Noble Treiger AbF DiscourseHolyTrinity Libre

8/9/2019 Noble Treiger AbF DiscourseHolyTrinity Libre

1/47

Le Muséon 124 (3-4), 371-417. doi: 10.2143/MUS.124.3.2141858 - Tous droits réservés.© Le Muséon, 2011.

CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGYIN BYZANTINE ANTIOCH

‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l al-An†ak i and his Discourse on the Holy Trinity*

Introduction

After the Byzantine re-conquest of Antioch from the Muslims in 969 anduntil its destruction by the Mamluk hordes in 1268, the city and the neigh-

boring monasteries became an important intellectual center of Arab Ortho-dox Christianity1, where numerous Christian works – especially those ofthe Greek Church Fathers – were translated from Greek into Arabic (aswell as, concurrently, into Georgian and Armenian) and where Arab Chris-tian theologians composed original works in their native tongue2.

* In this article we use the following abbreviations: BDIC = R. CASPAR et al., Bibliographie du dialogue islamo-chrétien, sections on

Christian Arab literature: P. KHOURY – R. CASPAR, pt. 1, section 12, in Islamochristiana,1 (1975), p. 152-169; S.Kh. SAMIR, pt. 2, section 22, in Islamochristiana, 2 (1976),p. 201-242; S.Kh. SAMIR, pt. 3, section 22.4, in Islamochristiana, 3 (1977), p. 257-284;

S.Kh. SAMIR, pt. 5, addenda et corrigenda, in Islamochristiana, 5 (1979), p. 300-311;GCAL = G. GRAF, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur , 5 vols., Vatican, 1944-1953; HMLÉM = J. NASRALLAH, Histoire du mouvement littéraire dans l’Église melchitedu V e au XX e siècle, vol. II.2 and III.1, Louvain – Paris, 1983-89; PG = J.-P. MIGNE (ed.),

Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca.1 By “Arab Orthodox” we mean Arabic-speaking Byzantine-rite Orthodox Christians

(in Arabic: Rum Orthodox), traditionally called Melkites (today, however, the term Mel-kite is usually reserved for the Byzantine-rite Eastern Catholic church); cf. S. GRIFFITH,The Church of Jerusalem and the ‘Melkites’: The Making of an ‘Arab Orthodox’ Chris-tian Identity in the World of Islam, 750-1050CE , in O. LIMOR – G.G. STROUMSA (ed.),Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land , Turnhout, 2006, p. 173-202.

2 HMLÉM , vol. III.1, especially, on translations, p. 196-220, 273-310, 387-391;K. CIGGAAR – M. METCALF (ed.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean:

I. Antioch from the Byzantine Reconquest until the End of the Crusader Principality,Leuven, 2006; V.V. KRIVOV, Araby khristiane v Antiokhii X-XI vv. [ Arab Christians in Antioch in the 10th-11th cc.], in Traditions and Heritage of the Christian East , Moscow,1996, p. 247-255. Translation activity spread also to Muslim-controlled parts of Syria.Thus, in Damascus, the Arab Orthodox translator Ibn SaÌquq (fl. 1010) is credited with acomplete Arabic version of the Dionysian corpus. See A. TREIGER, New Evidence on the

Arabic Versions of the Corpus Dionysiacum, in Le Muséon, 118 (2005), p. 219-240; IDEM,The Arabic Version of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s Mystical Theology, Chapter 1 ,in Le Muséon, 120 (2007), p. 365-393. and now C. BONMARIAGE – S. MOUREAU, CorpusDionysiacum Arabicum. Étude, édition critique et traduction des Noms divins IV, § 1-9.

Partie I , in Le Muséon, 124.1-2 (2011), p. 181-227 and Partie II , in Le Muséon, 124.3-4(2011), p. 419-459.


2/47

372 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

Despite its obvious importance, this fact remains largely unknown toscholars of Patristics, Byzantinists, and Arabists. In the case of Patristics,

this neglect is all the more unfortunate because several Patristic workstranslated into Arabic in that time period are now lost in Greek and sur-vive only in these Arabic translations. A striking example is furnishedby the fascinating, still unpublished ascetic text The Noetic Paradise (al-Firdaws al-‘aqli ), originally written in Greek, probably in Palestine,in the seventh or eighth century3. The title of the treatise refers to theangelic realm out of which the human mind (nous / ‘aql) was expelledafter the Fall. The text embarks on a complex analysis of virtues andvices, delineating the ways in which one ought to “till” the earth ofone’s heart and remove the vices corrupting it, to have one’s mind puri-

fied and readmitted to the noetic paradise4.Byzantinists, too, could benefit from a closer examination of the Arabic

translations and original Christian works composed in Arabic in Byzan-tine Antioch as they provide indispensible information on the philosoph-ical and theological climate in Byzantium, bilingualism, Church historyand politics, monasticism, and other related subjects. Furthermore, sev-eral works of Byzantine literature were translated into Arabic in thatperiod. Their Arabic translations are important, inter alia, for the manu-script readings that they represent: these translations are often earlierthan the earliest extant Greek manuscripts of these works and in several

cases contemporary or nearly contemporary with their authors. One note-worthy example is Nikon of the Black Mountain’s Pandekt e s, written inGreek in the eleventh century and for the most part still unpublished. Wedo not know for certain who translated it into Arabic, but it is likely thatthis translation – entitled Kit ab al- Î awi al-kabi r and also unpublished –was prepared in the region of Antioch5.

3 GCAL, vol. 1, p. 413-414, vol. 2, p. 397; D. GÜNZBURG et al., Les Manuscrits arabes …de l’Institut des Langues Orientales, St Petersburg, 1891 [repr. Amsterdam, 1971], p. XIV,58-77; and the recent discussion in A. TREIGER, Umnyj raj: mistiko-asketicheskij traktatv arabskom perevode [The Noetic Paradise: A Mystical and Ascetic Treatise Preserved in

Arabic], in Simvol, 58 (2010), p. 297-316. The text is variously attributed to Gregory ofNyssa or John of Damascus, but could not have been authored by either of them.4 The present writers are jointly editing an anthology of twelve Orthodox texts, trans-

lated from Arabic, The Orthodox Church in the Arab World (700-1700) , which willinclude a first English translation of excerpts from the Noetic Paradise (the Anthology isto be published by Northern Illinois University Press). In the future, we are hoping topublish a complete English translation and a critical edition of this important work.

5 A note in the Ethiopian version, entitled MaÒÌafa Î awi and made from the Arabic,ascribes the original Arabic translation to a certain Gabriel ibn al-Bi †r i q, who has beenidentified with the Coptic Patriarch Gabriel II ibn Turayk (r. 1131-1145). This however isuncertain, among other things because it is unlikely that the Coptic Patriarch knew Greekwell enough to translate such an extensive and complex work. It is more likely that he


3/47

CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 373

Arabists ought to be aware that the better known Graeco-Arabic trans-lation movement of the ‘Abbasid period, centered in Baghdad in the

eighth-tenth centuries, was not the only large-scale attempt to renderGreek writings into Arabic 6. The Antiochene translation movement ofPatristic works matched it in scope. Though unlike the Baghdad transla-tion movement it did not, as far as we can tell, influence the Muslimcommunities, which by that time had largely lost interest in Christianlore, it was crucial to the subsequent development of Middle EasternChristianity. The Arabic versions of Greek Patristic texts produced inAntioch and its environs (as well as in other translation centers, such asthe monastery of Mar Saba in Palestine) were later read, copied, andcited extensively by Middle-Eastern Christians of all denominations,

especially the Copto-Arabic theologians of the thirteenth century. Someof these Arabic translations, together with many original Copto-Arabicworks, were subsequently translated into Ge‘ez, thus influencing Chris-tianity in Ethiopia7.

1. ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂ l: Life and Works

Life

The eleventh-century Arab Orthodox translator and theologian ‘Abdal-lah ibn al-Fa∂l is one of the most important contributors to the Anti-ochene Graeco-Arabic translation movement of Patristic works. Unfor-

adapted an already existing Arabic translation, originating, as many others, from theregion of Antioch. On Patriarch Gabriel II see S.Kh. SAMIR, Ibn Tar i k ou Ibn Turayk?, in

Le Muséon, 101 (1988), p. 171-177; S.Kh. SAMIR, Remariage des prêtres veufs? L’attitudedu patriarche copte Gabriel II Ibn Turayk (1131-1145), in Proche-Orient Chrétien, 44(1994), p. 277-282; S.Y. LABIB, art. Gabriel II ibn Turayk , in Coptic Encyclopaedia,vol. 4, p. 1127-1129.

6 On the Graeco-Arabic translation movement of the ‘Abbasid period see D. GUTAS,Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdadand Early ‘Abbasid Society (2nd-4th/8th-10th centuries), London – New York, 1998;

S. GRIFFITH, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque, Princeton, 2008, p. 106-128.7 M. KAMIL, Translations from Arabic in Ethiopic Literature, in Bulletin de la Sociétéd’Archéologie Copte, 8 (1942), p. 61-71; A. VAN LANTSCHOOT, Abba Salama métropolited’Éthiopie (1348-1388) et son rôle de traducteur , in Atti del Convegno Internazionale deiStudi Etiopici, Rome, 1960, p. 397-401; L. RICCI, art. Ethiopian Christian Literature, inCoptic Encyclopaedia, vol. 3, p. 975-979, esp. 976-977. Two examples of such transla-tions into Ge‘ez can be given here: (1) Nikon’s Pandekt e s, translated from Arabic intoEthiopic as MaÒÌafa Î awi (cf. n. 5 above); (2) ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s Arabic version ofIsaac of Nineveh (made from the Greek version produced earlier at Mar Saba) was trans-lated into Ethiopic, apparently in the sixteenth century (a critical edition of the Ethiopictranslation has recently appeared: D. BERHANU, Das maÒÌafa Mar Yeshaq aus Ninive,Hamburg, 1997).


