Between Christology and Kalām? The Life and Letters of George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes 9781463216726

Citation preview

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM? THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF GEORGE, BISHOP OF THE ARAB TRIBES JACK TANNOUS Among the literary remains of George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes, is a collection of eleven letters which are preserved in BL Add. 12,154.1 As one scholar has noted, these letters ‘are of great interest and deal with a variety of topics.’2 These topics include: historical and chronological issues, astronomical and astrological questions, difficult passages in the letters of Jacob of Edessa, a hard-to-understand passage in Ephrem, passages from the homilies of Gregory Nazianzen, matters relating to church discipline and order, even how to combat night temptation. Though the Syriac text of either all or part of several of these letters has been published,3 and in 1891 Victor Ryssel published a German translation of all of George’s letters

See W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1871), vol. 2, pp. 986–988. The seventh and ninth of these letters are also preserved in MS Paris Syr. 346. See F. Nau, ‘La cosmographie au VIIe siècle chez les Syriens,’ Revue de l’orient chrétien 15 (1910), p. 245. 2 S. P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature. (Mōrān ’Ethō vol. 9) (Kottayam 1997), p. 60. 3 P. de Lagarde published the Syriac text of all of the fourth letter in Analecta Syriaca (London, 1858), pp. 108–134. Wright republished the first three sections of this letter (which deal with Aphrahat) in his The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage (London, 1869), pp. 19–37. The fifth section of the fourth letter is about St Gregory the Illuminator. G. Garrite republished the Syriac text of this letter, along with a LT and source analysis in ‘La notice de Georges, Évêque des Arabes, sur S. Grégoire l’Illuminateur,’ Studi e Testi 127 (1946), pp. 407–426. Nau published fol. 248v (lns. 31–34)–249a (lns. 1–15) with a LT in Patrologia Syriaca I:2 (Paris, 1907), cols 612–615. V. Ryssel published the Syriac text of letters seven and nine along with German summaries in ‘Die astronomischen Briefe Georgs des Araberbischofs,’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete 8 (1893), pp. 1–55. 1

671 [1]

672

TANNOUS

along with a number of his other extant works,4 both George of the Arabs and especially his letters remain an understudied topic and an under-utilized source for seventh and eighth-century Near Eastern history. Of the eleven existing letters of George, perhaps the least interesting (or to put it more bluntly, most boring) to a modern reader, even a scholar, will be the first three. These deal with rather recondite Christological polemic. It is, however, precisely these three letters which will be the focus of this small study. My hope is that by its end, they will seem rather more interesting. My objective is to show that George of the Arabs, and his first three letters especially, can provide us with a precious, albeit fleeting, glimpse of the movement of ideas and literary genres across linguistic and perhaps religious boundaries in the seventh and eighth centuries. Before proceeding to the letters, however, I will make a few comments about George’s life.5 Unfortunately, there is not much that can be said. Michael the Syrian reports that just before his death on 11 September AG 998, the Patriarch Athanasios II of Balad ordered his metropolitan Sergios Zakūnāyā to ordain George as Bishop of the Arab Nations, which Sergios did in November of the same year, two months after the Patriarch’s passing. Roughly the same information is given in other chronicles and it seems that George was made bishop in November 687.6 Michael also 4 V. Ryssel, Georgs des Araberbischofs. Gedichte und Briefe (Leipzig, 1891). Ryssel published a GT of the fourth letter in 1883. See V. Ryssel, ‘Ein Brief Georgs, Bischofs der Araber, an den Presbyter Jesus mit einer Einleitung über sein leben une seine schriftum,’ Theologische Studien und Kritiken 56 (1883), 278–371. B. H. Cowper translated sections 1–3, 5, of George’s fourth letter in Syriac Miscellanies, or extracts relating to the first and second General Councils and various other quotations, theological, historical and classical, translated into English from mss. in the British Museum and Imperial Library in Paris, (London, 1861), pp. 61–75. I am currently working on an edition and translation of all eleven of George’s letters. 5 All treatments of George’s life, including this one, must base themselves on the foundational work found in Ryssel, Gedichte und Briefe, pp. XV–XIX and K. McVey, George, Bishop of the Arabs, A homily on Blessed Mar Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (CSCO 531: SS 217) (Louvain, 1993), pp. XXI–XXVIII. 6 See J.-B. Chabot, ed. Chronique de Michel le syrien, patriarche jacobite de Antioche (1166–1199) (Paris, 1899–1910), vol. 4 (Syriac) 446–447, vol. 2 (FT) 474. Also cp. J.-B. Abbeloos and T. J. Lamy, edd. and trans., Gregorii Barhebraei: Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Louvain, 1893) col. 293. Assemani also gives this text in Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. II (Rome, 1721), p. 335, and, as Abbeloos and Lamy’s footnote points out, Assemani’s version adds the year of Athanasios’ death. The anonymous Chronicle to 819 and the Chronicle to 846 report that George became bishop in

[2]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

673

reports that in April 1035 AG, Athanasios III was elected Patriarch and in February of the same year, i.e., AD 724, George died.7 A few more personal details about George and his life can be gleaned from his letters and other works. In his fifth letter, addressed to the recluse Joshua, George recounts an incident that happened ‘about fifty years ago’ ‘in the village of Nīrā which is in Gūma of Gindaros, that is, south of the ‛Afrīn River.’ Sergios Zakūnāyā, George reports, was visiting the territory (kūrā/χώρα) of Antioch. Accompanying Sergios, George tells us, was ‘my God-loving master, the periodeute (sā‛ūrā) Mār Gabriel.’ Furthermore, George adds, ‘I myself was accompanying my above-mentioned master, being as yet a small child (ṭalyā z‛ūrā).’8 This letter was written on 10 December 1025 AG (AD 718),9 which indicates George was a small child about fifty years prior. In other words, he was probably born ca. AD 660 and not AD 640 as Ryssel suggested.10 George would have therefore been around 58 in 1029 AG/AD 718 when he spoke in another letter of being ‘rouse[d] from [his] sleepy and frail old age,’ by a missive from John of Litarb,11 and around 64 when he died in 724. Though George does not explicitly state he was from the village of Nīra, near Antioch, only that he was accompanying his ‘master’ (rabā dīl(ī)), i.e., teacher, Gabriel the periodeute, a few apparently autobiographical lines at the end of his memra on Severos suggest that he was indeed from the region of Antioch. Here George addresses Severos directly and tells him AG 999 (AD 688). See E. W. Brooks, ed., Chronica Minora II (CSCO 3: SS 3) (Louvain, 1955), pp. 232 and I.-B. Chabot, Chronicon Anonymum ad 819 pertinens curante Aphram Barsaum in Chronicon ad Annym Christi 1234 Pertinens (CSCO 81: SS 36) (Paris, 1920), p. 13. For an ET of these brief entries, see A. Palmer, The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles (Liverpool, 1993), p. 78. For the date of George’s consecration and discussion of other chronological problems relating to this period, see O. J. Schrier, ‘Chronological problems concerning the lives of Severos bar Mašqā, Athanasios of Balad, Julianus Romāya, Yoḥannān Sābā, George of the Arabs and Jacob of Edessa,’ Oriens Christianus 75 (1991), pp. 77–78. 7 Michel the Syrian, vol. 4 (ST) 456–457, vol. 2 (FT) 491. See also Barhebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, col. 303. Col. 299 reports Athanasios III’s ordination in April 1035 AG. 8 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 261v. GT in Ryssel, Gedichte und Briefe, p. 109. 9 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 263r. 10 The ms., fol. 261v, ln. 22, clearly has a nūn written in it, meaning 50. Ryssel must have somehow read it as an ‛e since he translates it as 70 (vid. Ryssel, Gedichte and Briefe, p. 109). 11 BL Add. 12, 154, fol. 284a. GT in Ryssel, Gedichte und Briefe, p. 72.

[3]

674

TANNOUS I beseech you especially, I the monk Who more than my brethren was physically nearby. In your bishopric in your neighborhood I have sojourned, And in your persecution with you I have accepted persecution. In inhabited land and in the desert, I have loved you with all my heart And even ‘my spirit has gone after you,’ as it is written.12

This passage was presumably written while George was still a monk and before his ordination as bishop in 687. We do not know which monastery George belonged to, but a very plausible and strong case has been made by Kathleen McVey that based on George’s interests as reflected in his extant writings, as well as the sources he utilized in those writings, it is quite likely that George spent some time as a monk in the monastery of Qenneshre, on the banks of the Euphrates, perhaps the most important center of Greek studies in the Syrian Orthodox world of the seventh and eighth centuries.13 That George was an associate of Patriarch Athanasios of Balad, who was also linked to Qenneshre,14 is suggested by the fact that his elevation to the episcopacy came at Athanasios’ request. Furthermore, in his sixth letter, addressed to his synkellos Jacob, George begins his discussion of a confusing passage in Gregory Nazianzen by stating ‘the rendering of this passage is more apt and precise in the way that Patriarch Athanasios, who is among the saints, explained to me…’15

Trans. K. McVey, George Bishop of the Arabs: a Homily on Blessed Mar Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (CSCO 530–531: SS 216–217) (Louvain, 1993), (ET) vol. 217, pp. 35–36; (Syriac) vol. 216, p. 43 13 See McVey, George Bishop of the Arabs (CSCO 531: SS 217) pp. XXII-XXVII. 14 Athanasios studied Greek at Qenneshre in his youth. See Michael the Syrian (Syriac): vol. 4, p. 444; (FT): vol. 2, p. 470. 15 BL Add., 12154, fol. 263v. ‘pasheq lī’ or ‘translated for me.’ Cf. Ryssel, Gedichte und Briefe, p. 63 ‘mir übersetzt,’ though I. E. Barsaum, al-Lū‚lū‚ al-manthūr fī tārīkh al-‛ulūm wa-‚l-ādāb al-suryāniyya (Baghdad, 1976), understood it to mean ‘explained,’ cf. p. 312, ‘kamā sharaḥa lī…’ This verb could potentially mean the same as tareṣ, ‘to correct,’ afeq, ‘to translate, edit,’ and targem, ‘interpret, translate.’ See comments on the meanings of these verbs in S. P. Brock, ‘Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Nonnos zugeschriebenen mytholoischen scholion im Syrischen,’ ZDMG, Supplementa 1,2 (1969), p. 462; idem., The Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Nonnos Mythological Scholia (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 28–29; J.-C. Haelwyck, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera Versio Syriaca I. Oratio XL (CSCG 49: Corpus Nazianzenum 14) (Turnhout 2001), p. VIII. 12

[4]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

675

It also seems likely that George was an associate of Jacob of Edessa, another prominent figure who spent time at Qenneshre. They were contemporaries and from the same region. George, as we have seen, was probably from the area around Antioch, perhaps even the area of Gūma. Jacob, as Michel the Syrian reports, was from ‛Ayn Dābā in the area of Gūma,16 and as was the case with George, Athanasios II of Balad was behind Jacob’s elevation to bishop in 683.17 Furthermore, it was George who finished Jacob’s Hexaemeron after the latter died before completing his section on the sixth day.18 Finally, it should be pointed out that they shared mutual friends. Both George and Jacob of Edessa corresponded with John, the Stylite of Litarb;19 in fact, a letter written by George to John of Litarb in 715 deals with explaining passages in the letters of Jacob which John had found difficult and therefore asked George about. George’s first letter is addressed to Mārī, the Abbot of the monastery of Tell ‛Adā. Jacob of Edessa had lived at Tell ‛Adā for most of the nine years before his death in June 708.20 Since this first letter was written in 717 AD, only nine years after Jacob’s death, there is a good chance that Mārī knew Jacob; indeed, he may well have been one of the seven disciples who are reported to have accompanied Jacob to Tel ‛Adā when he moved there from the monastery of Eusebona.21 16 Michael the Syrian, Chronique, (FT) vol. 2 p. 471; (Syriac) vol. 4, p. 445. I understand the ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܓ‬which George refers to (BL Add. 12,154, fol. 261v) as the same place which Michael calls ‫ܓ‬. Yāqūt has an entry on a town called alJūma, which is in the area of Aleppo; see Mu‛jam al-buldān vol. 2 (Beirut, 1990), p. 219. Also, cf. Ryssel, Gedichte und Briefe, pp. 211–212; McVey, George, Bishop of the Arabs (CSCO 531: SS 271), p. XXI, note; R. Dussaud, Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale (Paris, 1927), p. 223. 17 See Michael the Syrian, (FT) vol. 2, p. 471; (Syriac) vol. 4, p. 445. cf. Schrier, ‘Chronological Problems,’ pp. 86–87. 18 See I.-B. Chabot, ed., Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron (CSCO 92: SS 44) (Paris, 1928), p. 347. 19 e.g., BL Add. 12,172 contains 16 letters written by Jacob to John of Litarb. See Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, pp. 595–605. For other letters from Jacob to John, see the description of Jacob’s letters in A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn, 1922), pp. 249–250. In the case of George, four of his eleven extant letters were written to John of Litarb. See Wright, Catalogue, p. 988. 20 See Michael the Syrian, Chronique, (Syriac) vol. 4, p. 446; (FT) vol. 2, p. 472. 21 We are only given the name of one of those disciples, Constantine. Michael the Syrian, Chronique, (Syriac) vol. 4, p. 446; (FT) vol. 2, p. 472.

