Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 20 (2010) pp.

185206
doi:10.1017/S0957423910000019 2010 Cambridge University Press

IN SEARCH OF IBN SINAS ORIENTAL

PHILOSOPHY IN MEDIEVAL CASTILE
RYAN SZPIECH*
University of Michigan, 4108 Modern Languages Building
812 E. Washington St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1275, USA
Email: [email protected]

Abstract. Scholars have long debated the possibility of a mystical or illuminationist

strain of thought in Ibn Snas body of writing. This debate has often focused on the
meaning and contents of his partly lost work al-Mashriqiyyun (The Easterners), also
known as al-H . ikma al-Mashriqiyya (Eastern Wisdom), mentioned by Ibn Sna himself
as well as by numerous Western writers including Ibn Rushd and Ibn T.ufayl. A
handful of references to what is called Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy are also found
in the Castilian and Hebrew works of the Castilian Jew Abner of Burgos (ca. 1270-ca.
1347), known after his conversion to Christianity as Alfonso of Valladolid. Although
the content of these citations has not been identified, it has been proposed that they
may preserve otherwise unknown passages from Ibn Snas lost work. This study
considers the references to Ibn Snas so-called Oriental Philosophy within Abners
writings and concludes that rather than preserving lost passages from Ibn Snas
writing, Abners references were drawn primarily from Ibn T.ufayl and offer no
support for the argument of a possible mystical or illuminationist strain in Ibn Snas
thinking.

Rsum. Depuis longtemps, on a discut de la possible prsence dune orientation

mystique ou illuminative dans luvre dIbn Sna. Le sens et le contenu de son
ouvrage (partiellement perdu) al-Mashriqiyyun (Les Orientaux), galement connu
comme al-H . ikma al-Mashriqiyya (La Sagesse orientale), mentionn par Ibn Sna
lui-mme et par des crivains occidentaux comme Ibn Rushd et Ibn T.ufayl, ont
souvent t au centre de ce dbat. On trouve aussi quelques rfrences ce qui est
appel la philosophie orientale dIbn Sna dans luvre du juif castillan Abner de
Burgos (ca. 1270-ca. 1347) connu aprs sa conversion au christianisme sous le nom
dAlphonse de Valladolid. Sans avoir au pralable identifi le contenu de ces citations,
on a fait lhypothse quelles auraient permis de conserver des passages, inconnus par
ailleurs, de louvrage perdu dIbn Sna. Cette tude porte sur les rfrences la
philosophie orientale dIbn Sna dans luvre dAbner de Burgos. Elle montre que
les rfrences dAbner semblent avoir t essentiellement tires dIbn T.ufayl et ne
*
This research is part of a collaborative project entitled, The Intellectual and Material
Legacies of Late Medieval Sephardic Judaism: An Interdisciplinary Approach, directed by
Dr. Esperanza Alfonso (CSIC). I wish to thank the European Research Council for its
support of this project with a four-year Starting Grant and to thank Dr. Alfonso for her
ongoing coordination as Principle Investigator of the project and for inviting me to present
on this research at the CSIC in October, 2009. I also wish to thank Edward Casey and
Nathan Torreano for their editorial suggestions, Suzanne Akbari for organizing the
Semitic/Romance panel at the 2008 MLA meeting where I read an earlier version of this
essay, and the Yale Near Eastern Studies Colloquium where I first presented this material.
186 RYAN SZPIECH
renvoient donc pas aux passages perdus de louvrage dIbn Sna. En consquence elles
ne peuvent servir dargument pour confirmer la prsence dune orientation mystique
ou illuminative dans luvre dIbn Sna.

I. INTRODUCTION

Ibn Sna finished his magnum opus, al-Shifa, sometime around 1027
while living in Is.fahan. Luckily for posterity, the text was quickly
copied and disseminated because, as we are told by two medieval
Arabic chronicles, his works, which were held among the possessions
of his patron Ala al-Dawla, were pillaged and taken among the booty
carried off only eight years later from Is.fahan to Ghazna during the
ongoing conquests by the Ghaznavid Empire. Those books were then
burned in the mid-twelfth century by the marauding Ghurids who
came to control part of Greater Khurasan, and the works written
between 1027 and 1035 were partly lost.1 Among those lost works
was one of uncertain title but which came to be called al-H . ikma
al-Mashriqiyya, Eastern Wisdom, by some, or al-Mashriqiyyun, The
Easterners, by others, among various other designations. A few partial
copies of the work have survived, including an introduction and parts
either not subject to pillage or copied by Ibn Snas students before
they were stolen. All told, around twelve manuscripts have been found
today that contain sections of the work.2 In addition to the mention of
the work by Ibn Sna himself in the prologue to the Shifa and a few
other places, the work is mentioned, either in virtue of familiarity
with the surviving prologue to the work or of Ibn Snas comments in
the Shifa, by a few later writers including Ibn Rushd and Roger
Bacon.3
Although Ibn Snas own description of the work is spare and the
surviving fragments of it suggest that its content did not differ
significantly from other writings of his in which he outlined the
categories of knowledge according to a strictly logical, Aristotelian
1
The two sources recounting this history are Bayhaqs Tatimma and Ibn-al-Athrs
al-Kamil, and are cited together with full bibliographical information by Dimitri Gutas,
Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition. Introduction to Reading Avicennas Philosophical
Works (Leiden, 1988), p. 117. This summary is drawn from the information given by Gutas
on pp. 11530.
2
For a list of the manuscripts, see Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition, pp. 1201,
and id., Avicennas eastern (oriental) philosophy. Nature, contents, transmission, Arabic
Sciences and Philosophy, 10 (2000): 15980 (pp. 16972).
3
Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition, p. 49. Gutas provides a full list of testimo-
nia mentioning the work by Ibn Sna and others on pp. 11519. Roger Bacon, as Gutas
points out, was familiar with the title through the Latin translation of Ibn Snas prologue
to the Shifa, which has been edited by Aleksander Birkenmajer, Avicennas Vorrede zum
Liber Sufficientiae und Roger Bacon, Revue noscholastique de philosophie, 36 (1934):
30820, reprinted in Birkenmajer, tudes dhistoire des sciences et de la philosophie du
Moyen ge (= Studia Copernicana I) (Wroclaw, 1970), pp. 89101. It can also be pointed out
that Ibn Rushds mention of the text in the Tahafut and in his Quaestiones in Physica were
both available in Hebrew. See Moritz Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des
Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893), pp. 181 and 332.
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 187
framework, a number of later medieval authors refer to Ibn Snas
Oriental Philosophy as a possible source of mystical ideas within
his body of thought. Although the most egregious of those later
mystical interpretations is Ibn T.ufayls H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an, scattered
references have also been found in most of the surviving Hebrew and
Castilian works of the fourteenth century Castilian Jewish convert
to Christianity Abner of Burgos (ca. 1270-ca.1347), known after
his conversion as Alfonso of Valladolid. Astonishingly, Abners cita-
tions appear at first blush to preserve otherwise unknown portions
of Ibn Snas lost work and seem to reveal a decidedly mystical
perspective.
Although scholars have mentioned these references in earlier
studies of Ibn Sna, as we will consider below, no exhaustive consider-
ation of Abners references to the Oriental Philosophy in his Hebrew
or Castilian works has yet been undertaken. It is the purpose of this
article to consider all such known references in Abners work, to
identify and trace Abners sources of this material, and to explain the
significance of these references for the study of Ibn Snas thought in
general and for the scholarly debate over his alleged mystical or
illuminationist tendencies in particular. In addition to evaluating
Abner of Burgos as a possible source of Ibn Snas lost writing, tracing
Abners sources will also shed some light on the spread of the ideas of
Ibn Sna and Ibn T.ufayl among Iberian Jewish intellectuals in the
fourteenth century.

II. THE DEBATE OVER IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY

In order to understand what is at stake in identifying the source or

sources of Abners citations, we need to consider first the various
scholarly positions concerning the meaning of the Easterners and of
mysticism in general within Ibn Snas overall corpus of writing. The
debate over the content of the Easterners has gone on for over a
century within modern Western scholarship. Ever since A. F. Mehren,
following Ibn T.ufayls mention of al-h.ikma al-mashriqiyya (Eastern
Wisdom) in H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an, associated Ibn Snas work with a
mystical tradition in his writing in the 1880s,4 Western scholars have
continued to debate the association of Ibn Snas lost text with a
possible mystical tendency in his philosophy, producing two divergent
critical perspectives. Despite the evidence from the rest of Ibn Snas
writing as well as from surviving portions of the Easterners, all of
which seems to militate against the existence of any mystical strain of
thinking in Ibn Snas writing, the fragmentary state of that and other
4
See, for example, LAllgorie mystique dAvicenne, Le Muson (Louvain), 5 (1885): 41126;
and id., Vues thosophiques dAvicenne, Le Muson (Louvain), 4 (1885): 5949, and 5
(1886): 5267.
188 RYAN SZPIECH

