CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY

IN BYZANTINE ANTIOCH
‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l al-An†aki and his
Discourse on the Holy Trinity*

Introduction

After the Byzantine re-conquest of Antioch from the Muslims in 969 and
until 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 of
the Greek Church Fathers – were translated from Greek into Arabic (as
well 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 melchite
du Ve au XXe 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 a
complete 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, Corpus
Dionysiacum 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.

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

© Le Muséon, 2011.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 371 16/12/11 09:49

 372 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

Despite its obvious importance, this fact remains largely unknown to

scholars of Patristics, Byzantinists, and Arabists. In the case of Patristics,
this neglect is all the more unfortunate because several Patristic works
translated into Arabic in that time period are now lost in Greek and sur-
vive only in these Arabic translations. A striking example is furnished
by 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 the
angelic realm out of which the human mind (nous / ‘aql) was expelled
after the Fall. The text embarks on a complex analysis of virtues and
vices, delineating the ways in which one ought to “till” the earth of
one’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 history
and politics, monasticism, and other related subjects. Furthermore, sev-
eral works of Byzantine literature were translated into Arabic in that
period. Their Arabic translations are important, inter alia, for the manu-
script readings that they represent: these translations are often earlier
than 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 Pandektes, written in
Greek in the eleventh century and for the most part still unpublished. We
do not know for certain who translated it into Arabic, but it is likely that
this translation – entitled Kitab al-Îawi al-kabir 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 traktat
v 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 of
Nyssa 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 will
include a first English translation of excerpts from the Noetic Paradise (the Anthology is
to be published by Northern Illinois University Press). In the future, we are hoping to
publish a complete English translation and a critical edition of this important work.
5
A note in the Ethiopian version, entitled MaÒÌafa Îawi and made from the Arabic,
ascribes the original Arabic translation to a certain Gabriel ibn al-Bi†riq, who has been
identified with the Coptic Patriarch Gabriel II ibn Turayk (r. 1131-1145). This however is
uncertain, among other things because it is unlikely that the Coptic Patriarch knew Greek
well enough to translate such an extensive and complex work. It is more likely that he

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 372 16/12/11 09:49

 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 render
Greek writings into Arabic 6. The Antiochene translation movement of
Patristic works matched it in scope. Though unlike the Baghdad transla-
tion movement it did not, as far as we can tell, influence the Muslim
communities, which by that time had largely lost interest in Christian
lore, it was crucial to the subsequent development of Middle Eastern
Christianity. The Arabic versions of Greek Patristic texts produced in
Antioch and its environs (as well as in other translation centers, such as
the monastery of Mar Saba in Palestine) were later read, copied, and
cited extensively by Middle-Eastern Christians of all denominations,
especially the Copto-Arabic theologians of the thirteenth century. Some
of these Arabic translations, together with many original Copto-Arabic
works, 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 the
region of Antioch. On Patriarch Gabriel II see S.Kh. SAMIR, Ibn Tarik ou Ibn Turayk?, in
Le Muséon, 101 (1988), p. 171-177; S.Kh. SAMIR, Remariage des prêtres veufs? L’attitude
du 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 Baghdad
and 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 Société
d’Archéologie Copte, 8 (1942), p. 61-71; A. VAN LANTSCHOOT, Abba Salama métropolite
d’Éthiopie (1348-1388) et son rôle de traducteur, in Atti del Convegno Internazionale dei
Studi Etiopici, Rome, 1960, p. 397-401; L. RICCI, art. Ethiopian Christian Literature, in
Coptic 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 Pandektes, translated from Arabic into
Ethiopic as MaÒÌafa Îawi (cf. n. 5 above); (2) ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s Arabic version of
Isaac 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 Ethiopic
translation has recently appeared: D. BERHANU, Das maÒÌafa Mar Yeshaq aus Ninive,
Hamburg, 1997).

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 373 16/12/11 09:49

 374 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

tunately, little is known about his life. From his full name as given in the
manuscripts – al-sammas ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l ibn ‘Abdallah al-mu†ran
al-An†aki Abu al-FatÌ – we can deduce that he was a deacon (sammas)
from Antioch (al-An†aki) and a grandson of a bishop or metropolitan
(mu†ran), whose name was also ‘Abdallah8. We know also that he was
active around the year 1050. His Arabic translation of Basil’s Hex-
aëmeron was completed in 1052, as evidenced by the manuscripts of this
work9. In the same year, he completed his Book of Joy of the Believer
(Kitab Bahjat al-mu’min)10. His magnum opus The Book of Benefit
(Kitab al-Manfa‘a) was completed between 1043 and 105211.
Some of ‘Abdallah’s works and translations were commissioned by
various church officials and intellectuals: the Exposition of the Orthodox
Faith (SarÌ al-amana al-mustaqima) by John bishop of Manbij (Hiera-
polis or Mabbug in northern Syria), the translation of the Psalms by a
certain Abu Zakariya ibn Salama12, and the translation of Isaac of Nin-
eveh (made from an earlier Greek version produced at Mar Saba in the
ninth century) by a certain Nikephoros (Nikufur) Abu al-NaÒr13 ibn
Bu†rus al-Qubuqlis. It has not yet been noted that the last person’s title
“al-Qubuqlis” 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†aki (from Antioch) to refer to ‘Abdallah himself rather than to his
grandfather 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 Basiliana
Universalis: 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 ibn
al-™ayyib, who died in 1043, as recently deceased (raÌimahu llah), and is itself referenced
in the Kitab Bahjat al-mu’min, written in 1052.
12
New Haven, Beinecke Library, MS 349, fol. 181v gives instead two names:
Zakhariya 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 MiÌa'il.
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 sur
les offikia de l’église byzantine, Paris, 1970, p. 39-44. Oxford, MS Holkham gr. 6 was
written ca. 1050-1052 by a certain Theophylact, a kouboukleisios of the Patriarch of
Antioch; 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 Manuscripts
in the Bodleian Library: An Exhibition Held in Connection with the 13th International
Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 1966, p. 19-20.
The term qubuqlis is attested in the Arabic version of Nikon’s Taktikon, Ch. 37, §33,
where it is corrupted into faqlis (in Vat. ar. 76); see C.-M. WALBINER – M. NANOBASHVILI,
Nicon’s Treatise on the Conversion of the Georgians in Christian Arabic Literature and

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 374 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 375

This would appear to indicate that ‘Abdallah’s translation work enjoyed

the 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-
qlis 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 in
both Greek and Arabic. In the Kitab al-Raw∂a he mentions having read
Gregory of Nazianzus’ funeral oration in praise of St Basil the Great, in
Greek15, with a certain Sim‘an al-’ymsyqn (?) ibn al-SabnaÌi (?)16. In
the marginal notes to the Kitab al-Raw∂a he makes several references to
works on Arabic grammar that he had studied17. Even more remarkable
is his claim to have studied the IÒlaÌ al-Man†iq of Ibn al-Sikkit (d. 857
or 858) with “our teacher Abu al-‘Ala’” (sayÌina Abi l-‘Ala’)18. Given
the 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 scholars
roughly contemporary with ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l – Basil the Lesser (10th century) and
Niketas of Herakleia (11th century) – and that both commentaries were translated into
Georgian (by Eprem Mtsire in the 11th century and an anonymous translator of Gelati
theological school in the 12th century). See K. BEZARASHVILI, On an Unknown Definition
of 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
Kitab 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:‫ هذا الفصل يرد في‬:‫شرح‬
‫ وقراتها انا كلها باليوناني على سيدي سمعان‬،‫المرثية التي صنفها >في< الجليل في القديسين باسيليوس‬
‫فسره‬
ّ ‫وفسر لي هذا الموضع في جملة ما‬
ّ ‫)الايمسيقن ابن السبنخي النفيس والقديس برحمة الله‬. In another
manuscript (Vat. ar. 111, fol. 142r), the reading of the name seems to be slightly different:
Sim‘an al-’bmysqn (?) ibn al-Saniji (?). We have not been able to ascertain the identity
of this figure.
Nikolai Serikoff has suggested to us that the al-’ymsyqn / al-’bmysqn could be read as
al-Amasis (of Emesa) or al-Afasis (of Ephesus). The former is sometimes used as a nisba
in Arabic texts, e.g. D. LEBEDEV, Spisok Episkopov Pervago Vselenskago Sobora v 318
imen: 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 certain
Simeon 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 Orientalia
Christiana Analecta, 45 (1928), §33:14, p. 44. Since, however, virtually nothing is known
about this person, it is impossible to ascertain whether he could have been ‘Abdallah ibn
al-Fa∂l’s mentor.
17
This is the result of the unusual technique ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l employed in this
work: he deliberately used difficult grammatical constructions and vocabulary and then
provided his own commentary on them, referencing works on Arabic grammar.
18
Kitab al-Raw∂a, Ch. 36, Cairo, Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies,
Muski, MS 116, p. 92.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 375 16/12/11 09:49

 376 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

al-Ma‘arri (d. 1058), who reportedly visited Antioch in his youth (in the
980s or 990s) 19. If Ibn al-Fa∂l had studied with al-Ma‘arri 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 more
likely that Ibn al-Fa∂l paid a visit to Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘man at a later date
to meet the celebrity poet20.
Additionally, it is at least possible that ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l had a
personal connection with the Baghdadi Nestorian philosopher and theo-
logian Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-™ayyib (d. 1043), who was himself a native
of Antioch21. In Chapter 65 of the Book of Benefit, on logic, ‘Abdallah
refers to Ibn al-™ayyib in somewhat warm terms saying, “these are the
words of the sayÌ Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-™ayyib, the priest and philosopher,
may God have mercy on him.” Whether or not ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l
might have visited Baghdad is a matter of speculation, yet his intellectual
ties with the Baghdadi philosophical circles are undeniable, as clearly
evidenced in his works.
Seventeenth and eighteenth century Arab Orthodox authors, such as
the Patriarch of Antioch Makarios III ibn al-Za‘im (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‘arri, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition, vol. V, p. 927-
935, at 927b-928a. Moreover, it is significant that al-Ma‘arri himself refers to Ibn al-
Sikkit and his IÒlaÌ 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 addressed
to Abu l-Qasim al-Magribi, the well-known wazir and author of an abridgement of the
IÒlaÌ al-man†iq that al-Ma‘arri praises as much surpassing Ibn al-Sikkit’s original work;
is it perhaps the abridgement rather than the original work that Ibn al-Fa∂l studied with
al-Ma‘arri?); Letter 36, p. 120: 6 (Arabic) / 139 (English tr.). On Abu l-Qasim al-Magribi
see P. SMOOR, art. Abu ’l-Ëasim … 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‘arri Abu l-Qasim
al-Magribi’s abridgement of Ibn al-Sikkit’s work, praised by al-Ma‘arri, rather that Ibn
al-Sikkit’s original composition, which al-Ma‘arri did not like, it would prove that Ibn
al-Fa∂l actually visited al-Ma‘arri at a later date, as al-Ma‘arri received this abridgement
shortly 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‘arri either in Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘man (perhaps on his way to or
from Baghdad?), or even in Baghdad itself, during al-Ma‘arri’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 or
friends had a connection to al-Ma‘arri, first established during the latter’s original visit to
Antioch in the 980s or 990s.
21
According to Ibn al-‘Adim. See L. CONRAD, Ibn Bu†lan in Bilad al-Sham: The
Career 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 strong
ties existing just a generation later between Baghdad, Aleppo, and Antioch. Curiously
enough, Ibn Bu†lan was both a student of Ibn al-™ayyib and a friend of al-Ma‘arri and was
reportedly present at the latter’s deathbed – see P. SMOOR, art. al-Ma‘arri, in Encyclopae-
dia of Islam, vol. V, p. 930b.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 376 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 377

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 Biblical
and Patristic translations and his original Arabic theological works. It is
provided here for convenience’s sake and is not meant to replace the lists
of Georg Graf, Joseph Nasrallah, and Samir Khalil Samir, which also
offer an inventory of the extant manuscripts of each work (complemented
and updated by Alexander Treiger’s entry on ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l in the
third 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 Prophets
3. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Genesis, Commentary on the
Gospel of Matthew, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Homilies
on First Corinthians, Commentary on the Hebrews, Commentary on
the Romans, Collection of 87 Homilies (entitled Mawa‘i sarifa wa-
alfa muÌtaÒara la†ifa 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-saraf ma‘anihi), Commentary on the
Song of Songs

22
See e.g. MiÌa’il BREIK (BURAYK), al-Îaqa’iq al-wafiya fi tariÌ ba†arikat al-Kanisa
al-An†akiya, 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-Sinaksar
al-an†aki li-l-ba†riyark Makariyus al-†ali† ibn al-Za‘im, Jounieh, 2010, strangely does not
contain the passage.
24
GCAL, vol. 2, p. 52-64 (and Index, vol. 5, p. 2b); HMLÉM, III.1, p. 191-229 (with
references to earlier literature at p. 191, n. 1), also p. 387-388; J. NASRALLAH, Abdallah Ibn
al-Fadl (XIe 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†aki, 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 Christian
Scholar ‘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. POLOSIN et
al., The Arabic Psalter: A Supplement to the Facsimile Edition of Manuscript A187 “The
Petersburg Arabic Illuminated Psalter”, St Petersburg, 2005.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 377 16/12/11 09:49

 378 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

6. Maximus the Confessor, Disputation with Pyrrhus, Chapters on

Love, Capita theologica et oeconomica
7. Andrew of Crete, Encomium to St Nicholas
8. John of Damascus, Libellus de recta fide (entitled Dustur fi al-
amana al-mustaqima)
9. Isaac of Nineveh, 35 Homilies on Monastic Life (entitled Fi al-Ìayat
al-nuskiya) and Fi ru’us al-ma‘rifa (seems to render the Greek
expression kephalaia gnostika)
10. Pseudo-Sophronius, Book of Proof on Establishing the [Correct]
Faith (Kitab al-Burhan fi ta†bit al-iman, a dogmatic treatise in 28
chapters 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 (Kitab al-Raw∂a) 26
12. Pseudo-Caesarius, Centuries (embedded in the Book of Joy of the
Believer)
B. Independent Works27
1. Book of Benefit (Kitab al-Manfa‘a)28
2. Discourse on the Holy Trinity (Kalam fi al-™alu† al-muqaddas), also
known as the “Small Book of Benefit” (Kitab al-Manfa‘a al-Òagir)
or “Theological Discourse” (Kalam fi al-Lahut) – edited and trans-
lated below
3. Book of Joy of the Believer (Kitab Bahjat al-mu’min)
4. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (SarÌ al-amana al-mustaqima)
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-Injil 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 (Kitab al-MaÒabiÌ)
9. Treatise Beneficial to the Soul (lit. “Treatise Containing Ideas Ben-
eficial to the Soul,” Maqala tastamilu ‘ala Ma‘ani nafi‘a li-l-nafs)
26
The Book of the Garden (Kitab 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: Erste
kritische 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 sentences
morales des philosophes grecs dans les traditions orientales, in L’Eredità classica nelle
lingue orientali, Rome, 1986, p. 11-23. Ihm duly refers to van Esbroeck’s article but does
not take Kitab al-Raw∂a into account in her critical edition.
27
On Book of the Garden (Kitab al-Raw∂a) see n. 26 above.
28
The present authors are currently preparing a critical edition of this important work.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 378 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 379

10. Refutation of the Astrologers (Risala yaruddu fiha … ‘ala l-munaj-

jimin)
11. Treatise on the Triumph of the Cross (Maqala ‘ala intiÒar al-∑alib
al-karim)
12. Introduction and Commentary on the Psalms (integrated with the
translation of the Psalms mentioned above, though sometimes trans-
mitted separately)
C. Spurious Works
1. Atmospheric Phenomena (Ta’†irat al-jaww)29
2. Glossary of Terms (Tafsir kalam mu‘jam min al-‘arabiya)30

2. ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s Theology

In his important work on Arab Christian theology La Trinité divine

chez les théologiens arabes, Rachid Haddad divided Christian Arabic
literature into two periods, “patristique arabe” and “scolastique arabe.”
In his view, the first, “patristic” period lasted from the beginning of
Christian Arabic literature until around the year 900 and is characterized
by 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 ‘Adi (d. 974) and is characterized by
the fuller integration of Greek philosophical concepts as well as elements
of 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 gun
powder (St Petersburg, Oriental Institute, MS B1234, fol. 11b). The author is probably the
seventeenth-century Capuchin Father Bonaventure of Lude, active in Aleppo, to whom a
similar 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 Îunayn: ism al-quwa mustaqq fi
lisan al-yunani min al-qudra ay min al-iqtidar min al-fi‘l. There follow couples of words
(the gloss written below the word which is being glossed): nibras – siraj, Ìawba’ – nafs
Ìassasa, etc., without any arrangement. It is clear that the ascription to ‘Abdallah ibn
al-Fa∂l is based on the initial quotation (ism al-quwa mustaqq …), regarding which the
scribe himself was unsure where it came from. He offered the names of ‘Abdallah ibn
al-Fa∂l and Îunayn, both famous translators and experts in the Greek language, merely
as 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 literature
of all periods and are not easily disentangled and, moreover, some key Greek patristic
sources, used especially by the Melkites, could be easily characterized as “scholastic.”

