¹ The history of the translations of the Bible into various European and Oriental languages throughout the centuries has long been investigated. A historical survey of the translations of the Bible into the Persian language, however, has thus far been neglected. The following study attempts to outline only the major phases in this field.

² B. Talmud Shabbat 115a; b. Talmud Megilla 18a; b. Talmud Sota 49b; Massekhet Soferim I, 7.8.

³ Blau, L., “Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift,” Berlin, 1894Google Scholar.

⁴ See de Menasce, P. Jean, “Škand-Gumānīk Vičār, Une apologétique Mazdéenne du IX^e siècle,” (Collectanea Friburgensia n.s., Fasc. XXX), Fribourg, 1945Google Scholar; Darmesteter, J., Textes pehlvis relatifs au judaisme, in Revue des Études juives (= REJ), Paris, 1889, vol. 18, pp. 1–15Google Scholar; vol. 19, pp. 41–53; Gray, L. H., “The Jews in Pahlavi Literature” in Jewish Encyclopedia, New York, 1905, vol. 9, pp. 462–465Google Scholar.

⁵ Zunz, L., “Gesammelte Schriften,” Berlin, 1876, vol. III, pp. 136Google Scholar; W. Bacher, Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. III, p. 190; Fischel, W. J., Encyclopedia Judaica, Berlin, 1937) vol. IX, col. 557–568Google Scholar.

⁶ Arnold, Th., “The Old and New Testament in Muslim Religious Art,” London, 1928Google Scholar.

⁷ See Noeldeke, Th., “Das iranische Nationalepos” (Grundriss d. iran Philol., Strassbourg, 1896–1904, vol. II, pp. 130–211Google Scholar; Browne, E. G., “A Literary History of Persia,” London, 1909, vol. I, p. 9, and 479Google Scholar; Gruenbaum, M., “Neue Beitraege zur semit. Sagenkunde,” Leyden, 1893, pp. 148–240Google Scholar; and his “Juedische Elemente in Firdusi” in Zeitschrift der Morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft (= ZDMG), Jena, 1888, vol. 43, pp. 1–29; pp. 445–477.

⁸ See Horovitz, J. “Hebrew-Iranian Synchronism” in Oriental Studies in honor of C. E. Pavry, Oxford, 1933, pp. 151–155Google Scholar.

⁹ See the works of Muslim scholars of Persian origin such as Hamza al-Isfahānī (c. 971); al-Kirmānī (d. 1013); al-Birūnī (d. 1048); Abu'l-Ma'āli (d. 1092); ash-Shahrastānī (d. 1153); al-Murtadā (d. 13th century). See Bacher, W.: “Bibel und biblische Geschichte in der muhammedanischen Literatur” in “Jeschurun,” ed. Kobak, J., Breslau, 1871, vol. 8, pp. 1–30Google Scholar; Goldziher, I.: “Ueber muhammedanische Polemik gegen Ahl al-Kitāb,” ZDMG, 1898, vol. 32, pp. 341–387Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Kohut, Alexander was the first scholar who made a thorough investigation of :his Tavus Pentateuch translation, in “Kristische Beleuchtung der Persischen Pentateuch-Uebersetzung des Jacob ben Joseph Tavus, unter stetiger Rücksichtnahme auf die aeltesten Bibelversionen.” Leipzig, 1871Google Scholar.

Kohut did not earn much gratitude from his contemporary colleagues. A. Geiger (who does not even mention the Tavus version in his “Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel,” Breslau, 1857) criticized Kohut heavily in his “Juedische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben,” Berlin, 1872, pp. 103–113. In speaking of the Judaeo-Persian literature he states: “This terrain remains sterile even if one adds any amount to make it fertile.”

de Lagarde, Even in “Symmicta,” Göttingen, 1877–80, Vol. II, p. 14Google Scholar, discards Kohut's extensive analysis on Tavus and remarks that “the size of his book does not stand in proportion to the value.…” Indeed, additional research and new discoveries of ancient manuscripts in recent decades have made Kohut's work obsolete.

¹¹ Concerning Jacob b. Tavus see Long, J. Le, “Discours historique sur les principales éditions des Bibles Polyglottes,” Paris, 1713, pp. 39–42, 214, 215Google Scholar; Rosenmüller, , “de Versione Pentateuchi Persica Commentatio,” Lipsae, 1813, p. 4Google Scholar, who had erroneously assumed that Tavus lived in the ninth century; Wolff, J. Chr., Bibliotheca Hebraea, Hamburg, 1715, Vol. 1, p. 597, No. 1057Google Scholar; De Rossi, G. B., Dizionario Storico degli Autori Ebrei, Parma, 1802, Vol. 2, p. 146Google Scholar; Munk, S., “Notice sur R. Saadja Gaon et sa version arabe d'Isaie et sur une version persane manuscrite de la Bibl. Royale,” Paris, 1838Google Scholar, in S. Cahen, “La Bible,” Vol. IX, pp. 134–159.

¹² About the historical circumstances which brought Jacob ben Tavus from Persia to Constantinople during the Turkish-Persian wars in 1535 see Moses di Rossi's letter, ed. Kaufmann, Jewish Quarterly Review (= JQR), Vol. 9, 1897, p. 498, and Bouvat, L., “Essai sur les rapports de la Perse avec l'Europe” in “Revue du Monde Musulman,” Paris, 1921, Vol. 46, pp. 64–68Google Scholar.

¹³ About the physician of Suleiman, Moses Hamon, see REJ, Paris, 1908, Vol. 56, pp. 12–13.

¹⁴ The first reference in Hebrew sources to the Pentateuch version of Tavus is apparently in de Rossi, Asarya, “Meor Eynayiam,” ed. Wien, , 1829, p. 309Google Scholar; see Zunz, L., “Gesammelte Schriften,” Berlin, 1876, Vol. 3, p. 135Google Scholar.

The Constantinople Polyglot Bible became so rare that in 1783 Adler, Ch. G. in his “Bibelkritische Reise nach Rom,” Altona, 1783, p. 221Google Scholar, states: “Ich kenne nur drei Exemplare von derselben; das eine ist in der kaiserlischen Bibliothek zu Wien, das andere in De Rossi's Bibliothek zu Parma, aber ohne Titel, das dritte in der Oppenheim Bibliothek zu Hamburg.”

¹⁵ Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, edited by Walton, Brian, London, 1657, Vol. IVGoogle Scholar. See Vol. I, Prolegomena, XVI, De Lingua Persica et Versionibus Scripturae Persicis, pp. 101–102; J. Le Long, “Discours historique,” l.c., p. 214ff.

¹⁶ According to S. Munk, l.c., p. 156ff. a Persian translation of the Book of Tobit was already published in 1542, with Latin translation. The Persian was, of course, used very early by Jews in Persia; about the earliest Judaeo-Persian documents, attesting to the use of modern Persian by Jews, see Minorsky, V.: “Early Hebrew-Persian Documents” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (= JRAS), London, 1942, pp. 181–194Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Our main source of information about Giambattista Vecchietti's life is the biographical sketch written in the form of a letter by his brother Girolamo Vecchietti on March 26, 1620, and published by Morelli, J., in “I Codici monoscritti volgari della Libreria Naniana,” Venezia, 1776, pp. 159–191Google Scholar.

