, e.g., Merecedes Rubio’s contribution in the previous chapter of this volume. Ibn Ezra never wrote an encyclopedia, and that, on the contrary, his scientific corpus, as we shall see, consists mainly of multiple short treatises. The question whether the term “encyclopedic” fits the scientific production of Ibn Ezra thus requires further examination.
Ibn Ezra, Sefer Yesod Mora ve-Yesod Torah, in Yalqut Abraham ibn Ezra (New York and Tel Aviv, 1985), 315–42. On this book, see Michael Friedlaender, “Ibn Ezra in England,” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society (London, 1894–5): 47–60; and Judah Loeb Fleischer, “The Literary Work of Abraham Ibn Ezra in England” (Hebrew), Oṣar ha-Ḥayyim 7 (1931): 69–76, 107–11, 129–33, 160–8, 189–203.
Yesod Mora, 315–20. Ibn Ezra mentions the sciences in this order in ibid., 320.
Ibn al-Muthannâ’s Commentary on the Astronomical Tables of al-Khwârizmî, two Hebrew versions, ed. and trans. Bernard R. Goldstein (New Haven and London, 1967), 147–150, 300–2.
Ibid., 148.
This relatively large number of different books stems mainly from the fact that Ibn Ezra was accustomed to writing his treatises in several versions, sometimes as many as four versions of a single work.
For a detailed account of Ibn Ezra’s scientific work, see Shlomo Sela, “Scientific Data in the Exegetical-Theological Work of Abraham Ibn Ezra: Historical Time and Geographical Space Conception” (Hebrew) (Ph.D. diss., Tel-Aviv University, 1997), 10–34.
Sefer ha-Mispar also brings an outstanding mathematical novelty to Western Europe: the decimal positional system. See Sefer ha-Mispar, Das Buch der Zahl, ein hebräisch-arithmetisches Werk des R. Abraham Ibn Esra, ed. and trans, into German Moritz Silberberg (Frankfurt am Main, 1895).
Ibn Ezra presumably wrote this treatise in four different versions, two in Hebrew and two in Latin. Several manuscripts are extant of the second Latin version. They have been edited by José María Millás Vallicrosa, El libro de los fundamentos de las tablas astronómicas de R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (Madrid, 1947).
For a discussion of the four different versions of this treatise, see Shlomo Sela, “Contactos científicos entre judíos y cristianos en el siglo XII: El caso del Libro de las Tablas astronómicas de Abraham Ibn Ezra en su version latina y hebrea,” Miscelánea de Estudios Arabes y Hebraicos 45 (1996): 185–222;
and Shlomo Sela, “Algunos puntos de contacto entre el Libro de las tablas astronómicas en su versión latina y las obras literarias hebreas de Abraham ibn Ezra” Miscelánea de Estudios árabes y Hebraicos 46 (1997): 37–56.
Ibn Ezra composed this treatise in three different Hebrew versions and probably also wrote a Latin version, with the aid of a disciple. The first Hebrew version of Keli ha-Nehosḥet was edited (in a very poor edition) in the first half of the past century. See Keli ha-Nehosḥet, ed. H. Edelman (Koenigsberg, 1845). Concerning the Latin version, see Millás Vallicrosa, “Un nuevo tratado de astrolabio de R. Abraham ibn Ezra,” Al-Andalus 5 (1940): 9–29. For a discussion of the various (Hebrew and Latin) versions of this treatise, see Sela, “Scientific Data,” 14–18.
Mishpeṭei ha-Mazzalot has not yet been edited and remains the least known and least researched part of Ibn Ezra’s astrological work. It is extant in various manuscripts that make up the collection of Ibn Ezra’s astrological works. See, e.g., the following manuscripts: Cambridge MS Classmark ADD 1517 fols. 40–4; Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 68–86; and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Héb. 1058, fols. 13ff. For a discussion on this treatise, see Sela, “Scientific Data,” 19–20; and Moritz Steinschneider, “Zur Geschichte der Uebersetzungen aus dem Indischen ins Arabische und ihres Einflusses auf die arabische Literatur,” Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 24 (1870): 341–2.
Ibn Ezra completed Reshit Ḥokhmah in Tamuz 4908 (late 1147 or early in 1148). For the Hebrew text of Reshit Ḥokhmah, along with English and French translations, see The Beginning of Wisdom, an Astrological Treatise by Abraham Ibn Ezra, ed. Raphael Levy and Francisco Cantera (Baltimore, 1939).
For the first version, see Sefer ha-Ṭe’amim, ed. Judah Loeb Fleischer (Jerusalem, 1951). For the second version, see Sefer ha-Ṭe’amim, ed. Naftali ben Menahem (Jerusalem, 1941). For a discussion concerning the two versions of Sefer ha-Ṭe’amim, see the introductions to the editions of both versions. See further, Sela, “Scientific Data,” 21–2.