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 379 16/12/11 09:49

 380 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

close relationship between Christian theology and Greek philosophy in

his thought.
For Ibn al-Fa∂l – like other Arabic-writing philosophers, Muslim or
Christian, who inherited the Greek philosophical tradition – the study of
the sciences and philosophical reasoning lead to at least some degree of
authentic knowledge of God33. His method, therefore, relies heavily on
the sciences and on natural theology, as can be seen in his treatment of
even the most complex theological questions, such as his analyses of
God as a substance analogous in some ways to created substances (see
below)34. It would not be prudent, however, to approach Ibn al-Fa∂l’s
writings as presenting a distinct, independent, and coherent philosophical
position. 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 thus
present 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 their
writings, while only rarely citing specific authors by name. The most
striking example of this is Ibn al-Fa∂l’s use of the Treatise on the Unity
and Trinity of God attributed to Israel, the Nestorian Bishop of Kashkar
(d. 872), which we will discuss below. This stands in contrast with his
sparing 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 a
virtually 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 Kitab al-Raw∂a, he states that “one who has
studied the sciences has philosophized, and one who has philosophized has come to know
God 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 physical
world (substance, accident, etc.).
35
On the other hand, his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith seems to be compiled
entirely from Greek Patristic sources. See R. WANNOUS, Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l, Exposition
of the Orthodox Faith, in Parole de l’Orient, 32 (2007), p. 259-269. In the Book of Ben-

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 380 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 381

theology is un-patristic. To the contrary, it draws on the problematique

developed in the Greek Patristic engagement with the Neoplatonic com-
mentaries on Aristotle’s logical and philosophical works. Yet it adds
another 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 of
the Book of Benefit, Ibn al-Fa∂l focuses on defending the doctrine of the
Trinity and the Melkite Christological position defining Christ as one
hypostasis in two natures. The key to both his Trinitarian theology and
his 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), Ibn
al-Fa∂l is concerned with showing which Trinitarian and Christological
terms refer to universals and which to particulars and with clarifying the
relationship between these two sets of terms. In practice, this amounts to
defining the relationship between the technical terms jawhar and qunum.
While the Arabic term jawhar is almost invariably used as the equivalent
of the Greek ousia (substance or essence), the term qunum (derived from
the Syriac qnoma, literally meaning “self”) cannot be treated as simply
a translation of the Greek hypostasis. Ibn al-Fa∂l himself is aware of this
problem and addresses the question of how to define qunum in several
of his works36. Thus, in Chapter 9 of the Book of Benefit, he defines
qunum as “a particular entity with a unique property that necessarily
belongs to it but not to its counterpart”37. In the Challenges and
Responses, he states that qunum, which he correctly identifies as a Syriac
word, is the equivalent of the Greek hypostasis and the Arabic saÌÒ
(individual) and then provides four possible definitions for the word38.
The first is “a substance with [unique] properties (ÌawaÒÒ) numerically
distinct 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-naÂirihi. For instance, the Father is “a particular entity with a
unique property” – unbegotten – that belongs to it but not to its counterparts: the Son and
the 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 fi al-naw‘.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 381 16/12/11 09:49

 382 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

another thing in order to subsist”40. The third definition, qualified as “the

opinion of the Fathers,” is “that which distinguishes each person from
others according to prosopon (wajh)”41. The fourth, attributed to “some
people” is “a quality with that which it qualifies that does not apply to
any other substance”42. On the other hand, in Chapter 5 of the Discourse
on the Holy Trinity, he does not define qunum as simply the equivalent
of hypostasis. Rather, he states that its Greek equivalents can be hyposta-
sis, person, property, and individual and explains that “it is what is one
in number, composed of properties which cannot all exactly be gathered
together at any time in something else.” Thus, although Ibn al-Fa∂l rec-
ognizes a number of possible definitions for the term qunum, he basically
intends by it an indivisible, discrete thing distinguished from other dis-
crete things. This understanding is further confirmed by his statement in
Chapter 34 of the Book of Benefit, that the Greek translation of qunum is
a†umun (atomon)43.
In the Discourse on the Holy Trinity and in the Book of Benefit, the
problem of universals and particulars is addressed in three ways. The
first 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 2
of 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 analogous
to the oneness of a species. This is done through a process of elimina-
tion. All substances must be either genera, or species, or individuals, yet
God cannot possibly be a genus because that would require Him to con-
tain multiple species. Likewise, He cannot be an individual, because that
would 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 yaÌtaj ila aÌar fi taqawwumihi.
41
al-faÒil kull waÌid min al-nas min al-aÌar bi-l-wajh.
42
Òifa ma‘a mawÒuf 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 generally
intends it to mean the divine substance.
45
The statement that God is one as a species seems to be attributed to the Christians
by the ninth-century Jewish mutakallim Da’ud al-MuqammaÒ, see his ‘Isrun 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 are
necessarily 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

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 382 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 383

The tendency to understand (primary) substance as equivalent to the

Porphyrian “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’s
unity seems to be unique to Arabic sources. In fact, most of this passage
is 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 Unity
and Trinity of God attributed to Israel of Kashkar48. Although they are
not marked as such, it seems that the rest of Chapters 5 and 6 were added
by Ibn al-Fa∂l himself. These additions take the form of objections and
responses. The first objection is that if God is one in species, He must
share 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 substance
as a species, then all substances as species are like Him. The response is
that God is unique precisely in His eternal existence as Trinity, unlike all
other species, which either exist in multitudes or increase and decrease
over time. Chapter 6 of the Book of Benefit raises two further objections
and responses that further reiterate that God cannot be one as an indi-
vidual because He exists as three individuals and that He necessarily
possesses 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 a
refutation of the idea that God is “pure Being” (al-huwa al-maÌ∂)49. In
response to the objection that to say that God is pure Being means simply
that He is existent, Ibn al-Fa∂l launches a four-part classification of all
existents, according to Aristotle’s Categories, into “universal substance,”
“particular individual,” “particular accident,” and “general accident.” As
God cannot be an accident (all accidents are dependent on substances
whereas God must be independent), He must be one of the two types of
substance, which are, in Aristotle’s terminology, secondary substance and
primary 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 the
Thought 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 anniya maÌ∂a in the Arabic Neoplatonica.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 383 16/12/11 09:49

 384 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

nature. Here he is following the Neoplatonic tradition that, contrary to

Aristotle himself, treats Aristotle’s “secondary substances” (i.e. species
and genera) as ontologically prior to the particulars subsumed under
them50. Thus, in this line of reasoning, God (that is, God’s essence) is, in
Aristotelian terms, a secondary substance predicated of three primary sub-
stances: the hypostases of the Trinity. This seems to be another case
where Ibn al-Fa∂l interprets ideas left implicit in Patristic sources within
a 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 on
the one hand and the relationship of universals to particulars on the
other51, they never explicitly called the divine substance a species52.
While the two discussions of universal and particular mentioned above
are related to the doctrine of the Trinity and are ultimately derived from
Patristic 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 in
Chapter 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 the
Jacobites and the Nestorians53. The distinction between “logical” and
“philosophical” terms apparently goes back to one of the Greek writings
of 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 the
definition “an animate, sentient substance” with the terms “man,” “lion,”
“cow,” etc. With logical terms, however, a universal does not share its
name or definition with things subsumed under it. Thus, for example, the

50
On the problems that Neoplatonic commentators had with resolving the priority of
secondary 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 example
H.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 recently
N. JACOBS, On ‘Not Three Gods’ – Again: Can a Primary-Secondary Substance Reading
of 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
(SarÌ al-amana al-mustaqima).
54
Opusculum II, in refutation of the Severians, PG, vol. 97, col. 1469-1492. For notes
on 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).

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 384 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 385

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 both
a logical and a philosophical term, depending on whether it is seen as a
substance 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 fi l-wahm faqa†),” while a philosophical term is “that
which indicates the essence of a thing (ma dalla ‘ala ‘ayn al-say’)”55.
This distinction comes into practical use when discussing the term
“nature” (physis / †abi‘a) and the Christological problems associated
with it. For both Severian Monophysites and Nestorians, “nature” is
understood as a particular rather than as a universal and so in both lines
of thought the number of natures and the number of hypostases must be
equal. 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 the
Severian Monophysite approach. This distinction between logical and
philosophical terms is specifically brought into play to refute the claim
of Severian Monophysites that the hypostatic union necessitates the syn-
thetic union of human and divine natures as well. Ibn al-Fa∂l argues that
because qunum is a logical term and nature a philosophical term, when
union is predicated of the qunum, it is not predicated of the natures.
Similarly, he uses the distinction between logical and philosophical
terms to refute the Jacobite argument that because Christ is one hyposta-
sis (qunum) He is also one substance (jawhar). He does this by saying
that if qunum were equivalent to substance, it would be a supreme genus
(jins ajnas) and would therefore give its name and definition to what is
subsumed under it. However, since qunum is a logical term, it cannot do
this. Therefore, qunum cannot be equivalent to substance, and Christ’s
being one qunum does not necessitate His being one substance56.

3. ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s Discourse on the Holy Trinity

Title and Date of the Treatise

None of the manuscripts that we have examined provides the original
title 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 fi 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.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 385 16/12/11 09:49

 386 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

was the original title of the treatise. The same introductory note labels
the collection of ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l’s works that these manuscripts
contain with the designation “Book of Benefit,” no doubt naming the
entire 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” as
referring to our treatise. Thus, they are compelled to refer to our treatise
as “The Small Book of Benefit,” to distinguish it from the original Book
of 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 to
the text itself. As it happens, at the very end of the treatise, ‘Abdallah
gives the following statement: “With this, let this chapter be over, which
is the end of the discourse on the Holy Trinity (al-kalam fi al-†alu† al-
muqaddas).” Another relevant statement occurs in Chapter 13 of the
treatise: “Since in the second chapter of this exposé on the Holy Trinity
(al-muqta∂ab fi al-†alu† al-muqaddas) we have given a comprehensive
account indicating that God has substantivity, we shall refrain from
repeating 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 the
title as the simpler one. It certainly captures the subject matter of the
treatise 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 year
1043, it is clear that the Discourse on the Holy Trinity was also written
after 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’s

thought relating to technical aspects of Trinitarian and Christological
dogma. Despite the author’s extensive translation activities and the wide
range of authorities employed in his works, he very rarely explicitly
reveals his sources. In fact, explicit references to authorities in the Dis-
course are limited to St Gregory the Theologian (Ch. 1 and Ch. 7), the
pre-Socratic philosopher Xenophanes (Ch. 2), and Homer (Ch. 10), as
well as the anonymous “one of the Fathers” (Ch. 4) or “the Holy
Fathers” (Ch. 12). It is noteworthy that despite Ibn al-Fa∂l’s often heavy

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 386 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 387

reliance on other Arab Christian theologians both in the Discourse and

in the Book of Benefit, he rarely cites such sources by name57.
The Discourse on the Holy Trinity begins with a discussion of the
doctrine 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 supported
by providing traditional etymologies for the word “God,” both in Arabic
and 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 Book
of Benefit, argues that God is a substance. Here Ibn al-Fa∂l’s inclination
toward natural theology becomes evident. Considering God to be an
existent thing and dividing all existents into substances and accidents, he
determines that God is thus a substance because substances are logically
and ontologically prior to accidents. Likewise he determines that God is
a simple, uncompounded substance, because there is always something
prior to compound substances59.
Chapter 3, addressing the problem of God’s unity, is a paraphrase of
Chapter 5 of the Book of Benefit, itself copied verbatim from the Treatise
on the Unity and Trinity of God attributed to Israel of Kashkar. Dividing
all 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 Book
of 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 his
Arabic-language sources, both Christian and Muslim. There, he cites, for instance, Ibn
al-™ayyib as an authority in logic, al-Farabi as an authority on politics, and Abu Bakr al-
Razi 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 Iliya bar Sen-
naya’s Kitab al-majalis, 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-Juwayni) typically denied the applicability of the term jawhar to
God. On Avicenna see, for instance, M. LEGENHAUSEN, Ibn Sina’s Arguments against
God’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-
ni’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 / Kitab al-irsad
ila qawa†i‘ al-adilla fi uÒul al-i‘tiqad, tr. P.E. WALKER, Reading, UK, 2000, p. 28-30. It
seems reasonable to assume that this Muslim insistence on God’s not being a substance
developed originally as part of Muslim-Christian polemics.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 387 16/12/11 09:49

 388 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

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 pair60. Thus, God, being
both that single and that pair in His primordial unity, is three. This argu-
ment is a condensation and abridgement of a similar but much more
elaborate argument made in Chapter 7 of the Book of Benefit. In this
version, however, Ibn al-Fa∂l points out that this Trinitarian scheme is
not used by all the Fathers, but that some of them, left unnamed, defined
the members of the Trinity in such ways as “the wise,” “the good,” and
“the powerful,” or “the pre-eternal,” “the living,” and “the rational,” or
even “the intellect,” “that which intellects” and “the intellected.” Such
Trinitarian 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 ‘Adi (d. 974) or perhaps
his 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 logical
and 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 questions
of Christology. The first part of the chapter establishes that Christ has
two natures, the one being creator and the other created. In the second
part he refutes the Jacobite belief in a single, synthetic nature on the
grounds that a single nature cannot be both creator and created. For that
reason, he argues that the union between humanity and divinity took
place 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 the
grounds that this formula would not sufficiently allow for a union
between the human and the divine in Christ.

60
The idea that God is a Trinity because three is the perfect number that comprises
the two kinds of number, odd and even, is already found in the Apology of al-Kindi:
Risalat ‘Abdallah ibn Isma‘il al-Hasimi … wa-risalat ‘AbdalmasiÌ ila l-Hasimi, London,
1880, p. 31 (English tr. in N.A. NEWMAN, Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Collection
of 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 Trinité
divine, p. 232-233. On the scheme “the intellect,” “that which intellects” and “the intel-
lected” in YaÌya ibn ‘Adi see, e.g., A. PÉRIER (ed. and tr.), Petits traités apologétiques de
Yahya Ben ‘Adi, Paris, 1920, p. 24-27.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 388 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 389

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 the
human nature, then it happened to something other than Christ. Ibn al-Fa∂l
responds to this using the analogy of the human soul and body, so frequently
used in Patristic discussions of Christology, and points out that even if the
body of a man is killed and the soul is not (because it is immortal), the man
is still killed. He then also points out that one can refer to a part of something
to mean the whole, as with the literary device synecdoche.
Chapter 9 discusses how to apply the attribute “fatherhood” to God
and 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 Spirit
would also necessarily be Father. Ibn al-Fa∂l goes on to point out that
the term “god” can be used in a variety of senses: to denote the divine
substance, each individual hypostasis of the Trinity, or Christ. The third
part of the chapter is more obscure. It appears to distinguish two distinct
meanings of the term “divinity” (Ar. ilahiya, apparently translating Gk.
theotes). Because in Greek and Arabic the word “divinity” is a derived
noun taken from the word for “god,” it has two possible meanings: the
divine 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 this
would require that they are three different substances. Ibn al-Fa∂l
responds that though each of the hypostases is a substance, they are the
same substance, drawing on the analogy of a single man who has three
separate professions.
Chapter 11 continues the discussion of why the existence of three
hypostases with distinct properties does not entail multiple substances.
This is achieved by first giving a fourfold division of properties62 and
determining that the peculiar properties of the hypostases of the Trinity
are 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 own
peculiar property, which he goes on to explain distinguishes it from the
other two. Similar to the illustration in the previous chapter for why
multiple hypostases do not necessitate multiple substances, he illustrates
the possibility of multiple properties within the same substance with the
example of multiple properties existing within the same human.

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

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 389 16/12/11 09:49

 390 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

Chapter 12 proves that hypostases (aqanim) 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 of
Alexandria63. Curiously, Chapter 9 of the Book of Benefit is entitled
“Why the properties are called hypostases” (li-ma summiyat al-ÌawaÒÒ
aqanim).
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 the
frequent tendency in Arabic Christian apologetic theology to equate the
Holy 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 a
question posed by a hypothetical interlocutor, Ibn al-Fa∂l gives the
example of a dotted line: just as a dotted line is both an unbroken line
and a series of distinct dots, so too does the Trinity include distinction
within 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 (year
1169h/1755, acquired in 1841 by the deacon MuÒa’il Darani), 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 History
of 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 currently
unknown.
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.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 390 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 391

Damascus, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, MS 22966 (year 1851), p. 3-22

Denver, Denver Public Library, Lansing Collection, MS ar. 3 (year 7233/1725),
p. 274-28567
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. 166-185
St Petersburg, Oriental Institute, MS B1219 (year 1062h/1652, possibly an auto-
graph of Paul of Aleppo), fol. 2v-15r68
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 American
Oriental 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 and
attendant of the Patriarch of Antioch Makarios III ibn al-Za‘im and an important ecclesi-
astical writer in his own right. This, however, is not entirely certain. It is possible that only
fol. 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 possibly
written 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 Cairo
manuscripts, and to Georges Montillet for another copy of the Cairo manuscript. We
should also like to thank Dr. Nikolai Seleznyov for facilitating access to the Moscow
manuscript, which Samuel Noble has examined in situ; and Dr. Irina Popova, the director
of the Oriental Institute in St Petersburg for allowing Alexander Treiger access to the
Institute’s precious collections.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 391 16/12/11 09:49

 392 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

(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 about
the Gospel, (3) Treatise Beneficial to the Soul, (4) Book of Benefit72
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 C
F: (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 the
Soul, (5) Book of Benefit, (6) Exposition of the Orthodox Faith73
P: (1) Discourse on the Holy Trinity, (2) Concise Questions and Answers about
the 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 Benefit74

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 of
extracts 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 in
the 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 not
copied (only the title is copied, after that a blank page is left). Chs. 28-31 and 71-72 are
missing as in the rest of the manuscripts; and the end of the book is truncated and ends
in the middle of Ch. 74, in the same place as MS A. In addition, Chs. 58-60 are omitted
and 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 containing
the entire Ch. 11, recopied again, for no obvious reason.
73
Following this, the manuscript also includes two items: (1) al-Makin Sim‘an ibn
Kalil (Copt, d. after 1206), al-Adab al-†ubaniya wa-l-am†al al-ruÌaniya, al-mustaÌraja
min Kitab Raw∂at al-farid wa-salwat al-waÌid 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, MS
B1225. 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‘aya
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 ‫والظاهر ان الكتب تغيرت وتقطعت‬

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 392 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 393

‫كتاب المنفعة تاليف الشيخ الحكيم الفيلسوف الرييس الجليل القديس الشماس عبد الله ابن‬
‫الفضل بن عبد الله المطران الانطاكي الترجمان للكتب الالهية نيح الله نفسه ويقبل منه‬
‫وقد ابتدا فيه بابواب عددها ثلثة عشر بابا كلام في اللاهوت‬
‫ثم اتبعها بفصل فيه سوالات واجوبة اولها ما احسن ما قال القديس باسيليوس‬
‫اتبعها بمقالة نافعة وهي اجوبة لامور يكثر الناس السوال عنها‬
‫ثم ابتدا بعد ذلك بفهرست ابواب كتاب المنفعة وعدده خمسة وسبعون بابا وهو منفعة كما‬
‫سمي‬
‫وقد عدم من ابوابه من الباب الثامن والعشرين الى الباب الثالث والثلثين‬
‫ والظاهر ان الكتب تغيرت وتقطعت‬،‫وذكر في الفهرست الباب الخامس والسبعون وما ورد‬
‫وكان نظامها اولا احسن من هكذا‬

Translation
The Book of Benefit written by the wise sage and the exalted supreme
philosopher, Saint ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l the deacon, the grandson of the
metropolitan ‘Abdallah, from Antioch, the translator of the divine books,
God give repose to his soul and accept his [prayers]76. He began [writing
this book] with several chapters, thirteen in number77, [containing] a the-
ological discourse [i.e. the Discourse on the Holy Trinity]; then continued
with 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 of
the Book of Benefit, seventy five in number, which [book] is indeed ben-
eficial in keeping with its name. Chapters 28 to 3378 are lacking [from
this book]. In addition, Chapter 75 is mentioned in the list of chapters but
does not appear [in the text]. It is clear that the books have been changed
and fragmented, and their original arrangement was better than the cur-
rent one79.

‫ – وكان نظامها اولا احسن من هكذا‬is cited in R. HADDAD, Manuscrits du Couvent Saint-Sau-
veur (Saïda), Beirut, 1972, vol. 1, p. 153).
76
Instead of ‫نيح الله نفسه ويقبل منه‬, MS B has: ‫منح الله نفسه الرحمة‬.
77
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 contains
fourteen 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: ‫ثم ختم كتابه بكلام‬
‫في الامانة ورد على اليعقوبية والنسطورية‬. MS S omits the last two sentences: “In addition … was
better than the current one.” The note in MS P ends with: ‫وقد فقد من ابوابه ستة ابواب من الثامن‬
‫والعشرين الى الثاني والثلثين والحادي والسبعون والثاني والسبعون وهذا من عدم الاكتراث‬. In reality, the
original end of Ch. 74 and all of Ch. 75 are missing as well, except that the copyist of
MS P supplemented the text with additional materials, arbitrarily calling them Ch. 74 and
Ch. 75.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 393 16/12/11 09:49

 394 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

It is likely that all the extant manuscripts of the Discourse on the Holy
Trinity 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 some
obvious mistakes and corruptions in the text, which are shared by all the
extant 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) but
possibly 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 the
obviously 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, that
they 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 the
manuscripts.
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 is
beyond doubt in the case of the Book of Benefit, as we shall show in our forthcoming
critical edition of that work.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 394 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 395

ascertain, its readings are superior to those of the rest of manuscripts. We

have 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 itiÌad (MSS A, S, C, and D) as opposed to the Classical
Arabic ittiÌad (MSS B, F, M, and P). We have made no attempt to “cor-
rect” the non-standard readings, characteristic of Middle Arabic, that
show up sporadically in the manuscripts. We have also taken the liberty
to introduce some modern punctuation (including inverted commas to
mark quotations) for the sake of clarity. These signs are of course absent
in the manuscripts.

PO Box 213 Samuel NOBLE

Clermont, GA 30527, USA
samuel.j.noble@gmail.com

Department of Classics with Religious Studies Alexander TREIGER

Dalhousie University
6135 University Avenue
PO Box 15000
Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
atreiger@dal.ca

Abstract — The present contribution offers a critical edition (based on eight

manuscripts) and an annotated English translation of ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l
al-An†aki’s previously unpublished Christian Arabic theological text Discourse
on the Holy Trinity (Kalam fi l-™alu† al-muqaddas), also known as Theological
Discourse or (erroneously) The Little Book of Benefit. It stresses the significance
of 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 ‘Abdallah
ibn al-Fa∂l’s Trinitarian and Christological views, thus demonstrating that in
addition to being a prolific translator of Greek Patristic and Biblical texts, he
also deserves to be studied more systematically as an important Christian philo-
sophical theologian in his own right.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 395 16/12/11 09:49

 ‫‪396‬‬ ‫‪S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER‬‬

‫‪EDITION AND TRANSLATION‬‬

‫>كلام في الثالوث المقدس<‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫بسم الاب والابن والروح القدس الاله الواحد‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫نبتدي بعون ا﷽‪ 2‬وحسن توفيقه نكتب‪ 3‬كتاب المنفعة‬

‫الباب الاول‪ :‬في اشتقاق اسم ا﷽ عز وجل وهل هو اسم ام صفة‬

‫‪ 5‬الاباء القديسون‪ 6‬لا يرون ان ا﷽ سبحانه اسم ًا لان الاسم يدل على ذات‬
‫الشي المسمى وهو مشاكل للحد الا ان بينهما فرق ًا وهو ان الحد ينطبق على‬
‫المحدود انطباق الخاصة‪ 7‬كقولنا "كل حيوان ناطق مايت انسان" و"كل انسان‬
‫حيوان ناطق مايت"‪ 8‬واما الاسم فاعم من الحد لاننا نقول كل حيوان نابح ذي‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫اربع قوايم كلب وليس كل كلب حيوان نابح ذا اربع قوايم لان هذا الاسم قد‬
‫يقع على هذا الحيوان وعلى الكوكب‪ 10‬وعلى الفيلسوف المسمى بهذا الاسم‪.‬‬
‫فلما كان الاسم بهذه الصورة وكانت ذات ا﷽ تعالى ترتفع عن ان يلحقها‬
‫الحدود وجب ان لا يكون لله اسم واذا لا يكون له اسم فقولنا اذ ًا ا﷽ انما هو‬
‫صفة جوهرية لا اسم‪.‬‬
‫قال بعض الاباء المكرمون ‪ :‬اول صفاته عز وجل الازلي ثم الصالح ثم ما‬
‫‪11‬‬

‫يتلو‪ 12‬ذلك من القادر والجواد والحكيم‪ ،‬فاسم ا﷽ في اللغة اليونانية مشتق من‬
‫احد ثلثة‪ 13‬مواضع‪ :‬اما من انه في كل مكان واما من انه علة وجود كل موجود‬
‫واما من الاحراق على راي المتفقهين‪ .14‬هكذا‪ 15‬يقول ابونا القديس المعظم‬
‫اغريغوريوس‪ 16‬المتكلم في اللاهوت‪ .‬واما في اللغة العربية فانه مشتق من احد‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪ S, followed by the “Introductory Note” (cited above),‬الاه واحد || ‪ A C FP‬الاله الواحد‬
‫الاله الواحد وبه || ‪ B‬بسم الله الواحد الابدي الازلي السرمدي وبه نستعين || الاله الواحد امين ‪then‬‬
‫‪ M‬امين || ‪ D‬نستعين‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪ S‬تعالى ‪add.‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪ FMP‬بكتابة || ‪ ABS CD‬نكتب‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫وعدة ‪add.‬‬
‫‪ C‬ابوابه اربعة عشر‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪ CD‬ان ‪add.‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪ S‬القديسين || ‪ AB CD FMP‬القديسون‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫الخاصة‬
‫‪ F‬الخاصية || ‪ABS CD MP‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪ AB CD FP || omit. M‬انسان وكل انسان حيوان ناطق مايت‬
‫)‪(homoeoteleuton‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪ AB FMP || omit. CD‬قد‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ A‬الكواب || ‪ B CD P‬الكوكب‬
‫‪ S‬الكواكب || ‪FM‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪ D‬المكرمين || ‪ AB C FMP‬المكرمون‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪ B CD‬يتلوا || ‪ FM‬يتلو‬
‫‪ S‬يثلو || ‪ A‬يثلوا || ‪P‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪ C‬ثلث || ‪ ABS D FMP‬ثلثة‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫المتفيقهين || ‪ A CD P‬المتفقهين‬
‫‪BS FM‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪ M‬هكذ || ‪ ABS CD FP‬هكذا‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪ CD FMP‬غريغوريوس || ‪ ABS‬اغريغوريوس‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 396‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY‬‬ ‫‪397‬‬

‫امرين‪ :‬اما من الوله لانه يوله في الجوانح‪ 17‬عند الشدايد التي توله اي تذهب‬
‫‪19‬‬
‫العقل واما من "الهت العين تاله" اذا حارت‪ 18‬ويراد به ان يحار في امره وعجايبه‬
‫وقد استقصينا هذا في كتابنا المعروف بكتاب المنفعة وا﷽ محمود مشكور‪.‬‬