For other valuable details on his life and activities, see Tiraboschi, Girolamo “Storia della letteratura italiana,” Milano, 1824, Vol. VIII, pp. 145–147Google Scholar; di S. Filippo, Amat “Biografia dei viaggiatori italiana,” Paris, 1882, pp. 335 and 355–359Google Scholar; also Encycl. Italiana, s.v., Vol. 34, 1937; Donazzolo, Pietro, “Di una Relazione inedita di G. B. Vecchietti intorus all'Egitto” in “Ateneo Veneto,” 1925, pp. 157–163Google Scholar. Very illuminating is the material published by della Vida, G. Levi, “Ricerche sulla formazione del più antico fondo dei manoscritti orientali della Biblioteca Vaticana,” in “Studi e Testi”; Vatican, 1939, Vol. 92, pp. 168, 267Google Scholar; and also his “Documenti Intorno alle Relazioni della Chiese Orientali con la S. Sede durante il Pontificato di Gregorio XIII” in “Studi e Testi” No. 143, Vaticano, 1948, pp. 117ff.; pp. 168–171.

¹⁸ “While in Ormuz Vecchietti surveyed the political and military conditions of this island and of the Persian mainland, and wrote a confidential report which was published for the first time only in 1892. See “A Report on the Condition of Persia in the year 1586” (in Italian), published by Brown, H. F., in English Historical Review, London, 1892, Vol. 7, pp. 313–321Google Scholar; V. Minorsky, “Tadhkirat al-Mulūk (A Manual of Safavid Administration), E. J. W. Gibb Memorial, new series, Vol. XVI, London, 1943, pp. 4, 32, 179.

¹⁹ His brother Girolamo succeeded him as envoy of the Pope, Clement VIII, to Egypt. About his activities see Buri, Vincenzo, “L'Unione della Chiesa Copta con Roma, sotto Clemente VIII,” in Orientalia Christiana, Rome, 1931, Vol. 23, No. 72, pp. 108–110, 113–134Google Scholar; Rabbath, P., “Documents inédits pour servir à l'histoire du Christianisme en Orient,” Paris, 1907Google Scholar. See also the letter written by Giambattista to his brother Girolamo in 1599 (April 4), published in “La Civilta Cattolica,” 1930, Vol. 3, pp. 510–512.

²⁰ About his meeting with Akbar the Great, see later, under §4.

²¹ Morelli, pp. 167–168: “Libri della Scrittura Vecchia tradotta gia ab antiquo de quegli Ebrei, che cola si ne erano iti ad abitare, in lingua Persiana, per use delle genti loro, nel carattero Ebreo.”

²² The present writer was able, on several visits to Europe, to examine closely most of these Judaeo-Persian Bible Manuscripts in the Libraries of Rome, Paris and London.

²³ Assemanus, S.: Biblioteca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticano, Roma, 1719, Vol. I, P. 435Google Scholar; Le Long, J., Bibliotheca Sacra, Paris, 1723, Vol. 1, pp. 232–233Google Scholar; Maio, A.. in Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticanis Codidbus, Vol. IV, Romae, 1831, p. 650Google Scholar, No. LXI; Horn, P., “Die Persischen und Türkischen Handschriften des Vatikans,” ZDMG, 1897, Vol. 51, p. 7Google Scholar, and now Rossi, Ettori, “Elenco dei Manoscritti Persiani della Biblioteca Vaticana,” Roma, 1948, p. 87, No. 61.Google Scholar

²⁴ Guidi, I., “Di una versione Persiana del Pentateuco” in Rendiconti della R. Acc. dei Lincei, Roma, 1885, pp. 347–355Google Scholar: “II codice vaticano proviene de Lar compratovi da G. B. Vecchietti nel tempo che sotto Abbas I …”; see also E. Rossi, l.c., p. 14.

²⁵ About the Judaeo-Persian Pentateuch version in Paris see Zotenberg, H., Catalogues des Manuscrits Hébreux et Samaritains de la Bibliothèque Imperiale, Paris, 1866, Nos. 70–71Google Scholar, “a Pentateuch in Hebrew, with a Persian translation of each word in Hebrew characters different from the Tavus version.” See S. Munk, l.c, above Note 11.

²⁶ About the Judaeo-Persian Pentateuch version in St. Petersburg, see Harkavy, A. and Strack, H. L., “Catalog der Hebräischen Bibelhandschriften der Kaiserlichen Bibliothek in St. Petersburg,” 1875, No. 141, p. 166Google Scholar. “Die Persische Übersetzung welche mit kleineren Buchstaben geschrieben ist und dem Grundtexte von Vers zu Vers folgt, ist von der in der Londoner Polyglotte (Bd. IV) gedruckten des Jacob Tavus verschieden.”

²⁷ Since I. Guidi's research two other Judaeo-Persian Pentateuch versions became known.

The British Museum obtained fragments of a Hebrew-Persian Pentateuch manuscript (OR 5446) which is regarded “as perhaps the earliest Persian translation of the Pentateuch hitherto known.” Its author or copyist was, according to W. Bacher (ZDMG, Vol. 47, p. 212) a certain Joseph ben Moses, who completed his translation, according to the colophon, in the year 1630 of the Seleucid calendar, meaning the year 1319 A.D. See Seligsohn, M., “The Hebrew-Persian Manuscripts of the British Museum,” in JQR, o.s., Vol. 15, 1903, pp. 278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who reproduced only Genesis, Chap. 24:1–16. See also Margoliouth, G., “Descriptive List of Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum,” London, 1893, pp. 119–120Google Scholar, under OR 2454.

²⁸ See Blochet, , “Catalogue des Manuscrits persans dans la Bibliothèque Nationale,” Paris, 1905, Vol. 1, p. 1, No. 1Google Scholar; about other translations of the Psalms into Persian though not in Hebrew characters see later; see E. Rossi, l.c., p. 72, No. 42; J. Grill, 68. Der Psalm, Tübingen, 1883, p. 225.

²⁹ About Lar, the place of origin of many of the Judaeo-Persian Bible manuscripts, as a cultural center and a seat of the school of Jewish scribes and copyists see the present writer's study, “The Region of the Persian Gulf and its Jewish Settlements in Islamic Times,” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, New York, 1950, Vol. I, pp. 203–230Google Scholar.

Apart from Lar, Shiraz, Ispahan and Hamadan, other Persian cities such as Qum and Yezd are mentioned as seats of Jewish literary activity. A Hebrew Pentateuch manuscript with illuminations, written in 1485, in the city of Qum is preserved in Oxford (see Neubauer, A. and Cowley, A.: Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleiana Library, Oxford, 1906, Vol. 2, p. 228ft. No. 2814Google Scholar); also A. Neubauer, l.c., Vol. 1, Oxford, 1886, p. 30, No. 177.

About Yezd, see Marx, A.: “Soncino Blaetter,” Vol. 2, Berlin, 1927, p. 114Google Scholar, and Adler, E. N., Catalogue of Hebrew Manuscripts, Cambridge, 1921Google Scholar, and his “Ginze Paras u-Madai … The Persian Jews, their Books and Ritual.” London, 1899.