The Hebrew text of Sefer ha-Moladot remains available only in manuscripts. See, e.g., Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 46v–61v. A Latin translation by Henry Bate, made about one hundred years after Ibn Ezra’s death, was published in Venice, 1485, under the title Liber Abraham Iude de nativitatibus. In my opinion, the Liber Abraham lude de nativitatibus is the translation of a currently lost second Hebrew version of Sefer ha-Moladot. For a discussion of the two versions of Sefer ha-Moladot, see Sela, “Scientific Data,” 23–4.
Only the first version of Sefer ha-Mivḥarimhas been published. See Sefer ha-Mivḥarim, ed. Judah Loeb Fleischer (Jerusalem, 1939). For the second version see, e.g., Cambridge MS Classmark ADD 1517, fols. 48r–50r.
Both versions of this treatise are extant only in manuscripts. For the first version, see Sefer ha-She’elot, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 62v–65v. For the second version, see Sefer ha-She’elot, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Héb. 1058, fols. lr-8r.
The second version of Sefer ha-Me’orotis presently lost. For the text of the first version, see Sefer ha-Me’orot, ed. Judah Loeb Fleischer, in Sinai, Yearbook of the Hokhmat Israel Society in Rumania, ed. M. A. Levy (1932), xlii–li.
For the first version, see Sefer ha-‘Olam, ed. Judah Loeb Fleischer (on the basis of Vatican MS Ebr. 390), in OṣarḤayyim 13 (1937): 33–49; references below are to Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Héb. 1056. For the second version, see Sefer ha-‘Olam, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 86v–95r.
For a critical edition of both Hebrew translations of this work, see the reference in n. 6 above.
See above, n. 8. Ibn Ezra wrote four versions of the Book of the Foundations of the Astronomic Tables (see above, n. 11) and probably four versions of Keli ha-Nehosḥet (see above, n. 12). In fact, he wrote most of his astrological treatises in at least two different versions.
Mishpeṭei ha-Mazzalot is extant in only one version. The statement that all the astrological works were written in two different versions may be considered true if Reshit Ḥokhmah is regarded as a second and improved version of the earlier Mishpeṭei ha-Mazzalot. I intend to discuss this in a future study.
On Ibn Ezra’s cultural contribution viewed as part and parcel of his wanderings, see Arieh Grabois, “Le non-conformisme intellectual au XIIe siècle: Pierre Abelard et Abraham Ibn Ezra,” in Modernité et non-conformisme en France à travers les âges, ed. M. Yardeni (Leiden, 1983), 3–13.
Reshit Ḥokhmah (above, n. 14), chap. 6, xliv, lvii.
See, e.g., the following references to Reshit Ḥokhmah in Ibn Ezra’s other astrological treatises: Sefer ha-Moladot (above, n. 16), fols. 48v, 59r, 60r, 61v; Sefer ha-She’elot, first version (above, n. 18), fols. 62v, 67v, 68r; Sefer ha-Mivḥarim, first version (above, n. 17), 11; Sefer ha-’Olam, first version (above, n. 20), fol. 86r; Sefer ha-’Olam, second version (above, n. 20), fol. 90r.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 35r, 36v, 43v, 44r, and 45v.
Sefer ha-Moladot, fols. 48v, 49v, 50v, 51r, 59r, 60r, and 61v.
ibid., fols. 54r and 56v.
Sefer ha-‘Olam, first version, fols. 83v and 86r.
Sefer ha-Mispar (above, n. 10), 27, 79.
Keli ha-Neḥoshet, first version (above, n. 12), 29.
Ibid., 9, 14, 25, 29–31.
Kelt ha-Neḥoshet, third version, MS Pinsker (Austria), fols. 59v, 60r, 65v, 66r.
Sefer ha-Ṭe’amim, first version (above, n. 15), fol. 45v; and Sefer ha-‘Olam, second version, fol. 93v.
See, e.g., the list of scientists provided by Ibn Ezra at the end of the introduction to his translation of Ibn al-Muthannâ’s Commentary on the Astronomical Tables of al-Khwârizmi (above, n. 6), 300, which includes the following prominent scientists: Ḥabash, Yaḥyâ ibn Abî Manṣûr, al-Marwarrûdhî, Ibn al-Muqaffa’, al-Sûfï, al-Kindî, Thâbit ibn Qurrah, Ibrâhîm al-Zarqâllu, al-Battânî, Ibn al-’Istî, and Ibn al-A’lam.
Keli ha-Neḥoshet, first version, 5–6.
Cf., e.g., the explanation of the astrological procedures in the four versions of Keli ha-Neḥoshet first version, 27–31; second version, Mantua MS Fondo Ebr. Mant.10, fols. 46v–49r; third version, fols. 64v–66v; Latin version, London, British Museum MS Cotton Vesp. AII fols. 38v–40v.
ReshitḤokhmah, vi–xxxix.
ibid., xxxix–lxii.
ibid., lxii–lxxvi.
ibid., v.