4/47


tunately, little is known about his life. From his full name as given in themanuscripts – al-s ammas ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂ l ibn ‘Abdallah al-mu† r an

al-An† ak i Abu al-Fat Ì – we can deduce that he was a deacon (s ammas)from Antioch (al-An† ak i ) and a grandson of a bishop or metropolitan(mu† r an), whose name was also ‘Abdallah8. We know also that he wasactive around the year 1050. His Arabic translation of Basil’s Hex-aëmeron was completed in 1052, as evidenced by the manuscripts of thiswork9. In the same year, he completed his Book of Joy of the Believer ( Kit ab Bahjat al-mu’min)10. His magnum opus The Book of Benefit ( Kit ab al-Manfa‘a) was completed between 1043 and 105211.

Some of ‘Abdallah’s works and translations were commissioned byvarious church officials and intellectuals: the Exposition of the Orthodox

Faith (S ar Ì al-amana al-mustaqi ma) by John bishop of Manbij (Hiera-polis or Mabbug in northern Syria), the translation of the Psalms by acertain Abu Zakar i ya ibn Salama12, and the translation of Isaac of Nin-eveh (made from an earlier Greek version produced at Mar Saba in theninth century) by a certain Nikephoros (N i kuf ur) Abu al-NaÒr 13 ibnBu†rus al-Qubuql i s. It has not yet been noted that the last person’s title“al-Qubuql i s” means that he was a church official, a “chamberlain”(kouboukleisios) of the patriarch (presumably the Patriarch of Antioch)14.

8 We take the nisba al-An†ak i (from Antioch) to refer to ‘Abdallah himself rather than to hisgrandfather the bishop, since bishops of Antioch would normally be referred to as patriarchs.

9 J. NASRALLAH, Dossier arabe des œuvres de saint Basile dans la littérature melchite,in Proche-Orient Chrétien, 29 (1979), p. 17-43; P.J. FEDWICK, Basil of Caesaria: Chris-tian, Humanist, Ascetic, Toronto, 1981, p. 485-492; P.J. FEDWICK, Bibliotheca BasilianaUniversalis: A Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea ,5 vols., Turnhout, 1993-2004, vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 168-171.

10 F. SEPMEIJER, The Book of Splendor of the Believer by ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂ l, in Parole de l’Orient , 16 (1990-91), p. 115-120.

11 It refers (in Ch. 65) to the Nestorian philosopher and theologian Abu l-Faraj ibnal-™ayyib, who died in 1043, as recently deceased (raÌimahu llah), and is itself referencedin the Kit ab Bahjat al-mu’min, written in 1052.

12 New Haven, Beinecke Library, MS 349, fol. 181v gives instead two names:Zakhar i ya and YuÌanna ibn Salama.

13 Abu al-NaÒr is simply the Arabic equivalent of the Greek Nikephoros. Sinai ar. 351,

fol. 5v gives also the names of his two brothers: Abu l-Îasan Sim‘an and Abu l-Îayr M i Ìa' i l.14 On kouboukleisios, an honorific title of a member of the patriarch’s cubiculum,

bestowed by the emperor or the patriarch, see A. KAZHDAN, art. Kouboukleisios, in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 2, New York, 1991, p. 1155; J. DARROUZÈS, Recherches surles offikia de l’église byzantine, Paris, 1970, p. 39-44. Oxford, MS Holkham gr. 6 waswritten ca. 1050-1052 by a certain Theophylact, a kouboukleisios of the Patriarch ofAntioch; see J.H. JENKINS – C. MANGO, A Synodicon of Antioch and Lacedaemonia, in

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 15 (1961), p. 225-242, at p. 231 and Plate 8; Greek Manuscriptsin the Bodleian Library: An Exhibition Held in Connection with the 13th InternationalCongress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 1966, p. 19-20.

The term qubuqli s is attested in the Arabic version of Nikon’s Taktikon, Ch. 37, §33,where it is corrupted into faqli s (in Vat. ar. 76); see C.-M. WALBINER – M. NANOBASHVILI,

Nicon’s Treatise on the Conversion of the Georgians in Christian Arabic Literature and


5/47


This would appear to indicate that ‘Abdallah’s translation work enjoyedthe support of the patriarchate, which is only to be expected. Unfortu-

nately, nothing further is known about Abu al-NaÒr ibn Bu†rus al-Qubu-ql i s or any of the other individuals who commissioned ‘Abdallah’s trans-lations and theological works.

It is clear that ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l received a strong education inboth Greek and Arabic. In the Kit ab al-Raw∂ a he mentions having readGregory of Nazianzus’ funeral oration in praise of St Basil the Great, inGreek15, with a certain Sim‘an al-’ymsyqn (?) ibn al-SabnaÌ i (?)16. Inthe marginal notes to the Kit ab al-Raw∂ a he makes several references toworks on Arabic grammar that he had studied17. Even more remarkableis his claim to have studied the I ÒlaÌ al-Man† iq of Ibn al-Sikk i t (d. 857

or 858) with “our teacher Abu al-‘Ala’” (s ayÌina Abi l-‘Ala’)18. Giventhe rarity of this kunya, the Abu al-‘Ala’ he mentions can be identified,with a high degree of certainty, with the famous blind poet Abu al-‘Ala’

Its Possible Georgian Source, in Le Muséon, 121 (2008), p. 437-461, at p. 456 Arabic /p. 460 English translation.

15 It is noteworthy that there are two commentaries on this text written by scholarsroughly contemporary with ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l – Basil the Lesser (10th century) andNiketas of Herakleia (11th century) – and that both commentaries were translated intoGeorgian (by Eprem Mtsire in the 11th century and an anonymous translator of Gelatitheological school in the 12th century). See K. BEZARASHVILI, On an Unknown Definitionof Grammar in Byzantine and Georgian literary sources, in F.K. HAARER – E. JEFFREYS

(ed.), Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, vol. 3, Alder-shot – Burlington, VT, 2006, p. 200.16 Kit ab al-Raw∂ a, Ch. 43, Cairo, Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies,

Muski, MS 116, p. 107-108 (the text needs to be emended to read: رد شرح: هذا ا صل سمع ن س ى و ب ك ا تارق ،و س ب ا ا ج ل ا ا مرث ة ر ة م ضوم ا اذه ر ا ةم رب ا ا ). In anotherا م اب ا خmanuscript (Vat. ar. 111, fol. 142r), the reading of the name seems to be slightly different:Sim‘an al-’bmysqn (?) ibn al-San i j i (?). We have not been able to ascertain the identityof this figure.

Nikolai Serikoff has suggested to us that the al-’ymsyqn / al-’bmysqn could be read asal-Amas i s (of Emesa) or al-Afas i s (of Ephesus). The former is sometimes used as a nisba in Arabic texts, e.g. D. LEBEDEV, Spisok Episkopov Pervago Vselenskago Sobora v 318imen: K voprosu o ego proiskhozhdenii i znachenii dlia rekonstrukcii podlinnago spiska

nikejskikh otcov [ A List of Bishops of the First Ecumenical Council, including 318 names],in Mémoires de l’Académie imperiale des Sciences de St Petersbourg, VIII ser., no. 13(1916), p. 54, 92 n. 193 (we are grateful to N. Serikoff for this reference). A certainSimeon of Ephesus, a disciple of St Simeon the New Theologian, is mentioned in the lat-ter’s Vita authored by Nicetas Stethatos: ed. I. HAUSHERR, tr. P.G. HORN, in OrientaliaChristiana Analecta, 45 (1928), §33:14, p. 44. Since, however, virtually nothing is knownabout this person, it is impossible to ascertain whether he could have been ‘Abdallah ibnal-Fa∂l’s mentor.

17 This is the result of the unusual technique ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l employed in thiswork: he deliberately used difficult grammatical constructions and vocabulary and thenprovided his own commentary on them, referencing works on Arabic grammar.

18 Kit ab al-Raw∂ a, Ch. 36, Cairo, Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies,Muski, MS 116, p. 92.


6/47


al-Ma‘arr i (d. 1058), who reportedly visited Antioch in his youth (in the980s or 990s) 19. If Ibn al-Fa∂l had studied with al-Ma‘arr i on that occa-

sion, this would push his year of birth well back into the tenth century,meaning that he remained active until a very old age. It is perhaps morelikely that Ibn al-Fa∂l paid a visit to Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘man at a later dateto meet the celebrity poet20.

Additionally, it is at least possible that ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l had apersonal connection with the Baghdadi Nestorian philosopher and theo-logian Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-™ayyib (d. 1043), who was himself a nativeof Antioch21. In Chapter 65 of the Book of Benefit , on logic, ‘Abdallahrefers to Ibn al-™ayyib in somewhat warm terms saying, “these are thewords of the s ayÌ Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-™ayyib, the priest and philosopher,

may God have mercy on him.” Whether or not ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂lmight have visited Baghdad is a matter of speculation, yet his intellectualties with the Baghdadi philosophical circles are undeniable, as clearlyevidenced in his works.

Seventeenth and eighteenth century Arab Orthodox authors, such asthe Patriarch of Antioch Makarios III ibn al-Za‘ i m (patriarch 1647-1672)and the historian Mikhail Breik (d. 1782), as well as numerous manu-scripts from that time period, treat ‘Abdallah as a saint, no doubt for his

19 P. SMOOR, art. al-Ma‘arr i , in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition, vol. V, p. 927-935, at 927b-928a. Moreover, it is significant that al-Ma‘arr i himself refers to Ibn al-Sikk i t and his I ÒlaÌ al-man† iq in his letters – see D.S. MARGOLIOUTH (ed.), The Letters of

Abu ’l-‘Ala’ of Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘man, Oxford, 1898, Letter 2, passim (the letter is addressedto Abu l-Qasim al-Magrib i , the well-known wazi r and author of an abridgement of the

I ÒlaÌ al-man† iq that al-Ma‘arr i praises as much surpassing Ibn al-Sikk i t’s original work;is it perhaps the abridgement rather than the original work that Ibn al-Fa∂l studied withal-Ma‘arr i ?); Letter 36, p. 120: 6 (Arabic) / 139 (English tr.). On Abu l-Qasim al-Magrib i see P. SMOOR, art. Abu ’l- Ë asim … al-Maghribi , in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition,vol. V, p. 1211b-1212b.