³⁰ Vecchietti visited this holy site of the Jews several times as expressly stated in J. Morelli, l.c., p. 177.

³¹ See H. Zotenberg, “Catalogue des Manuscrits Hébreux et Samaritains,” l.c., No. 97, comprising the complete books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Chapters 1 to 10 of Ezekiel, published by P. de Lagarde in “Persische Studien,” Göttingen, 1884; see also Neubauer, A. and Driver, R. S., “The 53rd Chapter of Isaiah according to Jewish Interpreters,” Oxford, 1877, Vol. 2, pp. 137–238Google Scholar.

³² See Zotenberg, Cat. l.c., No. 117, containing Song of Songs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. On the basis of this manuscript K. D. Hassler published his “Nachricht von einer bisher noch unbekannten unmittelbaren persischen Uebersetzung der salomonischen Schriften” (Song of Songs, 1:1–8), published in “Theologische Studien und Kritiken,” Vol. II, 1829, pp. 469–480; see also the remarks of Lagarde in “Persische Studien,” Göttingen, 1884, p. 68.

Schwab, M. referred to the study of Zotenberg's manuscript No. 117 in his article “Une Version persane de la Bible” in R.E.J., Paris, 1909, Vol. 58, pp. 303–306Google Scholar.

³³ They were indeed in danger of being lost altogether when Vecchietti was taken prisoner by pirates in the Mediterranean. It was due to the efforts of his brother Girolamo that he was ransomed, together with “those books of the greatest importance of the divine writings in the Persian language which he in so many years and with so much trouble had collected. …” See Morelli, l.c., p. 184.

³⁴ At what exact time the Persian Jews started to occupy themselves with Bible translations cannot yet be established. This question can be answered only on the basis of a future comparative study of all available Judaeo-Persian Bible manuscripts. But it can be assumed that in view of the uniformity of style, the general use of Aramaisms and the choice of the same Persian equivalents, the version of Tavus, Vecchietti's manuscripts and other early texts may belong, if not to the same translator, at least to one and the same school of translators.

As to the question of origin, place and date, S. Munk's careful statement is still valid today. “Que les versions ont été faites dans la seconde moitié du 13. siècle … quoique je ne puisse alléguer pour cela des preuves bien rigoureuses. Mais on peut dire avec certitude que les versions ne sont ni antérieures au 13. ni postérieures au 14. siécle.” (S. Munk, l.c., p. 139.)

³⁵ These activities led also to the translation into Persian of all the other books of the Bible, and European libraries acquired after the time of Vecchietti, Judaeo-Persian manuscripts of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Minor Prophets, Job, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, etc., and even Apocryphal books such as Tobit, Judith, Bel and the Dragon, Daniel Apocalypse, Megillat Antiochus and others — all in Hebrew characters.

See the Mss. collection of G. B. de Rossi, Bibl. Mss. Codices Hebraici, Parmae, 1803, Vol. Ill, pp. 59–60, 167–168; and foremost, Zotenberg, Catalogue des Manuscrits Hébreux l.c. (s.v. Nos. 90, 91, 97, 100, 101, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 127, 128, 129, 130, 142). No. 128, containing a Daniel Apocalypse, was analyzed by Zotenberg in Merx Archiv f. d. wissenschaftl. Erforschung d. Alten Testaments 1869, Vol. I, pp. 385–427; see also Darmesteter, J., “L'apocalypse persane de Daniel,” in Mélanges Reinier, Paris, 1886Google Scholar, and Levy, R., “Daniel Nama” (in Jewish Studies in memory of G. A. Kohut, New York, 1935, pp. 423–428)Google Scholar.

³⁶ He also brought back a unique manuscript in Persian characters and language, entitled “Lughat-i Furs” by Abū Mansūr ‘Alī ibn Aḥmad al-Asadī aṭ-Ṭūsī, a lexicon of the Persian language, pertaining to the dialect of Balkh and Khorasan, composed in 733 H. About Asadī see Encycl. of Islam, s.v.; also Horn, P., in “Abhandlungen der Königl. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. Göttingen, Vol. I, No. 8, 1897, pp. 1–37Google Scholar. This manuscript was obtained by Vecchietti in Ormuz in 1602 and was later given as a present to Pope Benedict XIV; it is now in the library of the Vatican; see E. Rossi, “Elenco dei Manoscritti, l.c., pp. 49–51; also the references to it in A. Maio, l.c., Vol. 4, No. XXII, pp. 640–641; P. Horn, ZDMG, 1897, Vol. 51, No. 37; Levi della Vida, Ricerche l.c., pp. 167–168.

An edition of “Lughat-i Furs” was published by Abbas Iqbal, Teheran, 1919.

³⁷ Morelli, l.c., p. 184.

³⁸ It is reported that “in Isfahan Vecchietti had taken a house next to that where the Fathers of Saint Augustine lived, who greatly persuaded him to continue the work he had undertaken and about which he wrote to the Pope and to many Cardinals.” Morelli, l.c., p. 175.

³⁹ The colophon to the manuscript of the Psalm translation, written in Italian by Vecchietti, contains many details about Vecchietti's methods of translation. See Blochet Catalogue, l.c., Vol. 1, p. 1, No. 1, and Note 28 above.

⁴⁰ This adds further proof to our assumption that at that time (1601) there was a Jewish community in existence in Ormuz. See the present writer's “The Region of the Persian Gulf and its Jewish Settlements in Islamic Times,” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, New York, 1950, p. 216Google Scholarff., and his “New Sources for the History of the Jewish Diaspora in Asia in the Sixteenth Century,” in JQR, April, 1950, PP. 379–399.

⁴¹ Vecchietti states that the Hebrew teacher did not know how to read Persian (probably in Persian characters) and that he (Vecchietti) did not at first know Hebrew, but “after I learned it everything became easy and plain … and I have learned more with this work on the Psalms than I have until then.” See Colophon to Manuscript No. 1, in Blochet's Catalogue, l.c., fols. 248–249.

⁴² Shams ad-Dīn Khanjī mentions that this manuscript is the result of what Giambattista Vecchietti, “the Frank,” had dictated to him. After his return from Persia Vecchietti had shown this Persian Psalm manuscript to the Pope, but did not give it to the Vatican Library. It came into the possession of the French scholar, E. Renaudot, and later of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. It carries the note, “Portata delle Persia da G. B. Vecchietti.” See E. Renaudot, “Bibl. Orient,” pp. 196–197, and Blochet, Catalogue, l.c., Vol. 1, p. 1.

⁴³ It is just this archaic flavor of the vocabulary in these old Judaeo-Persian texts, as properly observed by Vecchietti, their ancient phonetic, lexical and grammatical forms, the retention and conservation of many old words and forms of the Persian language not to be found in the oldest Persian documents, the strange combination and amalgamation of Semitic and Indo-European linguistic elements, which have made these Judaeo-Persian Bible texts a rich and important source for the Iranian lexicography. The systematic utilization of these products will undoubtedly continue to yield important results for Persian philology. This has been recognized by Semitists and Iranists, particularly by Paul de Lagarde, who stated: “From now on nobody can claim to know the Persian vocabulary who has not utilized from the very beginning to the very end these Judaeo-Persian translations.” (Persische Studien, l.c., pp. 68–70.)