texts has provided a pretext for those arguing that such a strain once
existed and has simply been lost. Seeking to identify within Ibn Snas
ideas the concept of ishraq, or illumination, which is characteristic of
the mystical thought of Suhraward, one group of scholars, most
notably Henri Corbin and his students and, more recently, Seyyed
Hossein Nasr, have argued in favor of the existence of a mystical or
illuminationist tendency in some of Ibn Snas work.5
The attempts of such scholars to in Lenn E. Goodmans words
father upon Ibn Sna a later tradition of mystical theosophy6 have
met with impatience and trenchant criticism from numerous Western
scholars taking the opposite view, arguing that the defense of a
mystical tradition in Ibn Snas writing cannot be substantiated by
solid proof from his own writing and instead represents the personal
beliefs and opinions of individual critics.7 Dimitri Gutas, for example,
who has been among the most persistent and systematic in arguing
5
Some earlier examples of the mystical interpretation of Ibn Sna include Louis Massignon,
Avicenne et les influences orientales, Revue du Caire, 27 (1951): 112; id., La Philosophie
orientale dIbn Sna et son alphabet philosophique, Mmorial Avicenne, 4 (1952): 118;
Louis Gardet, Avicenne et le problme de sa Philosophie (ou sagesse) orientale, Revue du
Caire, 27 (1951): 1322; rpt. in expanded form in La Pense religieuse dAvicenne (Paris,
1951), pp. 239; id., La connaissance mystique chez Ibn Sna et ses prsupposs philo-
sophiques, Mmorial Avicenne, 2 (1952); rpt. in expanded form in La Pense religieuse,
pp. 14396; and Henri Corbin, Avicenna and the Visionary Recital, trans. Willard Trask
(New York, 1960) especially the Postscript (pp. 27180). His student Christian Jambet, in
his La logique des Orientaux. Henry Corbin et la science des formes (Paris, 1983), pp. 7 and
957, n. 26, concedes that the term used by Ibn Sna, mant.iq al-mashriqiyyn, does not
refer to a mystical tradition, which he and Corbin have claimed is expressed instead in the
cycles of Ibn Sna on the theme of H.ayy ibn Yaqz.an. Also relevant is the treatment of
Muh.ammad Abid al-Jabir, Nah.nu wa-al-turath: Qiraat muas. ira f turathina al-falsaf
(Beirut, 1980), pp. 115230, especially 15166. The current defender of the thesis is Seyyed
Hossein Nasr, An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines ([Cambridge, 1964;
revised ed. 1978] second revised ed. Albany, 1993), pp. 18196; id., Ibn Snas oriental
philosophy, in Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Oliver Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic
Philosophy (London and New York, 1996), pp. 24751. Also relevant is Bernd Radtke, How
can man reach mystical union? Ibn T.ufayl and the divine spark, in Lawrence I. Conrad
(ed.), The World of Ibn T. ufayl. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on H. ayy ibn Yaqz. an (Leiden,
1996), pp. 16594 (pp. 1758); and his general discussion of ishraq in Theosophie
(H. ikma) und Philosophie (Falsafa). Ein Beitrag zur Frage der H . ikmat al-mariq/al-iraq,
Asiatische Studien, 42 (1988): 15674.
6
See Lenn E. Goodman, Avicenna (London, 1992), p. 39.
7
For traditional criticism, see C. A. Nallino, Filosofia orientale od illuminativa
dAvicenna?, Revista degli Studi Orientali, 10 (1923-5): 43367, who explicitly disproves
any inherent connection between the terms ishraq and mashriq; S. Pines, La Philosophie
orientale dAvicenne et sa polmique contre les Baghdadiens, Archives dhistoire
doctrinale et littraire du Moyen ge, 27 (1952): 537; and Amlie Marie Goichon, The
Philosophy of Avicenna and Its Influence on Medieval Europe, trans. M. S. Khan (Delhi,
1969), pp. 710. For a full bibliography of the sources related to the question, see Gutas,
Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition, pp. 11530; id., Avicenna: mysticism, in
Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. III, p. 82a-b; id. Avicennas eastern (oriental) philosophy,
pp. 1606; and R. Macuch, Greek and oriental sources of Avicennas and Sohrawardis
theosophies, Greco-Arabica, [Athens] 2 (1983): 922 (p. 11), who allegedly drew his
material from the dissertation of Estiphan Panoussi, La notion de participation dans
la philosophie dAvicenne (Louvain, 1967), pp. 2338. I have not yet seen Panoussis
account.
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 189
against the existence of an oriental tradition in Ibn Sna, points to
the total lack of any mystical or illuminationist ideas in any surviving
fragment of The Easterners or any text by Ibn Sna. Lambasting the
scholarship on the issue as a comedy of errors,8 Gutas maintains,
moreover, that the term mashriqiyya seems to have been simply
Ibn Snas provisional terminology for the Khurasan school of
Aristotelian philosophy as opposed to that of Baghdad.9 Most
importantly for our discussion, he also establishes that Ibn T.ufayls
representation of Ibn Snas views in H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an, which he
characterizes as a deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresenta-
tion of Ibn Snas prologue to the ifa, was a primary force in the
dissemination of a mystical or illuminationist interpretation of Ibn
Sna in the West.10
Although numerous scholars, most recently Aaron Hughes, have
attempted to steer a middle course between these two positions, the
debate over a mystical tradition of oriental wisdom in Ibn Sna
continues to unfold within scholarship of medieval Islamic thought.11
Although it is not the purpose of this study to enter into that dis-
cussion directly, information concerning Abners sources and his un-
derstanding of what he refers to as Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy
among medieval Jewish philosophers can be brought to bear directly
on some of the evidence proffered in that debate, particularly as
it concerns the possible survival of Ibn Snas Easterners in
the Maghrib or the Iberian Peninsula. The survival of two partial
manuscript copies of the Easterners, one in Judeo-Arabic (albeit in an
eastern hand) and the other in Arabic in a Maghrib hand, suggests a
possible transmission route of the text possibly in a more complete
8
See Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition, p. 130.
9
See Gutas, Avicennas eastern (oriental) philosophy, p. 159, n. 1, and the bibliography
mentioned there.
10
Gutas, Avicennas eastern (oriental) philosophy, p. 160. See also his extended discussion
in Ibn T.ufayl on Ibn Snas eastern philosophy, Oriens, 34 (1994): 22241.
11
For a partly critical review of Gutass work, see Michael E. Marmura, Plotting the course
of Avicennas thought, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 111 (1991): 33342; and
Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal, Exprience de la vision contemplative et forme du rcit chez Ibn
T.ufayl, in Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi (ed.), Le voyage initiatique en terre dIslam:
Ascensions clestes et itinraires spirituels (Louvain-Paris, 1996), pp. 15972 (p. 165, n. 25).
See Gutass responses in Avicennas eastern (oriental) philosophy, pp. 1601, n. 7 and
1612, n. 10. The issue has been treated by Miguel Cruz Hernndez, El problema de la
autntica filosofa de Avicena y su idea del destino del hombre, Revista de filosofa
(Madrid), 3rd series, 5.8 (1992): 23556; and again by Julio Csar Crdenas Arenas,
Revisin de la filosofa oriental de Avicena, Transoxiana, 10 (July 2005), URL= http://
www.transoxiana.com.ar/, which provides ample bibliographical information on the ques-
tion. For attempts to strike a middle path between a mystical and philosophical view, see
Ian Richard Netton, Allah Transcendent: Studies in the Structure and Semiotics of Islamic
Philosophy, Theology, and Cosmology (London, 1989), pp. 17489; Peter Heath, Allegory
and Philosophy in Avicenna (Ibn Sna): With a Translation of the Book of the Prophet
Muhammads Ascent to Heaven (Philadelphia, 1992), pp. 15365; and Aaron Hughes, The
Texture of the Divine. Imagination in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Thought (Bloomington,
IN, 2004), pp. 305.
190 RYAN SZPIECH

form in the West and among Jewish readers.12 The question raised
by these manuscripts regarding the survival of Ibn Snas text and
ideas in al-Andalus and/or among Jewish philosophers has been
complicated by the survival of Abners references to Ibn Snas
Oriental Philosophy, leading Mauro Zonta to state that Abner
seems to have transmitted some passages of Avicennas lost meta-
physical section of The Oriental Wisdom [al-H . ikma al-mashriqiyya].
On this basis, he concludes that, a complete identification of his
sources might lead us to discover that the Islamic sources available
and employed by Spanish Jewish scholars in the 14th century were
much wider than we are used to think.13 Even Gutas is led to concede
that, although the passages mentioned by Rabbi Abner as coming
from Avicennas Eastern Philosophy look suspect and cannot be read-
ily identified in any of the extent portions of the work, the question
remains. If Abners references could be shown to be authentic cita-
tions of otherwise lost passages from Ibn Snas writing, they could
possibly offer support of the argument in favor of a mystical or
illuminationist strain in his thought. If, on the other hand, they can be
shown to be references to something other than Ibn Snas own
writing, they could offer further proof of the argument that a mystical
interpretation of Ibn Snas writing reflects a distortion of his writing
that stems ultimately from the claims made by Ibn T.ufayl about
Ibn Snas alleged Oriental Wisdom. Given that Abners writing,
especially his philosophical ideas on determinism, had a direct impact
on later Jewish philosophers in Spain such as H . asdai Crescas, his
references to the Oriental Philosophy raise a serious question about
Ibn Snas dissemination and reception among Jewish intellectuals
in the West.14 The resolution of this issue can contribute, albeit
indirectly, to the ongoing debate over the nature of Ibn Snas ideas
about philosophy and its limits.
12
The Maghrib manuscript is Leipzig 796 Vollers, and the Judeo-Arabic manuscript is
Bodleian Pococke 181, both mentioned by Gutas, Avicennas eastern (oriental) philos-
ophy, p. 171.
13
See Mauro Zonta, Influence of Arabic and Islamic philosophy on Judaic thought, in
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter, 2009 ed. and
previous editions), URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/arabic-
islamic-judaic/; id., The role of Avicenna and of Islamic Avicennism in the 14th-century
Jewish debate around philosophy and religion, Oriente Moderno, 80 (2000): 64760
(p. 653). See also Gutas, Avicennas eastern (oriental) philosophy, pp. 1712. Elsewhere,
Zonta affirms that Abners work was full of Avicennian elements (pregnato di elementi
avicennani) and that Abner seems to have employed the philosophy of Avicenna for an
anti-averroistic function (aver impiegato la filosofia di Avicenna in funzione antiaver-
roistica). See La filosofia ebreica medievale: storia e testi (Rome, 2002), p. 174; and Linee
del pensiero islamico nella storia della filosofia ebraica medievale, Annali dellIstituto
Orientale di Napoli, 57 (1997): 10144, 45083 (p. 461).
14
On Abners impact on Crescas, see Yitzhak Baer, Sefer Minh.at Qenaot of Abner of Burgos
(and its influence on Hasdai Crescas) [Hebrew], Tarbiz. , 11 (1940): 198204; and Sha-
lom Z.adik, Rabbi H.asdai Crescas critique of Aristotelian science and the lost book of Abner
of Burgos [Hebrew], Tarbiz. , 77 (2008): 13356.
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 191
III. THE WRITING OF ABNER OF BURGOS / ALFONSO OF VALLADOLID
(CA. 1270-CA. 1347)

Abners works, most or all of which were written in Hebrew and then
translated in the fourteenth century into Castilian, in all likelihood
either by him or someone close to him, include his magnum opus
known as the Moreh Z.edek (Teacher of Righteousness), which is a
lengthy polemical dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, and his
philosophical treatise on determinism and free will, Minh.at Qenaot
(An Offering of Zeal). Both texts now survive only in fourteenth-
century Castilian versions known as Mostrador de justicia and
Ofrenda de zelos (or, Libro del zelo de Dios), respectively. Another
short work based on the Mostrador called the Libro de la ley survives
only in Castilian and may have been written in that language on the
basis of the Mostrador. His corpus also includes a few works that
survive in both an original Hebrew and translated Castilian version,
such as his Teshuvot la-Meh.aref (Responses to the Blasphemer),
called Respuestas al blasfemo in Castilian, and three untitled philo-
sophical letters. A few other works survive only in Hebrew, and at
least ten more Hebrew works are known for certain to have been
written by Abner but are now lost.15
Most of Abners writings share the same goals: the polemical refu-
tation of Judaism on the basis of Biblical and post-Biblical sources,
the proof, based on such sources, that the Messiah has already come,
and the response to Jewish counter-arguments that attack or reject
Christianity. Although Abner cites widely in his writing, including
more than two thousand different verses from the Hebrew Bible,
hundreds of citations from Talmud and Midrash, and many dozens
more from Muslim and Jewish philosophers, his use of non-Jewish
Arabic philosophical material, when considered alongside his other
sources, comprises only a tiny fraction of his writing. References to
15
The Mostrador de justicia survives in a single manuscript, Bibliothque Nationale de
France MS Espagnol 43, fols. 12r342v, and has been edited by Walter Mettmann, 2 vols.
(Opladen, 1994; 1996). The Libro de la ley is also found in the same manuscript, fols. 1r10v,
and has been edited by Walter Mettmann, Ofrenda de Zelos (Minh.at naot) und Libro de
la Ley (Opladen, 1990), pp. 87118. This same edition, pp. 1386, also includes the Ofrenda
de zelos, a text preserved in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Lat. 6423, fols. 1r41r. This
BAV manuscript also contains the Castilian translation of the Respuestas al blasfemo, fols.
41r89r, as well as that of the three polemical letters, fols. 90r-98r, all of which is found in
Hebrew in Biblioteca Palatina de Parma MS 2440 (De Rossi 533). The Hebrew Teshuvot
has been edited in a doctoral dissertation by Jonathan Hecht, The polemical exchange
between Isaac Pollegar and Abner of Burgos/Alfonso of Valladolid according to Parma MS
2440 Iggeret Teshuvat Apikoros and Teshuvot la-Meh.aref, (Diss. NYU, 1993). The
Castilian version was edited by Mettmann as Tuvot la-Mh.aref. Spanische Fassung
(Opladen, 1998). For full bibliographical information about Abners surviving writing, see
Dwayne Carpenter, Alfonso de Valladolid, in Carlos lvar and Jos Manuel Luca Megas
(eds.), Diccionario filolgico de literatura medieval espaola. Textos y transmisin, (Madrid,
2002), pp. 14052. For a full consideration of Abners lost works, see Ryan Szpiech, From
testimonia to testimony: Thirteenth-century anti-Jewish polemic and the Mostrador de
justicia of Abner of Burgos/Alfonso of Valladolid (Diss. Yale University, 2006), pp. 58592.
192 RYAN SZPIECH

non-Jewish Arabic authors appear in all of Abners major works

(Mostrador de justicia, Ofrenda de zelos, Teshuvot la-Meh.aref, and
Libro de la ley) although his citations of Jewish authors in Arabic
(including Saadyah and above all Maimonides) and in Hebrew
(including Rashi, Nah.manides, David and Joseph Qimh.i, Abraham
bar H.iyya, Abraham ibn Ezra, Abraham ibn Daud, and numerous
others) are much more abundant. Within the substantial body of his
surviving writing, his explicit references to ha-filosofia ha-
mizrah.it, as it is called (and spelled) in his Hebrew texts, or filosofa
oriental as it is called in the Castilian versions, appear on ten
separate folios (see below for specific references). We can compare this
to the overall number of references to Ibn Sna by name in his major
works, which appear on thirty different folios within the surviving
manuscripts (eighteen in the Mostrador, five in the Teshuvot, five in
the Ofrenda de zelos, two in the Libro de la ley).16 These citations of
Ibn Sna account for approximately one-third of his total citations
from Arabic sources written by non-Jewish authors. In addition to Ibn
Sna, Abner cites al-Farab, al-Ghazal, Ibn Bajja, Ibn T.ufayl, Ibn
Rushd, and mentions the names of at least four other figures as well
as a single reference to a story in Kalla wa-Dimna.17 Because they
are, relatively speaking, so few and far between, Abners citations of
what he calls Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy seem at first striking
and anomalous, although a careful consideration of Abners sources
provides a logical explanation of their provenance and their role in
Abners arguments.
The first element to consider in tracing Abners sources is his
language. Not only did he write exclusively or almost exclusively in
Hebrew. He also cited predominantly from Hebrew works, and most of
his citations from Muslim philosophers are from works that were
available in Hebrew translation. Were passages of Ibn Snas Eastern-
ers or some other, unknown text somehow available in Hebrew but lost
in Arabic? A well-known case of such a transmission is the Epistle on
the Possibility of Conjunction with the Active Intellect of Ibn Rushd,
now preserved only in Hebrew along with the Hebrew commentary by
16
This does not count in either case multiple references on the same folio or references in the
Castilian manuscripts if those passages are already represented in an extant Hebrew
version. There is also one reference to Ibn Sna in the Hebrew mathematical work
attributed to Abner, Meyasher Akov, British Museum MS Add. 26984, folio 94a. See the
edition of G.M. Gluskina (Moscow, 1983), p. 139. For a partial index of Abners citations in
all of his principle works, see Szpiech, From testimonia to testimony, pp. 593667.
17
He mentions once in passing the names of Iohannitius (i.e. H . unayn ibn Ish.aq al-Ibad),
Abulcasis (i.e. Abu al-Qasim al-Zahraw), Ben Zohar (i.e. Abu Marwan ibn Zuhr) all in
the Ofrenda de Zelos and twice mentions Algafiqui, whom Mettmann identifies as Abu
al-Qasim Ah.mad al-Ghafiq (d. 1035), better known as Ibn al-S.affar, although I have been
unable to find any passages in his writing that match Abners references. For a brief
consideration of the question, see Szpiech, From testimonia to testimony, p. 597. For a
specific discussion of his reference to Kalla wa-Dimna, see Carlos Sainz de la Maza, Una
fuente no doctrinal de Alfonso de Valladolid, Medievalia, 38 (2006): 1121.
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 193
18
Moses Narboni. Abner, in fact, cites this very text in Hebrew (and
may have collaborated in its translation into Latin).19 The survival of
sections of the Easterners in Maghrib and Jewish manuscripts could
further support the possibility that Abner accessed an otherwise
unknown copy of a text by Ibn Sna such as the Easterners.
This question, however, at least with respect to Abners writing, is
answered by his citations of other philosophers. His references to
classical philosophers besides Aristotle are superficial, and his knowl-
edge of Aristotle seems limited to only a few books such as Physics,
Metaphysics, and most frequently, the De Anima. Along these same
lines, his familiarity with Arabic sources is patchy and idiosyncratic,
suggesting that Abner got his philosophical knowledge from Hebrew
philosophical compendia and commentaries such as the Deot
ha-Filosofim and the commentary on Maimonides, Moreh ha-Moreh,
of Shem Tov ibn Falaquera, texts which do contain references to Ibn
Sna, but do not mention the Easterners or Oriental Philosophy.20
His knowledge of the issues discussed in the sources he cites seems
superficial at best, with the possible exception of his philosophical
18
The text has been edited and translated by Kalman Bland, The Epistle on the Possibility of
Conjunction with the Active Intellect by Ibn Rushd with Commentary of Moses Narboni
(New York, 1982/5742).
19
In the explicit to the Latin translation of another, otherwise unknown text attributed to Ibn
Rushd, the De separatione primi principii, it states that the text was translated by master
Alfonso Dinis of Lisbon in Valladolid, with the help of master Alfonso the convert, sacristan
of Toledo (magistro Alfonso Dionisii de Ulixbona Hispano apud Vallem Toleti, interprete
magistro Alfonso, converso sacrista Toletano). Given that there was no sacristan of Toledo
with this name at that time, Steel and Guldentops propose that Toletano is an error for
Vallis(t)oletano, of Valladolid. This is supported by the fact that Abner, frequently called
Magister Alfonsus, was sacristan of Valladolid and that this text does mention Ibn Snas
Oriental Philosophy in what seems to be a reference to Ibn T.ufayl. See C. Steel and
G. Guldentops, An unknown treatise of Averroes against the Avicennians On the First
Cause, Recherches de thologie et philosophie mdivales, 64 (1997): 86135 (pp. 889 and
12930). This text, preserved only in Oxford Bodleian MS Digby 236, is found with three
other texts of Ibn Rushds, including the De animae beatitudine, one of the two Latin
translations of Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction with Active Intellect.Although the
later text, also found in the sixteenth-century Venetian edition of Latin translations of Ibn
Rushds writing, was translated in the sixteenth century by Calo Calonymos (Kalonymos
ben David the younger, not to be confused with the two fourteenth-century Hebrew
translators of Ibn Rushd with similar names), the editors of the De animae beatitudine
speculate that this text was prepared by Abner and Alfonso Dinis of Lisbon. For their
arguments, see La batitude de lme, ed. Marc Geoffroy and Carlos Steel (Paris, 2001),
pp. 8791. For Abners citations from the Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction with the
Active Intellect (called Libro del ayuntamiento divinal), see Mostrador, vol. I, p. 148 (folio
79v), which corresponds to Bland, The Epistle, pp. 1389; and Mostrador, vol. I, p. 225 (folio
118v), which also appears in a similar passage in the Teshuvot in both Hebrew and
Castilian. For the Hebrew, see Hecht, The polemical exchange, p. 372 (folio 24b) and the
translation on p. 183. For the Castilian, see Teshuvot, ed. Mettmann, p. 39 (folio 52ra), and
the corresponding passage in Bland, The Epistle, p. 65.
20
For references to Ibn Sna in the Moreh ha-Moreh, see Shem Tov ben Joseph ibn Falaquera,
Moreh ha-Moreh, ed. Yair Shifman (Jerusalem, 2001), p. 381 and throughout. On the Deot,
see the introductory remarks by Mauro Zonta in Un dizionario filosofico ebraico del XIII
secolo. Lintroduzione al Sefer Deot ha-Filosofim di Shem Tob ibn Falaquera, ed. and trans.
Mauro Zonta (Torino, 1992).
194 RYAN SZPIECH

ideas on determinism in the Ofrenda de zelos. Abners own evidently

limited understanding of the ideas he does attribute to Ibn Sna,
given the fact that his overall exposure to Arabic philosophy seems
limited to a handful of works in Hebrew translation, makes his
mystical citations from Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy seem wholly
factitious.
The solution to the problem of Abners sources, however, is not to be
found in evidence about the survival or transmission among Western
Jews of Ibn Snas writing, but rather of Ibn T.ufayls representation of
it in his H
. ayy ibn Yaqz. an. Although Abner specifically cites the source
of his statements as Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy, these citations
are all actually direct quotes from Ibn T.ufayls H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an, and
in some cases his references to passages from works by other writers
(such as al-Ghazal and Ibn Bajja) can also be seen to be derived from
Ibn T.ufayls text, which also cites them. Before considering the sig-
nificance of this conclusion, let us look at the evidence supporting it in
more detail.

IV. ABNERS CITATIONS OF IBN T. UFAYL ATTRIBUTED TO IBN SINA

The citations that Abner attributes to Ibn Sna, like most of his
philosophical citations, are not easy to trace. This is due to a number
of factors. Because Abners works survive in a patchwork of Hebrew
and Castilian versions, the citations themselves are often distorted
through translation and are often nearly incomprehensible on their
own. In addition, the philosophical caliber of his thought, when his
ideas can be understood, is generally poor because Abners goals in
citing Ibn Sna are not purely philosophical.21 On the contrary, in
most cases his use of citations attributed to Ibn Sna supports his
21
Only Abners Minh.at Qenaot/Ofrenda de zelos seems to be primarily focused on philosophi-
cal discussions of determinism and free will and only secondarily on polemical issues, and
even this work was the subject of acerbic responses by various writers. Charles Manekin
has maintained that Abners determinism was dependant on Ibn Snas ideas about Gods
knowledge of particulars, arguing that Abners determinism was drawn mostly from the
Stoics, Avicenna, and the astrologers and Abner became committed to Avicennan deter-
minism as a young man. See, respectively, Charles Manekin and Oliver Leaman (eds.), The
Jewish Philosophy Reader (London, 2000), p. 246; and Charles Manekin (ed.), Medieval
Jewish Philosophical Writings (Cambridge, 2007), p. xxi. For a summary of the arguments
concerning determinism in the Minh.at and the responses by Isaac Polgar and Moses
Narboni, see Yitzhak Baer, Sefer Minh.at Qenaot of Abner of Burgos, pp. 198204;
Colette Sirat, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Paris, 1990), pp. 30822;
Charles H. Manekin, Hebrew philosophy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: an
overview, in Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman (eds.), History of Jewish Philosophy
(London, 1997), pp. 35078 (3669); and Seymour Feldman, Divine omnipotence, omnis-
cience, and human freedom, in The Cambridge History of Jewish Philosophy: From
Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 659704 (pp. 68591). Nar-
bonis Maamar ha-Beh.irah (Treatise on Free Will), which contains his response to Abners
determinism, has been edited and translated by Maurice-Ruben Hayoun, Lptre du libre
arbitre de Mose de Narbone (ca. 1300-1362), Revue des tudes Juives, 141, n 12 (1982):
13967.
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 195
anti-Jewish polemical arguments concerning the identity of the
Messiah and the nature of the Trinity, and his discussions of these
issues, moreover, are not systematic or exhaustive. Finally, he fre-
quently mixes parts of one citation with parts of another, blending
different texts together in a single passage without indicating that he
has done so.
In spite of these impediments, however, certain citations are clear
enough to allow us to discern his source without question. The most
effective way to demonstrate these sources is to present full citations
from Abners texts alongside parallel passages from H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an.
Abners first mention of Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy in the
Mostrador, in fact, provides the clearest parallel with Ibn T.ufayls
text:
Ibn Sna showed this secretly in the Oriental Philosophy, in which he said
that the substance of the active intellect has seventy thousand faces and that
each face has seventy thousand mouths and in each mouth are seventy
thousand tongues with which to praise the creator always. [And he says that]
that multiplicity that seems [to be multiple] is not truly a multiplicity.22
This excerpt matches very closely a passage from Ibn T.ufayls text
describing part of H
. ayys mystical vision:
[He saw] an essence free of matter, not one with those he had seen but none
other. Only this being had seventy thousand faces. In every face were seventy
thousand mouths; in every mouth, seventy thousand tongues, with which it
ceaselessly praised, glorified, and sanctified the being of the One who is
Truth. In this being, which he took to be many although it is not, H
. ayy saw joy
and perfection as before.23
The obvious parallel between these two passages provides us with
the key to unlocking his other citations, which are sometimes less
clear but which can still be traced ultimately to the same source.
Another clear parallel between what Abner cites as Ibn Snas
Oriental Philosophy and Ibn T.ufayls H. ayy appears in their identi-
cal use of the same citations from Quran and h.adth. In the Ofrenda
de zelos, Abner explains:

22
E esto mostr el Auiena encubiertamientre en la Filosofia Oriental, en que dixo que la
sustania del entendimiento obrador a ssetenta mill caras, e que en cada cara a setenta mill
bocas, e en cada boca setenta mill lenguas, con que alaban ssienpre al Criador, e que aquella
muchedunbre que paree non es muchedunbre segund uerdat. Abner de Burgos, Mostra-
dor, vol. I, p. 160 (folio 85v). All translations from Abners Castilian works are mine unless
noted otherwise. All Castilian texts follow Mettmanns editions.
23
See Abu Bakr ibn al-T.ufayl, H . ayy ben Yaqdhan. Roman philosophique dIbn Thofal, ed.
and trans. Lon Gauthier (Beirut, 1936), p. 129; and the translation in Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn
Yaqzan, trans. Lenn Evan Goodman (New York, 1972), p. 153. Cf. the Hebrew text in
Maurice-Ruben Hayoun, Mose de Narbonne sur les sefirot, les sphres, et les intellects
spars. Edition critique dun passage de son commentaire sur le H . ayy Ibn Yaqz.an dibn
T.ufayl, avec introduction, traduction, et notes, Jewish Quarterly Review, N.S. 76.2 (1985):
97147 (p. 120).
196 RYAN SZPIECH

