Defending the Quot People of Truth Quot in the Early Islamic Period ...2.

من العيب والشنعة. ولانى ضعيف وخفت الكلام مخافة على نغسى فى العاجل وكتمت الحق ولم اعلنه يجهدى.

ل٠متذ الححة ف تصنف ذك قلت15 تفقد ضانى سدنا السو ولزمتنى الحجة فى تصنيفى ذلك وافلت تفقدى لما ذكره سيدنا المسبح جل ثناؤه فى وصيته شيعته فى كتابه وتقويته اياهم حيث فال لا تهادوا ممن كان على افتل الجد افادراً فانهم لم يقدروا على افتل النفس. يل هابوا احذا كان ط ا اط16 الد الصد ٠لأدلااًحثلا واحذروا من كان على ايراط النفس والجد فى نار جهنم ,فادرا حيث لا خمود لنارها ولا انصرام لعذابها. وافوله فى الانجيل ايضاً من سالك فاعطه والطالب منك لا تمنعه . وهنه واشباهها مما لم اذكر فى هذا الكتاب ولتوكلى والجاءى نغسى الى الذى افال لا تهتموا ما الذى تقولون فقد تعطون عند الحاجة ما اياه تنطقون.

5 Error, هى التى 2 Graf: read, رأيه H Graf: read الدنبباوى Graf: read ٥, انزال 16 S وقلة 5 S, ذكرة 4 S, .افتحارهم not افتخارهم :in Graf

of his worldly livelihood has no possibility to express his opinion or demonstrate signs of his intellect in his unjust [situation]. In his endeavor he should be on guard [to avoid] mistakes and blunders.

The third [dilemma] is that which tears away the passion [to speak] and impedes one from [taking up] this burden, the thing which puts the bridle and reins on my lips: Beware of the stupidity of the fools and the discord sown by ignorant people among them, and their presumption, pride and conceit coming from their power and might. For one is not safe in their company from becoming entangled in that from which there is no deliverance nor release, except by the aid of God and His protection.

1. Consequently, confusion reigns in my mind and the supports strengthening me have collapsed and I have lost the way. I am at my wit’s end, babbling, and deliberating with myself about advancing upon this [path], and afraid of what I will mention or omit. But the worst and the most distressing is my fear and my dread of the shame and disgrace which is flung upon me, because I am weak and I am afraid of speaking in haste. And so I hide the truth, and do not make an effort to make it known.

Yet the argument compels me to write this, and my survey is only an insignificant [example] of what our Lord, the Messiah, exalted is His praise! referred to when He instructed His disciples in His book^[1] and encouraged them when He said: “Do not be afraid of the one who has the power to kill the body, but does not have the power to kill the soul. Rather, fear and beware of the one who has the power to hurl the soul and the body into the fire of Hell, which is never extinguished, and has no end to its torment.”^[2] And He also said in the Gospel: “If someone asks of you, then give to him, and if someone seeks something from you, then do not withhold it from him.”^[3]

With this in mind (and other similar [commands of Jesus] which I have not mentioned in this book), and because you have charged me, I myself take refuge in what He said: “Do not have doubts about what you will say, for you will be given according to the need to articulate it clearly.”^[4] And so, I set out on thejourney to comply

طئت ٠٠        خد ٠٠ حائك لاعا        ٠ اخلان        ادفا        لما اذ

وطئت نغسى        على 'فضى حاجتك والاجتهاد        فى اعلان        وايضاح        لما اذعى

على الغريقين من امر دينهما ليكون ملزماً لكل ذى حق حقه وباطل باطله .

2. واول ذلك        من هاهنا.        قال اهل التيمن ان        الحجة فى        ايدينا والبرهان فى

,فولنا. لانكم        وافقتمونا وشهدتم على ما فى        ايدينا بانه        حق من        حيث لم

تنكروا علينا وصفنا ان الله واحد لم يزل ولا يزال حئ عالم بصير سمع لا شريك له فى جوهريته ولا فى ملكه. وهو الاول والاخر خالق ما يرى وما لا يرى غنى كامل ذاته لا يصفه الواصفون معتلى عن النقص والعجز غير موصوف بالتبعيض ولا بالتجرى مالك فوى فاعل لما يريد لا يرى ولا يحس ولا يدرك ولا يحد وسع كل شىء علما. فالدليل الواضح ان فولنا هو الحق ١٠٠٠١ هع الصدان . ا.. غ٠هفعه . النط . داي1 ى٠ 8( وديننا هو الصواب ومن اتع غيره فهو من الخلسرين باقراركم وتصديقكم لفلذاًفما صغذاًاللهده ٠٠ صفته        فاماادءاىه2 صغك*الله

لقولنا فيما وصفنا الله به من حق صفته . فاما ادعاؤكم ووصفكم الله مع - حد2سثفدذلكمالد٠ئالاذا حلحدنلههدن توحده بالتثليث فليس ذلك مما يلزمنا لانا به جاحدون وله منكرون .

يقل لهم عند ذلك ايها القوم انما دعانا الى محاورتكم ٠ وهيخ ما هيخ فى مذاخل'ذك*فما سننا سنك* حآ انتذصغهذاف الكلا        تفاصدنامنه^[5] [6]

مناظرتكم فيما بيننا وبينكم . رجاء ان تنصغونا فى الكلام وتغاصلونا منه مفاصلة الاخوة' المشتركين فى بضاعة يوارثوها عن ابيهم وكلهم فيها مشتركون ليس لبعضهم فيها شى، دون بعض . فنحن وانتم فى الكلام سوا . فان رأيتم ان لا تسرعوا فى 'فضاء تلزمونا به حتى تنظروا فيما يرد منا من

with your needs, and to attempt to illustrate and explain the claims of the two parties^[7] concerning the issue of their religion, so that the one who believes the truth is compelled to acknowledge what is true and the liar to admit his deception.

2. The first [issue] is the following. The People of the South say: “The evidence is in our possession and the proof is in our teaching. For you agree with us, and give witness to the truth of what we possess, in as much as you do not deny our description of God as one,^[8] always was and always will be, living, knowing, seeing, hearing, having no partner in His ousia or in His dominion. And He is the first and the last, Creator of what is seen and what is unseen, without want, perfect [in] His being, He is not described by those who [wish to] describe Him, [He is] exalted above diminishing and weakness, not described by division, nor by [having] an envoy, Ruler, powerful Doer of what He wishes, not seen, not sensed, not comprehended, not limited, comprehending everything [in His] knowledge. The obvious demonstration that our teaching is the truth and our religion is the correct one (and that the one who follows another [religion] is among those who are lost), is in your confession and your assent to our teaching in which we describe God by His true description. However, if your claim and your description of God is threeness, together with His oneness, then this is not [something] which is incumbent upon us, because we reject it and deny it.”

They should be answered in this way: Oh people! Verily we are called upon to a debate with you. Let us get down to^[9] our dispute about what stands between us. It is hoped that you will treat us justly in the discussion and that you will share with us just as common brothers share in the portion of goods they inherit from their father-all of them have a portion and some of them do not have something apart from the others. Then we and you will be equal in the discussion. If your are of the opinion that you need not hasten to impose a judgement on us until you have examined the answer

الجواب فيما سألتمونا لكى تكون 'فضيتكم علينا بعلم ومعرفة فافعلوا .

3. واما ادعاؤكم ان الحجة فى ايديكم والصواب والحق فى مقالتكم من حيث شهدنا لكم بان الله واحد مع سائر صفاته فلذلك يجب على اهل الحق الا يردوا صواباً ولا يجحدوه فى يد من كان . بل يقبلوه اشد ا لقبول مع جميل الثناء وحسن ا لقول على اهله . فان ذلك مما يزينهم ويشهد لهم بانهم ملتمسون الصواب جهدهم ومتخذون الحق بقدر الطاقة . واما امتعاضكم ~ا د ٠ الفأ ا دقع 23ده طك*الححة ا۵ ١لله صن

مما يلزمكم من القول او يقوم به عليكم الحجة ان الله يوصف مع حداذة24صث        ئاذك٠أذلكححدأ        فاظ        الا        دك عد

وحدا نية بالتثليث من        حيث انكرتم ذلك وحجدتموه        فاظن الامر        يلقى على

غير ما وصفتم ٠ لان ليس الذى ليبطل حجة قوم امتناع خصمائهم عن ,فبولها.

4. L سءل٠اان        ص ذلك صاً شافاً        d        اصا        لاسا ده

6 بل يجب علينا ان        نفحص عن ذلك فحصا شافيا        براى        اصيل        لا يميل به

هوى عن فضاء السبيل ٠ فان يكن ما ذكرناه من امر التثليث حقا فليقبل وان ص 26ا ٠ ظك        طلأفاًلط ال        لا27٠٠اا        ٠

ا لشىء على غير ذلك ووجد باطلا فالرياح اولى به ولا 'فسر على احد فى قبوله.

ائ ,ن كح د ٠ مقالتك28 ٦١ الله ,حد فها ,دعد ٠ا مع اننا وان كنا وافقناكم فى مقالتكم بان الله واحد فما ابعد ما بين القولين فيما تظنوا ونصف . وا لشاهد على ما ذكرت مخالفة صغتهم ل٠فدئلذاىم29شذ^ك اح٠تسذاءلكم٠ لوحدا نيته صغتنا اياه . لو قد سألناكم عن ذلك واجبتمونا على كم نحو يوصف ا لواحد واحداً فاذا انبأتمونا ذلك علمنا انكم صادقون فيما ادعيتم من اثا شهدنا لكم على ما وصفتم. وان الغيتم غير عالمين على كم نحو يوصف الواحد واحد فادعاؤكم بانا شهدنا لكم ذلك مدحوض .

is لإ-        S 25 وحدس S 6ئ انيجب لنا PS 27 الغى Somits 28 على S

omits 29 فى مقالتهاً* S 30 لوحدانية Graf: read واحدا

we give to what you ask, so that your case against us made with knowledge and information, then do that.

3. As for your claim that the evidence is in your possession and that which is correct and true is in your teaching (in particular, that we also bear witness to you that God is one together with His remaining attributes), it is necessary that the People of Truth^[10] do not refuse what is correct, nor reject it, no matter who may possess it. Rather, they should wholeheartedly accept it with beautiful praise and excellent words for those people [who have it in their possession]. For this is what puts them in a favorable light, and bears witness that they are among those who seek what is correct in their endeavor, and adopt the truth, insofar as possible. And as for your indignation at what is enjoined upon you by [our] teaching or the evidence of it established against you ([namely,] that God is described along with His oneness by threeness), although you deny this and reject it, I think that the issue will be found to be different from what you describe. For the one who simply declares unshakable evidence invalid has not hindered his opponents from accepting it.

4. Rather, it is necessary for us to seek information about [the questions], examining and investigating with genuine regard, and not be prejudiced by an inclination to turn from the open path. If it is the case that what we have said concerning the matter of the Trinity is true, then it should be accepted; and if the thing is otherwise, and found to be false, then the winds are more deserving of it,^[11] and it cannot be forced upon anyone in his heart.

Nevertheless, even if we reach an agreement with you on your teaching, that God is one, what a great distance lies between the two statements in what you think and what we describe! And the confirmation of what I say lies in the difference between your^[12] description of His oneness and our description of it. If we ask you about this, and you answer us according to how many ways “one” can be described as one, when you explain it to us, we shall know that you are confirming what you claim, namely, that we bear witness to you of what you describe. But if you are discovered to be unlearned in how many ways “one” is described as one, then your demand that we bear witness to you in this is unjustified.

5. فهل تقولون ان ا لواحد يقال الا على ثلثة اوجه اما فى الجنس واما فى النوع واما فى العدد . ما اخال بدعته ذو اللب منكم . لانا انما نناجى ذوى ا لعقول والاراء منكم الراسخين فى العلم الداخلين الامور لا ا لمسيحيين الذين اذا وردت عليهم مسلة غامضة بلطف عجزوا عن الاجابة فيها ولم ٠>.٠ر٠ ان ق سحان الله نعدسحان الله ٠٠ تنف ^[13]الدنا يكن لهم من جواب غير سبحان الله نعم سبحان الله حتى تنضرم الدنيا وما دامت الاخرة' فمن يعجز عن مثل هذا الجواب .

فلنرجع الى ما ذكرنا ما رأيتم . اتجيبون انتم واكون من السامعين او تقلدونى ذلكاحكهمفا٠ طدش٠طلاافلماكان ٠        32

ذلك واحكيه عنكم . فانى مرطد نغسى على الانصاف لما كان من الجواب . وان احكى عنكم بصدق ان قلدت ذلك فاختاروا لانفسكم من تروه انه لكم . ولا امترى انكم تأبون تقليدى ذلك لان من كان مخالغكم فى الملة كان كلامه لديكم غير مقبول . فاذا أبيتم ذلك فقد لزمكم الجواب .

6. فعلى اى وجه تصفون ان الله واحد من هنه الوجوه ا لذى ذكرناها فى ٠ذلك,الحىل 33,اك۶ا,العدفا.فك,الد

موضع ذلك فى الجنس لو فى النوع او فى العد . فاى قلتم فى الجنس فصار واحداً عاما لانواع شتى مختلفة لا يجوز فى صفة الله . وان 'فلتم واحدا فى العدد كان ذلك نقضاً لكلامكم ان ليس كمثله شى . لانى لا اشك ان كل احد3ملسئا ء ذغسهىمشلدقد الشل انه احدى كمن واحد منكم لو سئل عن نفه كم هو لم يقدر ان يقول انه واحد فرد . كيف

5. Do you say that “one” may only be spoken of in three ways: either as genus, or as species, or as number?^[14] No one among you who is reasonable will regard this as an innovation.^[15] For we only engage those among you who are intelligent and judicious, firmly grounded in knowledge [and interested in] penetrating the issues, not with such Christians who, when faced with the subtlety of a difficult question, are incapable of a response to it, and no answer comes to them other than “God be praised! Yes, God be praised until the world is set on fire and as long as the Hereafter endures!” Rather, [we wish to discuss the issues] with someone who is incapable of an answer like this.

Now we return to your opinion^[16] which we mentioned [above]. Do you [wish] to answer yourselves, and that I [sit] among the listeners, or do you wish to force [your opinion] on me, and that I mimic it according to [your desire]? I myself will respond justly to what is to be answered. But if I am only to mimic you, while in truth I am forced into it, then choose for yourselves someone of your own opinion. I do not doubt that you would refuse if I forced this [on you], because the word of someone who is your opponent in religion is unacceptable to you. But if you refuse [to let me speak freely], then it is incumbent upon you to give the answer.

6. [Which] of the ways that we have mentioned in the [above] descriptions (in genus, or in species, or in number) is the way you actually describe God? If you say in genus, then [God] becomes a common one, encompassing various different species;^[17] this is not permitted in a description of God. And if you say [God is] one in number, then this is a contradiction of your statement that nothing is like [God].^[18] Now, I do not doubt that if each one of you were to ask himself, how many is he, [he] could only say that he is a single

يقبل عقولكم هنه العفة التى لا يفضل الهكم من سائرخلقه.

وكيف زعمتم انه ليس كمثله شى، ولا يعفه الولعفون . واى صفة اعظم صغدادا مالعدد .نعف ^[19] .اابام٠. القصان اما من هنه او تشابه مع وصفكم اياه بالعدد تصفوه بالتبعيض والنقصان . اما تعدن^{[20] [21] [22]}اناللحدالغ٠        ٠        |لعل ط        العد        لان كمال        العد٠        ما

تعلمون ان الولحد الغرد        فى        العدد بعض        العدد        . لان كمال        العدد        ما        عم

الع.ددفالا        ٠        العل٠ ٠ا        ٠٠٠٠        ا^37ا٠        ٠        38

جمبع ا نواع العدد فالواحد        بعض العدد وهذا        نقض        الكلام انه كامل        غير

متجزى .

7. فان 'فلتم انه واحد فى النوع فالنوع ذوات شتى لا واحد فرد وان كان فى ا لجوهر واحداً . وجب علينا ان نسئلكم هل تخالف صفة ا لواحد فى النوع عندن ٠٠٠الاحد٠ الد انماه4 تعندن اط اكء احدا الد عندكم صفة الواحد فى العدد وانما تعنون واحدا فى النوع واحد فى العدد

ئ۵ قكم ا٠ .فد ٠ذخالف هد4 ٠ذلك ٠فلا فحد الاحد ٠ اك۶ عند اًها . فان قلتم انه 'فد تخالف هنه تلك قلنا فحد الواحد فى النوع عند اهل الحكمة اسم يعم عددا شتى وحد الواحد فى العدد عندهم ما لم يعم غير

نفسه -

اضف نا٠ص ان الله احدلى اب سم 42النىص شذ ا انماتصذنه ا فمقرون انتم ان الله واحد فى ا لجوهر يعم اشخاص شتى ام انما تصفونه شخساً واحدا. فان كان معنى قولكم بانه واحد فى النوع واحد فى العدد ولم تفرقوا ا لواحد فى النوع ما هو وكيف هو ورجعتم الى كلامكم الاول بانه

واحد فى العدد فهنه صفة المخلوقين كما وصفنا فى موضع ذلك.

8. فان قلتم فهل تقدرون الا تصفون الله واحد فى العلد بعض وليس

ك٠ا ظك٠ ٠ ٠ 43 ا44        ا٠        لا٠ا٠لا٠٠

بكامل يقال لكم قد نصغه واحد كاملا فى ا لجوهر لا فى العدد لانه فى

[individual] one.)7 How can your intellects accept this description which does not distinguish your God from the remainder of His creation?

And how do you assert that nothing is like [God], and that those who [wish to] describe [Him] do not describe Him? Which description is the best of these or is similar to your description? For by number you describe Him with division and imperfections. Do you not know that the [numerical] one is a single [number which is] a part of a number? For the perfection of number is what encompasses all species of number, so “one” is a part of a number, and this contradicts the statement that He is perfect without being divided into parts.

7. Now if you say that He is one in species, “species” is [comprised of] different beings, not one single [being], even if [they] are one in ousia.18 It is necessary for us to ask you: according to you, is the description “one in species” different [from] the description “one in number”? Truly, you mean “one in species” [in the sense of] “one in number”. For if you say that they are different, we shall say: according to the People of Wisdom^{[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]} the term “one in species” is a name encompassing various numbers,2٥ and the term “one in number” according to them, is what does not encompass [something] other than itself.

Do you confess that God is one in ousia encompassing various individuals, or do you only describe one individual? If the meaning of your teaching is that “one in species” is “one in number”, and you do not define what “one in species” is and how it is, then you return to your first statement, that [God] is “one in number”. However, this is a description of creatures, just as we explained it [previously].

8. If you say, “How are you able to describe God as ‘one in number’ neither [as] a part, nor as a perfect [whole]?” It should be said to you: We describe Him as one perfect in ousia, not in num-

العدد اى فى الاقانيم ثلثة . فقد كملت صفته فى الوجهين جميعا . اما وصفنا ادا احدان الحد ^[30]د حدئقه دتههحبسةكاذتا اياه واحدا فى ا لجوهر فلاعتلائه عن جمع خلقه ودريته محسوسة كانت ام

ليس على ما وصفتموه . فهذا فى بدء كلامنا هكذا .

9. واما ما وصفتم من ان الله حئ عالم سميع بصير وظننتم اثا وافقناكم فى ذلك وشهدما لكم يالصدق فلننتظر جميعاً فى هنه الصفات من حئ ويصير وعالم فى اسماء مفرحة' مرسلة ام اسماء مضافة تدل على اضافة شىء الى شىء. وقد يجب علينا ان ننظر ما الاسماء المضافة وما المرسلة المفرحة' .

فالمرسلة كقول القائل ارض وسماء ونار وكلما كان مما قيل شبيهاً يما لا يضاف الى غيره ٠ واما الاسماء المضافة المنسوبة الى غيرها فكالعالم

ber, because He is in number (that is, in hypostaseis) three. [This] description of Him is perfect in both ways: When we describe Him as one in ousia, then He is exalted above all His creatures, be it His perceptible or His intellectually comprehensible creationnothing is comparable to Him, nothing is mixed with Him, He is simple, without density, incorporeal, His ousia approaches everything closely without blending or mixing.^[31]

And [we describe Him] in number because He encompasses all of the species of number. For number can only be counted in two species: even and odd.^[32] These two types are included in the three hypostaseis. In whatever manner we describe Him, nothing is equivalent to His perfect description. So you know: we describe God as one, [but] not as you describe Him. This is the beginning of our statement on this.

9. As for your description of God as living, knowing, hearing, and seeing, and your presumption that we agree with you in this and witness to what is correct [in your view], we wish to examine everything closely concerning these descriptions of living and seeing and knowing. [Are they]^[33] single, absolute names, or predicative names,^[34] indicating the predication of one thing to another thing? It is necessary for us to examine which are the predicative names, and which are the single, absolute [names].

The absolute [names] are those such as when one says “earth”, and “heaven”, and “fire”, and anything similar of which it can be said that is not predicated of another thing.^[35] As for the predica-

والعلم والبصير والمبصر والحكيم والحكمة وما اشبه ذلك . فالعالم عالم .لعلم والعلم علم عالم . والحكيم حكيم .لحكمة والحكمة حكمة حكيم . وهذا القول فيما كان كثير لما وصفنا لكيلا يخرج بنا اتساع الكلام الى الكثرة' فيضطر السامعون الى ملله ولستثقاله .

10. فاذ بيئا ما الاسماء ا لمغردة' وما ا لمضافة ا لمنسوبة الى غيرها وجب ان نسئلكم عن الموصوف بهنه الصفات اللازمة هل هى لجوهره فى ازليته ام انما اكتسبها الكتسابا واستوجب الوصف فيها من بعد كما استبوجب ان

صف له خلا لأحث خد- ٦ساقماكاذك٠٠الاسما يوصف له خلق وبرية حيث خلق وبرى وسائر ما لم اذكر من الاسماء سمى بها صفات ووصف وحكى بها لافتعاله لها .

فان 'فلتم فيما وصفتموه به من حى وعالم وحكيم انه انما اشتقت له استقاقاً واستوجبها كما استوجب جمع ما سمى به من اكمل فعله لها فاذ قد يوصف انه فد كان ولا خلق له ولا برية حتى اتى على ذلك بالفعل هكذا فليحر انا ان يقال 'فد كان الله ولا حياة' له ولا علم ولا حكمة حتى صارت الحياة' وا لعلم والحلمة لديه موجودة' . وهذا مخالف من الكلام ان يكون الله سبحانه خلوا طرفة عين من حياة' وعلم ■

11. وان 'فلتم الامر غير ما ظننتم ووصفتم لنا ما لزمكم من الشنعة ياته •فد دصفطنللهئ٠قة ةذ٠اانتغاآ ساًمغعايالغطذلئااذماهما قدويصف بان للاخليقة وبرية قبل ان تفارق شيامنها بالفعال قلنا انما هما وجهان اما ان يكون الله جل وعلا وحده لم يزل وما سواه محدثاً . واما ان ^[36]

tive names, [they] are related to something else, just as “knower” and “knowledge” [are related to each other], “seer” and “seeing”, “wise” and “wisdom”, and anything similar to this.^[37] So the knower is knowing through knowledge, and the knowledge is knowledge of a knower. And the wise person is wise through wisdom, and the wisdom is wisdom of a wise person. This teaching pertains to much of what we have [already] described. We shall leave it [here] so that we do not draw the discussion out too much, and do not compel the listeners to boredom and place a burden on them.

10. When we have clarified what are the single [absolute] names and what are the predicative [names which are] related to something else, it is then necessary that we ask you about what is described by these descriptions of inherent properties: Do they belong to [God’s] ousia eternally, or did He acquire them and merit the description only later, just as He merited being described by creation and creatures when He created and brought forth, [as well as] the rest of the names referring to attributes^[38] which I do not mention [here]? And is He described by and spoken of with them because He causes them?

If you are saying that [those terms] by which you describe Him, [such as] living and knowing and wise, are on the contrary derived from Him, and that He merited them just as He merited everything by which He is named [after] He completed it by His act, as when He is described as having existed and having had no creation and no creatures until He came to this by the act [of creation], it should be allowed as a consequence to say in the same way that God existed and had no life, no knowledge and no wisdom until the attributes of life and knowledge and wisdom began to exist in Him. And it is a contradictory statement [to say] that God, may He be praised! was for [even] a blink of an eye, lacking life and knowledge.

11. And if you say: “The issue is not what you think and what you have described to us, [because what you say] would be ugly, for God would be described as having a creation and creatures before He distinguished any of them by the acts [of creation],” then we say: There are two possibilities: Either God, the Exalted and Most

.عهدا ان^[39] اللةا,٠لةافاًغ٠ محدثة فلا نحذ الاتفه ؤط يزعموا ان البرية ازلية ايضا غير محدثة فلا نحسبكم الا تقمين على من وصف ا لخلق بشى-ء من ذلك . فاذا لا محالة قد يقال ان الله له ا لحمد قد

كان من قبل ان يكون شىء من الخلائق موجودا . فكيف جاز ان توصف لله خلقةةلظتل،56عل" اد ادقت الد فه شا ان خليقة وبرية ولم بخلق ولم يبرى بعد حتى ا تى الوقت الذى فيه شاء ان يخلزماخلق.

12. الا ان تقولوا من اجل انه قادر ان يخلق اذا اراد فقد وجب ان توصف له خليقة قبل ان يخلق. فنقول ان كان من اجل انه قادر على ان يخلق اذا اراد يوصف له خلق لم يزل فليوصف اذا انه لم يزل قد اقام القيامة واحيا الموتى وبعث من فى القبور وقد ادخل الجنة جمع الابرار وخلد جهتم من كان لذلك مستوجباً .

مع انى لا اظن ان لحدا من اهل العقل يقبل هنه الصفة . فان رجعتم الى الحت الص٠ها دكرس58 فط لا .نضدن ده ٠فكان ها.٠ الحق والصواب وتركتم المراى فيما لا تنتفعون به وقلتم ان هاتين الصفتين لمختلغتان صفة ظباعية لم يزل موصوفاً بها لازمة به وصفة اكتسبها له اكتساباً وهى صفة فعله رجعنا الى مسألتنا الاولى .

13. نسئلكم اذا رايتم هنه الاسماء التى يسمى يمها هل هى دالة ءلىاسماًء مفرحة' . وقد فسرنا الاسماء المفرحة' فى صدر هذا الكتاب حيث وصفنا ان المفرحة' هى كقول القائل ارض وسماء او ا نسان او فرس وما اشبه ذلك. واما المأسورة' المنسوبة المضافة الى غيرها كحى وعالم وحكيم. فان كان الله لم يزل حيا عالما فالحياة' والعلم اذا ازلية.

High, [Who] alone has never ceased to exist and has no equal, is originated. Or, you^[40] are asserting that creatures are eternal also, and are not originated. We do not consider you to be among the unfortunate who describe creation by something such as this. If it most certainly can be said that God, may He be praised!, existed before anything created, then how is it possible that creation and creatures be attributed to God, but that He did not create and did not bring forth until after the time came in which He wanted to create what He created?

12. But if you say: “On account of the fact that He possesses the power to create when He wants,^[41] it is necessary that creation be attributed to Him before He created”, then we say: If therefore, creation is attributed to Him on account of the fact that He possesses the power to create when He wants, then it must [also] be attributed to Him that He has not ceased resurrecting, bringing the dead back to life, and calling [the dead] forth from the tombs, and that He [has not ceased] leading all of the righteous into the Garden, and making Hell eternal for the ones who are deserving. Now, I do not think that anyone of the People of Knowledge accepts this [understanding of] the attribute.

If you return to the truth and that which is correct, relinquishing an argument from which you have nothing to gain, and you say that these two attributes are different (a natural attribute does not cease [to exist] and describes an inherent property in [God], and an acquired attribute, which He has acquired, is an attribute of [God’s] operation), [then] we return to our first question.

13. We ask you: Are you of the opinion that these names by which [God] is named indicate single [absolute] names? We have already explained the single [absolute] names in the first part of this book when we described the single [absolute names] are similar to when a speaker says: “earth” and “heaven”, or “a human being” or “horse” and the like. On the other hand, the construct [names which are] connected and related to something else, are [those] like “living”, and “knowing”, and “wise”. If God has not ceased to be living and knowing, then [His] life and knowledge are eternal.

ا۵ كان ,لا ط ها صفنا فلآ محالةو5 ,ن تدن هد..        . ا٠

وان كان الامر على ما وصفنا فلا محالة من ان تكون هنه المنسوبة اليه الحياة' اعنى والعلم اما غيره كما ينسب الشريك الى الشريك واما منه . فمنه ايضا على وجهين اما فعل فعل منه فقد نفينا عنه هنه الصفة ولزمها من المشنعة ما لزمها فى موضع ذكرها واما ما تكون من جوهره . وان كانت ايضاً من جوهره فذلك على وجهين ٠ اما كاملة من كامل واما ابعاصن من كامل ٠ فاما الابعلض فلا يجوز فى صفة الله لانه معلى عن ذلك . فاذا لا محالة انها كاملة من كامل .

14. فاذ كان هذا هكذا فلا بذ من ان توصف اما مغترقة متباينة لا اتصال لها واما متصلة مأسورة' لا تباين لها واما ماسورة' مغترقة جميعاً معاً. فان قالوا انها مغترقة غير متصلة فقد وصفوا ان الله محدود لانه لا سبيل ان يكون شىء واحد بعضه مغارق مباين البعض الا وهو خارج من غير جوهره فقد حجز بين بعضه وبين بعضه. وهذا نقض لما وصفوا فى صدر هذا الكتاب ان الله غير محددلآ مدك٠62الددحده محدود ولا مدروك من الذى يحده.

ان'فالااذعاما ةمتصلة٠ دنطاالفذادضاًممادد ا63ال وان قالوا انها ماسورة' متصلة غير متباينة كان هذا القول ايضا مما يدعوا الى نقض قولهم بانها كاملة من كامل. لان هنه صفة ابعاض واجزاء لا صفة كامل. فاذ هدمت هاتان الصفتان اعتى التغريق وحده والاتصال وحده فلا *1 انالصه١ ٠ الصغةالثاًلثة ئ6متعذ مك-حمعاًساً شل ان الصو١بفى الصفة الثالثة بانها متصلةمغتر'فة جميعا معا.

15. فعند هذا القول يثبون الى الاخذ علينا بالطريق ويسئلونا كيف ك68٠ا ,ئ طن مك ئ W تعقدن ط- ٠ن ؤ        ذؤك

يكون امر واحد متصل* مغترقا. اما تعقلون ما تصفون. فنجيبهم عن ذلك ^{[42] [43] [44]}

And if the issue is as we have described, then most certainly these are related to Him, that is, life and knowledge, either as other than Himself, as [one] partner is related to [another] partner,^[45] or as from Him. “From Him” also has two aspects: either [the attributes are] an act He has done from Himself, but we have refuted this [description of ] the attribute, and this is an abominable thing (which was mentioned previously), or they are what is from His ousia. And further, if they are from His ousia, then this has two aspects. Either [they are] something perfect from something perfect, or [they are] parts from something perfect. However, if [they are] parts, this is not possible in a description of God, because He is above this. So they must certainly be something perfect from something perfect.

14. And if this is the case, then it is necessary that [the attributes of life, knowledge and wisdom] be described either as divided and dissimilar, having no continuity, or as continuous and connected, having no dissimilarity, or as connected and divided simultaneously. If they say that they are divided without being continuous, then they are describing God as limited, because it is not possible that part of a single thing is divided and separated from the other part, unless it is outside of its ousia, so that the two parts are isolated from each other. And this is a contradiction of what they have described in the first part of this book, [namely], that God is not limited, and not grasped by the one who [intends to] limit Him.

If they say that [the attributes of life, knowledge and wisdom] are connected and continuous without being dissimilar, this statement also belongs to what they claim contradicts their teaching that [the attributes] are something perfect from something perfect. Because this [would be] a description of parts and divided things, not a description of something perfect. Now, if these two [descriptions of] the attributes, that is “division alone” and “continuity alone”, are invalidated, then there is no doubt that the correct one of the three descriptions [of the attributes] is “continuous and divided simultaneously”.

15. With this statement, they will try to obstruct our way, and ask us: “How can a single thing^[46] be continuous and divided [simultaneously]? Do you not understand what you describe?” Then we must

بل اثا تعقل ما نصف . فلو كان وصفنا اياه بالاتصال والافتراق جميعاً بها فيها اى فى الوجه الذى نصغه به متصفاً ماسوراً بها ايضاً نصغه مبايناً مغارقاً كان لعمرى تلبسا علينا فى عقولنا . فاما اذ وجد الامر بخلاف ما ظننتم وا لغى على غير ما توهمته قلوبكم فانا نقذف بالقطن ونضرب بالساط من الصوف المنقوش ٠ فالواصل الينا من الم ٠ ضربتكم مثل الذى يصل من الربح 69

الساكنة الهادقء الى١لعالى من الصنوبر .

18. لانا انما وصفناه باتصال فى الجوهر وتباين فى الاشخاص اى القانيم. فان انكروا هنه الصفة الشتباهها عليهم وقالوا ان هنه الصفة شى مختلف لان من كان جوهره غير اقانيمه واقانيمه غيرجوهره لم يكن فى الصفة ولكن هختاغةقلح77٠ئلافعا صغذاً شلىا.فىهكماصف مختلغةغيرملاوم يقال لهمافهلوصغذاجوهرهغيراقاذيمهكما وصفتم.

فان قالوا بلا قد وصفتم ذلك حيث زعتم ان وجه اتفاقه غير وجه افتراقه ووجه افتراقه غير وجه اتفاقه يقال لهم ان الامر على غير ما تذهبون اليه. ا٠ما صغ٠ا متفت72 ز الحهه٠ هذات ز الا٠فا٠ ه٠ هع ا٠فى انما وصفنا انه متفق فى الجوهر مغارق فى الاقانيم وجوهره هو اقانيمه اقاذمهضحهههدتلةالىاسمثةؤ ت احد

واقانيمه هم جوهره بمنزلة اضواء ثلثة فى بيت واحد .

فلا يظنن منا احد ادا عنينا سرجا ثلثة بل عنينا اضواءها فان كان الله تبارك عن كل قياس متعالياً فالاضواء ثلثة . وواحد هى بعينها اما ثلثة فلان كل واحد

.1        ....        ا١-,^-,ا.... .,.ه74        .غ٠        . الاندا اد.

منها قائم بعينه ثابت بذاته وان كان ليس بينه وبين غيره من الاضواء حاجز

٠ الكان اها احد فسا حساً, اصه7        □ ذلك ائ احد

فى المكان واما واحد فلاتفاقها جميعا فى الضوية ٠ ودليل ذلك انها واحد

ثلثة فان كا احد ضعا' الا٠ ٠ ٠٠ ا ذا٠٠ لا76٠لا٠ خ تلك وثلثة فان كل واحد منها غير الاخر فى قوام ذاته ٠ لانه لو اخرج بعض تلك ^[47] [48]

answer them against this [accusation]: On the contrary, we have understood what we have described. If our description of [God] as continuous and divided simultaneously, [means] that according to the way by which we have described Him, He is continuous and connected, and we have [at the same time] also described Him as separated and divided, then by my life! there would be confusion in our understanding. However, if it is found that the issue is contrary to what you think, and the error is not what your hearts suspect, then we will throw cotton [around ourselves] and strike with whips of colored wool. For the one who joins us is one who will suffer. I will strike you like the one who takes himself from the calm tranquil breeze to the highest point of the pine tree.

18. For we only describe [God] by continuity in ousia, and by dissimilarity in the individuals, that is the hypostaseis. If they refuse this description because it is obscure to them, and say that this is contradictory because the one whose ousia is other than his hypostaseis,32 and whose hypostaseis are something other than his ousia cannot be described because it is contradictory and not appropriate, it should be said to them: Have we described [God’s] ousia as other than His hypostaseis as you have described?

If they say: “Nonetheless, you meant this when you assert that the manner of [God’s] unity is different from the manner of His division, and the manner of His division is different from the manner of His unity”, it should be said to them: The issue is not as you think it is. We only describe [God] as unified in ousia and divided in the hypostaseis, and [God’s] ousia is His hypostaseis, and His hypostaseis are His ousia, as with the placement of three lights in one house.

None of us thinks that we mean three lamps, rather, we mean their light, even though God, blessed is He, is above every analogy. For the lights are three and onethey are identical with each other. They are three because each one of them is self-subsistent and enduring in its being, even if there is no obstruction in the space between it and the other lights, and [they are] one, because they are all united in light. And the demonstration of this (that they are one and three [simultaneously]) is that each one of them is not the others in the proper state of its being. Because, were one of these lamps to be

32 Abu Ra tab has repeated this assertion using the plural اقانيم instead of the singular hypostasis, as would be expected.

ال ■التخىث٠٠عه”.فالط٠ئه٠ 78 السرجسالبيتخرجصوءهمعه منغير١نيبقىمذهشىء .

19. فان 'فالوا فهل يمكن ان تكون اضواء ثلثة من غير مصابيح ثلثة هكن 79 .نصدن الاقا. اد^؛ىعلذالا٠االغأ٠

وهكذى تصغون الاقانيم الثلثة ان لها معدنا كمعدن الاضواء الخارجة من المصابيح يقل لهم ان حلن ا لقياس عند اهل ا لرأى ما شبه فى تعض الوجوه فكان الغالب عليه الاختلاف. فلو ان القياس اشبه المقاس به فى كل انحائه ولم يخالغه فى شىء منها كان اذا هو الامر الملتمس له قياسا قائماً. فانما يشتق من القياس ما احتجج ١ليهلاما استفتى عنه ٠

فلو ان الله سبحانه اى الاقانيم نوراً وضوء محسوس لكان لعمرى كل واحد منها محتلجاً الى علته يخرج منها كحاجة الاضواء المحسوسة التى هى محتاجة الى المعادن . فاما اختصار وصفنا لاضواء معتلية عن الحواس العقا ساد نغط ال ان نصف لكا احد88 متعاضة دا احدهما والعقل جميعا لم نضطر الى ان نصف لكل واحد منها علة بل احدهما

81        82

علة الاثنين بلا بدى ولا زمان . والاثنين مضافان الى الواحد اضافة جوهرية طباعية . وهما كاملان من كامل كحوى وهاييل ا لذين هما من ادم كالان83        ى صاهشافانال , اذا٠٠٠ دة ٠٠ الا٠ا٠-

كاملان من كامل . وهما مضافان الى ادم اضافة جورية وهما فى الانسانية واحد ثلثة فى الاقانيم .

20. فجوهر اللاهوت ثلثة اقانيم ثلثة اقانيم جوهر اللاهوت جوهر. لان

مخالفة الجوهر الاقنوم الواحد كمخالغة شىء عام لبعض خواضة. لانه خالغه بكثرة' ضمه لا بالجوهر . فالانسان العام اى ا لناس لجمعون لم لأ        لده87ا٠ الافئ الادالكدة

يخالف موسى لهرون اى الاشخاص الا بضم الكثرة' ٠

واما فى الجوهر فواحد لان لموسى وحده ولهرون وحده جمع ما للناس احمم ٠ اط88 الكدة فدان ا ا ان د الاسان الا 89 لئ اجمعين غير الضم الكثرة'. فلو ان من اراد ان يحد الانسان العام لحق

77 P 78 مععه ضو S add. 79 او يلحقه من الباقيه شى Graf: read 80 هكذا P 81 واحدا Graf: read 82 بدء S 83 يضافان P 84 كاملين S omits 85 جوهر Graf: 86 الاقيوم P 87 لم خالف Graf: read 88 وهرون Graf: read 89 ضم Graf: علم

removed from the house, its light would be removed with it, and nothing of it would remain.