[5]

676

TANNOUS

Ryssel, and later Vööbus after him, suggested that after the death of Jacob of Edessa in 708, George became the focal point for a circle of intellectually active Syrian Orthodox men who began to direct their questions to the Bishop of the Arabs after Jacob, the previous leader of the group, was no longer living.22 George’s 11 extant letters, which all date from the years 714–718, are thought to support this shift in focus of the intellectual circle. This idea does not do justice to the reality that a large number of George’s letters have probably been lost to us and thus we have no strong basis for diagnosing a shift or intensification in letter-writing patterns in this postulated group.23 Nevertheless, the suggestion certainly seems plausible. One wonders whether the following lines, penned by George in his homily on Severos of Antioch, could not also have held true for their author: He was laboring and reading all the books of the Fathers Those of the ancients and also those of the [Fathers] in between and even those in his Time. With those, however, [he read] other books that people had composed About ecclesiastical and worldly matters. He was being nourished and revivified increasingly Not by bread but by the words of God. His mind was being enriched with enlightenment and wisdom, With the definition of dogma and with the interpretations of all the commentaries. News of him went out into the provinces and cities, And his good reputation emitted a fragrance like the odor of precious oil. Bishops and clerics [and] even monks began to write, And to ask him all sorts of questions. This wise man used to answer them in letters See Ryssel, Gedichte und Briefe, p. XV and A. Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents regarding legislation relative to Syrian asceticism. Edited, translated, and furnished with literary-historical data (Stockholm, 1960), pp. 97–98. 23 It is important to keep in mind that George was bishop for 37 years, from 687–724. See, e.g., the reference to a now-lost letter of George in a letter written by John of Litarb in BL Add., 12,154, fol. 293v, Wright, Catalogue, p. 989. John calls George ‫ܐܒܐ ܕ ܓ ܿ ܐ ܘܐܒܐ ܕ ܢ‬. The recipient, Daniel, was a member of the Arab tribe the Ṭū‛āyē. I am also working on an edition and translation of this letter of John of Litarb. 22

[6]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

677

Solving their questions well.24

Some other details about George’s life can be assembled from his letters. In terms of where exactly George was living, we have only the slightest hints which suggest that he was based in a monastery in Syria, and not in the vicinity of Nisibis. At one point, George mentions ‘the worry of the affairs which concern me, in the monastery and outside the monastery;’25 elsewhere, he speaks of ‘we Syrians,’26 and still elsewhere he speaks of a Roman celebration taking place ‘even here, in Syria.’27 At one other point in a letter, George speaks distantly of ‘Nisibis…or another place in those regions…,’ in a way which suggests he is in fact neither in Nisibis or those regions.28 Apart from these passing remarks, we have no precise indication of where George was operating from within Syria.29 We know only that he was Bishop of the Arab Tribes, or ‘nations’ (‛ammē), of which I will say more later. The letters furthermore provide us with a fleeting intimation of the possibility that George might have traveled beyond his native Syria. In his eleventh letter, an explanation of a passage from a madrasha of Ephrem, George makes reference to the ‘springs of tar which are in the lands of the Persians,’ adding, ‘which I have seen.’30 George was a member of a line of West Syrian polymaths and philhellenes that stretched back to Sergios of Resh‛ayna in the sixth century and which included luminaries such as Severos Sebokht, Athanasios of Balad and Jacob of Edessa. George’s extant works reflect the breadth and

24 Trans. McVey, George of Bishop of the Arabs (CSCO 530–531: SS 216–217), (ET) vol. 217, pp. 10–11; (Syriac) vol. 216, pp. 12–13. 25 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 245v. GT in Ryssel, Gedichte und Briefe, p. 44 26 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 268v. 27 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 266r. 28 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 246v. Ironically enough, in the passage in question, George is trying to use internal evidence from the Demonstrations of Aphrahat to discover as much as he can about their author: ‘Look now, by these things he makes known that he was counted among the clergy, as we have stated. But as to where he was from—the city of Nisibis, as has been asserted by some people, or another place in those regions—he does not at all make known…’ 29 P. Henri Charles, Le christianisme des arabes nomads sur le limes et dans le désert syro-mésopotamien aux alentours de l’hégire (Paris, 1936), pp. 77–78 understood the seat of George’s bishopric to be Hira. 30 BL Add., 12154, 290r.

[7]

678

TANNOUS

depth of his scholarship.31 He is notable for having written an introduction to and commentary on the κατηγορίαι as well as the first and second books of the Ἀναλυτικὰ πρότερα of Aristotle, in addition to translating these works. He also wrote an introduction to his translation of the περὶ ἑρμηνείας.32 George’s letters show that he was familiar with the works of Basil,33 Aphrahat,34 Ephrem,35 the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret,36 the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates,37 the astronomical work of Bar Dayṣan38 Hippolytos,39 Jacob of Serugh,40 the acta of the Council of Nicaea,41 For an overview of what survives of George’s works, see Baumstark, Geschichte, pp. 257–258. For now-lost works of George, see, for example, the citations of George in BL Add., 14,538. On fol. 17r, line 4, his opinion on souls and spirits and intellects is cited: ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܓ ܪܓ ܐ‬ ̈ ̈ .‫ ܘܪܘ ܐ ܘܗܘ ܐ‬On fol. 17b, ln. 16ff. he is cited as an authority on where souls go ̈ ‫ ܕ ܐ ܐ‬. ‫ܕܓ ܪܓ‬ after death: .‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ 32 See R. J. Gottheil, ‘The Syriac Versions of the Categories of Aristotle,’ Hebraica 9 (1893), pp. 166–215; G. Furlani, ‘La Versione e il Commento di Giorgio delle Nazioni all’ Organo Aristotelico,’ Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica n.s. 3:2 (1923), pp. 305–333; idem., ‘Le Categorie e gli Ermeneutici di Aristotele nella Versione Siriaca di Giorgio delle Nazioni,’ Memorie della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, serie 6, vol. 5, fasc.1 (1933), pp. 5–68; idem., ‘Il Proemio di Giorgio delle Nazioni al Primo Libro dei Primi Analitici di Aristotele,’ Rivista degli Studi Orientali 18 (1940), pp. 116–130; idem., ‘Sul Commento di Giorgio delle Nazioni al Primo Libro degli Analitici Anteriori di Aristotele,’ Rivista degli Studi Orientali 20 (1943), pp. 47–65; idem., ‘Sul Commento di Giorgio delle Nazioni al Secondo Libro degli Analitici Anteriori di Aristotele,’ Rivista degli Studi Orientali 20 (1942), pp. 229–238; idem., ‘Il Primo Libro dei Primi Analitici di Aristotele nella Versione Siriaca di Giorgio delle Nazioni,’ Memorie della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, serie 6, vol. 5, fasc. 3 (1935), pp. 145–229; idem., ‘Il Secondo Libro dei Primi Analitici di Aristotele nella Versione Siriaca di Giorgio delle Nazioni,’ Memorie della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, serie 6, vol. 6, fasc. 3 (1937), pp. 233–287. 33 vid. e.g. BL Add., 12,154, fol. 245v. 34 e.g., BL Add., 12,154, fol. 245v ff. 35 e.g., BL Add., 12,154, fol. 246v. Note the comment that Aphrahat’s teaching does not resemble Ephrem’s. 36 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 247v. 37 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 248r. 38 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 248v. 39 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 249r. 40 e.g., BL Add., 12,154, fol. 249v, 258r. 41 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 255v. 31

[8]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

679

Gregory Nazianzen,42 the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebios,43 Cyril of Alexandria,44 the hymns and letters of Severos,45 as well as his Cathedral Homilies46 and his work against John the Grammarian,47 the Life of Anthony,48 the work of the followers of Bar Dayṣan,49 the letters of Jacob of Edessa50 and the writings of Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite.51 Ryssel even raises the possibility that George was aware, perhaps indirectly, of the work of Josephus.52 George was also aware of the mythological scholia of Ps. Nonnos,53 as well as works by John bar Aphtonia, Athanasios Gamālā,54 and an unknown Aristotelian commentator whose work was connected to that of Philoponos.55

THE LETTERS We now at last come to the letters in question. They are the first three of the eleven letters of George which are preserved in BL Add. 12,154 and they are united by a common concern with vindicating and defending a Miaphysite Christological stance vis-à-vis Chalcedonian and Nestorian positions. In George’s first letter, written in May AD 71756 to Mārī the head of the monastery of Tel ‛Adā, he responds to a set of twenty two heretical questions which Mārī has presented to him. The number twenty two is the same as the number of letters in the Syriac alphabet and the questions are written so that the first letter of each follows the order of the alphabet. e.g., BL Add., 12,154, fol. 255v. BL Add., 12,154, fol. 255v. 44 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 258v (his Commentary on Luke). 45 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 258v 46 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 260r. 47 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 276r. 48 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 259v. 49 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 271r. 50 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 272v, etc. 51 e.g., BL Add., 12,154, fol. 286r. 52 See Ryssel, Gedichte und Briefe, pp. XVII, 180, 184. 53 See S. P. Brock, The Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Nonnos Mythological Scholia (Cambridge, 1971), p. 30, n. 4, as well as McVey, George, Bishop of the Arabs (CSCO 531: SS 217), p. XXIV. 54 McVey, George, Bishop of the Arabs (CSCO 531: SS 217), p. XI. 55 See Furlani, ‘Sul commento di Giorgio delle Nazioni al Primo Libro degli Analitici Anteriori,’ p. 64. Also see D. Miller, ‘George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes, On True Philosophy,’ Aram 5 (1993), p. 304, note. 56 That is, 1028 AG. BL Add. 12,154, 233v. 42 43

[9]

680

TANNOUS

With one exception,57 George’s responses to these 22 questions are also arranged alphabetically, with the first letter of the first word of each response following the letters of the alphabet. ‘We,’ George writes at the beginning of this letter, ‘…will allow the wise reader and astute listener to become aware of those slips, defects and distortions present in the questions of the opponent, along with the confusion and mutual contradiction of their words and the imperfect reasoning present in most of them.’58 The heretics in question turn out to be Chalcedonians and the questions he responds to are themselves questions aimed at Miaphysites. George’s responses amount to what is one tu quoque after another; rather than answering his opponent’s questions head-on, George turns the questions back on him and shows him, usually by only slightly modifying the original Chalcedonian questions (e.g., replacing the word ‘nature’ with the word ‘hypostasis’), that the exact same problems also attach to the Chalcedonian view of the relationship between the human and divine in Christ. George’s use of the tu quoque means that he adopts his opponent’s style of argumentation, a style which first presents its target with a question (often disjunctive) and then proceeds to show how heretical or ridiculous results logically follow if one assumes that the opponent’s answers to the series of questions are the correct ones. This style of questioning is quite distinctive and I will return to it and its implications later in this paper. One of the briefer of the twenty two questions, the second one, illustrates the technique in question. The Heretic first asks about the one nature which Miaphysites confess Christ to be: ‘is it created or uncreated?,’ thus setting them upon the horns of a dilemma. If it is uncreated, there is a subsequent question, ‘is it only of God?’ An affirmative answer to this would be to deny the humanity of Christ and so would be unsatisfactory; choosing the other horn of the dilemma, viz., that the nature is created, yields similarly unsatisfactory results, this time, however, the denial of Christ’s divinity: ‘But if it is created,’ the Heretic asks, ‘then similarly, is it only of a mere man?’ A third option still remains for the Heretic’s target, to The response to the tenth question, fol. 227r. The heretical question begins, as it should, with a yodh, but George’s response begins with a dalath. The Syriac at the beginning of George’s response is rather strange and it is probable that the scribe accidentally omitted the first part of George’s response, which must have also begun with a yodh. 58 BL Add., 12,154 fol. 222v. 57

[10]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

681

claim that the one nature is both created and uncreated—or so it seems. Choosing this route, the Chalcedonian Heretic lets his Miaphysite opponent know, will make the Miaphysite a dyophysite: ‘And if you will say both created and uncreated, you yourselves are found out [to be heretics], for you confess two natures while not wanting to.’ George’s response is a rather simple one: he takes the Chalcedonian Heretic’s argument and uses it against him, asking the exact same set of questions and posing the same set of dilemmas: This one hypostasis which you confess Christ to have—is it created, uncreated, or created and uncreated? Now if it is uncreated, it is only of God, but if it is created, then it is only of a mere man. If you will say ‘created,’ you are found out to be like Nestorius, for you unwillingly confess two hypostases.59

Indicative of the Christian pluralism that must have obtained in the environment in which George and his flock lived, he adds to this rebuttal of the Chalcedonian an attack on Nestorianism, demonstrating that the same antinomies and dilemmas map onto all three of these alternate ways of understanding the relationship of the divine and human in the person of Christ, but take different forms depending on whether one speaks of natures, hypostases, or persons. Almost as if to prove that this is in fact the case, an interesting marginal note on fol. 225r, written next to a block of text which has a Miaphysite rebuttal of a Chalcedonian view, reads: ‘Against the Nestorians you say “person.”’60 Regardless of whether this note was the addition of a later scribe or part of George’s original letter, this first letter, coupled with the proMiaphysite polemics appended to it and the subsequent two polemical letters (the second of which is, according to its heading, an excerpt from a longer letter, presumably with non-Christological, non-polemical contents61) BL Add. 12,154, fol. 223v. For an example of Nestorians attempting to proselytize among Miaphysites during the life of Marouta (ca. 565–649), see the Histoire de Marouta: métropolitain de Tagrit et de tout l’orient, ed. and trans. F. Nau, Patrologia Orientalis 3 (Paris, 1909), pp. 65–66. 61 cf. fol. 241v. ‘A response to a certain other heretical question that was presented to him by the priest Mār Yeshū‛, a hermit who is in the village of Anab. After many things [written in the letter’s] beginning.’ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ ܼܐ ܬ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܥ ܒ ܐ ܕܒܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ . ܿ ‫ܕܐܬ ܿ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܡ ܐ ܐ ܗܪ‬ ܼ ̈ ‫ܒ ܪ ܓ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐܬܐ ܕ‬ 59 60

[11]

682

TANNOUS

certainly gives the beginning of George’s collection of letters the feel of a Miaphysite apologetic manual intended to not only equip the reader with arguments needed to defend his confession against the polemics of theological opponents, but also with offensive weaponry useful in launching attacks against Christians from rival confessions. This feeling is certainly helped by the three appendices placed after the end of George’s first letter. Each contains more examples of difficult questions and polemics aimed at Miaphysites to which George provides answers using the same method he employs in the first letter: he turns the table on the adversary. George’s second letter is a response to a question sent to him by a deacon named Barhadbshabba who presented the Bishop with a question that a Chalcedonian had used to confound and humiliate a group of Miaphysite monks. Since only one question is the focus here, the structure of this letter is more discursive and a bit different from the first letter, which deals with twenty two different questions. George nevertheless argues using the same method he does in the first letter, asking a series of questions which bring out contradictions and tensions in his opponents’ positions. To cite one example: Why do you say, ‘The nature of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit?’ Do you say it is the Father and the Word and the Holy Spirit, or something different? Now if you say that the nature of the Father and the Word and the Holy Spirit is something different than the Father and the Word and the Holy Spirit, you have one of two options. If the nature of the Father and the Word and the Spirit is God, then the Father and the Word and the Spirit are not God, but something else from among those created things which have come into existence from the nature of the Father and the Word and the Holy Spirit. But if the Father and the Word and the Holy Spirit are God, then the nature of the Father and of the Word and of the Holy Spirit is not God, but rather something different which has been created by the Father and Word and Holy Spirit and a double blasphemy has resulted through [this] scrutiny; it will rebound onto the head of the one who was its cause.62

George’s third letter proceeds much the same way. It is addressed to the priest (qashīshā) Joshua in the village of Anab and is in fact only an excerpt from a longer letter, as we have noted. The editor has apparently

62

BL Add. 12,154 fols. 238r-238v.