20 If, as tentatively suggested in n. 19, Ibn al-Fa∂l studied with al-Ma‘arr i Abu l-Qasimal-Magrib i ’s abridgement of Ibn al-Sikk i t’s work, praised by al-Ma‘arr i , rather that Ibnal-Sikk i t’s original composition, which al-Ma‘arr i did not like, it would prove that Ibnal-Fa∂l actually visited al-Ma‘arr i at a later date, as al-Ma‘arr i received this abridgementshortly before the year 399/1008-09, and in any case long after his visit to Antioch. Ibn

al-Fa∂l could have met al-Ma‘arr i either in Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘man (perhaps on his way to orfrom Baghdad?), or even in Baghdad itself, during al-Ma‘arr i ’s short stay there ca. 398-400/1008-10. In any case, it is quite possible that someone among Ibn al-Fa∂l’s family orfriends had a connection to al-Ma‘arr i , first established during the latter’s original visit toAntioch in the 980s or 990s.

21 According to Ibn al-‘Ad i m. See L. CONRAD, Ibn Bu† lan in Bilad al-Sham: TheCareer of a Travelling Christian Physician, in D. THOMAS (ed.), Syrian Christians under

Muslim Rule, Leiden, 2001, p. 131-157, at p. 143, 153. Incidentally, Ibn Bu†lan’s career,admirably summarized and analyzed by Conrad, presents additional evidence to the strongties existing just a generation later between Baghdad, Aleppo, and Antioch. Curiouslyenough, Ibn Bu†lan was both a student of Ibn al-™ayyib and a friend of al-Ma‘arr i and wasreportedly present at the latter’s deathbed – see P. SMOOR, art. al-Ma‘arr i , in Encyclopae-dia of Islam, vol. V, p. 930b.


7/47


outstanding contribution to the life of the Church as translator and theo-logian22. The Patriarch Makarios includes ‘Abdallah in his listing of the

saints’ lives, the Synaxarion23.Works

The following is a provisional list of ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s Biblicaland Patristic translations and his original Arabic theological works. It isprovided here for convenience’s sake and is not meant to replace the listsof Georg Graf, Joseph Nasrallah, and Samir Khalil Samir, which alsooffer an inventory of the extant manuscripts of each work (complementedand updated by Alexander Treiger’s entry on ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l in thethird volume of Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History)24.

A. Translations

1. The Psalms25

2. Lectionaries from the Gospels, St Paul’s Epistles, and the Prophets3. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Genesis, Commentary on the

Gospel of Matthew, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Homilieson First Corinthians, Commentary on the Hebrews, Commentary onthe Romans, Collection of 87 Homilies (entitled Mawa‘iÂ s ar i fa wa-alf aÂ muÌtaÒara la† i fa li-Fam al-∂ ahab), Exhortation to Penitence

4. Basil, Homilies on the Psalms and Hexaëmeron

5. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Creation of Man, Liber in Hexaëmeron (entitled Fi Ìulqat al-insan wa-s araf ma‘ani hi), Commentary on theSong of Songs

22 See e.g. M i Ìa’ i l BREIK (BURAYK), al- Î aqa’iq al-waf i ya f i t ar i Ì ba† arikat al-Kani saal-An† ak i ya, Beirut, 2006, p. 124-125.

23 HMLÉM , vol. III.1, p. 191-192, n. 1, which cites the relevant passages in the origi-nal Arabic. The recent edition of the Synaxarion M. ABRAÒ – M. JABBUR, al-Sinaksaral-an† ak i li-l-ba† riyark Mak ariyus al- †ali † ibn al-Za‘i m, Jounieh, 2010, strangely does notcontain the passage.

24 GCAL, vol. 2, p. 52-64 (and Index, vol. 5, p. 2b); HMLÉM , III.1, p. 191-229 (withreferences to earlier literature at p. 191, n. 1), also p. 387-388; J. NASRALLAH, Abdallah Ibnal-Fadl (XI e siècle), in Proche-Orient Chrétien, 33 (1983), p. 143-159 [largely parallel to HMLÉM ]; S.Kh. SAMIR, BDIC, pt. 2, p. 210-214, No. 22.7, and a brief addendum, in BDIC,pt. 5, p. 306, No. 22.7.7; A. TREIGER, art. ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂ l al-An† ak i , in D. THOMAS et al. (ed.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, vol. 3, Leiden, 2011,p. 89-113. On the translations see also H. DAIBER, Graeco-Arabica Christiana: The ChristianScholar ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Fa∂ l (11th c. AD) as Transmitter of Greek Works, in D.C. REIS-MAN – F. OPWIS (ed.), Islamic Philosophy, Science, Culture and Religion: Studies in

Honor of Dimitri Gutas, Leiden, 2011 (forthcoming: not seen).25 ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s Arabic translation of the Psalms (made from the Septuagint)

became by far the most influential in the Christian Arab world. See Val. V. P OLOSIN etal., The Arabic Psalter: A Supplement to the Facsimile Edition of Manuscript A187 “The

Petersburg Arabic Illuminated Psalter”, St Petersburg, 2005.


8/47


6. Maximus the Confessor, Disputation with Pyrrhus, Chapters on Love, Capita theologica et oeconomica

7. Andrew of Crete, Encomium to St Nicholas8. John of Damascus, Libellus de recta fide (entitled Dust ur f i al-

amana al-mustaqi ma)9. Isaac of Nineveh, 35 Homilies on Monastic Life (entitled Fi al-Ìayat

al-nusk i ya) and Fi ru’us al-ma‘rifa (seems to render the Greekexpression kephalaia gnostika)

10. Pseudo-Sophronius, Book of Proof on Establishing the [Correct] Faith ( Kit ab al-Burhan f i ta † bi t al-i man, a dogmatic treatise in 28chapters dealing with the six ecumenical councils and various her-esies; lost in Greek)

11. Pseudo-Maximus, Capita Theologica seu Loci Communes, trans-lated as Book of the Garden ( Kit ab al-Raw∂ a) 26

12. Pseudo-Caesarius, Centuries (embedded in the Book of Joy of the Believer )

B. Independent Works27

1. Book of Benefit ( Kit ab al-Manfa‘a)28

2. Discourse on the Holy Trinity ( Kalam f i al-™alu† al-muqaddas), alsoknown as the “Small Book of Benefit” ( Kit ab al-Manfa‘a al-Òagi r )or “Theological Discourse” ( Kalam f i al-Lahut ) – edited and trans-

lated below3. Book of Joy of the Believer ( Kit ab Bahjat al-mu’min)4. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (S ar Ì al-amana al-mustaqi ma)5. The Creed in Brief ( Amana muÌtaÒara)6. Concise Questions and Answers about the Holy Gospel (al-Su’alat

al-muÌtaÒara wa-l-ajwiba ‘anha min al-Inj i l al-muqaddas)7. Challenges and Responses on the Trinity and the [Hypostatic]

Union ( Masa’il wa-ajwiba Ìawl al-Ta † li† wa-l-IttiÌad )8. Book of Lamps ( Kit ab al-MaÒabi Ì)9. Treatise Beneficial to the Soul (lit. “Treatise Containing Ideas Ben-

eficial to the Soul,” Maqala tas tamilu ‘ala Ma‘ani na fi‘a li-l-nafs)26 The Book of the Garden ( Kit ab al-Raw∂ a), classified by Graf, Nasrallah, and Samir

as an original work, is in fact a translation of Capita Theologica seu Loci Communes,which is now available in a critical edition by S. IHM, Ps.-Maximus Confessor: Erstekritische Edition einer Redaktion des sacro-profanen Florilegiums Loci communes, Stutt-gart, 2001. This fact seems to have been noticed only by M. VAN ESBROECK, Les sentencesmorales des philosophes grecs dans les traditions orientales , in L’Eredità classica nellelingue orientali, Rome, 1986, p. 11-23. Ihm duly refers to van Esbroeck’s article but doesnot take Kit ab al-Raw∂ a into account in her critical edition.

27 On Book of the Garden ( Kit ab al-Raw∂ a) see n. 26 above.28 The present authors are currently preparing a critical edition of this important work.


9/47


10. Refutation of the Astrologers ( Risala yaruddu f i ha … ‘ala l-munaj- jimi n)

11. Treatise on the Triumph of the Cross ( Maqala ‘ala intiÒar al-∑ali bal-kar i m)

12. Introduction and Commentary on the Psalms (integrated with thetranslation of the Psalms mentioned above, though sometimes trans-mitted separately)

C. Spurious Works

1. Atmospheric Phenomena (Ta’ †i r at al-jaww)29

2. Glossary of Terms (Tafsi r kalam mu‘jam min al-‘arabi ya)30

2. ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂ l’s Theology

In his important work on Arab Christian theology La Trinité divinechez les théologiens arabes, Rachid Haddad divided Christian Arabicliterature into two periods, “patristique arabe” and “scolastique arabe.”In his view, the first, “patristic” period lasted from the beginning ofChristian Arabic literature until around the year 900 and is characterizedby an incomplete assimilation of Greek philosophy. The latter, “scholas-tic” period was, according to Haddad, inaugurated by the Jacobite theo-logian and philosopher YaÌya ibn ‘Ad i (d. 974) and is characterized by

the fuller integration of Greek philosophical concepts as well as elementsof Muslim thought into Christian theology31. Even though this periodiza-tion is somewhat problematic32, it may still be useful to characterize‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s approach as “scholastic,” given the especially

29 This cannot be a work of ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l as it mentions cannons and gunpowder (St Petersburg, Oriental Institute, MS B1234, fol. 11b). The author is probably theseventeenth-century Capuchin Father Bonaventure of Lude, active in Aleppo, to whom asimilar work is ascribed (GCAL, vol. 4, p. 196).

30 This text was probably written by a scribe. Incipit (St Petersburg, Oriental Institute,MS B1225, fol. 95r): qala ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂ l aw Î unayn: ism al-quwa mus taqq f i

lisan al-yunani min al-qudra ay min al-iqtid ar min al-fi‘l. There follow couples of words(the gloss written below the word which is being glossed): nibr as – sir a j, Ìawba’ – nafsÌassasa, etc., without any arrangement. It is clear that the ascription to ‘Abdallah ibnal-Fa∂l is based on the initial quotation (ism al-quwa mus taqq …), regarding which thescribe himself was unsure where it came from. He offered the names of ‘Abdallah ibnal-Fa∂l and Îunayn, both famous translators and experts in the Greek language, merelyas a guess as two likely authors.

31 R. HADDAD, La Trinité divine chez les théologiens arabes, 750-1050, Paris, 1985,p. 19-20 (= HADDAD, La Trinité divine).

32 Both “patristic” and “scholastic” elements are present in Christian Arabic literatureof all periods and are not easily disentangled and, moreover, some key Greek patristicsources, used especially by the Melkites, could be easily characterized as “scholastic.”


10/47


close relationship between Christian theology and Greek philosophy inhis thought.

For Ibn al-Fa∂l – like other Arabic-writing philosophers, Muslim orChristian, who inherited the Greek philosophical tradition – the study ofthe sciences and philosophical reasoning lead to at least some degree ofauthentic knowledge of God33. His method, therefore, relies heavily onthe sciences and on natural theology, as can be seen in his treatment ofeven the most complex theological questions, such as his analyses ofGod as a substance analogous in some ways to created substances (seebelow)34. It would not be prudent, however, to approach Ibn al-Fa∂l’swritings as presenting a distinct, independent, and coherent philosophicalposition. His approach can be better characterized as synthetic and eclec-

tic. This is why in his attempt to demonstrate Orthodox Christian doc-trines as he understood them, he does not hesitate to integrate and syn-thesize differing interpretations of specific dogmas. His writings thuspresent a running commentary, drawn from various sources, on the theo-logical ideas that were current among Arabic-speaking Orthodox Chris-tians in the Antioch of his time.

There is yet another sense in which Ibn al-Fa∂l can be said to be rep-resentative of the second, “scholastic” period of Arab Christian theol-ogy: namely, in his manner of engagement with the Jacobite and Nesto-rian theologians of Iraq. Even as he polemicizes against their

Christological positions, he sees fit to borrow extensively from theirwritings, while only rarely citing specific authors by name. The moststriking example of this is Ibn al-Fa∂l’s use of the Treatise on the Unityand Trinity of God attributed to Israel, the Nestorian Bishop of Kashkar(d. 872), which we will discuss below. This stands in contrast with hissparing use of quotations from the Greek Fathers, which in both the Discourse on the Holy Trinity and in the Book of Benefit are limited to avirtually ornamental function35. That is not of course at all to say that his

John of Damascus’ Dialectica and several of the Greek writings of Theodore Abu Qurra

exemplify this.33 In one of his marginal notes in the Kit ab al-Raw∂ a, he states that “one who hasstudied the sciences has philosophized, and one who has philosophized has come to knowGod to a certain extent” – Ch. 56, Cairo, Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies,Muski, MS 116, p. 136 / fol. 71r: wa-man qara’a al-‘ulum fa-qad tafalsafa wa-man tafal-safa fa-qad ‘arafa Allah ‘azza wa-jalla ba‘∂ al-ma‘rifa.

34 By natural theology we mean the kind of theological approach that makes non-apophatic statements about God based on rational ideas about the structure of the physicalworld (substance, accident, etc.).

35 On the other hand, his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith seems to be compiledentirely from Greek Patristic sources. See R. WANNOUS, Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂ l, Expositionof the Orthodox Faith, in Parole de l’Orient , 32 (2007), p. 259-269. In the Book of Ben-


11/47


theology is un-patristic. To the contrary, it draws on the problematiquedeveloped in the Greek Patristic engagement with the Neoplatonic com-

mentaries on Aristotle’s logical and philosophical works. Yet it addsanother layer to this engagement, as Ibn al-Fa∂l strives to present Ortho-dox theology in the language of contemporary Arabic peripatetic phi-losophy, itself inspired by the same Neoplatonic commentary tradition.

In the Discourse on the Holy Trinity and the theological passages ofthe Book of Benefit , Ibn al-Fa∂l focuses on defending the doctrine of theTrinity and the Melkite Christological position defining Christ as onehypostasis in two natures. The key to both his Trinitarian theology andhis Christology is the interplay between the universal and the particular.In keeping with the mainstream of Chalcedonian theological discourse

from at least the time of Leontius of Byzantium (sixth century), Ibnal-Fa∂l is concerned with showing which Trinitarian and Christologicalterms refer to universals and which to particulars and with clarifying therelationship between these two sets of terms. In practice, this amounts todefining the relationship between the technical terms jawhar and qunum.While the Arabic term jawhar is almost invariably used as the equivalentof the Greek ousia (substance or essence), the term qunum (derived fromthe Syriac qnoma, literally meaning “self”) cannot be treated as simplya translation of the Greek hypostasis. Ibn al-Fa∂l himself is aware of thisproblem and addresses the question of how to define qunum in several

of his works36. Thus, in Chapter 9 of the Book of Benefit, he definesqunum as “a particular entity with a unique property that necessarilybelongs to it but not to its counterpart”37. In the Challenges and Responses, he states that qunum, which he correctly identifies as a Syriacword, is the equivalent of the Greek hypostasis and the Arabic s aÌÒ (individual) and then provides four possible definitions for the word38.The first is “a substance with [unique] properties (ÌawaÒÒ) numericallydistinct from others of the same species”39. The second, attributed to“the philosophers,” is “a combination of properties which does not need

efit , Ch. 34, ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l makes use of John of Damascus – see Beirut, Biblio-thèque Orientale, MS 541, fol. 43r-v / p. 83-84.

36 Cf. B. HOLMBERG, “Person” in the Trinitarian Doctrine of Christian Arabic Apol-ogetics and its Background in the Syriac Church Fathers, in Studia Patristica, 25 (1993),p. 300-307.

37 Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale, MS 541, fol. 30r / p. 57: ‘ayn ÌaÒÒ mutafarrid bi-ÌaÒÒa lazima lahu laysat li-naÂi rihi . For instance, the Father is “a particular entity with aunique property” – unbegotten – that belongs to it but not to its counterparts: the Son andthe Holy Spirit.

38 Ibn al-Fa∂l, Challenges and Responses, Challenge 4, Vat. ar. 111, fol. 67r-68v.39 jawhar ma‘a ÌawaÒÒ yanfaÒil bi-l-‘adad mimma ∂ ahahu f i al-naw‘.


12/47


another thing in order to subsist”40. The third definition, qualified as “theopinion of the Fathers,” is “that which distinguishes each person from

others according to prosopon (wajh)”41. The fourth, attributed to “somepeople” is “a quality with that which it qualifies that does not apply toany other substance”42. On the other hand, in Chapter 5 of the Discourseon the Holy Trinity, he does not define qunum as simply the equivalentof hypostasis. Rather, he states that its Greek equivalents can be hyposta-sis, person, property, and individual and explains that “it is what is onein number, composed of properties which cannot all exactly be gatheredtogether at any time in something else.” Thus, although Ibn al-Fa∂l rec-ognizes a number of possible definitions for the term qunum, he basicallyintends by it an indivisible, discrete thing distinguished from other dis-

crete things. This understanding is further confirmed by his statement inChapter 34 of the Book of Benefit , that the Greek translation of qunum isa† umun (atomon)43.

In the Discourse on the Holy Trinity and in the Book of Benefit , theproblem of universals and particulars is addressed in three ways. Thefirst is found in Chapter 2 of the Discourse and, with more elaboration,in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Book of Benefit . These chapters state that God – that is, God’s substance44 – is one “as a species [is one] (ka-naw‘)”45.Following arguments in Chapter 1 of the Book of Benefit and Chapter 2of the Discourse on the Holy Trinity that God is a substance, Ibn al-Fa∂l

goes on to deduce that the oneness of the divine substance is analogousto the oneness of a species. This is done through a process of elimina-tion. All substances must be either genera, or species, or individuals, yetGod cannot possibly be a genus because that would require Him to con-tain multiple species. Likewise, He cannot be an individual, because thatwould require that there be other individuals like Him of the same spe-cies46. Thus He must be a species.

40 majma‘ ÌawaÒÒ alla∂i la yaÌt a j ila aÌar f i taqawwumihi .41 al-f aÒil kull waÌid min al-nas min al-aÌar bi-l-wajh.

42 Òifa ma‘a mawÒu f la tajurr jawharan aÌar .43 Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale, MS 541, fol. 42v / p. 82.44 As Chapter 9 of the Discourse shows, Ibn al-Fa∂l is aware of the multiple Christian

usages of the word “God”. When he does not otherwise specify, however, he generallyintends it to mean the divine substance.

45 The statement that God is one as a species seems to be attributed to the Christiansby the ninth-century Jewish mutakallim Da’ud al-MuqammaÒ, see his ‘I s r un maqala, VIII§§45-46, ed. and tr. S. STROUMSA, Dawud ibn Marwan al-MuqammiÒ’s Twenty chapters,Leiden – New York, 1989, p. 172-175.

46 For Porphyry ( Isagoge 4a:37), the five predicates, including genus and species arenecessarily predicated of many individuals. This is discussed in J. BARNES, Porphyry:

Introduction, Oxford, 2003, p. 102-104. This view was also held by the Cappadocian


13/47


The tendency to understand (primary) substance as equivalent to thePorphyrian “most specific species” (eidikotaton eidos) was already pre-

sent in Patristic literature of the sixth and seventh centuries47. However,the formulation of this equivalency as pertaining to the question of God’sunity seems to be unique to Arabic sources. In fact, most of this passageis not original to Ibn al-Fa∂l. The portion of Chapter 5 of the Book of Benefit where it is found is taken verbatim from the Treatise on the Unityand Trinity of God attributed to Israel of Kashkar 48. Although they arenot marked as such, it seems that the rest of Chapters 5 and 6 were addedby Ibn al-Fa∂l himself. These additions take the form of objections andresponses. The first objection is that if God is one in species, He mustshare a genus with other species. Ibn al-Fa∂l’s response to this is that

God is not one in species (bi-l-naw‘), rather He is merely one as a spe-cies (ka-naw‘) is one. The second objection is that if God is a substanceas a species, then all substances as species are like Him. The response isthat God is unique precisely in His eternal existence as Trinity, unlike allother species, which either exist in multitudes or increase and decreaseover time. Chapter 6 of the Book of Benefit raises two further objectionsand responses that further reiterate that God cannot be one as an indi-vidual because He exists as three individuals and that He necessarilypossesses individuals because He is a universal substance.

The second way in which Ibn al-Fa∂l distinguishes between substance

and qunum is found in Chapter 38 of the Book of Benefit , as part of arefutation of the idea that God is “pure Being” (al-huwa al-maÌ∂ )49. Inresponse to the objection that to say that God is pure Being means simplythat He is existent, Ibn al-Fa∂l launches a four-part classification of allexistents, according to Aristotle’s Categories, into “universal substance,”“particular individual,” “particular accident,” and “general accident.” AsGod cannot be an accident (all accidents are dependent on substanceswhereas God must be independent), He must be one of the two types ofsubstance, which are, in Aristotle’s terminology, secondary substance andprimary substance, respectively. Ibn al-Fa∂l argues further that God must

be a universal, rather than a particular substance because God, being“prior in nature” must be the type of substance that is itself prior in

Fathers and Maximus the Confessor: see M. TÖRÖNEN, Union and Distinction in theThought of St Maximus the Confessor , Oxford, 2007, p. 97 (= TÖRÖNEN, Union and Dis-tinction).

47 TÖRÖNEN, Union and Distinction, p. 22-23.48 B. HOLMBERG, A Treatise on the Unity and Trinity of God by Israel of Kashkar

(d. 872), ( Lund Studies in African and Asian Religions, 3), Lund, 1989, p. 46-48.49 This idea, meaning that God exists as pure being without attributes, is apparently

akin to, if not identical to the concept of anni ya maÌ∂ a in the Arabic Neoplatonica.


14/47


nature. Here he is following the Neoplatonic tradition that, contrary toAristotle himself, treats Aristotle’s “secondary substances” (i.e. species

and genera) as ontologically prior to the particulars subsumed underthem50. Thus, in this line of reasoning, God (that is, God’s essence) is, inAristotelian terms, a secondary substance predicated of three primary sub-stances: the hypostases of the Trinity. This seems to be another casewhere Ibn al-Fa∂l interprets ideas left implicit in Patristic sources withina framework defined by Neoplatonic Aristotelianism. While the Cappado-cians and those who followed their Trinitarian thought did draw an anal-ogy between the relationship of the divine substance to the hypostases onthe one hand and the relationship of universals to particulars on theother 51, they never explicitly called the divine substance a species52.

While the two discussions of universal and particular mentioned aboveare related to the doctrine of the Trinity and are ultimately derived fromPatristic Trinitarian discourse, the third way in which Ibn al-Fa∂l distin-guishes between substance and qunum is based on the distinction between“logical” and “philosophical” terms. This distinction can be found inChapter 5 of the Discourse on the Holy Trinity and Chapter 34 of the Book of Benefit , where Ibn al-Fa∂l refutes the Christological views of theJacobites and the Nestorians53. The distinction between “logical” and“philosophical” terms apparently goes back to one of the Greek writingsof Theodore Abu Qurra54. Abu Qurra understood the difference between

these two kinds of terms to relate to predication: with philosophical terms,a universal shares its name and definition with the individuals under it.For example, the philosophical term “animal” shares its name and thedefinition “an animate, sentient substance” with the terms “man,” “lion,”“cow,” etc. With logical terms, however, a universal does not share itsname or definition with things subsumed under it. Thus, for example, the

50 On the problems that Neoplatonic commentators had with resolving the priority ofsecondary substances, see Ch. EVANGELIOU, Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry, Leiden,1988, p. 60-66.

51 In fact, many modern commentators have understood hypostasis and substance

in the Cappadocians to be precisely primary and secondary substances. See for exampleH.A. WOLFSON, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Cambridge, MA, 1970, p. 318-322;G.L. PRESTIGE, God in Patristic Thought , London, 1956, p. 190-195; and more recentlyN. JACOBS, On ‘Not Three Gods’ – Again: Can a Primary-Secondary Substance Readingof Ousia and Hypostasis Avoid Tritheism?, in Modern Theology, 24.3 (2008), p. 331-358.

52 TÖRÖNEN, Union and Distinction, p. 25-26.53 This distinction does not appear in ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s other theological treatise

directed against the Jacobites and the Nestorians: the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (S ar Ì al-amana al-mustaqi ma).

54 Opusculum II , in refutation of the Severians, PG, vol. 97, col. 1469-1492. For noteson the authenticity of the text and problems with its printed edition, see J. LAMOREAUX,Theodore Abu Qurrah, Provo, UT, 2005, p. XXVII-XXVIII (= LAMOREAUX, Theodore Abu Qurrah).


15/47


logical term “genus” does not share its name or definition with the term“most specific species,” even though the latter is under it logically. It is

worth noting that Abu Qurra mentions “substance” as an example of botha logical and a philosophical term, depending on whether it is seen as asubstance as such or simply the logical category “substance.” Using Abu Qurra’s distinction, Ibn al-Fa∂l, in Chapter 34 of the Book of Benefit ,explains that a logical term is a “measure employed only in the mind(mi‘yar mursal f i l-wahm faqa† ),” while a philosophical term is “thatwhich indicates the essence of a thing (ma dalla ‘ala ‘ayn al-s ay’)”55.

This distinction comes into practical use when discussing the term“nature” ( physis / † abi ‘a) and the Christological problems associatedwith it. For both Severian Monophysites and Nestorians, “nature” is

understood as a particular rather than as a universal and so in both linesof thought the number of natures and the number of hypostases must beequal. In Chapter 34 of the Book of Benefit , Ibn al-Fa∂l draws on Abu Qurra’s opusculum to argue against this thinking, particularly against theSeverian Monophysite approach. This distinction between logical andphilosophical terms is specifically brought into play to refute the claimof Severian Monophysites that the hypostatic union necessitates the syn-thetic union of human and divine natures as well. Ibn al-Fa∂l argues thatbecause qunum is a logical term and nature a philosophical term, whenunion is predicated of the qunum, it is not predicated of the natures.

Similarly, he uses the distinction between logical and philosophicalterms to refute the Jacobite argument that because Christ is one hyposta-sis (qunum) He is also one substance ( jawhar ). He does this by sayingthat if qunum were equivalent to substance, it would be a supreme genus( jins ajnas) and would therefore give its name and definition to what issubsumed under it. However, since qunum is a logical term, it cannot dothis. Therefore, qunum cannot be equivalent to substance, and Christ’sbeing one qunum does not necessitate His being one substance56.

3. ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂ l’s Discourse on the Holy TrinityTitle and Date of the Treatise

None of the manuscripts that we have examined provides the originaltitle of our treatise. In several manuscripts, an introductory note, evi-dently written by a copyist (see below), refers to the treatise as a “Theo-logical Discourse” (kalam f i al-lahut ), yet there is no certainty that this

55 Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale, MS 541, fol. 42v / p. 82.56 Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale, MS 541, fol. 43r-v / p. 83-84. This argument is

presented as a citation from John of Damascus.


16/47


was the original title of the treatise. The same introductory note labelsthe collection of ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s works that these manuscripts

contain with the designation “Book of Benefit,” no doubt naming theentire collection after the title of its most important work (B1 in the list-ing above). Since, however, our treatise is copied first in this collection,some manuscript catalogues misinterpret the title “Book of Benefit” asreferring to our treatise. Thus, they are compelled to refer to our treatiseas “The Small Book of Benefit,” to distinguish it from the original Bookof Benefit , a much more extensive work. This title, based on a misread-ing of a copyist’s introductory note, is therefore clearly erroneous.

To establish the original title of the treatise we must therefore turn tothe text itself. As it happens, at the very end of the treatise, ‘Abdallah

gives the following statement: “With this, let this chapter be over, whichis the end of the discourse on the Holy Trinity (al-kalam f i al- †alu† al-muqaddas).” Another relevant statement occurs in Chapter 13 of thetreatise: “Since in the second chapter of this exposé on the Holy Trinity(al-muqta∂ ab f i al- †alu† al-muqaddas) we have given a comprehensiveaccount indicating that God has substantivity, we shall refrain fromrepeating it here.” It stands to reason that the original title of this dis-course was, therefore, Discourse on the Holy Trinity or Exposé on the Holy Trinity. In our edition, we have adopted the first variation of thetitle as the simpler one. It certainly captures the subject matter of thetreatise much better than either the (way too general) “Theological Dis-course” or the (certainly erroneous) “Small Book of Benefit.”

It is impossible to date the Discourse on the Holy Trinity with preci-sion. However, since it cites the Book of Benefit , written after the year1043, it is clear that the Discourse on the Holy Trinity was also writtenafter 1043, possibly around the year 1050 or slightly later.