19. If they say: “Is it possible that the three lights exist apart from three lamps? In this way, you describe the three hypostaseis as having a source, like source of the lights of the lamps previously mentioned,” then it must be said to them: According to the ahl ar-ra]i,33 the analogy is limited to what is similar in one way, for the most part there is difference. If the analogy bears resemblance to what is compared in every manner, and there is no difference in any [part] of it, then there would be a question as to whether it is a sound analogy. Only what is necessary may be derived from the analogy, not what is not needed [to make an argument].

Now, if God, may He be praised! that is, the hypostaseis, were a luminous and perceptible light, then, by my life! each one of them would be in need of a cause from which it emerges, just as it is necessary that the perceptible lights have sources. [However,] when we briefly described the lights, which are above all of the senses and all knowledge, we are not compelled to describe each one of them as having a cause. Rather, one of them is the cause of the other two, without beginning and without time. And the two are related to the one in a substantial, natural relation. And both are something perfect from something perfect, just as Eve and Abel, who are from Adam, are something perfect from something perfect. And the two of them are related to Adam by a substantial relation. They are one in humanity, and three in hypostaseis.

20. The ousia of the Godhead is the three hypostaseis, and the three hypostaseis of the ousia of the Godhead are the ousia. For the difference between the ousia [and] the single hypostasis is like the difference between a whole thing and one of its properties, because its difference lies in the plurality of what it consists of, not in the ousia. So the whole of humanity (that is, all humans) is not differentiated, as Moses to Aaron (that is, the individuals), except it consists of a plurality.

As for the ousia, they are one, because Moses alone and Aaron alone have everything that human beings have collectively, except that they do not consist of a plurality. Now, if one wants to define

55 This is probably a general reference to the group of Islamic legal scholars who were known for their extensive use of reason and opinion.

حده ادعد90 ان دحدهطذهحطتما٠تلااداندحد هـن حده لم يعد ان يحده بانه حى منطيق مائت . ولو اراد ان يحد موسى وهرون وحدهما ايضا لم يعد ما حد به الانسان العام لانه حى منطيق مائت .

21. وان 'فالوا فاذ صارت هنه الا'فاذيم الثلثة لديكم فى الجوهر فليوصف كل واحد منها بصفة خاصة الاخرى والدا او مولودا او خارجاً حتى لا يخالف بعضها بعضا ٠ يقال لهم لعمرى لو لم يكن لكل واحد منها 'فنوم كامل مباين للاخر بخاصية لكان يصير كل واحد منها كما وصفتم. فاما اذ قد صار كل واحد منها 'فنوماً كامداً معتقداً بخاصيته التى بها يخالف الاخر لم يلزم كل واحد منها بصفة الاخر فى الخاصة بل كل واحد منها يعرف بخاصيته الاب دادتهالا،ئ٠9تهال٠ دخحه٠الان

بابويته والابن ببنوته والروح بخروجه من الاب ■

ل اخلاق - امعا م م ض 92مختلفاً كاد هاسا ح وليس اختلاف خواصها بالذى يصير جوهره مختلفا كادم وهابيل وحوى الز        احد لا اختلاف ٠        لا ق ائ 93 ا        ٠٠,٠٠٠٠

الذين هم جوهر واحد لا اختلاف فيه . لان كلا انسان . وليس صفة خاصة احدى        ٠-خا        ٠٠الا٠        لان,        الالا لا هادا        لالا الا 94

احدهما صفة خاصة الاخر لان ادم والد لا ولد وهابيل ولد لا وا لد وحوى أ        ا لا        الا لا        لا ل٠        كا احدمىخا        „ 95اك صالف

خارجة من ادم لا والد ولا ولد . لزم كل واحد منهم خاصته التى بها يخالف للا٠ ' اندكهنالحه        هخف96كماذىذا اد هاف ,

للاخر من غير ان يكون ا لجوهر مختلف كما ذكرنا ٠ وادم وهابيل وحوى

الاى الا. العد نعد ها دمك- المحسه        ١لد 97 ان

سر الاب والابن وروح القدس بقدر ما يمكن المحسوس المبصر ان يكون سراً لما ليس بمحسوس ولا مبصر .

22. فان 'فالوا فاذ كانت الاقانيم الثلثة الموصوفة منكم الاهاً على ما ذكرتم

من امر ادم وهابيل وحوى فما الحائل بينكم وبين ان تصفوها الهة ثلثة كما فد يوصف ادم وهابيل وحوى اناسا ثلثة. يقال لهم انه انما جاز ان يوصف ا هاف        اناساثلثة لط 98احدص الاختلا' ها لا ما

ادم وهابيل وحوى اناسا ثلثة لحل ما يوجد بينهم من الاختلاف ما لا سبيل ان يوجد مثله فى هنه الثلثة اقانيم البتة.

انسان 93 S جوهرها 92 S والا 91 P يحد P ه9 بحال8 98 البصر 97 P محتلفاً

the whole of humanity by its true definition, he would not hesitate to define it as living, having the faculty of speech, and mortal. If he also wishes to define Moses and Aaron individually, he would not hesitate to define each by what he had defined the whole of humanity, because each is [also] living, having the faculty of speech, mortal.

21. If they say: “If these three hypostaseis, according to you, occur in the ousia, then each one of them is described by a proper attribute of [one of] the others: begetter, or begotten, or processing, so that there is no difference between one and the other,” they should be answered: By my life! If each one of them were not a perfect hypostasis, particularized from the others by a property, then each one of them would exist just as you have described. However, when each one of them exists as a perfect hypostasis, bound by its property which differentiates it from the others, then none of them are required to take on the attribute of the other as a property. Rather, each one of them is recognized by its own property: the Father by His Fatherhood, and the Son by His Sonship, and the Spirit by His Procession from the Father.

And the difference of their properties is not something which makes its ousia different, like Adam and Abel and Eve, whose ousia is one with no difference in it, because all of them are human beings. The description of the property of one of them is not the description of the property of the other, because Adam is the begetter and not the begotten, and Abel is the begotten and not the begetter, and Eve is the one who proceeds from Adam, [she is] not the begetter or the begotten. Each one of these is inseparable from that which differentiates it from the other, yet the ousia is not different, as we have explained. And Adam and Abel and Eve are a mysterion for the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to the extent that it is possible for what is perceptible and visible to be a mysterion for that which is neither perceptible, nor visible.

22. If they say: “If the three hypostaseis described by you as divine have the same relationship to each other according to your account as Adam and Abel and Eve, then what obstacle stands between you and describing them as three gods, just as Adam and Abel and Eve are described as three human beings?”, then they should be answered: It is only permitted to describe Adam and Abel and Eve as three human beings on account of the difference which exists between them. It is absolutely not possible that [a difference] like [this] exists in these three [divine] hypostaseis.

فانفالاهاذلكالاخلافدغاة , ها| ح ع99 دشاً ٠ فان فالوا ما ذلك الاختلاف يغارق ادم وهابيل وحوى بعضهم بعضا من غير ان يوجد فى هنه الاقانيم الموصوفة منكم الاها مثله . بينونا به لنعرفه . يقال لهم انا مبينوكم اذا سالتمونا ذلك . فاول اختلافهم ان منهم اولأ واخرا . دعضع٦ا.فد ٠خلالكهنلاذصمكه٠نلا٦مذةهخلغة بعضهم اقدم من بعض فى الكون لانهم مكونون فى ازمنة مختلفة واحايين متقدمة ومتاخرة' .

ثم انهم مختاجون الى اماكن متباينة شاملة لزرع اجسادهم وقد يختلفون فى الفخ٠ العمة لا٠ ل_ا ا2ه1ف الفخ٠ طعمة فقد٠١ادان القوة' والهمة . لانهم ليسوا سوا فى القوة' والهمة ٠ فقد زادوا فى الاحتلاف فضداً على ما ذكرنا مخالفة كل واحد منهم نفه حتى لا يكاد يوجد طرفة عين ولا لمحة بصر لنفه مسالما . فلهذا واشباهه وصف ادم وزوجته وابذهاذاساًثلثة.

23. فاما المتفق فى جميع اموره المتسق فى جميع حالاته من القبلية وا لبعدية بل كل اول واحد وقبل وبعد اعلى حاجة المكان لروحانيته و لطف

لا اختلاف ٠-٠لا٠ط0ا ٠        ^[49] [50] لا ٠ افعاله

جوهره من لا اختلاف فى قوته ولا تشئت فى مشيته        ولا فى افعاله

جوهر واحد كيف يجوز فى الذى حاله هكذا ان يوضف بالاله الثلثة . فلو ان حال ادم وزوجته وابنه كانت متفقة فى جمبع امورها لم يختلفوا فى وجه من ا لوجوه جاز ا لقول فيهم ا نهم ا نسان واحد ٠ لكن علة تسميتهم ا ناسا ثلثة الذى لحقهم من الاحتلاف كما ذكرنا .

24. فان قالو كيف يجوز ان تصفوا الله بهنه اصفة من الاتصال والافتراق

جميعا . فهل يكون الاتصال الا وقد سبقه افتراق اوافتراق الا وقد تقدمه اتصال يقال لهم انكم لو لطفتم النظر فيما ورد عليكم من وصفنا الله من اتصا        1°5l^L^i|ذلك ى سع-

اتصال وافتراق جميعا معا اعظمكم ذلك وكثر له تعجبكم .

If they say: “What is this difference which separates Adam and Abel and Eve from each other, of which nothing like it exists in these hypostaseis you described as divine? Clarify it for us, so that we can know it”, then they should be answered: We shall clarify it for you, since you have asked us this. Their first difference is that they have a beginning and an end. Some of them are older than the others in existence, because they became beings at different times, and lived earlier and later [than the others].

Further, they require completely separate places, so that their bodies can grow. And they are different in power and in ambition, because they are not equal in power and ambition. They are endowed with difference in even more than what we have mentioned: the difference of each one of them within himself, so that there is scarcely blink of an eye, or a moment [when] he is peaceful. For this and similar [reasons], Adam and his wife and his son are described as three human beings.

23. As for the One Who is in agreement^[51] in all of His affairs, Who is harmonious in all of His states, [both] earlier and later, but utterly first [and] only, before and after, above the need of a place on account of He being spirit and the immateriality of His ousia, without difference in His power and without variation in His will, nor in His operations: one ousia. How is it possible to describe one whose state is this as three gods? If it were the state of Adam and his wife and his son to be in agreement in all affairs, without difference in a single aspect, [then] it would be necessary to say of them that they are one human being. However, the cause for their being identified as three human beings, which is because of the reality of their difference, is as we have explained.

24. If they say: “How is it possible that you describe God with these attributes of continuity and division simultaneously? Is it not the case that continuity is anticipated by a division, or a division is preceded by continuity?” it must be said to them: If you would be so kind as to examine what is presented to you about how we describe God with continuity and division simultaneously, you would regard this as of great importance, and your astonishment would increase.

فانكم ٠فد تجدون فى .يعض صفات الجسوم وغيرها ان انتم الطفتم النظر وناصحتم انفسكم شبيهاً بما وصفنا الله به وان كان عن القياس الاشباه متعالياً . فالواجب على من كان لنفه مناصحا ولها محتاطاً وعليها شفيقاً الا محئدطهلغضهسقتال'فله ءداالىلحعلهدهداً يدفع حقا ورد عليه لبفضة سبقت الى قلبه من اعداء النعم ولجهله به بل يعمل رؤيته ويجيد فكرته ويجهد نقه فيما فى التماسه وقبوله الاعتصام به .

25. فما عساكم ان تقولوا فى ا لتفس وا لعقل وا لنطق. أمتصلة هى ام

مغترقة ام لها كلا الصفتين اعنى اتصالأ وافتراقا ٠ فهل كانت النفس قط مباينة للعقل والنطق او بعض هذين لها ثم اتصلت من بعد . اواليس انما ا٠٠أا ئا8°1        ا ل انشاما دم انى الا,

اتصالها وتباينها جميعه مع اول انشائها لم يتقدم احدها الاخر .

فان الد 109 ن ما صفنا ا اتصال الد دعقلعا نطقعا افداقعا فان ١لشىء على ما وصفنا من امر اتصال النفس بعقلها ونطقها وافتراقها ممن عسى ان يتدبر ذلك غير مقع له ولا كاف للطفه وجب علينا ان نتبعه بقياس منشرح واضح .

26. اخبرونا عن ا لشمس وضوءها وحرارتها أمتصلة هى بعضها ببعض لم متباينة غير متصلة. ام لها كلا الصفتين جميعا انصالأ اعنى وافتراقا فهل تقدم اتصالها افتراقها او افتراقها اتصالها . ام لها كلا الحالين جميعاً فى اصل تكوينها كما وصفنا . وماذا تقولون فى ا لخمس ا لحولس ا لجدا نية أمتصلة هى ماسورة' فى ا لجد بعضها ببعض ام مغترقة متباينة لا أسر لها . ام لها الامران جميعاً فلا ريب فى مسألتكم ايانا على ما استنار من بيان حجتنا وضياء برهاننا .

الغى 09 PSا وتبايفها °8 S!        فيما 107 S ما °6 Sadds!

Now, if you are so kind as to examine [the issue], and you are honest with yourselves, you will find in some of the attributes of bodies and other things similarities to the way we have described God (even if He is above analogy and similarities). For it is necessary for the one who is honest with himself and is cautious and concerned [to take care], lest he repudiate a truth presented to him because of hatred left in his heart by an enemy of grace, and because he is ignorant of it. Rather, he [must] pursue his examination [of the evidence] and devote his thoughts [to the truth] and apply himself in search [of it], and its acceptance and adherence to it.

25. Now, what do you say about the soul and the intellect and the faculty of speech? Are they continuous or are they divided, or do they have both attributes, I mean continuity and division? Was the soul ever separate from the intellect and the faculty of speech, or one of these two from the others, then joined [together] later? Or is it not the case that their continuity and division [occurred] together from their very beginning, [so that] one of them did not precede the other?

Now, the thing is [in fact] as our description [explains] the continuity of the soul with its intellect and its faculty of speech, and their division. Yet perhaps someone who reflects on this is not convinced by it, and it does not measure up to his [level of sophistication, [so] it is necessary for us to provide him with an explanatory and obvious analogy.

26. Tell us about the sun and its light and its heat:^[52] is it continuous, one part with another part, or is it separate and not continuous? Or does it have both attributes together, I mean continuity and division? Now, does its continuity precede its division, or does its division precede its continuity? Or did it have both states together from the beginning at its creation, as we have described? And what do you say about the five bodily senses: Are [they] continuous, one part bound in the body with another part, or are they divided and separated, and [the body is] not bound to them? Or do they have things in common? [There is] nothing suspicious in your question to us about what is illustrated by our clear evidence and lucid proof.

فهل تقدم اتعال الحواس فى ا لجد افتراق او افتراق سبق اتعال . فاذ ك1ذتالتض الجده(( الحوا هىهخلو'صيةهتعلةهغا'فة جميعاً معاً من غير ان يسبق اتصالها افتراق وافتراقها اتصال فقد ثبت وصفنا بان الله سبحانه اقانيم ثلثة ماسورة' لاتفاق جوهرها ومتباينة لحال قوام ذات كل احدهنعا' 111انظر اتصالعاافت٠ا٩" اكاى,تط

واحد منها غير ان يتقدم اتصالها افتراق وافتراقها اتصال .

27. فان قالوا ومن اين يشبه ما قستم من امر النفس وعقلها ونطقها والشمس وضوءها وحرارتها والحواس واختلافها صغتكم الاقانيم الثلثة. ١ذما        ا٠ا ادعا٠ الد112 نه اهكذا٠ضغدنالاهك*لاذه

انما هى اجزاء وابعاطى الذى        هى له. اهكذا تصفون الاهكم بانه من

اجزاء وابعاض غير ملائم بعضها بعض. فهذا اذا واحد مركب من اجزاء مختلفة كاختلاف اجزاء النفس وا لشمس ولحواس وكل واحد منها مخالف للاخر فى جمع انحاية.

يقال لهم انا لم نضرب لكم مثناً من ا لشمس والنفس والحوس قياساً. ونحن نريد نقتاس بتجزئة اجزائها انما اتحدناها قياساً لحال اتصالها وافتراقها جميعاً معا لم تتقدم احدها الاخر. وقد قلنا فى القياس قبل هذا الموضع فى هذا الكتاب انه ما اشبه فى بعض وجوهه وكان الاختلاف غالباً عليه.

فاها اكما كاهلان كائ الا 113        ٠        ص لا

قاما انهما كاملان من كامل الابن اعنى وروح القدس من الاب فقد ابنينا ... ك٧ئ ى1٢        ر1٦        ٠ ٠ ٠٠

على تفسير ذلك عند وصفنا ادم وهابيل وحوى واضحنا القول فيهم بان حوى وهابيل من ادم كاملان من كامل اقانيم ثلثة جوهر واحد . لان الله له الحمد خلقهع على سر عدد اقانيمه وتوحيد جوهره . ^[53]

Now, does continuity precede division in the senses of the body, or does division anticipate continuity? For if the soul and the body and the senses are creatures, created things [which are] continuous and divided simultaneously without continuity anticipating division, and division [preceding] continuity, then [this] is established as fact as we have described [it, namely] that God, may He be praised! is three hypostaseis bound through the coincidence of their ousia, and separated through the state^[54] of existence of the being of each one of them, without their continuity preceding division and division [preceding] continuity.

27. Now, if they say, “And on what basis are your analogies of the soul and its intellect and its speech, and the sun and its light and its heat, and the senses and their difference comparable to your description of the three hypostaseis? Are they are divided things and parts of that to which they belong? Is this the way you describe your God, that He is [a composition] of divided things and parts that do not fit together? Then this [God] would be composed of different divided things, like the differences of divided things [such as] the soul and the sun and the senses. Each one of them is differentiated from the others in every relation.”

It should be said to them: we did not give you the examples of the sun and the soul and the senses [as] a [complete] analogy. We want to compare the division of what is divided in them [to that of the hypostaseis and] we only connect them analogously because of the state of their simultaneous continuity and division, [where] one of them does not precede the other. And we have said before this point (above in this book), that an analogy bears resemblance [to what is compared] in some aspect, but the difference is predominant.

Truly, they are two perfect [things] from a perfect [thing], I mean, the Son and Holy Spirit from the Father. Now, we have constructed an interpretation of this according to our description of Adam and Abel and Eve. And we have explained the teaching by them, in that Eve and Abel are from Adam-two perfect things from a perfect

28. فان قالوا ما الذى دعاكم الى ان تصغون الله سبحانه اقانيم ثلثة دون عشرة' او عشرين او اقل من ذلك او اكثر يقال لهم اثا لم تصقه ثلثة ا٠فاذيم دون جوهر واحد . فهنه الثلثة اقانيم جوهر واحد فى جمع انحائه ما لا سبيل الى ان يوجد لذلك نظير ولا مثل .

فاما 'فولكم ما الذى دعاكم الى ان تصفوه اقانيم ثلثة بلا زيادة' ولا نقصان فادا مخبروكم ان الذى دعانا الى ان نصغه بهنه الصفة وجود الاقانيم انفسها . لانها لم تزل ثلثة جوهراً واحدا كما ذكرنا ان الله ذو علم وروح وعلم الله وروحه دائمان قائمان لم يزلا . لانه لا يجوز فى صفة الله له الحمد ان يكون موصوفاً فى ازليته بلا علم ولا روح ٠

29. او اليس هذا الكلام محالأ بعينه. ان يسئل عما هو عليه انما يقال لهم لز صا هذا هكذا لما له اسد ه11 ا ملآ!! ليجان لعله هكذا كذ فاها لمم صار هذا هكذا لما له ابتدى او مبتدقء ليجاب لعله هكذا وكن. فاما

٠لاا 118 ل لائ. فز زلائ لا٠ ازرب ل لا ال من لا ابتدى له ولا صانع فلن يجوز فيه لم صار لانه ازلى لم يزل ولا يزال. ما صادان تحسدا ل سالذ دعف الححادو11 اداحد الذد الك وما عساكم ان تجيبوا لو سالكم بعفى الجحاد        عن الواحد الغرد اللى

تعبدون لمم صار لديكم واحجا فردا دون اثنين او ثلثة او اكثر من ذلك وما الذى دعاكم الى ان تصفوه بهنه الصفة . وهل لذلك عندكم علة او سبب . تعرفونا جوابكم اياه فى الواحد الغرد لنحتذى حذوكم فى الجواب فيما سالتمونا عن الثلثة .

ف٠ماائ الاحدالفدفلك٠ لا ادان الثلثة        120 اى

فما اجبتم عن ا لواحد ا لغرد فليكن لناجوا با فى الثلثة . فما اجبتم مع اثا

ء        ع 121        ١لر

قد نستدل ان الله جل ثناؤه واحدا وثلثة فصلا عما اخبرت به الكتب باتفاق العامة مع اختلاف اديانها على ان الله ليس كمثله شىء . فالواجب على العامة ا لنظر فيما وصف الله به فى كل ملة . فاى ملة وجدت تصف الله

thing-three hypostaseis, one ousia, because God, May He be praised! created them according to the mysterion of the number of His hypos- taseis, and the unity of His ousia.

28. Now, if they say: “What prompts you to describe God, May He be praised! as three hypostaseis rather than ten or twelve, or fewer than this or more?”, it should be said to them: Truly, we do not describe Him as three hypostaseis instead of one ousia. These three hypostaseis are one ousia in all aspects. It is not possible to find an equivalent or a likeness for this.

As for when you say: “What prompts you to describe three hyposta- seis without adding or subtracting?”, we say that that which prompts us to describe [God] by this attribute is the existence of the hypostaseis themselves. Because they, without ceasing to be three, are one ousia. As we have already explained, God possesses knowledge and spirit, and the knowledge of God and His spirit are permanent and perpetual, not ceasing. For it is not permitted in a description of God, May He be glorified! that He be described in His eternity without knowledge or spirit.

29. Is this statement not absurd in itself? If it is asked, “For what reason [is this the case]?”, it should be said to them: Why did this or that occur? Because it had a beginning or one who caused a beginning. So one answers, “Because its cause is such and such.” As for the One Who does not have a beginning nor a maker, it is not permitted [to ask]: “Why did He occur?”, because He is eternal, never having ceased, and never ceasing.

And what could you possibly answer, if one of those who denies it asks you about the one single [God] Whom you worship: “Why did He occur, according to you, as one single [God], rather than as two or three or more than this? And what [is it] which prompts you to describe Him by this attribute? Do you have a cause or a reason for this?” [It should be said to them:] Let us know your answer about the one single [God], so that we might make take your example in the answer to your question to us about the three. For what you find concerning the one single [God], this is [also] our answer concerning the three.

But you do not answer, whereas we prove that God, May He be exalted! is both one and three, apart from what the [sacred] books report in agreement with all people (in spite of the difference of their religions!) that nothing is like God. All people should see how God is described in every religion. When a religion finds that it describes

بصفة ليس كمثله شىء وهى ا لعابدة' له ا لعارفة .له واى ملة ا لغيت تصفه بالتشبيه وا لتمشيل فهى الضالة عنه الجاثلة به . فكل من كان موحدا ما خلا النصارى لم يعد ان يصفه واحداً فردا معدوداً .

30. فما 'فولكم فى انسان واحد وملك واحد. ا ليس كل واحد منهما فرداً.

ئ ٠٠.٠٠        I ٠٠٠ فاماالص١        122

فاى تشبيه اعظم مما وصفتم ٠ فاما النصارى فنفت عنه كل تشبيه ومثل لوصفهم اياه ا'فاذيم ثلثة جوهر واحد . ولو ان جوهر الله سبحانه كان عدداه اً 123        ااخ١ت        124

فردا كان احط جوهر من جوهر الخلق الذى هو من اثغين الهيولى اى الاله والنوع اى الصورة' . ولو انه كان اثنين لكان به شبيه وله نظير . فاذ وجد انه ثلثة ا٠فاذيم جوهر واحد فقد اعتلت صفته عن كل تشبيه ومثل لانه لا سبيل الى ان يوجد فى الخلق جوهر واحد اقانيم ثلثة هو بعينه فى جمع ذواته .

31. وهنه صفة الله الحقيقة بلا زيادة' ولا نقصان فقد كملت صفته فى كل

الوجهين. اما فى العدد فلاتفاقها فى كل انحاء موصوفة به ذواتها واما فى ........        ى 125        126

الثلثة فلانغراد ٠فولم ذات كل واحد منها ولكمال انواع العدد . لان انواع العدد نوعان زوجا واحدا وفرداً واحدا . وهما موجودان فى هنه الثلثة . فاكثر من ا لثلثة تكرار فى ا لعدد وا٠فل منها تقصان منه ما لا يقبله ذو ا لرأى فى صفة الله -

فان 126 S و 125 Somits اعنى انى 124 S لكان 123 S شبيه 122 S

God by the attribute “nothing is like Him”, then it [truly] worships of Him and knows Him. And if a religion discovers it describes God with anthropomorphism and comparison with creatures, then ignorance of Him is its perpetual goal. Each of those professing the unity of God, with the exception of the Christians, do not hesitate to describe Him as one, single, and numberable.

30. What do you say about one human being, and one king? Is not each one of them a single [individual]? Which comparison is more important than what you describe? As for the Christians, they reject any comparison [of creatures] and likeness with [God] when they describe Him as three hypostaseis and one ousia. And if the ousia of God, May He be praised! were a single number, then it would be a lesser ousia than the ousia of creatures, which is two [principles]: the matter (that is, the instrument) and the species (that is, the form). And if it were the case that He is two [principles], then He could be compared [to creatures] and there would be something comparable to Him. But when it is found that He is three hypostaseis and one ousia, then His description is above every comparison and likeness [with creatures], because it is not possible that a single ousia [having] three hypostaseis, which is identical in all of its essences, exists in creation.

31. This description of God is true, without adding or subtracting, for His description is perfect in two ways. [It is perfect] with regard to the number [one], because [the hypostaseis] are identical in every way with what describes their essences, and [they are perfect] with regard to the [number] three, because it isolates the substantial being of each one of them. [This description is also true] because of the perfection of the species of number, for the species of number are two: the even [numbers] are one and the odd [numbers] are one. And the two exist in [the number] three. Now, more than three are a repetition in the number, and fewer than [three] are a decrease in it, and no person having good judgement accepts this in a description of God.^[55]

32. وهى متفقة متميزة' ومختلفة. اما متفقة فغى ماهيتها ووجودها ومتميزة لميزة' ٠فوام ذات كل واحد منها كما ذكرنا قبل هذا الموضع ومختلفة لاختلاف خاصة كل واحد منها من غير ان يكون جوهرها مختلفاً لاختلاف خواصها . لان الخواص دالة على صفات اضافة قنوم الى قنوم لا على ذوات المضافة كاختلاف خواص ادم وحوى وهابيل من غير ان يكون جوهرها مختلفاً لاختلاف خواصها . فادم والدلا ولد وهابيل ولد لا والد وحوى خلرجة لا

الدةلالد٠127اصهخلغةلا٠فا٠ متممذة دمتغة

والدة' ولا ولد خواص مختلفة لا٠فاذيم متميزة' جوهر متفق .

33. وقد يجب علينا ان نتبع القول فى القياس بان الله ليس عدد واحد فرد بشهادات من الكتب تيقظاً لمن خالفنا وتشديداً ليغين ممن شايعنا وان كان مخالغونا لها مكذبين بما ادعوا من تحريغنا اياها بالزيادة' فنها والنقصان منها.

قال نجئ الله موسى عن الله عند خلقة ادم لنصبع انسانا بصورتنا وكشبهنا . ولم يقل اصنع بصورتى وشبهى ■ وقال فى موضع اخر فى كتابه لا يحمل ان يكون ادم وحده فلنجعل له مثله معيناً له . ولم يقل اجعل . وفى موضع اخر

ئ ئ الا ٠فد128صا ىائئ-سخاًلهثلك ادئخ من كتابه قال ان ادم 'فد صار كواحد منا توبيخا له بذلك ولم يقل مثلى .

27ا Graf: 128 ولدت S omits فد

32. For they are coincident, distinguished, and different: coincident in their quiddity and their existence, and distinguished because of a distinguishing characteristic of the substantial being of each one of them, just as we have explained before in this passage. And [they are] different because of the difference in property of each one of them, although their ousia is not different because of a difference in their properties. Because the properties indicate the attributes of the relation of [one] hypostasis to [another] hypostasis, not the essences of the [things] related, just as the properties of Adam and Eve and Abel are different, although their ousia is not different because of the difference of their properties. For Adam is the begetter and not the begotten, and Abel is begotten and not the begetter, and Eve is the one who proceeds, neither the begetter nor the begotten: [they have] different properties belonging to distinguished hypostaseis, [and] coincident ousia.

33. Now it is necessary for us to notice in the teaching about analogy that “God” is not counted as a single one, in keeping with the witnesses of the [sacred] books, cautioning the one who differs from us, and strengthening with support the one who follows us, even if the ones who differ from us on it declare it to be false when they claim we have altered [the sacred books] by adding to them and taking away from them.

The intimate friend of God, Moses, said about God that at the creation of Adam, [He said]: “Let Us fashion a human being in Our image and Our likeness.”^[56] [57] He did not say: “I shall fashion [a human being] in My image and My likeness.” And He^[58] said in another passage in His book: “It is not a good situation, that Adam is alone, therefore, let Us make a likeness for him as his helper.”^[59] He did not say: “I shall make.” And in another passage of his book, he said: “Adam has become like one of Us,”^[60] reproaching him with

ؤ ٠ ا-فاتعالاك٠اذفةالا( احقا ،..أ        1

وفى موضع اخر فال تعالوا ننزل وتغرق الالن ■ ولم يقل انزل ■ وان ذانيال ا لئبى اخبرنا بان الله قال لبختنعرلك نقول يابختنصر ولم يقل اقول .

34. وقد ذكرتم ان فى كتابكم مكتوباً ايفاً ثبه ما ذكرنا من قول موسى ذاندحكاة        اس ط3ا I ا ئ ا أ اطكا :I

وذا نيال حكاية عن الله من قلنا وخلقنا وامرنا واوحينا واهلكنا ودمرنا مع نظائر لهنه كثيرة' . ايشك احد يعقل ان هذا ا لقول قول ثتى لا قول واجد فرد.

وان قالوا ان ا لعرب قد اجازت هذا ا لقول يقال لهم انه لو كانت ا لعرب حدى        اكادذكانك٠ ذلكىذ٠ فاهاد الع٠ .33(

وحدها هى التى ابتدعته لكان لهم فى ذلك تعلق . فاما اذ سبق العرب فى

هذا القول العبرا نيون واليونانيون والريانيون وغيرهم من الالن لم يكن لما وصفوا من اجازن' العرب ذلك حجة مع انه ومن اين جازت ا لعرب هذا القول.

فان قالوا بلى قد اجازته من حيث يقول رجل واحد امرنا وارسلنا وقلنا ولقينا وما اثبه هذا يقال لهم ان ذلك صحيح جائز فى المؤلف من اثياء مختلفة الم ى اعفا ٠ هتثا ٠ لا- احد كد 34(ا ٠اأ فاذ الا -ا وا لمركب من اعفاء غير متشابهة . لانه واحد كثير اجزاؤه . فاول الاجزاء

الاسان الك35( الحسد ان الحسد اضاً . ا كان شذ من الانان النفس والجد . وان الجد ايفا مبغى من اركان ثتى

اعفا ج3(        كد؛ فلذلك        حا١.        انط.ط٠ائ فاما اداحد الط

واعفاء        كثيرذ' .فلذلك        جاز        ان ينطق على ما        وصفتم .فاما الواحد البسيط

المتف٠ ٠        كا انحا الذ        لا        اعفا 37( له لا        ا -ا فكفحا١- له ان شعن

ا لمتفق فى        كل انحاءه الذى لا        اعفاء له ولا        اجزاء فكيف جاز له ان ينطق

بما وصفتم من قلنا وامرنا واوحينا اذ هو عدد واحد كما زعمتم .

,28 Graf: 30إ فتبلبل هتاك يانهم Pomits 5, فى, PSقويتا which does notappear in the Qur’an. ’32 Graf: P always writes with clearly defined dots اوجابتا, which does not appear in the Qur’an as does S in the following citation. This is certainly an error on the part of the copiest. 133 Graf: 134 قى S 135 كثيرة Graf: 136 التقر P 137 واعفام P omits, S لا عفا

this. He did not say: “like Me.” And in another passage, He said, “Come, let Us descend and divide the languages.”^[61] He did not say: “I shall descend.” And Daniel the Prophet tells us that God said to Butanasar: “We are speaking to you, O Butanasar!”^[62] He does not say: “I am speaking.”

34. You recall that in your book is [something] similar to what we have referred to from the sayings of Moses and Daniel is written in accounts concerning God: “We said”,^[63] “We created”,^[64] “We commanded”,^[65] “We inspired”,^[66] “We destroyed”^[67] and “We annihilated”,^[68] along with many others comparable to these. Does one who thinks doubt that these words are the speech of several and not the speech of one single [individual]?

If they say: “The Arabs permit this [type] of speech,” it should be said to them: If it were the Arabs alone who had invented it, then they could refer to it [as an argument]. However, since the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the Syrians, and other languages anticipate the Arabs in this [type of] speech, what they describe as permitted for the Arabs is not evidence for this. And on what grounds do the Arabs permit this [kind of] speech?

If they say: “Certainly, it is permitted when one man says “We command” and “We have sent” and “We have said” and “We have encountered” and similar things,” it should be said to them: This is correct and permitted in a composite of different things, and a composition of members which are not similar, because it is one [thing with] many parts. The primary parts of the human being are the soul and the body. And the body is also a construction of various basic elements and many members. For this reason it is necessary that what you have described be clearly specified. As for the One, simple [God] Who is in agreement in all manners and does not have members or parts, how is it possible that He be specified clearly in the way you have described (by “We said” and “We commanded”

35. فان 'فالوا ان ذلك تعظم لله واجلال له وتفخيم ان يقول ارسلنا

وامرنا واوحينا . يقال لهم لعمرى ان لو لم يقل ذلك من ليس مستحقاً للتعظيم لجاز قولكم . فاما اذ كان يتنؤه به من كان حقيراً وضيعاً لم يثبت ٠. لك٠ ,ن ذس٠ تش39ا ؤه ند, ,ن 1 1حد لآ! حث ظ قولكم ان ذلك تعظم له لتعلموا ان الله واحد ثلثة من حيث نطق كلا4ا        اسن ا ت انا ختت        ظقنا احت احنا

.لكلى        اللفظتين        من امرت        وامرنا وخلقت        وخلقنا واوحيت واوحينا        .

فامرت واوحيت وخلقت دليل على انه جوهر واحد وامرنا واوحينا خلقنا دليل'ءلى اقاتيم ثلثة -

36. وبيان ذلك من قول موسى النبى اته اخبر فى التورية عن ابرهيم

طط Iل١ .فائلأ ,ن 1 ا٦ لا        44ا ,        .        .

خليل الله قائلا ان الله ترايا لابرهيم وهو عند باب خيمته فى موضع كذا وكذا فلما الستحر النهار جلس ابرهيم على باب خباءه . فرفع عينيه وابصر رجالأ ثلثة قياما فوقه . فقام مستغبناً لهم وسجد لهم وقال رب ان كنت رامقاً الئ بعين الرحمة فلا تجاوزن عبدك .

افلا ترون ان الذى عاين ابرهيم ثلثة عددها حيث فال رجالأ ثلثة فستاهم رباً واحدا فتضرع اليه وساله ان ينزل عنده . فعدد الثلثة سرا لام الثلثة ٠ وتسميته اياهم رباً لا ارباب سر لجوهر واحد . فغى ثلثة يجوز واحد كما صفنا ه ان        ا, اضاً ٠فااساا ائما الشك145 ن احد

وصفنا . ثم ان موسى اخبر ايضا وقل اسمع يا اسرائيل الهك        رب واحد .

معنى ذلك ان الله موصوف بالثلثة اقانيم هو رب واحد .

37. وان داوود قال فى كتابه بكلمة الله خلقت السموات وبروح فيه كل قواتها. فقد لفصح داوود بالثلثة اقانيم حيث قال الله وكلمته وروحه. فهل زدنا فى وصفنا على ما وصف داوود. ثم انه وصف فى موضع اخر من كتابه ^[69] [70]

and “We revealed”), when He is counted as one, just as you have asserted?

35. If they say: “When [God] says: ‘We sent’ and ‘We commanded’ and ‘We revealed’, this is a reverence to God and to honor Him and show respect,” it should be said to them: By my life! If this were not said of what is not deserving of glorification, then your teaching would be permissible. However, if one who is mean and base is greatly exalted by it, your teaching that this is a glorification for Him is not proven. So you should know that God is one and three when He speaks in both [types] of utterances: “I commanded” and “We commanded” and “I created” and “We created” and “I revealed” and “We revealed”. For “I commanded”, “I revealed” and “I created” indicate that His ousia is one, and “We commanded”, “We revealed” and “We created” indicate three hypostaseis.

36. The clarification of this is from the teaching of Moses the Prophet. He reports in the Torah concerning Abraham, the Friend of God, saying: “God appeared to Abraham [while] he was before the door of his tent in the place of such and such. As the daylight became hot, Abraham sat before the door of his tent. He lifted his eyes, and beheld three men standing before him. So he stood, facing them, and bowed to them, and said: ‘Lord, if you regard me with merciful eyes, then do not pass by your servant.’”^[71]

Do you not see that those who Abraham saw with his own eyes were three in number, because he said “three men”, yet he called them one Lord, humbling himself before Him, and asking Him to stay with him? Now the number three is a mysterion for the three hypostaseis. And he called them “Lord”, not “Lords”. [This is] a mys- terion for one ousia. So in three can be one, just as we have described. Then Moses also reports: “Hear, O Israel, your God is one Lord.”^[72] This means that God, Who is described by three hypostaseis, is one Lord.

37. And David said in his book: “By the Word of God the heavens were created, and by the breath in it all of their hosts.”^[73] Now David clearly expresses the three hypostaseis when he says God, and His Word, and His Spirit. In our description, are we adding to what

تحقيقا بان كلمة الله اله حق حيث قال لكلمة الله استح . افكان داوود ممن يسحلغيرالله.

ثم انه قال . قال ا لرب لربى اجلس عن يمينى حتى اضع اعداك تحت موطى قدميك . يعنى بذلك قول الاب للابن من بعد تجده . ثم انه قال فى موضع اخر ارسل كلمته فشقاهم وخلصهم من الموت ٠ لتعلموا ان الكلمة المرسلة ذات كاملة من ذات كاملة .

38. ثم انه اشعيا المحمود فى الانبياء قال فى نبوته منذ بدأت لم انطق خفية ومنذ كنت فثم انا والان ارسلئى ا لرب الاله وروحه . فالان الله وكلمته وروحه هو ,فولنا اب وابن وروح القدس . وكيف كان يجوز ان يرسد الروح

هع ئ46ا        ه ا٠ ٠ اضاً ,ن ,        147

اشعيا لو لم يكن الاها ذاتا كاملا . ثم انه وصف ايضا ان الله ترايا له والملائكة خافون به مقدسون له قائلون قدوس قدوس قدوس الرب ذو القوة' الممدة السمدالارسدحه ئد148ادما١أثلثة المملوة' السموادته والارطن من تسابيحنه ٠ فتقديمر المادئكة مرارا ثلثة واقتصارهم على ذلك بلا زيادة' ولا نقصان سر اتقديسهم لاقانيم ثلثة الاهاً واحداً .

