writings as well.^49 His main interest is in the development of Judaism,
but it seems that he used this same basic principle to understand the de-
velopment of Islam in relation to the practices of the jahiliyya, and the
religious development of the human race in general.^50 In all of his discus-
sions of these matters, he refers to idolaters as “Sabians.” He fi rst de-
scribes their beliefs, according to which the spirits (ruhaniyat), related to
the planets, govern the world and all earthly phenomena. He touches
briefl y on Sabian historiography (which from a certain angle may be
viewed as a reversal of biblical history, similar to the historiography
found in Gnostic writings),^51 and subsequently describes their practices
and theurgic rites.
Maimonides viewed himself as close to the Maghrebi- Andalusian in-
tellectual tradition in general and to its philosophical tradition in par tic-
ular.^52 It is therefore no wonder that even regarding the principles of reli-
gious theory that he developed, the infl uence that he admits explicitly is
that of the phi losophers who belong to this tradition. In summarizing the
philosophical ideas of the ancient Sabians, he recalls their belief that God
is the spirit of the sphere, and invokes in this context the Commentary on
Aristotle’s Physics written by Ibn Bajja.^53
(^49) SeeGuide 3.29– 50; The “Treatise on Resurrection” (Epistles, 355); “Letter on Astrol-
ogy” (Epistles, 481); “Letter to Joseph Ibn Jabir (Epistles, 408– 9); introduction to Pereq
Heleq (Commentary on the Mishnah, Tractate Nezikin, 203– 4);Mishneh Torah, Laws of
Idolatry (Hilkhot Avodah Zarah) 1:3. See also Twersky, Introduction to the Code, 292 and
note 81.
(^50) See further below.
(^51) On this “reversal,” see G. G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology
(Leiden, 1984), esp. 170. Maimonides takes a par ticular interest in the stories about
Adam and the Garden of Eden, and points out the danger of the Sabian myths (khurafat);
seeGuide 3.29 (Dalala, 375:27– 376:5 [Pines, 515– 16], 379:27– 380:7 [Pines, 520]); cf.
H. M. Y. Gevaryahu, “Paganism According to Maimonides,” in A. Weiser and B.- Z.
Lourie, eds., Tzvi Karl Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1960), 354, 357. The place of
Adam, Seth, and Noah in Maimonides’ synopsis of the Sabian myths faithfully refl ects
the content of al-Filaha al- Nabatiyya, a work that refl ects late renderings of Gnostic and
Manichean sources. Therefore, this tradition contains nothing that can clarify the ques-
tion of the “ibrahimiyya” or the “Barahima”; cf. B. Abrahamov, “The Barahima’s
Enigma: A Search for New Solution,” Die welt des Orients 18 (1987): 72– 91, and par-
ticularly 84– 91.
(^52) See chap. 1, note 24, above; and see also Guide 1.71 (Dalala, 122:9– 13; Pines, 177). On
the question of the existence of an Andalusian philosophical school, see L. I. Conrad, “The
World of Ibn Tufayl,” in L. I. Conrad, ed., The World of Ibn Tufayl: Interdisciplinary Per-
spectives on Hayy ibn Yaqzan (Leiden, 1996), 12– 13.
(^53) SeeGuide 3.29 (Dalala, 375:18– 26; Pines, 515); “Treatise on Resurrection” (Epistles,
335); Pines, “Translator’s Introduction,” cvii. Ibn Bajja’s Commentary on the Physics is
extant in two versions; see Sharh al- Sama al-tabii li- aristutalis, ed. Majid Fakhri (Beirut,
1974);Shuruhat al- Sama al-tabii li- bni Bajja, ed. Amin Ziyadah (Beirut, 1978); Maimo-
nides is probably referring to the eighth chapter of the commentary, whose topic is the