[12]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

683

reproduced the section we now possess because of its Christological content. Much the same method is on display here: Concerning those heretics who ask us, ‘Do you confess that the Word and his flesh have one substance or two?,’ we must ourselves ask and respond to them like this. ‘Do you confess that the Word and his flesh have two substances, or one?’ They will certainly respond that they confess two, it being known [they mean] a divine substance and a human substance. They are therefore questioned again like this: ‘As for that divine substance which you confess Christ to have, do you say it is one hypostasis or three hypostases? Or is it a mere name? Similarly, concerning that human nature which you confess Christ to have—is it one hypostasis or many hypostases, or is it only a mere name?’ Now if you will say that each one of the substances you confess Christ to have is an hypostasis, you are in agreement with these [opinions] of Nestorius, for he spoke of two hypostases in Christ. If you will say that the divine substance you confess Christ to have is the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity, and moreover that the human hypostasis that you confess Christ to have is the many hypostases of all human beings, then, according to your reasoning, the entire Trinity was united to all humanity and they became one Christ and one hypostasis. Otherwise, that Christ of yours has innumerable hypostases and in the same way is [an innumerable number of] Sons and Christs.63

And so it goes. One has the feeling that one is following a hunter, methodically cutting off all of his prey’s escape routes in order to corner and capture him. After confronting his opponents with more contradictions inherent in their views, George declares ‘if, fleeing from these foul things, you resort to another device…you will hear from us again…’64 All three of George’s letters, but especially his first one, employ this distinctive style of argument against his Christological opponents, and in his first letter George claims as inspiration for his mode of argumentation Christ, the teachers of the Church, and more specifically, a homily of Gregory Nazianzen.65 Though this might have indeed been the case, BL Add. 12,154, fol. 242r. BL Add. 12,154, fol. 242v. 65 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 222v: ‘I, however, will be simple and try a second route, making a counter-argument to these absurd questions in a different manner and doing away with their absurdity through certain recondite questions, according to 63 64

[13]

684

TANNOUS

George was also arguing in a style that had been in use by Syriac-speaking Christians of all confessions for at least a century before his letters were written, as will be demonstrated below. Simeon of Beth Arsham (d. ca. 548), also known as Simeon the Persian Debater, was a Miaphysite renowned for his skill and vigor in debate. Hailing from Persia where Miaphysites were a minority, he honed his skills as a dialectician, according to John of Ephesus, who wrote of Simeon in his Lives of the Eastern Saints.66 Simeon would travel about, debating with Nestorians wherever he found them; John reports him as saying, ‘I must not sit still and rest when I know that Christ’s sheep are being scattered among ravening and destructive wolves, who will not spare to destroy them and tear them to pieces.’67 Simeon interests us here not only because he represents a Miaphysite bishop68 concerned with defending his flock from the arguments and missionary machinations of rival groups and whose Life thus gives us a vivid picture of the post-Chalcedonian religious ferment, but also because his manner of argumentation as portrayed in his Life bears a resemblance to the method employed by George in his first three letters. Simeon thus represents a colorful Syriac antecedent to George in two different respects, episcopal and dialectical. The climax of John’s Life of Simeon is Simeon’s thrashing of the Armenian Catholicos Babai in a public debate. Simeon proceeds by presenting his opponent with a disjunctive question, waiting for an answer, the teaching of our Savior Christ and of the venerable teachers of the Church. For St Gregory the Theologian writes in that homily which is on a portion of the Gospel speaking thus: “We, too, therefore, when imitating Christ, are sometimes able to check those who are perversely questioning us and through questions that are more absurd, can refute the absurdity of their questions.”’ cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Homily 37, PG 36, col. 288–289. George’s quotation comes at a point where Nazianzen is discussing Matt. 19:3–4 and Luke 20:2–4. George also credits Christ and his saints as the inspiration for his style on fol. 239v: ‘Now we will respond to your mindless little question, having learned this from our Savior Christ and from his Saints.’ 66 Ed. E. W. Brooks, Patrologia Orientalis 17 (Paris, 1923): pp. 1–307. The Life of Simeon of Beth Arsham can be found on pp. 137–158. See A. Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. Vol. 2: Early Monasticism in Mesopotamia and Syria (CSCO 197: Subsidia 17) (Louvain, 1960) pp. 240–246, for an account of Simeon’s life and activities. 67 Trans. Brooks, Lives of the Eastern Saints, p. 140. 68 After the incident recounted below, he was made bishop.

[14]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

685

and then pressing him with further questions until his opponent has contradicted his original proposition.69 Thus, in response to the Catholicos’ statement that Christ was a ‘man like us, born of a woman,’ Simeon notes that humans are born from the seed of a man and then asks of Christ, ‘was he from the seed of a man like us, or whence was he?’ The Catholicos’ replies, ‘Not from a seed,’ whereupon he is asked, ‘Whence is his conception?’ The Catholicos replies, ‘It is written that it is from the Holy Spirit.’ But he has now contradicted his original assertion, that Christ was a man, ‘like us,’ as the Magian governor who is moderating the debate lets him know: Lo! Therefore you lied when you said he was an ordinary man like us. Lo! Therefore his conception and birth are not like us, but above us; for we for our part never heard that a man was born without seed. And if in the case of this man whom you accuse you have yourself on the other hand testified that he was born without copulation and without seed, he is not an ordinary man like us; and by your own testimony you have been condemned, and these men speak truth rather than you.

After one more such reductio ad absurdum, the parties separate, Simeon and the Miaphysites triumphant, and ‘the Nestorians having been put to shame.’ On the heels of this victory, Simeon is forcibly made bishop.70 There are not only Syriac antecedents for George’s style; however, there are Greek ones as well. Close to George’s letters in style is a small genre of Greek theological writings known as Christological aporiai.71 A. 69 Strangely, however, the text seems to imply that it is the non-Christian debate moderator who is asking the follow-up questions. 70 Trans., Brooks. Lives of the Eastern Saints, p. 152; the debate can be found on pp. 148–152. According to Chabot, Littérature syriaque, p. 69, Simeon was made bishop before 503 AD, which means this debate must have taken place before that date. Furthermore, according to Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. Vol. 3: A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East, (CSCO 500: Subsidia 81) (Louvain, 1988), p. 243, note, the Catholicos Babai ruled from 499–504. The debate must have therefore occurred sometime between 499 and 503. 71 For examples of Greek Christological aporiai, see M. Richard, ed., Ioannis Caesariensis: Capitula XVIII contra monophysitas, CCG I (Leuven, 1977), pp. 60–66; idem. ed., Ioannis Caesariensis: Syllogismi sanctorum patrum, CCG I (Leuven, 1977), pp. 130–133; Leontios of Byzantium, ‘Τὰ τριάκοντα κεφάλαια τοῦ μακαρίου Λεοντίου κατὰ Σευήρου’ (‘The Thirty Chapters of the Blessed Leontios against Severos’), in the Doctrina Patrum, ed. F. Diekamp (Münster, 1981), pp. 155–164; Karl-Heinz Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im dienst der orthodoxie zwei unedierte texte

[15]

686

TANNOUS

Grillmeier calls the Christological aporiai a ‘new’ literary genre that appears after Chalcedon. ‘We stand at the point of contact between theology and philosophy, or, more concretely, before the attempt to investigate Christological statements according to the laws of Aristotelian logic and syllogisms, and to bring this means into polemic.’72 Karl-Heinz Uthemann characterizes works in this genre as consisting of ‘compilations of syllogistic rebuttals which endeavour to prove to the opponent the conceptual illogicality, the self-contradiction, even the absurdity of his conceptual formulations.’73 One could say that the goal of the Christological aporia was to induce in its opponent the same reaction the Persian governor has after Simeon of Beth Arsham humiliated the Armenian Catholicos for a second time. The Magian tells the Armenian, ‘By the words you have spoken, you have refuted and condemned yourself; and men who are fewer than you hold the true and sound logical position, and the thing is as they say by your own testimony.’74 It is interesting that Grillmeier notes the connection between Aristotelian modes of thinking and this dialectical style of argumentation. Writing in the late-nineteenth century about Aristotle’s translators in Syriac, Richard Gottheil observed, ‘It was especially the Organon which interested these men; for they were, in the first place, theologians, and the Organon forged weapons for theological dialectics.’75 A well-known line in ‛Abdisho76 states that Ibas, Kumi, and Probos, three fifth-century figures at the Persian school in Edessa, translated Aristotle and Theodore of Mopsuestia (‘the Interpreter’) into Syriac. This has been pinpointed as the beginning of the study of Aristotle in Syriac.77 If it was indeed the case that Aristotle was being taught at the Persian School in Edessa, it should not be Byzantinischer kontrovertheologie des 6. Jahrhunderts,’ Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 30 (1981): pp. 110–112 (Ἐπαπορήματα of Probos against Jacobites). For a fuller list, upon which this is based, see, A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian tradition, II, 1: from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604), (London, 1987), pp. 86–87. 72 Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, II, 1, pp. 82–83. 73 Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im dienst der orthodoxie,’ p. 107, ET taken from quote in Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition II.1, p. 84. 74 Trans. Brooks, Lives of the Eastern Saints, p. 151. 75 Gottheil, ‘The Syriac Versions of the Categories of Aristotle,’ p. 166. 76 Assemani, BO III, p. 85. ‫̈ܒ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܘܒܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܒܐ ܘ‬ . ‫ܒ ܬܗ ܕܐܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ 77 e.g., see Duval, La Littérature syriaque, p. 254

[16]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

687

surprising that Simeon of Beth Arsham, who also studied at that school and who is perhaps best known for his epithet-filled letter concerning Nestorianism there, availed himself of Aristotelian tools in his disputes with dyophysites.78 More can be said along these lines and I will return to the question of genre below. At present, however, I would like to turn my attention to another topic, that of sources. What is the origin of the aporetic questions to which George responds? They have obviously not been written by another Miaphysite. In the case of each of the three letters and of the three appendices attached to the first letter, George is responding to questions which have been composed with the intent of showing a Miaphysite Christology to be absurd and untenable. In the first two letters, as we have seen, explicit mention is made of a question or a set of questions which has been put to Miaphysites. In the first letter, it seems that Mārī the Abbot has sent George a document which he himself has been presented with: George speaks of how ‘the one who elaborated these questions has arranged their beginnings in alphabetical order,’79 and it is doubtful that a Miaphysite Abbot would go to such lengths in the service of a document hostile to his church and beliefs. In the second letter, it seems that Barhadbshabba has been prompted to write George by a Chalcedonian’s public humiliation of a group of Miaphysite monks in theological combat. He writes Barhadbshabba: Because you have told me, O chaste one, God lover and God fearer, deacon Mar Barhadbshabba, that a certain Chalcedonian individual from among those who are puffed up with worldly power asked men in a [certain] place who had put on the modest monastic habit a certain little question, and when a response was not made as it should have been, he went away, babbling about these heretical boasts, you asked of me that when I had seen it, I should make a reply to that little question.80 It should be noted, however, that S. P. Brock, ‘From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning,’ in East of Byzantium: Syria and Byzantium in the Formative Period, ed. N. Garsoïan, et al. (Washington, DC, 1982), pp. 21–22, 25–26, questions dating Probos and his translational activities to the fifth century as well as crediting the Persian School of Edessa with the teaching of Aristotle. He suggests instead that Patrikios was responsible for introducing Greek philosophy into the Syriac-speaking world in the sixth century (pp. 22, 26). 79 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 222v. 80 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 237v. 78

[17]

688

TANNOUS

This story does not necessitate that there was some sort of text underlying the Chalcedonian’s question to the monks; the circumstances surrounding the first letter seem to suggest, however, that there may have been some sort of Chalcedonian document containing questions aimed at undermining Miaphysites. Can any evidence be found which suggests that this may have indeed been the case? In fact, there is such evidence. A number of questions, some exactly the same and others similar to those found in the first letter and its appendices can be found in other documents—both Syriac and Greek. It is to this point that I now turn.