فهذا بعض شهادات الانبياء على ان الله واحد ثلثة وثلثة واحد واذ قد اقتصرنا على بعض الانبياء لكيلا يكثر الكلام فيمل ٠ ولولا ذلك لاتينا من كل شء شهادات كثيرة' حتى يكثر فيها الاضطرار وتطول الصحف . يعرف ذلك من قراً كتبهم.

39. فان انكراو هذا القول وحجدوه وقالوا ان الانبياء لم تنطق به وا نما حرفتم الكلام عن موضعه وتقولتم عليهم الزور والكذب. يقال لهم انه لو

فتقدس 48 S,        تراءى 47 Graf: readا        ذاقاً :48 Graf,

David describes? Then, in another place in his book he confirmed that the Word of God is true God, when he said: “I give praise to the Word of God.”^[74] Now, can David be among those who give praise to something other than God?

Then he said: “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies beneath the footstool for your feet.’”^[75] By this he means the speech of the Father to the Son after His Incarnation. Then he says in another place: “He sent his Word, healing them and rescuing them from death,”^[76] so that you might know that the Word which was sent is a perfect being from a perfect being.

38. Then Isaiah, the one who was praised among the prophets, said in his prophecy: “‘Since I have begun, I have not spoken secretly, and since I was, I am there’, and now the Lord, God has sent me, and His Spirit.”^[77] And now God, and His Word and His Spirit are they [of whom] we say: Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit? How [else] is it possible that the Spirit send Isaiah, if it is not God, a perfect being? He also described God appearing to him, and the angels trembling with fear before [God], glorifying Him saying: “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord, to Whom belongs the Power, the Heavens and the Earth are filled with His Praise.”^[78] The angels give praise three times, and their restriction to this, without adding or subtracting, is the mysterion for their praise of the three hypostaseis, one God.

These are some of the testimonies of the prophets that God is one and three, and three and one. And if we have restricted ourselves [only] to some of the prophets, it is so that the discussion will not become too much and tiresome. If this were not the case, then we would produce many witnesses from everything [in the Scriptures], until the compulsion [to accept the Trinity] increases, and the pages multiply. One can know this by reading the books [of the prophets].

39. Now, if they deny this teaching, and reject it, saying: “The prophets did not say this, rather, you have altered the words from their places,^[79] and you have made [the prophets] say what is false

كانت هنه الكتب فى ايدينا من غير ان يكون فى ايدى اعداءنا اليهود كان لعمرى يقبل قولكم انا غيرنا وبدلنا . فاما اذ صارت الكتب فى ايدى اليهود ايضاً لم يقبل 'فولكم احد الا ان يوجد ما فى ايدينا من ا لكتب مخالفاً لما فى ادد الى منعامشاكلأملامالماكاذلسامنعا ايدى اليهود منها مشاكلا ملاوما لما كان لدينا منها .

فان.فالاانالذ لا٠ شا,ل اساًثكتضللك٩قلذاد فان قالوا ان الذين ولوا تحريفها اليهود التماسا بذلك تضليلكم قلنا لهم لو كان الامر على ما وصفتم لكان ينبغى ان تكون لديهم صحيحة غير متحرفة ٠ لان الذى يلتمس هلاك غير لا يرى هلاك نفه ٠ فاذ وجدنا ما فى ادد منعا ما ٠ سنا احدا لا اخلا' 151' كمادى نا د دقا م ها ايديهم منها وما فى ايدينا واحدا لا اختلاف        فيه كما ذكرنا لم يقبل منكم ما

ذكرتم من تحريفها ■

40. فان فالوا انما صار الله لديكم ثلثة اقانيم كشهان' الكتب لكم لزعمكم . وان كل واحد منها موصوفاً رباً والاهاً فامتعاضكم من ان تصفوها ارباباً وا لهة ثلثة ما هو . يقال لهم لعمرى لو كانت الكتب مع وصفها كل واحد من الاقانيم رباً والهاً لم تضف بعض الاقانيم الى بعض واوجبت ان كل واحد منها علة لا معلول لكان ما وصفتم جائزا مستقيماً . فاما اذ حق ان الابن والروح من الاب لم تصر علناً كثيرة' لم تنسب الهة ثلثة ولا ارباب .

فان قالوا اوليس البشر كلهم من علة واحدة' اى من ادم لا من علل شتى . فقد تصفون اناسا ستى . فليوصف هنه الثلثة اقانيم الهة ثلثة كنحو ما قيل فى ا لناس . يقال لهم فانه وان كانوا يسمون اناساً شتى فانما يعنى بذلك اقانيم ^[80]

and a lie,” it should be said to them: If these books were only in our possession, and not [also] in the hands of our enemies the Jews, then, By my life! one could accept your teaching that we have changed [them] and substituted [words for other words]. However, if the books are also in the hands of the Jews, no one can accept your teaching, unless it were found that the books that we possess differ: [but] what is in the hands of the Jews is in harmony with what we possess.^[81]

If they say: “Those who are responsible for the alteration [of the books] are the Jews, who are attempting to deceive you with this,”^[82] we should say to them: If the matter were as you have described, then there ought to be in their possession genuine [copies which have] not been altered. Because the one who seeks the destruction of another does not seek his own destruction. Now, we find what they possess and what we possess to be one [and the same], with no difference in it, just as we have pointed out. [Consequently,] no one can accept what you have reported about alteration.

40. Now, if they say: “You assert that God is only three hypos- taseis, as your books witness. And if each one of them is described as Lord and as God, then why your indignation at describing them as three lords and gods?” it should be said to them: By my life! If it were the case that the books describe each one of the hypostaseis as Lord and God, without bringing any of the hypostaseis into relation with another, and it were necessary that each one of them is a cause, not caused, then what you have described is permitted and right. However, if it is true that the Son and the Spirit are from the Father, then there are not many causes, [nor are] three gods or lords ascribed [to God].

Now, if they say: “Is not every human being from one cause, that is from Adam, not from multiple causes? However, you describe multiple human beings. So these three hypostaseis should be described as three gods, in the same manner as human beings are spoke of,” it should be said to them: Certainly, when one names multiple human

شتى لا جواهر شتى . لان اسم الانسان انما هو اسم الجوهر العام . ولذلك اشترك فى اسمه جمع الاقانيم . فاما اسم القنوم ا لواحد فكعبد الله وموسى وهرون وغير ذلك من الاسماء المتشابهة بما وصفنا .

41. فان 'فالوا فاذا صار اسم الله عددكم اسم الجوهر العام ٠ فلا ينبغى لكم ان تصغوا كل واحد منها الاهاً دون ثلاثتها اذ صارت لديكم هى الجوهر . يقال لهم فانه وان كان اسم الله اسم جوهر اى اسم ثلاثتها فقد يستحق كل واحد منها التسمية باسم العام .

لانه ليس بمخالف فى ذاته ذات غيره من الاقانيم التى هى معه جوهر عام كاسم ا لذهب ا لعام لكل ا لذهب وبعض ا لذهب كامل لا بعض ا لذهبية . فاذا ذكر بعض الا'فاذيم كان جائزا ان يوصف الاهاً ورباً وجوهراً وغير ذلك من اسماء الجوهر ما خلا كثيرة الضم ٠ واذ اضيف الاثنان الى الواحد اى الابن والروح الى الاب وصفت الاهاً واحدأ .

42. فان قالوا ان كان الاب علة الابن والروح كما وصفتم ينبغى ان يكون الاب اقدم ممن هو له علة ٠ فان لم يكن الاب اقدم من الابن والروح واوجبتم انها ازلية معاً فليس بعضها اذن بمستحق ان يكون علة لبعض دون بعض . بطل قولكم بان علة الاثنين واحد. يقال لهم لعمرى ان بعض العلل على ما وصفتم من الفدمة التى هى لهم علة ولكن ليس كل العلة كما وصفتم لا محالة . فقد ترون ا لشمس وهى علة شعاعها وحرارتها . هكذا والنار علة ضوءها وحرارتها ولم تكن قط عادمة لضوءها وحارارتها . هكذا والقول فى الاين والروح هما من الاب ازليان من ازلى بلا سابقة كانت من

الاب لهما.

43 فان فالوا هل 5

ط15 يخلوا

الشئء اذا نسب انه من شء من ان وكون اما

beings, what is meant by this is ‘multiple hypostaseis’, not ‘multiple ousiai’, because the name ‘human being’ is only a name for the ousia in general. And because of this, all of the hypostaseis participate in its name. So the name of the single hypostasis, such as 'Abd Allah, and Moses, and Aaron, and other names like this are similar to what we have explained.

41. Now, if they say: “Is the name ‘God’, according to you, the name of the ousia [in general]? Then you ought not describe each one of [the hypostaseis] as God, instead of all three of them [together as God], since, according to you, they are [collectively] the ousia.” It should be said to them: Certainly, if the name ‘God’ is the name of an ousia, that is, the name of all three of them, then each one of them is entitled to be called by the name of the whole.

For [none of them] is different in its being from the being of another of the hypostaseis, together with which it is the ousia in general, just as the name of ‘gold’ in general is for all gold, and for a piece of gold. It is perfect, not [just] a part of what is golden. Now, when one of the hypostaseis is mentioned, it is permitted that it be described as ‘God’, and ‘Lord’, and ‘ousia’, and other names for the ousia like this, but [it is] not [permitted to describe the individual hypostasis} by the plurality of the collective. And if two [hypostaseis] are brought into relation to the one, that is, the Son and the Spirit to the Father, then they are described as ‘one God’.

42. Now if they say: “If the Father is the cause of the Son and the Spirit, as you have described, then it ought to be the case that the Father [exists] before the one of which He is the cause. And if the Father does not [exist] before the Son and the Spirit, and they exist eternally together, then one of [the hypostaseis] is not [more] worthy than the others of being the cause of [the others]. And your teaching that one is the cause of two is false.”

It should be said to them: By my life! Some causes, such as you have described, [exist] before those [things] for which they are the cause. However, this is not as you have described with all causes. You see the sun, and it is the cause of its rays and its heat. In the same way fire is the cause of its light and its heat. And it is never lacking its light and its heat. The teaching about the Son and the Spirit from the Father is the same as this: [they are] two [things which are] eternal from [something] eternal, although the Father does not anticipate them.

43. Now, if they say: “Is it not necessary that when a thing has

يعضه واما فعله . فاحد الامرين اما ان يكون الابن والروح بعض ذات الاب اذ صغى ها مفه اها فعله فان تلمص اكا دعغه لم^[83] ص العف اذ وصفتموها منه واما فعله . فان قلتم انها بعضه لم        تستحق ا لبعض

تسمية الكمال اى الاه وان كانا فعله فكذلك ايضاً لم يستحق اسم الاله لانه اسم الكمال -

يقال لهم لعمرى ان لو كان كلما وصف انه من شىء بعض ذاته او فعله لكان الا عد ما وش فاما اد,^[84] حل٠ ٠٠ رعف . ,٠ش لكان الامر على ما وصفتم. فاما اذا يوجد شى، من ثى، وبعض من بعض على غير ما وصفتم . فقد وجب عليكم النظر فيما نصف .

44 فالبعض يوصف على وجهين اما تعض ا لعدد وهو كامل بذاته كموسى نافهما الا15 اكهلعفالذا57اكلعفءدده

وهرون او غيرهما من الارباب التىهى بعض الناس اى بعض عددهم وكل واحد منهم انسان كامل واما كاليد والرجل اللتين هما ابعاض واجزاء من غير ان يستوجب كل اوحد منها اسم الكمال اى اسم الانسان.

هكذا وا!شىء من ا!شىء فقد يقال على وجه الفعل والبعض وكامل من كامل. فالفعل كالكتابة من كاتب . والبعض كاليد والرجل من البدن واما الكامل. من الكامل فالولد من الوالد. فقد يقال انه منه ليس فعل ولا بعضه بل كامل من كامل كما وصفنا وهو مستوجب اسم الذى هو منه اى انسان من انسان .

45 وقد يقال ان اشياء من شىء على غير احد هنه الثلثة وجوه كحوى ا لموصوفة من ادم. وهى منه لا بعضه ولا فعله ولا ولده كاملة من كامل انسان من ا نسان. هكذا ا لقول من الابن والروح من الاب سبحانه. كل

its origin in [another] thing, it is either its part or its operation? It is one of two things: either the Son and the Spirit are a part of the being of the Father when you describe them as being from Him, or they are His operation. Now, if you say that they are a part of Him, then the part does not deserve the name of the perfect [whole], that is, ‘God’. And likewise, if [they] are His operation, in the same way they are not deserving of the name ‘God’, because it is the name of the perfect [whole].”

It should be said to them: By my life! If everything which is described as being ‘from something’ were a part of [the thing’s] being or its operation, then the matter would be as you have described. However, when it is found that a thing from a thing, and a part from a part is not as you have described, then it is necessary for you to examine what we describe closely.

44. Now, ‘part’ is described in two ways: Either it is a part of a number, and it is perfect in its being, just as Moses and Aaron, or [someone] other than these two patriarchs,^[85] who are a part of ‘human beings’, that is, a part of their number. And each one of them is a perfect human being. Or it is like hands and feet, which are parts and pieces, although none of them merits the name of the perfect [whole], that is, the name ‘human being’.

This is also the case with ‘a thing from a thing’. One may say it according to the aspect of an operation, and of a part, and of a perfect [whole] from a perfect [whole]. Now, an operation is like the writing of a writer. And a part is like the hands and feet of body. As for a perfect [whole] from a perfect [whole], it is as the begotten is from the begetter. Now, one says ‘he is from him’, not [as] an operation, and not as a part of him, rather, [as] a perfect [whole] from a perfect [whole], just as we have described. And [the thing] merits the name of that from which it is from, that is, a human being from a human being.

45. And one may say that things are from a thing in another [way] besides these three ways,just as Eve is described as [being] from Adam. She is from him, but not a part of him, and not his operation, and not his child—a perfect [being] from a perfect [being], a human being from a human being. This is the same as the teaching

واحد منهما بعض العدد لابعض ذات الاب .دل ذاتان كاملتان من ذات كاملة . فالابن منه كالولد من الوالد ٠ ولاروح خادج منبثق منه كخروج حوى كما ذكرنا وان كان الله عن كل صفة متعالياً ولا بحسب القول فى هذا الوجه .

الان 'فد انتهى منتهى . كمل القول الاول يعون الله سبحانه ولواهب النعم

والحمد دائماً ٠ ونحن بادون بالقول الثانى ان شا الله تعالى ذكره 158 S

about the Son and the Spirit from the Father, May He be praised! Each one of them is a part of the number, not a part of the being, of the Father. Rather, [they are] two perfect beings from a perfect being. The Son is from Him, just as the begotten is from the begetter. And the Spirit processes and emanates from Him, just as Eve proceeds [from Adam] as we have explained. [Yet,] truly God is above all attributes, and is not commensurate with the teaching in this regard.

Now the conclusion has been reached. The first teaching has been completed with the help of God, May He be praised! and to the Giver of grace, abundant thanks, and glory to God!^[86]

THE SECOND RISALAH OF ABU RAITAH
AL-TAKRT ON THE INCARNATION

Intduoi

As was outlined above, Abd Ratals Second Risalah on the Incarnation was written in conjunction with the previous risalah on the Trinity to an unnamedJacobite with the purpose of answering questions raised by Muslims about these two Christian doctrines. The style and internal evidence further substantiate the suggestion that it was written later in Abd Ratals career after he had had considerable experience as a controversialist and become known beyond his home of Takrt.

Essentially the aim of this text is the same as that of On the Irin- ity: to establish common ground with the Muslim mutakallimun with whom he was in conversation in order to show first that the Jacobite teaching on the Incarnation is not contradictory, and second, that Christianity is in fact the true religion. In the risalah on the Incarnation, the opponents in the debate have challenged Abd Ratal to explain how God can have become human (تأنس) and incarnated (تجد) without change or alteration. Muslims point out that Christian teaching on the Incarnation demands that Christians hold opposite statements about God as true: God is mortal and immortal, passible and impassible, eternal and born in time, etc. This, they insist, is impossible and must be rejected. As in the On the Trinity, Abd Ratal proceeds in this risalah with a response clarifying the doctrine and providing examples to demonstrate that what appears incompatible with what is known by human beings about God can be demonstrated to be a logical truth.

In the risalah on the Incarnation, Abd Ratal treats some of the most troubling problems for Muslims about Christianity using both those concepts and strategies developed in the previous risalah on the Trinity and additional material taken from the Muslim and Christian Scriptures. On the Incarnation begins with a short transition from the previous risalah (§1) and moves directly into the issues at hand, addressing first the question of the relationship between the three divine hypostaseis and the one incarnated in a body (§§2-7), turning eventually to the difficulty of how God can enter into the limitations of creation (§§8-18). The interlocutors raise the inevitable problem of whether it was necessary for God to bring about salvation through incarnation (§§19-23). The underlying issue is the true nature ofJesus and his mission: is he God incarnated to redeem creation as Christians believe, or is he a Messenger sent to announce God’s commands as the Qur’an claims? But at the heart of the conflict lies a question that is a ultimately unanswerable by human beings: why did God choose this particular means to reconcile creation to Himself? Abu Ra’itah gives his Muslim questioners a standard Christian response, and turns the question to back to them, asking for a justification for their teaching that God sent messengers (§§24-35). The problem returns to the question of God becoming what has the definable properties of a creature (§§36-62) and concludes with an examination of the Messiah’s knowledge of the future (§§63-77) and His willing the crucifixion (§§78-85). More details, Abu Ra’itah concludes, can be found in his letter written to the Christians of Bain (§85).

One notices some important differences between the approach found in the previous treatise and this much longer one. First, Abu Ra’itah’s knowledge of Islam is revealed to a much greater extent in this risalah than anywhere else. Not only does he mention Islamic beliefs explicitly, he even offers passages from the (Qur’an to make his point. The reason for this candid approach is doubtless to be found in the precise references to Jesus and Christian beliefs about him in the Qur’an. Its unambiguous rejection of the possibility that God generates or is generated (Sura 112) and an emphasis on Jesus’ humanity (Sura 5:75) could not be easily manipulated or reinterpreted so as to admit the Incarnation. In addition, contemporary issues being debated in Muslim scholarly circles did not readily lend themselves to exploitation in support of the Incarnation.^[87] Although Abu Ra’itah is able to credibly demonstrate the plausibility of three hypostaseis in the Divine Being through philosophical principles, it is more difficult to show how and why one of those hypostaseis became human. Consequently he must take up the counter-claims to the doctrine of the Incarnation asserted in the Qur’an directly.

This leads to the second difference in this risalah: whereas the emphasis in On the Trinity is on redefining certain terminology so as to allow for the conceptual possibility of trinitarian descriptions of God, On the Incarnation relies much more on scriptural evidence. Here one finds citations from the Old Testament as well as the New Testament used in support of Christian beliefs. This is especially necessary, since the New Testament witness is considered to be the primary basis for faith in the Incarnation. As a result, the problem of tahnf arises in this context with more serious implications. Abu Ratal has already laid some of the groundwork for introducing these passages as evidence in the last part of the On the Trinity with his defense of the integrity of the Scriptures against the charge that they have been altered,^[88] but in On the Incarnation, Abd Ratal chooses a different means to counter the charge of tahnf Instead of focussing on a defense of the integrity of the Scriptures, he draws examples from the Qur’an and Muslim beliefs to argue that Christian teaching is not contrary to what can be said about God. Although his primary arguments are made with regard to the Old Testament, his goal is clear: to prove that Christian teaching is reliably based on the Scriptures and that they are an authentic source for knowledge about God. Nonetheless, the most important disagreement, whether the crucifixion and resurrection actually occurred, must remain unresolved. It is with this final problem Abd Ra’itah leaves his Christian reader.

It is also notable that Abd Ra’itah gives brief, succinct answers to a series of questions, without entering into the long and complex development of an argument found in many of his other writings. In fact, many of the arguments made in this text are simply drawn from On the Trinity and applied to the relevant question. This style gives the risalah the feel more of a transcript of a conversation than a full-blown treatise, suggesting once again that his personal experience lies behind the present work. The questions put in the mouths of the adversaries seem to reflect actual, and in some cases perhaps even verbatim, reports. It is noteworthy, for example, that exclamations and epitaphs associated with Islam (e.g., “the Messiah, glory be to Him!”) are always included in the Muslim questions. Yet, in spite of the more terse format of the risalah, it remains Abd Ratals project to provide his reader with the best possible responses, even if given briefly, in order to assure success in the defense of the doctrine of the Incarnation.

One detects a recognition on Abu Ratah’s part that in the end, one cannot convince the Muslim opponents of the truth of the Incarnation, but at best can show that it is not contradictory or absurd. In this sense, the second risalah on the Incarnation appears to be more directed at supporting Christians in their faith than that On the Trinity. Whereas the first risalah contains carefully constructed technical arguments allowing for the possibility of a plurality in the One God, the second risalah appeals to the Christian reader by reminding him of God’s plan of salvation and the necessity of faith to believe it. For, as stated in the Proof of the Christian Religion: “We accept the teaching about His Incarnation and becoming human without change or alteration, even though [our] understanding fails to comprehend it.” (Proof 32)

٠        1

الرسالة الثانية لايى رائطة التكرى نى التجسد

1. كان اًلقولجرىفىمدرطا الكتاب اًلىطا الموضع فى صفة الله له الحمد ونعت توحيده وتثليثه وتغسير الاقانيم واتفاقها وتمييز قوام ذات كل واحد منها واختلاف خواصها وذلك بايضإح وشرح .لمقاييس صحيحة صادقة وحجج غزيرة' ثابتة وبينات نيرن' مضيئة لمن كان الحق مريداً واياه طالباً .

ولم نذكر من امر تجد احد الاقانيم وهو الاين كلمة الاب الازلية تهاساذاًللاتغ~ش٠حالهاتدء٠٠        ه2٠ذلككك

وصيرورته انسانا بلا تغيير عن حاله او تبدل عن جوهره وذلك لترك

ادلكم3 ،انا ن ط ا ادحه .فد طا لظ فما تتدن , مسايلتكم ايانا فى هذا الوجه . وقد يجب علينا النظر فيما تسئلون من امر ا لمتجد وا لتجد واجابتكم فى ذلك جواباً مرضياً متفقاً لكيلا ياخذ منا فى الله لومة لائم موافقاً كان لنا او مخالفاً مسالما او معانداً .

2. قال مخالغونا اخبرونا عن المتجد كزعمكم الاه ام انسان.

يقال لهم ان ا لمتجد عندنا الاه متانس . فان قالوا ان كان ا لمتجد عندكم الاهاً فقد اوجبتم فى بدء قو لكم ان الله اقانيم فالمتجد اذا اقانيم ثلثة .

فكين زعمتع المتجسراحدا لاقانع الثلثة لااًلثلثة ٠ يقال لهم ان اسم الله عندنا عام وخاص فثلاثتها عامة اله وكل واحد ذات الاخر فى الماهية كما وصفنا من امر الذهب ا لموصوف كله ذهباً والقليل منه ذهباً ايضاً . فانما عنينا

The Second Risalah of Abu Ra "itah al-Takrt
on the Incarnation

1. The discussion following from the beginning of this book until this point has been the predication of God, may He be praised! and the characterization of His oneness and His threeness, an explanation of the hypostaseis, of their coincidence and the proper mode of being of each one of them, and of the differences of their properties. This was done through clarification and presentation of proper and accurate analogies, abundant and enduring arguments, and clear and illuminating evidence for the one seeking the truth and pursuing it.

We have not mentioned anything about the subject of the Incarnation of one of the hypostaseis, that is the Son, the eternal Word of the Father, and His becoming human without change in His state or alteration in His ousia. And this is because you have refrained from asking about it up to this point. Now it is necessary for us to examine what you have asked us concerning the subject of the Incarnation and the incarnated One, and give you a satisfactory and suitable answer in this, so that no one may have grounds to reproach us concerning [our teachings about] God, whether he agrees or disagrees with us, is peaceful or obstinate.

2. Our opponents say: “Tell us about the incarnated One, as you claim—[is he] a god or human?” It should be said to them: According to us, the incarnated One is God become human.

If they say: “If according to you the incarnated One is God, and at the beginning of your account [of your teachings] you [argued] it is necessary that God is [several] hypostaseis, then the incarnated One is three hypostaseis. How do you claim that the incarnated One is one of the three hypostaseis and not three [himself]?” it should be said to them: According to us, the name ‘God’ is [both] general and specific.^[89] The three are in general divinity and each one of them is the same as the other in quiddity, just as we have described concern-

ان المتجد الاه اى احد الاقانيم وهو الابن كلمة الله الحية الاه ازلى لا ثلثة اقانيم .

3. فان 'فالوا اخبرونا عن تجد المتجد افعل هو منه او بعض يقال لهم ا نكم سألتمونا عن المتجد . فقد سألتم عن ذات متجسدة' مضم فيها ا لجد والتجد . لانه لا سبيل الى ان يوصف متجد بلا تجد وجد . فعلى اى وجه . سألتمونا فعل هو ام بعض . تقولون تجد ا لمتجد اى افتعاله للجد بعض او فعل . فانا نقول ان تجد ا لمتجد منه بغير فعل او بعض بل طريق الى الفعل ■

فان كان قولكم تجد تعنون بذلك ا لجد ابعض المتجد او فعل احتجنا الى ان نسئلكم ايضاً تقولون ان ا لجد بعض الذات ا لمتجدة' او انما تعنون بعض المجتمع المركب من الذات ا لمتجدة' . وان كان قولكم اهو بعض اى بعض الذات الالهية نقينا ان يكون ا لجد بعضها . لان الذات الالهية معتلية عن تبعيض او تجزى وان قلتم اهو بعض المجتمع من ذات الله والجد اوجبنا لكم انه بعض وفعل .

4. فان قالوا ومن ولى افتعال ا لجد الذى وصفتم انه بعض ا لمجتمع يقال لهم ان الذى ولى افتعال كلمة الله المتجسدة' به. فان قالوا وانا نجوز لشيء يفتعل بعضه يقال لهم وهل وصفنا ان شيأيفتعل بعض ذاته. انما وصفنا ان الكلمة اخذت لها جسدا من غير ان يكون الجد لها بعضاً. بل هو بعض ا لمجتمع من الكلمة وفيه. فالجد اذا بعض ا لمجتمع لا بعض الكلمة كما وصفنا.

5. فان قالوا اخبرونا عن تجد الكلمة بالجد فعل من هو. يقال لهم

الس٠قدا٠هـقاهذااد4٠لدال-        .د ٥٠

اليس قد اخبرناكم قبل هذا الموضع . فعلى اى الوجوه تعنون فعل من هو. تقولون ا لجد من خلقه فان كان معناكم على ما وصفنا قلنا ان ا لجد فعل

الوضع 4 P

ing gold—all of it may be characterized as gold, even the smallest piece of it is also gold. However, we mean [here] that the incarnated One is divine, that is, one of the hypostaseis, and He is the Son, the living Word of God, eternally divine, not three hypostaseis.

3. If they say: “Tell us about the incarnation of the incarnated One. Is he an act [of God] or a part [of God]?” it should be said to them: You have asked us about the incarnated One. Now, you are asking about an incarnated being, in which the body and the incarnation are united, because it is not possible to describe [something] incarnated without incarnation and body. But in which manner? You have asked us whether He is an act or a part [of God]. [In asking] is it a part or an act, you are speaking about the body of the incarnated One, that is His ‘becoming a body’. However, we say that the Incarnation of the incarnated One is something other than an act or a part, rather, it is a means to the act.

If when you say “incarnation”, you mean by this the body, [and ask] is it a part of the incarnated One, or an act, we will argue, asking you, too: Do you say that the body is a part of the incarnated being, or do you only mean a part of that from which the incarnated being is composed and constructed? Then, if you say: “Is he a part, that is, a part of the divine Being?” we deny that the body is a part [of the divine Being], because the divine Being is above division or separation. If you say: “Is it a part of the composite of the being of God and the body?” we must [say] to you it is a part and an act.

4. If they say: “Who has the authority [over] the ‘becoming a body’, which you have described as a part of the composite?” it should be said to them: That which has authority [over] His becoming the incarnated Word of God is Himself. Now, if they say: “Are we to allow that something makes itself a part?” it should be said to them: Have we described something as becoming a part [separate] from its own being? We have only said that the Word has taken to itself a body, without the body being a part of [the Word]. Rather, [the body] is a part of the composite of the [incarnated] Word and is in it. The body is a part of the composite, not a part of the Word, as we have [already] described.

5. If they say: “Tell us about the incarnation of the Word in the body, by whom was it done?” it should be said to them: Have we not already told you before this point [in the discussion]? In which manner do you mean “by whom was it done”? Are you saying of the body “who created it?” If this is what you mean concerning what

ثلاثتها وان قلنا احد الثلثة لا ثلثة .

قان قالوا فابينونا عن فعل ثلاثتها اواحد هو ام كل واحد منها فعل خاص دون

٠        5        6        ٠        ٠

الاخر يقال لهم اما فى وجه الخلقة والمشية فكلما كان او يكون منهم فواحداً . واما فى الترايى وظهور كل واحد منها باى فعل شاء حال فخاص ليس بعام وذلك لامتياز قوام ذات كل واحد منها . فلو ان ثلاثتها قنوم واحد

٠ ه 8 لا ثلثة لكان ظهور ثى، منها او ترايى على اى الاحوال كان ظهور وترايى ثلاثتها.

فاما اذ صار كل واحد من الاقانيم مع اتفاق ذاته ذات غيره من الاقانيم قنوماً خاصا ٠أ الا- فل د٠مها لا محالا ما شعتاند٠ ا ئئ9 خاصا مميزا عن الاخر فلن يلزمها لا محالة ما شاءت ان يلزم احدها فقط . فقد شاءت احدها تجسد ذى-        منطيقية10 العاتق الطاهرة ٠

فقد شاءت احدها تجد ذى نفس منطيقية من العاتق ا لطاهرة مريم .

فالفك التحسدلاحدهائ دلا.        لا((خلقةالحدا د

فالظهور.لالتجدلاحدهاخاصدون الاثنين .واما خلقة الجداوشيتهم بتجد احدها فعام لثلاثتها .

6. والمثل فى ذلك وهفكم الله بانه يعلم ويشاء ويقدر فعلم الله بالاشياء اهو مثيته فيها او قدوته عليها. فان قالوا نعم يقال لهم فكل ما علم الله اذن فقد شاءه وقدر عليه. فاذ علم ان القيامة ستقوم فقد قامت اذ كان علمه لديكم هو مثيته فقد شاء ذلك اذن وقدر عليه. فاى كلام اشنع واشد استحالة من هذا.

وان قالوا ان علمه بالاشياء غير مثيته فيها وقدرته عليها لانه قد يعلم ما لا يثاء كالغواحش ويقدر على ما لا يثاء كادخال الكفار الجنة يقال لهم كما ا. ككم ,ن دكان لآ ,لاه ,لاشا

جاز لديكم ان يكون علم الله بالاشياء غير مثيته فيها وقدرته عليها وكل

we have [just] described, then we say that the body was an act of the three [hypostaseis], [at the same time] we say, [an act of] one of the three, not of the three.

If they say: “Clarify for us the act of the three [hypostaseis]: is it a proper act of one or of each one of them apart from the others?” it should be said to them: From the perspective of creating and willing, everything that happened or is happening through [the hypostaseis] is one. As for manifestation and revelation, each one of [the hypostaseis] is in any act or state it wills, and this is specific, not common [to all of them]. This is because a mode of being distinguishes each one of them. If the three of them were one and not three, then the revelation of something from them or a manifestation in any way, would be a revelation and manifestation of the three of them.

However, although each one of the hypostaseis is coincident in its being with the being of that which is not itself of the [individual] hypostasis, it is [still] a particular hypostasis distinct from the others, so there is no doubt that what [an hypostasis] wills belongs only to itself. For one of them willed to become incarnated, possessing a rational soul, through the pure Virgin Mary. And the revelation in the Incarnation is a property of one of them exclusive of the other two. As for the creation of the body or their will for one of them to become incarnated, [this] is common to the three of them.^[90]

6. The example of this is your description of God, [when you say] He knows, wills and is powerful. Is God’s knowledge about a thing His willing it and His power over it? If they say: “Yes”, then it should be said to them: Has God already willed and have power over all of what He knows? Then since He knows the Resurrection will occur, it has already happened, because according to you His knowledge is [the same as] His will, and He has already willed it and has power over it. What teaching is a more repugnant and worse absurdity than this?

If they say that [God’s] knowledge of things is something other than His willing it and power over it, because He knows what He does not will, such as vile deeds, and He has power over what He does not will, such as leading the unbelievers into the Garden, it should be said to them: Just as according to you it is permissible

من الله لا من غيره هكذا وا لقول فى تجد احد الاقانيم دون الاثنين وان كانت ثلاثتها جوهراً واحدا .

7. فلا يظنن بنا احد انا جهلنا كثرة' خلاف ما 'فسنا به منه ما اشد من 'فنومه لا15 كا انحاه كند ال المصة دالى النادة. اناتعاعا لعا لا كل انحائه . وكنور ا لشمس ا لمتجدة' بالعين الناظرة' وانارتها عام لها بضوءها وحرارتها . لانه من عين الشمس وضوءها وحرارتها [لا] تباين فى المكان لاتصالها . والمتجد بالعين الناظرة' منها الضوء وحده دون العين

الداة ٠ ق ان دصف16 احد انه أح العمد. ا الداسة م.

وا لحرارة' من غير ان يصف احد انه رأى العين او الحرارة' متجدة' بالعين الناظرة' كحال تجد ضوءها .

8. فان قالوا ان المتجد انما يتجد بخروجه عن حاله الاولى بمنزلة الماء الجامد فاضافتكم ا لجد الى الكلمة وقد اوجبتم لها التجد ما هو . يقل لهم قد يجب عليكم ان تطلقوا ا لنظر فيما نرد عليكم من قولنا حتى تعرفوا غايتنا فيه ٠ فان يكن باطلأ كان كلما افصحنا به اشد كسرة' علينا من ان تجهلوه ٠

زعمتم ان اضافتنا الى الله ا لجد فضل از وصفناه انه تجد وذلك كحال تجم الماء بذاته لا .لشىء غيره . فمثلكم فى هذا الوجه كمن قضى على الناس كافة بالنهم جيش اذ وجد بعضهم جيشياً . فلو لم يوجد المتجد على ٠٥.۵, مظب.٠ج١٠٨اا٨ا>أح۵ا        ط1 حد ,٠٩١

غير ما وصفتم من جمود الماء كان ما وصفتم مشبها . فاما يوجد اًلشىء يتجد بغيره من الجواهر بلا تغيير عن حاله لم يكن لقولك هذا ثبات .

9. ما تقولون فى النار التى من جوهرها لا تبصر ولا تحس ولا تقع تحت شىء من الحواس البتة للطفها دون ان تتجم ببعض الاجسام اما حطب ^[91]

that God knows things that He does not will and has power over them, and everything comes from God, not something other than Him, just so is it with the teaching of the Incarnation of one of the hypostaseis, exclusive of the other two, even though the three are one ousia.

7. One should not think that we are ignorant of the great difference of what we compare to [God, the incarnated One] in His hypostasis, [and] even more so in^[92] all of His relations. [Yet, a possible] example are the light and illumination of the sun, incarnated in the seeing eye, to which [also] belong its brightness and heat. [There is no] separation in location between the sun disc and its brightness and heat because of their union. That which is incarnated of [the light, heat, etc.] in the eye is the brightness alone, not the disc and heat. And no one says that he sees the disc and the heat incarnated in the seeing eye in the same way its brightness is incarnated.

8. Now, if they say: “The incarnated One can only become incarnated by emerging from its primary state, in the manner of frozen water. If you bring the body into relationship with the Word [of God], making the incarnation necessary for it, what is it?” it should be said to them: It is necessary for you to pay close attention to what we say to you in reply, so that you will understand our conclusion. If it is false, everything that we have clearly laid out is a great defeat for us, just as if you were ignorant of it.

You claim that our addition of the body to God is an excess,^[93] when we describe Him as incarnated, and this is like the state of [frozen] water, embodied in its own being, not in something else. Your example in this aspect is like someone determining that all people are an army when he finds that some of them are soldiers! Now, if it were found that the incarnated One is not different from what you have said about frozen water, then what you have described would be [an acceptable] likeness. But if it is found that a thing can be incarnated in another ousia without change in its state, then [your argument] is not proven by what you say.

9. What do you say about fire, whose ousia is absolutely not seen nor felt nor perceived through something of the senses because of its immateriality, except when it is embodied in some bodies, either

اما8( شد اماذ اما فضة ٠ ذلك الاحا ١٠١٠٦٠٠٠٠

واما شمع واما ذهب واما فضة وغير ذلك من الاجسام . افترون النار هى .لجسمها .لبعض هنه الاجسام الموصوفة متغيرة' ام متبدلة عن ناتها او الاجسام المتجسمة فيها الى غيو حالها الاولى . وانما نار نار ادداً وان تحسدرسعف الحدم الىدالداً اصه الا تجسمتا ببعفى الجسوم ٠ و١لجسمجسم ابدا وان تجسمته النار.

وما 'فولكم فى نور الشمس الذى مكث بعد ما خلق ثلثة ايام غير متجسم بالعين ٠ يعرف ذلك من قرأ التورية ٠ فتجم بالعين من غير تغيير عن جوهره الاول وهو نور من قبل ان يتجم ومن بعد تجسمه .

10. اوليس كل نفس كل واحد منا ايضاً متجدة' بالجد لكمال الانسان. اص ها22 ء٠ حانتا سعا صدها ا انتقال الحد ض حاله افتخرجوها عن روحانيتها ولطفها بتجسدها او بانتقال ا لجد عن حاله لآ فالذغس نف ادداً الددحدادداً ٠ ق ا۵د٠ى ٠ بدى ٠ فالنغسى نغسى ابدا وا لجد جد ابدا من غير ان يكون المركبة من هذين المختلفين اثنين بل واحد بالاتحاد .

فكما ان النار متجسمة ببعض ا لجسوم وا لشمس بالعين وا لنفس بالجد من غيو ان ينتقل كل واحد منها عن جوهره هكذا والقول فى الكلمة وافضل من هذا بما لا فسحة له ولا مقدار . تجدت بجم ذى نفس منطيقية بتجد حقيقى دائم لازم بلا تباين من غير تبدل ولا تفييو . هى الكلمة ابدا والجد جد ابدا من غير ان يكون المجتمع منها اثنين بل اقنوم واحد ئحد,لا ٠٠ 24 هداذساًن        احدلاام٠كماذك٠ذا

متجد الاهحق وهو انسان حق فهوواحدلا اثنين كما ذكرنا .

wood or candles or gold or silver or some other corporeal bodies [like] this? Are you of the opinion that when fire is embodied in some of these corporeal bodies [just] described, it changes or is altered from its fire-ness or the corporeal bodies in which they are embodied [become something] other than [their] primary state? Fire is always fire, even when it is embodied in some bodies, and the corporeal body is always a corporeal body, even when the fire is embodied in it.

What do you say about the light of the sun, which remained for three days after its creation without being embodied in its disc? This is understood by the one who has read the Torah. [The light] was embodied in the disc without change in its primary ousia, and it was light before it was embodied and after its embodiment.

10. Is not every soul of every one of us also incarnated in a corporeal body [to make] a complete human being? Do you separate [the soul] from its spirituality and its immateriality in its embodiment or in the transformation of the body [back] into its first state [of death]? The soul is always a soul and the body is always a body without the composite of these two being two different things; rather it is one in the union [of the two].^[94]

Just as the fire is embodied in some corporeal bodies, and the sun in the disc, and the soul in the body, without any of them being transformed from its ousia [into something else], just so is the teaching about the Word [of God], and even more so than this, in that He has no space and no measure. [The Word] is incarnated in a corporeal body, possessing a rational soul in a true, eternal, necessary incarnation, without separation, alteration or change. It is the Word [of God] eternally, and the body a body eternally, without that in which they are joined together being two. Rather, the one incarnated hypostasis is true God, and He is a true human being; He is one, not two, as we have mentioned.

11. فان 'فالوا افتزعمون الله تعالى ذكره سكن ذلك الجد يقال لهم .دلى . انا نصف انه سكن ا لجد على وجه ا لتجد به لا سكون مرسل كسكونه فىغيرهمنالبرايا.

فان قالوا فاذ سكن ا لجد كما تصغون فقد احاط به ا لجد والمحاط به حد د الد د م" فالله26 اذن هخلدة ك٠ط ئ ل انما كان محدود والمحدود مخلوق فالله اذن مخلوق كزعمكم يقال لهم انما كان يلزم الله ما وصفتم لا محالة . يقم كلامكم على الكلمات صادقة حقيقية . كمن ادعى ان الانسان جوهر فاستشهد على ذلك فقال ان الانسان حى والحى جوهر ورد الكلام الى اوله فقال الانسان لا محالة جوهر . فصاغ كلامه من كلمات حقيقية صادقة.

فاما من صاغ كلامه من كلمات كاذبة مدفوعة مجحوشة' فلا سبيل ان يظهر فى الجملة كلام صادق لا محالة ٠ كمن وصف الانسان دائما والدائم [لا] الابتداء له فالانسان اذا الاه . صاغ كلامه من كلمات شتى اولهن كاذبة . فلما صار رأس الكلام ياطلأ لم يظهر الحق فى الجملة وان كانت الكلمات ا لمقرونة اليها صادقة حقيقية . هكذا وانتم لما اوجبتم ان اجد محيط بالكلمة وبنيتم الكلام على كلمة مدفوعة الحقتم من بعد كلمات صادقة مقبولة . ثم قضيتم فى الجملة .لما اردتم غير ان يلزم الجملة ما وصفتم .

12. فان 'فالوا من اين بينا كلامنا على كلمة مدفوعة كما وصفتم. اليس قد اوجبتم ان الكلمة سكنت ا لجد. فاحد الامرين اما ان يكون ا لجد محيطاً بها آرت، عليها واما ان تكون الكلمة ماسكته فيكون خلو منها كسائر الاجساد.

يقال لهم ادا وان اوجبنا ان الكلمة سكنت ا لجد فقد نفينا ان يكون سكنه

تكون 28 Missing in Graf 29 S حقيقة 27 P فا١لله 26 P

11. If they say: “Are you claiming that God, His remembrance is exalted! dwells in this body?” it should be said to them: Of course! We describe Him as dwelling in the body in the manner of [Hiss incarnation in it, not the “dwelling” that is sent out [from Gods, like His dwelling in creatures other than Himself.^[95]

If they say: “If He dwells in the body, as you have described, then the body confines Him, and what is confined is limited, and what is limited is created. Is God therefore a creature, according to your claims?” it should be said to them: Certainly, what you have described must be necessary for God. Your syllogism has accurate and true premises, just as when one maintains that the human being is an ousia, and demonstrates this, saying that the human being is living, and what is living is an ousia. The syllogism returns to its first part, so he says: “The human being is without a doubt an ousia” The syllogism is formulated from true and accurate premises.

However, if his syllogism is formulated from false premises that should be rejected and denied, certainly it is not possible that the conclusion of the syllogism will be accurate. As when one states: the human being is eternal, eternity has no^[96] beginning, the human being is, therefore, God. His syllogism is formulated from many premises, the first of which is false. For if the beginning of the syllogism is formulated invalidly, then the conclusion will not result in the truth, even if the premises linked to it are accurate and true. This is the same as what you have argued, [when you sayS that the body confines the Word, and you build the syllogism on a premise that should be rejected, adding further accurate and acceptable premises. Then you reach the conclusion [you desires with what you set out, although the conclusion is not necessarily what you have described.

12. If they say: “How are we building our syllogism on a premise that should be rejected, as you have described? Have you not made it necessary that the Word [of Gods dwells in the body? Then it must be one of two things: either the body is encompassed by [the Words which has come into it, or the Word grasps it, then [the bodyS is devoid of [the Words, just as [all of the rest of bodies,” it should be said to them: if we have made it necessary that the Word

مثا سكع نعا طئ٠ الاحاد انما صغئاانهؤمكلذعاالى سى ن تحد مثل سكونها سائر الاجساد . وانما وصفنا ان سكونها الجس سكون تجد .ده لا كسكون مرسل .

فانما كان ينبغر لكم ان تسئلونا عند اقرارنا .دسكون الكلمة الجد امحيط هو بها ام لا . فان قلنا محيط جاز لكم ان تتبعوا الكلام اين ما صار اليه . وان دفعنا ذلك نظرتم فيما يلزمنا . فالزمونا الى ان نورد عليكم حجة صحيحة غير مدفوعة ولا محجوحة .

13. فان 'فالوا انما يكون الشئء ساكنا فى شئء غيو ان يحيط به يقال لهم اما فى ا لجسوم فلا سبيل الى ان يسكن يعضها يعض من غير ان يحاط يه. فاما الذى ليس يجسم فلا سبيل للجم ان يحيط به اذا سكنه. بل ا لجم محاط منه يمنزلة النور المتجم يعين الشمس وكالنار المتجسمة بالجمرة' وكالنفس المتجدة' بالجد ٠ فعين الشمس محاط من نورها لا هو منها والجمرة' محاطة من النار ا لشاعلة فيها لا هى من ا لجمرة'. والجد محط منالذغسلاهىمذه.

14. فالشمس ونورها والجمرة' ونارها والنفس وجدها سر لتجد كلمة الله بالجد. فكما ان كل واحد من هذا الثلثة المذكورة' متجم فيما تجم به بلا تغيير عن حاله ولا تبديل عن جوهره من غير ان يكون مع

32        - فعكذ, الفل ٠ كلمة,لله

الشى الذى تجم به اثنين بل واحد بحق فهكذا والقول فى كلمة الله ست33حسداذاش٠        ٠ الطدةللاتغ~ .حالعالاد ٠

تجدت جدا ذا نفس من مريم ا لطاهرة' بلا تغيير من حالها ولا تبدل من جوهرها من غير ان تحد من ا لجد بل ا لجد المحدود منها. وهى ^[97] [98]

dwells in the body, we have [also] denied that it dwells in it in a similar [manner] to its dwelling in the rest of bodies. We have only described its dwelling in the body as a dwelling of “incarnation” in it, not like a dwelling [of the Holy Spirit] sent out [by God].

Yet, it is necessary that you ask us: According to your affirmation of the dwelling of the Word in the body, does [the body] encompass it, or not? Now, if we say it encompasses it, you are permitted to pursue the syllogism, [saying]: In what does this result? And if we deny this, you must pay attention to what is necessary for us [to make the argument]. For we are obligated to set out for you sound evidence, that should not be rejected nor denied.

13. If they say: “Verily, can something dwell in something [else] without being encompassed by it?” it should be said to them: Either [it is something] in corporeal things, and then it is not possible that one dwells in another, without being encompassed by it, or [it is something] which does not have a body, and it is not possible for the body to encompass it when it dwells in it. Rather, the body is encompassed by it, as is the case of the light embodied in the disc of the sun, just as fire is embodied in coal and so, [too] the soul is incarnated in the body. For the disc of the sun is encompassed by its light, not [the light by the sun], and the coal is encompassed by the fire burning in it, [the fire] is not [encompassed] by the coal, and the body is encompassed by the soul, not [the soul] by [the body].^[99]

14. The sun and its light, and the coal and its fire, and the soul and its body are a mysterion for the incarnation of the Word of God in the body. For just as each one of these three things mentioned is embodied in what embodies it, without change in its state or alteration in its ousia, and without the thing with which it is embodied being two, but rather that it is in truth one, just so is it in the teaching on the Word of God: [it is an] Incarnation [of the Word in] a body possessing a soul, through Mary, the immaculate, without change in its state nor alteration in its ousia, without being limited by the body; rather, the body is limited by [the Word]. And [the Word] and the

الحسد احدلاتحادحقف4د دلاتا تلناً ء عله العدد ددى, والجد واحد باتحاد حقيقى دائم .دلا تباين تباينا يجرى عليه العدد ويدعوا ١ل ,٠٠ انكان,ئ ٦ لا,٠ماًلهىط٠        ٠٠ 36 ح

الى اثنين وان كان فرقا جوهريا لازما له ثابتا فيه كثبوت فرقى جوهرى الشمس والنار والنفس والذين تجسمت بهم .

15. فان 'فالوا ماذا انكرتم ان يكون ا لجد حاوياً للكلمة محدأ لها وقد اوجبتم انها فيه كما هى فى غيره من الاجسام والاجساد. فاحد الامرين اما ان يكون كل الاشياء التى هى فيها لها جد واما لا يكون ذلك ا لجد النى وصفتم بانها تجدته لها جسدا اذ صارت فيه بلا حد كما انها فى غيره من الاشياء. يقال لهم وكيف ذلك يصير حلولها فى ا لجد وحلولها فى سائر الاشياء واحداً وهى متجدة' به وبه متحدة' وفى الاشياء بلا تجد بها ولا اتحاد بها. ولو ان وصفنا اياها فى جدها لكان لعمرى لكم فى ذلك مقال. فاما اذ اختلف وصفنا اياها فى جدها وفى الاشياء وجب عليكم ا لنظر فيما نصف.

16. فكما ان نور ا لشمس موصوف بانه فى عينه وفى الهواء وفى الارض

والبيت وغير ذلك من الاشياء على انحاء مختلفة ووجوه متشتتة لانه فى عينه مركب فيها متجد بها وفى الهواء شامل له متحد به من غير تركيب ولا اتحاد ثابت وفى الارض والبيت كذلك وكبصر العين الناظرة' الى الاشياء فالنظر مشارك العين والاشياء متجد متركب بعينه والاشياء ٠د        كالعظ٠38        W

تركيب وكالعقل فى النفس افتصاا39طما٠مئافعا اقتصارا على ما سبق مئا فيها .

17. هكذا والقول فى كلمة الله سبحانه فانها موصوفة فى جدها وفى الاشياء اما فى جدها فاتحاد تركيب دائم ابدى وفى الاشياء كمن لا حد له ^[100] [101]

body are one in a real and eternal union, without difference [like that which] occurs in number, and they are not drawn to become two. Yet, a substantial distinction is inherent in [the body] and enduring in it, just like the substantial distinction between the sun and the fire and the soul, and those [things] which are embodied in them.

15. Now if they say: “Why do you deny that the body contains and limits the Word, yet you make it necessary that [the Word] is in it, just as it is in other corporeal things and bodies? It must be one of two things: Either all of the things that it is in have a body, or that body you have described, which [the Word took] to itself to became incarnated in, is not a body, since [the Word] is in [the body] without limit, as it is in other things,” it should be said to them: Why should this descending [of the Word] into the body happen in the same way as its descending into everything else, for it is incarnated in [the body] and is united with it, and is in [other] things without being incarnated in them nor united with them? If we had described [the Word] so in its body, by my life! then you are right. But since our descriptions of [the Word] in its body and in [other] things are different, it is necessary for you to examine what we have described.

16. Similarly, the light of the sun is described in its disc and in the air and on the earth and on a house and other things with different relations and in many ways, because [the light] is bound up in [the sun’s] disc and it is incarnated in it, and the air encloses it, uniting with it, without there being a composite or persisting union, and on the earth and house it is the same. [It is also] like [the relationship of] the sight of the eye of the viewer to the things [it sees]: the seeing is associated with the eye and with the things seen by it, yet [the sight] does not take possession over what it is associated with, because [the sight] is incarnated and bound up with its eye, without being united or a composite with the things, both those near and far. And it is like the intellect in the soul, through which it is rational, and other [things] that do not need to be described [here] in order restrict [ourselves] to what precedes us.^[102]

17. It is the same with the teaching about the Word of God, may He be praised! [The Word] is described in its [own] body and in things: in its body as a united composite, lasting and eternal, and

ولانهاية من غير ان يكون فيها مركبا ولا متجسما بها . لانه لا يجوز فى صفة ا0 نآن ٠ دئ ٠ لاذهف_كاسحد الله سبحانه ان يكون موصوفا فى موضع دون موضع . لانه فى كل بلا حد معتلى عن كل بلا تهاية من غير ان يكون له ا لحمد بشىء منها متجسماً او مركباً ما خلا ذلك الجد الطاهر كما وصفنا .

18. فان قالوا هل بين ا لجد الذى تجله وبين سائر الاجساد اذا وصفتموه مخلو'فاً فصل او فرق يقال لهم اما فى وجه الخلقة فلا واما فى الاتحاد

التك، اصا ك4 ردللد تحد اتحده لانه حلا دحلا والتكريم والتفضيل فكثير ما بينهم للذى تجسده واتحده . لانه حلاه بحلاه كاه.هال.نته شدثعاءنا ده ئ صا محساً وكساه نوره والبسه رتبته وشمله شعاع ضيايه وملاه 'فدسه حتى صار محييا مطهرا مقدساً كالجمرة' ا لموصوفة محر'فة منيرة' مضيئة وغير ذلك مما توصف

به النار من غير ان تكون الجمرة' اثنين بل واحدا من اثنين من نار لطيفة وجم حاسى بلا تغيير منذ-ارءن جوهرها ولا الجم عن طبيعته ■

19. فان 'فالوا وما الذى دعا الله سبحانه الى ان يتجد ويصير اناناً يقل لع.,انالدءاسحا٠٠الد٦الان خلدا ذكه ت٠ا . لهم ان الذى دعاه سبحانه فى البدى الى ان يخلق ادم وذريته من تراب بعد ان لم يكن شيئاً ونغخ فيه من روحه ومن ملكه تصريف فعاله وجلب اليه جميع حلاته وخوله ما فى البحر والبر الهواء وامره بمنافعه ونهاه وحذره مضاره واسكنه جنته واوعده ملكوته هو الذى دعاه الى التجد والتانس التماسا بذلك انقاذه وذريته وتخليصهم من ضلالة تسلطت عليهم بتضعفهم

in things as one that has no limit and no end, without being bound up with them or embodied in them. Because it is not possible of an attribute of God, may He be praised! that He be described as [being] in one place to the exclusion of another place, since He is in everything, without limit, exalted over everything, without end, there is nothing, praise to Him! in which He is embodied or with which He is a composite, except that pure body [of Christ], as we have described.

18. Now if they say: “Is there a separation or differentiation between the body in which He became incarnated, and the rest of bodies, since you describe it as created?” it should be said to them: From the perspective of the creation, no; [from the perspective] of the union and honor and esteem, there is a great [difference] between them and that [body] in which He became incarnated and with which He united Himself. For He adorned it with His [own] ornamentation, He clothed it with His light and the garment of His rank, enclosing it in the rays of His brightness, and filled it with His holiness, so that it became living, pure and holy, like the coal, described as burning, becomes luminous and light-giving, and anything else with which one describes fire, without the coal being two [different things]. Rather, [the coal] is one from two: from immaterial fire and a perceptible corporeal body, without the fire changing its ousia, or the corporeal thing [changing] its nature.

19. Now, if they say: “What is it that caused God, may He be praised! to be incarnated and become human?” it should be said to them: That which caused Him, may He be praised! in the beginning to create Adam and his descendants from dust, after there had been nothing, and breathe into him from His [own] spirit, and from His own authority [allow] him to act freely, and [allow] him to bring about his own condition completely,^[103] and bestow on him what is in the sea and the land and the air, and command him with [the use of] its benefits and forbid him and warn him from what will harm him, and give him His Garden as a home and promised him His Kingdom, is that which caused Him to the Incarnation and becoming human. [God] sought by this [Adam’s] deliverance and [that of] his descendants, and their salvation from the error that had mastered

انفهم بطول الغتهم بها وانهضهم من صرعتهم وردهم الى مرتبتهم الاولى.

فان قالوا وما الذى دعاه الى ان يخلق ادم وذريته يقال لهم الذى دعاه الى ذلك صلاحه وتفضله .

20. فان 'فالوا اولم يكن صالحاً ذا فضل حتى خلق يقال لهم اما على شئء مخلوق فلا لانه لم يكن حتى خلقه واظهر عليه منته وصلاحه وان كان سبحانه لم يزل صالحا بذاته. فالذى دعاه الى ان يتطأطأ الى ما ليس يموجود عبثاً ولا غرضاً فيصيره شيئاً ذا قدر وخطر هو دعاه الى ان يجدد خلقته لما اخلقته الخطية. واعاد بريته الىحاًلها الاولى كسابق علمه له ا لحمد لم يزل

تخلعه فضا ط ها ى فه الاطائ لذلك46 ل فف خلقه وتخليصه ففل على ما ركب فيه من الاستطاعة. ولذلك لم يرفض خلقه اذ علم ما هو صائر اليه بارتكابه وتورطه فى الغلالة. لما قد سبق فى علمه جل ثناؤه وسببه من انه منقنه ومخلصه من الغلالة له كما ذكرنا.

21. فان 'فالوا وما كان يقدر يخلصهم من غير ان يصير انسانا يقال لهم بلى

له الحمد هو القادر على ما اراد ولكن لم يرد ان يكون خلاصهم وانقاذهم فعلأضهحده ٠ لكلا        اك,        ط        هتاف47        ادا        لان

فعلا منه وحده دونهم لكيلا يحرمهم الثواب        على        متابعتهم        اياه        .        لان

الثواب وا لجزاء على فعل الثواب لا على فعل        غيرهم بهم. وما        الذى        كان

يدعوه سبحانه ان لا يصير انسانا لخلاص الذى دعاه        صلاحه الى        ان        يخلقه

وفى اى فعليه ترون العيب كان يلزمه عند نقه ولم يكن يستبين صلاحه افى تركه لا شء يصير شيئاً موجودا يجدد خلقه بما فعله من تجده لخلاصه او

مباعتهم? 47 وكذلك 46 S        ذى فضلا S ;ذا فضلأ 45 P

them, weakening them through their long inclination toward it, and He aroused them up from their destruction to their original rank.

Now if they say: “What is it that caused Him to create Adam and his descendents?” it should be said to them: That which caused Him to do this was His goodness and His esteem.

20. If they say: “Was He not good and estimable until He created?” it should be said to them: With regard to something created, no, because it did not exist until He created it and revealed His graciousness and His goodness to it, although He, may He be praised! never ceased to be good in His being. [It was] that which caused Him to incline towards what was [previously] not existent, useless and without purpose, making it something possessing value and importance. It caused [God] to restore His creation which sin had made shabby. And so He returned His creation to its original state, as He, may He be praised! had always known [He would do] before. The deliverance of [creation] is more than the ability to assemble it together. Because of this, He did not refrain from creating it, [although He] had the knowledge of what would befall it when it committed sin and became entangled in error, since it was previously in His knowledge, great is His praise! and He caused Himself to be its Deliverer and Savior from error, as we have mentioned.

21. Now, if they say: “Did He not have the power to deliver them without becoming a human being?” it should be said to them: Certainly, may He be praised! He is powerful over what He wills. However, He did not will that their salvation and deliverance would be an act from Him alone without them, in order not to deprive them of the reward from following Him, because the reward and recompense comes to [the ones who do] the work [earning] the reward, not the work of others on their behalf.^[104] And what would have caused Him, may He be praised! not to become human to save those whom His goodness has caused Him to create? Which of [God’s] acts that are inseparable from Himself do you regard as the disgrace and do not make plain His goodness: His allowing a ‘nothing’ to become an existent thing, and renewing His creation by

اهماله اياه فى الهلكة بعد ان صيره شيئا موجودا . فالذى دعاه الى ان يتجد ويتانس صلاحه ورحمته كما ذكرنا .

22. فان 'فالوا وما الخلاص الذى ذكرتم انه خلصكم دون مخالفيكم فقد نرى الموت ظاهرا عليكم كسائر الامم المخالفة لكم . يقال لهم ان الموت

ئ۵        ت م الا٠ لاستعاة ٠ الق٠ل ددت^[105] سن

موتان احدهما موت بحق والاخر باستعارة' من القول بالموت الحقيقى موت الخطية والضلالة وباستعارة' من القول مقارفة الروح من البدن . فكما ان ا لجد ميت بمغارفة النفس اياه هكذا والنفس ميتة بعدمها الايمان . فقد

49

انقذنا وخلصنا من كلا الموتين .

١ما        الحقق_هؤفمااددذاغلمذا لا١ن Jjlj* ااً ٠٠ صفته

اما من الحقيقى فيما ايدنا وعلمنا من الايمان بالله صوابا بحق صفته والقائه عنا السنة المغلظة المضلة لاهلها والعمل بطاعته المخالف لاعمل الامم الداعية الى حب الدنيا والانغماس فيها .

23. واما من المستعار فيما حقق 'فيامة الاجساد واعادتها بقيامة جده الى

الادد اقائه اقا        اك ى الشق اا٠.ا لأ5 ات ٠٠

الابد وا٠فامتهمن ا٠فاممن البشر .فليس المتيقن باعاحذحياته فان مات بميت ولا ا لحى حيا اذا كان بالموت والغناء متيقنا وان كان حياً . فعلة الموت الحقيقى الجهل بالقيامة وعلة الحياة' الحقيقية التيقن بها . لان المتيقن بها خائف اوزاره وراح حسناته والشاك فيها زاهد فى الحسنات راكب للخكيات .

فقد خلصنا له الحمد من كلا الموتين كما وصفنا .

24. فان ,فالوا فليس لو ارسل لخلاص العالم وانقاذهم غير اما من الملائكة واما من الطاهرين من البشر كان افضل من ان يباشر بنغه يقال لهم كما ان

what He did in His incarnation for its deliverance, or His neglect of it in destruction after He had made it into an existent thing? That which caused Him to become incarnated and become human is His goodness and mercy, as we have mentioned.

22. If they say: “What about the salvation you have mentioned, are you saved, apart from your opponents? We see that death is obviously upon you, just as [it affects] the rest of the peoples who are your opponents?” it should be said to them: Death is of two [kinds]. One of these is true death and the other is metaphor [drawn] from the expression “true death” ([that is,] the death of sin and error), and it is a metaphor for^[106] the expression “a separation of the spirit from the body”. Just as the body dies with the separation of the soul from it, so the soul dies separated from faith. [Through the Incarnation,] we are delivered and saved from both [kinds] of death.

[We are saved] from true [death of the soul] by what He confirmed for us and taught us concerning the correct faith in God about His true predication [as one and three]. And He cast off from us the practices that were harsh and misleading for their own people, and [gave us] the work of obedience to Him in contrast to the works of the peoples, which are motivated by love of the world and immersion in it.

23. [We were saved] from the metaphorical [death of the body] when He effected the resurrection of bodies and their restoration forever by the resurrection of His [own] body and His raising up of the people He raised up. The one who is certain of the restoration of his life is not dead with death, and [one who is] alive is not living when [he believes] in death and the extinction [of existence] while he is still alive. For the source of true death is ignorance of the resurrection, and the source of true life is the certainty of it, because the one who is certain of [the resurrection] is afraid of his sins and hopes in his good works, and the one who doubts it refrains from good works, [instead] committing sins. So has He, praise to Him! saved us from the two [kinds of] death, as we have described.

24. If they say: “Would it not have been better, if He had sent someone else, either an angel or someone from among the holy people, for the salvation and deliverance of the world, than to have carried it out Himself?” it should be said to them: It would not have

خلقه لادم وذريته لو تولاه غيره اما من الملائكة او غيرهم لم يكن بافضل . لانه كما وجبت عبادته على ادم وذريته لخلقه اياهم لذلك كانت تجب عبالة' الك انقاذ ^[107] دطه لان انقاذ تحدد د لا الذى يتولى انقاذهم وخلاصهم عليه . لان انقاذهم تجديد خلقتهم ولا سبيل ان يجدد خلقتهم غير الذى تولى صنعتهم ■

مع انه 'فد ارسل اليهم بعفهم كنوح وابراهيم وموسى وغيرهم من الانبياء وا لرسل . فكل واحد منهم فى زمانه لاهله منذر . فلما لم يتبعه كلهم وا نما ا- قلا٠١لحاًدءااال اكا٠اءله^[108] ٠فا الادان اتبعه قليل زمانا يسيرا ثم عادوا الى ما كانوا عليه من قبل وهو الاستحواذ

55

على الضلالة . فلما لحق هنه الرسل من الضعف لانهم كانوا مخلوقين غير خارجين من الصرعة وان كانت لم تستولى عليهم كاستيلائها على العامة لان احدهم اذا قتل ومات لم يكن به طاقة الى عونن' اولى وذلك دد ا56قلعمال ال٠هد,        ,د الاسطافداً        اذأدقداط

يدعوا قبلهم الى الزهد فيهم والى الاستخفاف بامرهم اذ لم يقدروا على ان يقيموا انفسهم من بعد موتهم .

25. فلهنه واشباهها مما لم نصف لم يرسل سبحانه غيره لانقاذ العالم صه دحته لآ دى ئ؛ ان انتحدت58كلمتهالمد فة وخلاصه ودعته رأفته ورحمته جل ثناؤه الى ان تجدت كلمته الموصوفة انها المولودة' من الاب بلا ابتداء كامل من كامل اله حق من اله حق وعلة وصفه نفه ابنا باتفاق ذات الذى منه ولد فى جمع انحاء ذاته كاتفاق ذات كل واحد ذات ابيه من غيو ان يلزمه ما يلزم الابناء والاباء المخلوقين. فعات59 سع اح        هرها فانعذت الث خفى

فصارت        انسانا بلا تغيير من جوهرها فانقذت البشر وخلصتهم من

الضلالة بما دعتهم اليه من الايمان والعمل. وحققت ذلك لديهم بنهوضها

been better if He had entrusted it to someone other than Himself, either an angel or someone else. For just as it is necessary for Adam and his descendents to worship [God] because He created them, so it would be necessary [for them] to worship the One who had been entrusted with their deliverance and salvation. Because their deliverance is the renewal of their creation, and it is impossible that someone other than the One who was entrusted with producing them renew their creation.

To be sure, He sent [to the people] some, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and other prophets and messengers, but each one of them was a warner to his people in his own time.^[109] But all of [the people] did not follow [the prophet], they only followed him a little for a short time, then they returned to what they were before, being overpowered by error.^[110] Also, these messengers were afflicted by weakness [themselves], because they were creatures, not outside of the destruction [of sin], although it was not master over them, as it mastered the [rest] of the people. When one of them was killed or died, he was not worthier [than the others] of the ability to [be resurrected and to] return, and this led their tribe to abandon them and to scorn their commands when they did not have the power to raise themselves up after their deaths.^[111]

25. Because of this and similar things, which we do not describe [here, God], may He be praised! did not send another to deliver and save the world. His compassion and mercy caused Him, Whose praise is exalted! [to effect] the Incarnation of the Word, which can be described [thus]: it is begotten from the Father without beginning, Perfect from a Perfect, true God from true God. And the reason He describes Himself as “son” is in the identity of His being with the being of the One from Whom He was begotten in all relations of His being, in the same way the being of each one of [the relations] is identical with the being of His Father, although what is necessary for created fathers and sons is not necessary for Him.

[The Word] became a human being without change in its ousia, and delivered humanity and saved it from error through the proclamation of faith and [good] works. And this was shown to be true

٠١٠ اا الاد ..؛.6١,ا.._^ا        ٠ ذكال اا٠٠٠ا

بالجد الى الابد من بعد ما قتلت بجدها . ودعاهم ذلك الى الرغبة فيها والتعظيم لسانها والزموا نفوسهم عبادتها لما رأوا من مخالفة حالها حل جمع المخلوقين .

26. فان قالوا العجب لعقولكم كيف احتملت هذا القول وصدقت بالاه

يموت ويقتل ■ فلخبروا عن من مات ايجوز ان يكون حياً وعن من ليس بحى ايجوز ان يكون الاهاً مدبراً . فاذا وجبتم انه 'فد مات فقد بطل واذا بطل فقد بطل التدبير والسياسة . واذا بطلت السياسة فقد بقى العالم بلا مدبر . يقل ل ل كان صفا ان الله        ^{[112] [113] [114]}اا1 كان ٠

لهم لو كان وصفنا ان الله مات على ما ظننتم من موت العباد كان لعمرى وهناً فى عقولنا ونقصاً فى ذهننا . فاما اذ صار موته عندنا غير ما عنيتم لم يلزمنا من معناكم عتب . لانا لما عنينا مقتولأ ميتا بالجد اى من جهة الحد لا حئذلا ته انكاناسالمدت انعاط التحسد63 دكماله ا لجد لا من جهة لاهوته وان كان اسم الموت واقعا على التجد بكماله لحال64 الاتحا انما اهك ان تحعا اشا ادت دحده لا دلا ٠٠ لحال الاتحاد انما امكن ان تجعل القتل والموت بجده لا بلاهوته

المعتلية عن الموت والحيال كما ذكرنا .

27. فهو حى ميت فى وقت واحد بمنزلة الانسان الموصوف بصيراً واعمى ز 'فت احلكسصمعئا66مص67 احدلاا٠ لااً فى وقت واحد فهو بصير بقلبه معترا ببصره واحد لا اثنين. فالاعتراء

ادن كلهدطةالعما8و        .ان ط الما ال. ا١

واقع على كله بجملة العما ببعضه من غير ان يصل العما الى غير العين

٠امفالعما تاص لا۵ تس٠د        اسه69 اًلعما

من ابعاضه فالعما موت البصر. لان موت البدن جمودحواسه والعما جمود البصر. فالانسان اذا ميت ببصره حى بغير ذلك من حواسه وكالمشجوج برأسه هومشجوج وغيرمشجوج مشجوج برأسه غيومشجوج بيده . لان ا لمحال من الكلام ان يوصف احد مشجوجاً بيده لان ليس بموضع الشج.

to [humanity] when [the Word] raised itself with the body into eternity, after its body had been killed. This is the reason why [people] desire [the Word] and make [Hiss glorification the highest object [of worship] and feel themselves compelled to His service, because they recognize the difference between His state and the state of all other creatures.

26. If they say: “Your understanding is astonishing, how it bears this teaching and believes in a God Who dies and is killed!)6 Tell us about someone who dies: is it possible that he is alive, and about [someone] who is not living: is it possible that he is the God Who rules [all of creation]? When you make it necessary that He died, then He ceased [to exist], and when He ceased [to exist], then the rule and government [of creation] ceased, and when government ceased, then the world remained without a Ruler”, it should be said to them: If we have described God as having died death [like] humanity, as you think, then by my life! our understanding would be feeble and our minds would be deficient! But when His death according to us is something other than what you mean, no censure of what we mean is necessary. Because we only mean killing and death of the body, that is, with regard to the body, not with regard to His divinity, even while the term “death” is applied to the Incarnation in its entirety on account of the union [of humanity and divinity], so it is possible that the killing and death were effected in His body, not in His divinity, which is exalted above death and change, as we have [already] mentioned.

27. He is living and dead at the same time, [like] the status of the person described as seeing and blind at the same time: he is seeing in his heart, [yet] afflicted by his blindness, [he is] one [person] not two. The affliction affects all of [the person] completely, [although] the blindness is only a part of him, without the blindness entering into any part of him other than the eye. Blindness is the death of sight: the death of the body is the rigor of its senses, and blindness is the rigor of sight. For the human being, when he dies in his sight, is living in his other senses. In the same way, the one who is wounded in his head is [both] wounded and not wounded: wounded in his head, but not wounded in his hand. Because it is absurd speech to describe one of his hands as wounded, since it is not the site of the ^[115]

وان كان الانسان المشجوج واحدا . هكذا والقول فى المسجح سبحانه هو مقتول ميت .لجده وحى غير مقتول بلاهوته وهو واحد لا اثنين .

28. فقولنا انه مات بجده ليس كمن مات فى مدينة او دار او بيت.الذى هو الميت الموضع لا الموضوع بل هو قتل ومات الرحيم لاوجاعنا لانقاذنا وخلاصنا بالجد كالاعمى والمشجوج الذين كل واحد منهما موصوف انه مفعول به ببعضه واسم العما والشج واقع على الانسان بكماله.

29. فان 'فالوا فاذ اوجبتم عليه ا لقتل والموت فقد فارقت لاهوته جده

٠        ^[116] [117]        لا

وبطل الاتحاد الذى وصفتم انه الى الابد . لان موت الانسان وانحلاله

فراق نفه جده ومزايلتها عنه . فاى كلام اعظم تقيضة بعض على بعض

هذا ٠١ ٠ ان الله اتحد حسده اتحا ا اشالا الأ^[118] له لا من هذا . زعمتن ان الله اتحد مع جده اتحادا ابديا لا انحلال له ولا

افتراق . ثم وصفتم انه قتل ومات . فاحد الامرين اما ان يكون اتحاده اتحادا دائما ابديا فلم يقتل ولم يمت . واما ان يكون اتحاده مع جده اتحادا مزايلأ مغارقا فيلزمه ما يلزم من قتل ومات من فراق لاهوته جده . فباى القولين قلتم كان نقضا لقولكم .

دقاؤل^[119]اذا٠ودصغذاذفهذااك٠        هذا,لكتا ان سه

يقال لهم انا قد وصفنا فى غير هذا الموضع من هذا الكتاب ان المسجح له الحمد الا متا'        انما ,فتا 75 مات76 دحده لا د        ته دحده

الحمد الاه متانس وانما قتل ومات بجده لا بلاهوته وموته بجده ذا,"77مغسهالمخل.فةحسد7المخل," لا.ادلةلاهعتهذغسه حسده ا فراق مفه ا لمخلوقة جده ا لمخلوق لا مزايلة لاهوته نفه وجده بل

اللات متحد دعما اتحادا دائما79 كما صفنا لان ته تا٠ اللاهوت متحد بهما اتحادا دائما كما وصفنا . لان موته موت انسى من

جهة تأنه لا الهى من جهة لاهوته . وانما وصفنا اتحاداً دائماً ابدياً اتحاد الكلمة مع البدن والنفس جميعاً لاتحاد النفس مع البدن .

30. فالمنحل اذا امتياز النفس من البدن لا اتحاد الكلمة معهما كالنمواه8

wound! yet the wounded person is one [and the same]. The teaching about the Messiah, may He be praised! is like this: He was killed, died in His body, and is living, not killed in His divinity, and He is one, not two.

28. Now, we say that He died in His body, but this is not like someone who dies in a city, or a house or a home. That which died was the object, not the subject. Further, the Merciful [One] was killed and died for our sufferings and for our deliverance and our salvation, just as the blind and wounded, who both have the attribute that affects him in [one of] his parts, the name “blind” and “wounded” is applied to the person in his entirety.

29. If they say: “Since you make the killing and death necessary for Him, then His divinity was separated from His body, and the union, which you have described as eternal, ceases [to be]. For the death of a human being and His disintegration is the separation of his soul and his body, and [the soul’s] leaving [the body]. What statement is a greater contradiction between two things than this? You claim that God was united with His body in an eternal union, having no disintegraion or nor separation, then you describe [Him] as having been killed and died. It must be one of two things: either His union is a lasting and eternal union, then He cannot have been killed nor died, or His union with His body is a transitory, separable union, because it is necessary for Him what is necessary for one who is killed and dies concerning a separation of His body from His divinity. Whichever of these two statements you assert, it will contradict your teaching.”

It should be said to them: We have already described in another place in this book that the Messiah, may He be praised! is God become human, and that He was only killed and died in His body, not in His divinity, and His death in His body was the separation of His created soul from His created body, not the abandoning of His body and His soul by His divinity. Rather, the divinity was united with them in a lasting union, just as we have described. Because His death was a human death with regard to His becoming human, not a divine [death] with regard to His divinity. We only describe the union of the Word with the body and the soul together as a lasting and eternal union, because the soul is united with the body.

30. The ascription, therefore, [pertains to] the separation of the soul from the body, not the union of the Word with both of them,

ؤ قدة ى٩٠ مانعا قدلاظفغ٠ ل الشح.ة ناته فى شجرة' كبيرة' باغصانها وطح .لعضها فغرس فهو الشجرة' ونابتته

فالى ا ردات فعا اذاصاطاهكذاذقد8٩الفل ,قتله ٠٠ فالنموا ثابت فيها . واذا صار هذا هكذا فقد حق القول فى قتله وموته بتأنه وثبت اتحاد لاهوته مع نقه وجده اتحاداً دائماً ابدياً من غيو ان يلزمنا شى مما وصفتم .

31. فان 'فالوا اى الصفتين كانت اجمل وافضل فى الله اذ دعاه صلاحه الى انقاذ عباده وخلاصهم كما ذكرتم اذ لم يجز بعثه الملائكة ولا البشر لحال ما وصفتم بان ياذن بخلاصهم من غير كلفة ولا نزوح عن موضعه وان يباشر ذلك بنغه ويتجد ويناصب ما ناصب من قتل وموت وغير ذلك مما وصفتم يقال لهم ان الفضل والجمال فيما صبع له الحمد لا فيما يصبع

ا٦ لطف ذلك ,, علما لالأ ى نعط عن الى كله ا٠

وان لطف ذلك وخفى علميا لانا لم نعط علم ا لغيب كله ولم نحرم بعضه -

فلو ان خلاص العباد وانقاذهم من الضلال كان بالاذن وحده سراً من غير 88 الذدنط٠        الاكا اكخلكاأ

عيان ولم يعاين المخلص لكان يلزمهم من الالتباس والتخليك والتهور فى الهلكة اعظم من ان لو تركوا فى صرعتهم الاولى ■ لان اذن الآذن خفى لطف        ل.. ط لاذن لا الخ لمى لم 89

لطيف ولا سبيل الى الوفوع على الاذن الا بالمخبر المبعر المرى .

32. فلمن كانوا يشكرون على خلاصهم اذا اثتكل ذلك عليهم. فاحد الامرين اما لا يشكرون لمخلعهم لجهلهم فيكونوا كفرة' بالنعمة واما ان يثكراو من لا يعرفوه ولا يحمدوا على شكرهم. مع انه محال من القول ان لو ياذن بخلاصهم سرا. لان خلاصهم وانقاذهم متابعتهم اياه وتلببهم لما ^[120] [121]

like the growth of a large’7 tree with branches: one of [the branches] is cut and planted, and yet growth remains in both the tree and its shoot. If it is so in this [case], then the teaching about His being killed and His death in His humanity are true, and consequently it is established: the union of His divinity with His soul and His body is a lasting, eternal union, without what you say being incumbent upon us.

31. If they say: “Which of the two descriptions of God is more suitable and better (if His goodness caused Him to deliver His servants and save them, as you have described, and it was impossible for Him to send an angel or a human being for the reason you explained): that He permitted their salvation without inconvenience [to Himself] or departure from His place, or that He carried this out Himself, becoming incarnated and suffering what [He] suffered, being killed and death and other things that you have described?” it should be said to them: The better and more suitable is in what He did, may He be praised! not in what He might have done, even if this is subtle and knowledge of it is concealed, because we are not given all of the hidden knowledge, nor do we commit an offense [having] part of it.

Now if the salvation and deliverance of the servants from error was [done] by the permission of [God] alone, secretly, without being manifest or the Saviour being seen, then the muddle, confusion and collapse into destruction would necessarily be greater for them than if they had been left in their original [state of] ruin. Because the permission of the One Who permits is concealed and subtle, and it is impossible that the occurrence [of something done] by [His] permission [is known] except by the One who makes it known, seen and perceived.

32. And whom should [human beings] thank for their salvation if this had been obscure to them? For it is one of two things: either they would not thank their Savior because of their ignorance, then they would be ungrateful for the grace, or they would thank one whom they did not know, and they would not be commended for their thankfulness. Further, it cannot be said: “if only He had permitted their salvation to be secret”, because their salvation and deliverance is in their following Him, and in their surrender to what He has ^[122]

دعاهم له طايعين غير مكرهين من الايمان .له والعمل .لطاعته من .لعد تحقيقه العمامة لا ٠٥ دحده فانما خلد الحعةاككا٠اصكذهنان القيامة لديهم بجسده . فانما خلصهم من ا لجهة التى كانوا يتمكنون ان يخلصوا بها لا بالاذن وان كان على ذلك ,فادراً .

33. وما عساهم 'فائلين لو سألناهم كنحوا ما سألونا اى ا لصنفين كان افضا احماتم الاه سحانه لا الحمد اد ان دد ا لنا ال م افضل واجمل فى الله سبحانه وله الحمد اراد ان يدعوا الناس الى عباده وطاعته ان يصيرهم عابدين له طائعين من غير ان يكلف بعثه الرسل والوحى من ان يرسل اليهم رسلأ يدعوهم الى الايمان به والعمل بطاعته فيشتمون ويضربون ويقتلون .

34. ليعلموا ان الله تبارك وتعالى انما يدعوا ا لناس اليه من ا لجهة التى يعلم انهم يستوجبون باجابتها اياه بها الثوات والجزاء لا من جهة فعله وان كان على ذلك 'فادرا . واى فعل اتى الله له الحمد صغيرا ام كبيراً ليس بقادر

.        94        95        .

على غيره . فليقال اذا فى كلما فعل الله الو فعل غيره كان اجمل وافضل اذ هو على ذلك قادراً .

35. واما ما ذكروا من امر الكلفة والنزوح من موضعه فانهم سهوا. لو لا ذلك ا لسهو لم ينطقوا بشىء من هذا . انما الكلفة للعاجز ا لضعف الذى 'فد يخف عليه بعض الفعال . فاما الله سبحانه فليس اذنه ايسر عليه فعلأ من مباشرته ما باشره بتجده لانه لايمتع عليه امر اراحه ولا يستصعب عليه هويه . واما النزوح والتنقل فللاجسام المحدودة' المحتواة من المكان . واما من لا حد له ولا نهاية ملاء كل شيء وسع كل شء متعاب ظاهر على كل شى& . فكيف يجوز عليه التنقل والنزوح .

36. فان قالوا هل يجوز فى صفة الله ان يحتمل الزيادة' فى جوهره يقال لهم

called them voluntarily, without being compelled, by belief in Him and [doing good] works in obedience to Him after His accomplishment of the resurrection of His body in their presence. Truly, He saved them in the way which it was possible they could be saved, not [simply] by [His] permission, even though He was powerful [enough to do] this.

33. What would they say, if we asked them in the same manner they question us: Which of the two ways is better and more suitable of God, may He be praised and Glory to Him! [that He] decided to call human beings to serve Him and obey Him, and to make them His obedient servants without commissioning His delegation of messengers and the revelation or that He sent messengers to them, calling them to belief in Him and to works of obedience to Him, so that they would be reviled and beaten and killed?

34. Certainly they should know that God, the Blessed and the Exalted, only calls human beings to Himself in the way in which He knows that they will deserve merit through their response to it, and which has reward and recompense, not in the way in which He [alone] acts, even though He is powerful [enough to do] this. What act, small or great, could God, may He be praised! not have [accomplished] in another way with [His] power? So, does one say about every act of God, “if only He had done something else, it would have been more suitable and better”, even though He is powerful [enough to do] this?

35. As for what they mentioned concerning the issue of the inconvenience [to Himself] and departure from His place, they are neglecting [something]. If there were not this negligence, they would not speak of such a thing. Inconvenience is for the unable and the weak, for whom only some work is easy. But for God, may He be praised! an act He permitted [to be done by another] is not easier for Him than His directly causing what He carried out in His Incarnation, because nothing prevents Him from commanding His will, and there is nothing difficult for Him [in attaining] His desire. Regarding leaving and change of position, this is only for corporeal things that are limited and contained by a place. With regard to what is not limited and does not have an end, [this] fills up everything, comprehends everything and is exalted, mastering over everything. How is leaving and changing position possible for Him?

36. If they say: “Is it possible in a predication of God that an increase be sustained His ousia?” it should be said to them that “sus-

ليس احتمال الزيادة' من صفة الله . لانه كامل معتلى عن الكمال . وان الزيادة' 97 لا

صفة الاجساد والاجسام .

فان قالوا اوليس ا لجد الذى تجد فيه زيادة' يقال لهم ان الزيادة' انما تكون

٠ الحب ى ذى نا لاد ا ان        اط98, ال اط, ٠١١

فى الجسوم كما ذكرنا . ولا تعدوا ان توجد اما فى الوزن واما فى الذرع واما فى ا لكيل واما فى العدد . فاخبرونا عما ليس بجم ولا وزن له ولا ذرع ولا كيل ولا عدد كيف يجوز ان يحتمل الزيادة' فى بعض هنه الانحاء . وا نما يحتمل الزيادة' ان احتمل فى ا لعدد وحده . فلننظر هل له احتمال الزيادة' فى العدد . وهو قبل ان يتجد واحد بسيط روحانى ومن بعد تجده ايضا واحد

وان تجد . فلسنا نرى انه احتمل الزيادة' فى وجه من الوجوه .

37. فان قالوا وكيف لا يكون الجد زيادة' فيه وقد كان ولا له جد يقال لهم ليس الجد فيه ريادة' . لانه لا يجوز على الله فيه لانه انما يوصف فى الاجسام والاجساد كما وصفنا . فما قولكم فى الانسان ارأبتم جده زيادة' هو فى روحه . ان كان زائداً فهو فيها.

فابينونا على اى الوجوه من هنه الموصوفة هو اما فى الوزن فلسنا نراها زادت لانها لا وزن لها . ولا فى الكيل . لانها ليست بمكالة ولا فى الذوع لان الذرع لا يقع عليها . ولا فى العدد لانها واحد مع جدها لاتحاده معها من غير ان يكون ا لجد فيها ريادة' ولا هى فيه . اخبرونا عن جم اشتعلت فيه النار ازائد هو فى النار لاشتعالها فيه او انما اتحدته من غير ان يكون زائدا فيها ولا هى زائدة' فيه .

38. فان 'فالوا وكيف لا يوصف ا لجم المشتعلة فيه النار زا ئد فيها وقد 'ته حالهالاللماغلتءله-لا99هـمذهلأ لدهال غيرته عن حاله الاولى لما غلبت عليه حتى لا يظهر منه شيء لتصييرها اياه ناراً يقال لهم انما يعرف الاشياء معرفة صحيحة بحدودها . فابينونا ما حد

لها 98 P الاجسام 97 S repeats

taining an increase” cannot be [predicated] in a description of God, because He is perfect, exalted over perfection. Increase is an attribute of bodies and corporeal things.

If they say: “Is not the body, in which He incarnated Himself, increased?” it should be said to them that the increase is only [found] in corporeal things, as we have mentioned. Do not overlook [the fact] that increase is found either in weight, or in length, or in volume or in number. Tell us about what is without a body and has no weight nor length nor volume nor number: how is it possible that increase is sustained in one of these aspects? Increase is only sustained when one of these increases in number. So let us turn our attention to whether He sustains an increase in number. Now, before He was incarnated, He was one, simple and immaterial. And also after His Incarnation He was one, although incarnated. We do not see that He sustained increase in any way.

37. If they say: “How can it be that the body was not an increase for Him, when He had existed [before] and had no body?” it should be said to them: The body was not an increase in Him, because this is not necessary for God, since [increase] is only predicated of corporeal things and bodies, as we have described. What do you say about the human being: do you see an increase in His body when His spirit is in Him? If there were an increase, then it would be in [the spirit].

Clarify this for us, in which of these ways described is it? It is either in weight, but we see that it does not increase, because [the spirit] has no weight. Nor is it in length, because it does not have length, nor is it in volume, because volume does not occur in it, nor is it in number, because it is one together with its body, since [the body] is united with [the spirit] without the body being an increase in [the spirit], nor is [the spirit an increase] in [the body]. Tell us about a corporeal body in which a fire burns: is it an increase in the fire, because it burns in it, or is it only united with [the body] without being an increase in [the fire] or [the fire] being an increase in [the body]?

38. If they say: “Why should a corporeal body with fire burning in it not be described as increased by [the fire], for [the fire] changes it from its primary state when it overcomes [the body] until nothing of it is visible, because it makes [the body] into fire”, it should be said to them: Things are only known correctly by their definitions.

الجم لنعلم هل تغير ام لا ٠

فحد ا لجم عند اهل النظر بالحدود انه جوهر مبصر ذو ثلث جهات ذاك100 الدل اا٠ الغلظ فلنذها حد هذا الحد ٠ الم وذلك        الطول وا لعرض والغلظ . فلننظر هل يوجد هذا الحد فى ا لجم

المشتعل فى النار كجوهر مبصر ثلبتة جهاته وان كانت النار ٠فد كسته نورها وحلته بحليتها ليعلموا ان الجم المشتعل من النار ليس بزا ئد فيها ولا متغيرة' عن حالها الاولى . هذا وهى مخلو'فة مبرية فكيف اعظمكم ما قيل فالسحد؛لاح101

فيما ليس بمخلوق ولا مبرى .

39. فان 'فالوا اخبرونا عن الكلمة امحدودة هى من شىء ام ليس بمحدودة

يقال لهم ليست بمحدوحة' بل كل محدود منها. فان 'فالوا فالكلمة اذا فى كل يقال لهم اجل انها فى كل معتلية على كل. فان قالوا الكلمة بكمالها تجدت ام بعضها يقال لهم اثا ٠فد بينا قبل هذا الموضع ان الكلمة لا توصف ببعض ولا كمال ولا بالاستعارة' من القول. وذلك ان البعض مضاف الى الكمال والكمال مضاف الى الابعاض والله معتلى عن كل الصفتين. فان كان        ٠٠ لهم الكلمة        ت102 دكمالعا ا احطت        الحد

فان كان معنى قولكم الكلمة تجدت بكمالها اى احيطت من ا لجد نفينا عنها هنه الصفة ٠

40. فان 'فالوا فاذا قررتم ان الكلمة تجدت بكمالها والكلمة فى كل

احد فالجد اذا فى كل لكيلا يبقى من الكلمة شىء لم يتجد يقال لهم العجب من رأيكم. كيف ذهب به الذاهب. فلعمرى لو كانت الكلمة جثة طمة هلا 104 كا ٠ل اذعاتحدتحدا٠ دن كاًاندكهنذلك عظيمة ملاء كل ش٠ىء وانها تجدت جد اخر لكان واجبا ان يكون ذلك الحد,لذ ٠٠ ت 105 ط ٠٠ ئ 106        ء

ا لجد الذى تجدت به على قدرها ليلا يبقى بعضها مجردا من غير تجد . واما اذ هى لدينا روحانية غير جسمانية معتلية عن الاجزآء والابعاض لم نضطر الى ان نصف ا لجد فى كل كوصفنا اياها وان تجدت به فهى

10° S 101 هو ذلك Graf: read 102 مبروءة S تجسدة passim. 103 S omits

104 ان Graf: read 105 ملاءه S omits. 106 S لكيلا

Clarify for us what the definition of a corporeal body is, so that we may know whether it changes or not.

The definition of a corporeal body, according to the definitions of people who examine things [carefully] is: a visible ousia possessing three aspects, and these are length, breadth and thickness. So let us examine it. Is this definition found in the corporeal body burning in the fire as a visible ousia, its [three] aspects persisting even though the fire clothes it with its light and adorns it with its finery? They should know that the corporeal body burning from fire does not increase [the fire] and [the fire] is not changed from its original state. This is so in what is created and made, why do you find what is said about what is not created or made so difficult?

39. Now, if they say: “Tell us about the Word: is it something limited or not limited?” it should be said to them: It is not limited. Rather, everything is limited^[123] by it. If they say: “The Word, then, is in everything”, it should be said to them: Indeed! It is in everything and exalted over everything. If they say: “Was the Word incarnated in its entirety or [was] only a part of it [incarnated]?” it should be said to them: We have [already] clarified before this point, that the Word cannot be described as a “part” or a “whole” or [even] by a metaphorical statement. That is to say, the part is related to the whole and the whole is related to the parts, but God is exalted above both predications. If the meaning of your statement “the Word was incarnated in its entirety” is “it is encompassed by the body”, then we deny this description of [the Word].

40. Now, if they say: “If you acknowledge that the Word was incarnated in its entirety, and the Word is in everyone, the body, therefore, is in every[one], so that nothing of the Word remains that is not incarnated,” it should be said to them: Your view is astonishing! How can [anyone] hold [such a] view? By my life! If the Word were a vast body filling everything, and if it had become incarnated in another body, then it would have been necessary that this body in which [the Word] was incarnated be equal [in size] to it, so that no part of it remained free and not incarnated. However, since according to us [the Word] is spiritual, incorporeal, exalted above components and parts, we are not compelled to describe the body as being in everything in the same way we describe [the Word], even

فى كل بلا حد ولا نهاية متجن' من غير ان يكون ا لجد فى كل .

41. اوليس 'فد تعفون ان الله له الحمد فى ا لماء وعلى ا لعرش. فابينونا بكماله هو فى ا لماء وعلى العرش ام بعغه فى الماء وعلى العش سه ؤ - ذك فانقالال8ه( ذصفوه(اللهدعف ٠ ظ العرش وبعضه فى غير ذلك.فان قالوا لن نعف الله ببعفرحتى يقل ان بعغه فى كذا وعلى كذا وبعفه لا يقال لهم فاذ وصفتموه فى الماء

علك العرد فممحؤاه(( منها! ذكا غير حد فلا يشك؛' وعلى ا لعرش فممحؤا هو منها ام هو فى كل من غير حد ٠ فلا يشك ا نهم يوجبون انه فى السماء وعلى العرش وفى كل . يقال لهم فاذ وصفتموه فى الس٠ما ط العش111 ح^طدانتصفاالسما ف كاً اضاًلكلا السماء وعلى العرش وجب عليكم ان تصغوا السماء فى كل ايضا لكيلا يبقى منه شء ليس هو فى السماء وعلى العرش كنحو 'فولكم فى الكلمة وجدها لتعلموا ان الكلمة وان تجدت وكمالها فهى فى كل لم نضطر ان نصف الجد فى كل .

42. فان قالوا ان فولنا ان الله فى السماء وعلى ا لعرش انما يعنى انه رب السماء ورب العرش ليس بانه فيها كا!شىء فى الشئء يقال لهم فهو فيها على غير ما يكون الشئء فى الشئء ام لا يوصف فى الاسيأء البتة لا كالشئء فى ا!شىء او غير ذلك فانما هى اوجه ثلثة. اما تصغون الله انه فى السماء وعلى ا لعرش من غير ان يحويه شىء منهما لاعتلائه عليها واما ان يكون فيهما محوى منهما واما ان يكون ظاهراً عليهما لا فى شىء منهما.

فان قلتم انه فيهما [لا] ظاهر عليهم او ظاهر عليهما لا فيهما كان الله سبحانه بهنه ا لصفة محدوداً من خلقه ما لا يجوز فى صفته. وان قلتم انه فيهما ظاهر عليهما وصفتم حقاً ودخلتم فيما عبتم الا ان تقولوا غير هنه

1°7 S omits. 108 P 09ا ان P يعف no Graf: read 'فممحو        ]]] S omits

وفى كل . يقال لهم فاذ وهفتموه فى الماء وعلى العرش

if it is incarnated in [the body]. For it is in everything without limit and without end, incarnated, without the body being [present] in everything.

41. Do you not describe God, glory be to Him! as being in heaven and on the Throne?^[124] Clarify [this] for us: is He in heaven and on the Throne in His entirety or is a part of Him in heaven and on the Throne, and a part of Him in something else? Now if they say: “We do not describe God with a part, so that it must be said that part of Him is in this and in that, and part of Him is not”, it should be said to them: When you describe Him as in heaven and on the Throne, does He vanish from them, or is He in everything without limit? Without a doubt, it is necessary for them that He is in heaven and on the Throne and in everything.

It should be said to them: When you describe Him as being in heaven and on the Throne, it is necessary for you to describe heaven as being in everything, too, so that nothing of Him remains that is not in heaven and on the Throne, following your statement about the Word and its body. So you should know that even if the Word was incarnated in its entirety, it is [still] in everything. Thus, we are not compelled to describe the body as being in everything.

42. If they say: “Our statement that God is in heaven and on the Throne only means that He is Lord of Heaven and Lord of the Throne, not that He is in them, as something is in something else,” it should be said to them: Then He is in them, in a way other than something is in something else, or He is not described as in things at all: not as something is in something else, or in a way other than this. There are only three ways. Either you describe God as in heaven and on the Throne without Him being contained by anything of them, because of His exaltedness over them, or He is in them and encompassed by them, or He is outside of them and not in anything of them.

If you say: “He is in them, [not]^[125] outside of them” or “He is outside of them, and not in them”, then God, may He be praised! is limited by His creation with this description, which is not possible in a description of [God]. If you say that He is in them and outside of them, you have described [God] correctly, and you have come

الاوجه الثلثة انه لا يوصف فيهما ولا ظاهرا عليهما .

43. فتلزموه كلتا الصفتين انه فيهما وظاهر عليهما. اما فيهما من حيث انكرتم انه ظاهر عليهما. وظاهر عليهما من حيث حددتم انه [لا] فيهما كمن وصف الشمس لا نيرة' ولا مظلمة. فاثبت لها كلتا الصفتين من حيث

ذلكغذعااماظمةفلهصغه^[126] [127]اداهاق٠ة٠ة ح٠ثىغغالا بقى ذلك عنها اما مظلمة فلوصغه اياها غير نيرة' ونيرة' من حيث وصفها لا هـةلاذهحد        هد11 الصفد صفة ثالثة ما د ت لا ظلمة

مظلمة. لانه يوجد من هنه الصفتين صفة ثالثة ما ليس بنور ولا ظلمة بمنزلة الاحمر الموصوف لا ابيض ولا اسود لثبت له صفة ثالثة اى الحمرة ٠ لتعلموا انه لا اضطرار للشى المسكون ممن ليس بمحدود ان يكون غير محدود مثله.

44. فان 'فالوا كيف يجوز فى من ليس بجم ان يولد من امرأة' جسمانية وانما يولد من ا لجم جم لتعلموا انه لا سبيل الى ان يولد ما ليس بجم. يقال لهم انه لو كان وصفنا فى الكلمة ولدت من امرأة' جسمانية

٠ دة لىئلك'نلكذذلكمقافامااذصا صفا ل٦ مجرحة' من غير جد لكان لكم فى ذلك مقال فاما اذ صار وصفنا ولود الكلمة ٠ ١ أةحس٠ماة        د فاذ٠ما

الكلمة من امرأة' جسمانية ولودا جسمانيا لم يلزمنا فى ذلك عيب. فانما

٠ لط ب لدن        لا        ب ا لاط ,        116 إ

ولد لحال الجد الماخوذ من الامراة' المتحد بها لانها ولدت        منها

روحانية جسدانية.

45. اوليى القول فى ولود الادميين من امهاتهم شبيه بها فى بعض انحائة فى ولود الكلمة من مريم . والمولودون من امهاتهم اهم ارواح من غير الدانااامتد((اذلللدنااحاً ٠٠٠٠٥١ 118عنعاددها ابدان ام ارواح متبدنة . واذ لم يلدن ارواحا مجرحة' تنفى عنها ولودها دنة119 فكماانالاالل.ذك٠ هتحدةدالاددالصك ا ل متبدنة ٠ فكما ان الارواح لو لم تكن متحدة' بالابدان لم يكن بسيل الى ان يولدن من الامهات و'فد يولدن منهم لاتحادهن بالابدان مع اول خلقتهن . هكذا الدل ز الكلمة التحدة لات120 لحال الحد الدن

هكذا القول فى الكلمة المتجدة' ولدت        لحال ا لجد الماخوذ من مريم

to what you [previously] paid no attention to; nevertheless, you say that it is other than these three ways: He is not described [as being] in them and not outside of them.

43. Yet, it is necessarily both of these descriptions: that He is in them and He is outside of them. [He is] in them insofar as you deny He is outside of them, and He is outside of them insofar as you have established that He is [not]21 in them, just as someone describes the sun as [both] not luminous and not dark. He affirms it has both attributes, because these remain [constantly] with it: dark because he describes it as not luminous, and luminous insofar as he describes it as not dark. But a third attribute is found along with these two attributes, which is neither light nor darkness, as with [the color] red, which is described as not white and not black, because it has a third attribute, namely, redness. So you should know that it is not necessary that something inhabited by something else without limits be without limits [itself], like [that which dwells in it].

44. They may say: “How is it possible that one who is without flesh be born of a corporeal woman? Flesh can only be born from flesh. You should know that it is impossible that what is without flesh be born.” It should be said to them: If we had described the Word [of God] as having been born from a corporeal woman free of a body, then you would [be correct] in this statement. However, when our description is: “the birth of the Word from a corporeal woman is a corporeal birth”, there is no fault necessary for us in this. The “being born” only belongs to the state of the body, which is taken from the woman and unified with [the Word], because it is born from her as spiritual and corporeal.

45. Is not something similar in a certain way said about the births of humans from their mothers as the birth of the Word from Mary? Are they born from their mothers as spirits without bodies, or embodied spirits? And since they are not born simply as spirits, can it be denied that they have a bodily birth? Just as it is impossible that spirits be born from mothers if they are not united with bodies, and are born of [mothers] because of their being united with bodies from the beginning of their creation, so is the teaching about the incarnated Word: [the Word] was born into the state of having a

2, Graf correctly adds لا.

المتجد بها لا مجردة' من ا لجد كما ظننتم .

46. فان 'فالوا فكيف يتجد ما ليس بجد فقل لهم اما الكيف فنحن

مقرون انه لا علم لنا . وليس جهلنا بالكيف بالذى ببطل فولنا فيه . لان الغالت فيما لا يشكول فيه . ونشك ما جهلنا كيفيته . واول ذلك خلق الخلاء كامذدا- ئ        ل،        ل ل ٠ ا 121

الخلائق وكل مقر بانهن مخلوقات من الله ٠ فاما كيفية خلقتها فلم نرا دعا علم ذلك . وسكون الروح البدن مما لا يمترى فيه احد . فاما كيفية سكونها فمخفى عنا مستتر . وليس ذلك بالذى يمنعنا من ان نقر بخلق الخلائق وسكون الروح البدن . هكذا والقول فى اتحاد الكلمة ا لجد نحن

صدقنده٠ دد نه انلطفذلكفك122ذعلمه

مصدقون به غيرجاحدين له وان لطف ذلك فلم نعلمه .

47. فان قالوا اخبرونا عن المسجح ابن الله تبنا اى اتخنه من غير ان

ط12اطحئا لدلده٠        ضلقاإكانال_سحاذه126

يكون ابنا حقا او ولد ولده من جوهره يقال لهم ان المسجح سبحانه لدد٠اا اللهلدهدلا٠١هانلا12لان ااع1ل با ا لدينا ابن الله ولده بلا زمان ولا بدى لان المتخذ ابنا ليس ابنا حقيقيا وان وصف ابناً .

فانقالااد128اذمالدته        ؤ        ,.و ئ,        اد,.د

فان 'فالوا اوليس انما ولدته        مرنم        فى        زمن بئى اسرائيل فكيف زعمتم

انه لم يتخن ابنا انه ابن تبناه من غير ان يلد يقال لهم ادا لم نصف المسجح م ادنا لله لط ما لاه13        .        صدأ ا- ياً        لكنه . لد.

سبحانه ابنا لله لحال ما ولد        من        مريم        متجدا اخريا        . ولكنه حين ولد من

الاب بلا زمان ولا بدى •

48. فان 'فالوا فالابن كوهفكم ولد مرتين من الاب ومن مريم كما ذكرتم يقال لهم نعم ان الامر كذلك. فان قالوا فالاب اذأ ينبغى ان يكون اقدم من

. 131 الا قالالم        ل كان للآ دد دح-لةالادا

وجوده فى        الابن يقال لهم لعمرى لو كان للاب بدى بمنزلة الاباء

,2, Graf: read22, نر Pomits. 123 P 24’ بن Graf: read 125 تبئى Pomits ان يكون 126 S omits. 127 Graf: for بدء passim. 128 S 129 أليس S 30’ زمان Pomits ولد 131 يقال لهم آنا. . . لحل ما P من

body, which was taken from Mary, and incarnated with [the Word], [the Word was] not free from a body, as you think.

46. Now if they say: “How does something without a body become incarnated?” it should be said to them: As for the “how”, we are in agreement that we have no knowledge. But our ignorance of the “how” does not invalidate our teaching concerning it, because what is of greatest [importance] in it is what they do not doubt. And we are [only] uncertain of [what] we are ignorant of, the “how” of it, and this is primarily the creation of creatures, and everyone acknowledges [creatures] are things created by God, but with regard to the “how” of their creation, we do not see the invitation [from God] to know this. And the dwelling of the spirit [in] the body no one disputes, but with regard to the “how” of its dwelling, this is concealed and hidden from us. But this does not hinder us from acknowledging the creation of creatures and the dwelling of the spirit in the body. This is the same with the teaching of the union of the Word and the body: we believe it and do not deny it, even if this is so subtle that we do not understand it.

47. Now, if they say, “Tell us about the Messiah, the Son of God, is He adopted, that is, did He take Him up^[128] without His being a real son, or did He beget Him from His ousia?” it should be said to them: the Messiah, may He be praised! is according to us the Son of God, Whom He begot without time and without beginning, because an adopted son is not a true son, even if he is described as a son.

If they say: “Did not Mary give birth to Him at the time of the Israelites? How do you claim that [the Messiah] did not take up son- ship, so that He is a son, whom [God] adopted, without begetting Him?” it should be said to them: We do not describe the Messiah, may He be praised! as a son of God because of what was born of Mary later as incarnated, but because He was begotten from the Father previously without time and without beginning.

48. If they say: “The Son, according to your description, is born two times, from the Father and from Mary, as you have mentioned”, it should be said to them: Yes, it is like this.

If they say: “It should be then, that the Father was in existence before the Son,” it should be said to them: By my life! If the Father had a beginning in the manner of created fathers, then there is no

132        لا G

ا لمخلوقة لكان يكون لا محالة للابن ابتدى . فاما اذ صار الاب ابا بلا بدى كذا والابن ابن بلا بدى . لانه انما لحق الابناء المخلوقة ابتدى لحال ما سبق من اباءهم من الابتدى ٠

49. فان عجزوا عن ٠فبول ذلك لنبو فهمهم عنه واصرفوه على ما يعقل من المخلون يقال لهم ان كان من قيل وصفنا الله والدا ومولودا واباً وابئاً نضطر الى ان نلزمه جمع صفات الوالدين والمولودين فالاباء والابناء المخلوقة فقد وصفتموه ووصفناه فاعل الاشياء فلنلزمه كل ما لزم من فعل شيئاً . فهل يعقل فاعل من المخلوقين يفعل شيئاً بلا حركة ولا مكان ولا زمان او فكرة' او الة او اداة' يفعل بها او غير ذلك مما مل نصف. فلنصف الله له ا لحمد انه لا يفعل شيئاً دون هذا لحال ا لمضطر اليها العباد عند اوان فعلهم لشئء.

50. فان 'فالوا ان الله ا لحميد ليس بمحتاج الى ما ذكرتم عند اوان فعله لانه

٠٠٠،٠٠ اًش٠ أ نمي فكه.، ئ أ، ا133 هدلا هذ، ،١٠ اذا اراد امرا يقول له كن فيكون. يقال لهم اوليس        مفعولا هذا من افعل

العباد.

134 لا٠ ٠٠        ؛        135

فان قالوا ليس افعال الله الاشياء كافعال ا لعابد لها لانه قوى عليها قادر طهاااظلهكذافلح٠.اكا, ل الله136 1نكان ل ما على ما اراد يقال لهم هكذا فليجز القول فى ولود الله وان كان ولود العباد مخالفاً . فكما ان فعل العباد بحركة وزمان ومكان وعناية وكلغة وحاجة هكذا لد محتا ال كة٠١مان'فدمةالد لد1 كما ان الله سحانه وولودهم محتاج الى حركة وزمان وقدمة والد وولده كما ان الله سبحانه غنى عالى عما احتاج العباد عند افتعالهم شء هكذا وولوده ابدا دائم متعالى ءنولودالعباد.

55 S omits, كافتعال العباد 54 S,        اليس passim. ,53 S ابتداء 52 Graf: read,

157 In PS يقال فهم. . . ولود الله 156 S omits قادر

doubt the Son would have a beginning. But if it happens that the Father is a father without a beginning, in the same way the Son is a son without beginning. Because created sons only have beginnings on account of the beginnings their fathers had before [them].

49. Now if [the opponents] are unable to accept [this] because their understanding conflicts with it and they dismiss it on the basis of what is known about creatures, it should be said to them: If it follows from our description of God as Begetter and Begotten, Father and Son, that we are compelled to make necessary for Him all predications of creaturely begetters and begotten, fathers and sons, then [since] you would describe Him and we would describe Him as a Doer of things, so, [too,] we must make everything necessary for Him that is necessary for someone who does something. But does a doer from among created things know how do something without movement or place or time or thought or a tool or an instrument to make it, or anything else that we have not described? Then we must describe God, may He be praised! as not making [any]thing without these [things], as humanity needs them when it does something.

50. Now, if they say: “God, the Praiseworthy, does not have what you argue [is necessary] when He does something, because when He wills something, He [only] says of it, “Be! and it is”,^[129] it should be said to them: does this not happen with the actions of humanity?

If they say: “The actions of God are not things like the actions of [His] servants,^[130] because He is powerful over them and master over what He wants”, [it should be said to them: In this way, the statement about the birth of God should be allowed,]^[131] for the birth of the servants is different [from the birth of God]. For,just as the servants act through movement and time and place and with carefulness and costs and requirements, their births also require movement and time and place and the precedence of the progenitor to his offspring. In the same way God, may He be praised! is free from want and exalted above the needs of the servants when they do something, so His birth is eternal, everlasting, and exalted above birth [like] the servants.

51. فان قالوا لا سبيل الى ان يلد وا لد والداً دون ا لمولد ا لمعقول يقل لهم ولا سبيل اذا ان يفعل شائاً دون ان يفعل كالمخلوقين الا ان ياتوا بعلة اضطرار على ولوحه كالحيوان كما ظنوا واختلاف افتعاله افعالهم .

52. فان 'فالوا فاذا اختلف ولوده وولد المخلوقين لم يستحق ان يسمى اباً

!دناً لان,لا        م[ ] 139        ٢        ٠٠

وابنا . لان الاب انما يسمى ابا [والابن] ابنا لتقدمة الاب الابن وكون الابن بعد ابيه يقال لهم ومن اين يصير اسم الاب مما يدل على تقدمة الابن وانما اوجب له امم الابون' بالابن ٠ فهل يوصف قن لا ابن له اباً وقن لا اب له ابناً . فهنه اسماء صفات بعضها الى بعض لا يوجد بعضها بفقدان بعض ويوجد بعضها بوجود بعض . فالاب اذأ والابن معا سوا لم يتقدم احدهما الاخر ولم يتاخر . هذا وهما مخلوقان فكيف اعظمكم قولنا اذ هو على الله الطف واحق معنى مما هو فى الخلق .

53. واما قولهم اذ خالف ولوحه ولود المخلوقين فليس بمستحق ان يسمى ' ^٠        ٠        . ٠٠ د ماه4ا الذظ٠ لا0 ا^ان كا٠٠ا4ا

ابا فكانهم فى هذا الموضع لم تلطفوا النظر . لان الحيوان كافة مخالف بعضها فى انحاء ولودها وكل موصوف اباً وابناً لا يمترى فى ذلك اذعمالا٠        لآ14        ل14 كذ در ائ الا

ممترى انهما لا يتغيران اوليس انما الاب حقا الذى لم يكن ابنا والابن حقاً الذى لم يصير اباً ابداً ٠ لان الابية والابنية خواص والخاصية الحقيقية 144

مما لا تبدل لها ولا تغيير . فاما الذى له احدى الصفتين فهى فه اولى من الا٦٠دادباحقاًاا فكا _-الاًااط الاخرى فمن اين يعير اب حقا او ابن ■ فكل من سمى ابا او ابنا من

المخلوقين فانما سمى ذلك باستعارة’ من القول منه من الله عليه .

51. If they say: “It is impossible for a begetter to beget offspring apart from the known [manner] of begetting”, it should be said to them: Then it is impossible that He do anything without doing it like creatures. Nevertheless, [the opponents] will put forward the reason it is necessary that He begets like living things, as they think. But [God’s] actions are different from [creaturely] actions.

52. Now, if they say: “If His begetting is different from the begetting of creatures, it is not correct to name [Him] as “father” and “son”, since the father is only named “father” and [the son]^[132] “son” because the father precedes the son, and the son is after his father [temporally]”, it should be said to them: Why is it that the name “father” is something that indicates [he] precedes the son, since the name “fatherhood” is only granted with [the existence of] the son? How is one described as father who does not have a son, and one who does not have a father as a son? These names are reciprocal attributes: one part does not exist with the lack of the other part, and one part [only] exists with the existence of the other part. The father, therefore, and the son are together equally, one of them does not precede the other, nor come after [the other]. This is so with created [fathers and sons]. Why do you find our teaching hard when with God it has a more subtle and precise meaning than it has with creation?

53. As for their statement: “If [God’s] begetting is different from the begetting of creatures, then it is not correct that He be named “father”,” they^[133] are not studying [the issue] carefully in this place. Because all living things are different from each other in the manner of their begetting, and [yet] all are described as “father” and “son”. No one doubts this, [asking] if they are different [from each other], or [asking], is it not that the father is only really one who is not a son, and the son is really one who has never become a father? For fatherhood and sonship are properties and [their] real particularity can be neither exchanged nor altered. As for that which has one of these attributes, [that attribute] is better for it than another. How does one in reality become a father or a son? All of those who are called father and son among creatures are only called this as a metaphor,

54. فان 'فالوا كيف جاز ان يكون المسح الاها ورباً وقد اقر بالعبودية وحققها عليه بتسميته نفه مع تلامينه اذ قال اذهب الى ابى وابيكم والاهى والاهكم . وان ابى الذى ارسلنى اكبر منى . ونفيه عن نفه علم الساعة . وقوله للرجلين اذ سالاه الجلوس عن يمينه وعن شماله فى ملكوته ان عطاء ذلك ليس لى . واستغاثته من الموت وغير ذلك مما كان نظير لما قيل .

يقال لهم لو كان المسجح سبحانه اذ نطق بما وصفتم من كلام المتواضع اذ تحقق ناسوته لم ينطق .يرفع القول الدان على لاهوته وربوبيته لكان لكم فى ذلك مقال . فاما اذ نطق بكلا القولين ووصف نفه بكلتا الصفتين وجب عليكم النظر فى اخبلاف القولين والصغتين . لان الذى وصفتم انه قل اذهب الى ابى وابيكم والاهى والاهكم عنى بذلك من كلام التواضع هو الذى قال من رانى فقد رأى ابى ٠ وانا بابى وابى بى ٠ وانا وابى واحد اى جوهر واحد .

ووصف نفه رب السبت ورب التلاميذ ورب الدنيا وانه لم يزل قبل ان

as the saying about from where [a child] is: he is given to [a father] from God.^[134]

54. If they say: “How is it possible that the Messiah be God and Lord, and consented to be a servant,^[135] establishing [this] when He so named Himself along with His disciples as He said: “I am going up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God”,^[136] and “My Father Who sent me is greater than I”.^[137] And He denied He had knowledge of the Hour [of Judgement],^[138] and He said to the two men, when they asked Him for the seats on His right and His left in His Kingdom, “this is not mine to give”.^[139] And He called for help from death,^[140] and other things, similar to what has [already] been said”.

It should be said to them: If the Messiah, may He be praised! had spoken [only] the words of a humble [person] when He confirmed His humanity, as you have described, [and] not spoken with sublime speech pointing to His divinity and His lordship, then you would be [correct] in this contention. However, since He spoke with both [types of] statements and described Himself with both predications, it is necessary for you to study the difference between the statements and predications. Because He Whom you describe as saying: “I am going up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God”, (this reference is from [His] words of humility), is He Who said: “The one who sees me sees my Father”,^[141] “I am in my Father, and my Father is in me”,^[142] and “I and my Father are one”,^[143] that is, one

م™

And He described Himself as “Lord of the Sabbath”,^[144] and “Lord of the disciples”,^[145] and “Lord of the World”,^[146] and [said] that He

يكون ابراهيم وغير ذلك من ا لقول الرفع الذى يدل على لاهوته ٠ وحق له ان ينطق بكلا القولين ويصف نفه بكلتا الصفتين . لانه الاه حق وا نسان حق هو . وهو واحد لا اثنين . فما تكلم به من كلام ا لتواضع كان تحقيقاً

م٠ ^[147]ا هاكان ال, اب صاً تحققاً؛., مبينا لتانه وما كان من الرفيع المعتلى فتثبيتا وتحقيقا للاهوته .

55. كالذى يلتمس وصف الانسان بحق صفته ولا يكتفى ان يصفه

منطيقيا حتى يصفه ميتا. فلو انه وصفه منطيقياً دون ميتاً لما ميزه من الملائكة والشياطين وكل منطيق . ولو انه وصفه مائتاً غير منطيق لما ميز بينه ون ساد الحدان الذ فاذها48(الفإ ط ما دئ أمحانه سائر الحيوان البكم . فاذ صار القول على ما وصفنا كان جديرا سبحانه الادد ٠٠ لأ مئ كانه15 للا ٠٠        ٠        ^اً L الا قال ن

الا يدع قولا مما كان للاهوته وانسانيته مثبتا محققا الا قاله واستاصل به ,نك ا٠, ١لذ        شاااندكه٠ا1ستلا٦الاست٠ا

الشك من انفس الذين شاءوا ان يكونوا تبعا وتلاميذ والاستراب.

فغكت53ا 1 الححة ط غغه كاندد۶فصغتهما فظهرت بذلك الحجة على من خالغه ممن التمس ان يبدع فى صفته ما لم يصف به نفه له ا لحمد. رفع امراً ووضع هذا فى جملة ا لقول على ما وصفنا.

56. فاما قولهم ان المسجح له الحمد قال اذهب الى ابى وابيكم والاهى الاهك*فقدحد"ا لكنعم ط5ا اذفكاان٩اتغة٠ الاسما

والاهكم فقد صدقوا. ولكنهم غلطوا اذ ظنوا ان ما اتفق فى الاسماء والصفات اتفق ايضاً فى المعنى. فليس الامر على ما ظنوا من ذلك ان الله له الحمد وصف نفه حيا سميعاً بصيراً عليماً ووصف الناس كذلك. ولم يمتنع سبحانه من ان يصف نفه بما وصف به عباده. ولم يرد احد من اهل العقل قال ان الله متفق مشاكل لخليقته لاتفاق اسمائه وصفاته مع اسمائهم وصفاتهم ٠

always was, [even] before Abraham existed,^[148]’ and [made] other sublime statements that point to His divinity. He has a right to say both [types] of statements and describe Himself with both predications, because He is true God and true human being, and He is one, and not two. The words of humility that He uttered are a clear confirmation of His humanity, and [those] sublime, exalted [words] are an affirmation and confirmation of His divinity.

55. This is like someone who wants to describe the human being with his correct attributes, and is not contented to describe him as “capable of speech”, but describes him as “mortal” [as well]. For if he describes [a human being] as “capable of speech”, without “mortal”, what would distinguish [a human being] from the angels and demons and every other [being] capable of speech? And if he describes him as “mortal” without “capable of speech”, what would distinguish between [a human being] and the rest of dumb living things? If the statement is as we describe, it was appropriate, may He be praised! that He omitted [any] statement that confirmed and established His divinity and His humanity, except what He said, and with it He uprooted doubt and uncertainty from the soul of those who wanted to be [His] followers and disciples. With this, the argument against His opponent, the one asking that [something] new be added to His description with which He did not describe Himself, glory be to Him! becomes obvious. He elevated the issue [to a high level] and established this in a complete teaching, as we have described.

56. As for their statement that the Messiah, may He be praised! said, “I am going up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God”, they are correct. However, they are mistaken when they think that what is identical in names and attributes is also identical in meaning. The issue is not as they think, this being that God, glory be to Him! describes Himself as living, hearing, seeing and knowing, and human beings are [also] described like this. He, may He be praised! did not refrain from describing Himself with [the attributes] with which His servants were described. [Yet] none of the intellectuals would come to say that God is identical to and resembles His creatures because of the identity of His names and attributes with their names and attributes.

57. Just as God is living, hearing, seeing and knowing, and human

57. فكما ان الله حى سمع بصير عليم والانسان ا لموصوف بذلك واتفاق فى الاسماء والصفات لامتنانه به على عباده بما اسماهم به من اسمائه ووصفهم بصغاته مختلفان المعنى هكذا والقول فى المسجح سبحانه وتلامينه قال اذهب الى ابى اوبيكم. فابى حق لانى ولدت منه . وابوكم لاهتذا٠طكاذص~ملا٠ةدتا٠ تذ٠دع 157 اداذش٠ ا٠ة لامتنانى عليكم اذ صيرتكم لى اخوة' بتانسى تنزيهى اياكم عن اخوة' الحمد، اك الا158 الام فانعا طدان

الحمير والبقر . والهى والاهكم فبانعامى عليكم اذ صرت معكم متجدا ومشاركتى اياكم بتأنسى وتظأطأت لانقاذكم وخلاصكم .

58. لان المنة فى ان يتواضع الرفيع الى الموضوع اجم من ان يرتفع

الوضبع الى الرفيع. فلله ا لحمد اهل لما جم من ا لمنن واعظم من لا        لاط160 - لا٠        ات        ٠>        ؛؛        ؛ ٠>        161

الانعام. والاهكم حق لانه خالقكم وباريكم وملك عليكم اذ ايدكم بالايمان به وبى وبروح ا لقدس وفربكم من طاعته بما استننت عليكم من السنن الفاضلة ووظفت عليكم من الوظائف المحمود الرفيعة ٠ لان الاب معتلى ان يكون الاها لمن جهل صفته ولم يقر بكلمته وروحه وكان لتجده ماً ان كان له الحمد ٠٠ الخلقة لصه الاهاً م162 هاً داً منكرا وان كان له الحمد من جهة الخلقة لهم الاها وعليهم ملكا وربا. فهذا تلويل قوله ابى وابيكم والاهى والاهكم.

59. فاما ما ذكروا من ان المستح قال ابى الذى ارسلنى اكبر منى اى اعظم ليعلموا ان ا لكبر والعفلم مما يقال على اوجه مختلفة. لان ا!شىء 'فد يقال له عظيم كبير فى الوجه كعظم الملك على الانسان وعظم الانسان على البهائم وفى ا لجم كعظم الجبل على التل وفى الحظر كعظم الملك على السو . ^[149] [150]

beings are those [beings] described with these, [too], the identity between the names and attributes results from His gracious bestowal [of them] on His servants, so that they are named with His names and described with His attributes, [yet] the two differ in meaning. The statement of the Messiah, may He be praised! to His disciples is like this, when He said: “I am going up to my Father and your Father”, [that is], “my Father” is true because I am begotten from Him, and “your Father” because I have bestowed blessing on you, when I made you brothers through My becoming human and My setting you above the brothers of the donkey and the cow.^[151] “My God and your God” [is true] because of my favor to you when I became incarnated among you and [and because of] My communion with you in My becoming human, and [because] I humbled Myself for your deliverance and your salvation.

58. For a grace in which the lofty humbles itself to the lowly is greater than the lowly raising itself to the lofty. God deserves praise for what is a great grace and marvelous favor. [Saying] “Your God” is correct because He created you and formed you and rules over you, at the same time He strengthens you in the belief in Him and in Me and in the Holy Spirit, and draws you toward His obedience through what is prescribed in the excellent practices^[152] and praiseworthy, lofty duties placed upon you. For the Father is too exalted to be the God of someone ignorant of His [true] attribute[s], and who does not acknowledge His Word and His Spirit, and to be unknown through His Incarnation, but, glory be to Him! with regard to creation, [He is] their God and ruler and Lord over them.” This is the explanation of His statement: “my Father and your Father, to my God and your God”.

59. As for what they mentioned, namely, that the Messiah said: “My Father Who sent me is greater than I”, that is, superior, they should know that greatness and superiority are spoken of in different ways. For something can be said to have greatness and superiority in a manner like the superiority of the king over people^[153] and the superiority of human beings over the animals, and in a corporeal thing like the superiority of the mountain over the hill, and in [the right

ويقال عظيم فى ا لعلة كعظم وا لد على ولده فى ا لعلة لان ا لوا لد علة ولده لا الولدءلةالوالد.

60. فقول المجح سبحانه ابى الذى ارملتى اكبر منى ليس يعظم من ض 163لانفل ض ا حد كما صف ده نفسه . انه ادا احد لا

جوهره لانهما جوهر اوحد كما وصف به نفه من انه واياه واحد . ولا عن خط 164 اضأ16لاذعما ,حد ٠ |لحد الك٠ا"ذلك •• . عظم خطر ايفا لانهما واحد فى المجد والكرامة ذلك من 'فوله الحقيق من اكرم الابن فقد اكرم الاب ومن لم يكرم الابن لم يكرم الاب ■

61. فاذ نفينا عنه عظم هاتين العفتين وجب علينا ان نعف الاب اعظم من الابن فى العلة لا فى الجوهر . لان الابن من الاب كما وصفنا . لا ابن الا من اب . فلو ان الاب كان اعظم من الابن فى الجوهر لما جاز للابن ان

166

يقول اناوابى واحد .لان العالى فى الجوهر والحطيط ليسبواحد.

لد        U الا للآ        لاحط        أق سا 167

ليعلموا ان تعظيم الابن للاب ليس لانه احط منه جوهرا لكن ليدلل دؤك الا168۶ ١لعئد هـالا        للحذ .فن        د ددءعصال

بذلك الماع        العباد باسم الاب وليلحق قلوبهم بحبه ويدعوهم الى

عبادته والايمان به وبروحه . لان غرض تجده له ا لحمد شرح صفة الله الحقيقية وايضاح معرفة التعديق به وبابنه وبروحه .

62. لان الاولين كلفوا ان يعبدوا الله جملة بانه واحد من غير ان

حه ذلاك ععدطغا. لالاكوة يغعح لهم بتغير كلمته وروحه . وذلك لقرب عهد طغيانهم لالهة كثيرة' ليلا يظنوا ان الذى دعوا اليه شبيه لما كانوا فيه من

عا- 171اداها لا-        صعدا ء "حد الله ن

وعباتهم اياها . لانهم ضعفوا عن توحيد الله فى جوهره

to] prohibition, like the superiority of the king over the subjects.^[154] Superiority is also said [with resect to a] cause, like the superiority of a begetter over his offspring in [its] cause, because the begetter is the cause of his offspring, not the offspring the cause of the begetter.

60. Now, [as for] the statement of the Messiah, may He be praised!: “My Father Who sent me is greater than I”, He is not superior in His ousia, because the two of them are one ousia, just as He described Himself [saying] that He and [the Father] are one. Nor is He superior in importance, because the are both one in glory and honor. This is [seen] in His true statement: “The one who honors the Son, honors the Father, and the one who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father”.^[155]

61. If we deny Him the superiority of the first two descriptions [given], it is necessary for us [only] to describe the Father as superior to the Son in cause, not in ousia, because the Son is from the Father, as we have [already] described. A son is only from a father. Now if the Father were superior to the Son in ousia [in the Holy Trinity], it would be impossible for the Son to say: “I and my Father are one”, because what is elevated in ousia, and what is diminished [in ousia] are not one.

They should know that the Son does not [attribute] superiority to the Father because [the Son] is diminished in ousia [when compared] to [the Father], but rather by this, to point the hearers, [that is,] the people, to the Name of the Father, and to unite their hearts to His love, and to cause them to serve Him and believe in Him and His Spirit. For the purpose of His Incarnation, glory be to Him! was to make plain the true attribute of God, and the elucidation of knowledge of faith in Him and His Son and His Spirit.

62. For the ancestors were charged with worshipping God in general, in as much as He is one [God], without Him giving them an explicit explanation of His Word and His Spirit. And this is because shortly before, they had been in thrall to many gods, and so they were not to think that to which they were called was similar to the many gods and to worship of them [that they had practiced]. For they were too weak for belief in the unity of God in His ousia, and His Word and His Spirit, even if the mysterion for the Trinity with

وان كان سر الثالوث بخاصة فيهم منشرح واضح .

فكلغوا ان يعبدوا الله واحداً جملة حتى اذا ما هم اعتلوا فى ا لمعرفة ونبذوا الالعةالكدةخفظفه..اشتدتءا^[156]قل        ءفكل.ا

الالهة الكثيرة'خلف ظهورهم واشتدت عرا 'فلوبهم وعقولهم ليميزوا بين

المختلفين ويؤلفوا المؤتلفين اظهر لهم التغير وشرح لهم صفة الكمال اذ لا يحاذر عليهم الميل الى عبادة' ما ليس بالاه بالحق .

63. واما ما ذكروا من انتفاء علم المسجح لذكره ا لسجود من علم الساعة وايجابهم عليه العبودية من حيث جهل ذلك كظنونهم فاسترداع سوء ظنونهم وردهم الى الصواب غير عسير ان انصفوا ٠ والحمد لله سبحانه ذى الرأفة

الح٠مةة عدلا ل سه الاصان الد ن ^[157] كا ا        ا

وا لرحمة على عباده لا يحول بينه وبين الاحان اليهم فى كل امورهم امر فعله او قول قاله وان دعا ذلك الى التواضع . لانه ليس بمتاج الى اقتياس المدح بالقول لغنى ذاته عن المدح .

64. ولا يعدل عنده الرحيم امر من امور العالم عظم ام صغر خلاص نفس واحدة' من عباده وان له سياسة لطيفة مستترة' على علم العباد معتلية جي م صأ17 انتاقتهـدال الاحتاط دعا الق۶طعا مخفية عن فكرهم وان تاقت نفوسهم الى الاحتياط بها والوقوع عليها وذلك لرحمته لهم ورأفته بهم كما ذكرا. وان من عظم احسانه على عباده حس,امتذاذهءلف,اخغا76اءكالساءةءىلظ له,لحمدلى علمه وجسيم امتنانه عليهم اخفاه علم الساعة عنهم لنظره له الحمد لهم وعلمه

[its] particularities was discernable and apparent in their midst.

So they were charged with worshipping God as one in general, until [the time] when they had advanced in knowledge, and they had cast off the many gods and their ostentation was left behind. And [when] their hearts and minds had been siezed [by God] and become firm, so that they were able to [intellectually] distinguish between different things and combine things that are connected, [God] revealed to them the explanation and elucidated for them the complete description, since it was not necessary to guard them from the proclivity to worship what is not in truth God.^[158]

63. As for what they refer to concerning the Messiah’s knowledge, Veneration is for His remembrance!^[159] [saying He] was lacking in knowledge of the Hour [of Judgement], and [consequently] they impose the status of a servant on Him, because, according to their suspicion, He is ignorant of this, their ill suspicion can be deterred and they can be turned back to what is correct, if it is not difficult for them to be fair. Glory be to God, may He be praised! He Who has mercy and compassion for His servants! Nothing intervenes between Him and [His] beneficence for them in all of their affairs, [when] He commands His act or utters His speech, even if this calls for humility, because He does not require a measure of praise with words, because His being is free from want of praise.

64. And, according to Him, the Compassionate, there is nothing of the affairs of the universe, big or small, equal to the salvation of a single soul of His servants, even if His administration [of the universe] is subtle and concealed from the knowledge of the servants, above their thoughts and hidden [from them], though their souls long to comprehend [God’s governance] and to grasp it, and this is on account of His compassion for them and His pity on them, as we have [already] mentioned. Out of His great beneficence for His servants and His vast benevolence toward them, He keeps knowledge of the Hour [of Judgement] from them, because He, glory be to Him! takes care of them and He knows of the great importance

بعظم عظتهم وشدة' نكاية ما يشمل العالم من المضار فى اعلان ذلك لنكاده        اعلان ساذهادط ل اط سن ها كشف ل سن لان الله

لنكاية        اعلان سائر ما لم يعلن لو اعلن وستر ما كشف لو ستر ٠ لان الله

ليس بمظهر امر ولا حاجب من العباد الا لسبب منافعهم وعلة صلاحهم .

65. فلما ساله التلاميذ عن علم الساعة ليكونوا على الثقة فيها اجنح عن ذلك سبحانه لحال ما وصفنا من رحمته لهم ونظره لهم.

فان.فاؤدلعك..-ذلكاحد78ا        لاش لا اللائكة لا الا

فان قال ليس يعلم و٠فت ذلك احد من البشر ولا الملائكة ولا الابن دون الاب فرفع علم ذلك واحاله الى الاب لاستتاره دونهم ووضع عنهم مؤونة الالحاح عليه لينبئهم علم ما يعلم ان الجهل به خير لهم من احاطة معرفتهم به . ولم يانف الحكيم ان يضيف الى نفه الجهل بالساعة اللازم للعباد لامحالة رحمة منه لهم ولم يمتعض من مشاركتهم حالهم فى تأنسه وان كان

اد٠فتللا٠فات تإدعاسئوط ماسة طمهلعاً

هو الموقت للاوقات وتقلبها استنادا على ما سبق من علمه بها .

66. فان قالوا وكيف يجوز فى صفة الله انكار معرفة ما هو فاعله ومصرفه كف شا كما صفد قانلد٠مهالكذ ها رذطها80ا ححد كيف يشاء كما وصفتم من غير ان يلزمه الكذب وهل يخلوا من حجد

ا ٠ دكه ٠ ان كاداً فا‘ احد181 الا اما ا دكه * ة امرا من ان يكون جاهلا به او كاذبا فان احد الامرين اما ان يكون جاهلا بالساعة كما وصف فتلزمه العبودية واما ان يكون عالما بها فيلزمه الكذب فى حجود العلم بها . يقال لهم لو كان لعمرى المسيح له الحمد فى اخفائه علم

177 S 78ا ككناية P '79ا احدا PS 180 اناسا Graf: read 181 يخلو S

of warning them, and the intensity of the harm that pervades the world [resulting from the anticipation] of losses [when] these are announced, on account of the harm of the announcement of all that is not known if it is announced, and of keeping secret what has been disclosed if it is kept secret. Because God does not reveal a matter nor keep it hidden from His servants, except for the purpose of their benefits and the cause of their usefulness.^[160]

65. For when the disciples asked Him for knowledge about the Hour [of Judgement] so they could be certain of it, He, may He be praised! declined this, because of what we have described of His compassion for them, and His care for them.

Now, when He said: “No one among human beings or the angels or the [even] the Son knows that Hour, except the Father”,^[161] He offered up the knowledge of this, and handed it over to the Father, so that it was hidden from [His disciples] and prevented them from [putting] troublesome pressure on Him to reveal to them knowledge of what He knew, [since] ignorance of it would be better for them than understanding and their knowledge of it. The Wise One^[162] does not disdain to take to Himself [the same] ignorance of the Hour that is necessary for the servants,^[163] certainly it is a mercy from Him on them, and He does not resent sharing their condition in His becoming human, even though He sets the appointed time to the moments, and its assignment is based on what He already knows of it.^[164]

66. If they say: “How is a denial of knowledge of what He will do and [how He] will act as He wills possible in a description of God, as you describe, without deceit being necessary for Him? Is it not the case that one who denies something should [either] be ignorant of it or be a liar? For it must be one of two things: either He was ignorant of the Hour [of Judgement], as He explained, and then servitude^[165] is a necessary [attribute] for [the Messiah], or He knew it, so by denying knowledge of it, deceit is a necessary [attribute] for Him”, it should be said to them: By my life! if the Messiah, glory be

انالآ اسن دد ا'ا المئا-82( ا ٠ المضا . كان الساعة عن التلاميذ يلتمس اجترار المنافع        او دفع المضار عنه وكان

مربوباً مأموراً لكان يلزمه لا محالة الكذب كما وصفتم اذ انكر علم ما يعلمه .

67. فانما يلزم الناس الكذب فى احد هذين الوجهين من اجترار المنافع اليهم او دفع المضار عنهم . فاما هذا فهو امر ناهى غنى بذاته ينبوع المواهب ووقاء المضار. لم يلزمه الكذب فى اخفاء ما رأى ان يخفيه عن العبان لسابق علمه فيما يصل ا ليهم من الفضل فى اخفائه وما ينالهم من المضافاكشغهماكال اذغا84ا اأح خلاءة ٠ئهلطماصغئا المضار فى كشفه. ما كان انغا المسجح علم الساعة عنه لحال ما وصفنا يلزمه ما يلزم العباد عند انكارهم علم ما يعلمون من جهل او كذب.

68. فالزموا الله سبحانه ما لزم العباد من الشك فى قولهم لعلهم وعسى

؛١٠!        ئ ج ج        ا ائا٠٠ل " 185        الل ٠٠ اكك

وما ذلك وانت قلت كذا وكذا وهل انا اقول يقع من العباد وقع الشك. فقد ذكرتم ان الله قال فى كتابكم فصعاً على ما نجده قاله فى التورية لموسى ■ قل لفرعون 'فولأ ليناً لعله يتذكر او يخثى ■ وفى موضع اخر فى كتاين        نم! سى . الذ. عاد' م. ^[166] [167]ا        ن- ,اتت

كتابكم وعى ربكم يجعل بينكم وبين الذين عاديتم منهم مودة■ . !انت قلت للناس اتخذونى وامى الاهين من دون الله.

69. وهل انتم غير ذلك مما كان 'فيل شبيهاً. افترون الله فيما وصفنا شالقاً ا ست ا88( لحا مادد- الما الم الاستا ضا ذى فكها ائ هذا او مترا لحال ما يلزم العباد من المرى والاستتار فيما ذكر. فكما ان هذا

to Him! had wanted to gain benefits or to repel harm from Himself in His concealing knowledge of the Hour from the disciples, and if He were under [another’s] lordship and commanded [by someone else], then certainly deceit would be a necessary [attribute] for Him (as you have described) when He denied He knew what He did know.

67. Deceit is attached to human beings in one of two ways: to gain benefits for themselves or to repel harm from themselves. However, this is something prohibited [for one Who] has no need in His being, from Whom gifts gush forth and protection from harm [comes]. No deceit is attached to Him in concealing what He saw, if He concealed [something] from the servants^[168] because of His antecedent knowledge of what benefit would come to them by His concealing it, and the harm that would come to them by His disclosing it. If the Messiah denied Himself knowledge of the Hour for the reason we have described, then what is necessary for the servants when they deny knowing what they know is not necessary for Him, [that is,] ignorance or lying.

68. Is doubt necessarily [attributed] to God, may He be praised! as it is necessary for servants with their statements “perhaps” and “maybe” and “what is this” and “did you say such and such” and “should I say”? [These statements] indicate doubt [when made] by servants. You must remember that God said to Moses in your Book,^[169] not to mention what we find in the Torah: “Speak to Pharaoh mildly, perhaps he will take warning or fear [God]”.^[170] And in another place in your Book: “Perhaps your Lord will grant friendship between you and your enemies”,^[171] [and] “Did you^[172] say to people, ‘take me and my mother as gods instead of Allah’?”^[173] [174] and “Did you . . . ”61 and other [statements] like this which have been said.

69. Do you think that God, in what we have described, is doubtful or is hiding [something], since doubt and concealment would necessarily be the case for servants in what has been mentioned? In the

.        د        ثئ        أ 18( ظ

القول اذ اما نحن        نطقنا        ده كان منا شكا        واستتارا        فاذا        ما نطق        الله ده كان

اما احتجاجاً واما ميامة منه واما وعيدا واما توبيخاً واما استفهاما هكذا الفل ؤ ١ذتغا المس~ساذهض٠ه9! هالائ ضة تحذ ا19 والقول فى انتفاء المسجح سبانه عن علم الساعة سياسة وتحذير مجيئه ثانيه -

لا٦ الساءة ا٠ما ترن محهم92!        صاذعشا كف ك٦ حاه٠لأ ٠اا...ائ

لان الساعة انما تكون مجيئه وهو صانعها . وكيف يكون جاهلا يالساعة من يصف علاماتها ودلائلها يان قال لتلامينه اذا رأيتم كذا وكذا فقد حضر مجيئى واتتكم الساعة . لتعلموا ان ذلك سياسة منه وتحذير واخغاء لعلم ما يكون من هلاك العالم فى اعلانه لهم كما ذكرنا لا لانه جهل علم الساعة كما ظنوا .

70. واما قولهم ان المسجح قال لرجلين من تلامينه اذ سالاه الجلوس عن يمينه وعن شماله ان اعطاء ذلك ليس هو لى هو توبيخ وتجهيل منه لهما وادب وتحضيض على الفضل فاما التوبيخ والتجهيل فانهم سالاه ان يوجب لهما ذلك خاصة دون العشرة' ما قد اوجبه لعامتهم. حيث سالوه ما اللى

لا اذا حت, هك ٠فد ضنا اسا ئعط9! ئكئاً يوجب لنا اذا جئت فى ملكك وقد رفضنا الدنيا وتبعناك . فقال لهم حقا اقول لكم اذ رفضتم الدنيا وتبعتمونى اذا ظهرت فى ملكى تجسون عن يمينى وعن ثمالى على اثنى عثر كرسياً وتدينون اثنى عثر سبط اسرائيل ■

71. ففل من الاثنين وجهل سؤالهم خاصة ما قد اوجبه لهما فى العامة.

195        لك        I S

ولذلك قال لهما ليس ذلك الى لانكما لو صدقتما ان ذلك لى لما سالتمانى ما قد اوجبت لكما مع غيركما من التلاميذ . واما ادب لانه مرح من ^[175] [176]

same way, this statement, when we utter it, [indicates] doubt and concealment, but when God utters it, either it is an argument^[177] or governance [of creation] by Him, or a threat or reprimand or an explanation. This [is like] the statement of the Messiah, may He be praised! denying knowledge of the Hour [ofJudgement]: it is [God’s] governance [of creation] and a warning of His second coming.

For the Hour is of His coming alone, and He will set it. How could He be ignorant of the Hour, when He described its signs and indications, in that He said to His disciples, “When you see such and such [a sign], [the time of ] my return has arrived, and the Hour has come to you,”^[178] so that you will know that this is [God’s] governance and a warning and something [that has been] concealed, because He knows what would be destroyed in the world if He announced [the Hour] to them, as we have mentioned, not because He lacked the knowledge of the Hour, as [the opponents] think.

70. As for their statement that the Messiah said to the two men of His disciples when they asked Him to be seated at His right and His left, that: “This is not for me [to give]”, it is a reproach and [a rebuke for their] ignorance from Him against them, and it chastised [them] and prompted [them] to goodness. [The reason for] the reproach and [the rebuke for their] ignorance was that they asked Him to grant that to them particularly, to the exclusion of the [other] ten, which He would grant to all of them. Since they had asked Him, “What is it that you will grant to us when you come into your Kingdom, for we have abandoned the world and followed you,” He said to them: “Truly, I say to you, if you abandon the world and follow me, when I appear in my Kingdom, you will be seated to my right and to my left upon the Twelve Thrones, and you will pass judgment upon the Twelve Tribes of Israel”.^[179]

71. He turned away from [the question] of the two and ignored their request [to be granted] in particular what He would grant to all of them. And it was because of this He said to them: “This is not for me [to give].” [He meant:] “If you believed that this was mine [to give], then you would not have asked me for what I have [already] granted to you along with the other disciples.” However,

الاثنين ان يسالوا ما هو اعطى للعامة دون العامة .

72. فلو انه الحكيم اجابهما فيما سالاه ا وقع بينهما وبين العشرة' العداوة' وا لبغضاء . فلما قال لهما ان ذلك ليس الئ حم العشرة' عن ابداء ما فى صدورهم من الوجد عليهما اذ حرما ما سالاه اعطاءه خاصة دونهم . واما تحضيضه اياهما على الفضل فلانه عدل غير مخيف . وان خاصة كل واحد من التلاميذ لديه بقدر اعلاء رتبته فى ا لفضل على غيره من التلاميذ . لان كل نفس بما كسبت رهينة ٠ ومن كان يرجوا لقاء ربه فلن يلقاه دون ان يعمل عمداً صالحا .

واذ صار الامر على ما وصفت فليس اعطاء ما سالتمانى الئ بل اليكما ان تحرصا على السمؤ والاعتلاء فى الفضل الذى به يوصل الى ما سالتمانى .

,د فعلتما ظك ذك٠ا ط        كما٠        ،٠١        96ا ئصةدن.كما

واذا فعلتما ذلك نلتما ما سالتمانى اعطاءكم خاصة دون غيركما من التلاميذ باستيجاب واستحقاق .

73. واما قولهم انه استفاث من الموت والتمس النجاة' منه فذلك تحقيق

لتانه وقوام لحجته على الشيطان واليهود الذين ولوا صلبه وقتله . فاما ا لتحقيق لتانه فان للناس جزعاً عند الموت كارهون له . فحقق ذلك بما دنا أ اذ اددا^[180] [181] الد'ء العد عئد ا ان - ئ٠ الا،198 يناولهم اذ ابدا        من الجرع والهلع عند اوان موته بتانه ما ابدا .

واستدل بذلك ان تجده تجد حق مشاكل لاجسادنا الكارهة الموت ورد طلكه        ٠ادءا199انتحسده٠السمالا٠الثفقدص,ذلكقه

بذللثا على من ادعا ان تجده من السماء لا من البشر فقد زعم ذللثا قوم ممن نسب نفه الى النصرانية .

He chastised [them], in that He made fun of the two when they asked for what He had [already] bestowed on all [of the disciples] without exception.

72. Now if He, the Wise One, had granted the two of them what was asked of Him, He would have caused hostility and hatred between them and the ten. But because He said to them: "This is not mine [to give]”, He prevented the ten from expressing [the hostility] in their hearts openly against the two when [He] forbade what was asked of Him, [namely] to grant [the request to them] particularly to the exclusion of [the other ten]. Instead, He spurred them on to virtue, because He is just, and does not inspire fear. The particular [virtue] of each one of the disciples before [the Messiah] is measured according to the high degree of virtue of the other disciples, because each soul is responsible for what it earns.^[182] And the one who hopes to find his Lord will not find Him except when he does good deeds.^[183]

If this is as I have described, [the Messiah means to say]: "What you [two] have asked of me is not mine to give. Rather, it is for you to strive for greater and higher virtue, through which you will attain what you ask of me. When you do this, you will receive what you ask of me by merit and worthiness, [for then] I shall give to you [two] particularly, apart from the other disciples.”

73. As for their statement that He called for help against death and begged for deliverance from it, this was confirmation of His becoming human, and raising His evidence against Satan and the Jews, who carried out His crucifixion and death. [This] was a confirmation of His becoming human, because human beings are anxious before death, having an aversion to it. He confirmed this with what He presented them when He showed anxiety and fear at the time of His death, [and] with what He showed in His becoming human. Through this, it was shown that His Incarnation was a true incarnation, [in a body] like our [own] bodies, having an aversion to death. And by this He refuted the one who proclaims that His Incarnation is from heaven, not from humankind; [some] people who refer to themselves as Christians allege this.^[184]

74. واما 'فوام حجته على الشيطان واليهود فلئلأ يعذروا انفسهم فيما

ارتكبوه من الذنب فى 'فتله ولئلأ يقولوا انه لا ذنب لنا فيما صنعنا لانا انما فعد١ دك ض١ منه اذثعدت^[185]العا٠٠ك٠ا ٠٠ سك ط سفك فعلنا ذلك برضا منه . اذ شهدت        العامة كراهيته لذلك يما استفاث من

الموت فلعمرى انه عليهم ساخط ناقم فيما ارتكبوه من الذنب وان كان احتماله ذلك منهم له الحمد رضا . لان غرضه فى سياسته واتمامها صلبه وقتله بتجده الذى به اوجب ان يخلص العالم من الضلالة والموت الحقيقى.

75. والشاهد على ذلك ما ذكرنا من التماسه تحقيق تانه وحم ا لشيطان ,۵٩٠,٠١.٠ سكاآ٠. اا^[186] رض نقع، اهعائس٦ح

واليهود عن الحلجج فيما آتوا بسوء ضميرهم ونقعى اهوائهم زجر بعفى تلآسنه حثا.ما. صاعد ال ا شاد202 ان العدد -نصلد تلامينه حيث اخبرهم انى صاعد الى ايروشليم        وان اليهود تصلبنى

بقتك , ت ٠٠١ ثلالأ20ادا ط20 اال ع        ة20        ٠

وتقتلئى واموت واقبر ثلاثة ايام وثلاثة ليال . ثم انهض من القرب .سجد كراهة لاتما ادا' ساصلب206 متجسداً اقيل الموت بمجد وكرامة لاتمام النبوة' علئ انى ساصلب        متجدا . واقبل الموت

واقوم لاقامة جوهر ا لناس كافة الذى يسلط عليه الموت وا لمحآل بمعصية ادم لريمه وغفلته عن طاعته وذريته من يمعده .

76. واذ قال حاش لك يا رب ان يحل يمك هذا قال له المسجح سبحانه

خلف207 ا        ادعا الشطان فانت ل لانط٠ذا الا        ا

خلف وراءى ايها الشيطان فانت لى عثرة' لان همتك فى ذات الناس ليس ٠ الله ع ا٠ ئ j ا۵ سة ١ك ةللاةل تعطآ20 ٠ فى الله. ثم انه قال لليهود ان القبيلة الشريرة' يلتمس اية ولن تعطا غير اعجوتة يونس ابن متى بحق اقول لكم كما ان يونى ابن متى لبث فى .طن الحوت ثلثة ايام وثلثة ليال كذلك ابن البشر يلبث فى 'فعر الارض

74. As for His raising evidence against Satan and the Jews, [this] is so that they will not excuse themselves from [the crime] they have committed in killing Him, and so that they will not say: “There was no crime for us in what we did, because we only did this with His permission.”^[187] Since all [present] were witnesses to His aversion to this [death], since He called for help against death, by my life! He was angry with them and detested the crime they had committed, even though He permitted His [own] suffering of this at [their hands], glory be to Him! Because His purpose in His submission and its completion, [even] in His Incarnation which He took upon Himself, was His crucifixion and His death, that the world might be saved from error and true death.

75. The witness that this ([that is], what we have mentioned about His beseeching [God]) is a confirmation of His becoming human and cuts off the arguments Satan and the Jews put forward with the their evil hearts and their defective inclinations, is [that] He rebuked some of His disciples when He told them: “I will go up to Jerusalem, and the Jews will crucify me and kill me, and I will die, and be buried for three days and three nights. Then I will rise from the grave with glory and honor in order to accomplish the prophecy about me, that I, [while] incarnated, shall be crucified.^[188] I shall accept death and inaugurate the resurrection of the ousia of all of humanity, which death and the Deceiver have ruled over because of the disobedience of Adam towards his Lord and his indifference to obedience [to God] and his throwing aside worship of Him.”

76. When [the disciple] said: “Far be it from You, o Lord, that this come upon You!”, the Messiah, may He be praised! said to him: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling [block] to me, because your concerns are with human beings, not with God.”^[189] Then that He said to the Jews: “The wicked tribe begs for a sign. None will be given other than the miracle ofJonah, son of Amittai.^[190] Truly, I say to you: just as Jonah, son of Amittai, remained in belly of the whale three days and three nights, in the same way the Son of Man will

209        210

ثلثة ايام وثلث ليال .

ة        م        ٠        211 لا

وضرب مثلا وقال الحق اقول لكم ان الحبة ما لم تقع فى الارض

- ت212 تن213 حدى ب ثماً فاذا ططت ١لا ٠        ماتت٠ا٠ت

وتموت        تبقى وحدها بلا ثمار فاذا خالطت الارض وماتت فيها نمت

وكثر رجاءها . وغير ذلك من الايات التى نطق بها فى كتابه تدل ان احتماله ار٦ سحده ٠ تلائىؤءلهانكانذا.فماًساط الموت والصلب بتجسده برضىمئهلامكره عليه وان كان ناقما ساخطا على من ولى ذلك بعدله وقسطه .

77. فان ٠فالوا فقتله وصلبه برضا منه كان فلا حناح على الذين ولوا صلبه بل مستوجبون الثواب مستحقون الجزيل من الجزاء لاتباعهم رضوانه . وان قتله وصلبه بكره منه فاى الاه يكون مكرهاً . ان هذا القول عظيم . يقال لهم ان القتل والصلب عندنا على وجهين لانه مضاف الى الاثنين الفاعل والمفعول به .

فقد يقال ان قتل فلان كان من فلان فى يوم كذا وكذا وقتل فلان لغلان يوم كذا وكذا . وا لمضاف الى اليهود من قتل ا لمسيح فعلهم به . وا لمضاف اليه من قتله انقاذه لهم واحتماله لما كان منهم اليه من غير ان يحول بينهم وبين ما ارادوا . وا لقتل وا لصلب بعينه ليس بممدوح ولا مذموم لانه انما يذم اذا ما اضيف الى الفاعل والمفعول به .

78. فاذا اتينا على تفسير الوجهين الذين وصفنا من امر القتل والصلب سند ٠ I سالتكأ21اداذا ٠ كالطه٠فتلهاكهذهفال فلننظر فى جواب مسالتكم ايانا برضى كان صلبه وقتله ام بكره منه . فان ^[191]

remain in the depths^[192] of the earth three days and three nights.”^[193]

And He gave an example, saying: “Truly, I say to you, if the seed does not fall upon the earth and die, it remains alone, without bearing fruit. But when it mixes with the earth and dies in it, it grows, and the hope [placed in it] increases.”^[194] [There are] other signs than these which He uttered in His Book [of the Gospels] demonstrating that He suffered death and crucifixion in His Incarnation by His own consent. He was not compelled [to accept it], even though, in His justice and His fairness, He detested and was angry with the ones who had carried this out.

77. Now if they say: “His being killed and His crucifixion [either occurred] with His consent or through coercion. Now if it was with His consent, then it cannot be held against those who carried out His crucifixion. Rather, they deserve a reward and are entitled to the most abundent of the portions [of the reward], because they complied with His consenting [to it].^[195] And if His being killed and His crucifixion were through His coercion, what god can be compelled [to do something]? Now this statement is a terrible thing!” it should be said to them: The killing and the crucifixion, according to us [refer to] two aspects, because they are related to two [separate persons]: the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.^[196]

For one says that ‘the killing of so-and-so was by so-and-so on such-and-such a day’ and ‘so-and-so killed so-and-so on such-and- such a day’. That which is related to theJews in the killing of the Messiah is their act against Him and that which is related to Him in His killing is His deliverance of them, and His suffering what they [committed] against Him, without interfering with what they wanted. The killing and the crucifixion are themselves neither praiseworthy nor blameworthy, because what is blameworthy is only so in relation to the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.

78. When we put forward an explanation of the two aspects that we have described concerning the killing and crucifixion, we must examine carefully the answer to your question to us: was His cru-

كان معناكم كان الذى كان اى هو راض بما اش اليه من اليهود لحدهم وخبث نياتهم 'فلنا معان الله ان يكون لذلك راضياً ولا محبا لانه ليس محبا لشى من المعاصى وذلك معصية.

79. وان كان 'فولكم راض هو فيما صنعت به اليهود او راض هو بما احتمل منهم غير مكره عليه قلنا بلى قبوله لذلك رضى لانه به خلص العالم وا نقذهم من الضلالة التى تسلطت عليهم من غير ان يكون بفعلهم مريدا كما صفنا .

فان قالوا وكيف يكون بما احتمل منهم راضيا غير راض بما افتعلوا فكانما فشملددهغ٠ لأإ2احتملهدظ ردد اناحصالهمغ,غذدذاق فعلهم لديه غريب احتمله منهم يقال لهم بلى ان احتماله منهم عندنا غير فعدلهلذلكه22احذاله٠ غداحتمالهذلكمذص,الا فعلهم به ولذلك اوجبنا له رضى على احتماله ذلك منهم والنقم منهم

221        ٠        222

بفعلهم . لان احتمال من المقتول للقتل غير احتمال المقتول للقاتل والا صار القاتل مقتولأ والمقتول قاتناً .

80. فان ادعيتم ان فعل اقاتل واحتمال المقتول واحد سالناكم ما قولكم فى استثدمك٠فعاالكغا فعلهفعلهفعدفانكاًنالا احدا223

من استشهد منكم فعل الكفار به فعله وفعله فعلهم. فان كان الامر واحدا

فالشهيد قاتل والقاتل شهيد وكل مذموم وممدوح القاتل والمقتول مذموم

224الئممدغدالاسسعا

عن القتل وممدوح على الاستشهاد.

81. وما عسيتم تقولون لو سالناكم نحو [ما] سالتمونا من امر القتل اراض الله بقتل شهدائه ام كاره ٠ فان قلتم راض قلنا فلا جناح على الكفار ^[197] [198]

cifixion and killing [done] with His consent or through coercion? If your meaning is: that which happened happened; that is, He consented to what the Jews [did] to Him because of their envy and their wicked intention, we say: God forbid that He had consented to this and wants it! Because He does not what anything that is an outrage, and this [which they did] was an outrage.

79. If you say: “He consented to what they did to Him, that is, He consented to what He suffered from them, without being compelled to it,” [then] we say: Yes, indeed! He consented to accept this because through it He saved the world and delivered [human beings] from the error that had overpowered them, without willing their act, as we have described.

Now if they say: “How did He consent to what He suffered at their hands^[199] without consenting to what they did, as if their action before Him^[200] were different from what He suffered at their hands?” it should be said to them: Yes, indeed! His suffering at their hands, according to us, is not their act against Him. In this way, we make His consent necessary for His suffering this [act] at their hands and their punishment [necessary] for their act. The suffering of the one killed because of the [act of] killing is different from the suffering of the killing^[201] caused by the killer,^[202] otherwise the killer would be the one killed, and the one killed would be the killer.

80. Now, if you maintain that the act of the killer and the suffering of the one who is killed are one [and the same], we shall ask you: What do you say of the one among you who is a martyr: is the act of the unbeliever against him his [own] act, and is his act their act? If they are one [and the same] then the martyr is the killer, and the killer is the martyr, and all are blameworthy and praiseworthy, the killer and the one who is killed are blameworthy because of the killing, and praiseworthy because of the martyrdom.

