The Letter of Leo III in Ghewond

Unknown author
Date of birth Unknown
Place of birth Unknown
Date of death Unknown
Place of death Unknown

Biography —

Main sources of information

Primary —
Secondary
See below

Works on Christian-Muslim Relations

Correspondence between ʿUmar II and Leo III
Date Unknown
Original language Probably Greek
Description
The authenticity of the exchange of correspondence between the
Caliph ʿUmar II and the Byzantine Emperor Leo III preserved in the
History of Ghewond (q.v. for biographical details) has long been a
matter of contention. It remains unresolved. Some scholars, notably
Gerö, maintain that the correspondence was originally composed in
Armenian and so cannot be genuine. He contends that the scriptural
citations and allusions are far closer to the Armenian Bible than the
Greek Septuagint, and also that Leo III’s ‘pathetic remarks’ in recog-
nition of the earthly success of the caliphate at the conclusion of his
letter ‘ring true in the mouth of an Armenian, whose land has been
ravaged and subjected by the Arabs; but the same words certainly
do not sound well coming from Leo who has just decisively frus-
trated the great Muslim attack on Constantinople’ (Gerö, Byzantine
iconoclasm, p. 170). Other scholars have persisted in their belief that
204 the letter of Leo III in Ghewond

the correspondence was originally in Greek, although there is a divi-

sion of opinion as to whether the letter was written by Leo III before
the first period of Iconoclasm (Meyendorff), or whether it should be
dated to the second half of the 9th century (implied, but not overtly
stated by Jeffery).
Following Gerö, there can be little doubt that the short letter from
the Caliph ʿUmar II to Leo III contained in Ghewond’s History is a
reconstruction. This letter, which should not be confused with the
Arabic letter of pseudo-ʿUmar II to Leo III (q.v.), is based exclusive-
ly upon those passages in the reply ascribed to Leo III which cite or
paraphrase passages from ʿUmar’s original. But it does not follow
that Leo III’s letter can also be dismissed. This long letter contains
an apology for Christianity in response to Muslim polemic, as well
a range of arguments against Islamic beliefs and rituals, the Qurʾān
and Muḥammad. Mahé has recently judged Gerö’s contention that
this letter was an original Armenian composition as ‘faible’, arguing
that the proximity of certain biblical quotations and allusions to the
Armenian Bible rather than the Septuagint may well be the result of
voluntary harmonization, either by the translator or by a later copyist.
Moreover, Mahé praises Akinean’s excellent study which demonstrates
that the text displays unequivocal signs of having been translated from
Greek. Quite apart from the frequent use of words clearly borrowed
from Greek, paraklitos and ewkʿaristē, instead of the expected and
commonly used Armenian words mkhit‘arich and gohanam, Mahé
also refers to the presence of unusual calques from Greek and the lit-
eral translation of Greek phrases. For Mahé, Akinean’s study proves
that Leo III’s letter was originally composed in Greek.
A number of other features of the letter also deserve brief men-
tion. First, the letter is set in the context of previous correspondence,
although this is described as concerning worldly affairs rather than
spiritual matters. It seems improbable that such an incidental com-
ment would have been invented. Second, the letter addresses a series
of specific questions and comments raised by ʿUmar II, rather than
itself setting the agenda for the controversy. Third, the text refers to
‘the holy paraklitos, that is mkhitʿarich’ (Ezean, p. 58), giving the Greek
first and then the Armenian equivalent by way of explanation. This
short passage supports the view that the letter was originally in Greek.
Earlier (Ezean, p. 52), when it states, ‘we call the Pentateuch Nomos’,
it gives the Greek term. Elsewhere, it records how the Gospel of
Jesus Christ had spread ‘from the civilizations of the Greeks and the
 the letter of Leo III in Ghewond 205

