Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The Cairo Geniza is surely the most important manuscript source for the study of Judaeo-Arabic texts, that is to say, texts whose language is Arabic written in Hebrew characters. This paper is an overall survey of the Judaeo-Arabic material in the 54 Arabic boxes of the Old Series in the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection. This collection which is housed in the Cambridge University Library is the largest collection of Geniza pieces to be found in any one place, with some 140,000 fragments. The Judaeo-Arabic material we are specifically dealing with here comprises some 7,000 manuscript fragments, research on which is now being prepared for publication. The discussion is limited to present research; it does not include references to other oriental collections such as the Firkovitch in St. Petersburg, which comprises not only fragments but codices (some almost complete) and a much wider range of Karaite Arabic material. As the Firkovitch collection is at last becoming more accessible, its contents will obviously need to be studied at a later stage in relation to the Cambridge Geniza material.
2 A preliminary handlist of this collection is given in Fenton, P., A handlist of Judeo-Arabic manuscripts in Leningrad: a tentative handlist of Judeo-Arabic manuscripts in the Firkovic collections (Jerusalem, 1991).Google Scholar
3 For the historical background, see Reif, S. C., A guide to the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection (Cambridge, 1973), 1–6.Google Scholar
4 The transmission of Jewish texts and the role of the codex is discussed by Reif, S. C., ‘Aspects of mediaeval Jewish literacy’ in The uses of literacy in early mediaeval Europe, (ed.) McKitterick, R. (Cambridge, 1990), 145–7.Google Scholar
5 On the use of trilingualism in Jewish society see Reif, S. C., ‘Aspects of mediaeval Jewish literacy’, 147–9.Google Scholar
6 See Khan, G., Karaite Bible manuscripts from the Cairo genizah (Cambridge, 1990).Google Scholar
7 See Blau, J., The emergence and linguistic background of Judaeo-Arabic: a study of the origins of Middle Arabic (2nd ed., Jerusalem, 1981), 41–2Google Scholar and Reif, S. C., ‘Aspects of mediaeval Jewish literacy’, 149.Google Scholar
8 This discussion is limited to Judaeo-Arabic literary texts. For a survey of the Geniza material in Arabic script see Khan, G. A., ‘The Arabic fragments in the Cambridge Genizah Collections’, Manuscripts of the Middle East, 1, 1986, 54–60Google Scholar. For documentary material see Shaked, S., A tentative bibliography of genizah documents (Paris, 1964)Google Scholar and Khan, G., Arabic legal and administrative documents in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge, 1993).Google Scholar
9 See Davis, M. C., Hebrew Bible manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, vols. 1–2 (Cambridge, 1978–1980).Google Scholar
10 For most of the Judaeo-Arabic Bible translations and commentaries in the Old Series, consult Arabic boxes T-S Ar.1a-c and T-S Ar.21–28.
11 e.g. T-S Ar.1a.152–3, Ar.28.154, Ar.28.168 and Ar.53.8. For a discussion of pre-Saadiah Arabic Bible translations see Blau, J., ‘On a fragment of the oldest Judaeo-Arabic Bible translation extant’ in (ed.) Blau, J. and Reif, S. C., Genizah research after ninety years: the case of Judaeo-Arabic (Cambridge, 1992), 31–9Google Scholar and Tobi, Y., ‘Seridey targum 'aravi la-torah qodem le-tafsir Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on’, Masorot, 1, 1993, 87–127.Google Scholar
12 e.g. T-S Ar.1b.19, Ar.1b.48 and Ar.1b.78.
13 See Avishur, Y., ‘Some new sources for the study of the text and language of Saadya's translation of the Pentateuch into Judaeo-Arabic’ in Genizah Research after ninety years, 5–13.Google Scholar
14 Derenbourg, J., Version arabe du Pentateuch (Paris, 1893)Google Scholar and Avishur, Y., ‘Some new sources’, 5.Google Scholar
15 e.g. T-S Ar.1a.74 (Genesis 24: 7–9).
16 e.g. T-S Ar.1b.65 (Isaiah 53: 5–11).
17 e.g. T-S Ar.1b.54 (Hosea 4: 6–8, 16–17).