81. What might you say if we asked you, similar to what you asked us about the killing [of the Messiah]: Does God consent to the killing of His martyrs, or does He abhor [it]? If you say: “He consented”, we say: then it is not an outrage for the unbeliever who carried out

الذين ولوا قتل الشهداء والهم ثواب جزيل اذ تبعوا رضوانه فى قتل شهدائه . وان قلتم كاره قلنا ولثا يكون دالاه يكره . وهل الصلب والقتل لاًلحد,        الاسد٠لةا        ^[203]فك، هشة        الغاا

بالجد فى النقص الا بمنزلة الشتم والافترى فكل منقصة من الفاعل الش^[204]1٨ ده فما٠وهلكمط اك> ط اللهسحاذهاا٠

وا لمفعول        به . فما قولكم على من افترى على الله سبحانه اراكى هو

بذلك منه ام كاره . فليكن جوابكم ايانا فى هذا جوابا فيما سالتمونا من امر الصلب والقتل .

82. فان 'فالوا من اين يشبه ما وصفتم من امر الصلب والقتل قولكم فى الفرية على الله ٠ فهل ينال الله من الافترى شى ٠ فاما انتم فقد الزمتموه ا لقتل والموت . فاى كلام اشع واشد استحالة من هذا . يقال لهم وبماذا

228        لىلادذالالله        الا٠        ع 229        له230٠لا٠„        ط

عنيتم بقولكم لا ينال الله من الافترى شى&        يقولون لا يفترى على

الله احد . وكتابكم عليكم شهيد اذ يقول يفترون على الله كذباً .

83. وان كان قولكم لا يناله من الافترى شء لاعتلى جوهره عن احتمل الافتراء ٠ شألناكم فما قولكم عن الذى يفترى على الله اذ لا يناله من ذلك ع اما٠ذلالفلةطاللهافدتهمعملة232فان.فالالذ هدن شى& اماخوذ بالغرية على الله ام فريته مهملة . فان قالوا بلى هو ماخوذ بالغرية على الله . يقال لهم وكيف يوخذ بالغرية على الله ولم ينله من ذلك

٠.١٠ ٠فالا ا٠ 233 ٠٠١        فد ,ن عد الله ٠ الح٠مد ،

شئء . فان قالوا اضمر واظهر من فعله وان اعتلى الله له الحمد على الافترى يقال لهم صدقتم هكذا والقول فى المسجح سبحانه اذ هو اله متجد لدذله234 خاتهاللآ -J الالعءالطلأ انكا۵ سد لم ينله بذاته اللاهوتية من الصلب والموت شئء وان كان هو المصلوب المائت بتجده كما وصفنا فى موضع ذكر موته من هذا الكتاب .

the killing of the martyr, and they would deserve the most abundant reward when, with His consent, they complied in killing His martyrs. And if you say: He abhors [it], we say: Certainly we [also say] He is a God [Who] abhors [it]. Is not the crucifixion and killing of the body of the [same] degree in offense as insult[s] and lie[s] all are a degradation of the one who does it and the one to whom it is done? What do you say about the one who lies about God, may He be praised? Does He consent to this [act] against Himself, or does He abhor [it]? Your answer to us in this is the answer to what you have asked us concerning the crucifixion and killing [of the Messiah].

82. Now if they say: “Why should what you have described concerning the crucifixion and the killing be similar to your statement about a lie about God? Does anything of slander reach God?^[205] Yet, you have [even] imposed killing and death on Him! What speech is more abominable and a greater absurdity than this?” it should be said to them: What do you mean by your statement that nothing of slander reaches God? You may say: No one slanders God. But your Book^[206] is a witness against you when it says: ‘They slandered against God, lying’.^[207]

83. If you say that nothing of slander reaches Him because His ousia is above suffering slander, then we ask you: what do you say about the one who slanders against God, when nothing of this reaches Him: is he is punishable for the slander against God or is his slander overlooked? If they say: “Indeed, he is punishable for his slander against God”, it should be said to them: Why should he be punished for the slander against God, [even though] nothing of this thing reachs Him? If they say: “It is hidden and it is manifested in His act, even though God, Glory be to Him! is above the slander”, it should be said to them: You are correct. The teaching about the Messiah, may He be praised! is like this. For He is God incarnated, Whose divine being is not reached by anything of the crucifixion and death, even though He is the Crucified and the Mortal in His Incarnation, just as we have described in a [another] place where His death is mentioned in this book.

84. فاليهود ماخوذون بصلبه وقتله لما نووا من ابادته وان جل عن ذلك له

الحمدلاتغا۶        القتا اكت235كؤلخهذئلفدةط الله ا٦

ا لحمد لارتفاع جوهره عن القتل والموت كالماخوذ بالغرية على الله وان

أا236        ٠

اعتلى الله على ذلك علوا كبيرا كما وصفنا. هكذا والقول فى كل ما نطق به المسجح سبحانه او فعل فعله .

85□ ئ ال اكا٠ '^[208] ١٥ لأ23 ط د ٠ هذا١لكتا فاذ٠ما

85. فما دعا الى التواضع وما نات على تغسيره فى هذا الكتاب فانما ذلكلأحشاً صىلت1ذه فلك٠٠ماف~ذامذهمغذاش٠ماذاتو23ة نللثة بتحقيق وتشبيتة لتانه . فليكن ما فسرنا منه مغنيا عن ما نائ^ على

شرحه فى هذا الكتاب ٠ وانما اهملنا تاويله حذرا من التطويل والاكثار . فان

ا لعل وان كان طيبا لن يطيب عند الاكثار منه مع انا قد اتينا على تفسير ما نطق به المسجح له الحمد من صفة تواضعه لحال تجده فى كتابه الانجيل كلمة كلمة وفعناً فعناً مما كان التواضع داعيا فى رسالة كانت منا الى اهل الح٠ اداء٠ ساكافتال40ر        د

البحرين جوابا عن رسالتهم اضتاء فى شرح ذلك لهم . احتذنا فيها حذو الانبياء والرسل والاباء فى وضعهم اياه من غير بدعة ولا اتباع راى ٠

86. فان يكن ما كتبنا به اليك فى هذا الكتاب مقنعا لك فيما سالت حمدنا الله على اعطائه . وان العى مخالفا لرجائك غير مقنع فجدير انت ان تعدد من عجز عن بلوغ غاية ما لا غاية له لاعتلائه عن كل عقل ونطق باعلائه بلا نهاية . فليكن ما كتبنا به اليك كالالف والباء عند من ا لتمس الخط . فانها وان كانت الاثنين بانغرادها غير شى فلا سبيل الى علم الكتابة دونها .

84. TheJews are punishable for His crucifixion and His killing, because they intended His annihilation, even if He is exalted above this, glory be to Him! because His ousia rises above killing and death, just as the one who is punishable for slander against God, even though God is sublimely and greatly exalted above this,^[209] as we have described. This is like the teaching about all that is uttered by the Messiah, may He be praised! or [every] act He does.

85. What points to the humiliation and the death [ofthe Messiah], and what we put forward as its explanation in this book is only a confirmation and an affirmation of His becoming human. Because it would be superfluous to what we have [already] explained for us to put forward its [further] elucidation in this book, we rather omit its interpretaion in order to be cautious of prolongation and multiplication [of the arguments]. For honey, even if it is good, is not agreeable when too much of it [is eaten]. We have [already] put forward an explanation of what the Messiah, glory be to Him! said as a description of His humiliation [while] in the state of His Incarnation in His book, the Gospel, word by word, act by act, [and] of the purpose of the humiliation. [It is] in a risalah from us to the People of Balin in answer to their risalah, illuminating [it] in constructing^[210] an explanation of this [issue] for them. In it, we have followed the example of the Prophets and the Apostles and the Fathers as they have laid down, without innovation or inventing [something from our own] opinion.

86. If what we have written to you^[211] in this book is a convincing [response] to what you have asked, we give glory to God for His gift. And if it [appears] mistaken, contradictory to your expectation and not convincing, then you deserve to be counted among [those who are] incapable of attaining the extreme limit of what has no limit, because of His exaltedness above every understanding and utterance, for His exaltation is without end. For what we have written in [this book] to you is like the A and B for the one who desires to write, although the two [letters] individually are nothing, it is impossible to learn to write without them.

جعلنا الله واياك ممن انفذ ايامه فى طلب العلم النافع ونبن بالتوانى وا لكل فى اقتباسه خلف ظهره ان شاء الله .

ئ أذ24

والحمد لله دائما ابدا ٠

سرمديا امنين 241 S adds

May God put us and you with the one who fulfills his days in the search for useful knowledge and throws slackness and laziness in his commitment to learning behind himself if God wills!

Glory be to God forever and always!

WITNESSES FROM THE WORDS OF THE TORAH,

THE PROPHETS AND THE SAINTS

Introdict

The untitled text designated as “Witnesses from the Words of the Torah and the Prophets and the Saints” in its opening line, is at first glance an unusual document, being simply a list of biblical citations from the Old Testament in no apparent order. Although it is included as the sixth of his eight extant writings in the most complete manuscript collection his works, Bibl. P. Sbath 1001,1 it contains no specific reference within itself tying it to Abu Ra’itah. It is also found in Par. Ar. 169 as the last of six, suggesting that the copyist had received the original manuscripts in a single collection.^[212] [213] In addition, many of the biblical passages found in Witnesses are reproduced elsewhere in Abd Ra’itah’s writings, especially in On the Trinity and Proof. As a consequence, there is no obvious reason not to attribute it to Abu Ra’itah. In fact, closer examination of the list reveals its likely purpose and a particular motive why Abu Ra’itah would have created such a document, increasing the likelihood that it can be counted among his literary output.

The text itself consists of approximately eighty quotations taken exclusively from the Old Testament to be used as proof texts to substantiate the Trinity and Incarnation. All of the passages are brief, none is more than ten verses long according to modern numbering and many are only a few words. The author’s motivation for producing this document is not immediately apparent, since no formal introduction is given. However, the time period in which it was composed and the purpose behind Abd Ra’itah’s other writings suggests an interesting possibility. This collection of verses may well represent an initial effort to translate important and useful biblical passages into Arabic and make them accessible to those who needed to avail themselves of apologetical materials. If this is in fact the case, it may indicate that the Jacobite church did not have at its disposal a complete Arabic translation of the Bible at the beginning of the ninth century.

Some scholars have claimed to have found proof that the biblical texts were translated into Arabic even before the time of Mulam- mad. On the face of it, it seems strange that Christian missionaries from Abyssinia, Ethiopia, Yemen, and the Roman empire who penetrated the Arabian peninsula did not attempt to translate the scriptures into the local language. However, in spite of a few scattered pre-Islamic sacred inscriptions in Arabic that can be identified as Christian, to date there is no concrete evidence that significant texts were translated until much later.^[214]

The earliest known Arabic translations of both the Old and New Testament are from the beginning of the ninth century found in manuscripts primarily from St. Catherine’s and Mar Sabas monasteries. Studies have also shown that the Gospel first became available to the Melkite church in Palestine in the ninth century, when it began to be used there for liturgical and apologetical purposes.^[215] It is notable that while nearly all of the writings of the New Testament can be accounted for in translation at this time, only isolated portions of the Old Testament, in particular the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach and Psalm 79, appear to have been made.^[216] The lack of a full translation of the Old Testament into Arabic before the ninth century seems to be confirmed by the fact that Muslims did not have access to more than some commonly repeated passages which were often taken completely out of their context. Very often these verses are quoted by Muslims with apparently no knowledge of those immediately preceding or following them.^[217]

It has long been recognized that the version of the text which underlies the earliest available translations of the scriptures into Arabic is the Old Syriac. There are a limited number of extant texts that include biblical citations revealing characteristics which indicate an original Old Syriac source. Some of the first of these were authored by Abu Ratals literary adversary, Theodore Abu Qurrah. In fact, Vbbbus includes Abd Ratals writings among those containing passages which show a definite relationship with the Old Syriac version.^[218] The question remains whether the translations can be attributed to Abd Ra’itah himself, or whether he copied them from an existing translation.

The text containing the scriptural evidence from “the Torah, prophets and saints” does not begin with a clear introduction. Although the Sbath manuscript 1001 includes a longer title (probably added by a copiest), it immediately moves into citations from Genesis. The verses do not appear to be set down in any particular order, and those from the same book are not always listed together. It is possible, however, to identify a general outline to the document. The first group of citations (§§1-7) provides excerpts that can be used to show that the Trinity was foreshadowed in the Torah. These are followed by similar proofs for the Incarnation (§§8-25), with an emphasis on the suffering, crucifixion and death of the Messiah.

The first, and most extensive group, are those passages which point to the existence of a plurality in God. Some of these speak of the activity of one or more of the hypostaseis of the Trinity, such as the Spirit or the Word, others describe God as speaking with the first person plural, while others portray God revealing Himself to individuals. Many of these are texts which Abu Ra’itah uses elsewhere in his other writings. For the sake of clarity, the passages are divided here into the three categories, followed by the other texts of Abu Ra’itah in which they appear.

F. Actiity of ore or more lypostaseis

Gen 1:2; 18:1-3 (Trinity), 19:10-14; Ex 34:5-6; Ps 33:6 (Trinity); 56:10 (Trin- iy, Proof', 74:12'; 8A.8 (,Proof-, 107:20 (,Trinity, Proof; 110'1 (Tf 118'89 (Proof), 105; 139:7; 141:10.

2. God’s self-reference -ill tl e Jilural Gcn1٠26^Trt^^,R(^fiitattoui,PTooj١-,3-2^2^TTt^^,R(^۶itattoui,PTooj١-,11٠7 (^Tin^- ityoProof.

3. Go lei eals Himselfto liumanbeings

Gen 18٠16, 22-32; Ex 3٠1-6.

The second group of verses are those substantiating the Incarnation. Some of the passages could be counted under category (I) above, since they refer to the activity of the Word of God. However, nearly all of them mention the Son or something which Christians later attributed to the second person of the Trinity specifically. This group can also be somewhat organized into four general categories: apocalyptic or future expectation, prophecy of the coming of a Son or Ruler, the suffering, crucifixion and death of the Messiah, the signs, wonders and victory of the Messiah. The number of passages that appear elsewhere in Abr Ratals writings is significantly less than those for the Trinity. These have been noted here.

1. . Ajocal^Jtiic/ FutuExJjectation

Prov 30٠4; Is 48٠16 (Trinity); Dan 4٠28 (Trinity); 7٠9-14.

2. ProJlecy of tlCominig ofaSonf Ruler

Is 7٠14 (Proof); 9٠6;Jer 23٠5-6; Mic 5٠1; Bar 3٠36-38 (Proof); Zech 6٠12;

.9٠9

3. SujferingjCTuciJtiiona IDeatl oftl e Messiah

Gen 49٠10-11; Is 50٠4-8; 53٠2-12; Zech 11٠12-13; (Mt 28٠9-10);^[219] 12:10; 13٠1, 7; 14٠6-7; Mic 5٠1; Amos 8٠9;Jer 11٠19;^[220] Wis 14٠7; Ps 22٠17-19; 41٠6-8,

10; 69٠22; 78٠65; 88٠5.

4. SigsWo lers a IVMory of the MessialGo ا

Is 35٠3-8; 40٠22;^[221] 49٠7-10; 63٠1; 65٠1-2; Wis 2٠12; Ps 8٠1-2; 15٠3; 24٠7-8; 46٠6, 9; 56٠6; 67٠2, 5, 19, 25, 33-34; 106٠43; 118٠22-23; Zeph 3٠8; Dan 9٠25-26; Hab 3٠4; Mic 1٠2-3;Job 19٠25.

A single passage cannot be identified with any known writing from the Old Testament “And Jeremiah the prophet said about the dead٠ “The dead will live, as the Lord of Lords has said.” (§23) In light of this analysis, two points are striking about the contents of Witnesses. The first is that the passages themselves and their repetition in Abu Ra’itah’s other writings make clear the purpose of the document. One notices immediately that the types of verses that have been included have all been used to substantiate Christian teachings challenged by Muslims: the plurality of hypostaseis in God and the interaction of these hypostaseis with creation, the expectation of the incarnated Son of God, His suffering, crucifixion, death, resurrection and miracles. This evidence thus suggests that the list was compiled primarily for use as an apologetic “source book” of biblical texts to be used in defense of Christian doctrines. That they are all drawn from the Old Testament adds support to this hypothesis.^[222]

As was mentioned above, the problem of tahnf appears to have compelled Abu Ra’itah to rely generally on non-biblical arguments to defend Christian beliefs. However, within limited confines he still employed passages from the Old Testament in his apologetical writings. He apparently did this because it was easier to provide convincing evidence for the Old Testament than for the New that it had not been tampered with, since the same texts had also been preserved by the Jews. In view of this issue, the value of this compilation becomes obvious. It seems very likely that Abu Ra’itah created the document to provide those who would be engaged in apologetical activities with Muslims with a ready-made list of biblical texts that could be used to substantiate the central Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation that would be acceptable to both Christians and Muslims. This document may have been intended for Abu Ra’itah’s own students, for those engaged in face-to-face confrontation with Muslims, or for clergy faced with the rising tide of conversions to Islam.

Second, a closer look at the various instances of the verses throughout Abu Ra’itah’s writings makes it almost impossible to believe that he had a pre-existing Arabic translation of the Scriptures before him. The numerous verses contained in Witnesses that appear in several other texts show an extraordinary diversity of renderings. At the same time, one notes that the basic sentence structure is usually maintained, and important terms repeatedly make their appearance in each of the instances. It is necessary only to give a few examples to illustrate this phenomenon:

Gen 1:26:

(W):^[223]        .نخلق اناناً كصورتنا ومثالنا

(T):        .لنصنع اناناً يصورتنا وكشبهنا

(R):        .لنصنع انساناً دشبهنا ومثالنا,

(P):        .كخلقآلاذاً كصورتنا وشبهنا

Gen 3:22

(W):        .ادام قد صار كواحد منا

(T):        .ادم قد صار كواحد منا

(R        .ادم صار كاحدنا

(P):        .ادم قد صار كاحدنا

Ps 33:6

(W): .الله خلقت ا لموات ويروح فيه كل اجناده (T):        .الله خلقت ا لموات ويروح فيه كل قواتها

Ps 107:20

(W): .ارمل كلمته فايرأهم وخلصهم من الحبال (T):        .ارمل كلمته فشغاهم وخلصهم من الموت

(P):        .كلمته فايرأهم وخلصهم من الغاد

The multitude of variations allows some conclusions to be drawn about the relationship between Witnesses and the remainder of Abu Ra’itah’s writings. First, it seems clear that Abu Ra’itah is translating from the Old Syriac version as he goes. Consequently, one can conclude that he did not have anything that he considered to be an authoritative translation into Arabic available to him. The inconsistency of his adaptations further implies that he made them sporadically over a space of time, and was only later prompted to set down a more complete and consistent list of useful texts. This suggests two points. Since Abu Ra’itah does not appear to have used his own translation to provide any consistency in his writings, he probably compiled the list some time after he had composed most of his other works, perhaps after having gathered together passages that he knew from experience could be used effectively. Further, this list includes many passages that are not incorporated in his extant writings in places where they would have been useful, particularly for questions concerning the Incarnation.^[224] In light of these considerations, the compilation of the Old Testament texts can probably be dated later in Abu Ra’itah’s career, sometime before 830 and no earlier than 820.

The impetus for setting down this group of verses in translation may have been the realization that Arabic was beginning to take a firm hold among Jacobite Christians in Iraq and the necessity of translating important texts was increasing. The escalating confrontation with Muslims on questions of religion, clearly evidenced in Abu Ra’itah’s other writings, is also likely what motivated him to create the collection to make the texts available in the language of the debate. He may even have been prompted by someone who considered him to be an authority on the subject. Such a handbook would have been invaluable to those caught in the fray, explaining why it has been preserved for nearly twelve centuries.

Thus, in spite of a decided lack of explicit internal evidence, it is possible to offer some impressions about this compilation of Old Testament passages included among Abu Ra’itah’s writings. First, the subjects of the verses collected reveal that the primary motivation behind it was apologetical. Many of the passages are found in Abu Ra’itah’s writings in defense of the Trinity and the Incarnation, albeit with variations. Within the context and stated intent of his other apologetical texts, the supposition that he created the document at the request of a church official or member of the clergy in defending Christian doctrines against Muslim charges is probably not far from the truth. An alternative possibility is that he made it for his own use as a malpono to train students in the art of apologetics.

The context and contents of the text also suggest a secondary motivationan attempt to set down important biblical texts in Arabic at a time when no translation was available to the Jacobite church in Iraq. Given the relationship between this text and the remainder of his extant documents, it can be plausibly dated sometime between 820 and 830. For this reason the collection may be valuable to biblical scholars seeking to establish the details surrounding the transition from Syriac to Arabic in the church of ninth century Iraq. Finally, the uniqueness of the translations may also be of help in identifying other texts not yet associated with Abu Ratal, with an eye to discovering those known to be lost.

^ا        . ل اك ا الائ اك

شهادات من قول التوراة والانبياءوالقديسين

1. بسماللهالقوىالعظيمالقدوسسهاداتءلىالتلاثيةمنالعتيقة.

2. من ذلك من قول موسى قى التوران' حيث يقول روح الله ترفت على الماء.

ثم قال كما تقدم ذكره نخلق انساناً كصورننا ومثالنا.

وقال هوذا ادام قد صار كواحد منا.

وقال تعالوا ننزل وتغرق الالن.

3. وقال وظهر الرب على ابراهيم وهو جالس على باب خيمته وقت امتحرار النهار فرفع ابراهيم عينيه ولمح فاذا ثلثة نغر مياماً امامه . فلما ا. هم اليهم قال نانكذت امقاس. „٠الرحمةقلا3تجازن ابعرهم معى اليهم وقال رب ان كنت رامقا الئ بعين ا لرحمة قلا تجاوزن عبدك.

4        1 . I,        ١        ٠ك ...        .        .

فاجابوه قائلين هذا القول تعد الغيافة انى عائد اليك للحول فى هذا الحين ولسارن' امرأك ابن. وابراهيم وسارن' كانا قد كبرا وقد كان جاز عن يارة طريق الولد. فتبمت سارذ' فى نقها وقالت من بعد البلى تكون شبيبة وميدى قد شاخ. فقال الرب لابراهيم لم ضحكت سارذ' وقالت بحق اك اساه ا* ظ كل ت’ افلعله غاله ال الدابنا انى 'فد كبرت . افلعله غالبه الرب.

ا P omits. 2 This line found only in S. 3 P omits. 4 S adds

5 ولهم وله S 6 وكان قد S adds 7 .الذاتيا S in margin تغير اى على الكبر.

Witnesses from the Words of the Torah,
the Prophets and the Saints

1. In the name of the Powerful, the Mighty, the Holy. Witnesses for the Trinity from the Old [Testament].

2. From this, from the words of Moses in the Torah, when he said: “The Spirit of God hovered over the water.”^[225]

Then he said, as was earlier mentioned:^[226] “We created human beings in our image and our likeness.”^[227]

And he said: “Look, Adam has become like one of us.”^[228]

And he said: “Come, let us go down and divide the languages.”^[229]

3. And he said: “The Lord appeared before Abraham, and he was sitting before the door of his tent, at the time of the heat of the day, and Abraham lifted his eyes and suddenly, behold, three persons were standing before him. And when he saw them, he went quickly to them and said: ‘Lord, if you regard me with mercy, do not pass by your servant’.”^[230]

“And they answered him, saying this after the meal of hospitality: ‘I will return to you in a year at this time, and Sarah, your wife, will have a son.’ Now Abraham and Sarah were very old and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. And Sarah smiled to herself and said: ‘After becoming old, I should be young? And my husband is [also] elderly.’ But the Lord said to Abraham: ‘Why is Sarah laughing?’ and she said: ‘Shall I really bear a son myself? I am already very

4. ونهض القوم من هماك وتوجهوا قبالة سدوم وخرج ابراهيم معهم .8^,١

وشيعهم وقال الرب لا اخفى عن ابراهيم عبدى ما انا فاعل .

فلما اخبره بحال سدوم غامورا بعد ذلك سال ارباهيم ربه وفال رب ان كان فى ا لقرية او فى المدينة مائة صابح فانت مهلكهم . فقال الرب لابراهيم لا . ئفانكانفعاخمبنه1 ئلهلااهاكند٠إ        ..11,ز ٠ ..

فقال فان كان فيها خمسون فقال له لا اهلكها - فلم يزدحتى الى عشرن' .

الن|ططط ئ ا12اك صت ٠الما .        . 13

والرب اهبط على سدوم وغامورا النار والكبريت من ا لماء من بين يدى الرب .

5. وقال موسى ايضاً انه اتى جبل حوريب وتراءى له ملك الله فى اجاجة النار من شجرة' الفئيق. ونظر الى شجرة' العليق فيها النار والشجرة' غضة لا تحرق. وقال موسى اعدل انظر الى هذا الهول العظيم من اجل ماذا لا تحترق شجرة' العليق. فمظر الرب الى موسى انه عدل لينظرفناداه الله من ا٠ الىسدةلاتد٠ا14ال        هاهنا        اخد        نعلك        قدهك احا

جوف العوسدة' لا تدنوا الى هاهنا        ٠        اخلع        نعليك        من قدميك        من اجل        ان

اللدغ. اك 15 ائت 'فأ طغا        مقد ٠        لا        الله ل        اضاً انا اله        ا ا        اله

البلدة' التى انت قائم عليها        مقدسة.        وقال        الله له        ايضا انا اله        ابراهيم        اله

اسحق اله يعقوب. وغطا موسى وجهه لانه جرع ان ينظر الى الله.

old. Perhaps the Lord can overcome [my old age].’”^[231]

4. “The people rose from that place and turned in the direction of Sodom. Abraham went with them and bid them farewell. And the Lord said: ‘I do not wish to hide from Abraham my servant what I will do.’”^[232]

“So when He had told him about the condition of Sodom and Gamor- rah, Abraham then asked his Lord, and said: ‘Lord, if there are in the village or city one hundred just people, will You destroy it?’, and the Lord said to Abraham: ‘No’. So he said: ‘And if there are fifty in it?’,^[233] and He said: ‘No, I will not destroy it.’ And he did not stop until [he had reached ten].”^[234]

“And the Lord caused fire and sulphur to rain down from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah, [this was done] by the hand of the Lord.”^[235]

5. And Moses said, too, that he came to Mount Horeb and an angel appeared to him in a burning fire in a thorn bush. And he saw the fire in the thorn bush, and the bush was lush, but it did not burn. And Moses said: “I will go and see this terrifying and great [wonder] in order [to know] why the thorn bush does not burn.” Then the Lord saw Moses going to look, and God called out to him from inside of the thorns [. . .]: “Do not come near here! Take off your sandals from your feet because the place on which you stand is holy.” And God also said to him [. . .] “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.” And Moses covered his face because he was afraid to look upon God.”^[236]

-فاذ        ادضاً٠٠لالنذالغماتكلمداسالن16

وقال موسى ايضا ونزل الرب فى الغمام وتكلم باسم الرب

وقال ايضا جاز بين يدى الرب .

6. وقالداوودالذبىبكلمةاللهخلقتالسمواتوبروحفيهكلاجذاده.

وقال ايضا بكلمة الله اسبح.

وقل ايضا ارسل كلمته فابرأهم وخلصهم من الحبال.

وقال ايضا الى الابد انت ايها الرب وكلمتك ثابتة فى السماء.

٠فال كئمتك ^[237] [238] I مذزط .        ٦„ ا 18

وقال كلمتك سراج مئيرلرجلى ونور لبيلى

وقال اين اذهب من روحك واين اختفى منك.

وقال وروحك الطيبة ترشدنى الى طريق الحياة' .

٠فااضاً19 ٠طال        ل,حك        . 20

وقال ايفا قالالربلر.لى اجلى عن يمينى

وقال اله الالهة يرى فى صهيون ■

And Moses also said, “And the Lord descended in the clouds and He spoke the Name of the Lord.”1

And he also said: “The Lord passed before [him].”)4

6. And David, the Prophet, said: “By the Word of God the heavens were created, and by the Spirit of His mouth all of His hosts.”)5

And he also said: “The Word of God I will praise.”)®

And he also said: “He sent His Word to heal them and save them from the snares.”17

And he also said: “For eternity are You, o Lord, and Your word is forever in heaven.”18

And he said: “Your Word is a lamp for my feet and a light for my path.”19

And he said: “Where shall I go away from Your Spirit, and where can I hide from You?”2®

And he said: “Your Spirit of goodness shall lead me on the path of life.”21

And he said: “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right’.”22

And he said: “My God is the King who has made salvation in the middle of the earth.”28

13. Ex 34:5

14. Ex 34:6

15. Cf. Ps 33:6

16. Ps 56:10

17. Ps 107:20

18. Ps 119:89

19. Ps 119:105

20. Ps 139:7

21. Cf. Ps 143:10

22. Cf. Ps 110:1

23. Ps 74:12

قال اك الملك الذ حعا خلاصاً^' ط الا ن وقال الهى الملك الذى جعل خلاصا فى وسط الارض ٠

7. وقال سليمان الحكيم من ارتفع الى السماء وهبط ومن قد السماء .شبره ■ ومن كال تراب الارض ومن قبض الرياح بكغه ومن صر الماء فى ال" ما ا        1.

البرقع . ما اسمه واسم ابنه ان كنت تعلم .

وقال اشعيا النبى الله ارسلنى وروحه لانذركم.

وقال دانيال النبى ان الله لك يقول يا يختنصر ملكك ينزعونه منك.

8 وقال ايضاً ذانيال رأيت كراسى وضعت وعتيق الايام جالساً لباسه ابيض كالثلج الابيض وشعر رأسه كالصوف النقئ كرسيه كاجاجة النار وبكراته نار تئقد ونهر نارجارى بين يديه والوف الوف يسعون فى خدمته وعظم الربوات قيام بين يديه. والحاكم جلس والاسفار فتحت.

أت ط سحف الس٠ا كءدة ا25٠الشحا ئ٠٠دذا٠ ورأيت على سحاب السماء كرؤية ابن البشر . جاء ووصل حتى دنا من عتيق الايام . ووقف بين يديه ٠ واليه دقع السلطان والاجيال والملك وجمع الشعوب والامم وجمع الالن اياه يعبدون وسلطانه سلطان الابد وملكه لا يتغير.

9. وقل اشعيا النبى ان البتول تحبل وتلد ايناً ويدعى ويسمى عمانوئيل الذى تاويله الله معنا.

وقال ايضا من اجل انه ولد لنا ولد وابن اعطيناه الذى سلطانه على عاتقه

21 S فرقاناً Graf: probably following the original Syriac reading. 22 Error in Graf, not 23 .مد P 24 ابيه P omits. 25 P 26 ين Graf: اسمه.

7. And Solomon, the Wise, said: “Who has ascended to heaven and come down [again]? And Who has spanned heaven with His measure? Who has measured the dust of the earth, and Who has grasped the winds in His palm? Who has bound up the water into the veil [of heaven]? What is His name, or the name of His Son, if you know it?”^[239]

And Isaiah, the Prophet, said: “God sent me and His Spirit, to warn you.”^[240]

And Daniel, the Prophet, said: “God said to you, o Nebuchadnezzar, they will take your kingdom from you.”^[241]

8. And Daniel also said: “I saw thrones erected and the Ancient of Days sitting, His robe was white like white snow, and the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was like burning fire, and its wheels fire that burned. And a flood of fire poured out before Him, and thousands upon thousands were running in His service, and a vast myriad stood before Him, and the Judge sat and the books were opened.”^[242]

[. . .] “And I saw on the clouds of heaven [one] like a vision of a Son of Man. He came and approached until He was near the Ancient of Days, and He stopped before Him. And He was presented with authority and tribes and dominion and all the peoples and nations and all of the languages, that they might serve Him. And His authority is the authority of eternity, and His dominion does not change.”^[243]

9. And Isaiah the Prophet said: “The Virgin will conceive and bear a son, and he will be called 'Immanuel, which is explained 'God is with us’.”^[244]

وسمى اسمه عجبا وملآك المشورة' العظما الله جبار العالمين ورب

28        الا        الا.." الغاط الكا .. ill        أ

ا للام ورب الدهور الاتية الغابط الكل وسلطانه وملكه ليس له اتقضاء .

10. وقال ارميا النبى سيأتى الرب . قال الرب اقيم لداوود ضوء البر وملكه بالبر والقط - ويعمل العدل فى الارض وفى ايامه يتخلص اسرائيل ويهودا يسكن بالاطمانينة . وهذا اسمه الرب الهنا .

قاد انت دا دخت لآ اذاتا لهس انت حه٠ ف! اك وقال ميحا النبى وانت يا بيت لحم افراتا ليس انت بصغيرة فى ملوك يهودا منك يخرج مسلط يرعى شعبى اسرائيل ومخرجه من ابتداء الدهور .

11. وقال ارميا النبى ايضاً هذا الاهنا . ولا تعد معه الاهاً اخر . هذا ا لرب واحد الذى اوجد طريق الحكمة والاستقامة ودفعها الى يعقوب عبده و|سرائيلحبيبه. ومن بعد ذلك على الارض يرى ومع الناس يتقلب.

وقال سليمن ايضا حقاً يقيناً جلس الله على الارض .

وقال زكريا النبى هذا انسان اسمه ضوء ومن اسفل يشرق وبينى هيكل الرب ويتولاه -

وقال حبقوق الغبى فى قرنة يديه يصنع جبروته فى البطن ■ ^[245]

And he also said: “For a boy has been born for us, and a son given to us, whose authority is on His shoulder. And His name is wonderful, and Angel of the Great Council, God the Almighty of the Worlds, Lord of Peace, Lord of the Coming Age, Governor of All, His authority and His dominion are His without end.”^[246]

10. And Jeremiah, the Prophet, said: “The Lord will come. The Lord said: I will raise to [the House of] David the Light of Righteousness and His dominion will have righteousness and justice, and He will carry out justice on the earth, and in His days Israel will be saved and Judah will dwell in tranquility. And this is His name: the Lord our God.”^[247]

And Micah, the Prophet, said: “And you, Bethlehem, Land of Ephrata, you are not the least among the Kings ofJudah, from you shall come one who has power to tend My people, Israel, whose departure is from the beginning of the ages.”^[248]

11. And Jeremiah the Prophet also said: “This is Our God, and we do not count other gods with Him. This Lord is the One Who makes the Path of Wisdom and Righteousness, and He presented it to Jacob, His servant, and Israel, His beloved. And after this He was seen on the earth and He moved among the people.”^[249]

And Solomon also said: “Truly, certainly, God sits upon the earth.”^[250]

And Zachariah the Prophet said: “This is a man, His name is Light, and from the lowest [place] He will rise and build the Temple of the Lord, and He will be entrusted with it.”^[251]

And Habakkuk the Prophet said: “In the Horn of His hands, His might is produced from [His] belly.”^[252]

12. وقال ميخا ا لغيى وليكن فيكم رب الارباب شاهداً لان ا لرب خارج هن بلده وهابط وسيظهر على الارض علانية .

وقال ايوب العديق انا عالم ان مخلعى حى وفى اخر الازمان على الارض يرى.

وقال داوود الغبى نظروا الى مثيك اللهم مثى الهى وملكى القدوس ■

وقال يعقوب مما حكاه موسى عنه فى كتابه عند ما بارك اولادة . لا يعدم الملط من يهودا ولا النبى من نله حتى ياتى الذى له الملك واياه تتنظر اص الا        طؤاممةائذهؤالقفاصاله3

الشعوب والامم . يربط فى الكرمة اتانه وفى القغيب ابن حمارته .

13. وقال زكريا الغبى افرحى جدا يا بنت صهيون ونادى بالتهليل يا اورشليم . هوذا ملكك يأتيك بارا ومخلعاً وعقيفاً ومتواضعاً راكباً على جحش ابن اتانه ■ يبيد الحرب من افرام والخيل من يروشليم ويكسر قى القتان ,ادالا السد33 دح سلطانه الى از الح, القتال . ويلهم الامم اللم ويحتوى سلطانه من البحر الى البحر ومن الاذهارالىا-فطار الارض.

وقال داوود النبى ايفا ا لرب ربنا ما اعجب اسمك فى الارض كلها . من ا٠, ,د ال٠انا 33. ض افواه الاطفال والرضعان اعددت سبحا .

14. وقال اشعيا النبى على الامم34 الله الرب اعطانى لان التعليم لابين ^[253] [254]

12. And Micah, the Prophet, said: “The Lord of Lords is a witness among you, for the Lord is going out from His city and is decending to earth manifestly.”^[255]

AndJob the Righteous, said: “I know that my Savior lives, and at the end of the ages He will be seen on the earth.”^[256]

And David the Prophet, said: “They saw Your going, O God, the going of my God and my Holy King.”^[257]

And Jacob said, in what Moses related about him in his book, when he blessed his children: “The ruler shall not disappear from Judah, nor the prophet from its descendants until the one comes to whom the authority belongs, and whom the tribes and the peoples await. He ties His donkey to the vine and to the branch the son of His donkey.”^[258]

13. And Zachariah the Prophet said: “Be joyful greatly, O Daughter of Zion, cry out in exaltation, O Jerusalem! See, your King is coming to you, faithful, devoted, righteous, humble, mounted upon a foal, the son of His donkey. He banishes war from Ephram and the horse[men] from Jerusalem, and shatters the bows of battle. He inspires the peoples with peace and His authority encompasses [the land] from sea to sea and from the rivers to the edges of the earth.”^[259]

And David the Prophet also said: “The Lord, our Lord, how wonderful is Your name in all the earth! From the mouths of the children and sucklings you have prepared praise.”^[260]

14. Isaiah the Prophet said about his sufferings, which he accepted: “God, the Lord, gave to me a tongue for teaching to explain [it]

للمضطهدين واخبرهم بالقول . انبته بالغداة وبالغداة يفتح اذنى لاسمع العلم ٠ الله الرب فتح لى اذنى ٠ فانا لم ارجع الى وراى ولم اقاوم ولم امارى ■ ولكن بذلت جدى للغرب ووجهى للطم ■ ولم ارد وجهى عن الخزى والبعاق ■ والله الرب اعانئى ■ من اجل ذلك لم اخزى بل جعلت وجهى مثل الحجر وعلمت انى لم اخزى ■ لانه قريب مئى الذى يبررنى ■

15. وقال ايضاً على العجائب عند مجى، المسجح المخلص للشعوب تقووا ا.كا الادب الاذة خا^[261]الك قلاص.القل هاالك٠ ايتها الايدى الفعيفة وصلبوا الركب. وقولوا لفعيقى القلوب ها الهكم الطاكحا٦ ظصد حلأ3 ...... ,ص ال اذانار٠... الطالب جاى ويخلعكم. حينئذ تشيح اعين ا لعمى واذان ا لعم تنفتح. هذ١ك 38 الشدمثا        „

هناك يثب المقعد مثل الايل ويستطلق لاًن الاحرس الابكم . لان الماء قد اشد القف ت الادة ن الصدا ٠تك٠ناحا الها 39ن انفجر من القفر وجرت الاودية فى العحراء حتى تكون اجام الماء فى

ت ر ؛ , ى ٠ ر٠ ى ٦ ٠ ى مواضع العطش وتكون ينايع الماء فى ارض الظماء . ينبت العمير

والقصب والبردى فى ديار بنات اوى . ويكون هناك سبيل معتدل . ويدعى طريق القدس ولا يجوز فيها نجس ■ ولا يكون فيها طريق الفجار ■

16. وقال اشعيا النبى ايضاً. هكذا يقول الرب ظهر امرائيل ومخلعه النى د نفسه الاذإ .الشب ٠ءدالملط٩الدكلئظن يرذل نفه وا لمرذول من ا لشعب ومن عبيد ا لمسلطين ا لملوك ينظرون ويقومون وا للاطين يسجدون له من اجل ان الرب صادق وقدوس اسرائيل ا لذى اجتباك . هكذا يقول ا لرب فى زمان مقبل استجيب لك وفى يوم الخلا ا٠ كحلكحعلتكصداًللشى ٠أ42؛        ٠

الخلاص انصرك وجبلتك وجعلتك عهدا للشعوب ونورا للامم لتعمر الا٠ ٠٠ ع ايدى( للا ,ا. اات.43 الارض وترث ميراث الخرابات وتقول للاسرى اخرجوا وللمحبسين اطف ا عها44ط الدت يكدن عدف حم^ السما لا عدن اظهروا - يرعوا على الطرق ويكون مرعاهم فى جمع البل - لا يجوعون

to the oppressd and tell them of the Word. He caused it to grow in the morning, and in the morning He opened my ear to hear the knowledge. God, the Lord, opened my ear, but I did not turn back, nor did I resist nor did I oppose [it]. Rather, I sacrificed my body to beating and my face to blows, and I did not keep my face from disgrace and spittle. God, the Lord, is my Help, and because of this I am not disgraced. Rather I shall make my face like a stone, and I know that I will not be disgraced. Because near to me is the One Who will vindicate me.”^[262]

15. He also said concerning the miracles at the coming of the Messiah, the Savior, to the tribes: “O you peoples! strengthen your weak hands and make firm [your] knees. Say to those who are weak- hearted: See your God, the Seeker, comes and saves you. At that time the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf will be opened. Then the lame will leap like the stag, and the tongues of the speechless and dumb will be loosened. For the water will burst forth from the desert and the rivers flow in the wasteland until there are vessels of water in parched places, and water gushes forth from the thirsty earth. Living things and reeds and papyrus will grow in the lands of the jackels. There is the straight way, and it will be called the Holy Path, and no[one] unclean will be on it, and it will not be the path of the shameless.^[263]

16. Isaiah the Prophet also said: “Thus says the Lord, Who aids Israel and is its Savior, Who makes Himself lowly and Who is despised by the tribes and by the servants of the those who have authority, the kings will see and the rulers will prostrate [themselves] before Him because the Lord is true and the Holy [One] of Israel Who has chosen you. Thus says the Lord: ‘In an acceptable time I have answered you, and on the day of salvation I have helped you. And I have formed you and made you a Covenant for the tribes and a light^[264] to the peoples so that you will build up the land and inherit the ruined legacy, and say to the prisoners: ‘Come out!’ [and] to

ولا يعطشون ولا يفرهم ا لموم والشمس ٠ لان رحمتهم تومهم والى يذايعالماءتاش.دهم.