Ibn Ezra wrote two different versions of commentaries on the following biblical books: Genesis, Exodus, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Psalms, Song of Songs, Esther, Daniel. On Ibn Ezra’s exegetical work, see Uriel Simon, “Spanish Commentators” (Hebrew), in Jewish Biblical Exegesis, ed. Moshe Greenberg (Jerusalem, 1983), 47–60,
and Uriel Simon, “II método esegetico di rabbi Abraham ibn ‘Ezra,” in La lettura ebraica delle Scritture, ed. Sergio J. Sierra (Bologna, 1995), 203–19.
On the one hand, the pen was Ibn Ezra’s main means of subsistence; on the other hand, he was required to satisfy a demand that increased during his wanderings in Latin Europe. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that when he arrived in a new town, he would write new versions of old works for his new audience.
See Uriel Simon, “Interpreting the Interpreter: Supercommentaries on Ibn Ezra’s Commentaries,” in Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath, ed. Isadore Twersky and Jay M. Harris (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 119–121.
Dov Schwartz, “On the Philosophical Methodology of Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Supercommentaries” (Hebrew), ‘Alei Sefer 18 (1996): 71–114.
See, for example, his long commentary on Exodus. 20: 2, where Ibn Ezra delineates something close to a program of studies that he expected the cultivated reader to follow in order to understand the deep meanings of the biblical text. The scientific branches are mentioned in this order: metallurgy, botany, zoology, anatomy, physiology, astronomy, and astrology.
Perhaps the best example is the excursus that Ibn Ezra wrote in the long commentary on Exodus 3:15, where he explains the secret meanings underlying the numeric values of the letters of the Tetragrammaton. This excursus is neatly divided into three chapters. Ibn Ezra begins with a grammatical analysis, continues with a mathematical explanation and finishes with a cosmological-astrological inquiry. See also the parallel excursus in the short commentary ad loc. See further, the excursus in the long commentary on Exodus 20:2, 26:1, and esp. 33:21.
Frequently Ibn Ezra abruptly interrupts the disclosure of some “secret,” which clearly underlies some important scientific explanation, by saying that it is counterproductive to prolong the commentary, since the cultivated reader will understand its meaning. See, e.g., the long commentary on Exodus 28:6, long commentary on Genesis 6:4, and short commentary on Genesis 3:24.
See Ibn Ezra’s Commentary of the Pentateuch, Genesis (Bereshit), trans. H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver (New York, 1988), 5–6: “Furthermore, even if the Bible explicitly said: ‘Let the moon be as a sign for God’s holy seasons, ‘ a very important aspect of the problem remains to be solved. Does a new moon start when the moon completes circling the sphere of the zodiac, i.e., every twenty seven days and some limited hours, or when it completes circling the apogee of the eccentric sphere whose center is far from the earth, or when it completes circling the sphere of the dragon according to the calculation of the wise men, because its epicycle turns in the opposite direction.”
But Ibn Ezra’s model should be regarded as a special case, contrasting clearly with the common model of transference, in which Christian intellectuals coming from the North dared to penetrate the Iberian Peninsula in order to absorb and translate the new sciences directly from the Arabic sources. Ibn Ezra trod the reverse path. He began to write, as far as the dates of Ibn Ezra’s works allow us to determine, only after he had abandoned al-Andalus, his homeland, and arrived in Rome. Afterwards he wandered through Italy, France, and England, and conducted a remarkable and multifarious literary career.
True, these texts are mainly textbooks and the contents are brought essentially as quotations and as paraphrases of earlier Arabic sources. Nevertheless, we have to do justice to Ibn Ezra. The following features, inter alia, reveal the unique contribution and personality of the author. First, in these textbooks it is also possible to detect Ibn Ezra’s obsession to comment and explain everything that falls into his hands, as may be corroborated, for example, in the two versions of Sefer ha-Ṭe’amim. Second, Ibn Ezra commonly avoids a narrow and unilateral presentation of issues. In this context, he sometimes allows himself to present his own view, as part of an “academic” debate. See, e.g., Sefer ha-Moladot, fol. 59r. Third, Ibn Ezra adds a very personal note when he sharply criticized his sources. He does not even abstain from criticizing Claudius Ptolemy, his most important and admired source, and the only one whom he was ready to mention explicitly in his biblical commentaries. See, e.g., Sefer ha-Ṭe’amim, first version, fol. 39r. Fourth, and in my opinion the most outstanding feature, Ibn Ezra reveals a very original spirit when he confronts the colossal task of conveying into a Hebrew mold the scientific data that he received in the Arabic language. The result of this effort is the creation of a new Hebrew scientific terminology. See Sela, “Scientific Data,” 225–38, and idem, “El papel de Abraham Ibn Ezra en la divulgación de los ‘juicios’ de la astrología en la lengua hebrea y latina,” Sefarad (forthcoming).
See above, n. 48.
See the long and short commentaries on Genesis 1.
For this characteristic, see Brian Stock, “Science, Technology, and Economic Progress in the Early Middle Ages,” in Science in the Middle Ages, ed. David C. Lindberg (Chicago, 1978) 37–47.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sela, S. (2000). Encyclopedic Aspects of Abraham ibn Ezra’s Scientific Corpus. In: Harvey, S. (eds) The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9389-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9389-2_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5428-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9389-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive