Daniel al-Qūmisī
(1,698 words)
Daniel al-Qūmisī (often referred to as Daniel b. Moshe, fl. third/ninth–tenth centuries) was a scholar and leader of the Karaite movement (a Jewish movement that denied the authority of the rabbinic tradition) and the second-earliest Karaite author, whose works have survived in part. He influenced the development of the Karaite group known as the “Mourners of Zion” (see below).
He was born in Dāmghān, in the province of Qūmis, in northeastern Iran, apparently in the middle of the third/ninth century. Little is known about Daniel’s life. From his writings it may be concluded that he left Iran not later than 261/875 and that, after wandering through several Jewish communities in the Fertile Crescent, he settled in Jerusalem in about 266–7/880, where he was active for about twenty-five years. He was evidently the first eminent Karaite leader to settle in Jerusalem, thus beginning almost two centuries of the most important and formative centre in Karaite history, a period that has been labelled by modern scholars “the golden age of Karaism.” He may be considered the founder of “true” Karaism, that is, the rejection in principle of the authority of any oral tradition as a legitimate source of legislation and the promotion, instead, of the principle of individual interpretation of scripture. Subsequent generations of Karaite authorities replaced these principles with their tradition (Heb. sevel ha-yerusha, “the burden of inherited [tradition]”), which was independent of the Rabbanite one. Daniel apparently belonged at first to the ʿAnanites (named for ʿAnan b. David) but later belittled ʿAnan and opposed certain of his legal views. Daniel also consistently urged his followers to rely only on their own interpretation of scripture: “rely not on my opinion,” the second half of the maxim ascribed to ʿAnan b. David—the first half reads “search the Torah well”—faithfully represents his legal thought. According to the fourth/tenth-century Karaite author al-Qirqisānī (al-Anwār, 1:4), “he would accept any conclusion arrived at by reasoning…and would acknowledge changes whenever they occurred in regard to opinions he had expressed in his writings.”
Daniel signaled the direction that would predominate in the Karaite centre in Jerusalem, namely, intensive engagement in the study of the Bible and its exegesis and perpetual mourning for the destruction of the Temple, for which the Karaites had become known as Avelei Zion (“The mourners of Zion”). The perpetual mourning was expressed also in their ascetic lifestyle.
Daniel’s main works were his commentaries on the Bible, which served as a vehicle for propagating his views on all major issues. His most complete extant work is Pitron Sheneim ʿAsar, a commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets (Markon). Its attribution to Daniel has been questioned by Marwick, as has the primacy of the Hebrew language of the work (as opposed to its possibly being a translation from an Arabic original). Another work that contains his views on matters of law, the mourning for Zion, and religious thought is an epistle/tract (according to Mann) or a sermon (according to Nemoy). Both works are written in Hebrew, interspersed with numerous Arabic glosses and some Persian ones. Fragments of exegetical and homiletic works in a similar style have been ascribed by modern scholars to Daniel. His biblical commentaries are perhaps the earliest extant Jewish ones from the Middle Ages, but his frequent references to earlier exegetes prove that he was not the first. His works include the earliest Karaite terminological and occasionally ideological parallels to the Dead Sea (Qumrān) Scrolls. Several modern scholars (notably Wieder) have argued also that certain exegetical approaches that are typical of the Scrolls—notably the pesher approach, which seeks to find in the biblical text an inner meaning that alludes to the reality of the place and time of the interpreter—have parallels in early Karaite exegesis, starting with Daniel. It has, however, been argued that actualising interpretations—i.e., attempts to locate in the biblical text allusions to the actual reality in the post-biblical circumstances of respective commentators—are not necessarily identical with pesher. Daniel supplies brief comments intended to explain the “plain” meaning of the biblical text, sometimes referring to its historical circumstances, while often alluding to its relevance to his own time. Ostensibly, he insists that the biblical text has one true meaning, but he often suggests alternative meanings.
In his religious thought it is possible to discern, through the primitive Hebrew terminology, echoes of Muslim Muʿtazilī kalām (dialectal theology), although he repeatedly condemns the resort to “foreign” ideologies and rationalistic investigation. This relationship is exemplified by the fact that his epistle/sermon includes the first attempt in Jewish mediaeval thought to impose a binding set of normative beliefs (articles of faith) that are centred on the Creator’s oneness and justice. This is certainly the first appearance of Muʿtazilī theology in a Jewish context and the oldest attempt at a Hebrew rendition of such terminology. Interestingly, he interprets “angels” as natural forces, such as fire and water, sent as divine emissaries and consequently denies the existence of angels in the traditional sense. This can be seen as a response to the view of Benjamin al-Nihāwandī (fl. first half of third/ninth century), who is said to have professed that the material world was created by an angel-creator (along the lines of Plato’s demiourgos). Another manuscript fragment (published by Zucker) is said to be the beginning of a book that is a Judaeo-Arabic “rationalist exposition of [God’s] unity as expressed by the prophets of Israel, expounded by Daniel, son of Moses.” The line of argumentation reflects typical Muʿtazilī usage and accords with similar discussions ascribed to al-Qūmisī. This may thus be the earliest attempt in the Middle Ages to formulate a theological system that, at the same time, is thoroughly impregnated with biblical theology and reflects current Muʿtazilī thought. The author of this treatise seems to feel more at home in the Judaeo-Arabic language than in Hebrew.
