A Medieval Translation of the Latter Prophets into Iraqi and Syrian Judaeo-Arabic, Book 1: Isaiah and Jeremiah (review)

Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 410 Reviews A MEDIEVAL TRANSLATION OF THE LATTER PROPHETS INTO IRAQI AND SYRIAN JUDAEO-ARABIC, BOOK 1: ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH. [Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic]. By Yitzhak Avishur. Pp. 241. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Language Traditions Project, 1998. Paper. Jewish sacred texts are written mostly in Hebrew and Aramaic and are used, among other things, for liturgy and for study. They include the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, the Siddur (the prayer book), the Passover Haggadah, midrashic literature, and Pirke √Avot, the basic literature of moral and religious teachings during the time of the Second Temple and following its destruction. Jews, for the most part, learned Hebrew and Aramaic but not all of them and not to the same degree of competence. When using sacred texts, Jews employed them not only in Hebrew and Aramaic but also in translation into their local Jewish variety. Therefore, the genre of translation of sacred texts into Jewish languages, ethnolects, and varieties is widespread throughout the Jewish world. In fact, this genre is one of the threads common to all Jewish languages. Interestingly enough, Jewish tradition has not just tolerated these translations, but also at times accorded them an authority and sacredness that approached those of the original texts. In recent years there has been increased interest in studying Jewish varieties in general, and particular interest in the phenomenon of literal translations of sacred texts from Hebrew and Aramaic into the various Jewish ethnolects. This volume is an important contribution to the growing literature on biblical and other sacred texts translated into Jewish languages and ehnolects and in particular into Judeo-Arabic. Judeo-Arabic has been spoken and written in various forms by Jews throughout the Arabic-speaking world; its literature is concerned, for the most part, with Jewish topics and is written by Jewish authors for Jewish readers. The Judeo-Arabic translation under review is based on the text of Bodleian manuscript Hunt. 206, accompanied by a short introduction and the author’s notes to the translation. Avishur provides the texts of Isaiah and Jeremiah and it seems that another volume will include the rest of the latter prophets. He makes several contributions to our understanding of this translation. First, he claims that this is the oldest and most complete translation of the latter prophets in our possession today. He places the translation in medieval Iraq and dates its copying from the original manuscript to 1196. Parts of the translation were lost and completed later in 1580 in Later Judeo-Arabic (on periodization of Judeo-Arabic see B. Hary, “Judeo-Arabic in Its Sociolinguistic Setting,” Israel Oriental Studies 15 [1995]: 77–82). Avishur brings forward convincing arguments as to the place of the translation. These arguments include an elevated use of Persian (pp. 36–37) and Aramaic (pp. Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 411 Reviews 38–39) vocabulary, that is typical of Iraqi Judeo-Arabic (pp. 36–37), orthographic-phonetic features, such as the use of /ġ/ instead of /r/ or a reverse use of /s/ and /s ./, that is typical of Judeo-Arabic in Baghdad, (pp. 37– 38) and a frequent use of the second and third person verbal plural morphemes /-ūn/, that are common in Iraqi Judeo-Arabic (p. 38). Second, Avishur emphasizes that the edited manuscript is a copy of the original and provides good arguments for this claim (pp. 13–14) on the basis of the actual scribe’s errors: metathesis, incorrect Judeo-Arabic readings, and incorrect interpretation of the Hebrew biblical text. Third, Avishur discusses at length the question of whether Saadia (882– 942 C.E.) translated the latter prophets or not. He argues that Saadia translated the Book of Isaiah only and not the other latter prophets. He attempts to refute arguments brought up by various scholars for the existence of Saadia’s translation of the early and latter prophets; however, in my mind, Avishur has not supplied us with convincing enough arguments for his theory. For example, Rabbi Issachar ben Susan in the sixteenth century specifically mentioned that he used half of Saadia’s translation of Jeremiah in his work. The fact that ben Susan’s translation of Jeremiah does not include any references...