For further valuable remarks and observations on the Judaeo-Persian dialect see Literaturblatt f. Oriental. Philologie, Leipzig, 1884, Vol. I, pp. 186–194 (Ethé); p. 888 (Noeldeke); Vol. II, p. 74–86 and 406 (C. Salemann). H. Ethé in “Grundriss d. iran. Philologie,” Vol. 2, pp. 367–368; Salemann, in “Judaeo-Persica,” St. Petersbourg, 1897, p. II; Noeldeke, Th., “Judenpersisch,” in Z.D.M.G., 1897, Vol. 51, pp. 669–676Google Scholar; W. Geiger in “Grundriss d. iran. Philologie,” Vol. I, pp. 408–412, and foremost the thorough studies of W. Bacher and his still valuable survey in Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, pp. 313–317.

As to the modern dialect of Persian Jews see Abrahamian, R., “Dialectes des Israélites de Hamadan et d'Ispahan,” Paris, 1936Google Scholar. A special study of the Jewish dialect of the Jews of Samarkand has been published by Zaroubin, J., Étude de la langue parlée par des Juifs de Samarkand, Leningrad, 1928Google Scholar. Further valuable studies, though limited in scope, are the following: Huart, Cl., “Quelques observations sur le Judeo-Persan de Bokhara, Keleti Szemla” (Revue Orientale) Budapest, 1902, Vol. 3, pp. 303–306Google Scholar; Miller, V., Material for the study of the Jewish-Tat language, St. Petersburg, 1892Google Scholar; and the studies of Morgan (Mission Scientifique en Perse) Vol. 5, 1895, on the Jewish dialect of Senne, and Zukowsky's study on the dialect of the Jews in Kashan.

⁴⁴ See Blochet, l.c., No. 4, where the book of Ezekiel is not mentioned and where Lamentations and the Book of Baruch are added to Judges and Jeremiah.

⁴⁵ Blochet, l.c, No. 2 and No. 3.

⁴⁶ One of the reasons for his going to India was the desire to accumulate wealth, since he had heard during his first short visit to India, as stated in his biography, “that one could get enormously rich in India.” He had already made contacts with Brahmin merchants in Cairo and he decided to try his fortune there, so that he could be well off, once and for all. He became a merchant in precious stones, spices, etc. Morelli, l.c., p. 167.

⁴⁷ About Akbar and his personality see especially Smith, V. A., “Akbar, the Great Moghul,” Oxford, 1919Google Scholar; Maclagan, E., “The Jesuits and the Great Moghul,” London, 1932Google Scholar. See for further details the present writer's study, “Jews and Judaism at the Court of the Moghul Emperors in Medieval India,” in Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, New York, 1949, pp. 137–177Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Monserrate, Anthony, “Mongolicae Legationes Commentarius” (1582), edited by Hosten, F. and translated by Hoyland, J. S., Oxford, 1922, p. 182Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Maclagan, l.c., p. 190, and Payne, , “Akbar and the Jesuits,” London, 1926, p. 9, 221, 242Google Scholar. This was very likely the royal Polyglot Bible, edited by Montanus and printed between 1569 and 1572.

⁵⁰ Monserrate, l.c., pp. 36–37.

⁵¹ For the full text see Rehatsek, in “The Indian Antiquary,” Vol. XVI, Bombay, 1887, pp. 135–139Google Scholar; also the important remarks on this letter by Maclagan, l.c., p. 37; p. 44, Note 57; p. 202, Note 54. This letter was reproduced by Frazer, J., “The History of Nadir Shah,” London, 1742, p. 17Google Scholar, and also by J. Hanway, Vol. II, p. 405ff.; see later note 87.

⁵² See “Khalāsat at-Tawārīkh” (Essence of History), published by H. Beveridge, JRAS, 1894, pp. 754–755.

⁵³ Badāūnī, “Muntakhabu't-Tawārīkh,” Bibl. Indica, No. 97, Calcutta, 1924, text, Vol. II, p. 260; transl. Vol. II, p. 267.

⁵⁴ J. Morelli, “I Codici Manoscritti,” l.c., p. 168.

⁵⁵ Morelli, l.c., pp. 170–171, 186. We learn from this account that Vecchietti was most cordially received by Akbar. “He went then to pay his homage and was very cordially received by him; not content with that public visit, which took place under a 6-foot high balcony, covered by a great tent, etc. … he insisted that he should come in after he himself had retired, to his secret room, where only his personal entourage had access … He talked with him about many things, of the country he came from, of the lives of our Princes, of the journey he had undertaken, and how well he had learned the Persian language, and that he seemed to him to be a native of those parts …; in such a discussion most of the night went by, and when he became sleepy, on his carpet-covered bench on which he was sitting, supported on all sides by pillows, he courteously permitted him to leave, telling him that that room would always be open for him as it would be for a dear friend.”

Akbar seemed to have been very intrigued by Vecchietti's personality and by his unusual knowledge of the Persian language. When Vecchietti became ill Akbar sent his own Persian doctor to him and procured for him water from the Ganges.

⁵⁶ There is no mention of this Carmelite monk in the very useful reference book by a S. Teresia, Ambrosius: “Nomenclator Missionariorum Ordinis Carmelitarum Discalceatorum,” Romae, 1944Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ It is of interest to note that Akbar's successor, Shah Jahāngīr (1605–1627) ordered the translation of the Koran into Persian, in the following words: “I told him to translate the Koran into plain Persian without ornament and without explanation, in simple language, word by word, without any addition, and that after he had completed it he should send it to the court.” See Jahāngīr's Memoirs “Tūzuk-i Jahāngīrī,” transl. by Rogers, A., ed. by Beveridge, H., London, 1914Google Scholar, Oriental Translation Fund, n.s., Vol. 22, Vol. II, pp. 34–35.

⁵⁸ Maclagan, , “The Jesuits and the Great Moghul,” London, 1932, p. 212Google Scholar; also J.A.S., Bengal, 1927, pp. 111–115. Mention should be made that J. Xavier is credited with having made a translation of the Psalms into Persian, based on the Vulgate after Vecchietti's departure from India, see Sachau-Ethé, “Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts,” l.c., Oxford, 1889, Vol. 1, pp. 1050–57Google Scholar, especially No. 1828–1835.

About a Persian translation of the Gospels on the basis of an Arabic version by Xavier, see Maclagan, “The Jesuits and the Great Moghul,” l.c., p. 213. See also Bulletin, , School of Oriental Studies, London, 1921–23, Vol. 2, p. 532Google Scholar; 1923–25, Vol. 3, p. 138.

There is still lacking a complete survey of all the translations of the Gospels into Persian.

⁵⁹ Three centuries passed before another “Vecchietti,” another collector of Judaeo-Persian manuscripts on a large scale appeared, in the person of the Jewish traveller and scholar Elkan N. Adler, whose travels to Persia and to Bukhara in the years 1896–97 marked a turning point in the history of the collection of Judaeo-Persian literature. Adler returned from his travels with over 100 hitherto unknown and hidden manuscripts which changed fundamentally the prevailing conception as to quantity and quality of the literary productivity of the Persian-speaking Jews.