Ibn Sna wrote in the Oriental Philosophy that the acts which come from
formed things, which is to say [things] that have forms with which they act,
truly do not exist on account of [those things] nor are they [identical with]
them. Rather, they derive from the doer who does with them the works that
are attributed to them. [This is] like the saying that says, I was the hearing
of him who heard me, and the sight of him who saw me.And [another saying]
that says, I did not shoot when I shot, but God is the one who shot.24
The two citations with which this excerpt ends, which also appear in
the Teshuvot,25 are slightly distorted versions of statements that can
be traced to a well-known h.adth and to Quran 8:17, respectively.26
The same statements can be found together in the same order in Ibn
T.ufayls text:
The acts emerging from forms did not really arise in them, but all the actions
attributed to them were brought about through them by another Being. This
idea to which he had now awakened is the meaning of the Prophets words: I
am the ears He hears by and the sight He sees by. As it is written in the
unshakable Revelation: It was not you but God who killed them; when you
shot, it was not you who shot, but God.27
In addition to this repetition of Quran and h.adth references sources
which Abner never cites anywhere else in any of his writing Abners
allusion to the acts which come from formed things also clearly
parallels Ibn T.ufayls explanation of the acts emerging from forms.
Such obvious parallels help us interpret other, more cryptic refer-
ences to Ibn Sna in Abners writing that would not in themselves
point clearly to Ibn T.ufayl but which can, nevertheless, be traced to
the same source. In his discussion of the Trinity in chapter five of the
Mostrador, Abner asserts that although (in his understanding) the
three persons of the Trinity are one single substance, this does not
mean that the world beyond the Holy Land was left without divinity
when Jesus was incarnate because the appearance of the body does
not reflect the unity of the spirit. One of the proofs he offers of this idea
24
[] Escrivi el Abicepna [sic] en la Philosofia Oriental [sic], que las obras que vienen de
las cosas fformadas, quiere dezir que an fformas con que obren, non son por ellas ssegund
verdat, nin sson dellas, mas sson de obrador que obra con ellas las obras que son anonbradas
a ellas, e como el dezir del que dixo: Ffuy oyr del que oy comigo, e veer del que vio
comigo. E dixo: Non ech quando ech, mas Dios es el qui ech. See Ofrenda, p. 51
(folio 23ra).
25
See Hecht, The polemical exchange, p. 371 (folio 24a) and the translation on pp. 1823.
For the Castilian, see Teshuvot, ed. Mettmann, p. 39 (folio 52ra). In these citations, the text
is attributed to Ibn Sna but the Oriental Philosophy is not named.
26
Ibn T.ufayls words are taken from the well-known h.adth al-nawafil (h.adth of super-
erogatory works) from S . ah.h. al-Bukhar, Riqaq 38, on which see W. A. Graham, Divine
Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam: A Reconsideration of the Sources, with Special
Reference to the Divine Saying or H . adth Quds (The Hague, 1977), p. 173. Shoshanna
Gershenzon, A study of Teshuvot la-meh.aref by Abner of Burgos, (Diss. Jewish Theological
Seminary of New York, 1984), p. 266, n. 41, mistakenly associates these citations in the
Teshuvot with the mystic al-H . allaj.
27
See H . ayy, ed. Gauthier, p. 74 and Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn Yaqzan, trans. Goodman, p. 127.
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 197
is from the Midrash commentary on Genesis Bereshit Rabbah 4.4, in
which Rabbi Meir answered doubts of a Samaritan concerning the
moments when God spoke to Moses. R. Meir shows the Samaritan his
reflection first in a concave and then a convex mirror and concludes,
If you, who are but flesh and blood [] can change yourself at will,
how much more so He at whose word the world came into existence!28
Abner cites this example and then adds tersely, The argument con-
cerning those mirrors and those images that the sages of the Talmud
gave is the same argument concerning mirrors and images that Ibn
Sna gave in the Oriental Philosophy.29 Although this reference
is vague, we can understand that the argument (rrazon) of the
Midrash is a distinction between body and soul in which the multi-
plicity of physical appearance does not imply a multiplicity or division
in spiritual essence. Ibn T.ufayl in fact uses a mirror to express this
very argument: As H . ayy ascends in his mystical vision, he observes
the spheres of the cosmos. For each sphere he witnessed a transcend-
ent immaterial subject, neither identical with nor distinct from those
above, like the form of the sun reflected from mirror to mirror with the
descending order of spheres [].30 In both examples, a single image
is multiplied many times in appearance without losing its original
unity. This passage in Ibn T.ufayls text, moreover, immediately pre-
cedes the first example given above concerning the seventy thousand
faces of the active intellect.
Ibn T.ufayls text not only provides the source for Abners references
to Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy, but it also seems to be his source
for a number of other citations from other philosophers that are often
mixed with references to Ibn Sna. In one passage that appears in both
the Mostrador and the Teshuvot (although in more detail in the
latter), Abner cites the Oriental Philosophy along with another text
from al-Ghazal referring to the lights of the heavens:
The sage, Ibn Sna, compared [the second person of the Trinity] to the sun
when speaking about those same divine lights in the Oriental Philosophy
[] since he has some multiplicity, according to the words of Abu H . amd
[al-Ghazal], there will be at least two [] Thus Abu H
. amid (al-Ghazal) said,
28
See Midrash Rabah ha-Mevoar, 7 vols. in 13 (Jerusalem, 1983), vol. I, pp. 54456; and the
translation in Midrash Rabbah, ed. and trans. H. Freedman, Maurice Simon, et al., 13 vols.
(London, 1939), vol. I, p. 29.
29
E la rrazon daquellos espejos e de aquellas fazes que nonbraron los sabios del Talmud, essa
es misma la razon de los espejos e de las fazes que nonbr el Auicena en la Filosofia
oriental. See Mostrador, vol. I, pp. 2345 (folio 123r). On the use of the parable of the
mirror, see Hayoun, Mose de Narbonne sur les sefirot, les sphres, et les intellects
spars, pp. 1056 and the Hebrew text in Narbonis commentary on pp. 11718. See also
A. Altmann, Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (London and Ithaca N.Y., 1969),
p. 86, n. 45; and Georges Vajda, Recherches sur la philosophie et la kabbale dans la pense
juive du moyen ge (Paris and The Hague, 1962), pp. 396403 (pp. 3979).
30
See H. ayy, ed. Gauthier, pp. 128-9, and Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn Yaqzan, trans. Goodman,
p. 152. Cf. Hayoun, Mose de Narbonne sur les sefirot, les sphres, et les intellects spars,
pp. 11617.
198 RYAN SZPIECH

That which was, (came into being) from what I will not mention. Consider
this well but do not ask me to speak about it.31
Although this citation is from al-Ghazals Munqidh min al-d.alal
(Deliverance from Error), Ibn T.ufayl cites it in his text properly
attributing it to al-Ghazal in the very same passage as one of his
own references to Ibn Snas al-h.ikma al-mashriqiyya.32 The fact
that Abner mixes this citation from al-Ghazal with a reference to Ibn
Snas Oriental Philosophy strongly suggests that Abner took this
citation from Ibn T.ufayl, not directly from al-Ghazal. The fact that
Abner never refers anywhere else to al-Ghazals Munqidh in any of
his writing supports this hypothesis even more.
Despite the fact that Abner seems to have taken some of his
references to al-Ghazal from Ibn T.ufayl, this is not the case for all of
his citations. Immediately before the above citation from the Mun-
qidh, Abner cites directly from al-Ghazals Mishkat al-Anwar, and
this passage appears in almost identical form in the Mostrador on the
same folio as the first citation above concerning the seventy thousand
faces. The version in the Mostrador reads:
About these three persons [in the Trinity] Al-Ghazal wrote in the Book of
Lights that it seemed [to him] in his profound study that unity is derived
from the Obeyed Substance [or Obeyed Existent]. Because, that which is
obeyed, which is comparable to all divine lights following [his] comparison of
the sun to all perceptible lights, is none other than God [].33
This is a direct citation of al-Ghazals Mishkat al-Anwar, chapter 3,
in which the author discusses three categories of those creatures
that are veiled by sheer lights (al-mah.jubun bi-mah.d. al-anwar), a
reference to a h.adth describing Gods seventy veils.34 To these