SOURCES I: THE FIRST LETTER OF GEORGE In George’s first letter, he responds to a list of questions that have been sent to him from the Abbot Mārī of Tell ‛Adā. Mārī presumably came across the questions somewhere or was perhaps presented with them by a Chalcedonian, as happened to the deacon Barhadbshabba in George’s second letter. There is no reference to the source of these questions, but there are some very intriguing parallels between them and several different sets of Greek Christological aporiai. The first set is a group of twelve questions that have been transmitted in the Doctrina Patrum,81 a florilegium compiled by a certain ‘Anastasios’ who might be identified with Anastasios Apokrisiarios (d. 666), or Anastasios of Sinai (d. ca. 700), or perhaps another, otherwise unknown Anastasios.82 As the twelve questions stand in the Doctrina Patrum, they have no attribution, only the title, ‘The questions of an Orthodox individual for those who advocate one nature in Christ.’83 The first and fourth question in this group of twelve are very similar to two questions asked by George’s interlocutor. Furthermore, the first seven of the twelve questions in the Doctrina Patrum, some worded slightly differently, have survived among the Opuscula Theologica et Polemica of Maximos the

Doctrina Patrum, pp. 152–155. See Berthold Altaner, Patrology, trans. Hilda C. Graef, (Edinburgh, 1960), p.633 and H.-G. Beck, Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (Munich, 1969), p. 446. 83 Doctrina Patrum, p. 152, Ἐπαπορήσεις ὀρθοδόξου πρὸς τούς μίαν 81 82

πρεσβεύοντας ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ φύσιν.

[18]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

689

Confessor.84 Here, they are attributed to Eulogios, the Patriarch of Alexandria (580–607/8) and known as the Dubitationes Orthodoxi.85 Given that the questions present in these two collections of aporiai are Chalcedonian, there would seem to be small chance of their survival in Syriac, since most Syriac mss have been transmitted by non-Chalcedonian communities. Fortunately, however, MS Sinai Syr. 10, a ms. which A. S. Lewis dated to the ninth century,86 but which A. de Halleux says could be dated to the seventh or even the end of the sixth century,87 preserves a collection of seven Christological aporiai in Syriac which bear close similarity, but not exact, to the first seven questions of the aporiai contained in the Doctrina Patrum and the seven questions of the Dubitationes Orthodoxi. Interestingly, the Syriac questions are not attributed to Eulogios of Alexandria, but rather to an individual named Phokas.88 84 See PG 91, cols. 263–266. Polycarp Sherwood (An annotated date list of the works of Maximus the Confessor, Studia Anselmiana 30 (Rome, 1952), pp. 30–31, 60) dates the works of Maximos which the aporiai attributed to Eulogios are grouped with to 626–633 AD. 85 PG 91, col. 263, Τοῦ μακαριωτάτου Εὐλογίου Πάπα Ἀλεξανδρείας

κεφάλαια ἑπτὰ περὶ τῶν δύο φύσεων τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἱησοῦ Χριστοῦ, also see Doctrina Patrum, p. 152, note. ‘Of the most blessed Eulogios,

Pope of Alexandria. Seven chapters concerning the two natures of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.’ On Eulogios, see Jean Maspero, Histoire des patriarches d’Alexandrie depuis la mort de l’empereur Anastase jusqu’à la réconciliation des églises jacobites (518–616), (Paris, 1923), pp. 258–276; William Smith and Henry Wace, eds., A Dictionary of Christian Biography: literature, sects and doctrine (London, 1880), vol. 2, p. 283. Also see the Bibliotheca of Photios (Bibliothèque, 8 vols., ed. and trans. René Henry, [Paris, 1959–1977]): vol. 2, pp. 192–195; vol. 3, pp. 105–106; vol. 4., pp. 99– 113; vol. 5, pp. 8–64; for information on his refutation of Timothy and Severos and defense of Leo’s Tome, see vol. 4, pp. 99–108. Almost none of Eulogios’ works survive, see CPG 6971 and 7697. 86 On Sinai Syr. 10, see Agnes Smith Lewis, Catalogue of the Syriac MSS in the Convent of S. Catherine on Mt. Sinai (London, 1894), pp. 4–16. Smith dates the ms. to the ninth century (p. 16). 87 A. de Halleux, ‘Un clé pour les hymnes d’Éphrem dans le ms. Sinaï Syr. 10,’ Le muséon 95 (1972): 171. He blames the ninth century dating on ‘l’impressionisme paléographique’ which reigns in Syriac codicology, ‘faute de mieux.’ ‘Rien ne semble pourtant empêcher, à première vue, de remonter le manuscript haut dans le VIIe s., sinon dans la dernière décennie du VIe.’ 88 See P. Bettiolo, Una Raccolta di Opuscoli Calcedonensi (Ms. Sinaï Syr. 10), (CSCO ̈ 403: SS 177) (Louvain, 1979), p. 6. .[‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ ] ܒ ܐ‬ .‫‘ ܬܘܒ‬Again, questions of Phokas (seven).’ I have been unable to identify this individual.

[19]

690

TANNOUS

Leaving aside the conversational elements that begin the Heretic’s questions in George’s first letter, possibly introduced by George himself to create a sense of liveliness and orality,89 the convergences between these four texts is striking. They are reproduced here in tabular form for easy comparison. Doctrina George’s First Questions of Eulogios of Patrum Letter Phokas Alexandria

Dubitationes Orthodoxi

Εἰ μιᾶς φύσεως κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ἐστιν, εἰπὲ, ποίας, τῆς λαβούσης; ἢ τῆς ληφθείσης; καὶ τί γέγονεν ἡ ἑτερα; Εἰ δὲ ὐπάρχουσιν ἀμφότεραι, πῶς μία, εἰ μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων μία ἀπετελέσθη σύνθετος; εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, πῶς οὐκ ἑτεροούσιος ὁ

Α΄ Εἰ μιᾶς φύσεως μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, εἰπε ποίας, τῆς λαβούσης ἢ τῆς ληφθείσης; Καὶ τί γέγονεν ἡ ἑτέρα; Εἰ δὲ ὑπάρχουσιν ἀμφότεραι, πῶς μία, εἰ μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων μία ἀπετελέσθη σύνθετος; Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, πῶς οὐχ

.‫( ܗܪ‬.13) ‫ܐ ܐ‬ .1 ‫ܒ ܼܐ ܕ ܪܐ‬ ‫ ܐܢ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ݂ ‫ܬܐ ܘܢ‬ .‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ ܕܐܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ ܢ‬ ‫ܬܐ܆ ܐ‬ ܿ :‫ܐ ܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬. ‫ܕܐܬ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܗ ܼܘܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܿܐ ܘ‬ . ‫ܐܼ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܢ ܕ‬.‫ܐ ܐ‬ ܿ ݀ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܕܗܘ ܕ‬ ݀ ܼ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕܗܘ ܕܐܬ‬:‫ܬ̈ܪ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܐܢ ܼܗܘ‬: ‫ܘ ܐ ܼܗܘܐ‬ ݀ ‫ܬ̈ܪ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ .‫ܗܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܢ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܬܪ ܘ‬ :‫ܕ ܗܕܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫ ܐ ܼ ܘ ܕ ܐ‬.ܿ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܪ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܘ ܐ‬ ܿ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ܿ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܐܒܐ‬ ܼ

Though the presence of similar conversational introductions in the aporiai of MS Sinai Syr. 10 might suggest that they are part of the original document. The difference in conversational introductions between the two Syriac versions can be explained by Mārī’s document’s use of alphabetical organization of its questions. The compiler had to re-work the conversational introductions so their beginnings would follow alphabetical order. 89

[20]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

691

Χριστὸς, τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀσυνθέτου ὑπάρχοντος;90

ἑτεροούσιος ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀσυνθέτου ὑπάρχοντος;91

‫ܝ ܒܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ܿ .‫ܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܘܗܝ ܐ‬ 92 .‫ܒܐ‬

Μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη ν φασί τινες. Οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ὑμᾶς οὕτο λέγειν. Ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν μιᾶς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦτο νοητέον, πῶς οἷόν τε τὸ κτιστὸν τῷ  ἀκτίστῳ, καὶ τὸ αΐδιον τῷ  ὑπὸ χρόνον εἶναι ταυτόν; Εἰ δὲ ὡς μιᾶς φύσεως ἐχούσης ετέραν, ἢ ἐχομένης ὑφ’ ἑτέρας, τίς ὑποίσει μίαν καὶ μίαν, οὐ δύο, ἀλλὰ

δ΄ Μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη ν ὁμολογεῖν ἴσως δοκεῖτε. ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν μίαν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐντεῦθεν νοεῖν ἡμᾶς βούλεσθε, πῶς οἷόν τε τὸ κτιστὸν τῷ  ἀκτίστῳ καὶ τὸ ἀΐδιον τῷ ὑπὸ χρόνον εἶναι κατ’ οὐσίαν ταυτόν; Εἰ δὲ ὡς μιᾶς φύσεως ἐχούσης ἑτέραν ἢ ἐχουμένης ὑφ’ ἑτέρας τοῦτο

‫܀‬.‫( ܗܪ‬.14) ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܕ‬..4 ‫ܢ ܿܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܼ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܒ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ܕ ܼܒ‬ .‫ܐܒ ܬܐ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܕ ܕܐܦ ܕܐ‬ ܼ ‫݀ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܗ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ ܐܘ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐܢ ܼܗܘ‬ ‫ܘܕ ܓ ܐ ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܿ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܐܘ ܐ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܿ ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܿ .‫ܿܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܕܒ ܐ‬ ݀ ‫ܕܗܘ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ܐ‬ ݀‫ܐ ܘܒ ܐ ܘܗܘ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬: ݀ ܿ ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ܿ.‫ܙܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܬ‬ : ‫ܒ ܐ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܼܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܘܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܘܗܘ ܕܬ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܒܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܙܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܼܗܘ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ ܐܢ‬.‫ܒܐܘ ܐ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬.‫ܪ ܼ ܿܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܬܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ 96 . ‫ܐ‬ :‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ ܕ‬

PG 91, col. 264. Doctrina Patrum, p. 152. 92 BL Add., 12,154, fols. 228r-228v. 93 Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p. 6. 90 91

[21]

‫ܥ‬

ܼ

‫ܒ ܐ ܘܗܝ ܐ‬ 93 .‫ܒܐ‬

692

TANNOUS

μίαν εἰπεῖν;94

‫ܬ̈ܪ‬

νοητέον, τίς ὑποίσει μίαν καὶ μίαν οὐ δύο, ἀλλὰ μίαν εἰπεῖν;95

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ 97 . ‫ܐ‬

There are also similar convergences between questions asked by George’s interlocutor and questions preserved in another Greek text, the Ἐπαπορήματα of Probos.98 The Greek version of the Ἐπαπορήματα contains only eight questions. All eight of these questions appear on the lips of George’s interlocutor in the same order as those which appear in the Greek of Probos; there exists, then, an identity of both content and of organization between the two. MS Sinai Syr. 10 also contains a collection of thirty five Christological aporiai attributed to Probos.99 This collection is placed immediately after the aporiai of Phokas. Of its thirty five questions, only three closely match the eight questions contained in the Greek Probos, the twenty-sixth, thirtyfourth, and thirty-fifth; the same phenomenon of seriatim matching that exists between the Greek Probos and the questions of George’s Heretic does not exist. Greek Probos Syriac Probos George’s First Letter ‫( ܗܪ ܐ܀ ܐ ܼ ܘ‬.1) α΄ Ἐν τῇ φύσει, ἐν ᾗ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕܿ ܐ‬ ἑστιν ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ݀ܘ‬ υἱὸς ἕν, ἐν αὐτῇ ‫ܘܢ ܒ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ :‫ܡ‬ ‫ܐܒܐ ܘܒ ܐ‬ σὰρξ ἕν; ἢ ἐν ἄλλῃ PG 91, col. 265. Doctrina Patrum, p. 153. 96 BL Add., 12,154, fol. 228v. 97 Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p. 7. 98 Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie,’ p. 110: ‘Πρόβου ὀρθοδόξου ἀπὸ Ἰακωβιτῶν· Ἐπαπορήματα πρὸς Ἰακωβίτας,’ Probos, an Orthodox individual formerly of the Jacobites. Questions for the Jacobites.’ These have also been published by J. H. Declerck in ‘Probus, l’ex Jacobite et ses ΕΠΑΠΟΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΠΡΟΣ ἸΑΚΩΒΙΤΑΣ’,’ Byzantion: revue internationale des études byzantines 53 (1983): 229–231. ̈ 99 Opuscoli Calcedonensi, pp. 8–14. Attribution on p. 8: ‫ܘܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܝ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ‬ ̈ .‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‘Again, questions of Mar Probos, Chalcedonian Metropolitan, against the Jacobites.’ 94 95

[22]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM? φύσει ἐστὶν ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἕν, ἐν ἑτέρᾳ δὲ φύσει ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ σὰρξ ἕν; Καὶ ἐὰν ἐν αὐτῇ, ἐν ᾗ εἰσιν ἕν, πῶς οὐκ ἔσται τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς μία φύσις;100

Β΄ Ἔτι· Ἡ μία φύσις, ἣν ὁμολογεῖτε ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, κτιστή ἐστιν ἢ ἄκτιστος; Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἄκτιστος, τοῦ Θεοῦ μόνου ἐστίν· εἰ δὲ κτιστή, ψιλοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν· ἐὰν δὲ κτιστὴν καὶ ἄκτιστον αὐτὴν λέγετε, εὑρεθήσεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ βουλόμενοι δύο φύσεις ὁμολογοῦντες.102