The collection which Adler brought from Persia and Bukhara to Europe corrected also our knowledge as to the kind of Judaeo-Persian productions. Most of the manuscripts in European libraries were translations of books of the Bible or of the Apocrypha, and the impression was created that their works were mostly of a religious character. The collection of Adler, however, revealed an all-embracing literature, not only translations, but also original works, not only religious literature, but literature of secular character, poetry and prose, liturgy and philology; it showed that no sphere of literary endeavor had been neglected by Persian Jews in their own language. Though European libraries have been continuously enriched since Elkan Adler with new Judaeo-Persian manuscripts, Adler's collection has remained the most outstanding single contribution to the field. With the acquisition of this manuscript collection by the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, in 1923, this great treasure has found its home in America and will enable scholars to utilize this greatest of all Judaeo-Persian manuscript collections.

⁶⁰ The complete Persian text of this work was published in Calcutta in 1809. On the basis of the Calcutta text an English translation was made, though not too exact, yet most useful in view of the difficulties of the original, by Shea, David and Troyer, Anthony, under the title of “The Dabistan, or School of Manners,” Paris, 1843, 3 volsGoogle Scholar. (Oriental Translation Fund). It was republished with a special introduction by Jackson, A. V. William, in one volume, under the title “The Dabistan, or School of Manners; The Religious Beliefs, Observances, Philosophic Opinions and Social Customs of the Nations of the East,” New York, 1901Google Scholar. For further details see the present writer's study, “Jews and Judaism at the Court of the Moghul Emperors in Medieval India.” New York, 1949, p. 165ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶¹ W. Jones regarded as the author “a Mohammedan traveller, a native of Kashmir, by the name of Mohsan Fani.” Gladwin, , in “New Asiatik Miscellany,” Calcutta, 1789, p. 87Google Scholar, called him “Sheikh Mohammed Mohsin,” but Kennedy, Vans in his study “Notice respecting the Religion introduced into India by Akbar,” in Transactions of the Literary Society, vol. 2, London, 1820, pp. 242–270Google Scholar, and W. Erskine in “The Authenticity of Dasatir-Dabistan,” Transactions, l.c., vol. 2, pp. 342–376, had already expressed doubts as to the identity of the author as assumed by Jones.

⁶² Dābistān, l.c., vol. 2, p. 293ff.

⁶³ Dābistān, l.c., vol. 2, pp. 293–299. See also Sarkar, J., “History of Aurangzib,” London, 1920, vol. 3, pp. 107–113Google Scholar, and the important study by Sahib, Maulavi Wali Khan, “A Sketch of the Life of Sarmad,” in Jour. of Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, 1924, vol. 20, pp. 111–122Google Scholar; and the same author's study in Indian Antiquary, Bombay, vol. 39, 1910, pp. 121–122; also Hashimi, B. A., “Sarmad: His Life and Quatrains,” in Islamic Culture, 1933, pp. 663–672Google Scholar, and 1934, pp. 102–104.

⁶⁴ See Bellan, L., “Chah Abbas I, Sa Vie, Sa Histoire,” Paris, 1933Google Scholar; V. Minorsky, Tadhkirat al-Mulūk, A Manual of Safavid Administration,” Facsimile with Translation and Commentary, in E. J. W. Gibb Memorial, n.s., London, 1943, Vol. VI; and the highly important work “A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the 17th and 18th Centuries,” 2 vols., London, 1939.

⁶⁵ About Shah ‘Abbās I's immigration policy and relationship to Christian Europe, see “A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia,” l.c., Vol. I, pp. 71–115; also Bouvat, L., “Essai sur les rapports de la Perse avec l'Europe” in Revue du Monde Musulman, Paris, 1921, Vol. 46, pp. 23–62Google Scholar; and Bayani, K., “Les Relations de l'Iran avec l'Europe occidentale à l'époque Safavide,” Paris, 1937Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ For the background of this decisive stage in the history of the East-West relationship see “A Chronicle of the Carmelite Mission,” with hitherto unpublished documents and correspondence between ‘Abbās I and Pope Clement VIII. Among the embassies which were sent by ‘Abbās I to the Pope and the rulers of Europe from 1599 on figure prominently the Shirley brothers, Husain ‘Alī Bey (1599), Zalyn al-ʻAbidīn Beg (1603), France da Costa (1604) and others. Already in 1592 Pope Clement VIII had invited ʻAbbās I, “the illustrious and most puissant king of the Persians” to join a Christian league against the Sultan of the Turks. See Chronicle, pp. 68ff., 71–75, 85ft.

⁶⁷ The Carmelite mission was established in Isfahan in the year 1608. Prior to their settlement there were already other Christian missionaries in Persia, especially Portuguese and Spanish Augustines in 1602; in 1608 French Capuchins settled in Isfahan. See Ignace, Fr. Berthold, “Histoire de l'Etablissement de la Mission de Perse par les Pères Carmélites Déchaussées,” Bruxelles, 1885Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ About the diplomatic relationship between Persia and Poland see now Krzyskowski, P. Joseph, “Entre Varsovie et Ispahan” (dealing with Père Ignace-Francois Zapolski) in “Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu,” 1949, pp. 85–117Google Scholar. Not available for this study was Preiss, Abbé Wenceslas: “De restauratione missionum in Persia saec. XVII, Poloniaeque partibus…” (Pontificium Institutum Missionale scientificum, Roma, 1939.)Google Scholar

⁶⁹ It took the Carmelite priests three years before they arrived in Qazvin, the residence of Shah ʻAbbās I, because they could not take the shorter route via Aleppo, Baghdad and Isfahan due to the Turkish-Persian war.

⁷⁰ For all details pertaining to this manuscript, its history and illustrations, see S. C. Cockerell, “A Book of the Old Testament Illustrations of the Middle of the 13th Century,” Cambridge, 1927, Roxburghe Club, pp. 25–77, 145–146. It might be interesting to mention that this manuscript of Bible illustrations, due to unknown circumstances, came to Europe, via Cairo to London, where it was for sale in 1844 and was later, in 1916, purchased by the J. Pierpont Morgan Library in New York.

⁷¹ Chronicle of the Carmelites,” l.c., p. 124, Note 2.

⁷² It is surprising to find that these Old Testament illustrations contained the explanations not only in the original Latin and Persian translations as ordered by Shah ʻAbbās, but also a Hebrew transliteration of the Persian text at the margins of each miniature, evidently added by and for the convenience of a Persian-speaking Jew, either by order of the Shah or out of his own initiative when he obtained possession of this manuscript.

⁷³ About John Thaddeus see “A Chronicle of the Carmelites,” l.c., pp. 195, 233, 241, 304, 922–933; a S. Teresia, Ambrosius: Bio-Bibliographia: Missionaria Ordinis Carmelitarum Discalceatorum,” Romae, 1941, Nos. 56, 98, 115, 154ff., 158, 172Google Scholar; see also a S. Teresia, Ambrosius: “Nomenclator Missionarum Ordinis Carmelitarum Discalceatorum,” Romae, 1944, pp. 220–221Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ “Chronicle,” l.c., pp. 231–233; 241, 992. About other instances of the intellectual coöperation between Jewish, Christiain and Muslim scholars see later.