31
U-kemo she-ha-h.akham ben sina himshilo el ha-shemesh ke-she-hayah medaber be-
otan ha-meorot ha-elohiyot ba-filosofia ha-mizrah.it [] u-ke-she-yiheye lo shum ribui
ke-divrei abu h.aamid ve-lo yiheye pah.ot min shnaim [] ve-le-kakh amar abu h.amid
hayah mah she-hayah mimah she-lo azkireinu. Ve-h.ashov t.ov ve-lo tishal she-
agideinu. See Hecht, The polemical exchange, p. 365 (folio 20b) and the translation on
pp. 169-70, which I have altered slightly. All Hebrew citations follow Hechts edition. The
Castilian reads: Et como el ssabio Auicena le asemej al sol quando fablaua en aquellas
luminarias diuinales en la Philosophia Oriental [] Et auiendo en l alguna muchedu[n-
]bre, como dixo el Algazel, e la muchedunbre no es menos de dos [] Et por esso dixo el
Algazel: Es lo que es de lo que non nonbrar. E pienssa bien, e non preguntes que te lo diga.
See Teshuvot, ed. Mettmann, pp. 334 (folio 50a). Cf. Mostrador, vol. II, p. 55 (folio 164r).
32
See H. ayy, ed. Gauthier, p. 4, and Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn Yaqzan, trans. Goodman, p. 96.
33
E por parte destas tres perssonas escriui el Algazel en el Libro de las lluminarias que
aparesi en su estudio profundado que la sustania seruida [] es tollida della la unidat
[] Ca aquel que es servido, el qual su conparaion a todas las lunbrarias divinales ssegunt
conparaion del sol a todas las lunbrarias sentibles, non es otro ssinon Dios []. See
Mostrador, vol. I, p. 160 (folio 85v).
34
Al-Ghazal, The Niche of Lights, ed. and trans. David Buchman (Provo, Utah, 1998), pp. 44
and 50.
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 199
al-Ghazal then adds a fourth type, those who are arriving (al-
was. ilun), and in this section we can see the source of Abners words.35
Abners comparison of that which is obeyed to divine luminaries
clearly reproduces al-Ghazals identical comparison. Given that
these details are not found in Ibn T.ufayl, we may conclude that Abner
got his source elsewhere, very possibly from a copy of the available
Hebrew translation of al-Ghazal.36 Nevertheless, we can still connect
this citation to Ibn T.ufayls text, which paraphrases this very same
passage.37 Given his citation of al-Ghazal through Ibn T.ufayls text in
other passages such as the first example considered above, we might
surmise that Abner found his way to this section of al-Ghazals text
from the reference to it in H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an.
Even though we cannot prove this hypothesis, it is certain that
Abner follows his references to al-Ghazals Mishkat al-Anwar with
more references to Ibn T.ufayls text under the title of Ibn Snas
Oriental Philosophy. After describing al-Ghazals image of the
prime mover (the one who is obeyed) as the sun among the other
luminaries, Abner adds that that one that is obeyed [] is none
other than God [] Plato called it Divine Logos, just like Ibn Sna
compared it to the sun in the Oriental Philosophy.38 In the Teshuvot,
he repeats this phrase exactly, again in the context of al-Ghazals
discussion of the obeyed existent.39 Although we might be tempted
to see this as a confusion of Ibn Snas name with al-Ghazal, the key
phrase, He compared it to the sun (le asemej al sol), leads us to
another revealing passage in Abners writing in which he explicitly
mentions Ibn Sna without specifically naming the Oriental Philos-
ophy. Approximately thirty folios after the first use of this phrase
Oriental Philosophy in the Mostrador, Abner states:
Ibn Sna wrote that the separate intelligences are not God himself, nor are
they something else, and [he wrote] that they are not the souls of the spheres,
nor are they something else. He likened them to the light of the sun, which
shines on bodies, because that is nothing other than the light of the sun

35
To them it has been disclosed that the one who is obeyed is described by an attribute that
contradicts sheer oneness and utmost perfection [] [It is also disclosed] that the relation-
ship of this one who is obeyed is that of the sun among the lights. See al-Ghazal, The Niche
of Lights, p. 51.
36
See Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 3458. The text was available in
the translation of one Isaac ben Joseph al Fas from the 13th century, under the title
Maskit ha-Orot be-Pardes ha-Niz.anim.
37
Ibn T.ufayl states, After discussing those veiled by light, [Al-Ghazal] goes on to speak of
those who achieve communion with the divine. He says they know this Being as character-
ized by an attribute which would tend to negate His utter unity. See H . ayy, ed. Gauthier,
pp. 1718, and Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn Yaqzan, trans. Goodman, p. 102.
38
Aquel que es seruido [] non es otro ssinon Dios [] Platon le llam Uierbo de Dios, assi
como el Auiena le asemej al sol en la Filosofia oriental. Mostrador, vol. I, p. 160 (folio
85v).
39
See Hecht, The polemical exchange, p. 365 (folio 20b) and the translation on p. 169. For
the Castilian, see Teshuvot, ed. Mettmann, pp. 334 (folio 50ra).
200 RYAN SZPIECH

falling on a body. If the body is taken away, the light would be taken away,
without the light being taken away.40
This passage closely matches Ibn T.ufayls text in the latters descrip-
tion of the culmination of H
. ayys mystical vision:
[] His identity was none other than that of the Truth. His true self was the
Truth. What he had once supposed to be himself, as distinct from the Truth,
was really nothing in itself, but was in reality in no way discrete from the
Truth. When sunlight falls on opaque bodies and becomes visible, it may bear
some relation to the object it lights up, but is never really anything other than
sunlight. When the body is gone, so is its light, but the suns light remains the
same, not increased by the objects absence or diminished by its presence.41
The conjunction of the paradoxical language of affirmation and denial
(they are not [] nor are they something else / that is really nothing
other [] but was in reality in no way discrete []) together with the
imagery of the sun (which shines on bodies / falls on opaque bodies)
again evinces Ibn T.ufayls text as Abners source. Further parallels
with this passage in Abners other writing also confirm this, and show
that Abners claim that Ibn Sna compared [the prime mover] to the
sun is, in this case, a reference to Ibn T.ufayls text, not al-Ghazals.42
Beyond simply offering another example of the parallels between
Abners references to Ibn Sna and Ibn T.ufayls H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an that
are, by now, clearly evident, the passage cited above also leads us to
another, important aspect of Abners source base. The statement by
Ibn T.ufayl that H . ayy believed that His identity was none other than
the truth. His true self was the Truth, can likewise be connected with
another phrase repeated throughout Abners work, such as in the
Teshuvot when Abner affirms, Ibn Sna wrote in the Oriental Phil-
osophy that the true essence of the perfect man is the true essence of
God, without any change and variation.43 This phrase is found once
40
E escriui el Avicena que las intelligenias separadas non son Dios mismo, nin otra cosa, e
que non son ellas almas de las esperas, nin otra cosa. E asemjalas a la luz del sol, que
esclarese sobre los cuerpos, que ello non es otra cosa sinon la luz del sol proporcionada al
cuerpo. Que ssi se tolliese el cuerpo, tollerse-a su luz, de sin tollerse la luz. See Mostrador,
vol. I, p. 222 (folio 117r).
41
See H. ayy, ed. Gauthier, p. 123, and Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn Yaqzan, trans. Goodman, p. 150.
Cf. Hayoun, Mose de Narbonne sur les sefirot, les sphres, et les intellects spars, p. 120.
42
In a parallel passage in Libro de la ley, Abner states: And as the sage Ibn Sna wrote, when
the body on which the sun was shining was taken away, [the suns] light was removed
without removing its light. And also when it shines on it, its light will return without its
light being returned. (E como lo escrivi el savio Aviena que quando se tolli el cuerpo
sobre que esclarei el sol, tolliosse la su luz de ssin que sse tolli la luz; e assi quando
esclareiere sobrl, renovarse-a la su luz de ssin que sse renueve la luz.) See Ofrenda, 99
(Ley folio 5v). This directly matches the rest of the passage from Ibn T.ufayl cited above,
although Abner seems to have misunderstood the text. Ibn T.ufayls explanation continues:
If an object comes along capable of taking on this type of light, then it receives it; if no such
object is present there is no reflecting and no occasion for it. See H. ayy, ed. Gauthier, p. 123,
and Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn Yaqzan, trans. Goodman, p. 150.
43
Ve-khen katav ben sina be-filosofia ha-mizrah.it she-amitut ez.em ha-adam ha-shalem
hi amitut ez.am ha-eloha bli shum shinui ve-h.iluf. See Hecht, The polemical exchange,
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 201
44
in the Libro de la ley and repeatedly in the Mostrador, and in
this latter example he specifies that this is proved in the Oriental
Philosophy.45
Curiously, however, Abner cites this very same phrase in a different
section in the Mostrador and attributes it to something other than the
Oriental Philosophy. Twenty folios earlier in the text, after explicitly
referring the reader to the passage containing the very first mention
of Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy (cited above), Abner notes that
Ibn Sna said about Hiel ben Huriel [] that the perfect man should
without a doubt be called God.46 We might be tempted to see this as
a reference to Ibn Snas own text H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an, which was
translated into Hebrew in the twelfth century by Abraham Ibn Ezra.
Nevertheless, the title given by Abner is revealing: Ibn Ezra trans-
lated Ibn Snas work under the title H . ay ben Meqiz., and the name
given by Abner Hiel ben Huriel is none other than Yeh.iel ben
Uriel, the title given to Ibn T.ufayls text in the 1349 Hebrew
commentary by Provenal philosopher Moses Narboni.47 Although it
is difficult to spot exact matches between Abners references and
Narbonis citations of Ibn T.ufayl because of the distortions of Abners
text through translation and his own eclectic interpretations, Abners
use of this title throughout the Mostrador rather than Ibn Ezras
points clearly to their use of the same Hebrew translation. It also
supports a dating of the Hebrew translation of Ibn T.ufayls text used
by Narboni to before 1320 and suggests that Narboni was not the first
to use this title for the work in Hebrew, although he specifically states
that I called it (karato) Yeh.iel ben Uriel, in distinction from both