.‫ܿܡ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.26 ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ ܐܘ ܐ‬ 103 .‫ܒ ܐ‬

693

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܓܐ‬ ܿ .‫ܡ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܒ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܐܒܐ ܘܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܓܐ‬ ‫ ܐܢ ܿ ܒ‬.‫ܡ‬ ܿ . ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ܕܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܕ‬ 101 ‫ܘܕ ܓ ܐ܀‬

‫ ܒ ܪܐ‬.‫( ܗܪ‬.2) ܿ . ‫ܐܼ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܕ ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܼܒ ܐ‬:‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ ܼܘܐܢ‬.‫ܼܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ ܼܐ ܕܐ ܐ‬.‫ܼܒ ܼܐ‬ .‫ܒ ܕ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܼܒ ܼܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ ܕܒ ܐ‬ ܼ .‫ܒ ܕ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܼܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܬܪ‬.‫ܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܦ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ ܐ ܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ ܨܒ‬ 104 ‫ܐ ܘܢ܀‬

Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie,’ p. 110. BL Add. 12,154, fol. 223r. 102 Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie,’ p. 110. 103 Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p. 13. 104 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 223v. 100 101

[23]

694

TANNOUS

γ΄ Ἔτι· Αὕτη ἡ φύσις, ἣν ὁμολογεῖτε ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει ὑμῖν ἐστι μία ἢ ἐν τῇ ὁμοουσιότητι; Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει μία φύσις καὶ ἐν τῇ ἑτεροουσιότητι δύο, εὑρίσκεσθε, ὅτι τρεῖς φύσεις ὁμολογεῖτε, δύο τῆς ἑτεροουσιότητος καὶ μίαν τῆς ἑνώσεως.105

‫ܓ‬.34 ‫ܕܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܕ ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ .‫ܬ ܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ ܿ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܒ‬ : ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܬ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܐ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܬ̈ܪ‬:‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܒ‬ 106 .‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

ܼ ‫ ܓ‬.‫( ܗܪ‬.3) ܿ ‫ ܕܗ ܐ‬. ܿ ‫ܐ ܕ ܕ ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬:‫ܐ‬ .ܼ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ .‫ܐܘ ܒ ܼ ܬ ܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ ܿ ܒ‬ ‫ ܒ‬.‫ܼܐ‬ . ‫ܐܘ ܼܐ ܬܪ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܐ ̈ ܐ ܿ ܕ‬ ‫ ܬܪ‬.‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܼܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܒ‬ 107 +‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ‬

‫ ܕ ܐ‬+‫( ܗܪ‬.4) ‫ܐ ܐܼ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܐ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܿ ܒܐ ܐ‬ ܼܿ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕ‬ :‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .ܼ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ ܒ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ .‫ܕܐܒܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ ܼܿ ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܘ ܐ ܼܗܘ‬ 110 +‫ܼܗܘ‬

δ΄ Ἔτι· Αὕτη ἡ μία φύσις, ἣν ὁμολογεῖτε ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, ἁπλῆ ἐστιν ἢ σύνθετος;108 Καὶ εἰ σύνθετος λέγετε ἀναμφιβόλως, οὐκοῦν ἡ φύσις τοῦ Χριστοῦ ουκ ἔστιν ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί, ἐπειδὴ ἡ ἁπλῆ καὶ ἡ σύνθετος οὔκ εἰσιν ὁμοούσιαι.109

.

Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie,’ p. 110. Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p.14. 107 BL Add. 12,154, fols. 223v-224r. 108 Declerk, ‘Probus, l’ex Jacobite,’ p. 230, reads σύνθετον here. 109 Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie,’ p. 110. 110 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 224r. 105 106

[24]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

695

ε΄ Ἔτι· Αὕτη ἡ μία φύσις, ἣν λέγετε ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, πόσας ὑποστάσεις συγκλείει; «Καὶ» εἰ μὲν μίαν λέγετε ἐκ παντός, ταύτην δὲ τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, εὑρεθήσεσθε ὁμολογοῦντες δύο φύσεις καὶ τέσσαρας ὑποστάσεις, μίαν φύσιν καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ μίαν φύσιν τὴν συγκείουσαν τὴν τρισυπόστατον τριάδα.111

‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܒ‬.35 ‫ ܗܒ‬+‫( ܗܪ‬.5) ‫ܐ ܘܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐܢ‬ ݂ ‫ܐ ܐܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬. . ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܘܐ ܼ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬. ‫ܐ ܿ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܕ‬ ‫܆‬ ‫ ܐܢ‬. ‫̈ ܐ ܿܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ : ‫ܘܣ ܆ ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܆‬ ‫ܿܘ ܕ‬ ‫ ܗ ܕ‬:‫ܘܣ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫݀ܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܘܢ ܬ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܘܐܪܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܪ‬.‫ܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ .‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܪܒ ܐ‬.‫̈ ܼܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫̈ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܒ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܿܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ 112 .‫ܕܬ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ̈ ܐ‬ 113 +‫ܕܬ ܘ ܐ‬

ς΄ Ἔτι· Αὕτη ἡ μία φύσις, ἣν ὀνομάζετε τοῦ Χριστοῦ, θεοῦ ἐστιν ἢ ἀνθρώπου; Καὶ εἰ μὲν θεοῦ, ἐψεύσασθε εἰς τὴν ἀνθρώπου· εἰ δὲ ἀνθρώπου, ἠρνήσασθε τὴν θεοῦ· ἐὰν δὲ πάλιν θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου εἴπητε αὐτήν, ἄρα καθ’ ὑμᾶς λοιπὸν ἔσται τὸ ἥμισυ θεοῦ

‫ ܿܘ ܐ ܕ‬.‫( ܗܪ‬.6) ̈ ‫ܒܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܗ ܐ‬. ܿ ‫ܬܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ܼܿ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬.‫ܕܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܓ ܘܢ‬.‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ݀ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܗܘ ܕܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܼ ܬܘܢ‬.‫ܕܒ ܐ ܼܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܒ ݀ܘ ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ ܕܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܘܕܒ ܐ ܬܐ ܘ ܼܝ‬ ‫ܿ ܐ ܬ ܢ‬

Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie,’ p. 110. Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p. 14. 113 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 224v-225r. 111 112

[25]

696

TANNOUS

‫ܘܐ‬

καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ ἀνθρώπου.114

‫ ܕ ܓ‬.ܼ ‫ܼܐ ܘ ܓ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ 115 .‫ܕܒ ܐ‬

‫ ܕܒ ܪܐ‬.‫ ܿܙܕܩ‬.‫( ܗܪ‬.7) ‫ ܗ ܐ‬. ‫ܬܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܐ ܒܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ ܐܒܐ‬ .ܼ ‫ܘ ܿ ܼ ܐ ܒܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ ܿ ܼܿ ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܘ ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ܿ ‫ܐܒܐ ܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ . ܼܿ ‫ܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܐܘ ܐ‬ .ܼ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܐܒܐ ܐ‬ ܿ‫ܒ‬ . ܼܿ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ ܬܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ ܒ‬.‫ܿܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܕܐ ܘܬܗ‬ 117 .‫ܘܕܐ ܬܗ‬

ζ΄ Ἔτι· Αὕτη ἡ μία φύσις, ἣν ὁμολογεῖτε τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁμοούσιός ἐστι τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν αὐτῇ ἢ οὔ; Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐν αὐτῇ ὁμοούσιός ἐστι τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἡμῖν, εἴπατε, ὅτι καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμοούσιοί ἐσμεν τῷ πατρί· εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐν αὐτῇ, πῶς οὐκ ἔσται δύο φύσεις ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν τῇ ἑτεροουσιότητι τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος αὐτοῦ.116

‫ܘ‬ .‫( ܗܪ‬.8) ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܿ ܕ ܐ ܘܢ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܘ ܒ‬ ܿ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬.‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬

η΄ Ἔτι· Αὕτη ἡ μία φύσις ἡ σύνθετος, ἣν ὁμολογεῖτε τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν τῇ τριάδι ἐστὶν ἢ ἐκτὸς τῆς τριάδος; Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐν τῇ τριάδι,118 πῶς οὐκ ἔσται κατὰ τὸν

Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie,’ p. 110. BL Add. 12,154, fol. 225r. 116 Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie,’ p. 110. 117 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 225v. 118 Declerck, ‘Probus, l’ex Jacobite,’ p. 231, adds ἐστί here. 114 115

[26]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

697

ܿ .‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܬ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ .‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܬܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܬܘܒ‬ ܿ‫̈ܐ ܿ ܕ ܐ ܘ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܕܬ‬ 120 .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬

λὸγον ὑμῶν ἡ τριάς Χριστός· εἰ δὲ ἐκτὸς τῆς τριάδος, πῶς λοιπὸν οὐχὶ δύο φύσεις ὁμολογήσετε;119

In addition to these instances where there is an almost exact match between the three texts, there is one case where there is another very close convergence between a question in George’s first letter and a question in the Syriac aporiai of Probos, but no corresponding Greek text. Syriac Probos

‫ܬܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܿ ܬ‬

‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ ܘܬܘܒ‬. ‫ܬ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ ܘܬܘܒ‬. ‫ܬ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬. ‫ܬ̈ܪ‬ : ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܢ ܿ ܬ̈ܪ ܆ ܗ‬.‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܒ‬ 121 .‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬

George’s First Letter

.6 ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬

‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬܐ ܼ ܐܢ‬.‫( ܗܪ‬.12) ‫ܢ ܐܼ ܘ‬ ‫ ܕ ܿ ܐ‬.‫ܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܣ‬ . ‫ܬܪ‬ ܼ ‫ܬܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܬ‬ .‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܿ ܣ ܘܗܪ ܼܐ‬. ‫ܬܪ‬ ܿ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܬ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬. ‫ܢ ܐܘ ܬܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܬ‬ .ܼ ܼ .ܼ ‫ܬܪ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܗ ܬܪ‬ 122 .‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܒ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܘ‬ .

Though the question in George’s letter has some additional elements that Syriac Probos does not, the relationship between the two is unmistakable.

Uthemann, ‘Syllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie,’ p. 110. BL Add. 12,154, fol. 225v-226r. 121 Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p. 9. 122 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 227v-228r. 119 120

[27]

698

TANNOUS

Finally, there are three instances where George’s first letter and the Syriac Probos bear a resemblance which is close but which falls a bit short of the close correspondences which have characterized the examples above. In the first case, the fifth question of Syriac Probos seems related to the fourth question of George’s heretic which, as we noted above, precisely corresponded to the fourth question of the Greek Probos. In the other two cases, there are no correspondences to the Greek Probos.

Syriac Probos George’s First Letter ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ .5 . ‫ܐ ܐ ܼ ܘ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ‬+‫( ܗܪ‬.4) ‫ܕܐܒ ܗܝ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܕ ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬.‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ . ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬.‫ܐ ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ :‫ܒܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ :‫ܐ ܐ‬ .ܼ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ 123 .‫ ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ ܐ ܗܘܝ‬.‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ .‫ܕܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬.‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ܼ 124 +‫ܼܗܘ‬ ‫ܼܿ ܐ ܒܐܘ ܐ ܼܗܘ‬ ‫ܬ̈ܪܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܘ‬

‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܒ ܐ‬.29 ‫ܐܒܐ ܘܒ ܐ ܘܪܘ ܐ‬ 125 .‫ܒܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܡ‬.‫ܿ ܐܘ ܓ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܢ ܿ ܓ ܐ‬.

‫ܓ‬ .4 ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ‬

‫ܢ‬ ‫( ܗܪ܀ ܐܐ‬.10) ‫ ܒ ܐ‬.‫ܘܣ ܕ ܪܐ ܬܐ ܘܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܒ‬:‫ܐ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬.‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܐܒܐ ܘܪܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬.ܼ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܒܐ ܘܪܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ ܐ‬:‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐܒܐ ܘܪܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܼܐ ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ ܒ‬ 126 ‫ܐ ܕܐܒܐ ܘܕܪܘ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܐ‬

Opuscoli Calcedonensi, pp. 8–9. BL Add. 12,154, fol. 224r. 125 Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p. 14. 126 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 227r. 123 124

[28]

ܼ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ‫( ܗܪܛ܀‬.15) . ‫̈ ܢ ܘܐ ܼ ܘ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

‫ܬܗ‬

‫ ܐܢ ܕ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫܆ ܗܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬ .‫ ܐܠ‬:‫ܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܐܒ ܗܝ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ 127 . ‫ܘܢ ܐܘ ܬ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬

699

.‫ ܐܢ ܐܘ ܐ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫ܕ ܓ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬ .‫ܼܿ ܐܘ ܓ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܘܐܢ ܿ ܓ ܼ ܼܐ‬ ܼ ܿ .‫ܐܘ ܼܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܓ‬ . ‫ܐܼ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ :‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܒ ܗܝ ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ܐ ܼܒ ܬ‬ ‫ܬܪ ܀ ܘ‬ 128 . ܼ ‫ ܒ ܼܡ‬.‫ܟ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬

Of the twenty two Chalcedonian aporiai presented to George by Mar Mārī of Tel ‛Adā, therefore, eleven have come down to us in other documents and there is a definite resemblance between two more questions. The following table presents the correspondences between these documents and George’s twenty-two heretical questions.

127 128

Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p. 8. BL Add. 12,154, fol. 229r.