⁷⁵ “Chronicle,” pp. 240–241, 924. There exist several eye-witness reports about the audience of Thaddeus with Shah ʻAbbās which differ in details only. See Garcia de Figueroa, “Commentarios,” Madrid, 1903–05, Vol. II, p. 101, “The Shah sent to call Fr. John Thaddeus… The reason for the coming of this religious had been to bring the Shah the Psalms of David and the New Testament written in the Persian tongue, and very well bound in two volumes….” Compare this report with Florencio del Niño Jesus, “En Persia,” Vol. III, pp. 106–113, and the account in Pietro della Valle, “Viaggi,” p. 425, Letter 1619. Thaddeus also presented to Shah ʻAbbās a book of the Gospels, printed in Arabic and an Arabic alphabet “and acquainted him with the printing of Arabic and Persian letters in which he took much pleasure, expressing a wish to introduce it to his own country.” Indeed, the Carmelites can claim that they were the introducers of the printing of Oriental script or any kind of script into Persia. Cf. Chronicle, pp. 233, 305, 306, 922.

⁷⁶ A manuscript copy of this first Persian translation of the Psalms carried out at the request of a Muslim ruler, Shah ʻAbbās of Persia, is preserved in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, brought there probably by Sir Thomas Roe on his return from India. See Sachau-Ethé, “A Catalogue of Persian Manuscripts,” No. 3776, in the Bodleian Library, October, 1889, Vol. I, p. 1050, No. 1828; also No. 1830; see also E. Rossi, “Studi e Testi,” l.c., pp. 72–73, Vat. Perse, 42.

⁷⁷ Chronicle, l.c., pp. 97, 102, 129, 131, 161, 208, 364ff.

⁷⁸ About Shah ʻAbbās II and the persecutions of Jews and Christians see “Chronicle,” l.c., p. 364 to 366, the Judaeo-Persian Chronicle of Babai b. Lutf and Babai b. Farhad, publ. in extracts by Bacher, W.: Les Juifs de la Perse au XVII et au XVIII Siècles, Strassburg, 1907Google Scholar; and the Armenian Chronicle of Arakel of Tabriz. The chapter on the Persian Jews in the Armenian Chronicle was published in Russian translation in Jewr. Starina, Vol. X, Petersburg, 1918, pp. 60–76. See also Galanté, Abraham in “l'Haménora,” Istanbul, 1935Google Scholar, and the present writer's study on “The Jews under the Safavid Dynasty” in “Zion” (a Quarterly for Research in Jewish history) Jerusalem, 1937, pp. 273–293Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ The most comprehensive studies on Nādir Shah are Minorsky, V., “Esquisse d'une Histoire de Nader Chah (in Publ. de la Société des Études Iraniennes, No. 10), Paris, 1934Google Scholar; Lockhart, L., “Nadir Shah, A Critical Study based mainly upon contemporary sources,” London, 1938Google Scholar. (See also Journal Central Asian Society, London, 1939), Pawar, A. G., “Nadir Shah” (from some original English Records), Journal of Bombay University, Bombay, 1942, Vol. X, Part IV, pp. 1–32Google Scholar. For a detailed description of Nādir's campaign in India, see besides Lockhart, l.c., pp. 122–162, Muhammad ʻAlī Ḥazin, Chapter 47, pp. 295–301; also Sarkar, J., “Nadir Shah in India,” Patna, 1925Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Lockhart, l.c., p. 279, where he writes: “Nadir may have intended the term Ja'fari to be sugaring for the Sunni pill which the majority of his Persian subjects would otherwise have found even more difficult to swallow; on the other hand, he and his advisors must have realized that this term, by reason of its strong Shi'a association, would be displeasing to such rigid Sunnis as the Ottoman Turks.” See also Ritter, H. in “Der Islam,” Berlin, 1926, Vol. 15, p. 106Google Scholar; V. Minorsky, l.c., p. 17.

⁸¹ Lockhart, l.c., pp. 278–281, where Nādir Shah is rightly characterized as “international rather than national in his outlook.”

⁸² About Meshhed and Khorasan see Herzfeld, E., “Khorasan: Denkmalsgeographische Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des Islam in Iran,” “Der Islam,” XI (1921), pp. 107–174Google Scholar; M. Streck “Meshhed” in Encycl. of Islam. See also the pressent writer's study on “The Jews of Central Asia (Khorasan) in Medieval Hebrew and Islamic Literature,” in Historia Judaica, New York, 1945, pp. 29–50Google Scholar.

⁸³ See des Vignes, Père “Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses écrites par des Missionaires de la Compagnie de Jesus,” Paris, 1780, Vol. IV, p. 402Google Scholar; Lockhart, l.c., p. 281; Minorsky, l.c., pp. 37–38.

⁸⁴ See “Memoirs of Khojeh Abdul Kurreem,” translated by Gladwin, F., Calcutta, 1788, pp. 89–92Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ In “A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia,” l.c., p. 985, it is stated: “Among other schemes he (Nādir Shah) conceived that of devising a state religion, to be based on selections from the Books sacred to the various religions practised in the country, ordering that each community should produce translations in Persian — Jews, Christians, Muslims.”

⁸⁶ Concerning these terms in Islamic tradition and theology see the respective articles in Encycl. of Islam; also, Goldziher, Z.D.M.G., Vol. 32, p. 348ff.; Horovitz, J., “Koranische Untersuchungen,” Berlin, 1926, p. 69CrossRefGoogle Scholarff.

⁸⁷ Our major sources of information are the Prefaces and Colophons in the Manuscripts of the Persian translations of the Pentateuch, Psalms, Gospels, and Koran which the present writer had occasion to examine in Paris and London, respectively. For primary European sources see “Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses écrites par des Missionaires de la Compagnie de Jesus,” Paris, 1780, Vol. IV, pp. 402–407Google Scholar; Hanway, Jonas, “The Revolutions of Persia, containing the History of the Celebrated Usurper Nadir Kouli (1687–1747),” London, 1753, Vol. II, pp. 217–221Google Scholar; Malcolm, J., “The History of Persia,” 1815, Vol. II, p. 104Google Scholar, and particularly the accounts and letters of eye-witnesses and contemporary visitors to Persia as contained in the above-mentioned “A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the 17th and 18th Centuries,” 2 vols., London, 1939Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ About Mirza Muḥammad Mahdī, see Lockhart, l.c., pp. 292–296.

⁸⁹ See Dorn, B., “Ueber die auf Nadir Schah's Befehl verfasste Persische Uebersetzung der Vier Evangelien,” in Bulletin histor.–phil. de l'Académie impériale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, 1848, Vol. V, No. 5Google Scholar. See Zenker, J. Th., “Bibliotheca Orientalis,” Leipzig, 1861, Vol. 2, p. 102Google Scholar; and E. Rossi, “Elenco dei Manoscritti Persiani,” l.c., pp. 172–173.