Romans to the furthest barbarians’ (Ezean, p. 61). This is a surprising

statement to include if the letter was an original Armenian composi-
tion, for it is almost an article of faith for Armenian authors to main-
tain that the Armenian nation was the first to embrace Christianity,
during the reign of Trdat I, prior to the conversion of Constantine I.
Intriguingly, the same sentence refers to it being ‘more or less 800
years since Christ appeared’. This system of calculating time by refer-
ence to the birth of Christ was not commonly used in Armenia, judg-
ing by the surviving colophons, inscriptions and chronicles. Indeed,
there is very little evidence that such a chronology was employed in
Armenia before the 10th century. Earlier, the letter states that ‘. . . as
you say, it is 100 years, more or less, since the time when your religion
appeared’ (Ezean, p. 60). This is clearly a hijra date, a chronologi-
cal system also unattested in Armenian texts until the 10th century.
Finally, when discussing the languages in which the Gospel has been
spread, the letter privileges Greek above all others, indicating ‘first,
(the language) of us Greeks’ (Ezean, p. 62). All these items collectively
point to a Greek original.
This prompts two further questions. When was the original let-
ter written, and in what circumstances could it have been trans-
lated into Armenian? The letter betrays some signs of an early date.
It maintains, for example, that the Qurʾān was composed by ʿUmar
(ibn al-Khat ̣t ̣āb), Abu Tuṛab (that is, ʿAlī) and Salmān the Persian
(Ezean, p. 58). An early 8th-century date would suit such a controver-
sial statement, as would the hijra date mentioned previously. It also
correctly names ʿUmar II’s paternal uncle as Muḥammad, noting that
on one occasion he had sacrificed a camel and decapitated a number
of Christians, mixing their blood in sacrifice (Ezean, p. 89). On the
other hand, the letter cites several Muslim sects: Kʿōzi, Sabari, T‘orapi,
Kntri, Murji, Basghi, the impious Jahdi and the Hariwri. Arguably, the
Kʿōzi could be identified as the Khawārij or Kharijīs, the Tʿorapi as
followers of an ʿAlid sect, the Turābiyya, the Murji as the Murjiʾa, the
Basghi as followers of Wāṣil ibn ʿAt ̣āʾ, who died in 748, the Jahdi as
followers of Abū ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ (although this is contentious),
and the Hariwri as Khārijīs from the town of Ḥ arūra. Although sev-
eral 9th-century sects appear in the list, it is not impossible that these
were added at a later date.
The letter would certainly suit an early 8th-century context. How-
ever, the fact that Leo seems to respond to pseudo-ʿUmar’s letter
(q.v.), which modern scholars generally date to the second half of the
206 the letter of Leo III in Ghewond

8th century or later, militates against this. The date of the original
Greek composition thus remains unresolved. That being so, when and
why was it translated? If one prefers the traditional late 8th-century
date for the composition of the History of Ghewond (q.v.), this proves
to be problematic, for there is no strong evidence for strong ties
between Constantinople and the Armenian Church after 730. How-
ever, if one accepts a late 9th-century date, the problem disappears,
for we know of several letters exchanged between Photius, Patriarch
of Constantinople, and various Armenian correspondents in the 850s,
860s and 870s, including letters originally in Greek which survive
only in Armenian. This would seem to be an appropriate context in
which a letter from Leo III to ʿUmar II could be unearthed and trans-
lated into Armenian. It is highly likely that Photius was himself of
Armenian descent.
This letter would have offered him a sophisticated authority of
unimpeachable pedigree with which to confront and refute Muslim
teaching, which was arguably making significant inroads into the
Armenian flock in the 9th century. Although rightly incorporated
into the History of Ghewond in the reign of ʿUmar II, its translation
into Armenian may well belong to the second half of the 9th century,
perhaps during the patriarchate of Photius, although this remains
conjectural.
Significance
If one accepts the above, the letter from the Caliph ʿUmar II in
Ghewond’s History cannot be genuine, but is composed of fragments
from such a letter which were cited by Leo III in his reply to ʿUmar.
However, the letter from Leo III to ʿUmar II gives some indication
of being genuine, and as such is fully deserving of sustained study.
Arguably, it provides a vitally important witness to Christian-Mus-
lim relations at the start of the 8th century, one that has been unduly
neglected. It reveals Muslim attitudes to and interpretations of the
Bible, and Christian knowledge of the Qurʾān.
Manuscripts
MS Yerevan, Matenadaran – 1902 (? late 13th c.)
Editions and translations
J.-M. Gaudeul, La correspondance de ʿUmar et Leon (vers 900),
Rome, 1985, pp. 40-97
Z. Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, the eminent vardapet of the
Armenians, Philadelphia, 1982 (trans. with brief commentary)
 the letter of Leo III in Ghewond 207

A. Ter-Ghevondyan, Ghevond Patmutʾyun, Yerevan, 1982 (modern

Armenian trans. and commentary)
A. Jeffery, ‘Ghevond’s text of the correspondence between ʿUmar II
and Leo III’, Harvard Theological Review 37 (1944) 269-332 (Eng-
lish trans. with intro. and notes, repr. in A. Newman, The early
Muslim-Christian dialogue, Hatfield PA, 1993, pp. 63-98)
K. Ezean, Patmutʿiwn Ghewondeay metsi vardepeti Hayotsʿ, St Peters-
burg, 1887, pp. 43-99 (edition)
studies
T.W. Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission? Photius and the Armenian
Church’, Le Muséon 119 (2006) 123-67
K. Kościelniak, ‘Polemika muzułmańsko-chrześcijańska na pod-
stawie korespondencji przypisywanej kalifowi umajjadzkiemu
ʿUmararowi II (†720) i cesarzowi bizantyjskiemu Leonowi III
(†741)’, Folia historica Cracoviensia 8 (2002) 97-105
M. van Esbroeck, ‘La politique arménienne de Byzance de Justinien
II à Léon III’, Studi sull’ Oriente Christiano 2 (1998) 111-20
A. Kaplony, Konstantinopel und Damascus. Gesandschaften und
Verträge zwischen Kaisern und Kalifen 639-750. Untersuchungen
zum Gewohnheits-Völkerrecht und zur interkulturellen Diploma-
tie, Berlin, 1996, pp. 207-37
J.-P. Mahé, ‘Le problème de l’authenticité et de la valeur de la Chro-
nique de Łewond’, in Centre de Recherches d’Histoire et de
Civilisation Byzantines, L’Arménie et Byzance: Histoire et culture,
Paris, 1996, 119-26
B. Martin-Hisard, ‘L’Empire byzantin dans l’œuvre de Łewond’, in
L’Arménie et Byzance, 135-44
R.G. Hoyland, ‘The correspondence of Leo III (717-41) and ʿUmar
II (717-20)’, Aram 6 (1994) 165-77 (repr. in Hoyland, Seeing
Islam, pp. 490-501)
J.-M. Gaudeul, ‘The correspondence between Leo and ʿUmar:
ʿUmar’s letter re-discovered?’, Islamochristiana 10 (1984) 109-57
G. Gerö, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the reign of Leo III with par-
ticular attention to the oriental sources, Louvain, 1973, Appendix 2,
pp. 153-71: ‘The authenticity of the Leo-Umar correspondence’
A.T. Khoury, Les théologiens byzantins et l’Islam. Textes et auteurs
(VIIIe-XIIIe s.), Louvain, 1969, pp. 200-18
J. Meyendorff, ‘Byzantine views of Islam’, DOP 18 (1964) 115-32
N. Adontsʿ, ‘Ghewond ew Khorenatsʿi, kʿnnutʿiwn H.N. Akineani
tesutʿean’, Hayrenik 11:8 (1933) 79-90, 11:9 (1933) 120-26
208 the letter of Leo III in Ghewond

N. Akinean, ‘Ghewond eretsʿ patmagir: matenagrakan-patmakan

usumnasirutʾiwn mĕ’, Handēs Amsoreay 43 (1929) 330-48,
458-72, 593-619, 705-18 (repr. in Akinean, Matenagrakan
hetazotutʾiwnner, Vienna, 1930, iii)

Tim Greenwood 2007