‫الباب الثاني‪ :‬في ان ا﷽ سبحانه جوهر‬

‫ا﷽ تبارك وتعالى علة وجود كل موجود واذا كان علة الوجود فهو اذ ًا موجود‬
‫واذا كان موجود ًا فقد لزمه ما يلزم الموجود من ان يكون اما‪ 20‬جوهر ًا واما عرض ًا‬
‫لان كل موجود‪ 21‬لا يخلو‪ 22‬من ان يكون اما جوهر ًا واما عرض ًا وهذه مقدمة‬
‫كلية‪ 23‬صادقة فالجوهر‪ 24‬هو هو القايم بذاته الغني عن موازر‪ 25‬في ثباته‪ 26‬واما‬
‫العرض فهو الموجود في شي لا كجزء منه ولا يمكن ان يكون قوامه‪ 27‬خلو ًا مما‬
‫هو فيه‪ .‬ولما كان الباري تبارك وتعالى الموصوف بالازلية والقدم والثبات والدوام‬
‫والابداع وكان الجوهر الفاعل والعرض من المفعول ارتفع‪ 28‬عن ان يكون عرض ًا‬
‫فبقي انه جوهر‪ .29‬والجوهر جوهران بسيط ومركب ويستحيل‪ 30‬ان يكون الباري‬
‫مركب ًا لان‪ 31‬كل مركب فله ما هو ابسط منه قد تركب منه فبقي‪ 32‬ان يكون‬
‫جوهر ًا بسيط ًا وليس وان اطلق عليه ان يكون جوهر ًا فقد ادركت ذاته لانها فوق‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫الادراك ولقد احسن كسينوفنطس‪ 33‬الفيلسوف في قوله ان العقل مصنوع‬
‫مسبوق من الصانع والمسبوق لا يدرك السابق ابد ًا‪.‬‬

‫الباب الثالث‪ :‬في ان ا﷽ واحد كنوع‬

‫الواحد اسم مشترك يقال على عدة اضرب‪ :‬واحد في‪ 35‬الجنس كالحيوان‬
‫فانه معنى واحد محمول على انواع كثيرة كالانسان والفرس والحمار وغير ذلك‬

‫‪17‬‬
‫‪ CD‬الجوايح || ‪ ABS FMP‬الجوانح‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫‪ B‬جادت || ‪ AS CD FMP‬حارت‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫عجايبه‬
‫‪ B‬عجب ابيه || ‪AS CD FMP‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪ ABS C FMP || omit. D‬اما‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫|| ‪ ABS CD FP‬موجود‬
‫‪ M‬موجو‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪ AS‬يخلوا || ‪ B CD FMP‬يخلو‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫‪ B‬ك ّله || ‪ AS CD FMP‬كلية‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫فالجوهر‬
‫‪ B‬والجوهر || ‪AS CD FMP‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪ B MP‬مواذر || ‪ AS CD F‬موازر‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫ثيابه || ‪ AS C FMP‬ثباته‬
‫‪B‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪ M‬قوام ًا || ‪ ABS CD FP‬قوامه‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫‪ M‬ارفع || ‪ ABS CD FP‬ارتفع‬ ‫‪29‬‬
‫‪ AS‬جوهر‬
‫‪ B‬جوهر ًا || ‪CD FMP‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪ B M‬يستحيل || تستحيل ‪ AS CD FP:‬يستحيل‬ ‫‪31‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬لان‬
‫‪ D‬فان || ‪C FMP‬‬ ‫‪32‬‬
‫‪ M‬فيبقى || ‪ ABS CD FP‬فبقي‬ ‫‪33‬‬
‫كستوفنطس || ‪ CD‬كسينوفنطس‬
‫‪ B‬كسوفيطس || ‪ AS‬كسنوفيطس || ‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬
‫‪ ABS FMP || omit. CD‬مصنوع‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬في‬
‫‪ M‬من || ‪CD FP‬‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 397‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪398‬‬ ‫‪S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER‬‬

‫مما يوجد له معنى الحيوان وهو الذي يحد بانه جسم ذو نفس حساس بارادة‪،‬‬
‫ويشار باسم الواحد الى ما‪ 36‬هو غير متكثر في النوع كالانسان فانه موجود نفع ًا‬
‫غير متكثر بما هو نوع وهو محمول على اشخاص اكثر من واحد كبشر‪ 37‬وسعيد‬
‫‪38‬‬
‫وبكر‪ ،‬ويشار بلفظة الواحد الى ما هو واحد بالعدد وهو الشخص الذي لا جزء‬
‫له ولا ينقسم‪ 39‬انقسام الكميات كالواحد والنقطة ومبدا الحركة والان الذي هو‬
‫طرف‪ 40‬الزمان‪ ،‬وقد يشار باسم الواحد الى معان‪ 41‬اخرى اضربنا عن ايرادها‬
‫صفح ًا تخفيف ًا‪.‬‬
‫فنحن معشر النصارى الفايزين في‪ 42‬يوم الدين بنعمة ربنا يسوع‪ 43‬المسيح‬
‫ابن‪ 44‬ا﷽ الحي الازلي نعتقد في ا﷽ عز‪ 45‬اسمه انه واحد‪ 46‬كنوع لانه لما كان‬
‫‪48‬‬
‫تبارك وتعالى ذا ذات واحدة وجوهر‪ 47‬غير مختلف العين وكان الجنس ذا انواع‬
‫متباينة طباع ًا ومختلفة ذوات‪ 49‬بطل ان يكون واحد ًا‪ 50‬كجنس‪ ،‬ولانه لما كان‬
‫تبارك وتعالى‪ 51‬لا شبه له ولا قسيم‪ 52‬وكان الشخص ذا اشباه‪ 53‬كثيرة تضارعه‬
‫جوهر ًا وتناسبه طبع ًا بطل ان يكون واحد ًا كشخص فبقي انه واحد‪ 54‬كنوع لا‬
‫مثل له كما قلنا‪.‬‬

‫الباب الرابع‪ :‬في ان ا﷽ واحد ذو‪ 55‬ثلثة اشخاص‬

‫قد قام البرهان في الباب الذي قبل‪ 56‬هذا على ان ا﷽ سبحانه واحد كنوع‬
‫دون ان يكون واحد ًا‪ 57‬كجنس او واحد ًا‪ 58‬كشخص واذا كان واحد ًا كنوع‬
‫وكان النوع ذا اشخاص كان ا﷽ ذا اشخاص وهي الاقانيم والخواص فاما كونها‬
‫ثلثة‪ 59‬لا اقل ولا اكثر فلهذه العلة التي نورد‪ 60‬وهي ان ا﷽ في اقرار جميع اهل‬
‫الخلاف للنصرانية‪ 61‬فرد والفرد والزوج‪ 62‬مع ًا في الطبيعة فانه لا يكون فرد الا‬
‫‪36‬‬
‫‪ AS CD FMP || omit. B‬ما‬ ‫‪37‬‬
‫‪ B‬كنسر || ‪ AS CD FMP‬كبشر‬ ‫‪38‬‬
‫‪ ABS C‬جزء‬
‫‪ D‬جزو ًا || ‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪39‬‬
‫يتقسم || ‪ ABS CD FM‬ينقسم‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫‪P‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫طرف‬ ‫‪ABS‬‬ ‫‪CD‬‬ ‫||‬ ‫|| ‪ FP‬ظرف‬
‫‪ M‬ظفر‬ ‫‪41‬‬
‫‪ S D‬معاني || ‪ AB C FMP‬معان‬ ‫‪42‬‬
‫‪ ABS CD || omit. FMP‬في‬ ‫‪43‬‬
‫يسوع‬
‫‪ A C‬ايسوع || ‪BS D FMP‬‬ ‫‪44‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬واحد ‪ B 46‬وجل ‪ AB 45 add.‬بن || ‪ S CD FMP‬ابن‬
‫‪ C‬واحد ًا || ‪D FMP‬‬ ‫‪47‬‬
‫‪ D‬انواع ًا || ‪ ABS C FMP‬انواع ‪ BS C 48‬جوهر ًا || ‪ A D FMP‬جوهر‬
‫‪49‬‬
‫‪ CD‬ذوات || ذوات ًا ‪ ABS FMP‬ذوات‬ ‫‪50‬‬
‫‪ B D‬واحد || ‪ AS C FMP‬واحدا‬ ‫‪51‬‬
‫ولانه لما‬
‫‪ CD‬ولانه تبارك وتعالى لما كان || ‪ ABS FMP‬كان تبارك وتعالى‬ ‫‪52‬‬
‫قسم || ‪ AS CD FMP‬قسيم‬
‫‪B‬‬ ‫‪53‬‬
‫‪ B‬اشياء || ‪ AS FMP‬اشياة || ‪ CD‬اشباه‬ ‫‪54‬‬
‫‪ D‬واحدا || ‪ ABS C FMP‬واحد‬ ‫‪55‬‬
‫ذو‬
‫ً ‪58‬‬
‫‪ CD‬و || ‪ABS FMP‬‬ ‫‪56‬‬
‫‪ B‬قيل || ‪ AS CD FMP‬قبل‬ ‫‪57‬‬
‫‪ A‬كنوع ‪add.‬‬ ‫‪ ABS C‬واحدا‬
‫‪ D‬واحد || ‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪59‬‬
‫‪ D‬ثلاثة || ‪ ABS C FMP‬ثلثة‬ ‫‪60‬‬
‫تورد || ‪ BS CD FMP‬نورد‬
‫‪A‬‬ ‫‪61‬‬
‫‪ BS‬النصرانية || ‪ A CD FMP‬للنصرانية‬ ‫‪62‬‬
‫‪ B‬والروح || ‪ AS CD FMP‬والزوج‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 398‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY‬‬ ‫‪399‬‬

‫وزوج‪ 63‬فان كان ا﷽ فرد ًا والفرد‪ 64‬والزوج مع ًا في الطبيعة فا﷽ اذ ًا فرد وزوج مع ًا‬
‫واذا كان ا﷽ فرد ًا وزوج ًا وكان الفرد والزوج مع ًا ثلثة كان ا﷽ اذ ًا ثلثة واذا‪ 65‬كان‬
‫ا﷽ فرد ًا وكان الزوج من طبيعة الفرد كان ا﷽ اذ ًا فرد ًا وزوج ًا من طبيعة واحدة‪.‬‬
‫‪66‬‬
‫وبعض الاباء لا يرى هذا بل يرى انه ذو ثلثة اشخاص لوجود ثلثة صفات‬
‫ذاتية جامعة لكل ما يوصف به وهي حكيم جواد قادر ويشار بهذه الخواص الى‬
‫القديم والحي والناطق وجعلت لها اسماء مشاكلة‪ .‬اما الابوة فدالة على القديم‪،‬‬
‫واما البنوة‪ 67‬فعلى النطق‪ ،‬واما الروح فعلى الحياة‪ 68‬وايض ًا يشار بالاب الى العقل‬
‫وبالابن الى العاقل وبالروح الى المعقول‪.‬‬

‫الباب الخامس‪ :‬في الفرق بين القنوم والجوهر‬

‫القنوم‪ 69‬لفظة سريانية يوقعها‪ 70‬السريانيون على الشي المفرد الواحد‪ 71‬كبطرس‬
‫‪73‬‬
‫وبولص وكزيد وعمرو‪ ،72‬وله في اللغة اليونانية اربعة اسماء قنوم ايبوسطسيس‬
‫ووجه وخاصة وشخص‪ ،‬ورسمه انه الواحد بالعدد المتكون‪ 74‬من خواص لا‬
‫يمكن اجتماعها كلها بعينها وقت ًا من الاوقات في غيره‪ ،‬وله عدة رسوم وتركنا‬
‫ذكرها تخفيف ًا‪.‬‬
‫واذ كنا قد ذكرنا القنوم‪ 75‬واسماه ورسمه فلنتبع ذلك الفرق بينه وبين الجوهر‬
‫فنقول ان الفرق بينهما ان الشخص اسم منطقي‪ 76‬والجوهر اسم فلسفي‬
‫والشخص لا ينقسم والجوهر ينقسم وهذان فرقان تانس النفس بهما‪.‬‬

‫الباب السادس‪ :‬في ان الاقانيم مختلفة‬

‫فقد‪ 77‬تقدمنا فقلنا ما‪ 78‬القنوم ونحن نذكر الخلف في الخواص فنقول ان‬
‫خاصة قنوم‪ 79‬الاب الابوة وخاصة قنوم‪ 80‬الابن البنوة وخاصة قنوم‪ 81‬الروح‬

‫‪63‬‬
‫‪ M‬الازواج || ‪ ABS CD FP‬الا وزوج‬ ‫‪64‬‬
‫‪ BS‬الفرود || ‪ A CD FMP‬الفرد‬ ‫‪65‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬اذا‬
‫‪ F‬اذ || ‪CD MP‬‬ ‫‪66‬‬
‫‪ D‬صفاة || ‪ ABS C FMP‬صفات‬ ‫‪67‬‬
‫‪ AS CD FMP || omit.‬البنوة‬
‫‪B‬‬ ‫‪68‬‬
‫‪ FMP‬الحيوة || ‪ ABS CD‬الحياة‬ ‫‪69‬‬
‫‪ B‬الاقنوم || ‪ AS CD FMP‬القنوم‬ ‫‪70‬‬
‫يوقعها‬
‫‪ B‬يوافقها || ‪AS CD FMP‬‬ ‫‪71‬‬
‫‪ M‬الوارد || ‪ ABS CD FP‬الواحد‬ ‫‪72‬‬
‫عمر || ‪ B FMP‬عمرو‬
‫‪AS CD‬‬ ‫‪73‬‬
‫‪ A‬ايبوسطاسيس || ‪ BS CD‬ابيوسطسيس || ‪ FMP‬ايبوسطسيس‬ ‫‪74‬‬
‫المتكون‬
‫‪ M‬المتركب || ‪ABS CD FP‬‬ ‫‪75‬‬
‫‪ B‬الاقنوم || ‪ AS CD FMP‬القنوم‬ ‫‪76‬‬
‫|| ‪ CD M‬منطقي‬
‫‪ P‬منطبقي || ‪ ABS F‬منطيقي‬ ‫‪77‬‬
‫‪ D‬قد || ‪ ABS C FMP‬فقد‬ ‫‪78‬‬
‫‪ D‬ما هو || ‪ ABS C‬ما‬
‫‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪79‬‬
‫‪ B‬اقنوم || ‪ AS CD FMP‬قنوم‬ ‫‪80‬‬
‫‪ B‬اقنوم || ‪ AS CD FMP‬قنوم‬ ‫‪81‬‬
‫‪ AS‬قنوم‬
‫‪ B‬اقنوم || ‪CD FMP‬‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 399‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪400‬‬ ‫‪S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER‬‬

‫الانبثاق‪ ،‬وكل واحدة من هذه الخواص غير الاخرى وهي لازمة موضعها‪ 82‬غير‬
‫‪84‬‬
‫متحركة‪ ،83‬وهي متفقة في الجوهر لان جوهر الاب هو بعينه جوهر الابن وهو‬
‫بعينه ايض ًا‪ 85‬جوهر الروح وكذلك جوهر الابن هو بعينه جوهر الروح‪ .86‬ولا يظن‬
‫ظان ان‪ 87‬الخلف في الخواص يوجب خلف ًا في الجوهر فانّا‪ 88‬قد نصف الجوهر‬
‫بالكم والكيف والمضاف‪ 89‬وغيرها من المقولات التي كل واحدة منها غير‬
‫الاخرى والجوهر هو هو بعينه وليس وان كنا نعتقد ان‪ 90‬كل‪ 91‬واحد‪ 92‬من‬
‫الاقانيم جوهر ‪93‬يلزم ان يكون معنى الجوهر‪ 94‬هو‪ 95‬معنى الاقانيم ولا معنى‬
‫الاقانيم هو‪ 96‬معنى الجوهر كما لا يلزم من قال ان الانسان هو حيوان وهو ناطق‬
‫وهو مايت ان يكون معنى الانسان هو هو معنى الحيوان ولا معناه هو هو معنى‬
‫الناطق وكذلك القول في المايت اذ كان‪ 97‬حد الانسان غير حد كل واحد‬
‫واحد‪ 98‬من هذه‪.‬‬