p. 371 (folio 23v) and the translation on pp. 1801. The Castilian reads, E assi escriui el
Auicena en la Philosophia Oriental que la uerdaderia de la substancia del omne conplido,
aquella es la uerdaderia de Dios, sin ningun mudamiento nin contrariedat. See Teshuvot,
ed. Mettmann, p. 38 (folio 51vb).
44
See Ofrenda de zelos, p. 111 (folio 10r), where he again mentions filosofa oriental
explicitly.
45
[] la uerdaderia de la sustancia del omne conplido es la verdaderia de dios, ssin ningun
demudamiento, como es prouado en la Filosofa oriental. See Mostrador, vol. II, p. 55 (folio
164r).
46
Dixo el Auicena por Hiel ben Huriel [] que el omne conplido es mester sin dubda que sea
llamado dios. Mostrador, vol. II, pp. 1011 (folio 144r).
47
Ibn Snas text is available in H
. ayy ibn Yaqz. an, ed. Ahmad Amn (Cairo, 1952), and has been
translated by Corbin, Avicenna and the Visionary Recital, pp. 13750. On Ibn Ezras
translation, see Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 2856; and Aaron W.
Hughes, The Texture of the Divine, pp. 213 and 11925, as well as his English translation
of the text on pp. 189207. The Hebrew text, available in multiple manuscripts, has been
published as Iggeret H . ay ben Mekitz, ed. Israel Levin (Tel Aviv, 1983). For an example of
Narbonis use of this title in his commentary on Ibn T.ufayls text, see the edition of
Maurice-Ruben Hayoun, Moses Narbonis (13001362) Kommentar zum Hayy ibn Yaqzan
des ibn Tufayl (ob. 1185), Trumah, 12 (2002): German Section, pp. 199204 and Hebrew
section, pp. 125 (Hebrew p. 2). The German introduction was printed in expanded form
under the same title in Werner Arnold and Hartmut Bobzin (eds.), Sprich doch mit deinen
Knechten aramisch, wir verstehen es! 60 Beitrge zur Semitistik. Festschrift fr Otto
Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag (Weisbaden, 2002), pp. 21735.
202 RYAN SZPIECH
48
. ayy ibn Yaqz. an and H
H . ay ben Meqiz.. Given that it is known that
Narboni responded directly to Abners ideas on determinism, the fact
that both writers seem to have used the same Hebrew translation of
Ibn T.ufayl further raises the question of Abners possible impact on
Narbonis ideas in his commentary. In any case, when Abner mentions
what Ibn Sna said about Yeh.iel ben Uriel, he is again referring to
what he elsewhere calls Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy, by which he
consistently means Ibn T.ufayls H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an.
Finally, we can note that numerous other references to Ibn Sna
that do not mention the Oriental Philosophy likewise derive from
Ibn T.ufayl. To take just one example from the Mostrador:
Ibn Sna said that the perfect man has a separate intellect, because if it were
possible that the active intellect be divided, we would say that it was part of
him. Were it not that [the separate intellect] was [created] anew after not
having been, we would say that it was the same [as the active intellect], and
if it did not take on a body when it was made anew, we would say that it was
not made anew. In this way they [separate intellects] are substances that
were [in existence] and then ceased to be. They are, without a doubt, with it
[the active intellect] in being, and that their number is infinite in quantity, if

48
Hayoun, Moses Narbonis (13001362), Hebrew p. 2. Because the date of the Castilian
translation of the Mostrador from the original Hebrew is uncertain, and because Narboni is
known to have completed his commentary in 1349, Abners use of this title, Yeh.iel ben
Uriel in the Mostrador could potentially be misunderstood as a change added into the
Castilian translation in light of Narbonis text, thus dating the Castilian version of the
Mostrador to after 1348. However, Abner uses this same name in the original Hebrew
Teshuvot (See Hecht, The polemical exchange, p. 382 (folio 29b) and the translation on
p. 210, and the Castilian Teshuvot, ed. Mettmann, p. 59 (folio 58ra)), in a section of the text
found near another passage that closely repeats a passage from the Mostrador. These
details indicate that Abner almost certainly used this title, Yeh.iel ben Uriel, in the
original Hebrew of the Mostrador, the Moreh Z.edek, thus suggesting that the use of this
name for Ibn T.ufayls text predated Narbonis commentary by almost thirty years at least.
Although we cannot say if this title was first used by Abner or in the Hebrew translator of
Ibn T.ufayls text, we can conclude that Moses Narboni certainly took the title from an
earlier source. See also the comments of Moshe Idel, Golem. Jewish Magical and Mystical
Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid (Albany, 1990), p. 190, n. 49. We can also note that
despite the suggestion a century and a half ago by Steinschneider (Die hebraeischen
Uebersetzungen, p. 365) that the Hebrew translation of Ibn T.ufayls H . ayy was anonymous
and could be dated to the early fourteenth century, the error still persists that Narboni
himself undertook this translation as part of his commentary in 13489. However, as
Maurice-Ruben Hayoun notes, Narboni did not translate any of the works he commented
upon, and the evidence provided by Abners texts, above all the noteworthy mention of this
Hebrew title by Narboni three decades later, further supports this chronology. See Maurice-
Ruben Hayoun, Le commentaire de Mose de Narbonne (1300-1362) sur le H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an
dIbn T.ufayl (mort en 1185), Archives dhistoire doctrinale et littraire du Moyen ge, 62
(Paris, 1988): 2398 (p. 26, n. 1); and id., La philosophie et la thologie de Mose de Narbonne
(13001362) (Tbingen, 1989), p. 39. Elsewhere in the Mostrador (vol. I, p. 22, folio 17r),
Abner shows familiarity with the Arabic title as well, which he calls Hay ben Yacsami.
Finally, we can emphasize that the question of the influence of Abners ideas about
Ibn T.ufayl and Arabic philosophy in general on Narboni have yet to be investigated, but
given Narbonis well-known direct response to Abners determinisitic philosophy, such an
influence is by no means unlikely. On Narbonis response to Abners philosophy, see above,
n. 21.
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 203
there could be said to be quantity in them, and they are all one, if one could
say there was one in them.49
Although the Oriental Philosophy is not named, nevertheless this
confusing passage again comes directly from Ibn T.ufayl. Speaking
again about the seventy thousand faces of the active intellect seen by
H.ayy, Ibn T.ufayl explains:
If it were permissible to single out individuals from the identity of the
seventy thousand faces [of the active intellect], I would say that he was one of
them. Were it not that his being was created originally, I would say that they
were he. And, had this self of his not been individuated by a body on its
creation, I would have said that it had not come to be. From this height he
saw other selves like his own, that had belonged to bodies that had come to be
and perished, or to bodies with which they still coxisted. There were so
many (if one may speak of them as many) that they reached infinity. Or, if one
may call them one, then all were one [].50
Here, Abners mention of the possibility that the active intellect be
divided (recibir partimiento) corresponds to the Ibn T.ufayls men-
tion of singling out individuals from the faces of the active intellect,
just as his mention of the separate intellect being created anew after
not having been (nueuamient despues que non fue) corresponds to
Ibn T.ufayls statement that H . ayys being was created originally
(h.adathat bada an lam takun, it was new after not being). In
various other passages in the Mostrador, Abner similarly attributes
passages from Ibn T.ufayl to Ibn Sna without mentioning the Orien-
tal Philosophy or any other specific title.51 In fact, almost all substan-
tive references to Ibn Sna in Abners writing can be traced to Ibn
T.ufayl.

V. CONCLUSION

Establishing that Ibn T.ufayl was the primary source of Abners

references to Ibn Sna solves part of the mystery, but it does not
explain how such a misattribution came about. Looking at Moses
Narbonis commentary on Ibn T.ufayls text, it is clear that Abner was
49
E assi dixo el Auiena que el omne conplido ha intelligenia separada, que si pudiesse ser
que rrescibiesse partimiento la intelligencia postrimera [] que es dicha en nonbre proprio
entendimiento obrador, diriamos que era parte della. E ssinon porque fue nueuamient
despues que non fue, diriamos que ella es misma, e sinon porque sse apropri en su cuerpo
quando fue fecha de nueuo, diriamos que non fue fecha de nueuo, e que en esta manera son
sustanias que fueron e despues sse arremataron, e que son con l en el ser ssin dubda, e que
son sin fin en cuento, si pudiese sser dicho cuento en ellas, e que son todas vna, si pudiese
ser dicho vna en ellas. See Mostrador, vol. I, p. 223 (folio 117v).
50
See H. ayy, ed. Gauthier, p. 130, and Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn Yaqzan, trans. Goodman, p. 153.
51
Another example of citations of Ibn T.ufayl attributed to Ibn Sna without mention of the
Oriental philosophy is Mostrador, vol. II, p. 16 (folio 146v), which seems to correspond to
. ayy, ed. Gauthier, pp. 1278, and Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn Yaqzan, trans. Goodman, p. 152.
H
See above, n. 25, for another example from the Teshuvot.
204 RYAN SZPIECH

not the only Jewish philosopher of his generation to accept Ibn

T.ufayls assertions about Ibn Sna at face value. In the introduction to
his commentary, Narboni specifically mentions the secrets of Eastern
Wisdom (sodot ha-h.okhmah ha-mizrah.it) and Ibn Snas Eastern
Philosophy (ha-filosofia ha-mizrah.it), explaining that these
secrets refer to the conjunction of the first intellect with other
intellects. As Hayoun notes, although Narboni generally criticizes Ibn
Sna in his text, he follows Ibn T.ufayl in praising his alleged mystical
ideas.52 Narbonis ideas about Ibn Snas Eastern Wisdom were, like
Abners, derived from Ibn T.ufayl.
This does not, however, explain Abners misascription of Ibn
T.ufayls words to Ibn Sna. Such an error cannot be attributed to the
manuscript tradition of the Hebrew translation of Ibn T.ufayl, insofar
as it is represented in the copies of Narbonis commentary.53 Narboni
identifies the text upon which he is commenting as Ibn T.ufayls and
makes no mention in his commentary of any confusion concerning
authorship of the text. I am unaware of any other manuscript exam-
ples in which Ibn T.ufayls text is actually confused with Ibn Snas, the
clear impact of Ibn T.ufayls ideas notwithstanding.
There is, however, a curious passage in the Mostrador that helps us
explain Abners use of Ibn T.ufayl. After mentioning Ibn Rushds
Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction with the Active Intellect,
he claims that Ibn Sna also praises union with the divine in the
Oriental Philosophy. A few lines after, he adds:
And Ibn T.ufayl also [praised union with the divine] when he told the story of
Hylel ben Huriel. In the beginning of the book, [it was] as if he criticized the
one who said I am praised and exalted. How high is my state! and the one
who said, I am God. He then greatly praised [the knowledge] that Yeh.iel

