  These are welcome developments, to be sure, but there is cause for further reflection. In particular, the arguments advanced by Ibn Kammuna have as a rule not been taken into account by the editors, who must decide between variants in the manuscripts, or by the critics who review the editions. Simply taking note of variants missed by one or more editor, even if these seem to be significant, is not enough; we would like to see a discussion of sample passages, with full analysis of the implications of the different readings. At times there is no grammatical, syntactical, or lexical reason a priori to choose one variant over the other. Without fully understanding the passage in question, errors may ensue; an example of this given by Langermann 2009, p. 282. Earlier editions must not be dismissed as worthless unless one can provide examples to prove such an extreme claim. Moreover, changing the title of a book in mid-course without any justification (all agree, for example, that Ibn Kammuna himself gave no title to the work commonly referred to as the New Wisdom) introduces confusion with no compensatory payoff. 