JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ible
tam)” (see Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Gen. 2:11). Some scholars
understand this statement to mean that the original was
written in the Arabic language in Arabic characters. Others
interpret it as Arabic language precisely transliterated into Hebrew
characters according to Arabic orthography. In fact, in
support of the latter opinion, some of the Genizah fragments
attributed to Saadiah and written in Arabic characters seem
to have been transliterated from a text originally written in
Hebrew letters (Blau 1981, Tobi 1993, and Polliack 1998). Evidence
from the Genizah supports the speculation that Saadiah
created his interpretative translation first and named it tafsir,
modeled after similar koranic compositions of his time. He
then composed his expanded commentary to the Pentatuech
(Polliack 1998). The long tafsir, which included both the translation
and the commentary for the Pentateuch, fell out of use
eventually. However, fragments of the long tafsir were found
in the Genizah and Firkovitch Collections. A compilation of
such fragments containing commentary on Genesis were assembled
and studied by M. Zucker (Zucker 1984).
Manuscripts and printed editions of Saadiah’s translation
of the Pentateuch were widespread in Yemenite communities
until recent times. The most famous of them is the Taj. Two
editions of the Taj were printed in Jerusalem, one in 1894 and
the other in 1982. N.J. Derenbourg published a critical edition
of Saadiah’s translation to the Pentateuch in 1893 in Paris. His
edition is based mainly on the Jewish polyglot of Constantinople
(1546) but also on a Yemenite manuscript and on the
Christian polyglot of London (1657) (Blau 1998).
Saadiah’s translation and commentary to other books of
the Bible were less known and of smaller circulation. Some
of these manuscripts, which were found in Yemenite collections,
were translated into Hebrew and published by Rabbi Y.
Kafah. These publications include the Five Scrolls, the Book of
Psalms, the Book of Job, the Book of Proverbs, and the Book
of Daniel (Kafah 1962, 1965, 1973, 1976, and 1981).
Karaite Translations. Rejection of rabbinical authority
and the Oral Law led the Karaites to reject Saadiah’s approach
to Bible translation and compelled them to create alternatives.
Most Karaite translations of the Bible date back to the 10th
and 11th centuries, a time in which scholarly Karaite activity
reached its zenith. The Karaites used the same orthography as
the one Saadiah standardized. However, they drew upon the
pre-Saadian traditions of translation, which they developed
further by emphasizing the principles of individualization and
pluralism of biblical commentary. Their approach enabled the
composition of creative and original translations free from
midrashic influence. The Cairo Genizah contains numerous
Karaite manuscripts from Egypt and Palestine from the 11th
and 12th centuries. It is not quite clear how these fragments
ended up in the Genizah of the Rabbanite synagogue of Palestinian
Jews in Fustat. It may partially be attributed to the
Crusade of 1099, which caused the destruction of the Karaite
centers in Palestine and forced the survivors to join their
coreligionists in Cairo.
Karaite translations of the various books of the Hebrew
Bible are known, of which the translations of Psalms, Minor
Prophets, the Five Scrolls, and the Pentateuch are the most
prevalent. Typically the Karaite translation of the Hebrew
Bible is sandwiched between a section of the Hebrew source
and an Arabic commentary. This structure is also reflected
in Rabbanite exegetical works of the time such as Saadiah’s.
However, Saadiah’s tafsir of the Pentateuch deviates from this
formula and his translation is disconnected from his commentary
(Polliack 1997). Often these tripartite manuscripts,
which were primarily used for the purpose of study, contain
the Hebrew Bible text transliterated into Arabic characters.
The Arabic translation may also be found written in Arabic
letters, however the Karaite Bibles that were used for religious
purposes were written in Hebrew. This bilingual orthography
reflects the Karaite ambivalence toward the rabbinical masoretic
tradition (Polliack 1997).
Karaite tradition emphasizes accuracy and the implementation
of linguistic knowledge in translation and interpretation
of scripture. Linguistic studies were regarded as
religious duty, and as a consequence the Karaites created literal
translations aimed at reflecting accurately the structures
of the Hebrew language. Two distinct features characterize
Karaite translations. The first is the occasional rendering of
two or three synonyms in translating a single word or phrase.
The second is the occasional insertions of small clauses of an
interpretative nature into the text. In these respects the Karaites’
translations resemble pre-Saadian traditions. The Arabic
reflected in Karaite translations is Middle Arabic with a great
affinity to classical Arabic, albeit spiced with a limited degree
of vernacular features. Polliack speculates that the tradition of
literality of translations is characteristic of the region of Palestine
as reflected in ancient Greek translations (cf. Aquila) as
well as Palestinian Aramaic translations. Karaite translations,
mostly created in Palestine, may have also been influenced by
this literal approach (Polliack 1997).
The single most prolific Karaite translator and commentator
who is believed to have translated the entire Bible into
Judeo-Arabic is Yefet b. Eli al-Basri (*Japheth ben Ali Ha-Levi)
who lived in Jerusalem in the 10th century. The numerous copies
of his works found up to date attest to his vast popularity
and authority within Karaite circles (Polliack 1997). Yefet’s
threefold structure, in which his Bible translation was embedded,
seems to have been composed in the years 960–990 (Ben
Shammai 1976). Furthermore, in the introduction to his work
he states his intention to provide a translation of the words
of the Book, hence a verbal rendition faithful to the wording
of the biblical source. Yefet derives authority from a received
tradition of translation, and it is likely that the literal tendencies
of his versions do not originate with him. While his literal
translation results in often slavish and ungrammatical
Arabic it also reflect a conscious interpretative intention and
a method intended to demonstrate to the reader the linguistic
structure and the basic meaning of the text (Polliack 1997
and Polliack and Schlossberg 2001). Recent publications of
604 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3