⁹⁰ One of the eight Christian scholars, the Carmelite bishop, Philip Mary stated, “I repeat once more that it was neither I nor the missionary fathers who made the translation, but the Persians alone…” (Chronicle, l.c., p. 638, Note 1.)

⁹¹ Concerning this Baba b. Nuriel and his translation, see G. Margoliouth, “Catalogue of Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum,” l.c., vol. 1, Nos. 159 to 160, pp. 120–121 (Nos. 4729 and 2452); H. Ethé, in Literaturblatt f. Oriental Philologie, 1883, vol. 1, p. 186.

⁹² The Jewish experts neither knew of nor used the first printed Persian Pentateuch translation made by Jacob ben Tavus (Constantinople, 1546). They were also unaware of the London Polyglot Bible (1657) and of the translations made by the Carmelites and others, as outlined in previous pages.

⁹³ This Persian Pentateuch translation is preserved, see E. Blochet, Catalogue des Manuscrits persans, l.c., Vol. IV, No. 2208, pp. 166–167. Wolff, J., “Researches and Missionary Labors,” London, 1835, p. 195Google Scholar, claims to have bought a manuscript of this Persian Pentateuch translation and to have sent it as a present to the British and Foreign Bible Society.

⁹⁴ For details pertaining to this Psalm translation see G. Margoliouth, l.c., No. 159, pp. 120–121. As we know (from the previous pages), this was by no means the first translation of the Psalms into Persian. This Psalm translation was apparently the basis of a printed edition of the Psalms in Hebrew and Persian by Benjamin Hacohen Bukhari (Vienna, 1883). It is stated in “Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society,” compiled by T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, London, 1911, Vol. 4, pp. 1210–1211, “This diglot edition includes a Persian version based upon a translation prepared by Baba Nuriel by order of Nadir Shah (1688–1747).”

⁹⁵ The names of the Carmelite translators are known. They were Bishop Philip Mary, Fr. Urban of St. Elisaeus, and Fr. Thomas Aquinas; the latter, however, died during the preparation of the translation (see Chronicle, pp. 636, 984–987, 1012–1013 and 1018). It is interesting to note that Father Philip Mary, in a letter of April 11, 1740 relates that he was “forced to go and assist in the translation, which the Shah had ordered to be made into Persian of the Holy Gospels, the Psalms, the Pentateuch and the prophecy of Isaiah, and the Quran.” (Chronicle, pp. 634, 986.)

⁹⁶ It is evident that the Christian translators did not make use of any earlier Persian translation of the Gospels, such as that made by John Thaddeus by order of Shah ʻAbbās I in 1618, or those which owe their existence in Europe to G. Vecchietti or Father Xavier in Agra, India. All these earlier manuscripts were unknown to them. Only six years after the Gospel translation was completed did one of the Christian translators discover in the archives of the Convent of Isfahan the Gospel version of the year 1618. See E. Blochet, Catalogue des Manuscrits Persanes, l.c, Vol. I, No. 7, p. 6, which is a copy made by Pere Legrand in Gilan in 1746. The manuscript of the original translation seems to have disappeared, but was found again years later by Bishop Philip Mary. See “Chronicle,” p. 638, Note 1; and Buchanan, John, “Christian Researches in Asia,” London, 1812, pp. 182–184Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ The work was divided among the various Christians in such a way that the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and the Apocalypse were assigned to the Armenians, while the Catholic missionaries were assigned to translate the four Gospels.

⁹⁸ See Chronicle, pp. 634, 636; des Vignes in “Lettres Edifiantes,” l.c., Vol. IV, p. 402.

⁹⁹ About the steady quarrels between the various Christian groups, the sources supply an abundance of documentary evidence. See Chronicle, pp. 634, 637–638, 985.

The internal quarrels between the Roman Catholics and the Armenians had greatly increased during the year of Nādir Shah's absence in India. The Armenians persecuted the Catholics and demanded the expulsion of the Catholic missionaries in 1740, even petitioning the Viceroy to this effect.

¹⁰⁰ Chronicle, l.c., p. 636.

¹⁰¹ For the manuscript of the Persian Koran translation see E. Blochet, Catalogue, l.c., Vol. 4, No. 2210, p. 168.

¹⁰² Chronicle, l.c., p. 635ff.; 1018.

¹⁰³ See Hanway, l.c., pp. 217–221, and Malcolm, l.c., Vol. 2, p. 104. The account given by E. G. Browne in “A Literary History of Persia,” Vol. 4, p. 137 is based on Malcolm's statement, and furthermore, marred by a number of additional inaccuracies. Browne placed the meeting not in Qazvin but in Teheran, and omits mention of the Pentateuch and the Psalms. He writes: “Nadir Shah commented on the translation with derision and hinted that when he found leisure he might (perhaps after the model of Akbar) produce a new religion of his own, which should supplant alike Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” See also Chronicle, p. 635ff.

¹⁰⁴ “Lettres Edifiantes,” Vol. 4, p. 402ff.; Hanway, l.c., p. 218ff.

¹⁰⁵ It might well be—with the words of Father Leander — that: “Nādir Shah was disturbed in mind by the fresh rout of his people by the Uzbaks, who killed another cousin of his and, on the other hand, suspecting that the Sultan of Constantinople might be about to declare war on him in view of the fact that the latter had been reinforcing garrisons and getting armies ready at Kars and Erzerum, his thoughts turned back to the political and military government of his dominions and he abandoned his religious ideas, to which, as it was rumored, he had never given real attention.” Chronicle, p. 638, quoted from “Leandro di Santa Cecilia, Secondo Viaggio dell' Oriente.” Rome, 1757Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Malcolm, l.c., Vol. 2, p. 220.

¹⁰⁷ Lockhart, l.c., p. 280.

¹⁰⁸ According to one tradition, recorded by the author of “Taʼrīkh Nairang i Afghān” it is said, “When Nādir Shah, on his way to India, reached Peshavar, the chiefs of the Yusufzai tribe presented him with a manuscript of the Old Testament (Taurāt) written in Hebrew along with some other documents relating to their old prayers. The Jewish soldiers recognized them at once.”

Although the credibility of this tradition is doubtful it may well be that this incident might have affected Nādir Shah's idea of the Persian translations of the Holy Books. See Uddin, Imad, “The Origin of the Afghans,” in Islamic Culture, 1949, p. 8Google Scholar; also Johnston, A. K., in “Review of Religion,” June, 1904, p. 240Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ See above notes 52 and 53.

¹¹⁰ Nādir's relationship to Akbar's ideas would deserve a special thorough study. For references to this relationship see Hanway, l.c., Vol. 2, p. 220: “The Emperor Akbar, though not so great a warrior, had as liberal a mind as Nadir Shah”; and E. Blochet, “Catalogue,” l.c., No. 2208, “Nādir, probably in the hope of succeeding where Akbar had failed …; see also Lockhart, l.c., p. 1, pp. 80–81 as to points of similarity between Nādir Shah and Timur.

¹¹¹ Steinschneider, “Die Arabische Literatur der Juden,” Frankfurt °/M, 1902, p. XVII) has already rightly remarked: “Der Boden auf welchem Muslim und Juden am häufigsten und leichtesten einander naeher traten war der der Wissenschaft und Literatur”; and “Man verkehrte viel und bekehrte wenig” (l.c., p. XXI).