‫الباب السابع‪ :‬في‪ 99‬ان المسيح ربنا طبيعتان وقنوم واحد‬

‫لما كان المسيح الاه ًا‪ 100‬تام ًا وانسان ًا تام ًا وجب ان يكون طبيعتين لان‬
‫اللاهوت ينفصل بطبيعة خالقة معراة‪ 101‬من قبول العرض والناسوت بطبيعة‬
‫مخلوقة قابلة للعرض وهذان‪ 102‬امران متقابلان من حيث الكيفية لا الجوهر‬
‫وسواء عليك قلت جوهران او طبيعتان لان الطبيعة والجوهر شي واحد عند الاباء‬
‫القديسين‪.‬‬
‫ولا يستقيم ان يكون المسيح طبيعة واحدة كاينة من طبيعتين كما ترى‬
‫‪103‬‬

‫اليعاقبة والا لزم ان تكون‪ 104‬الاستحالة التي هي حركة في الكيف قد دخلت‬

‫‪82‬‬
‫‪ M‬موصفها || ‪ ABS CD FP‬موضعها‬ ‫‪83‬‬
‫‪ M‬متحرك || ‪ ABS CD FP‬متحركة‬ ‫‪84‬‬
‫وهو‬
‫ً ‪85‬‬
‫‪ B‬هو || ‪AS CD FMP‬‬ ‫‪ ABS CD FP || omit. M‬ايضا‬ ‫‪86‬‬
‫وكذلك جوهر الابن هو بعينه‬
‫)‪ AS FP || omit. B CD M (homoeoteleuton‬جوهر الروح‬ ‫‪87‬‬
‫‪ ABS CD FP || omit.‬ان‬
‫‪M‬‬ ‫‪88‬‬
‫‪ S‬فاننا || ‪ AB CD FMP‬فانّا‬ ‫‪89‬‬
‫‪ B‬في المضاف || ‪ AS CD FMP‬والمضاف‬ ‫‪90‬‬
‫ان‬
‫‪ BS CD FMP‬ان كان || ‪A‬‬ ‫‪91‬‬
‫‪ A C(superscript)D || omit. BS FMP‬كل‬ ‫‪92‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬واحد‬
‫‪ FMP‬واحد ًا || ‪CD‬‬ ‫‪93‬‬
‫‪ CD‬جوهر ًا || ‪ ABS FMP‬جوهر‬ ‫‪94‬‬
‫)‪ C(superscript‬ليس ‪add.‬‬
‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪95‬‬
‫‪ ABS CD FP || omit. M‬هو‬ ‫‪96‬‬
‫‪ ABS C FMP || omit. D‬هو‬ ‫‪97‬‬
‫كل ‪add.‬‬
‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪98‬‬
‫‪ D‬واحد || ‪ ABS C FMP‬كل واحد واحد‬ ‫‪99‬‬
‫‪ AB CD FMP || omit.‬في‬
‫ً ‪100‬‬
‫‪S‬‬ ‫‪ FMP‬اله ًا || ‪ ABS CD‬الاها‬ ‫‪101‬‬
‫مفراة || ‪ AS CD FMP‬معراة‬‫‪ّ B‬‬
‫‪102‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬هذان‬
‫‪ D‬هذا || ‪C FMP‬‬ ‫‪103‬‬
‫‪ M‬طبيعتان || ‪ ABS CD FP‬طبيعتين‬ ‫‪104‬‬
‫يكون || ‪ ABS FMP‬تكون‬
‫‪CD‬‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 400‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY‬‬ ‫‪401‬‬

‫على جوهر اللاهوت وينضاف‪ 105‬الى هذا ان تصير الطبيعة الخالقة خالقة‬
‫‪106‬‬
‫ومخلوقة والطبيعة المخلوقة مخلوقة وخالقة ويصير الشي ضد نفسه وهذا شنع‬
‫ومحال‪ .‬فان قال قايل فما معنى قولنا ايتحاد‪ 107‬اجبناه‪ 108‬ان الايتحاد‪ 109‬كان في‬
‫القنوم‪ 110‬لا في الطبايع لما ذكرنا من اللوازم المستنكرة‪.‬‬
‫ولا يستقيم ايض ًا ان يكون قنومين‪ 111‬لاجل انه طبيعتان‪ 112‬كما يزعم النسطور‬
‫والا ففيم كان الايتحاد‪113‬؟ ومع هذا ان قول ابينا المعظم اغريغوريوس‪ 114‬المتكلم‬
‫في اللاهوت‪ 115‬في ميمر الميلاد ان‪ 116‬الاله تانس والانسان تاله يبطل‪ .‬وفي هذا‬
‫مقنع ويجب ان نعلم‪ 117‬ان الايتحاد‪ 118‬كان بالانسان الكلي دون الجزءي‪.‬‬

‫لاحق بالناسوت دون اللاهوت‬ ‫‪119‬‬

‫الباب الثامن‪ :‬في ان الالم‬

‫ان‪ 120‬المعاند يبني كلامه على هذا النحو قايل ًا ان المسيح مركب من‬
‫‪123‬‬
‫جوهرين الاهي‪ 121‬وانساني وان الجوهر الالهي‪ 122‬على انفراد ليس المسيح‬
‫وكذلك الانساني‪ ،‬فان كان الصلب وقع بالانساني دون الالهي‪ 124‬فقد وقع بغير‬
‫المسيح ويجب ان يكون واقع ًا بالجوهرين‪ 125‬حسب زعمكم‪ 126‬يا معشر‬
‫النصارى لانكم تقولون ان المسيح صلب واذا كان الصلب قد لحق الجوهرين‬
‫فقد اتصل هذا النوع من الاعراض باللاهوت‪.‬‬
‫‪128‬‬
‫والجواب عن ذلك انّا‪ 127‬اذا قلنا المسيح صلب ليس يلزم من هذا وان*‬
‫كان‪ 129‬المسيح مركب ًا من جوهرين ان يكون هذا الضرب من الاعراض قد لحق‬
‫الجوهرين اذ كانت العادة قد جرت ان يقول المرء رايت فلان ًا وانما راى بعضه‬

‫‪105‬‬
‫‪ B‬وينصاف || ‪ AS CD FMP‬وينضاف‬ ‫‪106‬‬
‫‪ B‬اشنع || ‪ AS CD FMP‬شنع‬ ‫‪107‬‬
‫ايتحاد‬
‫‪B FMP‬اتحاد || ‪AS CD‬‬ ‫‪108‬‬
‫‪ B‬اجبنا || ‪ AS CD FMP‬اجبناه‬ ‫‪109‬‬
‫|| ‪ AS CD‬الايتحاد‬
‫‪ B FMP‬الاتحاد‬ ‫‪110‬‬
‫‪ B‬الاقنوم || ‪ AS CD FMP‬القنوم‬ ‫‪111‬‬
‫اقنومين || ‪ AS CD FMP‬قنومين‬
‫‪B‬‬ ‫‪112‬‬
‫‪ M‬طبيعتين || ‪ ABS CD FP‬طبيعتان‬ ‫‪113‬‬
‫‪ B‬الاتحاد || ‪ AS CD‬الايتحاد‬
‫‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪114‬‬
‫‪ CD FP‬غريغوريوس || ‪ ABS M‬اغريغوريوس‬ ‫‪115‬‬
‫|| ‪ ABS C FMP‬في اللاهوت‬
‫‪ D‬باللاهوت‬ ‫‪116‬‬
‫‪ D‬لان || ‪ ABS C FMP‬ان‬ ‫‪117‬‬
‫يعلم || ‪ ABS C FMP‬نعلم‬
‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪118‬‬
‫‪ B FMP‬الاتحاد || ‪ AS CD‬الايتحاد‬ ‫‪119‬‬
‫‪ D‬الالام || ‪ ABS C FMP‬الالم‬ ‫‪120‬‬
‫ان‬
‫‪ABS C FMP || omit. D‬‬ ‫‪121‬‬
‫‪ FMP‬الهي || ‪ ABS CD‬الاهي‬ ‫‪122‬‬
‫|| ‪ A CD FMP‬الالهي‬
‫‪ BS‬الاهي‬ ‫‪123‬‬
‫‪ AS CD‬لمسيح || ‪ B FMP‬المسيح‬ ‫‪124‬‬
‫الاهي || ‪ A CD FMP‬الالهي‬
‫‪BS‬‬ ‫‪125‬‬
‫‪ B‬بالجوهر || ‪ AS CD FMP‬بالجوهرين‬ ‫‪126‬‬
‫زعمتم || ‪ ABS CD FP‬زعمكم‬
‫‪M‬‬ ‫‪127‬‬
‫‪ S‬اننا || ‪ AB CD FMP‬انّا‬ ‫‪128‬‬
‫‪ codd.‬فان || ‪ emendation‬وان‬ ‫‪129‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬كان‬
‫‪ CD‬يكون || ‪FMP‬‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 401‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪402‬‬ ‫‪S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER‬‬

‫وايض ًا فان‪ 130‬الانسان مركب‪ 131‬من جوهرين احدهما بسيط لا يفسد والاخر‬
‫مركب فاسد وهما النفس والجسم فاذا قلنا "قتل الانسان" لم يكن القتل‬
‫واصل ًا‪ 132‬بالنفس بل بالجسم فلا نقول‪ 133‬لهذا السبب "قتل غير الانسان" وان‬
‫كان الانسان هو المركب من هذين الجوهرين مع ًا لا من احدهما دون الاخر‪،‬‬
‫ولهذا نظاير عدة مما يوصف به الكل لانه موجود‪ 134‬في جزء‪ 135‬منه وايض ًا كما‬
‫انه قد يوصف الكل بالجزء ويدل عليه كقول الاميروس‪" 136‬جات البيضاء‬
‫بعض إِ َيرا‪ 137‬فدل بصفة بعض الاعضاء على جملتها هكذا قد‬
‫ُ‬ ‫السواعد" وهو‬
‫يوصف الجزء بالكل وقد جا هذا‪ 138‬ايض ًا عن الاميروس‪ 139‬وهو قوله الرمح‬
‫الحديد وانما‪ 140‬السنان هو الحديد فاستعمل‪ 141‬الكل‪ 142‬موضع الجزء وهذا‬
‫الضرب من المعاني يسمى سفسدوجي ‪.‬‬
‫‪144 143‬‬

‫الباب التاسع‪ :‬في ان الابوة من صفات الباري تبارك اسمه المشار اليه باسم‬
‫‪145‬‬
‫الاله لا من صفات الالهية‬

‫ان النصارى لا يرون ان تكون الابوة من صفات الباري من حيث هو الاه‬

‫‪146‬‬

‫والا لزم ان يكون الابن اب ًا اذ هو الاه‪ 147‬والروح ايض ًا كذلك‪ ،‬لكن من حيث هو‬
‫مولد‪ 148‬للابن وعلة له كايلاد الشمس للشعاع بلا زمان والعقل للفكر‪ .‬وليس‬
‫وان تقدمت لفظة اب على ابن في نمط الكلام كان ذلك موجب ًا تقدم‪ 149‬الاب‬
‫على الابن في الزمان‪.‬‬
‫واسم الاله يشار به عندهم الى عدة معان‪ :150‬الى المعظم المعبود‪ ،‬والى‬
‫معنى الجوهر الذي يتفق فيه الاقانيم الثلثة‪ ،‬والى كل واحد واحد منها‪ ،‬فانهم‬

‫‪130‬‬
‫‪ ABS C FMP || omit. D‬فان‬ ‫‪131‬‬
‫‪ D‬مركب ًا || ‪ ABS C FMP‬مركب‬ ‫ً ‪132‬‬
‫واصلا‬
‫‪ B‬فاصل ًا || ‪AS CD FMP‬‬ ‫‪133‬‬
‫‪ A‬تقل || ‪ BS FMP‬تقول || ‪ CD‬نقول‬ ‫‪134‬‬
‫‪ BS CD‬موجود‬
‫‪ A‬يوجد || ‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪135‬‬
‫‪ D‬جزو ًا || ‪ ABS C FMP‬جزء‬ ‫‪136‬‬
‫‪ AB‬الاميرذس || ‪ D F‬الاميروس‬
‫‪ S MP‬الاميردس || ‪C‬‬ ‫‪137‬‬
‫‪ D‬امر ًا || ‪ C‬اـرا || ‪ ABS FMP‬ايرا‬ ‫‪138‬‬
‫‪ ABS C‬جاهد || ‪ D‬جا هذا‬
‫‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪139‬‬
‫‪ P‬الامبردس || ‪ AB FM‬الامبروس || ‪ S CD‬الاميروس‬ ‫‪140‬‬
‫|| ‪ ABS C FMP‬وانما‬
‫‪ D‬واما‬ ‫‪141‬‬
‫‪ B‬واستعمل || ‪ AS CD FMP‬فاستعمل‬ ‫‪142‬‬
‫لكل || ‪ ABS C FMP‬الكل‬
‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪143‬‬
‫‪ D – all these are corrupt‬سفيندوجي || ‪ S‬سفسدوحي || ‪ AB C FMP‬سفسدوجي‬
‫‪renderings of the Greek synekdokhe.‬‬ ‫‪144‬‬
‫‪ M‬تم ‪add.‬‬ ‫‪145‬‬
‫|| ‪ ABS C P‬صفات الالهية‬
‫‪ D‬صفات الاهية || ‪ FM‬الصفات الالهية‬ ‫‪146‬‬
‫‪ FMP‬اله || ‪ ABS CD‬الاه‬ ‫‪147‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬الاه‬
‫‪ FMP‬اله || ‪CD‬‬ ‫‪148‬‬
‫‪ D‬متولد ًا || ‪ C‬متولد || ‪ B‬مولود || ‪ AS FMP‬مولد‬ ‫‪149‬‬
‫يقدم || ‪ C‬تقدم‬
‫‪ FM‬تقدم يقدم || ‪ABS D P‬‬ ‫‪150‬‬
‫‪ S D‬معاني || ‪ AB C FMP‬معان‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 402‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY‬‬ ‫‪403‬‬

‫يقولون ان الاب الاه‪ 151‬والابن الاه‪ 152‬والروح الاه‪ ،153‬والى المسيح المتقوم من‬
‫معنى الابن ومعنى الانسان‪ .‬وهذه اللفظة اعني لفظة الاه‪ 154‬مشتقة من اسم الاله‬
‫وكل اسم مشتق فهو ينتظم معنايين‪ :155‬احدهما الذات التي اشتق لها الاسم‬
‫والاخر‪ 156‬الذات التي من اسمها اشتق الاسم فاسم الاله جل ا﷽ وتعالى ينتظم‬
‫معنايين‪ :157‬احدهما الذات التي يشار اليها بلفظة الاله وهي ذات الباري تقدست‬
‫اسماوه‪ ،‬والاخر الذات التي من اسمها اشتق الاسم وهي الالهية‪.‬‬