52
For Narbonis mention of Ibn Sna and the Oriental philosophy, see Hayoun, Moses
Narbonis (13001362) Kommentar zum Hayy ibn Yaqzan, Hebrew p. 3. See also Hayouns
comments on German p. 202.
53
There are well over a dozen manuscript copies of the Hebrew translation with Narbonis
commentary. For a more complete listing, see Aaron Freimann, Union Catalog of Hebrew
Manuscripts and Their Location, 2 vols. (New York, 1964 and 1973), vol. II, p. 39 (#943),
p. 91 (#2395), and p. 119 (#3104-5); Maurice-Ruben Hayoun, Le commentaire de Mose de
Narbonne, pp. 289; and id., Moses Narbonis (13001362) Kommentar zum Hayy ibn
Yaqzan, German pp. 2012. On the text of Narbonis commentary, see also G. Vajda,
Comment le philosophe juif Mose de Narbonne, commentateur dIbn Tufayl, comprenait-il
les paroles extatiques (at.ah.at) des Soufis? Actas del Primer Congreso de Estudios rabes
e Islmicos (Madrid, 1964), pp. 12935; rpt. Mlanges Georges Vajda (Hildesheim, 1982),
pp. 27581; and Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 36366. The fullest
consideration of the content of Narbonis commentary on Ibn T.ufayl is Hayoun, Le
commentaire de Mose de Narbonne; and id., La philosophie et la thologie de Mose de
Narbonne (13001362), pp. 3941, 1379, 16871, 17985, 20713, 24245. The text itself
was partly edited by Hayoun, Moses Narbonis (1300-1362) Kommentar zum Hayy ibn
Yaqzan, Hebrew pp. 125.
 IBN SINAS ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY 205
achieved at the end of his great, holy study, [namely] that the truth of his
substance was the truth of God without any alteration.54
These mystical exclamations were made by Abu Yazd al-Bist.am (d.
ca. 875) and al-H . allaj (d. 922), and are cited by Ibn T.ufayl in the very
beginning of H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an, just as Abner states. The fact that
Abner names Ibn T.ufayl and the Hebrew rendering of H . ayy is in itself
striking, given that he consistently cites the same text throughout the
Mostrador and his other works as Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy. It
is also striking that the phrase he uses to describe what H . ayy under-
stood in his mystical vision, viz. that the truth of his substance was
the truth of God without any alteration, is the very same phrase he
elsewhere attributes to Ibn Snas text. What is most striking of all is
that he makes this explicit attribution to Ibn T.ufayl only a few lines
after mentioning Ibn Sna and the Oriental Philosophy by name!
After having already demonstrated Abners attribution of Ibn
T.ufayls text to Ibn Sna, what sense can we make of this citation? The
mention here of the Hebrew title of Ibn T.ufayls H . ayy shows that, even
though he already associated Ibn Sna with this title, as we saw above,
he was aware that this text was written by Ibn T.ufayl.55 The only
possible explanation is that Abner knew he was taking his sources
from Ibn T.ufayls text, but made a distinction between the philosophi-
cal introduction to H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an and the story itself that follows.
In the introduction, Ibn T.ufayl speaks about Ibn Sna along with
numerous other philosophers, and when Abner cites from this section,
he generally recognizes his sources (such as al-Ghazal and Ibn Bajja)
by name, not confusing them with Ibn Sna.56 When he cites from the
54
E assi como ffizo el ssabio Ben Tuffayl, quando cont ffazienda de Hylel ben Huriel, que en
comieno del libro como que despreciaua al que dixo: Alabado sso e enxalado. Qunto
grande es el mi grado! e al que dixo: Yo sso Dios. E despues alabaua mucho a lo que alcan
Yehiel en la ffin del ssu grant estudio santo que la uerdaderia de su sustancia era la
uerdaderia de Dios ssin demudamiento ninguno. See Mostrador, vol. II, p. 54 (folios
163v164r). This passage closely resembles an earlier passage in the Mostrador, vol. I,
p. 178 (folio 94r). Abner also repeats these citations again and names Ibn T.ufayl directly on
the following folio, Mostrador, vol. II, p. 57 (folio 164v), following the general allusion to this
passage in vol. I, p. 196 (folio 104r). He elsewhere cites this without naming a source, for
which see Hecht, The polemical exchange, p. 372 (folio 24r-v) and the translation on
p. 183. For the Castilian, see Teshuvot, ed. Mettmann, p. 39 (folio 52ra).
55
For Abners association of Ibn Sna with the title H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an, see Mostrador, vol. II,
pp. 1011 (folio 144r). On Ibn Snas text, see above, n. 47.
56
A further example of this could possibly be provided by Abners citations of Ibn Bajja, in
which he seems to summarize, in confused fashion, Ibn T.ufayls references to him. Compare
Mostrador, vol. I, p. 200 (folio 106r) and vol. I, p. 218 (folio 115); Libro de la ley, folio 10r,
printed in Ofrenda, p. 111; Ofrenda, pp. 5960, (folios 28vb29ra); and H . ayy, ed. Gauthier,
p. 5 and Ibn Tufayls Hayy ibn Yaqzan, trans. Goodman, p. 96. This possibility is supported
by the fact that Abner clearly took his other citations from Ibn Bajja from Maimonidess
Guide of the Perplexed, 1:74, suggesting that his direct exposure to Ibn Bajjas ideas may
have been limited to what he found in other sources. Compare Mostrador, I, 212 (folio 112r)
and Teshuvot in Hecht, pp. 3512 (folio 14r) and the translation on p. 140, along with the
Castilian in Teshuvot, ed. Mettmann, p. 23 (folio 46rb), and Maimonides, Dalalat al-h.airn,
text established by S. Munk, ed. Issachar Joel (Jerusalem, 5691/1930-1), p. 155; and Guide
206 RYAN SZPIECH

story itself, however, he consistently refers to the text as Ibn Snas

Oriental Philosophy. This follows the impression created by Ibn
T.ufayl in the introduction, in which he begins by stating that he is
setting out to reveal the secrets of oriental Philosophy mentioned by
the prince of philosophers, Ibn Sna and mentions Ibn Sna again in
the very last paragraph of the introduction before beginning the tale.
Thus, Abner knowingly drew many of his philosophical sources from
Ibn T.ufayls introduction which he recognized as such, despite a few
careless errors and what he cites as Ibn Snas Oriental Philosophy
is, following Ibn T.ufayls lead, the tale of H.ayy ibn Yaqz.an told within
his text. This distinction seems to be due to Abners own peculiar
reading of the text rather than a confusion within the Hebrew trans-
lation of the text, because Moses Narboni in his commentary neither
confuses Ibn Snas name with the story portion of Ibn T.ufayls text in
the same way nor comments on such a confusion in the translation he
is using. It is noteworthy, however, that Narboni does mention the
Oriental Philosophy of Ibn Sna elsewhere.57
This conclusion not only lays to rest the belief that Abner somehow
cites passages of Ibn Snas text not extant in any other source, but it
also forestalls any possible use of evidence from Abners text to
establish a connection between it and any surviving Judeo-Arabic and
Maghrib manuscripts of the Easterners or to support a possible
mystical reading of Ibn Sna. It also adds additional evidence to
Gutass argument that imputes the mystical interpretation of Ibn
Sna in the West to Ibn T.ufayls characterization of the h.ikma
58
al-mashriqiyya in H . ayy ibn Yaqz. an. Finally, beyond pointing to the
fruitful and often neglected role that Romance sources can play in the
study of Hebrew and Arabic texts in the Iberian Peninsula, it suggests
that Abners knowledge of Ibn Sna was not as deep or as detailed as
has been previously proposed, and invalidates, or at least calls into
doubt, the argument that Abners deterministic philosophy was heav-
ily dependant on Ibn Sna.59 As this evidence makes clear, the baffling
case of Abner of Burgoss citations of the Oriental Philosophy per-
tains not to the history of the dissemination of Ibn Snas texts in the
West, but instead to that of the impact of Ibn T.ufayls ideas among
late-medieval Sephardic Jewry, and provides an interesting point of
comparison in the history of Ibn T.ufayls influence on later Jewish
thinkers such as Moses Narboni, Abraham Bibago, and Yoh.anan
Alemanno.

of the Perplexed, trans. S. Pines, (Chicago, 1963), See also Hechts note, The polemical
exchange, p. 140, n. 224.
57
Steinschneider notes that he cites it in his commentary on the Kawanot ha-filosofim, a
Hebrew translation of al-Ghazals Maqas. id al-Falasifa, surviving in a multitude of manu-
scripts. See Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 181 and 31116.
58
Gutas explores this characterization in Ibn T.ufayl on Ibn Snas eastern philosophy.
59
On Abners determinism and its alleged connection to Ibn Sna, see above n. 21.