Summary of the Treatise

The Discourse on the Holy Trinity is a brief account of Ibn al-Fa∂l’sthought relating to technical aspects of Trinitarian and Christologicaldogma. Despite the author’s extensive translation activities and the widerange of authorities employed in his works, he very rarely explicitlyreveals his sources. In fact, explicit references to authorities in the Dis-course are limited to St Gregory the Theologian (Ch. 1 and Ch. 7), thepre-Socratic philosopher Xenophanes (Ch. 2), and Homer (Ch. 10), aswell as the anonymous “one of the Fathers” (Ch. 4) or “the HolyFathers” (Ch. 12). It is noteworthy that despite Ibn al-Fa∂l’s often heavy


17/47


reliance on other Arab Christian theologians both in the Discourse andin the Book of Benefit , he rarely cites such sources by name57.

The Discourse on the Holy Trinity begins with a discussion of thedoctrine of God. The first chapter establishes, following Patristic prece-dent58, that the word “God” (be it Theos or Allah) is not an actual name,as naming God would entail defining the undefinable divine substance,but rather a description of the substance. This argument is then supportedby providing traditional etymologies for the word “God,” both in Arabicand in Greek, which demonstrate that the words Allah and Theos origi-nally come from descriptions of particular aspects of God’s activity.

Chapter 2, expanding on a passage from the first chapter of the Bookof Benefit , argues that God is a substance. Here Ibn al-Fa∂l’s inclination

toward natural theology becomes evident. Considering God to be anexistent thing and dividing all existents into substances and accidents, hedetermines that God is thus a substance because substances are logicallyand ontologically prior to accidents. Likewise he determines that God isa simple, uncompounded substance, because there is always somethingprior to compound substances59.

Chapter 3, addressing the problem of God’s unity, is a paraphrase ofChapter 5 of the Book of Benefit , itself copied verbatim from the Treatiseon the Unity and Trinity of God attributed to Israel of Kashkar. Dividingall substances into genera, (most-specific) species, and individuals, Ibn

al-Fa∂l determines that God is one as a species because He cannot logi-cally be a genus or an individual. This idea is condensed from the Bookof Benefit , where it is fleshed out much more, as described above.

57 In the Book of Benefit , Ibn al-Fa∂l is somewhat more prone to acknowledging hisArabic-language sources, both Christian and Muslim. There, he cites, for instance, Ibnal-™ayyib as an authority in logic, al-Far ab i as an authority on politics, and Abu Bakr al-Raz i as an authority on physiognomy.

58 See, for example, John of Damascus’ De Fide Orthodoxa, Book 1, Chapter 9.59 Arab Christian theologians defended their view that God is a substance ( jawhar )

also in polemical encounters with Muslims. This is evident for instance in Il i ya bar Sen-

naya’s Kit ab al-maj alis, majlis 1, ed. and French tr. S.Kh. SAMIR, Entretien d’Élie de Nisibe avec le vizir Ibn ‘Ali al-Magribi , sur l’unité et la trinité, in Islamochristiana, 5(1979), p. 31-117, at p. 64-75. Muslims (including Muslim philosophers and theologians,e.g. Avicenna and al-Juwayn i ) typically denied the applicability of the term jawhar toGod. On Avicenna see, for instance, M. LEGENHAUSEN, Ibn Sina’s Arguments againstGod’s Being a Substance, in Ch. KANZIAN – M. LEGENHAUSEN (ed.), Substance and Attri-bute: Western and Islamic Traditions in Dialogue, Frankfurt, 2007, p. 117-143. al-Juway-n i ’s chapter proving that God is not a substance is specifically directed against the Chris-tians – see his A Guide to Conclusive Proofs for the Principles of Belief / Kit ab al-ir s adila qawa† i‘ al-adilla f i uÒul al-i‘tiqad , tr. P.E. WALKER, Reading, UK, 2000, p. 28-30. Itseems reasonable to assume that this Muslim insistence on God’s not being a substancedeveloped originally as part of Muslim-Christian polemics.


18/47


Chapter 4 seeks to prove that the God who is one as a species pos-sesses exactly three individuals. This is done by positing that there can-

not exist a single thing unless there also exists a pair 60. Thus, God, beingboth that single and that pair in His primordial unity, is three. This argu-ment is a condensation and abridgement of a similar but much moreelaborate argument made in Chapter 7 of the Book of Benefit . In thisversion, however, Ibn al-Fa∂l points out that this Trinitarian scheme isnot used by all the Fathers, but that some of them, left unnamed, definedthe members of the Trinity in such ways as “the wise,” “the good,” and“the powerful,” or “the pre-eternal,” “the living,” and “the rational,” oreven “the intellect,” “that which intellects” and “the intellected.” SuchTrinitarian schemes were extremely popular in Arab Christian apologetic

both before and after Ibn al-Fa∂l’s time. The last, more unusual scheme,that of “the intellect,” “that which intellects” and “the intellected”makes it likely that Ibn al-Fa∂l had YaÌya ibn ‘Ad i (d. 974) or perhapshis student Ibn Zur‘a (d. 1008) in mind61.

Chapter 5, discussed above, explains the difference between qunum and substance using Theodore Abu Qurra’s distinction between logicaland philosophical terms.

Chapter 6 explains how the three hypostases of the Trinity are distin-guished from each other by their respective properties (i.e. fatherhood,sonship, and procession) though they share the same substance.

Chapter 7 moves from questions of Trinitarian theology to questionsof Christology. The first part of the chapter establishes that Christ hastwo natures, the one being creator and the other created. In the secondpart he refutes the Jacobite belief in a single, synthetic nature on thegrounds that a single nature cannot be both creator and created. For thatreason, he argues that the union between humanity and divinity tookplace at the level of hypostasis rather than at the level of nature. Finally,he refutes the Nestorian belief in two natures and two hypostases on thegrounds that this formula would not sufficiently allow for a unionbetween the human and the divine in Christ.

60 The idea that God is a Trinity because three is the perfect number that comprisesthe two kinds of number, odd and even, is already found in the Apology of al-Kind i :

Risalat ‘Abdallah ibn Isma‘i l al-H as imi … wa-risalat ‘Abdalmasi Ì ila l-H as imi , London,1880, p. 31 (English tr. in N.A. NEWMAN, Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Collectionof Documents from the First Three Islamic Centuries, 632-900 A.D., Hatfield, PA, 1993,p. 417).

61 See the chart of Arab Christian Trinitarian formulations in HADDAD, La Trinitédivine, p. 232-233. On the scheme “the intellect,” “that which intellects” and “the intel-lected” in YaÌya ibn ‘Ad i see, e.g., A. PÉRIER (ed. and tr.), Petits traités apologétiques deYahya Ben ‘Adi, Paris, 1920, p. 24-27.


19/47


Chapter 8 addresses the issue of passibility in the person of Christ. In it,he responds to the claim, presumably put forward by an unnamed Muslim

polemicist, that if the suffering of the crucifixion happened only to thehuman nature, then it happened to something other than Christ. Ibn al-Fa∂lresponds to this using the analogy of the human soul and body, so frequentlyused in Patristic discussions of Christology, and points out that even if thebody of a man is killed and the soul is not (because it is immortal), the manis still killed. He then also points out that one can refer to a part of somethingto mean the whole, as with the literary device synecdoche.

Chapter 9 discusses how to apply the attribute “fatherhood” to Godand the proper meanings of the terms “god” and “divinity.” The attrib-ute “fatherhood” is proper to the Father, the Creator, and not to the

divine nature as such because if that were the case, the Son and Spiritwould also necessarily be Father. Ibn al-Fa∂l goes on to point out thatthe term “god” can be used in a variety of senses: to denote the divinesubstance, each individual hypostasis of the Trinity, or Christ. The thirdpart of the chapter is more obscure. It appears to distinguish two distinctmeanings of the term “divinity” (Ar. ilahi ya, apparently translating Gk.theot e s). Because in Greek and Arabic the word “divinity” is a derivednoun taken from the word for “god,” it has two possible meanings: thedivine essence itself and the abstract concept of divinity.

Chapter 10 addresses the objection of a presumably Muslim interlocu-

tor that if each of the divine hypostases is itself a substance, then thiswould require that they are three different substances. Ibn al-Fa∂lresponds that though each of the hypostases is a substance, they are thesame substance, drawing on the analogy of a single man who has threeseparate professions.

Chapter 11 continues the discussion of why the existence of threehypostases with distinct properties does not entail multiple substances.This is achieved by first giving a fourfold division of properties62 anddetermining that the peculiar properties of the hypostases of the Trinityare of the type that are held by all members of a species, always, and

uniquely. Here it is clear that Ibn al-Fa∂l understands the term “species”in a loose way, as he means that each hypostasis uniquely has its ownpeculiar property, which he goes on to explain distinguishes it from theother two. Similar to the illustration in the previous chapter for whymultiple hypostases do not necessitate multiple substances, he illustratesthe possibility of multiple properties within the same substance with theexample of multiple properties existing within the same human.

62 Cf. Chapter 14 of the Dialectica of John of Damascus.


20/47


Chapter 12 proves that hypostases (aqani m) are not properties(ÌawaÒÒ). The contrary opinion – that the hypostases are nothing but the

three hypostatic properties (begetting / being unbegotten, being begotten,procession) – was incriminated by Peter of Callinicum to Damian ofAlexandria63. Curiously, Chapter 9 of the Book of Benefit is entitled“Why the properties are called hypostases” (li-ma summiyat al-ÌawaÒÒ aqani m).

Chapter 13 seeks to prove that God has the attributes of life and rea-son. While not explicitly mentioned in the chapter, this is related to thefrequent tendency in Arabic Christian apologetic theology to equate theHoly Spirit and the Son to the attributes of life and reason, respectively.He does this by applying to God the divisions of Porphyry’s tree, thus

determining that He is living, not dead and rational, not irrational.Chapter 14 addresses the question of how the Trinity can be differen-

tiated in its hypostases and undifferentiated in its essence. Answering aquestion posed by a hypothetical interlocutor, Ibn al-Fa∂l gives theexample of a dotted line: just as a dotted line is both an unbroken lineand a series of distinct dots, so too does the Trinity include distinctionwithin its unbroken unity.