‫الباب العاشر‪ :‬في ان الاقانيم ليست ثلثة جواهر مختلفة وان كان كل واحد‬
‫منها جوهر ًا‪ 158‬ويخالف‪ 159‬الاخرين في الخاصة‬

‫ان الخصم يبني كلامه على هذه الصفة قايل ًا‪ :‬قد زعمتم يا معشر النصارى‬
‫ان كل واحد من الاقانيم جوهر خاص وهي ثلثة فاما قلتم‪ 160‬هي ثلثة‪ 161‬جواهر‬
‫كما قلتم اقانيم فاوقعتم عليها العدد بذكر جوهر واما امتنعتم من ان تقولوا‪ 162‬ثلثة‬
‫اقانيم وان كل واحد‪ 163‬منها في نفسه‪.‬‬
‫فالجواب انه ليس يلزمنا اذا قلنا ان‪ 164‬كل واحد‪ 165‬من الاقانيم جوهر وان‬
‫الاقانيم ثلثة مختلفة ان*‪ 166‬يكون‪ 167‬الجوهر‪ 168‬ثلثة‪ 169‬مختلفة كما لا يلزم اذا‬
‫قال قايل ان المنجم هو بكر وان النحوي هو‪ 170‬بكر وان الماسح هو بكر ان‬
‫يكون‪ 171‬البكرون ثلثة وهذا كاف‪ 172‬في حل هذا الشك بعون ا﷽ وحسن توفيقه‪.‬‬

‫الباب الحادي عشر‪ :‬في انه ليس وان كانت الاقانيم مختلفة في الخواص فهي‬
‫مختلفة في الجوهر‬

‫الخاصة تقال على اربعة انحاء‪ :‬الاول منها ما يعرض لنوع واحد وان لم‬
‫يكن له كله‪ ،‬والثاني ما يوجد للنوع كله وان لم يكن له وحده اذا لم يكن‬
‫‪151‬‬
‫‪ B‬الاله || ‪ FMP‬اله || ‪ AS CD‬الاه‬ ‫‪152‬‬
‫‪ B FMP‬اله || ‪ AS CD‬الاه‬ ‫‪153‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬الاه‬
‫‪ FMP‬اله || ‪CD‬‬ ‫‪154‬‬
‫‪ FMP‬اله || ‪ ABS CD‬الاه‬ ‫‪155‬‬
‫معنيين || ‪ ABS CD‬معنايين‬
‫‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪156‬‬
‫)‪ B (dittography‬والاخر ‪add.‬‬ ‫‪157‬‬
‫معنيين || ‪ ABS CD‬معنايين‬
‫ً ‪158‬‬
‫‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪ M‬جوهر || ‪ ABS CD FP‬جوهرا‬ ‫‪159‬‬
‫او || ‪ B‬وتخالف || ‪ AS CD FP‬ويخالف‬
‫‪ M‬يخالف‬ ‫‪160‬‬
‫‪ B‬فاقلتم || ‪ AS CD FMP‬فاما قلتم‬ ‫‪161‬‬
‫ثلاثة || ‪ ABS C FMP‬ثلثة‬
‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪162‬‬
‫‪ A‬تقلوا || ‪ BS CD FMP‬تقولوا‬ ‫‪163‬‬
‫‪ C‬واحد ًا || ‪ ABS D FMP‬واحد‬ ‫‪164‬‬
‫ان‬
‫‪ABS C FMP || omit. D‬‬ ‫‪165‬‬
‫‪ D‬واحد ًا || ‪ ABS C FMP‬واحد‬ ‫‪166‬‬
‫فان || ‪ emendation‬ان‬
‫‪codd.‬‬ ‫‪167‬‬
‫‪ AS CD FMP‬تكن || ‪ B‬يكون‬ ‫‪168‬‬
‫‪ BS D‬الجواهر || ‪ A C M‬الجوهر‬
‫‪FP‬‬ ‫‪169‬‬
‫‪ A FMP || omit. BS CD‬ثلثة‬ ‫‪170‬‬
‫‪ ABS FMP || omit. CD‬هو‬ ‫‪171‬‬
‫‪ AB‬يكون‬
‫‪ S‬يكن || ‪CD FMP‬‬ ‫‪172‬‬
‫‪ D‬كافي || ‪ ABS C FMP‬كاف‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 403‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪404‬‬ ‫‪S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER‬‬

‫عام ًا‪ 173‬لجميع الموجودات‪ ،‬والثالث ما يوجد للنوع كله وله وحده الا انه ليس‬
‫دايم ًا‪ ،‬الرابع‪ 174‬هو موجود للنوع وحده وله كله ودايم ًا‪ .‬وعلى القسم الرابع‬
‫تحققت الخواص بالاقانيم‪ ،‬فخاصة قنوم‪ 175‬الاب الابوة وخاصة قنوم‪ 176‬الابن‬
‫البنوة وخاصة قنوم‪ 177‬الروح الانبثاق وان شيت الانبعاث‪ .‬فالاب من حيث هو‬
‫اب ليس بالابن ولا الروح والابن من حيث هو ابن‪ 178‬ليس بالاب ولا الروح‪.‬‬
‫فليس وان اختلفت الاقانيم في الخاصة وجب ان تختلف في الجوهر فانه‬
‫ليس يلزم من‪ 179‬قال ان معنى ضاحك غير منتصب القامة ومعنى منتصب القامة‬
‫غير معنى عريض الاظفار ان يكون الانسان المشار اليه بهذه الخواص مختلف ًا‬
‫في الجوهر فان طبيعة الانسان موجودة‪ 180‬في كل واحد‪ 181‬من هذه الصفات‬
‫وهو احد معنيين‪ 182‬مفهومين في واحد واحد‪ 183‬منهما‪ 184‬فهي بذلك موافقة‬
‫ٍ‬
‫صفات مجرد ًة‪.186‬‬ ‫الطبيعة وموافق‪ 185‬بعضها بعض ًا ويخالفوا متى ُفهمت‬

‫الباب الثاني عشر‪ :‬في ان‪ 187‬الاقانيم ليست خواص‬

‫انّا‪ 188‬نحن معشر النصارى لا نقول ان الاقانيم خواص اذ كانت الخواص‬

‫اشياء داخلة في معاني الاقانيم فانّا‪ 189‬نقول ان خاصة الاب الايلاد وخاصة الابن‬
‫التولد وخاصة الروح الانبعاث‪ 190.‬فلو اطلقنا على الاقانيم انها الخواص لكان‬
‫الاب الايلاد والابن التولد والروح‪ 191‬الانبعاث وهذا ما لا يجنح‪ 192‬الى‬
‫‪195‬‬
‫استجازته‪ 193‬احد‪ 194‬من ذوي العقول لما يوول الحال اليه من الالزامات‬
‫الشنعة‪ .‬فاما‪ 196‬قول الاباء القديسين ان الجوهر له‪ 197‬ثلثة خواص عوض من‬

‫‪173‬‬
‫‪ ABS FMP || omit. CD‬عام ًا‬ ‫‪174‬‬
‫‪ S‬والرابع || ‪ AB CD FMP‬الرابع‬ ‫‪175‬‬
‫‪ AS‬قنوم‬
‫‪ B‬اقنوم || ‪CD FMP‬‬ ‫‪176‬‬
‫‪ A CD P || omit. BS FM‬قنوم‬ ‫‪177‬‬
‫‪ B || omit.‬اقنوم || ‪ A FMP‬قنوم‬
‫‪CD‬‬ ‫‪178‬‬
‫‪ M‬الابن || ‪ ABS CD FP‬ابن‬ ‫‪179‬‬
‫‪ D‬ان || ‪ ABS C FMP‬من‬ ‫‪180‬‬
‫‪ AS‬موجودة‬
‫‪ B‬موجود || ‪CD FMP‬‬ ‫‪181‬‬
‫‪ D‬واحد ًا || ‪ ABS C FMP‬واحد‬ ‫‪182‬‬
‫|| ‪ AB C FMP‬معنيين‬
‫‪ S D‬معنايين‬ ‫‪183‬‬
‫‪ P‬واحد || ‪ ABS CD FM‬واحد واحد‬ ‫‪184‬‬
‫منها || ‪ ABS CD FP‬منهما‬
‫‪M‬‬ ‫‪185‬‬
‫‪ CD‬موافقة || ‪ ABS FMP‬موافق‬ ‫‪186‬‬
‫‪ FM‬كمل الباب الحادي عشر ‪add.‬‬ ‫‪187‬‬
‫ان‬
‫‪AS CD FMP || omit. B‬‬ ‫‪188‬‬
‫‪ S‬اننا || ‪ AB CD FMP‬انّا‬ ‫‪189‬‬
‫فاننا || ‪ AB CD FMP‬فانّا‬
‫‪S‬‬ ‫‪190‬‬
‫‪ M‬الانبثاق || ‪ ABS CD FP‬الانبعاث‬ ‫‪191‬‬
‫وخاصة الروح || ‪ ABS FMP‬والروح‬
‫‪CD‬‬ ‫‪192‬‬
‫‪ B‬يحتج || ‪ AS CD FMP‬يجنح‬ ‫‪193‬‬
‫استخارته || ‪ AS CD FMP‬استجازته‬
‫‪B‬‬ ‫‪194‬‬
‫‪ D‬احد ًا || ‪ ABS C FMP‬احد‬ ‫‪195‬‬
‫‪ B‬الازمات || ‪ AS CD FMP‬الالزامات‬ ‫‪196‬‬
‫فاما‬
‫‪ CD‬واما || ‪ABS FMP‬‬ ‫‪197‬‬
‫‪ ABS FMP || omit. CD‬له‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 404‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY‬‬ ‫‪405‬‬

‫قولهم ثلثة اقانيم في‪ 198‬بعض المواضع فانما فعلوا ذلك تسامح ًا في العبارة لا‬
‫على جهة التحقيق‪ ،‬والسلم‪.199‬‬

‫والنطق لله سبحانه‬ ‫‪200‬‬

‫الباب الثالث عشر‪ :‬في وجوب الحياة‬

‫ان الباري تبارك وتعالى لم يزل حي ًا بحياة ناطق ًا‪ 201‬بنطق‪ 202‬ولم تزل‬
‫‪203‬‬

‫الحياة‪ 204‬والنطق خاصيتين لجوهره‪ 205‬متممين له ولما كنا قد تكلمنا في الباب‬

‫الثاني من هذا المقتضب في الثالوث المقدس كلام ًا تام ًا بالدلالة على وجود‬
‫الجوهرية لله تعالى عنينا عن اعادته هنا‪ 206‬فنقول انّا‪ 207‬لما وجدنا الجوهر ينقسم‬
‫قسمين حي ًا وميت ًا فالميت لا يكون منه اختيار‪ 208‬ولا تمييز والحي‪ 209‬هو الذي‬
‫يكون منه ذلك اثبتناه حي ًا‪ .‬ثم راينا الحي منه ناطق ومنه ما ليس بناطق‪ 210‬فالناطق‬
‫منه هم‪ 211‬الملايكة والانس والذي ليس بناطق هم البهايم والطير والسباع‬
‫ووجدنا الناطق هو الموصوف بالعلم والحكمة والذي ليس بناطق لا يوصف‬
‫بذلك‪ ،‬وللناطق فضيلة على ما ليس بناطق اثبتناه‪ 212‬ناطق ًا وهذا كاف‪ 213‬في هذا‬
‫المعنى ولله المنة‪.‬‬

‫الباب الرابع عشر‪ 214:‬في انه ليست الصورة تقتضي لاجل*‪ 215‬ان الاقانيم هي‬
‫الجوهر والجوهر ليس بمختلف والاقانيم مختلفة ان يكون المختلف‪ 216‬ليس‬
‫بمختلف‬

‫‪198‬‬
‫‪ M‬من || ‪ ABS CD FP‬في‬ ‫‪199‬‬
‫‪ D. Irrespec-‬والسلام || ‪ M‬السلم || ‪ ABS C FP‬والسلم‬
‫‪tive of the spelling, the reading is wa-l-salam.‬‬ ‫‪200‬‬
‫الحيوة || ‪ ABS CD‬الحياة‬
‫ً ‪201‬‬
‫‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪ D‬ناطق || ‪ ABS C FMP‬ناطقا‬ ‫‪202‬‬
‫‪ M‬بنطقه || ‪ ABS CD FP‬بنطق‬ ‫‪203‬‬
‫تزل‬
‫‪ CD‬يزل || ‪ABS FMP‬‬ ‫‪204‬‬
‫‪ FMP‬الحيوة || ‪ ABS CD‬الحياة‬ ‫‪205‬‬
‫|| ‪ AS CD FMP‬لجوهره‬
‫‪ B‬لجوهر‬ ‫‪206‬‬
‫‪ FMP‬ههنا || ‪ ABS CD‬هنا‬ ‫‪207‬‬
‫‪ S‬اننا || ‪ AB CD FMP‬انّا‬ ‫‪208‬‬
‫اختيار‬
‫ً‬
‫‪ D‬اختيارا || ‪ABS C FMP‬‬ ‫‪209‬‬
‫‪ M‬والالهي || ‪ ABS CD FP‬والحي‬ ‫‪210‬‬
‫‪ AS‬ليس بناطق ما‬
‫‪ D‬غير ما ليس بناطق || )ما ليس ‪ C (superscript:‬غير ناطق || ‪ B‬ليس بناطق || ‪FMP‬‬ ‫‪211‬‬
‫‪ ABS‬هم‬
‫‪FMP || omit. CD‬‬ ‫‪212‬‬
‫‪ M‬اثبتنا || ‪ ABS CD FP‬اثبتناه‬ ‫‪213‬‬
‫كافي || ‪ ABS C FMP‬كاف‬
‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪214‬‬
‫هذا الكلام غير متقن يدل على ان النسخة تغيرت‪ ،‬يشبه ان يكون الواجب ‪A in margin:‬‬
‫"في انه ليست الصورة تقتضي لا ان يكون المختلف ليس بمختلف بل ان الاقانيم هي الجوهر‬
‫والجوهر ليس بمختلف والاقانيم مختلفة"‪،‬هذا هو الصحيح‬ ‫‪215‬‬
‫لا بل || ‪ emendation‬لاجل‬
‫‪codd.‬‬ ‫‪216‬‬
‫‪ ABS FMP || omit. CD‬ان يكون المختلف‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 405‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 ‫‪406‬‬ ‫‪S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER‬‬