[29]

700

TANNOUS

George’s First Letter Question # 1 2 3 4

Greek Probos Question #

5 6 7 8 9 10

5 6 7 8

11 12 13 14 15

1 2 3 4

Syriac Probos Question #

Doctrina Patrum

Dubitationes Orthodoxi

Question #

Question #

1 4

1 4

Syriac Phokas Question #

26 34 compare #5 35

compare #29 6 1 4

compare #4

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

The coincidence not just in content, but more strikingly, in order, between the first eight questions of George’s interlocutor and those of Greek Probos, as well as the fact that George’s thirteenth and fourteenth questions can both be found in three related documents suggests that underlying Mārī’s request is not a set of questions formulated by Mārī himself, based on questions he had heard in conversation, but in fact based on a document. This document was likely some sort of Chalcedonian anti-

[30]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

701

Miaphysite Christological aporiai, which has not survived to the present and which is preserved in no single document but rather in several different documents. There are eleven questions from Mārī for which I have been unable to find a corresponding question surviving among other Greek or Syriac aporiai; for two of these, the Syriac Probos provides potential parallels. This leaves, at the least, nine questions unaccounted for. These unaccounted for questions, along with the fact that the seven questions of Eulogios and Phokas, as well as the first seven questions of the anonymous aporiai of the Doctrina Patrum have all been transmitted with different attributions of authorship suggests that perhaps the actual author of the source document for these three aporiai as well as that of Mārī’s questions has been lost. Or, alternatively, it could be the case that the questions were standard Chalcedonian polemics whose use was widespread and which became associated with the best-known figure who employed them. Furthermore, that the Greek and Syriac Probos have only four items in common, none of which appear in the same order in both documents, suggests that while Probos may in fact be the author of the aporiai, the Greek and Syriac versions also both rely on a now-lost document or that perhaps the shorter Greek Probos is the original and the longer Syriac Probos represents a revision of it which incorporated new material. As concerns the origins of Mārī’s questions, if, rather than positing one document as the source of the questions present in the six different documents in question, a Chalcedonian florilegium along the lines of the Doctrina Patrum, one which is no longer extant or not yet recognized, is instead posited as their source, there might be a simpler explanation for the intriguing overlaps which exist. Perhaps this hypothetical florilegium drew upon an earlier, or even the original, version of Probos’ anti-Miaphysite aporiai. If it did, the matching order of Mārī’s questions and the questions in the Greek Probos suggests that these two documents preserve the source document’s order, and their agreement against the Syriac Probos’ order suggests that the latter document has lost the original’s organization and is itself a composite of sorts. Furthermore, the alphabetical organization of Mārī’s questions suggests that while the questions’ ultimate origin probably lies in a Greek original, the questions as they stand must have been compiled by a Syriac-speaking Chalcedonian. To reiterate: it is hard to imagine that Mārī would have taken the time to organize a group of questions antithetical to his theological position into alphabetical order; that they are written in alphabetical order and cover the entire Syriac alphabet also suggests that the questions’ compiler in Syriac sought to make a point

[31]

702

TANNOUS

about the wholeness or completeness or his critique of Miaphysite Christology.129 This hypothetical florilegium perhaps would have also drawn on several other documents, including a version of the one which lies behind the Questions of Phokas, the Dubitationes Orthodoxi, and the Ἔπαπορήσις of the Doctrina Patrum. Questions 9–11 and 15–22, for which no exact matches exist, would therefore have their source in other collections of Chalcedonian aporiai which are now lost or not yet discovered. The Syriac Probos contains two questions that might be related to Mārī’s question 10 and, much more likely, question 15, but as has already been noted, there is some evidence to suggest that it itself is a composite document. Perhaps among its thirty five questions are questions from the same document(s) which supplied the questions in George’s first letter which remain unaccounted for.

SOURCES II: NESTORIAN QUESTIONS Appended to George’s first letter are three small documents, all similar in style to the first letter. The first of these is entitled ‘Of the same venerable George: difficult Nestorian questions and questions against them.’ It contains four Nestorian Christological aporiai which George responds to in much the same way as he deals with the Chalcedonian objections in the first letter. Although these questions are labeled ‘Nestorian,’ three of the four are preserved in another aporiai in the Doctrina Patrum, and of those three, two are also found in Euthymios Zigabenos’ Panoplia Dogmatica. Both of these sources attribute the aporiai in question to Leontios of Byzantium. The Doctrina Patrum contains thirty chapters against Severos written by Leontios130 and the Panoplia Dogmatica contains fifteen chapters against Severos.131 Interestingly, then, what we have here is a Chalcedonian document being called Nestorian by Miaphysites. Whether the label I need to thank David Taylor for his helpful comments on this and the preceding paragraph. 130 Doctrina Patrum, pp. 155–164. ‘Τὰ τριάκοντα κεφάλαια τοῦ μακαρίου Λεοντίου κατὰ Σευήρου.’ ‘The thirty chapters of the blessed Leontios against Severos.’ 131 PG 130, cols. 1068–1073; see col. 1068: ‘Ἔτι κατὰ μονοφυσιτῶν Λεοντίου Βυζαντίου ἐκ τῶν λ΄κεφαλαίων τῶν κατὰ Σευήρου.’ ‘Again, Against the Monphysites, of Leontios of Byzantium, from his Thirty Chapters against Severos.’ 129

[32]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

703

‘Nestorian’ is used as a result of a misunderstanding of the document’s source or as a deliberate rhetorical attack cannot be determined, though it was not uncommon for Miaphysites to refer to Chalcedonians as ‘Nestorians.’ I will reproduce the three matches in tabular format for purposes of comparison. ‘Nestorian’ Questions Leontios of Byzantium

Chapters against Severos

δ΄ Εἰ ἐκ δύο φύσεων τὸν Χριστὸν λέγοντες ἐκ θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος λέγουσι, καὶ ἐκ θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος λέγοντες ἐκ δύο φύσεων αὐτὸν λέγουσι, θεότητα δὲ καὶ ἀνθρωπότητα καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν λέγουσι, δύο ἄρα φύσεις καὶ αὐτοὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν λέγουσιν. Εἰ δὲ τὸ λέγειν δὺο φύσεις ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἀρνοῦνται, τὸ ἄρα λέγειν θεότητα Χριστοῦ καὶ ανθρωπότητα μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἀρνοῦνται.132 ε΄ Εἰ ἀσύγχτα ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει τὰ συνελθόντα γινώσκουσι, δύο δὲ τὰ συνελθόντα καὶ κατ’ αὐτούς εἰσι, πῶς τὰ ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει μὴ συγχθέντα δύο καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν οὐ δύο γνωρίζουσιν;134 εἰ δὲ δύο γνωρίζουσι, πῶς οὐχ ὁμολογοῦσιν; Εἰ δὲ ὁμολογοῦσι, πῶς ἀριθμεῖν ταῦτα

‫̈ܐ‬

‫ܬܪ‬ ‫( ܗܪ܀ ܐܢ‬.1) ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܬܗ‬ :‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܪ‬.‫ܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܘ ̈ ܐ ܐܦ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ܬܪ‬ ‫ܒ ݀ܝ ܕܬܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ݀ ‫ ܐܦ‬.‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܕܬܐ ܘܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܬܗ ܘܐ ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ‬ 133 ‫ܐ ܘܢ܀‬ ‫ ܐܢ ܕ ܐ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬.‫( ܗܪ‬.2) ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ ܪܗ‬ ‫ ܬܪ ܕ ܗ‬:‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܬܐ ܐ‬ ‫݀ ܢ ܕܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܪ‬ . ܿ ‫ܐܬܒ ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬܪ‬ ܿ .‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܕ‬ ܼ

Doctrina Patrum, p. 155. BL Add. 12,154, fol. 233v-234r. 134 Euthymios Zigabenos reads γνωρίζονται here, not γνωρίζουσιν (PG 130, col. 1070). Other than this one word, his two excerpts from Leontios’ Chapters against Severos which match questions in George’s letters are identical to the version of the Chapters found in the Doctrina Patrum. 132 133

[33]

704

TANNOUS

παραιτοῦνται, ὧν τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἰδιότητα ἀσύγχυτον καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἐπίστανται; «ὃ γὰρ ὁμολογοῦσι», φησὶν ὁ θεῖος Βασίλειος «καὶ ἀριθυμείτωσαν».135 ς΄ Εἰ ἐκ δύο μὲν φύσεων λέγουσι τὸν Χριστόν, δύο δὲ φύσεις αὐτὸν οὐ λέγουσιν τὸν Χριστόν. Εἰ δὲ μή, ἐξ ὧν συνιστῶσι ἐκ τούτων μέν, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ταῦτα λέγουσι τὸν Χριστόν, καὶ ἐν τούτοις γνωρίζειν αὐτὸν ἀξιοῦσιν. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ ἐξ ὧν αὐτός, ἢ οὐδαμοῦ ἢ ἐν ἑτέρῳ δηλονότι καὶ ἐν τινι παρ’ αὐτόν. Καὶ τίς οὗτος, σαφῶς διδασκέτωσαν.137

‫ܿ ܕ‬

‫ ܐ‬.‫ܕ ܐ ܘܢ‬ ܿ .‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܼ ܐ‬ ܼ ݀ ܿ ‫ ܗ ܢ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܕܬ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ‬ ܿ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܒ ܪ‬ ‫ ܐ ܒ‬.‫ܢ‬ 136 .‫ܼ ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬

ܿ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܕ‬

ܿ

‫ܬܪ‬ ‫ ܐܢ‬..‫( ܗܪ ܐ‬.3) ‫̈ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ ܬܪ ܕ‬:‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ . ܼ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐܦ ܗ ܐ‬ .ܼ ܿ ܿ . ‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܐܼ ܘ‬. ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܢ‬ ‫ ܒ ݀ ܢ‬.‫ܿܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܐܢ‬.‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܬܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ ܐܘ ܐ‬.‫ܼܥ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ .‫ܼܐ‬ ‫ܼܐ ܕܒܐ‬ ‫ ܐܘ‬.‫ܘܟ‬ ܼ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܗ ܼܐ‬:‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬ 138 . ‫ܓ ܐ ܐ‬

As was the case with the Greek Probos and Mārī’s questions, these three questions in Leontios match not only the content of George’s ‘Nestorian’ questions (though there are some interesting differences between the Greek and Syriac text, e.g., George’s text consistently adds ‘that is, hypostasis’ after each usage of the word ‘nature,’ whereas the Greek text only reads ‘nature’), they also follow their order. The first, second, and third of the four ‘Nestorian’ questions correspond to the fourth, fifth, and sixth question in the Greek version of Leontios’ Chapters against Severos as preserved in the Doctrina Patrum. These three questions do not, however, occur seriatim in Euthymios Zigabenos’ Panoplia Dogmatica. Since both the Doctrina Patrum and Euthymios Zigabenos attribute these Greek Doctrina Patrum, p. 156. BL Add. 12,154, fol. 234r. 137 Doctrina Patrum, p. 156. 138 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 234v. 135 136

[34]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

705

Christological aporiai to Leontios and furthermore state that there are a total of thirty, there is less reason to doubt either the authorship of these questions or the completeness of the versions of them which we do possess than there is in the case of the documents discussed in the previous section. Because George’s response to these questions is not a letter per se, but rather an appendix to a letter, perhaps excerpted from another, lost letter or theological work, we have no context for understanding a possible provenance. Nevertheless, perhaps it would not be incautious to speculate that George’s writing of a response to the four questions in the Nestorian document was occasioned by circumstances similar to those which triggered the writing of the first three letters: they were presented to him for analysis and rebuttal by someone in his diocese or circle of correspondents. Since the fourth of the four Nestorian questions does not appear in Leontios’ Chapters, we are forced again to posit the origin of George’s questions, this time the Nestorian questions, in a document which is no longer extant but which must have contained at least excerpts of the Chapters against Severos.