Manuscripts and Principles of the Edition

Eleven manuscripts of this treatise are known to exist64.Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale, MS 541 (year 1663), fol. 2b-6b [colophon on

fol. 2a]Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale, MS 542 (19th c.), fol. 139a-150b [colophon on

fol. 138a-b]Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale, MS 549 (year 1654), fol. 314a-324a / p. 625-645

[waqf notice on the margin of fol. 324a]Beirut, College of the Three Hierarchs, MS 15 (19th c.), #165

Cairo, Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies, Muski, MS 116 (year1169h/1755, acquired in 1841 by the deacon MuÒa’ i l Dar an i ), p. 172-225

63 A. GRILLMEIER – Th. HAINTHALER, Christ in the Christian Tradition, vol. II/4, Lon-don, 1996, p. 78; B. LOURIÉ, Istorija vizantijskoj filosofii: formativnyj period [ A Historyof Byzantine Philosophy: The Formative Period ], St Petersburg, 2006, §5.5, p. 226-230(= LOURIÉ, Istorija).

64 P. SBATH, Al-Fihris, vol. 1, Cairo, 1938, p. 49, No. 377 refers to a twelfth manu-script, from the collection of M. SaÌÌud in Aleppo, but its whereabouts are currentlyunknown.

65 According to J. NASRALLAH, Catalogue des manuscrits du Liban, vol. III, Beirut,1961, p. 283 (= NASRALLAH, Catalogue), this is MS 415 (15); S.Kh. SAMIR, BDIC, pt. 2,p. 211 gives the call number as MS 21.


21/47


Damascus, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, MS 22966 (year 1851), p. 3-22Denver, Denver Public Library, Lansing Collection, MS ar. 3 (year 7233/1725),

p. 274-285

67

Joun, Dayr al-MuÌalliÒ, MS 173 (18th c.), p. 307-314 / fol. 153v-157r Moscow, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), MS 53

(year 1785), p. 166-185St Petersburg, Oriental Institute, MS B1219 (year 1062h/1652, possibly an auto-

graph of Paul of Aleppo), fol. 2v-15r 68

ZaÌla, Bibliothèque ‘Isa Iskandar al-Ma‘luf, MS 1 (year 1799), p. 1-1269

During the preparation of this edition, we have consulted eight manu-scripts, giving them the following sigla:

A = Beirut 541 B = Beirut 542

C = Beirut 549 D = Denver F = Cairo M = Moscow P = Damascus S = St Petersburg70.

Of these manuscripts, three are seventeenth century (A, C, and S),three are eighteenth century (D, F, and M), and two are nineteenth cen-tury (B and P).

Significantly, all these manuscripts contain other works of ‘Abdallah

ibn al-Fa∂l, in the following order:A: (1) Discourse on the Holy Trinity, (2) Concise Questions and Answers about

the Gospel, (3) Treatise Beneficial to the Soul, (4) Book of Benefit ,

66 HMLÉM , III.1, p. 226 gives the call number as MS 1637.67 On this manuscript see Ch.D. MATTHEWS, Manuscripts and a Mamluk Inscription

in the Lansing Collection in the Denver Public Library, in Journal of the AmericanOriental Society, 60.3 (1940), p. 370-382, at p. 375.

68 This manuscript is presumed to be an autograph of Paul of Aleppo, the son andattendant of the Patriarch of Antioch Makarios III ibn al-Za‘ i m and an important ecclesi-astical writer in his own right. This, however, is not entirely certain. It is possible that onlyfol. 01v-03r were written by Paul of Aleppo; they contain his notes on the patriarchs of

Antioch, evidently a part of his History of the Patriarchs of Antioch (GCAL, vol. 3,p. 112). The rest of the manuscript – including ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s works – is possiblywritten in a different hand.

69 According to NASRALLAH, Catalogue, vol. IV, Beirut, 1970, p. 3-5, this is MS 1;S.Kh. SAMIR, BDIC, pt. 2, p. 211 gives the call number as MS 1954.

70 We are grateful to Krisztina Szilágyi for copies of the Damascus and the Cairomanuscripts, and to Georges Montillet for another copy of the Cairo manuscript. Weshould also like to thank Dr. Nikolai Seleznyov for facilitating access to the Moscowmanuscript, which Samuel Noble has examined in situ; and Dr. Irina Popova, the directorof the Oriental Institute in St Petersburg for allowing Alexander Treiger access to theInstitute’s precious collections.


22/47


(5) two pages extracted from the Book of the Garden, Chapters 70-71,(6) Exposition of the Orthodox Faith71

B: (1) Discourse on the Holy Trinity, (2) Concise Questions and Answers aboutthe Gospel, (3) Treatise Beneficial to the Soul, (4) Book of Benefit 72

C: [after a number of short treatises by other authors, including John of Damas-cus and Theodore Abu Qurra]: (1) Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,(2) Testimonies (=an abbreviated version of the Book of Benefit , contain-ing Chapters 32-34, 47, 49-63, 65-70), (3) Discourse on the Holy Trinity

D: identical to MS CF: (1) Book of the Garden, (2) Discourse on the Holy Trinity, (3) Concise

Questions and Answers about the Gospel, (4) Book of Benefit M: (1) Book of the Garden, (2) Discourse on the Holy Trinity, (3) Concise

Questions and Answers about the Gospel, (4) Treatise Beneficial to theSoul, (5) Book of Benefit , (6) Exposition of the Orthodox Faith73

P: (1) Discourse on the Holy Trinity, (2) Concise Questions and Answers aboutthe Gospel, (3) Book of Benefit S: (1) Discourse on the Holy Trinity, (2) Concise Questions and Answers about

the Gospel, (3) Treatise Beneficial to the Soul, (4) Book of Benefit 74

In several manuscripts of the Discourse on the Holy Trinity, the fol-lowing introductory note is preserved (cited here according to MS A)75:

71 According to Cheikho’s catalogue, the manuscript also contains a glossary of terms(= the Mu‘jam sometimes erroneously attributed to ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l), a page ofextracts from poets, and a panegyric of Saint Nicolas (the second part of which is by Saint

Andrew of Crete), in ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s translation.72 The manuscript is in two parts (each with separate pagination), which are bound inthe reverse order, so that the actual order of the treatises in the manuscript is Book of

Benefit , Discourse on the Holy Trinity, Concise Questions and Answers about the Gospel,and Treatise Beneficial to the Soul. There is no doubt however that the original arrange-ment was exactly as in MS A.

The Book of Benefit is given in a very deficient and disorganized form. Ch. 24 is notcopied (only the title is copied, after that a blank page is left). Chs. 28-31 and 71-72 aremissing as in the rest of the manuscripts; and the end of the book is truncated and endsin the middle of Ch. 74, in the same place as MS A. In addition, Chs. 58-60 are omittedand copied at a later place in the manuscript, following the end of the book. Two addi-tional sections are then copied, one from Ch. 65 (omitted in the text), the other containingthe entire Ch. 11, recopied again, for no obvious reason.

73

Following this, the manuscript also includes two items: (1) al-Mak i

n Sim‘a

n ibnKal i l (Copt, d. after 1206), al- Ad ab al-† ubani ya wa-l-am †al al-r uÌani ya, al-mustaÌrajamin Kit ab Raw∂ at al-far i d wa-salwat al-waÌi d and (2) Glossary of Terms ( Mu‘jam),falsely attributed to ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l. Significantly, both texts are copied with‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s Book of the Garden in St Petersburg, Oriental Institute, MSB1225. The latter text is also found at the end of MS A and in the ZaÌla manuscript.

74 The manuscript is truncated at the end (it ends with the words al-sala† a wa-l-di‘a ya in the middle of Ch. 73 of the Book of Benefit ).

75 The note appears in at least six manuscripts of the Discourse on the Holy Trinity:MSS A, B (in a garbled form), S, F, P, and in the manuscript from Dayr al-MuÌalliÒ,which we have not seen (a fragment of the note – the phrase عط ت ر غت ا نا ره ظ ا


23/47


اب

ا

م

ا

ا

ل

ج

ا

ر

ا

و

ا

ا

ا

ت

عة

م

ا

ك

ل

ا

ة

ا

ن

م

ر

ا

ك

ط

ا

مطران

ا

ا

ب

ل

ا

هو

ا

ك

ب

ب

ر

ة

ث

ده

بوا

ب

ا

اب

ق

و س ب ا ق ا ا ةبو ا اوس لص ب ع تا ث

او

ا

ا

ر

و

وبة

ا

ه

عة

ة

بم

ع

ات

كم

عة

هو

ب

ب

عون

س

ة

م

د

عة

م

ا

ك

ابوا

رس

ب

بع

ا

اب

ث

سم

ا ا ا ى ا ر ع ا ا ا باوبا ق طع

ت

ر

تغ

ا

ان

هر

ظ

ا

،د

عون

ا

خ

ا

ا

رس

ا

كر

ذا

ه

ا ا ظ ن ك

Translation

The Book of Benefit written by the wise sage and the exalted supremephilosopher, Saint ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l the deacon, the grandson of themetropolitan ‘Abdallah, from Antioch, the translator of the divine books,God give repose to his soul and accept his [prayers]76. He began [writingthis book] with several chapters, thirteen in number 77, [containing] a the-ological discourse [i.e. the Discourse on the Holy Trinity]; then continuedwith a section containing questions and answers, beginning with the[words] “How great is what Saint Basil said”; then continued with a use-ful treatise, which [contains] answers on matters concerning which peo-ple often inquire; then, subsequently, began with the list of chapters ofthe Book of Benefit , seventy five in number, which [book] is indeed ben-

eficial in keeping with its name. Chapters 28 to 3378 are lacking [fromthis book]. In addition, Chapter 75 is mentioned in the list of chapters butdoes not appear [in the text]. It is clear that the books have been changedand fragmented, and their original arrangement was better than the cur-rent one79.