18 e.g. T-S Ar.1b.10 (Daniel, part of chapter 7).
19 See n. 10 above. Some of these fragments are published in Ratzaby, Y., ‘Seridim mi-perush R Sa'adyah Ga'on le-megillat ester’, Sinai, 104, 1989, 193–214Google Scholar; Ratzaby, Y., ‘Shiv'ah qeṭa'im ḥadashim mi-perush R. Sa'adyah li-sha'yah we-ekhah’, Sinai, 105, 1990, 193–211Google Scholar; Ratzaby, Y., ‘Mi-perush R. Sa'adyah le-ekhah, ester we-dani'el’, Sinai, 111, 1993, 1–26.Google Scholar
20 T-S Ar.43.64, Ar.43.277 and Ar.46.104; published by Ben-Shammai, H., ‘Saadya's introduction to Isaiah as an introduction to the Books of the Prophets’, Tarbiz, 60, 1991, 371–404Google Scholar and see also Version arabe d'Isaie, ed. , J. and Derenbourg, H. (Paris, 1896).Google Scholar
21 T-S Ar.26.54 and Dani'el 'im targum u-ferush Rabbenu Sa'adyah ben Yosef Fayyumi, ed. Qafiḥ, J. (Jerusalem, 1981), 15.Google Scholar
22 T-S Ar.25.20 and Ar.25.92; published by Greenbaum, A., The biblical commentary of Rav Samuel ben Hofni Gaon according to Geniza manuscripts (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1978), 435–45.Google Scholar
23 T-S Ar.1c.3; published by Perez, M., ‘Qeṭa' genizah mi-perush R. Mosheh Ibn Giqaṭilah li-tehillim’, Sinai, 106, 1990, 12–22.Google Scholar
24 e.g. T-S Ar.1c.16.
25 e.g. T-S Ar.26.10 (Hosea 4: 3–6, 17–19).
26 e.g. T-S Ar.25.10 (Song of Songs 7: 8–12, 8: 4–5).
27 e.g. T-S Ar.26.36 (Ecclesiastes 1: 9–11).
28 T-S Ar.1c.20.
29 T-S Ar.28.24.
30 e.g. T-S Ar.9.4. For other Geniza fragments see kitāb al-Khilaf: Mishael ben Uzziel's Treatise on the differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, ed. Lipschütz, L., (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1965), 24–5.Google Scholar
31 See Lipschütz, L., kitāb al-Khilaf, 16.Google Scholar
32 e.g. T-S Ar.25.93, Ar.31.4, Ar.31.8, Ar.31.61, Ar.31.67, Ar.31.79 and Ar.31.16. See also Eldar, I., ‘Mukhtaṣar hidāyat al-qāri—The grammatical section: critically edited with Hebrew translation and introduction’, Leshonenu, 50, 1987, 214–31Google Scholar; 51, 1987, 3–41.
33 Eldar, I., ‘Mukhtaṣar (an abridgement of) Hidāyat al-qāri: a grammatical treatise discovered in the Genizah’ in Genizah Research after ninety years, 67.Google Scholar
34 For most of the Judaeo-Arabic grammatical material in the Old Series, consult Arabic boxes T-S Ar.5 and T-S Ar.31–32.
35 T-S Ar.5.20.
36 T-S Ar.31.220.
37 Kokovtsov, P. K., Novye materialy dlya kharakteristiki Ekhudy Khaiyudzha, Samuila Nagida i nekotorykh drugikh predstavitelei evreiskoi filologicheskoi nauki v x, XI, XII viekie (Petrograd, 1916), 69–108.Google Scholar
38 e.g. T-S Ar.1a.7 and Ar.53.9.
39 e.g. T-S Ar.1b.79, Ar.5.5, Ar.5.25, Ar.5.28, Ar.5.38 and Ar.5.41–42.
40 T-S Ar.31.32.
41 e.g. T-S Ar.1b.22 (Hebrew-Arabic glossary of Amos 2: 7–4: 7); Ar.5.7 (Hebrew-Arabic glossary of Mishnah tractates Bekhorot, 'Arakhin, Me'ilah, Tamid and Qinnim); and Ar.5.22 (Aramaic-Arabic glossary of Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 67a–b).Google Scholar
42 T-S Ar.5.19.
43 T-S Ar.47.47.
44 e.g. T-S Ar.31.3 (grammatical commentary on Job 24–38) and T-S Ar.31.31 (grammatical commentary on Ezekiel 46–8 and Hosea 1: 1–2).
