bi Talhah calls for special consideration.

This is because it is possible to

compile material of a Tafsir of Ibn ‘Abbas from the reports of ‘Ali Ibn Abi
Talhah on the basis of about 1,000 texts found in Tabari’s Tafsir.4 In fact,
material for an entire Tafsir of Ibn ‘Abbas can also be gathered from other
reliable reports recorded in collections of Hadith, such as Bukhari, and in
earliest commentaries of the Qur’an such as that of Tabari. Reliable
reports from Ibn ‘Abbas regarding the interpretation of the Qur’an are not
lacking. But this did not prevent some from ascribing a host of reports to
this erudite prophetic Companion. There is even an entire commentary of
the Qur’an ascribed to him, namely, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn
‘Abbas, or simply Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas. This commentary was published many
times under the above titles as well as under slightly different titles. Some
editions cite Majd al-Din Muhammad Ibn Ya‘qub al-Firuzabadi (729-
817/1329- 1414) as the author but others simply attribute it to Ibn
‘Abbas.5 So is this commentary the work of Ibn ‘Abbas or al-Firuzabadi?
There is no doubt that this commentary is not the work of Ibn ‘Abbas. The
chain of transmitters of this commentary goes back to Muhammad Ibn
Marwan> al-Kalbi> Abu Salih which is described by Hadith experts as the
chain of lies (silsilat al-kadhib), for this line of transmission is utterly
dubious and unreliable. One does not even need to use the criteria for
reliable transmission applied by Hadith experts to decide this
commentary’s wrong attribution to Ibn ‘Abbas. It is easy to detect obvious
anomalies in the text of Tanwir al-Miqbas which leave one with no doubt
that whoever wrote it lived many centuries after Ibn ‘Abbas. One finds it,
for instance, references to Hasan al-Basri, al-Suddi and even the
grammarian Yahya Ibn Ziyad alFarra’ (d. 207/822).6 In a few places, after
giving different meanings of the same verse, the author(s) or compiler(s)
proceed(s) to say: “… and this is the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas” or: “Ibn ‘Abbas
says…”, forgetting that the entire commentary is supposed to be an
accurate transmission of what is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas.