THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 25
therefore be alert to the possibility that Maimonides’ words refl ect, whether
by way of ac ceptance or by way of reaction and criticism, his knowledge
of the works of thinkers whose names are not explicitly mentioned. Ju-
dah Halevi (d. 1141), for instance, is not mentioned by Maimonides, yet
it is very likely that Maimonides’ remarks, in several places in the Guide,
refl ect acquaintance with Halevi’s Kuzari.^4
Another example is the Muslim theologian Ghazali, whose name is
also never mentioned by Maimonides. Pines had argued that Maimo-
nides must have been familiar with Ghazali’s work, because “no phi loso-
pher who wishes to keep abreast of the intellectual debate of this period
could have afforded not to have done so; and such a lacuna in Maimo-
nides’ knowledge of Arabic theological literature would have been most
uncharacteristic.”^5 Indeed, as several scholars have been able to show in
the years that passed since Pines introduced his hypothesis, Maimonides’
acquaintance with the writings of Ghazali is obvious in his writings.^6
Avner Giladi has suggested that even the title of Maimonides’ philo-
sophical book is inspired by this great Muslim thinker. Giladi pointed
out that at least twice in his Ihyaulum al- din Ghazali referes to God as
“Guide of the Perplexed” (dalil al- mutahayyirin), and suggested that
Maimonides derived the title of his noted philosophic work from this us-
age of Ghazali’s. Giladi also suggested that, being “most careful to avoid
an exact identifi cation between the Divine attribute and the title” of his
own work, Maimonides changed it to Dalalat al-hairin.^7 An even clearer
borrowing of Ghazali’s usage of divine attributes is found in Maimo-
nides’ “Epistle to Yemen,” where he describes the Torah as God’s book,
“which guides us, and which delivers us from error (al-munqidh lana min
al-dalala) and from erroneous opinions.”^8 This formulation echoes, in all
likelihood, the title of Ghazali’s spiritual autobiography, al-Munqidh min
posed to the one adopted by Davidson, who systematically regards anything that is not
positively attested as just that: unattested. See, for instance, Moses Maimonides, 80.
(^4) See Pines, “Translator’s Introduction,” cxxxiii; idem, “Shiite Terms and Conceptions in
Judah Halevi’s Kuzari,” JSAI 2 (1980), appendix vii; and see H. Kreisel, “Judah Halevi’s
Infl uence on Maimonides: A Preliminary Appraisal,” Maimonidean Studies 2 (1991):
95–121.
(^5) Pines, “Translator’s Introduction,” cxxvii.
(^6) See H. Lazarus- Yaffeh, “Was Maimonides Infl uenced by al- Ghazali?” in M. Cogan et al.,
eds.,Tehillah le- Moshe:Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (Winona
Lake, 1997), 163– 93; A. Eran, “Al- Ghazali and Maimonides on the World to Come and
Spiritual Pleasures,” JQR 8 (2001): 137– 66; A. L. Ivry, “The Guide and Maimonides’
Philosophical Sources,” in Seeskin, The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, 68– 70;
and see chap. 3, note 71, below.
(^7) See A. Gil’adi, “A Short Note on the Possible Origin of the Title Moreh Ha- Nevukhim,”
Tarbiz 48 (1979): 346– 47 [Hebrew].
(^8) Epistles, 103.