‫ليس كل شيين يوصف‪ 217‬بكل واحد منهما‪ 218‬شي واحد بالعدد يلزم ان‬
‫يوصف احدهما بالاخر والدليل على ذلك انّا‪ 219‬نصف الخط بانه منقسم ونصفه‬
‫ايض ًا بانه‪ 220‬غير منقسم وليس يلزم ان يكون المنقسم هو غير المنقسم‪ 221‬اذ‬
‫معنى هذا غير معنى هذا‪ .‬فان قال قايل ان الشي الذي ُوصف‪ 222‬بانه مختلف‬
‫هو هو بعينه الذي ُوصف بانه‪ 223‬ليس بمختلف‪ 224‬وان كان معنى المختلف لا‬
‫يوصف بانه معنى ليس بمختلف‪ 225‬قلنا ان هذين القولين ليسا متناقضين‪ 226‬اذ‬
‫كان قد تصدق‪ 227‬ان يوصف بهما شي واحد‪ 228‬لانه ليس ممتنع ًا‪ 229‬ان يكون‬
‫شي‪ 230‬واحد مختلف ًا من وجه ما وليس بمختلف من وجه اخر وكما انه ليس‬
‫ممتنع ًا ان يكون الخط منقسم ًا من حيث هو ُبعد واحد وليس بمنقسم من حيث‬
‫هو نهاية السطح وكذلك ليس ممتنع ًا ان تكون‪ 231‬الاقانيم مختلفة من حيث‬
‫احدها‪ 232‬والد والاخر مولود‪ 233‬والاخر منبعث وليس بمختلفة من حيث كل‬
‫واحد منها جوهر‪.‬‬
‫وبهذا فلينختم هذا الباب وهو تمام الكلام في الثالوث المقدس وا﷽‬
‫‪235‬‬ ‫‪234‬‬

‫محمود مشكور وهو حسبنا وعليه توكلنا‪.236‬‬

‫‪217‬‬
‫‪ CD‬توصف || ‪ ABS FMP‬يوصف‬ ‫‪218‬‬
‫‪ M‬منها || ‪ ABS CD FP‬منهما‬ ‫‪219‬‬
‫‪ AB‬انّا‬
‫‪ S D‬اننا || ‪C FMP‬‬ ‫‪220‬‬
‫‪ B‬فانه || ‪ AS CD FMP‬بانه‬ ‫‪221‬‬
‫منقسم || ‪ ABS CD F‬المنقسم‬
‫‪MP‬‬ ‫‪222‬‬
‫‪ P‬به ‪add.‬‬ ‫‪223‬‬
‫)‪ D (dittography‬وصف بانه ‪add.‬‬ ‫‪224‬‬
‫‪ ABS CD‬بمختلف‬
‫‪ M‬مختلف || ‪FP‬‬ ‫‪225‬‬
‫‪ M‬مختلف || ‪ ABS CD FP‬بمختلف‬ ‫‪226‬‬
‫|| ‪ AS CD FMP‬متناقضين‬
‫‪ B‬متناقصين‬ ‫‪227‬‬
‫‪ FMP‬يصدق || ‪ ABS CD‬تصدق‬ ‫‪228‬‬
‫واحد ًا || ‪ ABS C FMP‬واحد‬
‫ً ‪229‬‬
‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪ M‬ممتنع || ‪ ABS CD FP‬ممتنعا‬ ‫‪230‬‬
‫‪ D‬شي ًا || ‪ ABS C FMP‬شي‬ ‫‪231‬‬
‫‪ A‬تكون‬
‫‪ BS C FMP‬يكون || ‪D‬‬ ‫‪232‬‬
‫‪ CD‬حدّ ها || ‪ ABS FMP‬احدها‬ ‫‪233‬‬
‫|| ‪ ABS C FMP‬مولود‬
‫‪ D‬مولود ًا‬ ‫‪234‬‬
‫‪ FMP‬فلنختم || ‪ ABS CD‬فلينختم‬ ‫‪235‬‬
‫القدوس || ‪ AB CD FMP‬المقدس‬
‫‪S‬‬ ‫‪236‬‬
‫‪ F‬تم ‪ S || add.‬امين ‪add.‬‬

‫‪94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 406‬‬ ‫‪16/12/11 09:49‬‬

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 407

<Discourse on the Holy Trinity>

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. With God’s
help and good guidance we begin writing the “Book of Benefit.”

CHAPTER ONE: On the Derivation of the Term “God” (allah) and on

whether it is a Name or an Attribute.
The holy Fathers do not regard “God” (allah) as a name, because the
name indicates the essence of the thing named. [In this respect, a name]
is similar to a definition, but there is a difference between the two,
namely that the definition is applied to the thing defined as a proprium
[and hence by way of equivalence]. For example, we can say both
“Every mortal rational animal is a human” and “Every human is a mor-
tal rational animal.” A name, on the other hand, is more general than a
definition, because we say “Every barking animal with four legs is a
dog,” yet not every “dog” is a barking animal with four legs, because
this name may be applied to the animal [dog] and to the star1 and to the
[kind of] philosopher designated by that name2. Since names are like this
[i.e. similar to definitions] and since God’s essence is beyond definitions
being applied to it, it follows that God cannot have a name. Therefore,
“God” is not a name, and thus, when we say “God” this is merely a
substantial attribute and not a name.
One of the blessed Fathers said that the first among God’s attributes
is “the pre-eternal,” then “the good,” and then subsequent [attributes],
such as “the powerful,” “the generous,” and “the wise.”
The term “God” in the Greek language [i.e. theos] has three possible
derivations. Either it is derived from the fact that He is in every place, or
that He is the cause of the existence of every existent, or from the word
“burning,” in the opinion of those who have understanding. Thus says
our father the great saint Gregory the Theologian3. In Arabic, on the
other hand, it is derived from one of two things: either from [the word]
“madness” (walah), because He causes madness in the souls during
tribulations which cause madness, that is, cause one to lose reason, or
from the expression “the eye became confounded” (alihati l-‘ayn, impf.

1
Apparently, the constellations Canis Maior and Canis Minor are meant.
2
I.e. the Cynics (called in Arabic, in a literal translation from the Greek: al-falasifa
al-kalbiyun).
3
Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 30, PG, vol. 36, col. 128A; Grégoire de Nazianze, Dis-
cours 27-31 (Discours théologiques, ed. P. GALLAY (Sources Chrétiennes, 250), Paris,
1978, p. 262-265.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 407 16/12/11 09:49

 408 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

ta’lahu), [which is said when] it is perplexed4. This refers to the fact that
[God’s] command and His wonders cause perplexity, as we have exam-
ined extensively in our book entitled the Book of Benefit. Praise and
thanks be to God.

CHAPTER TWO: On that God is a Substance

God is the cause of the existence of every existent. Since He is the
cause of existence, He is, therefore, [Himself] an existent. Since He is an
existent, whatever is applicable to existents is applicable to Him. Thus
He must be either a substance or an accident, because every existent is
necessarily either a substance or an accident, and this is a true universal
premise. Now, substance is an entity which is subsistent in itself and
requires no support for its continuous [existence], while accident is that
which exists in a thing not as a part of it and which cannot subsist apart
from that in which it inheres5. Since the Creator is He who is described
with pre-eternity, beginninglessness, permanence, perpetuity, and origi-
nation [of other existents], and since substance is that which is active,
and accident is that which is acted upon, God is too exalted to be an
accident. Thus it follows that He is a substance. Substances are of two
kinds: simple and composite. It is impossible that the Creator be com-
posite, because every composite thing has something which is simpler
than it, [i.e. that] from which it is composed. It follows, then, that He is
a simple substance6. Even though it is attributed to Him that He is a
substance, His essence has not been grasped, because it is beyond grasp.
Xenophanes the philosopher spoke well when he said that reason is
something made and posterior to the Maker, and the posterior thing can
never grasp that which is prior to it7.

CHAPTER THREE: On that God is One as a Species.

“One” is an equivocal term, said in several ways8: (1) one in genus,
like “animal,” for it is one concept predicated of multiple species such
4
E.W. LANE, Arabic-English Lexicon, Beirut, 1980, vol. 1, p. 82 gives the following
as one of the meanings of the verb aliha: “He was, or became, confounded, or perplexed,
and unable to see his right course.”
5
I.e. from its substrate.
6
The same argument is made in the Book of Benefit, Ch. 1, MS A, fol. 25b.
7
This saying originates in the Doxography of Pseudo-Ammonius: U. RUDOLPH, Die
Doxographie des Pseudo-Ammonios: Ein Beitrag zur neuplatonischen Überlieferung im
Islam, Stuttgart, 1989, p. 36; it then reappears in SAHRASTANI, al-Milal wa-l-niÌal, ed.
Amir ‘Ali MAHNA and ‘Ali Îasan FA‘UR, Beirut, 1993/1414, vol. 2, p. 418; cf. A. ALT-
MANN – S.M. STERN, Isaac Israeli: A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Cen-
tury, London, 1958, p. 71.
8
For the following argument cf. Book of Benefit, Ch. 5.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 408 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 409

as the human, the horse, and the donkey and other things to which the
concept of “animal” is applied, defined as a body possessed of a soul,
endowed with senses, and having volition. (2) The term “one” also
refers to that which is not multiple in species, such as “human,” for it
exists beneficially [?]9, and is not multiple insofar as it is a species,
though it is predicated of more than one individual, such as Bisr, Sa‘id,
and Bakr. (3) The expression “one” also refers to that which is one in
number, namely the individual10 which does not have parts and is not
divided the way quantities are divided – for example, the one, the point,
the beginning of motion, and the moment, which is a point of time.
“One” also indicates other meanings which we have refrained from
mentioning here out of concern for brevity.
We Christians, who will be victorious on the Day of Judgment by the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of the Living God,
believe about God that He is one as a species. [This is] because since
He possesses one essence and a substance undifferentiated in itself
while genus possesses [multiple] species of different natures and differ-
ent in essence, it is impossible that He be one as a genus. Since, [fur-
thermore], He has no analogue and no partner while the discrete instance
has many analogues which resemble it in substance and correspond to
it in nature, it is impossible that He be one as an individual. Thus it fol-
lows that He is one as a species, without anything like Him, as we have
said11.

CHAPTER FOUR: On that God is One, Possessing Three Individuals.

In the preceding chapter, proof was offered that God is one as a spe-
cies, rather than one as a genus or one as an individual. If He is one as a
species and [every] species possesses individuals, then God possesses
individuals, which are the hypostases (al-aqanim) and the properties (al-
ÌawaÒÒ). As for there being three [hypostases and properties], no less
and no more, it is for the following reason. As all those who oppose
Christianity insist, God is single. The single and the pair are together in
nature, for there cannot be a single without also a pair. Thus since God
is single, and the single and the pair are together in nature, God is a
single and a pair together. Since God is a single and a pair, and the single
and pair together are three, God is three. Since God is a single, and the

9
The word naf‘an (“beneficially”) seems out of context. The sense required here by
the argument seems to be “uniquely.”
10
The underlying Greek term seems to be atomon, which can also mean – and in this
context definitely means – a discrete instance of something, an atom.
11
Cf. Ibn al-Fa∂l’s Challenges and Responses, Challenge 1, Vat. ar. 111, fol. 66r-v.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 409 16/12/11 09:49

 410 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

pair is of the nature of the single, then God is a single and a pair of one
nature12.
One of the Fathers does not think this way, but rather thinks that God
possesses three individuals on account of the existence of three essential
attributes comprising all by which He is described. These are “the wise,”
“the good,” and “the powerful” 13. These [three] properties are also
referred to14 as “the pre-eternal,” “the living,” and “the rational,” and
there have been coined other appropriate terms. Fatherhood indicates
“the pre-eternal”; sonship indicates rationality; the Spirit indicates life.
Also, the Father is referred to15 as the intellect (al-‘aql), the Son as that
which intellects (al-‘aqil), and the Spirit as that which is intellected (al-
ma‘qul)16.

CHAPTER FIVE: On the Difference between Qunum (hypostasis) and Sub-

stance
“Qunum” (hypostasis) is a Syriac term which the Syrians apply to a
single, unique thing, like Peter and Paul, and like Zayd and ‘Amr. In the
Greek language, it has four names: “qunum” is hypostasis, person, prop-
erty, and individual17. Its description18 is that it is what is one in number,

12
Cf. Ibn al-Fa∂l’s Challenges and Responses, Challenge 2, Vat. ar. 111, fol. 66v-67r
(the argument there is ascribed to ba‘∂ ahl al-‘ilm). For a modern discussion of the neces-
sity of exactly three hypostases in God using similar terms, see V. LOSSKY, In the Image
and Likeness of God, Crestwood, NY, 1985, p. 84-85.
13
On these attributes (in the order “goodness,” “wisdom,” “power”) applied to the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit respectively by YaÌya b ‘Adi and other Christian
Arab theologians see HADDAD, La Trinité divine, p. 218ff. Haddad (p. 219, n. 197) traces
this scheme back to a phrase of John of Damascus, who states that “the Divinity is perfect
and complete in goodness, in wisdom, and in power” (PG, vol. 114, col. 801). The triad
goodness-wisdom-power appears earlier also in Maximus the Confessor, e.g. in his Cen-
turies on Love, Century 1, No. 96; Century 2, No. 27 (English tr. in G.E.H. PALMER – Ph.
SHERRARD – K. WARE (tr.), The Philokalia, vol. 2, London – Boston, 1990, p. 64, 69).
However, neither Maximus nor John of Damascus correlates between this triad and the
three Persons of the Trinity.
14
Here and below, ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l seems to invert the two complements of the
verb asara (saying bi-ha∂ihi l-ÌawaÒÒ ila instead of *ila ha∂ihi l-ÌawaÒÒ bi-). The
intended meaning is clearly that the same properties are also indicated by other terms.
15
Same phenomenon as above.
16
The idea is YaÌya ibn ‘Adi’s. See his Maqala fi tam†il al-naÒara l-ibna bi-l-‘aqil
duna l-ma‘qul wa-l-ruÌa bi-l-ma‘qul duna l-‘aqil (alternative title: Maqala yu†batu fiha
waÒf al-ilah al-waÌid bi-l-ta†li† wa-tam†il al-ab wa-l-ibn wa-l-ruÌ al-quddus bi-l-‘aql wa-
l-‘aqil wa-l-ma‘qul), ed. A. PÉRIER, Petits traités apologetiques de YaÌya Ben ‘Adi, Paris,
1920, p. 24-27 (with French translation). See also HADDAD, La Trinité divine, p. 222ff.
17
The underlying Greek terms here are hypostasis, prosopon, idion (or idioma), and
atomon, respectively.
18
In Aristotelian logic, there is a distinction between definition (Ìadd) and description
(rasm). Unlike the former, the latter does not designate the essence of the defined term.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 410 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 411

composed of properties which cannot all exactly be gathered together at

any time in something else. It has a number of [other] descriptions too,
but we have set aside mentioning them for the sake of brevity19.
Since we have mentioned “qunum,” its names, and its description, let
us follow this with the difference between it and substance20. We say that
the difference between these two [concepts] is that individual [i.e.
qunum] is a logical term while substance is a philosophical term21, and
that individual is indivisible while substance is divisible. These two dif-
ferences should [be enough to] satisfy the soul.