45 For example, see Margoliouth, G., ‘Some British Museum genizah texts: III. A fihrist of works by the Gaon Samuel b. Ḥofni’, Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s., 14, 1902, 311Google Scholar; and also the booklists from the Geniza in Mann, J., Texts and studies in Jewish history and literature, vol. 1 (Cincinnati, 1931), 643–84.Google Scholar
46 For an up-to-date bibliography of the works of Samuel ben Hofnī see Sklare, D. E., ‘The religious and legal thought of Samuel ben Hofni Gaon: texts and studies in cultural history’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1992), vol. 1, 22–58Google Scholar. For most of the Judaeo-Arabic geonica material in the Old Series, consult Arabic boxes T-S Ar.18 and T-S Ar.47–50.
47 e.g. T-S Ar.18(2).110, Ar.47.214, Ar.48.94, Ar.48.122 and Ar.48.146.
48 e.g. T-S Ar.18(1).54, Ar.18(1).144 and Ar.18(2).134.
49 e.g. T-S Ar.18(1).158.
50 e.g. T-S Ar.18(1).12, Ar.18(2).93 and Ar.50.181b.
51 T-S Ar.49.102.
52 e.g. T-S Ar.47.88 and Ar.48.180.
53 e.g. T-S Ar.18(1).39, Ar.18(2).187, Ar.47.137 and Ar.47.240.
54 e.g. T-S Ar.47.54 and Ar.47.104.
55 For published Geniza fragments of this work see Ben-Sasson, M., ‘Seridim mi-sefer ha-'edot weha-sheṭarot le-Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on’, Shenaton ha-mishpaṭ ha-'ivri le-ḥeqer ha-mishpaṭ ha-'ivri, 11–12, 1984–1986, 135–278.Google Scholar
56 e.g. T-S Ar.47.238 and Ar.48.195.
57 e.g. T-S Ar,18(2).80, Ar.47.56 and Ar.48.61.
58 e.g. T-S Ar.47.48 and Ar.48.60.
59 T-S Ar.47.29 and Ar.48.189.
60 e.g. T-S Ar.18(1).18, Ar.48.205, Ar.48.234 and Ar.50.163.
61 e.g. T-S Ar.18(1).21–22 and Ar.18(1).109.
62 e.g. T-S Ar.18(1).167, Ar.18(2).18 and Ar.18(2).154.
63 e.g. T-S Ar.18(2).31, Ar.18(2).144, Ar.18(2).164, Ar.48.56 and Ar.48.280.
64 e.g. T-S Ar.18(2).141, Ar.47.26, Ar.47.61 and Ar.49.46.
65 e.g. T-S F3.11 and Ar.47.109. For Judaeo-Arabic rabbinica and geonica material in the New Series, consult Brody, R., A handlist of rabbinic manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (scheduled for publication 1995).Google Scholar
66 e.g. T-S Ar.16.29, Ar.16.68, Ar.17.11, Ar.46.44. Ar.46.134 and Ar.46.176. P. Fenton suggests that the commentary on Pirqe Avot and the Midrash David Ha-Nagid are more likely to have been written by David ben Joshua Maimonides; see ‘The literary legacy of David ben Joshua, last of the Maimonidean Něgīdim’, Jewish Quarterly Review, 75, 1984, 1–56.Google Scholar
67 e.g. T-S Ar.18(2).36, Ar.36.11 and Ar.49.77. For published Cambridge Geniza fragments of this work see Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, ed. Assaf, S., Davidson, I. and Joel, I. (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1941), 49–52Google Scholar; and also Wieder, N., ‘Hashlamot we-tiqqunim le-seder Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on’ in (ed.) Cassuto, M. D., Klausner, J. and Guttmann, J., Sefer Assaf (Jerusalem, 1953), 237–60.Google Scholar
68 T-S Ar.46.265.
69 See Tobi, Y., ‘The Siddur of Rabbi Shelomo ben Nathan of Sijilmasa’ in (ed.) Abitbol, M., Communautés juives des marges sahariennes du Maghreb (Jerusalem, 1982), 412Google Scholar and the Hebrew version of the same article in the memorial volume for Habermann, A. M., (ed.) Malachi, Z., Yad Leheyman (Lod, 1984), 345–60.Google Scholar
70 e.g. T-S Ar.8.33, Ar.18(2).160, Ar.18(2).182, Ar.31.216, Ar.36.2, Ar.36.110. Ar.37.2, Ar.37.110 and Ar.37.159.