SOURCES III: CYRIL’S SECOND LETTER TO SUCCENSUS AND THE RESPONSE TO PROBOS The second document appended to George’s first letter is an excerpt from Cyril’s well-known Second Letter to Succensus.139 In this second document, George produces his own responses to Succensus’ four questions to Cyril. Because Cyril’s Letter is explicitly identified in the Syriac text and is not as obscure as the other sources we are dealing with here, I will pass over it without further comment. The third and final document appended to George’s first letter is a response to a question asked of the monks of Antioch by the ‘wicked’ Probos.140 Although this question is explicitly attributed to Probos, it appears in neither the Greek nor the Syriac Probos documents we have already reviewed above. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it could not have originated with Probos.141 Among the 20 different sets of BL Add. 12,154, fol. 236r-237r. BL Add. 12,154, fol. 237r. 141 Probos and John Barbur were Miaphysite converts to Chalcedonianism who held a disputation with Miaphysite monks in Antioch ca. 595 for which they composed eight tomoi against their opponents. Most of these have been lost. A. van Roey, ‘Une Controverse Christologique sous le Patriarcat de Pierre de Callinique,’ Symposium Syriacum 1976 (Rome, 1978), pp. 351–353 lists all of Probos’ extant 139 140

[35]

706

TANNOUS

Chalcedonian aporiai in MS Sinai Syr. 10 is one attributed to ‘Athanasios the monk,’ and written ‘against those who reject the confession of two natures.’142 The second of the sixteen questions contained in this set of aporiai mirrors closely the question attributed to Probos. Question of Probos appended to From Questions of Athanasios the Monk George’s first letter

‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ܐ ܕ‬ .2 ܿ ‫ ܕܐ ܘܬܐ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܕܐ ܬܐ ܆ ܿܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܬ ܐܘ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ : ‫ܬ ܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܢ ܕܗ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܗܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܕܐ‬ ‫܆ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܘܢ ܕܐ ܘܗܝ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܗ ܕܐ‬ 143 .‫ܐ ܕܐ ܘܬܐ ܘܕܐ ܬܐ‬

‫ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬:‫ܐ ܕܒܐܘ ܐ‬ .‫ܗܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ݀ :‫ܘܕܐ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ ܐܘ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ ܐ‬: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܼ ܬ ܐܘ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܕܗ‬ ‫ ܐܘ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܗ ܿܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܕܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܕܐ ܘܗܝ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܗ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ 144 ..‫ܘܕܐ ܬܐ܀‬

These two questions undoubtedly are both translations of a Greek original; the issue of whether Probos, Athanasios, or somebody else was the actual author of the question cannot be resolved.145 works and what remains of the eight tomoi. He speculates that the question of Probos to which George responds in BL Add. 12,154 originated in one of the eight tomoi or in a separate χαρτής found in BL Add. 12,155, also written against the Miaphysite monks of Antioch but apparently separate from the eight tomoi. Van Roey was aware of the work attributed to Probos in MS Sinai Syr. 10, but did not make the connection between the question of Probos in Add. 12,154 and that of Athanasios the Monk in MS Sinai Syr. 10. This example of the same question being attributed to two separate authors, one of whom was a well-known Miaphysite apostate, lends credence to the suggestion that the questions dealt with by George were stock Chalcedonian aporiai in widespread use which tended to coalesce around the names of their most (in)famous users. ̈ 142 Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p. 29: ‫ܿܗ ܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ‬ ̈ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܕ ܐ ܕܬ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ 143 Opuscoli Calcedonensi, p. 29. 144 BL Add. 12,154, fol. 237r. 145 The correspondence between the question of Probos in Add. 12,154 and that of Anastasios in MS Sinai Syr. 10 was noted by P. Bettiolo in Una Raccolta di Opuscoli Calcedonensi (Ms. Sinaï Syr. 10) (CSCO 404: SS 178) (Louvain, 1979), p. 14.

[36]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

707

What stands out with respect to the sources which have been identified in these letters is their apparent wide diffusion with different authorial attributions in different combinations and even in different languages. The relentlessness of their logic and their ability to leave their target confused and lost in self-contradiction would have made them ideal for close-range theological street fighting, so to speak, as in fact the requests of George’s correspondents suggest they were used. We are not dealing with longer, more subtly-argued treatises. These are the polemical equivalent of brass knuckles.

CONTEXTS AGAIN: A WIDER CONTEXT? At this point, I would like to revisit the issue of the context of these letters. As we have already seen, they stand out as examples of a sort of genre of polemic that emerged among Christians in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon. The genre existed in Greek and the aporetic style of disputation had been in use among Syriac-speaking Christians since at least the early sixth century during the life of Simeon of Beth Arsham. There is, then, a Christian context for these letters; is there, perhaps, a non-Christian context as well? As it turns out, there is. The aporetic style of dispute which can be found in George’s first three letters bears a close resemblance to the dialectical technique characteristic of Islamic kalām. In an article published in 1980, Michael Cook drew attention to several sets of Syriac Monothelete texts which deploy a style of dispute that closely follows the style which can be seen in the Questions against the Qadarites of al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad alḤanafiyya146 (d. ca. 718 AD/100 AH), a very early kalām text. In doing so, Cook was able to argue persuasively that Islamic theology appropriated the form of kalām arguments from pre-Islamic, Christian theology.147 As a result, one of the more esoteric and abstruse corners of Syriac literature becomes of central importance for understanding the formation and development of Islamic thought. Having demonstrated that the genre of aporetic questioning was indeed appropriated, Cook asked three questions: ‘When, where and how

146 Arabic text in J. van Ess, Anfänge Muslimischer Theologie (Beirut, 1977) pp. 11– 37; GT and commentary, pp. 35–112. 147 M. A. Cook, ‘The Origins of “Kalām,”’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43 (1980), pp. 32–43.

[37]

708

TANNOUS

did [the appropriation] take place?’148 Though he was able to adduce further examples of Syriac aporetic texts, both Miaphysite and Nestorian, Cook was not sure when precisely the transfer of genre occurred; he did, however, suggest that it might have happened in Syria.149 The question which is most relevant to our present interest in these letters of George, however, is Cook’s third one, that of how: How did this Christian genre pass into Islamic theology? Two different vectors, Cook noted, have been suggested to explain the inflow of Christian forms and content into early Islam: First, Christian polemics against Muslims and second, Christian converts to Islam.150 Cook thought that both of these ‘mechanisms’ of transmission were quite plausible, but admitted, ‘The continuity of genre established in this article does not help us to be more concrete, and the other available Christian sources shed no direct light on the process of transmission.’151 George, as we have already seen, was Bishop over the Arab Tribes or ‘nations’ (‛ammē),152 and the appearance of aporetic modes of dispute in the Cook, ‘Origins,’ p. 38. Cook, ‘Origins,’ pp. 38–40. 150 Cook, ‘Origins,’ p. 40. He cites C. H. Becker, Islamstudien vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1924), p. 433 (a reprint of ‘Christiliche Polemik und islamische Dogmenbildung,’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 26 (1912), pp. 175–195 of which an ET is now available as ‘Christian Polemic and the formation of Islamic Dogma,’ pp. 241–257, in R. Hoyland, ed., Muslims and Others in Early Islamic Society (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 241–257) for the first suggestion and J. van Ess, ‘The Beginnings of Islamic Theology,’ in The Cultural Contexts of Medieval Learning, J. E. Murdoch and E. D. Sylla, eds., (Dordrecht and Boston, 1975), pp. 87–111, for the second (p. 100). 151 Cook, ‘Origins,’ p. 41. 152 In BL Add. 12154, fol. 222r, George is called ‘George, Bishop of the Tanūkāye, Ṭū‛āye, and ‛Aqūlaye. But his name is spelled differently and he is described differently by different authors and mss. Some of these different spellings and titles include: ‫ ܝ ܓ ܪܓ‬, Bod. Poc. 404; ‫ܓܐܘܪܓ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬, Mingana 106, Mingana 292, Sachau 121; ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ ܪܓ ܐ‬, Paris Syr. 377, BL Add. 14538, VatSyr. 118; ‫ܓܐܘܪܓ ܐܒܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬, Paris Syr. 403; ‫ܓ ܪܓ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬, BL Add. 14659; ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ ܓ‬, BL 14659; ‫ܓܐܘܪܓ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬BL Add 12154 (fol. 184a);‫ܐ ܝ ܓ ܪܓ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ , BL Add. 12165; : ‫ܝ ܓ ܪܓ‬ ̄ :‫ܐ‬ ݀ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬, BL Add.12144, VatSyr. 103; ‫ܐ ܓ ܪܓ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬, VatSyr. 117. Eliae Metropolitae Nisibeni Opus Chronologicum, pars posterior, ed. I.-B. Chabot (CSCO ser. 3, vol. 8) (Paris, 1909), pp. 6–7, calls him, ‫ܓ ܪܓ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܐ‬ . Barhebraeus (Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, cols. 293 and ̄ ‫ ܓܐܘܪܓ ܐ‬and also 303) calls him ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܝ ܓܐܘܪܓ ܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬. See also I. G. E. Hoffmann, De Hermeneuticis apud Syros Aristoteleis 148 149

[38]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

709

works of a bishop over Arab tribes, one who flourished in the late seventh and early eighth century, while perhaps still not shedding ‘direct’ light on the question of the mechanism of transmission, casts more light than scholars have previously recognized. The aporetic style of dispute likely had a Greek origin; it eventually passed from Greek and into Syriac before finding a home in Arabic kalām texts. In the letters of George, especially the first one, we can literally see the genre jumping from one language to another, from Greek into Syriac. That these letters were written by a bishop whose flock was comprised of Arab tribes brings us a step closer to seeing the entire transfer of genre take place. Looking at the identity of the tribes can perhaps bring us still closer. Just who were they? There were at least three tribes under George’s jurisdiction: the ‛Aqūlāyē, Ṭū‛āyē and the Tanūkāyē.153 In addition to George, Michael the Syrian mentions two other Syrian Orthodox Bishops over the ‘nations’ or ‘Arab nations:’ Trokos154 and Nonnos,155 whom Hage dated to ca. 650 AD and 685 AD, respectively.156 The Tanūkāyē are quite obviously the tribal group which Arabic sources call Tanūkh, but the other two groups are slightly more mysterious. The identity of the Ṭū‛āyē was unknown to Wright,157 but Lammens identified them with the Banū Ṭayy

(Lipsiae, 1869), pp. 148–149 for a similar listing of the various ways George is referred to. NB: ‛ammē, ‘nations,’ is evocative of the Great Commission of Mt. 28:19, where it is the term the Peshitta uses for τὰ ἔθνη. Its Arabic equivalent is umam (sing. umma), and at one point, George is referred to in Arabic as baṭrak alumam, ‘Patriarch of the Nations,’ though in another Arabic text Barhebraeus calls him Jāwarjī al-shu‛ūb al-islamiyya, ‘George of the Islamic peoples.’ (see Bibliotheca Orientalis I, 494,167; cf. Hoffmann, De Hermeneuticis p. 149). ‚Ummah is of course a word charged with meaning in an Arabic and Islamic context. In relation to the ‛ammē/ ἔθνη of Mt. 28:19, one thinks especially of Quran 10:47: wa-li-kulli ummatin rasūlun, ‘every nation has a prophet.’ I am grateful to Peter Brown for pointing out these connections to me. 153 See BL Add. 12154, fol. 222r. NB: Elias Bar Shinaya refers to George as ‘Bishop of the Ma‛dāyē,’ see previous footnote. Charles, Le christianisme des arabes nomades, p. 78, takes ‛Aqūlāyē, Ṭū‛āyē and the Tanūkāyē to be shorthand for all the nomadic Arab tribes of Mesopotamia. 154 See Michael the Syrian, Chronique, vol. 2 p. 459 (FT); vol. 4, p. 438 (ST). 155 See Michael the Syrian, Chronique, vol. 2 p. 453 (FT); vol. 4, p. 435 (ST). 156 W. Hage, Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche in frühislamischer Zeit (Wiesbaden, 1966), p. 96. 157 Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Library, p. 986, note.

[39]

710

TANNOUS

who lived on the borders of the Najd and Mesopotamia.158 Turning to the ‛Aqūlāyē, as their name indicates, they must have originally been Arab tribes from around Kufa.159 Michael the Syrian identifies them as ‘the people of Baghdad,’ noting that they moved from Harran to Mabbug and from there to Hama around 647 AD.160 Lammens identified these ‛Aqūlāyē with SyroArab Christians in Hira and Kufa.161 Similarly, Trimingham thought they were the group of tribes in Arabic referred to as the ‛Ibād and that they had their origin in the Iraqi branch of the Banū ‛Uqayl b. Ka‛b b. Rabī‛a, based near Hira and Kufa.162 It seems likely that the key figure in converting these and other Arab tribes to Christianity was Ahudemmeh (d. 575). The sixthcentury History of Ahudemmeh, noting the zeal of Christian Arabs after conversion, singles out these three tribes especially for the strength of their faith: ‘Whenever the Holy Church experienced persecution, that is, was pursued by enemies, they offered their necks for the church of Christ and most of all the chosen and mighty peoples of the ‛Aqūlāyē, Tanūkāyē and Ṭū‛āyē.’163 There are several indications that these tribes had early interactions with Muslims that were of a religious nature. The Letter of the Patriarch John concerning his discussion with a Muslim Amīr notes that present at the religious exchange were ‘not only the notables of the Hagarenes, but 158 H. Lammens, ‘A propos d’un colloque entre le patriarche Jacobite Jean 1er et ‛Amr ibn al-‛Aṣi,’ Journal Asiatique 11 (1919), p. 102. J. S. Trimingham, Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times (London and New York, 1979), p. 225, also equated the Ṭū‛āyē and the Ṭayy. Note their appearance in a letter from Barṣauma of Nisibis (d. ca. 492), where he speaks of a large force of Romans and Ṭayyāye, their subjects, who have assembled on the Roman-Persian border, seeking to extract vengeance on the Ṭū‛āye, ‘servants of the Persians,’ who had attacked a number of Roman villages. See J.-B. Chabot, Synodicon Orientale (Paris, 1902), Syriac: pp. 526–527; FT: 532–534. 159 ‛Aqūlā being the Syriac name for Kufa. cf. R. Duval, ed., Lexicon Syriacum auctore Hassano Bar Bahlule (Paris, 1888–1901), s.v. ‛Aqūlā. 160 Michael the Syrian, (Syriac) vol. 4, pp. 429–430; (FT) vol. 2, p. 445. ‘In this year, the ‛Aqūlāyē, that is, the Baghdadīs, passed from Harran to Mabbug and from Mabbug to Hama…’ cf. F. Nau, Les arabes chrétiens de Mésopotamie et de Syrie du VIIe au VIIIe siècle (Paris, 1933), p. 106. 161 Lammens, ‘A propos d’un colloque entre le patriarche Jacobite Jean 1er et ‛Amr ibn al-‛Aṣi,’ p. 102. 162 Trimingham, Christianity Among the Arabs, p. 171. 163 Histoire de Mar Ahoudemmeh: apôtre des arabes de Mésoptamie, Patrologia Orientalis 3, ed. and trans. F. Nau (Paris, 1909), p. 28.