CHAPTER SIX: On that the Hypostases are Different

We have previously stated what the hypostasis is, so let us mention the
differentiation between the properties. We say that the property of the
hypostasis of the Father is fatherhood, the property of the hypostasis of
the Son is sonship, and the property of the hypostasis of the Spirit is
procession. Each of these properties is different from the others, occupies
its [own] place, and is immutable. [However] the [hypostases] agree in
substance, because the substance of the Father is identical to the sub-
stance of the Son and identical also to the substance of the Spirit. Like-
wise, the substance of the Son is identical to the substance of the Spirit.
Let no one think that the differentiation in the properties necessitates a
differentiation in the substance. Indeed, we often characterize the sub-
stance by quantity, quality, relation, and other categories each of which
is not identical to the others. [Despite these characterizations, however,]
the substance remains identical. Furthermore, even if we believed that
each of the hypostases is a [separate] substance, it would not necessarily
follow that the meaning of [the term] “substance” is identical to the
meaning of “hypostases” or that the meaning of “hypostases” is identi-
cal to the meaning of “substance” – just as, if one says that the human
being is an animal and that he is rational and that he is mortal, it does
not necessarily follow that the meaning of “human” is identical to the
meaning of “animal” or that it is identical to the meaning of “rational”
(the same goes for “mortal”), since the definition of “human” is differ-
ent from the definition of each of these.

See e.g. Sh. ABED, Aristotelian Logic and the Arabic Language in Alfarabi, Albany, NY,
1991, p. 35-57.
19
Cf. Ibn al-Fa∂l’s Challenges and Responses, Challenge 4, Vat. ar. 111, fol. 67v-68r.
20
Ousia is the underlying Greek term here.
21
In the Book of Benefit, Ch. 34 (MS A, fol. 42b), ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fa∂l argues simi-
larly that qunum is a logical term, while †abi‘a is a philosophical term.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 411 16/12/11 09:49

 412 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

CHAPTER SEVEN: On that Christ Our Lord is Two Natures and One
Hypostasis
Since Christ is perfect God and perfect man, He must be two natures,
because divinity is differentiated [within the genus “nature”]22 as a
nature which is creative and free from accepting accidents, while human-
ity [is differentiated as] a nature which is created and accepts accidents.
These are two matters which are contraries of each other with regard to
quality, not with regard to substance. It does not matter if you say two
substances or two natures, because nature and substance23 are one and
the same thing for the holy Fathers.
It is not proper to say that Christ is one nature, made out of two
natures, as the Jacobites claim, otherwise it will follow that change,
which is movement with regard to quality24, has been applied to the sub-
stance of divinity, and on top of that, that the creative nature has become
both creative and created and the created nature has become both created
and creative. A thing will, thus, have become an opposite of itself, which
is absurd and impossible. So if someone asks how we conceptualize the
union [of the divine and the human in Christ], we shall respond that the
union occurred in the hypostasis, not in the natures. Otherwise, absurd
consequences follow, as we have mentioned.
Nor is it proper to say that because [Christ] is two natures, He is [also]
two hypostases, as the Nestorians allege, for [if Christ is also two
hypostases], what is it that the union occurred in? In addition, it would
nullify what our great father Gregory the Theologian says in his Oration
on the Nativity: that God became man and man became God25. This is
convincing enough, but one has to know that the [hypostatic] union
occurred with the universal human [nature], not the particular26.

22
Probably the technical Aristotelian meaning of faÒl as specific differentia is intended
here.
23
In Greek: physis and ousia.
24
This is the Aristotelian definition of change.
25
This phrase – which is also quoted at the end of Chapter 34 of the Book of Benefit
– does not occur in the Oration on the Nativity (Or. 38), but is quite common in Gregory
of Nazianzus. On Gregory of Nazianzus’ doctrine of deification (theosis), which ‘Abdal-
lah ibn al-Fa∂l is here interpreting christologically, see: LOURIÉ, Istorija, p. 75-77;
I. ALFEJEV, Zhizn’ i uchenie sviatitelia Grigorija Bogoslova [The Life and Teaching of
Saint Gregory the Theologian], Moscow, 32007, p. 445-460.
26
It is the Orthodox Christian teaching, at least from Maximus the Confessor on, that
in Christ, the Word is united to the general (universal) human nature, not the human
nature of a particular individual. The differences of opinion between the various Christian
groups on this matter are admirably summarized by the Muslim polemicist Abu ‘Isa al-
Warraq at the very beginning of his discussion of the Hypostatic Union (al-ittiÌad): “The
Nestorians and the majority of the Jacobites claim that the Son, the Word, united with a

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 412 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 413

CHAPTER EIGHT: On that Passion Affects [Christ’s] Humanity but not

Divinity
[Our] adversary builds his argument in the following way, saying that
Christ is composed of two substances, divine and human, and that nei-
ther the divine substance alone nor the human substance alone is Christ.
So if the crucifixion only happened to the human [substance] and not the
divine [substance], then it happened to something other than Christ.
[Thus] it must have occurred to both substances, according to your claim,
O Christians, because you say that it was Christ who was crucified. Now,
if the crucifixion affected both substances, then this kind of accident was
attached to [Christ’s] divinity.
The response to this [is the following]: When we say that Christ was
crucified, it does not follow from this, even though Christ is composed
from two substances, that this sort of accident affects both substances,
since it is customary for one to say, “I saw so-and-so” when he only saw
a part of him. Also, a human being is composed of two substances, one
of which is simple and does not decay and the other composite and sub-
ject to decay; these are soul and body. When we say, “a human being
was killed,” the killing did not affect the soul, but only the body. Yet,
we do not say for this reason that something other than a human being
was killed, even though a human being is composed from both these
substances together, not from one of them without the other27. There are
many such cases when the whole is similarly described, because it is
present in one of its parts. Moreover, just as the whole may be described
in terms of its part and be indicated by it (as when Homer says, “The
white-armed came,” [arms being] only part of Hera, designating the
whole with a quality of one of [her] limbs)28, so also the part may be
described in terms of the whole. This is also attested in Homer, when he

temporal human being (bi-insan muÌda†), being born of Mary, and the Melkites claim that
the Son united with the temporal human being (bi-l-insan al-muÌda†). When they say ‘a
human being’ the Nestorians and the majority of the Jacobites mean one human being and
one individual, because according to them the Son in fact united with a particular human
being, and not the universal. And when the Melkites say ‘the human being’ they mean the
substance which is common to all human individuals. This is because, according to them,
the Son in fact united with the universal human, and not a particular (ittaÌada bi-l-insan
al-kulli, la al-juz’i), in order to save everyone, as they claim” – D. THOMAS (ed. and tr.),
Early Muslim Polemic against Christianity: Abu ‘Isa al-Warraq’s ‘Against the Incarna-
tion’, Cambridge, 2002, p. 86-87.
27
Theodore Abu Qurra makes the same argument – see LAMOREAUX, Theodore Abu
Qurrah, p. 105-106.
28
The “white-armed” (leukolenos) is a standard Homeric epithet of Hera. ‘Abdallah
ibn al-Fa∂l translates leukolenos idiomatically as al-bay∂a’ al-sawa‘id and transliterates
Hera’s name as ira.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 413 16/12/11 09:49

 414 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

says, “the iron spear” when only the spearhead is [made of] iron. Thus,
he has used the whole in place of the part, and this sort of figure of
speech is called synecdoche.

CHAPTER NINE: On that Fatherhood is among the Attributes of the Crea-

tor, who is indicated by the Term “God,” but is not among the [Con-
comitant] Attributes of being-divine29
Christians do not consider fatherhood as one of the attributes belong-
ing to the Creator in virtue of His being divine, for if it were the case, it
would follow that the Son too is a father since He is divine, and likewise
the Spirit. Rather, [fatherhood belongs to the Creator] insofar as He
begets the Son and is His cause, as the sun begets rays without time and
the intellect begets thought. Even though the expression “father” takes
precedence over “son” in the manner of speech, this does not necessitate
that the Father took precedence over the Son in time.
The term “God,” in [Christian] usage, refers to a number of mean-
ings: (1) to the One who is magnified and worshiped, (2) to the notion
of the substance shared by the three hypostases, (3-5) to each of these
[hypostases], for [Christians] say that the Father is divine and the Son is
divine and the Spirit is divine, and (6) to Christ, who comprises both the
notion of the Son [of God] and the notion of the human.
This expression, I mean the expression “divine” is derived from the
name “God”30, and every derived term involves two meanings, one of
which is the concept31 for whose sake the term is coined and the other is
the concept from whose name the term is coined. So the term “God”
involves two meanings, one of which is the concept which is referred to
by the expression “God,” namely the essence of the Creator, and the
other is the concept from whose name the term is derived, which is the
[concept of] being-divine.

29
Compare this with Ibn al-Fa∂l’s quotation from an unnamed “Christian theologian”
(YaÌya ibn ‘Adi?), in Recension B of the Book of Joy of the Believer, Vat. ar. 164,
fol. 221r-v: ‫الابوة هي في جوهر الاب وهو الجوهر الخاص لا العام الموصوف وهي ايضا من صفات الباري‬
‫تبارك اسمه المشار اليه باسم الالاه لا من صفات الاهية ليلا يخرج الابن والروح من بعض الصفات الالهية‬.
Cf. also al-Warraq, Against the Trinity, §§98ff., in D. THOMAS (ed. and tr.), Anti-Christian
Polemic in Early Islam, Cambridge, 1992, p. 128-131.
30
The underlying Greek terms may be theotes and theos respectively, the former of
which is indeed grammatically derived from the latter. In this context, we translate ilah as
“divine" (rather than “a god"), to emphasize that in the preceding examples it occurs as
a predicate and never as a subject. The whole passage is, however, rather obscure.
31
Here and below the term ∂at, which literally means essence, is best understood as
concept or notion, and is translated accordingly.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 414 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 415

CHAPTER TEN: On that the Hypostases are not Three Different Sub-
stances, even if each of them is a Substance and differs from the others
in Property
[Our] opponent builds his argument in the following way, saying:
“You claim, O Christians, that each of the hypostases is a substance in
its own right, and that they are three. So either you must say that they
are three substances, just as you have said that [they are three] hypostases,
in which case you will be pluralizing them [also] in the mention of sub-
stance, or else you must avoid saying that [there are] three hypostases
and that each one is [a substance] in its own right."
The response [to this is the following]: If we say that each hypostasis
is a substance and that the hypostases are three and different, it does not
follow that the substance is three [in number] and different, just as, if
someone were to say that the astrologer is Bakr, and that the grammarian
is Bakr, and that the land-surveyor is Bakr, it would not follow that
Bakrs are three. This is sufficient for solving this objection, with God’s
help and good guidance.

CHAPTER ELEVEN: On that it is not the case that if the Hypostases differ
in Properties they should differ in Substance
“Property” is said in four ways. (1) The first of these is that which
occurs to a species, though not all of it32. (2) The second is that which is
found in an entire species, even if it is not [limited] to this species alone,
though it is not common to all existents. (3) The third is that which is
found in the entire species and only in it, though not always. (4) The
fourth is [that which is] found in the entire species, always, and only in
it. It is according to this fourth category that the properties are realized
in the hypostases. The property of the hypostasis of the Father is father-
hood, the property of the hypostasis of the Son is sonship, and the prop-
erty of the hypostasis of the Spirit is procession, or, if you prefer [a
different term], emission. The Father, insofar as He is Father, is neither
the Son nor the Spirit, and the Son, insofar as He is Son, is neither the
Father nor the Spirit.
Even though the hypostases differ in property, it does not follow that
they should differ in substance, just as when one says that the meaning
of “laughing” is different from the meaning of “having straight stature”
and that the meaning of “having straight stature” is different from “hav-
ing wide fingernails,” it does not follow that the human being referred

32
That is, it does not occur in all individuals of this species.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 415 16/12/11 09:49

 416 S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER

to by these properties should be different in substance. This is because

human nature is found in each of these attributes and it is one of the two
meanings understood in each of them33. Therefore these [properties]
agree in nature and agree with each other and only contradict [each
other] when they are understood as abstract attributes.

CHAPTER TWELVE: On that the Hypostases are not Properties

We Christians do not say that the hypostases are properties, since prop-
erties are constituents of the meanings of the hypostases. Thus we say that
the property of the Father is begetting, and the property of the Son is being
begotten, and the property of the Spirit is procession. If we referred to the
hypostases as though they were properties, then the Father would be [iden-
tical to] begetting, the Son to being begotten, and the Spirit to procession,
and this is what no rational person has ever considered possible, on account
of the absurd consequences to which this would lead. As for the statement
of the holy Fathers in some places that the [divine] substance has three
properties, instead of saying [that it has] three hypostases, they meant it as
a loose expression, not in the precise sense. That’s it.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: On the Necessity of God’s having Life and Reason34

The Creator is eternally living by life and reasoning by reason, and life
and reason are eternal characteristics of His substance which render it
complete. Since in the second chapter of this exposé on the Holy Trinity
we spoke comprehensively proving that God has substantivity, we will
refrain from repeating it here. So we say that since we found that sub-
stances are divided in two categories, living [substances] and dead [sub-
stances], and that dead [substances] do not have choice or discrimination,
while living [substances] do have those, we have established that [God] is
living. Then we see that some living [substances] are rational and others
are not rational. The rational among them are the angels and the humans,
while those which are not rational are the animals, the birds, and the beasts
of prey. We find [also] that it is the rational [substances] that are character-
ized by knowledge and wisdom, while those that are not rational are not
characterized by these [qualities]. The rational has therefore priority over
that which is not rational. [So] we have established that [God] is rational.
This is sufficient for this subject, and we are grateful to God.

33
One of the two meanings is the human nature implied by all these properties, and
the other, the specific quality of each property.
34
Cf. Book of Benefit, Chs. 39-40, 42-45.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 416 16/12/11 09:49

 CHRISTIAN ARABIC THEOLOGY 417

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: On that the Form [of logical Reasoning] does not
require – on Account of the Fact that the Hypostases are the Substance
and the Substance is undifferentiated, while the Hypostases are differen-
tiated – that the differentiated be [the same as] undifferentiated
When numerically one and the same thing is characterized by two
[opposite]35 [attributes], it does not follow that either of these [attributes]
is characterized by the other. Evidence for this is that we describe the
line as being divisible and we describe it also as being indivisible, but it
does not follow from this that divisible is the same as indivisible, for the
meaning of the former is different from the meaning of the latter.
If someone said: “[How is it] that a thing which is described as dif-
ferentiated is the same as the one described as undifferentiated, yet the
meaning of differentiated is not described as being the [same as the]
meaning of undifferentiated?,” we say that these two statements are not
contradictory, because it can be true36 that one and the same thing be
described by them both. This is because it is not impossible for one thing
to be different in one respect and not different in another respect. Just as
it is not impossible for the line to be divisible insofar as it is one-dimen-
sional and indivisible insofar as it is the edge of the plane, so also it is
not impossible for the hypostases to be different insofar as one of them
is the begetter and another begotten and another proceeds and not differ-
ent insofar as each of them is a substance. With this let this chapter be
complete, which is the end of the discourse on the Holy Trinity. May
God be praised and thanked. He is sufficient for us and He is the one on
whom we rely.

35
To judge from the following examples, this is what is implied.
36
Possibly the reading yaÒdif, “it can happen” is preferable.

94833_Mus2011_3-4_006_Noble.indd 417 16/12/11 09:49