Daniel’s works contain bitter criticism of the Rabbanites and the degeneration of the Jewish people through the pursuit of worldly occupations and pleasures. He blamed the prolongation of the Exile on the failure of the Rabbanite “shepherds of the diaspora” to follow strictly the literal meaning of scripture in favour of “man-made laws” (i.e., rabbinic tradition). He especially condemned the arrogance of the rabbis and their officials and their economic exploitation of the people. According to Daniel, the Torah was at first in the possession of a restricted group, “the Priests and Levites, together with the king.” After the destruction of the First Temple, however, it was handed over to the entire Jewish people in order that each individual should bear responsibility for his or her actions. Daniel enjoined perpetual public mourning for the destruction of the Temple and constant supplication for redemption, all to be practised while living in Jerusalem.
In matters of law, Daniel was more rigorous than his fellow Karaites, but he is also said to have exempted males under the age of twenty from the duty to observe all the biblical ordinances and to have admitted the testimony of Muslims concerning observation of the moon for the purpose of the determination of the Jewish calendar. He praised the Muslims for helping the Karaites against the Rabbanites and because “they love those who care to base their calendation on lunar observation” (Nemoy 1976, 78). He nevertheless rejects, in sharp polemical language, Muḥammad’s prophethood and mentions the accusation that the Muslims keep idols in the Kaʿba.
Bibliography
Sources
Haggai Ben-Shammai, Fragments of Daniel al-Qumisi’s commentary on the Book of Daniel as a historical source, Henoch 13 (1991), 259–81
Jacob Mann, Texts and studies in Jewish history and literature (Cincinnati 1935), 2:8–18, index
Jacob Mann, A tract by an early Karaite settler in Jerusalem, JQR n.s. 12/3 (1921–2), 273–91
Yitshak Dov Markon (ed.), Pitron shenem-ʿasar, Jerusalem 1957
Leon Nemoy (ed.), A Karaite anthology (New Haven 1952), index s.v. al-Kūmisī, Daniel
Simḥa Pinsker, Likute ḳadmoniyot (Vienna 1860), index
Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī, al-Anwār wa-l-marāqib, ed. Leon Nemoy, 5 vols., New York 1939–1943, index
Alexander S. Scheiber, Daniel al-Qûmisî’s commentary on Leviticus, from the Geniza, AO 38/1–2 (1984), 201–14
Moshe Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s translation of the Torah (New York 1959), index (Heb.).
Studies
Zvi Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium (New York and Jerusalem 1959), index
Haggai Ben-Shammai, The attitude of some early Karaites towards Islam, in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Studies in medieval Jewish history and literature (Cambridge MA 1984), 3–40
Haggai Ben-Shammai, Between Ananites and Karaites. Observations on early medieval Jewish sectarianism, in Ronald L. Nettler (ed.), Studies in Muslim-Jewish relations (Chur 1993), 1:19–29
Haggai Ben-Shammai, The Karaite controversy. Scripture and tradition in early Karaism, in Bernard Lewis and Friedrich Niewoehner (eds.), Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter (Wiesbaden 1993), 11–26
Yoram Erder, The Karaite mourners of Zion and the Qumran scrolls (Tel Aviv 2004), index (Heb.)
Moshe Gil, A history of Palestine, 634–1099, Cambridge 1992, index
Nehemia Gordon, Does scripture really have one meaning? A study of Daniel al-Qumisi’s exegetical approach in Pitron Shnem ʿAsar, Tarbiẓ 76 (2007), 385–414 (Heb.)
Lawrence Marwick, Daniel al-Qumisi and the Pitrôn Shenem ʿAsar, Journal of Bibliography and Booklore 5 (1961), 42–61
Leon Nemoy, The pseudo-Qumisian sermon to the Karaites, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 43 (1976), 49–105
André Paul, Écrits de Qumran et sectes juives aux premiers siècles de l’Islam. Recherches sur l’origine du Qaraïsme, Paris 1969
Shlomo Pines, God, the divine glory and the angels according to a 2nd century theology, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6/3–4 (1987), 1–12 (Heb.)
Meira Polliack (ed.), Karaite Judaism. A guide to its history and literary sources (Leiden 2003), index
Simone Rosenkranz Verhelst, Juden, Christen, Muslime und die Erwähnung der Kaʿba bei Daniel al-Qūmisī, Judaica 58/2 (2002), 106–18
Marina Rustow, Heresy and the politics of community. The Jews of the Fatimid caliphate (Ithaca NY 2008), index
Barry D. Walfish and Michael Kizilov, Bibliographia Karaitica (Leiden 2011), index, 765
Naphtali Wieder, The Judean scrolls and Karaism (London 1962, Jerusalem 20052), index.
Cite this page
Ben-Shammai, Haggai, “Daniel al-Qūmisī”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Edited by: Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. Consulted online on 29 October 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_25855>
First published online: 2013
First print edition: 9789004252677, 2013, 2013-2
No comments:
Post a Comment