¹¹² See E. G. Browne, l.c., Vol. 4, pp. 277–281; and the “Life of Sheikh Mohammed Ali Hazin (1692–1767), transl. by Belfour, F. C., Oriental Translation Fund, London, 1830, Chapter 9, p. 62Google Scholar.

¹¹³ He added, however, “but I found that order of man totally destitute of knowledge and learning and entire strangers to thought and discernment. Their stupidity and obduracy in ignorance are without end or measure.”

¹¹⁴ His work was edited under the title “Tadhkira-i-Shustar,” an account of Shustar from the earliest time to 1169 (1756), ed. by Hussain (Bibliotheca Indica), Calcutta, 1924, Vol. 206. The author entered the service of Nādir Shah as a supervisor of religious state functions. He had religious discussions with Nādir Shah in which he presented the Shiʻa religion; see Introduction, pp. VIII–IX.

¹¹⁵ Neither Minorsky nor Lockhart mention specifically Nādir Shah's attitude towards his Jewish subjects. See Patai, R., “A Popular Life of Nadir” in “Edoth,” Jerusalem, 1948, pp. 1–20Google Scholar, with some notes by Lockhart. About the cruel execution of two Armenians, two Zoroastrians and four Jews in Isfahan in 1747, having been accused of theft, see “Chronicle,” l.c., pp. 651–652; Lockhart, l.c., p. 258; Lettres Edifiantes, l.c., IV, p. 30.

¹¹⁶ About the transfer of Jews from Qazvin to Meshhed in the time of Nādir Shah the oral tradition still preserved among the elders of the community is supported by a written document, namely, a Hebrew poem by Salomon ben Mashiaḥ of Meshhed, in which the Qazvin origin of the Jews of Meshhed is especially mentioned and the events described which led to the forced conversion of this community in 1838. This “Piut” (poem) entitled “Shira l'meoraoth Anusei Moshe …” is incorporated in the Prayer Book of the Persian Jews, “Oneg Shabbat” composed by Mulla Murad, the secret Rabbi of the Meshhed community, and published in Jerusalem in 1909. See also J. Wolff, Researches and Missionary Labors, l.c., who states, “When Nadir Shah arrived at Casween he took the Jews from thence (together with the Armenians from old Djulfa) and brought them to Meshhed where he gave to all of them the privilege of erecting synagogues,” pp. 125, 135, 227. See also M. Streck, in Encycl. of Islam, s.v., Meshhed.

¹¹⁷ In the Judaeo-Persian Chronicle of the 17th century by Babai ben Lutf and Babai ben Farhad, Meshhed does not figure as a seat of a Jewish settlement, but Qazvin is mentioned. See Bacher, W., “Les Juifs de Perse au XVII^e et au XVIII^e siècles,” Strassburg, 1907Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ The fate of this community after the death of Nādir Shah is a tragic story which led to their forced conversion and to the phenomenon of “Marranos” (Jadīd-ul-Islām) in 1839; see the present writer's study on “The Marrano Community in Persia,” in “Zion,” Jerusalem, 1936, pp. 49–74Google Scholar, and in “Commentary,” New York, January, 1949, pp. 27–33.

¹¹⁹ See “Fihrist Kutub Kitabkhāna Astāna Muqaddis Rizāwiya,” 3 vols., Meshhed 1345 A.H. (1928–29), Catalogue of the Library of the Imam Riza Mosque, Vol. I, pp. 22–23, Nos. 50–52, where the manuscripts of the first three books of the Pentateuch are listed. During the author's stay in Meshhed in April, 1936, he had the opportunity of examining these manuscripts in the library of the famous mosque of Imam Riza in Meshhed.

¹²⁰ The Persian entry informs us under No. 50, “Tarjumat-Taurāt” by an unknown translator in the time of Fatḥ ʻAlī Shah (1797–1834) presented as Waqf in 1262 A.H. (1846–1847), 251 pages. The manuscript of Exodus, No. 51, dates from 1226 A.H. (1809), 250 pages, and No. 52, Leviticus from 1216 A.H. (1799), 244 pages. See Ivanoff, W., “A Notice on the Library attached to the Shrine of Imam Riza in Meshhed” (JRAS), London, 1920, p. 550Google Scholar, where reference is made to the Manuscripts Nos. 50, 51 and 52 (Pentateuch) and to 53 (Injīl) ; also Herzfeld, E., “In Ephemerides Orientales.” Leipzig, January, 1925, No. 28Google Scholar; Spies, O., in “Orientalistische Studien,” in honor of Enno. Littmann, Leyden, 1935, pp. 89–100Google Scholar.

¹²¹ It might well be that Fatḥ ʻAlī Shah was instrumental in ordering this transliteration of the Pentateuch books after he became acquainted with H. Martyn's translation of the New Testament into Persian. The English Ambassador in Teheran, Sir. G. Ouseley, presented to the Shah in 1814 Martyn's Persian translation of the New Testament (published in St. Petersburg in 1815 and in Calcutta in 1816). Concerning the reaction of Fatḥ ʻAlī Shah, see De Sacy in “Journal des Savants,” Paris, 1816, pp. 45–50.

In the 19th century new attempts had been made to translate the Bible into Persian, particularly on behalf of the Christian missionary societies who worked in Persia. H. Martyn's Persian translation of the New Testament was transliterated into Hebrew characters and in 1847 it appeared in London, to be distributed among the Jewish population of Persia.

At the request of the British and Foreign Bible Society, the Old Testament also was translated into Persian, written with Hebrew characters, with the help of Mirza Nurallāh and Mirza Khudaidād of Teheran, and published 1895 to 1907.

This interesting chapter of Bible translations by European missionary societies cannot be dealt with here. Of the vast literature in this field, reference is made only to the following publications: “A Century of Mission Work in Iran (1834–1934) printed for private circulation” (Beirut, 1936); J. Richter, “A History of the Protestant Missions of the Near East” (New York, 1910); W. T. Gidney, “Sights and Scenes; A Description of the Oriental Mission of the London Society for the Promoting of Christianity among the Jews” (London, 1897); F. H. Darlow-Moule: “Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society,” London, 1911, Vol. IV, p. 1209; and William Canton: “A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society,” London, 1910, Vol. II, p. 353, 377–378; Vol. V, pp. 68–82; 431.

¹²² The latest attempt thus far known to translate the Bible into Persian or rather into the Judaeo-Persian dialect of the Bukharian Jews, is connected with the name of Simon Chacham (1843–1910), a Jewish scholar from Bukhara, who went to Jerusalem in 1890 and began in 1906 the translation (Tafsir) of the whole Bible into the Persian dialect of his Bukharian countrymen. This undertaking was completed in 1914 by Simon Chacham's collaborators, and up to the present this Bible translation has been widely used. See the present writer's study, “Israel in Iran, A survey of Judeo–Persian Literature,” in The Jews, Their History, Culture and Religion, ed. Finkelstein, L., New York, 1949, pp. 848–850Google Scholar, and his article in Jewish Social Studies, New York, 1950, pp. 119–160.