- – is cited in R. HADDAD, Manuscrits du Couvent Saint-Sauك ن ظ ا ا ه ذاveur (Saïda), Beirut, 1972, vol. 1, p. 153).

76 Instead of ل ا , MS B has: . ا ا ر مة77 It is unclear why the note says that the “Theological Discourse” (i.e. the Discourse

on the Holy Trinity edited below) contains thirteen chapters. In reality, the text containsfourteen chapters in all the manuscripts.78 In reality, until Ch. 31. The text resumes with Ch. 32.79 All this section is garbled in MS B. After these words MS B adds: ب ب ك ث

ا ة د ى ا ع وب ة ا طو ة . MS S omits the last two sentences: “In addition … wasbetter than the current one.” The note in MS P ends with: ا اوبا ة س باوبا ق ار كا هذا ا عون ا ا عون دا ا ا ا ى ر ع ا . In reality, theoriginal end of Ch. 74 and all of Ch. 75 are missing as well, except that the copyist ofMS P supplemented the text with additional materials, arbitrarily calling them Ch. 74 andCh. 75.


24/47


It is likely that all the extant manuscripts of the Discourse on the HolyTrinity descend from one and the same pre-seventeenth century hypar-

chetype (let us call it W)80. If this is the case, this would explain someobvious mistakes and corruptions in the text, which are shared by all theextant manuscripts. This would also explain why none of the extant man-uscripts preserves the original title of the treatise – the title would simply have been lacking in W.

This has important repercussions for how one is to edit the treatise . If all the extant manuscripts are derived from one single manuscript W,possibly an early one (twelfth or thirteenth century like many of the Sinai manuscripts of ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s other works and translations) butpossibly produced only a century earlier than mid-seventeenth century,

then what we, as editors, are reconstructing, is a single hyparchetype,which might be quite remote from the author’s autograph.

In order to go beyond W, and as close as possible to the author, we

therefore occasionally needed to resort to an emendation of the text. It

is only however when such emendations seemed fairly certain that we

ventured to correct the text (indicating the correction in the apparatus

and marking the place in the edition with an asterisk). In other, less

clear-cut cases, we left the text as it appears in the manuscripts (pre-

sumably reflecting the erroneous reading of the single hyparchetype

W), but discussed the possibilities of emending it in the footnotes to the

translation.From the point of view of their readings, the manuscripts break down

into three distinct groups: (1) ABS, (2) CD, and (3) FMP. In most cases,two groups (usually Groups 1 and 2 or Groups 1 and 3) represent theobviously correct reading, while the remaining group represents a cor-ruption of that reading. In some cases, only one group (typically Group 1)has the correct reading while the two other groups have a common error.MSS B and D were not particularly helpful. It is very likely, in fact, thatthey are later (direct or indirect) copies of MSS A and C respectively.MS B frequently makes idiosyncratic changes to the text, often of ortho-

graphic nature: for example, it always reads uqnum instead of the origi-nal (more archaic) qunum (=Syriac qnoma) attested in the rest of themanuscripts.

In doubtful cases, we have always followed the readings of Group 1,especially MS A, for in virtually every case where it was possible to

80 Though this is not entirely certain for the Discourse on the Holy Trinity, this isbeyond doubt in the case of the Book of Benefit , as we shall show in our forthcomingcritical edition of that work.


25/47


ascertain, its readings are superior to those of the rest of manuscripts. Wehave also followed MS A in cases of orthographic differences even if

that goes against the rules of Classical Arabic, thus adopting, for instance,the reading i tiÌad (MSS A, S, C, and D) as opposed to the ClassicalArabic ittiÌad (MSS B, F, M, and P). We have made no attempt to “cor-rect” the non-standard readings, characteristic of Middle Arabic, thatshow up sporadically in the manuscripts. We have also taken the libertyto introduce some modern punctuation (including inverted commas tomark quotations) for the sake of clarity. These signs are of course absentin the manuscripts.

PO Box 213 Samuel NOBLE

Clermont, GA 30527, [email protected]

Department of Classics with Religious Studies Alexander TREIGERDalhousie University6135 University AvenuePO Box 15000Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, [email protected]

Abstract — The present contribution offers a critical edition (based on eightmanuscripts) and an annotated English translation of ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂lal-An†ak i ’s previously unpublished Christian Arabic theological text Discourseon the Holy Trinity ( Kalam f i l-™alu† al-muqaddas), also known as Theological Discourse or (erroneously) The Little Book of Benefit . It stresses the significanceof Antioch during the period of Byzantine rule for the history of Christian lit-erature in Arabic and provides a comprehensive survey of what is known about‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s life and œuvre. It also offers an analysis of ‘Abdallahibn al-Fa∂l’s Trinitarian and Christological views, thus demonstrating that inaddition to being a prolific translator of Greek Patristic and Biblical texts, healso deserves to be studied more systematically as an important Christian philo-

sophical theologian in his own right.


26/47


1 وا

ا

ا

A C FP || ا

ا

S, followed by the “Introductory Note” (cited above),

then ا

وا

ا

ا

|| ع

ب

ر

ا

ز

ا

ب

ا

وا

ا

ا

ب

B || ب

وا

ا

ا

ع D || ا M 2 add. Sتع ى 3 ABS CD || FMPب بة 4 add. Cابواب ا بعة ر 5 add. CDان 6 || AB CD FMPا ون ا S 7 ا خ ةABS CD MP ||

ة

خ

ا

F 8 وان

ن

ا

كل

ن

ا

AB CD FP || omit. M

(homoeoteleuton) 9 ق

AB FMP || omit. CD 10 وك

ا

B CD P || وا

ا

A

FM || كاو ا S 11 || AB C FMPا م ر ون ر م ا D 12 || FMو B CDواP ||

|| Aوا Sو 13 || ABS D FMPث ة ث C 14 م ا A CD P || م ا BS FM 15

ذا

ه

ABS CD FP ||ذ

ه

M 16 و

غو

ر

ا

ABS ||و

غو

ر

CD FMP

EDITION AND TRANSLATION

1او ا ا ا ح ر ا با ا ب4تو 3 ك ا م عة 2﷽ا نوعب

اش اس ا ﷽ل هل هو اس ا ة : ب ا

ا ى سا ن مسا س ﷽ا ان ر ن ا ون6 اب ء 5

ى

ط

ا

ان

هو

رق

م

ب

ان

ا

كل

هو

مى

م

ا

ا

ا م د ا ط ا خ ة 7ك و" كل وان ان" "كل ان ب ناو لك و ا سا ا 8" ناو 9 ق سا اذه ن اوق ب ا ا ب ناو ك لك ك اوق ب ا . س

ا

ذا

ب

مى

م

ا

و

ا

ى

10 وك

ا

ى

وان

ا

هذا

ى

ان

ترت

ى

تع

﷽ا

ا

ك

صو

ا

ذ

ب

س

ا

ن

ك

م

ا ﷽ا م هو ا و سا نو اا سا نو نا د ا

. اس

ة

وهر

ة

ث ص ا ث زا ل ت ا ا م ر ون11: اب ء عب ق ة و ا ةغ ا ﷽ا س ، ا داوج ا دا 12و كل ن ا ا ة ود كل و ود ا ا : ضاو 13ة ث ا ظعم ا ا وبا و ه ذا15 .14 م ا ا ى ار ا ا ا ة برع ا ا غة ا .وه ا م ا 16و وغ ر ا


27/47


17 جوا

ا

ABS FMP || جوا

ا

CD 18 AS CD FMP ||د

B 19 ج

AS CD FMP ||

اب

ج

B 20 ا

ABS C FMP || omit. D 21 ود

و

ABS CD FP || Mو و 22 || B CD FMPخ و ASخ وا 23 || AS CD FMPك ة ك B 24 جوهرAS CD FMP ||

Bا جوهر 25 زاو AS CD F || او B MP 26 ت ث AS C FMP || ب ث B 27

قوا

ABS CD FP || قوا

M 28 ت

ا

ABS CD FP ||

ا

M 29 وهر

ASCD FMP ||

وهر

B 30 ل

AS CD FP:ل

ت

||ل

B M 31 ن

ABSC FMP || ن D 32 ABS CD FP || ى M 33 ط و ك CD || ط و ك FMP || ط و ك AS || ط و ك B 34 و ص ABS FMP || omit. CD 35 ABSCD FP || M

تذه

ا

تو

ا

ا

ا

17جوا

ا

و

و

ا

ا

:ر

ا

19

ج

ر

ا

ان

ب

راد

18

ا

ا

" ت

ع

ا

ا

" ا

ل

ع

ك ب ا معر ب ا م عة ا ﷽مود و. ا ق اس ص هذا

ان ا ﷽س وهر ب ث ني:

و ود ا و دو و ا ة ن ك اا دو و لك دو ة ى عت ت ﷽ا ضر ا ا مو ود ان ون ا 20وهر اا ك ن و ود ة ذه ضر ا وهر ا ون ان خ و22 و ود21 كل ن ا

26

ت

ث

25

واز

غ

ا

بذات

ا

هو

هو

24

جوهر

دقة

23

ة

م ك كج ء م ان ون قوا 27و ش ا عر و ا مو ود

ا ا ا ا ة ز ب و وم ا ى عت ت ا ن ك م . وه رض

ون

ان

28 ت

ا

وع

م

ا

عر

ا

ل

ا

جوهر

ا

ن

ك

ا

ب

ا

ا

ون

ان

30ل

رك

ب

وهران

جوهر

ا

.29وهر

ا

ون

ان 32 كرت ق با هو كر كل ن31 كر و تا ك دا ب ط ان ا ان ون وهر وهر 34

و

ص

ل

ع

ا

ان

قو

و

ا

33 ط

و

ك

ا

ا

د

ا

. اب

ب

ا

و

م

ا

ص

ا

Noble Treiger AbF DiscourseHolyTrinity Libre

Documents

Transcript of Noble Treiger AbF DiscourseHolyTrinity Libre