[40]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

711

also the chiefs and leaders of the cities and of the believing and Christloving peoples, the Tanūkāyē, the Ṭū‛āyē, and the ‛Aqūlāyē.’164 The occurrence of this dialogue is reported by Michael the Syrian, who notes that when the Amīr (‛Amr b. Sa‛d) saw the Patriarch’s courage and knowledge he was amazed and ordered him to have the Gospel translated from Syriac into Arabic, with the stipulation that any language referring to Christ as God, or to Christ’s baptism or to the Cross be removed. The Patriarch refused and ‛Amr relented and allowed him to have the Gospel translated as he wished. ‘And he gathered his bishops,’ Michael writes, ‘and he sent and had [people] brought from the Tanūkāyē and ‛Aqūlāyē and Ṭū‛āyē, who knew the Arabic and Syriac languages, and ordered them to translate the Gospel into the Arabic language.’165 The Chronicon ad Annum 1234 contains a slightly different version of the story, which omits mention of the Ṭū‛āyē, but which seems to suggest that there were members of these Arab tribes who were skilled in Syriac-Arabic translation.166 Scholars have generally held that the discussion between Patriarch John and the Amīr took place in the first years of Islamic rule in Syria, in 639167 or 644;168 G. Reinink, however has argued that the letter of Patriarch John should not be seen as a reflecting an actual event, but rather is a literary production belonging to the first part of the eighth century.169 Even 164 See F. Nau, ‘Un colloque du patriarche Jean avec l’émir des Agaréens,’ Journal Asiatique 11 (1915), p. 251 (Syriac), p. 261 (FT). 165 Michael the Syrian, Chronique, vol. II, p. 422 (Syriac), vol. 4, p. 432 (French). 166 The key part for us reads: ‘Then the patriarch sent for pious people from the Banū Tanūkh and from ‛Aqūlō and selected those most fluent in both Arabic and Syriac and who knew how to translate words elegantly from one language to another. When they had, with great difficulty, interpreted the Gospel at his command and collated it repeatedly, they produced immediately a final version in elevated calligraphic style free from technical blemishes and most skillfully illuminated with (gold and silver) leaf.’ ET taken from Palmer, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, p. 171; Syriac text in I.-B. Chabot, ed., Chronicon ad Annym Christi 1234 Pertinens, p. 262. 167 See Nau, ‘Un Colloque,’ p. 227. 168 See Lammens, ‘A propos d’un colloque entre le patriarche Jacobite Jean 1er et ‛Amr ibn al-‛Aṣi,’ p. 98. Also see R. Hoyland’s short discussion and summary, pp. 464–465, in Seeing Islam as Others Saw It (Princeton, 1997). 169 G. J. Reinink, ‘The Beginnings of Syriac Apologetic Literature in Response to Islam,’ Oriens Christianus 77 (1993), pp. 171–187. Though against Reinink, see more recently, H. Suermann, ‘The Old Testament and the Jews in the dialogue between the Jacobite Patriarch John I and ‛Umayr ibn Sa‛d al-Anṣārī,’ pp. 131–141,

[41]

712

TANNOUS

if Reinink is correct and the discussion never actually took place, we are still left with the fact that an early eighth-century author thought it natural to place members of these tribes at such a dispute—perhaps precisely because members of these tribes were engaged in such interactions with Muslims. Moreover, locating the text in the early eighth century makes it contemporary with the episcopate of George of the Arabs: it perhaps would have even been written at around the same time as the three letters in question. Much the same can be said concerning the incident of NT translation. Even if some have found its historicity to be improbable,170 it provides us with the useful information that at least some members of these tribes were conversant in both Syriac and Arabic and even skilled at translating between the two. Furthermore, it shows us once again that portraying them as in an intermediary role between the Syriac-speaking Christians of Syria and the new Arabic-speaking Muslims seemed natural and was in keeping with the demands of verisimilitude. George knew Syriac and his translation activities indicate he knew Greek as well. Nothing in his letters indicates that he knew Arabic, but it would nevertheless seem entirely plausible to assume that George, as bishop over Arabs, himself knew Arabic, just as, for example, Barsaum suggested.171 George would have then been the ‘ἀνὴρ τρίγλωττος’ that Wright172 mistakenly thought Jacob of Edessa to be.173 None of this, of course, is to suggest that George himself or any of his correspondents was personally responsible for transmitting this form of argumentation into an Arabic and Islamic context; it is only to suggest that it might very well have in Eastern Crossroads: Essays on Medieval Christian Legacy, ed. Juan Pedro MonferrerSala, (Piscataway, NJ, 2007). 170 See, e.g., G. Graf, Geschichte der Christlichen Arabischen Literatur, vol. I (Città del Vaticano, 1944), p. 35 and Reinink, ‘The Beginnings,’ p. 174. S. Griffith discusses the incident in ‘The Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into its Appearance in the First Abbasid Century,’ Oriens Christianus 69 (1985), pp. 135–137 but does not doubt its historicity. More recently, Griffith has suggested that the work belongs to the ‘first third of the eighth century.’ See idem., The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam (Princeton, 2008), p. 36. 171 I. E. Barsaum, al-Lū‚lū‚ al-manthūr, p. 311. 172 W. Wright, ‘Two Epistles of Mār Jacob, Bishop of Edessa,’ Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record NS 10 (1867), p. 430. 173 See A. Salvesen, ‘Did Jacob of Edessa Know Hebrew?,’ pp. 457–467, esp. the concluding paragraphs on p. 467, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg, eds., Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael Weitzman (Sheffield, 2001), pp. 457–467.

[42]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

713

been done by an individual or individuals who resembled George: bilingual, perhaps trilingual, and acquainted with the Christian tradition and habits of theological argumentation. George embodies precisely the sort of figure living in the milieu where such a transmission must have taken place. George and his letters therefore do not represent a smoking gun, but (to change metaphors) they might be seen as a transitional fossil in the emergence of the medieval world of Islamic civilization from a matrix whose elements included the Christian world of Late Antiquity. In them, we have evidence of a genre moving between Greek and Syriac and landing in a context where Arabic speakers were nearby and interacting with Muslims concerning matters religious. Indeed, if George and his tribes did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them. To expand this point a bit and further point to the fruitfulness of considering George and his Arab-Christian milieu as an important link between Christian Late Antiquity and nascent Islamic civilization, I would like to step away from aporiai and kalām, and touch on another issue related to the question of the beginnings of Muslim theology: Qadarism. As part of an attempt to find the origins of Islamic predestinationism, Cook tried to locate a ‘specific determinist milieu’ in the Christianity of Jacob of Edessa’s day as the rootstock from which Muslim predestinationism grew; unsuccessful, he instead suggested that ‘we may do better to think in terms of a widespread determinist mood.’174 As is the case with the use of the aporetic dispute style which finds its way into Islamic theology, George and his specific Arab Christian milieu provide material salient for understanding the spectrum of predestinarian options available in the Umayyad period. Among George’s unpublished works is a memra he wrote on the calendar (χρονικόν). Quite interesting and pertinent to this question is its introduction: One day, a man from among the pagans (ḥanpē) was boasting while in one of their gatherings (kenshē), greatly praising their poets, saying that it was only given to them to speak in measured words concerning astronomical calculations (ḥūshbānē). He began reciting and bringing forth passages from them, person by person, in polished and varied speech and [with] something on the subject of astronomical calculations, setting down many bitter things with a little bit of honey, that he might

M. Cook, Early Muslim Dogma: A Source-Critical Study (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 150–151. 174

[43]

714

TANNOUS give hidden bitterness along with the sweetness of the honey. When he had clearly set forth something on the subject of astronomical calculations, he showed forth and said that there are many guides (mdabrānē), stating that these are the wandering stars: they have governance (mdabrānūtā) in this cosmos. According to what he blathered on about, each one of the twelve signs of the zodiac has governance. When reproach seized me because of his shameful prattle, I responded for some time with many words against him. For this reason, I have composed this short memra on account of the measured speech through which that person boasted and I have set down in it certain sorts of astronomical calculations which it is necessary for members of the Church to know…175

Just who exactly these ‘pagans,’ or ḥanpē were and what sort of gathering George was attending is an interesting question, one we may unfortunately be unable to ever answer.176 Sachau understood the unbelievers referred to in this passage to be Arabs and the poetry to be Arabic poetry: George was attempting to show that such astronomical matters could be dealt with in Syriac as well as they could be dealt with in Arabic.177 We do possess an encyclical from George’s associate and perhaps teacher, Athanasios II of Balad, which was written in 995 AG (AD 684) that may cast light on contemporary usage of the word ‘ḥanpē.’178 Addressed to Athanasios’ chorepiscopoi and periodutes, in its manuscript the letter is prefaced with the statement, ‘A letter of the blessed Patriarch Athanasios concerning the matter that no Christian individual should eat the sacrifices (debḥē) of the Muslims (mhagrāyē) who now rule.’ The body of the letter itself, however, does not refer to Muslims as mhagrāyē: it calls them, rather, ‘pagans,’ or ḥanpē.179 175 The Syriac text can be found in E. Sachau, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin: Verzeichniss der Syrischen Handschriften, vol. 2, (Berlin, 1899), pp. 720–721. 176 But see, M. Morony, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, 2nd ed., (Piscataway, NJ, 2005), pp. 384–404 and esp. pp. 392–393 for a discussion of paganism and astrological fatalism in sixth and seventh century Iraq which provides possible context. 177 E. Sachau, Verzeichniss der Syrischen Handschriften, vol. 2, p. 721. 178 On the ms., see H. Zotenberg, Catalogues des manuscripts syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1874), p. 28. 179 The Syriac text of this encyclical, along with a FT has been published by F. Nau in Revue de l’orient chrétien 14 (1909), pp. 128–130.

[44]

BETWEEN CHRISTOLOGY AND KALĀM?

715

Whatever the precise identity of the pagans referred to in the memra’s preface,180 it is a piece of evidence which shows determinist ideas in the air and being debated between non-Christians and a Christian expert in aporetic dispute in the Umayyad period. The memra on the calendar must have been written before 716 AD, for in March of that year George wrote a letter to John of Litarb, answering a question John had asked related to it. I will not here discuss this particular letter, but will only say that it, too, is of some interest for those concerned with the religious ferment of the Umayyad period—in it, George rejects the notion that the beginning of the year has any sort of compelling influence or necessity (ālṣāyūtā) on events and condemns pagan astrologers for depriving God of ‘His administration (mparnāsūtā) and direction (mdabrānūtā) of His created beings and their changes.’181 My purpose here is not to open up the complex questions of free-will and determinism, the potential origins of Qadarism, or the history of divination and astrology. It is, rather, to reinforce my point that we should view the Arab-Christian milieu in which George operated as a potential locus for the assimilation of Christian traditions, such as they were, into early Islam. P. Peeters wrote of a Late Antique ‘Syrie bilingue,’182 a place where the ‘frontière commune’ between Greek and Oriental hagiography was often more a ‘une ligne fictive,’ and an indeterminate area where both Greek and non-Greek existed as equals: ‘La diplomatie appellerait cela un condominium.’183 A philhellenic figure like George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes, very much a bearer of the Late Antique Christian inheritance but living in the Umayyad period and possessing a partially bilingual flock which was 180 See Hoyland, Seeing Islam, pp. 148–149 for a discussion of the different meanings of ḥanpē, and other examples of its use in the sense of ‘pagans’ by contemporaries of George on pp. 145–146, 158, 162. In his conclusion to Jacob of Edessa’s Hexaemeron, George explicitly equates ḥanpē with pagans, or ‘those who are outside,’ while contrasting Christian and pagan names for paradise. Cf. Hexaemeron, ed. J-B. Chabot (CSCO 92: SS 44) (Louvain, 1953), p. 355: ‘…d-hānūn da-lbar aw kīt ḥanpē… 181 BL Add. 12,154 fol. 278v. Syriac text also available in Ryssel, ‘Die astronomischen Briefe Georgs des Araberbischofs,’ p. 25. It is worth noting, too, that it was a letter from Jacob of Edessa to the same John of Litarb to which Cook looked for evidence for a specifically Christian determinism: Early Muslim Dogma, pp. 145–152. 182 P. Peeters, Le tréfonds oriental de l’hagiographie byzantine (Brussels, 1950), pp. 49–70. 183 Peeters, Le tréfonds oriental, p. 137.

[45]

716

TANNOUS

engaged in religious interaction with Muslims, raises the specter that there existed a Syrie trilingue, where the lines between Greek, Syriac and Arabic were not as sharp as contemporary academic disciplinary boundaries might lead one to believe, where, as it were, the world of classics, Christology and kalām overlapped. In this paper, I have tried to discern faint intimations of such a world in a group of texts and an author which have almost completely escaped the notice of historians for over a century. No scholar has done more to teach us about Peeter’s Syrie bilingue than Sebastian Brock. It was he who encouraged me to delve into the letters of George of the Arabs and it is an honor to dedicate this study to him.184

184 I am grateful to David Taylor, Peter Brown, David Michelson and Lena Salaymeh for giving me helpful suggestions and comments on different incarnations of this paper, the core of which started as an MPhil thesis at Oxford. That it still contains many shortcomings, however, is no one’s fault but my own.

[46]

ERRATA p. 673, the sentences which read “This letter was written on 10 December 1025 AG (AD 718), which means George was a small child about fifty years before that. In other words, he was probably born ca. AD 660 and not AD 640 as Ryssel suggested.” Should read, “This letter was written on 10 December 1029 AG (AD 718), which means George was a small child about fifty years before that. In other words, he was probably born between AD 650–660 and not AD 640 as Ryssel suggested.” p. 709, n. 154 should read: See Michael the Syrian, Chronique, vol. 2 p. 453 (FT); vol. 4, p. 435 (ST). p. 709, n. 155 should read: See Michael the Syrian, Chronique, vol. 2 p. 459 (FT); vol. 4, p. 438 (ST).

[47]