71 See Tobi, Y., ‘The Siddur of Rabbi Shelomo ben Nathan of Sijilmasa’, 414.Google Scholar
72 T-S Ar.8.10 and Ar.36.115.
73 T-S Ar.37.219 and Ar.37.221.
74 T-S Ar.36.135.
75 e.g. T-S Ar.46.72, Ar.46.75, Ar.46.147, Ar.54.32, Ar.54.56.
76 e.g. T-S Ar.37.35, Ar.37.143 and Ar.54.63.
77 e.g. T-S Ar.46.5 and 46.45.
78 See Ben-Shammai, H., ‘Sippurey 'Avraham be-'arvit-yehudit mi-maqor muslami—qeṭa'im ḥadashim’ in (ed.) Ben-Shammai, H., Hebrew and Arabic Studies in Honour of Joshua Blau presented by friends and students on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Hebrew; Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem, 1993), 111–33.Google Scholar
79 The printed editions are Obermann, J., The Arabic original of Ibn Shâhîn's Book of Comfort (Yale, 1933)Google Scholar and Abramson, S., Rav Nissim Ga'on, Ḥamishah Sefarim (R. Nissim Goon Libelli Quinque), (Jerusalem, 1965), 361–502.Google Scholar
80 T-S Ar.43.273 and see Ben-Shammai, H., ‘Fragments yield surprises’, Genizah fragments, 20, 4.Google Scholar
81 T-S Ar. 16.2.
82 e.g. T-S Ar.6.19, Ar.6.31, Ar.6.34 and Ar.53.7.
83 T-S Ar.36.68.
84 T-S Ar.13.3.
85 Printed editions are those of Landauer, S. (Leiden, 1880)Google Scholar and Qafiḥ, J. (Jerusalem, 1970).Google Scholar
86 Printed editions are those of Hirschfeld, H. (Leipzig, 1887)Google Scholar and Baneth, D. (Jerusalem, 1977).Google Scholar
87 Printed editions are those of Munk, S. (Paris, 1856–1866)Google Scholar and Joel, I. (Jerusalem, 1931).Google Scholar
88 e.g. T-S Ar.43.36, Ar.43.73, Ar.43.124, Ar.43.128, Ar.43.197 and Ar.43.256. See Ben-Shammai, H., ‘Fragments yield surprises’ and ‘New fragments from the Arabic original of Mivḥar ha-peninim’, Tarbiz, 60, 1991, 577–91Google Scholar. For most Judaeo-Arabic philosophical material in the Old Series, consult Arabic boxes T-S Ar.12 and T-S Ar.43–45.
89 The printed edition is that of Yahuda, A. S. (Leiden, 1912).Google Scholar
90 Printed editions are those of Rosenblatt, S., 2 vols (New York and Baltimore, 1927–1938)Google Scholar and Dana, N. (Ramat-Gan, 1989).Google Scholar
91 The printed edition is that of Fenton, P. (London, 1981).Google Scholar
92 The printed edition is that of Fenton, P. (Jerusalem, 1987).Google Scholar
93 See Lasker, D. J., ‘Qiṣṣat mujādalat al-usquf and Nesṭor ha-komer: the earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jewish anti-Christian polemics’ in Genizah research after ninety years 112–18Google Scholar and Stroumsa, S., ‘Qiṣṣat mujādalat al-usquf: a case study in polemical literature’ in Genizah research after ninety years, 155–9.Google Scholar
94 e.g. T-S Ar.14.11.
95 For a full description see Isaacs, H. D. (with the assistance of C. F. Baker), Medical and para-medical manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge, 1994).Google Scholar
