mately, however, Maimonides’ writings are unhelpful for identifying the
Sabians, since for Maimonides, the Sabians were not a specifi c people.^33
For him, they are a milla, a term that he employs to denote a broad phe-
nomenon and that does not relate to a distinct religious group.^34 Accord-
ing to Maimonides, in the days of the patriarch Abraham “this was a
religious community that extended over the whole earth”;^35 and since
this was later than the generation of the Tower of Babel, one must con-
clude that this milla comprised different peoples, belonging to various
races and speaking a multitude of languages. According to Maimonides,
the last of the Sabians can be found to this day “in the extremities of the
earth, as for instance the infi dels among the Turks in the extreme North
and the Hindus in the extreme South.”^36 For Maimonides, therefore, “Sa-
bians” is a collective name, and his numerous references to the Sabians
show that in his opinion this appellation is applicable to the pagans among
whom Abraham grew up, the Egyptians who enslaved the Israelites, and
even the Zoroastrians of his own days,^37 simple folks as well as those
with philosophic pretensions.^38 If we take into account all the types of
people whom Maimonides considers to be Sabians, it becomes clear that
he was aware of the fact that such a universal milla never existed in the
same sense that specifi c nations or religions, such as the Egyptians or the
Christians, exist. The efforts he invests in presenting the Sabians as an
international community are anchored precisely in the fact that he does
not treat them as a historically identifi able people.^39
(^33) Chwolsohn has already pointed out that Maimonides’ writings contribute nothing to our
efforts to identify the true historical Sabians (as opposed to Shahrastani, for example,
whom Chwolsohn views as a useful historical source for this purpose). See Chwolsohn, Die
Ssabier, 1:689– 90.
(^34) As noted by Pines, Maimonides does not use the term “Saba” in the sense of Hellenes,
that is, “adherents of the paganism prevalent in the Roman Empire in the fi rst centuries of
the Christian era;” see “Translator’s Introduction,” cxxiv. He does, however, use it in the
general sense of “idolaters”— see Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier, 1:692, 696. Maimonides’ use of
the word “milla” is not monolithic. At times the word denotes par ticular religions (e.g.
Guide 1.71; Dalala, 121:9, 123:4– 6), whereas on other occasions it bears a collective, phe-
nomenological meaning (e.g. Guide 3.51; Dalala, 459:28). His use of the latter meaning is
defi nitely infl uenced by Farabi. See note 44, below.
(^35) Guide 3.29 (Dalala, 375:24; Pines, 515).
(^36) Ibid.
(^37) Guide 3.29 (Dalala, 375:21– 22; Pines, 515), 3.37 (Dalala, 395:29– 396:1; Pines, 540– 41),
3.47 (Dalala, 436:28– 29; Pines, 595). In his “Letter on Astrology” (Epistles, 481), Maimo-
nides excludes the Greeks from the discussion. This exclusion strengthens the impression
that this worldwide community is defi ned, in his opinion, by their level of development and
metaphysical conceptualization, rather than by ethnic or religious identity.
(^38) Guide 3.29 (Dalala, 375:24; Pines, 515).
(^39) See Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, 58; Pines, “Translator’s Introduction,” cxxiii.