17. وقال ايضا على تجله والامه صعد مثل المولود قدامه ومثل الاصل من الارض العطشانة ٠ ولم يكن له منظر ولا بهاء ورأيناه وليس له منظر وكذبناه.

وحسبناه الحقير المتواضع من الناس. وهو رجل ذو اوجاع عالم بالالام ٠ وادبرنا وجوهنا عنه وزرينا به ولم نعده وهو حق صبر على اوجاعنا واحتمل الأمنا.

ونحن حسبناه مجاهداً وهو المضروب فى ذوات الله. ومن اجل خطايانا هو يقتل ويتضع من اجل اثمنا وعليه ادب سلامتنا وبجراحاته نبرأ. وجميعنا مثل الغد٠ذدذاكااذسانهذاالحا45٠ا٠        ٠ ال لادحمعاً

الغنم تبددناوكل انسان منا ١لىجاذيه ا نصرف والرب لقاه خطايانا جميعا . دنا وتواضع ولم يفتح فاه . وسيق مثل الحمل للذبح ٠ وكان كالنعجة صامتاً قدام جاززها ساكتا ولم يفتح فاه . وسيق من الحبس الى القضاء ومن يقدر لحدثدهاك .احا اذهل.ا٦الحاةدذائهق .اثمة يحدثبمالقى.مناجلاذهرفعمنارض الحياة' ودنا منه قوم من اثمة ج اك المنافة ددفته الغد تهءل٠ اذهل٠دصذعاثماً لس. 47 شعبى واذن المنافق بدفنه والغنى بموته على انه لم يصبع اثما وليس فى فيهمكر.

الناحئ ان ف اضعه ءلمه يحملهغطايا48ذ قبأ. ال- ۶ والرب احباً ان يواضعه ويؤلمه ويحمله خطايا فى نفه ليربى الزرع ويطيل الايام وينجح هوى الرب على يديه. ومن عمل نفه يعرف ويشبع سة .ك الا، دكهنءدالكث٠لأ4خطاهـههدحتما بالمعرفةويزكى^لابر^رويكون عبدالكثير وخطاياهمهويحتمل.

لذلك اقسمه ز الكد ش٠ذىلألاا |ذهلذلذغهلدت لذللثة اقسمه فى الكثير ويقم نهبة الاعراء . انه بذل نفه للموئب ٠ ^[265] [266]

those confined: ‘Appear!’ They will graze upon the streets and their pastures will be on every path. They will not hunger, nor thirst, the hot wind and the sun will not harm them, for He Who is merciful leads them and He brings them to springs of water.”^[267]

17. He also said about His incarnation and His suffering: “He rose up before Him like the young plant^[268] and like the root from the thirsty earth. He did not have an [attractive] appearance or beauty, and we saw Him and He did not have an [attractive] appearance and we despised Him.

We counted Him contemptible, humiliated by human beings. And He was a man of sufferings [and] acquainted with grief. We turned our faces from Him and we reviled Him and did not count Him.

And He truly bore our sufferings and carried our griefs. We reckoned Him a warrior, and He was struck by God Himself. And because of our offenses He was killed and abased because of our sin. Upon Him was the chastisement of our integrity and by His wounds we are freed from blame. We were all like sheep scattered and every person among us had gone to his own way, and the Lord has laid upon Him all of our offenses.

He was contemptible and He was humiliated and [yet] He did not open His mouth. He was driven like the lamb to the slaughter, and quiet like the sheep silent before its shearers and He did not open His mouth. He was driven from imprisonment to the tribunal. Who is able to tell what He endured? For He was taken away from the land of the living and the sin of my people drew near to Him. The hypocrite learned of His burial and the rich of His death, because He had not committed a sin and in His mouth was no deceit.

The Lord wished to humiliate Him and to cause Him to suffer and bear the offenses upon Himself, so that the seed will grow and the days will become longer and the desire of the Lord will succeed by His hand. He will see the work of His soul, and be satisfied in the knowledge [of it], and He will purify the righteous and become the servant of the many and their offenses He will bear.

Because of this, I shall give Him a share among the many, and He will give a share of the booty to the mighty. He sacrificed His

الا٠٠ئلمطلا؛5ىكالا٠٠ واحعى مع الاثمة واحتمل خطايا كثير ولعى الاثمة .

18. 'فل زكريا النبى ولينظروا الى من طعنوا وينوحوا عليه كنوحهم على الوحيد وليكتئبوا عليه كاكتئابهم على بكر.

.. ,ط ص . ذلك ٠٠        ■ 52 لآل , لكا۵ الش

و٠فال ايفا وليفتح فى ذلك اليوم منابع لآل داوود ولكان بيت ا لمقدس

سط 53 ظ

للقطر والتطهير.

وقال ايضا زكريا انتبه السيف على راعئ اسرائيل الرجل حبيبى قال الرب

الا٠٠ا٠ ادا تددالغذ٦اىكددطالءاة العزيز اضرب الراعى تبدد الغنم . اعطف يدى على الرعاة'.

19. وقال ميخل النبى وضربوا بالسوط خده لراعى اسرائيل.

وقال سليمن الحكيم نبيد البار لا يشبهنا يناصب لحنق كلامنا ويعيرنا باعمال السئة دتذكر علينا سيئات55اءدا وقال زكريا النبى فى ذلك اليوم لا يكون ضوء ولكن يكون جليد وظلمة ويكون يوما واحداً ٠ وذلك اليوم لا يعرف لا لليل ولا لنهار وعند وقت ا لمساء يكون الضوء.

قاذ اضاً٠١ك٠يا اخذت?^[269] ٠        الذ د له لأ        الواش. الششة ال 58

وقال ايضا زكريا اخذت ثمن الذى ليس له ثمن الثلثين الفضة التى

soul to death, and was counted among the sinners, and bore the sins of the many and endured [at the hands of| the sinners.”^[270]

18. Zachariah the prophet said: “And truly they will look to me, the one whom they have pierced and they will weep over him as they weep over the only [child] and truly they will mourn over him as they mourn over a first-born.”^[271]

And he also said: “Truly on that day there will be opened a spring for the family of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem for cleansing^[272] and purification.”^[273]

And Zachariah also said: “I shall awaken the sword against My shepherd Israel, the man who is my beloved. The Lord, the Almighty, said: ‘Strike the shepherd, so the sheep will scatter. I shall turn my hand against the flock.’”^[274]

19. And Micah the prophet said: “They struck the cheek of the shepherd of Israel with the whip.”^[275]

And Solomon the Wise said: “We shall destroy the righteous [man]. He is not like us. He opposes the cleverness of our speech and reproaches us for evil deeds and reminds us of the misdeeds of our enemies.”^[276]

And Zachariah the prophet said: “On that day there will be no light, but there will be ice and darkness, and there will be one [continuous] day. And this day will not know either night nor daylight, and evening time will be light.”^[277]

And Zachariah also said: “I took the price of what has no price, the

شارط عليه بنو اسرائيل واعطيتها اجرة' حقل الفجار مدفن الغرباء كما امر الرب .

20. و'فالءاموص وليكنفىذلكاليوم'فالالرباغيبالشمسفىو'فت الظهر واظلم الارض فى يوم الغياء ■ وقال ارميا النبى تعالوا تغد ثجرن' خيرن'.

•فال ا اك٠°6 اضاًاككةط الخشة اك الصد- منعاهـ وقال سليمن النبى ايفا البركة على الخشبة التى العديق منها يظهر .

قاسعا الذ اضا ذاشت للذ أ إ.        ا6        الز ا

و٠فال اشعيا النبى ايضا ترائيت للذين لم يطلبونى ووجدت عند الذين لم يسئلوا عنى وقلت هانذا هانذا وبسطت يدى كل النهار لشعب عاص

ممارى .

21. و٠فال داوود النبى فى عدة' مواضع شهادة' لم تترك صفيك يرى الفساد.

وقال من كان حكيما فليفهم هذا وليعلم انفة الرب.

وقال اكل طعامى الذى كنت به واثقا اولانى غدراً.

٠فال٠فد٠62فال اءدل هذ تدكا٠ااذااأالعاأ يتكدن وقال ٠فد قال اعداءى متى يموت فيبيد ذكره. كانوا اذا اتوا لعيادتى يتكلمون بالكذب وفى ,فلوبهم يصوغون شرا ويخرجون فى الاسواق ويتحدثون . ^[278]

thirty silver [pieces], with which the Sons of Israel concluded the agreement, and I gave them as a price for the field of the potters, the burial place of foreigners, as the Lord had commanded.”^[279]

20. And Amos said: “Truly on that day the Lord will say: ‘I shall make the sun vanish at the time of midday and I shall make the earth dark in the daylight.’”^[280]

And Jeremiah the prophet said: “Arise! A good tree shall become ruined.”^[281]

And Solomon the prophet also said: “The blessing is upon the wood by which the righteous is made manifest.”^[282]

And Isaiah the prophet also said: “I have appeared to the ones who did not seek me, and am found by the ones who did not ask after me. And I said: ‘Here I am! Here I am! I spread out my hand the [entire] day to a difficult and rebellious people.’”^[283]

21. And David the prophet said in numerous places as a witness: “You have let not your friend see the corruption.”^[284]

And he said: “The one who is wise should understand this, and should know the scorn of the Lord.”^[285]

And he said: “He in whom I trusted, [who] has eaten my food, has betrayed me.”^[286]

And he said: “My enemies said: ‘When will he die and his memory pass away?’ When they come to see me, they speak with lies, and in their hearts they imagine mischief, and they go out into the streets

وتثاور علئ شاربوا الخمر.

قال اضا عندعطش سف٠ دذطعا حعدا ا أ63 وقال ايضا وعند عطشى سقونى خلا وفى طعامى جعلوا مرارا .

وقال ايضا سبحوا الراكب على المغارب الرب اسمه من المشرق.

22. وقال اعطى العلى صوته صوتاً عزيزا.

وقال رثلوا للرب الذى استوا على سماء السماء وعظموه بالتسابيح.

وقال ايضا ثقبوا يدى ورجلى واحصوا عظامى كلها وقسموا ثيابى بينهم وعلى لباسى اقترعوا ٠

٠فال اضاءددت64        هاط,لاة تذكلههم

وقال ايضا عددت مع هايطى ا لهاوية وصرت كمن ليس له معين.

23. وقال ارميا النبى على الموتى. يعيشون الموتى كما 'فال رب الارباب.

وقال صقنيا النبى قال الرب من الان يرجونى كيوم اقوم فيه الشهادة'.

٠فال د, د اك٠ اضاً دقه ١لله نتن؛ حمهع اءداثه -        سا٠ 66

وقال داوود النبى ايضا يقوم الله فيتغرق جمبع اعدائه وتهرب شانوه        من

بين يديه .

and tell it. And they deliberate against me, drinking wine.”^[287]

And he also said: “When I was thirsty they gave me vinegar to drink, and for my food they gave me bitters.”^[288]

And he also said: “Praise to the One who rides over the places of the west from the east, the Lord is His name.”^[289]

22. And he said: “The Most High gave His voice, a mighty voice.”^[290]

And he said: “Sing to the Lord, Who goes up to the heaven of heavens, and extol Him with songs of praise.”^[291]

And he also said: “They have pierced my hand and my feet, and have alloted all of my bones, and they have divided my clothing among them, and for my garment they have cast lots.”^[292]

And he also said: “I am counted among those falling into the abyss, and [I am] like the one who has no helper.”^[293]

23. AndJeremiah the prophet said about the dead: “The dead will live, as the Lord of Lords has said.”^[294]

And Sophonias the prophet said: “The Lord said: ‘From now on they will wait for Me in expectation as on the day I will stand as a witness.”^[295]

And David the prophet also said: “God will arise and all of His enemies scatter, and they flee from before Him who hate Him.”^[296]

٢1 ظ        67

وقال ايضا استيقظ الرب كالنائم وكالرجل الثمل الفائق من شرابه .

وقال ايضا ا لحجر الذى لقاه البئاؤون هذا صار رأس الزاوية ٠ ومن عند ا لرب

كا۵هذا        , دة ٦٠٠

كان هذا وهو اعجوبة فى اعيننا .

24. وقال اشعيا ا لنبى من هذا القادم من ادوم وثيابه حمر كالعصفر كمثل من صعد من ا لمعصرة' .

وقال داوود النبى ارتفعى ايتها الابواب الدهرية ليدخل ملك المجد . من هو ملك المجد . الله القوى هو ملك المجد العزيز الى الابد .

وقال ايضاً تعالى الله بالمجد والتسبيح والرب باصوات الوقار والمجد .

وقال ملك الله على الامم واستوى على منبره القدوس .

وقال صعد الى العلى وسبى سبياً واعطاه الناس عطايا .

وقال ايضاً تعالى الله على السماء وكرامته على الارض كلها .

25. وقال دانيال النبى الى مجئء المسيح الملك سبع سوابيع وايضاً اثنان وستون سابوعاً ومن بعد ذلك يقتل المسيح ومدينة القدس تخرب وتصير ^[297]

And he also said: “The Lord is awakened like the sleeper, and like the drunken man waking from his wine.”^[298]

And he also said: “The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner. And this is from the Lord, and it is wonderful in our eyes.”^[299]

24. And Isaiah said: “Who is this who comes from Edom and whose clothes are red, like safflower, like one who rises from the [wine] press?”^[300]

And David the prophet said: “Arise, ancient doors, so that the King of glory might enter! Who is the King of glory? God the powerful is the King of glory, the Almighty forever.”^[301]

And he also said: “God is exalted with glory and songs of praise, and the Lord with voices of honor and glory.”^[302]

And he said: “God reigns over the peoples and has ascended His holy throne.”^[303]

And he said: “He has gone up on high and has taken a prisoner captive, and the people have given Him gifts.”^[304]

And he also said: “God is exalted over the heavens and His honor is over all the earth.”^[305]

25. And Daniel the prophet said: “To the coming of the Messiah, the King, are seven weeks and also sixty-two weeks, and after this the Messiah will be killed, and the Holy City destroyed and it will

للهوان مع الملك القادم. بعد ذلك ليس لها قوام.

ا- 70نلك تمت ط! سلا ال ا

ا نتهى ذلك . 'نمت هذا بلا من الرب ٠ امين .

كما هذا الكتاب المبارك بمعونة الله تعالى والسبح لله .

70. Sbath ms. includes: 'ذصمنت ا للنسخة المنقول منها ان الى هاهنا انتها الكلام ولم يذكر اخر الرسالة . وجد فى اصل النقلة ورقة بياض كما هاهنا.

become contemptible to the king who is coming. After this it will not rise up.”^[306]

This is the end.^[307] This is completed in the peace of the Lord. Amen.

This blessed book is finished with the help of God, the Exalted, and may He be praised!

FROM THE TEACHING OF ABU RAITAH
AL-TAKRT, THE SYRIAN, BISHOP OF NISIBIS,
‘ON THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE
CREDIBILITY OF CHRISTIANITY WHICH WAS
RECEIVED FROM THE PREACHING OF THE
EVANGELISTS IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES’

Intodicct

Context ad Add^^'^t.^'^»

Throughout all of his writings providing responses to potential questions, Abu Ratal shows a particular interest in providing a “proof’ that will be acceptable to Muslims, certainly in answer to the Qur’anic demand that Christians produce a burhan, or proof, for their teachings (Sura 2:111, 28:75). Aba Ratal does this using all available theological and philosophical means. In several of his other treatises he turns to reason to bypass the charge of tahnf, the claim that the scriptures of Christians andJews have been altered, and for that reason are no longer reliable. Using logical deduction, he formulates arguments intended to convince Muslims that Christian teachings are not only not absurd, but actually the best possible expressions of the common understanding of the divine attributes, the sifat. Demonstration also provides a “proof’ of the truth of Christianity, although it is unique in Abu Ratals writings both in its intended readership and in its form.

The proof makes up the shortest of Abu Ratals extant works: a single page of Arabic in Georg Grafs edition (130/162, 131/197); twelve lines in the French translation by Khalil Samir.^[308] Its brevity is not, however, indicative of its importance. It is a neat and succinct demonstration of the validity of Christianity based on the universal acceptance of the Christian message. Like many of Abu Ratals other writings, little is known about the purpose of the proof and it is designated differently by the editors of the various manuscripts in which it is found. Grafs edition, which is based on a 13th century compilation of texts entitled “A Collection of the Principles of Religion” (مجموع اصول الدبن) (Vat. ar. 103؛, entitles it: “From the Teaching of Abu Ra’itah al-Takriti, the Syrian, Bishop of Nisibis, ‘On the Demonstration of the Truth of Christianity Received from the Preaching of the Evangelists in the Holy Gospel’”.^[309] The text of Abu Ra’itah is included along with a treatise by the Nestorian Hunayn ibn Ishaq (808-873) in the twelfth chapter concerned with the manner of discerning the truth of a religion (^[310].(يشتمل على كيفية ادراك حقيقة الديانة No mention is made of the original purpose or addressee.

More helpful are four manuscripts Samir has collected from two separate sources which he has used to published a new edition and French translation of the text. Two of these manuscripts provide very important information as to the origin of the text and its purpose. The first late 13th century manuscript^[311] mentions only that Abu Ra’itah is responding to a Mutazili, who has asked “that he explain to him the religion of the Christians in a way that reason can accept.”^[312] The second manuscript found in the Sbath Collection (Sbath 1017),^[313] more explicitly identifies itself as: “The Response of Abu Ra’itah at-Takrt, Bishop ofNisibis, to Yumamah, the Mutazili, Concerning His Question about the Proof of the Authenticity of Christianity.”^[314] Samir points out, I think correctly, that the name of the Mutazili should be Tumamah,^[315] a mistake that can be attributed to a scribal error. In fact, a well-known mutazili by this name was a contemporary of Abu Ra’itah—(Abd Ma'an) TumSmah ibn al- ASras (an-Numaryi) al-Basri (d.c. 828).^[316] He was active during the period which has been suggested for Abd Ra’itah’s floruit, and there is no obvious reason to doubt the claim of the Sbath manuscript.

TumSmah ibn al-ASras was a student of the well-known BiSr ibn al-Mu'tamir al-Hilali (d. 210/825),^[317] and the teacher of al-Gahiz (775-868).^[318] Ibn Murtada places him in the seventh generation of the school of Basra, after Abd l-Hudayl al-'Allaf (d. 226/840),^[319] and he was a friend of the caliph Hardn ar-RaSid (170-193/786-809), who invited him to the court at Baghdad. TumSmah remained there as an adviser to al-Ma’mdn (198-218/813-833) and died during his reign. Unfortunately, he is known only through his opponents, and none of his own writings have survived. However, it is clear that he belonged to the early 'Abbasid movement of the Mutazilah who were concerned with the question of whether God or human beings are the creators of human actions.^[320]

Since Tumamah lived and was active in Baghdad, only a few miles from Takrit, it is not unlikely that he and Abd Ra’itah crossed paths at some point, as the Sbath manuscript suggests, resulting in some sort of intellectual exchange. If this is true, several things about the text might be determined. First, a general date can be assigned to this text between the arrival of Hardn ar-RaSid in Baghdad and before the death of Tumamah, that is, somewhere between 790 and 828. Second, the existence of this text is evidence that actual exchanges took place between Abd Ra’itah and Muslim scholars, which he then used as the basis for his other treatises responding to Islam. With a notable exception (On the Union), Abd Ra’itah’s other writings do not name his audience explicitly. Nonetheless, they reveal a great awareness of the scholarly debate occurring in Muslims circles of his day. This text, purporting to be a response to a well-known Mutazili lends credibility to the contention that Abu Ratal was in some manner an active participant in that debate. With this in mind, the purpose and significance of the text becomes clearer. Abd Ratal intends to provide a logical proof of Christianity that does not appeal to scripture, but rather to what can be demonstrated by reason. Further, he formulates it in a manner that he expects will be acceptable to a Muslims scholar committed to the particular philosophical principals held by the Mutazilah.

Ctet

Apart from the various titles given to it in the known manuscripts, the proof itself offers no explicit information about its context. What is provided is simply a syllogism in a style that is found extensively in several other of Abd Ra’ith’s extant writings. He begins with the proposition that Christianity must either be true or false, and those who have accepted it must either be wise (عقلاء) or ignorant (4(.(جهلاء

The first aspect of this brief writing that strikes one is the syllogistic form of the proof. In light of the interest in the Greek philosophical tradition in Abd Ra’ith’s day, it is not surprising that this demonstration the rational credibility of Christianity in logical terms should come to light. The first line of Abd Ra’ith’s exercise immediately establishes that this is a logical, not a scriptural or theological proof, by juxtaposing two opposites using اما. . . اما, “either . . . or”.)5 In only twelve lines he uses this grammatical construct three times to lead the reader to a logical conclusion of the truth of Christianity.

It may also strike the modern reader that in his proof through reason Abd Ra’itah insists on the necessity of miracles to demonstrate the truth of a religion. However, on closer examination the reason for his insistence becomes clear. A religion can only be from God and true if it is a universal religion, that is, one that is accessible to all people. All people, he argues, fall into one of two categories: the wise, who will accept something that is true because they are bound by intellectual integrity, and the ignorant, who will accept something

)4 Abd Ra’itah not infrequently refers to “the ignorant and intelligent” to include all people, i.e., Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 130/131, 131/159. Samir also points out the recurrence of the terms in Paul’s letters, especially Rom 1:14,22; I Cor 1:25,27; Eph 5:15. Samir, “Liberte,» 104.

15. Ibid., 102.

that is true only by force, since they are naturally unwilling to limit their material comforts.

Second, Abu Ra’itah makes the argument that a true religion will appear to be contrary to what both the wise and the ignorant desire. Since religion is truly beyond human comprehension, the wise will not be able to attain certitude through rational proof. The true religion will also certainly limit worldly comforts and desires, resulting in the necessity of coercing the ignorant into accepting it against their lower inclinations. In fact, Abu Ra’itah argues in his extensive Proof, that the most common reasons why someone might convert to another religion are invalid. He points especially to the worldly temptations of wealth, power, privilege, the allowance of what is forbidden—divorce, adultery and the accumulation of wealth, and to over-powering fear for one’s safety. This means that the true religion must be identified by means other than what can be rationally proven or what appears to be personally advantageous. One must be “coerced”, that is, compelled, to believe that a religion is true by something beyond one’s control.

According to Abu Ra’itah, coercion is of two types: that of the sword by humans and that of miracles by God. Coercion by the sword is never successful. Coercion can bring both wise and ignorant to accept something at least superficially against their own judgement. But accepting it does not make it true. Nonetheless, Abu Ra’itah points out, those who are wise have indeed accepted something that cannot be rationally demonstrated, and the ignorant have embraced a religion that forbids worldly pleasures. This is because of the compelling evidence of signs and miracles, not because of the sword. All people, both ignorant and wise, can see clearly that miracles are from God, while coercion by the sword is from humans. Consequently, Abu Ra’itah claims, miracles are the strongest confirmation that the religion in which they appear is the true religion from God. Given the numerous examples of miracles found in Christianity, Abu Ra’itah leaves his reader to conclude that it is the true religion. This is similar to the conclusion found in his Proof that the only acceptable reason to convert to a religion is because one is convinced by the authentic signs of the Apostles that are impossible to deny (§10).

In the present syllogism, the presence of miracles in Christianity is the crux of the argument. Although no context is given, the result of the demonstration is to lead the reader to the conclusion that a religion of the sword will not succeed where a religion of miracles will. Without naming a “religion of the sword” specifically, it is clear within the known context that Abu Ratal is referring to the initial spread of Islam, and perhaps even to the Islamization policies coming into full effect in his day. For Muslims, the rapid expansion of Arab power and the subsequent influence of Islam was identified as a sign of its truth. Abu Ratal obviously rejects this, claiming that the presence of the sword may bring the population to submission, but it does not make a religion true. In fact, he implies, the apparent absence of miracles in Islam calls its basic truth seriously into question.

For most of the history of Christianity, the miracles associated with Jesus, particularly that of the Resurrection, as well as those related in the Old Testament, were seen as signs of God’s participation in and confirmation of a particular historical event. The New Testament and other early Christian writings abound with miracles that are understood to affirm God’s will in the lives of individuals and in the church as a whole. For Muslims, on the other hand, miracles associated with Mulammad did not play a crucial role as an affirmation of the truth of Islam. In fact, the early Muslim community made very little claim to miracles. The Qur’an records that the Makkans refused to accept Mulammad’s message because he did not perform miracles (Suras 13:7, 27; 17:94; 25:4-9). However, later Muslim tradition attributes a great number of miracles to him.^[321] The two most important miracles were held to be the revelation and perfection of the Qur’an itself, and the rapid spread of Arab control in the Mediterranean world.

Further, and particularly relevant here, the Mutazilah are known to have rejected the very notion of miracles by the saints, and were hesitant about accepting certain interpretations of eschatological suras that involved miracles.^[322] There is evidence, on the contrary, that the connection between miracles and important persons, especially Mulammad, became increasingly significant for orthodox Muslims. By the tenth century, the second Fiqh Akbar contains an article affirming the belief in “signs of the Prophets and the miracles of the saints”,^[323] a theme that does not appear earlier.

Several modern scholars have argued that the appearance of miracles as the subject of theological reflection, as well as the proliferation of traditions and legends about Muhammad as a miracle-worker, have their roots in responses to the charge of Jews and Christians that his message could not be true if it was not accompanied by God’s confirmation through miracles.^[324] If this is the case, then this exchange between Abu Ratal and Tumamah may provide an insight into the manner in which the argument for the necessity of miracles was made. Abu Ra’itah makes a case for clear signs from God that reflects both the intuitions of potential converts to Islam from Christianity (if other prophets performed miracles and signs by God’s leave, as the Qur’an says, then why not Muhammad? How else can one know that Muhammad is a true prophet of God?) and the argument for God’s universal activity (what is the single type of proof convincing to all people?). The strength of Abu Ra’itah’s conclusion may well have been identified by orthodox Muslims as a problematic implication of the extreme views of the Mutazilah, prompting a insistence on the existence of miracles to confirm Islam is the true religion of God.

Although the proof for Christianity offered in this brief text is a common one and adds little to what is already known of Abu Ra’itah’s theological work, it is significant for the information it provides about those with whom he was in conversation. If it is in fact the case that this text is a remnant of correspondence between him and the Mutazili Tumamah ibn al-ASras, it is evidence of the close contact that he had with Muslim scholars of the period, and adds significantly to the few clues available for the context of his life and works. Further, this text adds support to the notion that Christian expectations of miracles as signs of God’s confirmation of the truth of a religion contribued to their increasing importance in Islam.

..ل ا        اعطب1 التك دت الس ا.اسقف.b.

من قول ا٠لى رائطة التكريتى السريانى اسقف نصيبين

لأط ,اب2٠

متندلا يه على صحة النصرانية

المقبولة من الداعين المبشرين بها لاجيل المقدس

جواب ايي رائطة التكريتي اسقف نصيبين ليمامة المعتزلى عندما سأله

4

عن الدليل على صخة النصرانية.

قال لا تخلو ا5 ا ض ب ان

قل لا تخلوا النعرا نية من ان تكون اقاحقا واقا باطلا

والذين قبلوها من ان يكونوا اقا عقلاء واقاجهلاء

والعقلاء لا يقبلون ما لا يصح بالقياس ا لمعقول الا بالقهر.

والجهال لا يمتنعون من الانهماك فى الذات الدنيوية الا بالقهر.

والقهر قهران اما قهر باليف واما قهر من الله بالايات.

ل٠أ٠ىهالعقلامغرقطد. الذعراذية'فهرباليففيقلونلا ولم نرى العقلاء مئن قبل دين النصرانية قهر باليف فيقلون ما لا يصح

بالقياس المعقول

ولا ا لجهال قهروا باليف فيمتنعون من الانهماك فى لذات الدنيا.

وقد قبلها العقلاء بما لا يصح بالقياس المعقول

وقبلها ا لجهال وهى تصد عن الانهماك فى لذات الدنيا.

, V(2) 2 ر١يطة V(2) 3        ذصرا Read 4 لتمادة This heading given in

Sbath. 5 Cheikho: read 6        تخلو Cheikho: read ثر

From the Teaching of AbtRhta hal-Takrti,

the Syrian, Bishop of Nisibis,’ ‘On the Demonstration^{[325] [326] [327]} of
the Credibility of Christianity Which Was Received from the
Preaching of the Evangelists

in the Holy Scriptures’

TheReshonseojAbaRTitahal-TalitiBishoho,fHisibis, toTuinainah3
the Muhazih, Concerning His QestionabonttheProoJ'oJ'the Authenticity
cjChTisiianity.

He said: It must be the case that Christianity is either true or false And those who have accepted it are either wise or ignorant.

Those who are wise will not accept what has not been demonstrated to be true by a logical proof, except by compulsion,

And the ignorant are not restrained from abandoning [themselves] to worldly things, except by compulsion.

There are two kinds of compulsion: either it is compulsion by the sword or compulsion by signs from God.

We do not see that there are among the wise who have accepted the religion of Christianity those who have been compelled by the sword to accept something that is not been demonstrated to be true by a logic proof.

And the ignorant are not compelled by the sword to refrain from abandoning [themselves] to worldly things.

The wise have accepted [Christianity], although it has not been demonstrated to be true by a logical proof.

And the ignorant have accepted it, although it discourages [one] from worldly things.

وقد قهر الجمع بالايات لا بالسيف.

الادات ا ل ل, االط ٠٦٨٠        الد العس عند

والايات ادل دليل على ان الدين الذى تكون فيه هو الدين الصحيح عند

١للهءزوجل

والشريعة المسيحية تطابق هنه المقدمات.

7 V(2) omits.

All of them have been compelled by signs, not by the sword.

Signs are the surest proof that the religion in which they appear is the true religion, according to God, the Powerful and Mighty.

And the Christian law is consistent with these presuppositions.

CHRISTOLOGICAL DISCUSSION

lodico

Coitext aid Date

This untitled text included in Graf’s edition of Abh Ratals writings has simply been labeled “Christologisches Gesprach” to identify its contents. The document is unlike those examined up to this point, in that Abu Ratals thought does not play an exclusive role. Rather, it gives a brief summary of the doctrines of the Nestorians, Melkites andJacobites as presented by representatives from each Christian community in a staged encounter before a Muslim official. All three manuscript copies in which the text is contained include a short introduction explaining the circumstances of the discussion, with slight variations.’ The opening to two of the manuscripts reads: “It is said that 'Abd Isu', the Nestorian Mutran, Abu Qurrah, the Melkite Bishop, and Abu Ra’itah, the Jacobite, were gathered before one of the Ministers.^[328] [329] He requested each of them to describe their faith in a brief statement, without making objections against either of his colleagues.”

Two of the three persons mentioned are immediately identifiable: Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Melkite Bishop of Harran, and of course, Abu Ra’itah. Both of them are also correctly identified, Abu Qurrah as a bishop, and Abu Ra’itah simply as a Jacobite. The latter point is significant, since it adds credence to the view outlined above that Abu Ra’itah was only given the title of bishop much later, probably to supply him an ecclesiastical status more on par with the importance of his writings for the Monophysite community.

The identity of the third person, “'Abd Isu', the Nestorian Mutran”, is more mysterious. Graf has argued that the first Nestorian who can be associated with this name is the famous author and Metropolitan of Nisibis, Abdiso', who died in 1318. For this reason, he dates the text sometime after the middle of the fourteenth century. This has led some to conclude that the exchange depicted here was fabricated by a later writer who wished to lend an air of authenticity to his composition by placing his words in the mouths of well-known personages.^[330]

Griffith has quite rightly rejected Grafs conclusion, pointing out that it “discounts two known persons in favor of an unknown one”, as well as ignoring the numerous occasions on which Christians were called before Muslim officials to explain their doctrines.^[331] Several other factors also call Graf s dating into question. First, Graf himself admits that the paleographical evidence of Vat. ar. 1492 situates it in the thirteenth century, although it may perhaps be as late as the fourteenth.^[332] Second, it seems odd that a writer who wished to give credibility to an imaginary exchange would have pitted a contemporary figure against two well-known controversialists from at least four centuries earlier. Certainly he would have chosen someone who might conceivably been a colleague of Abu Qurrah and Abu Ra’itah, instead of simply inventing a name.

In fact, an actual person can be identified who fits the description of the “'Abd Isu'” in question: Iso' bar nun, who was the successor to the Nestorian Catholicos Timothy I. Iso' only occupied the position for the short period between 823 and 828 at a time when the Nestorian church was experiencing some complications internally, as well as in its relations with the Muslims authorities.^[333] The variation of the name found in Discussion might be the result of a mistransliteration, particularly if the editor of this text were a Jacobite or Melkite who was not familiar with the person in question.

In favor of this suggestion is the fact that Iso' bar nun was Catholicos precisely at the time when Abu Ra’itah’s literary participation in debates with Muslims and other Christians was at its height. In addition, Iso' bar nil’s death is known to have occurred about five years before both Abu Ra’itah and Abu Qurrah disappear from the pages of history. This makes all three roughly contemporary and generally the same age. In light of these considerations, it seems more likely than not that the Nestorian Metropolitan 'Abd Isu' mentioned in Discussion can be identified as the Nestorian Catholicos Iso' bar nun.

If this is correct, it adds a great deal of credibility to the document’s claim to be an historical account of a meeting between the three ecclesiastical representatives before an unnamed Muslim official. Unfortunately, the editor of the text appears to have been uninterested in the circumstances surrounding the occasion of the discussion, and recorded only the names of the Christian participants and what they said. However, the date of the meeting can be narrowed to between 823 and 828, the period during which Iso' bar nun was the Nestorian Catholicos. This neatly coincides with the time of the Caliph al-Ma’mun’s reign when it is known that such encounters were encouraged and often staged by Muslim officials. Consequently, it is possible to accept this text as an authentic report of an event organized by a minister which brought together three of the most renowned clergymen of the early ninth century.

Contents

The text of Discussion is simply divided into three parts, with each of the named persons presenting a brief summary of the faith of his denomination. Each one is asked first to give a short description of the community he represents, and then to provide a proof for it, following the demand for a “proof’ from Christians for their belief in the Trinity and Incarnation traceable to the Qur’an. In the chris- tological discussion, each of the spokesmen is given the opportunity only to present his view without giving his opinion or arguments against any of his colleagues.

A few observations can be made about the statements given by each of the representatives. First, each of the explanations is offered in an unbiased way, with no obvious “winner’ in the encounter. The only hint of the origin of the text is found in the position presented by the Jacobite, which is slightly longer and by far the most theologically complex. It is also placed last, implying that the editor wished the reader to be convinced by it. This possibility is further substantiated by the fact that the document was preserved along with other unrelated Monophysite texts.

It is also significant that the synopsis given by each of the participants is indicative of the Christian community he represents. The terminology and explanations are common and would have been acceptable to authorities in each of the churches, making it more likely that they are based on an eyewitness account in which actual persons representing those views were present. One sees a great deal of similarity between the statements given here and Abu Ra’itah’s own presentation of the positions of each denomination in Refutation §§3-5, which are clearly rooted in his own experience of debate with authoritative Melkite and Nestorian spokesmen.

The main argument made by the Jacobite is based on the ways in which something can be one, either in number, genus, or species. This is, of course, the centerpiece of Abh Ra’itah’s defense of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in On the Trinity. In Discussion, the principle is adapted so that “number” is understood as an individual “hypostasis”. Since it is clear that the incarnated Messiah cannot be classified as either one in genus or one in species, he must be one in number, that is, in hypostasis. Although this argument is not found as such in Abh Ra’itah’s extant writings, the similarity between it and that found in On the Trinity is great enough to confidently associate it with him.

At the same time discrepancies can be detected between this account and details found in other writings by Abh Ra’itah. The most obvious difference is found in particular terms used here, especially شخص (individual hypostasis) and طبيعة (nature). The first of these appears throughout Abh Ra’itah’s writings, but almost always to mean “single individual”. For hypostasis, he uses the term اقنوم almost exclusively in all of his texts on the Trinity and Incarnation. The term طبيعة, on the other hand, is very rare in his works. One finds it in On the Incarnation §11 in reference to the “nature” of fire, and in Proof §25 in a discussion of unity of the hypostaseis. Neither is the phrase “the separation in name and meaning” (الافتراق تموة ومعنى), which appears twice here, found anywhere in Abh Ra’itah’s extant works.

Given the general similarity of the arguments made by the Jacobite to those of Abh Ra’itah, however, one must conclude some connection between the two. In light of the identification of the other two participants in the discussion and the accuracy of the general scenario, it seems justified to suppose that Discussion is an account which reflects an actual historical event in which Abu Ra’itah, Abu Qurrah, and 'Abd Isu' presented the teachings of their respective Christian communities before a Muslim official. However, it also seems likely that a later editor or compiler of the statements “updated” particular terms to coincide with current usage. In doing so, he also threw the main point of conflict between the three denominations into relief: the disagreement over the meaning of the term “hypostasis”.

In light of this analysis, there seems to be no compelling reason not to believe that the three persons representing the Jacobite, Melkite and Nestorian positions are to be identified with the well- known figures named by the editor of the text. In favor of this is the accuracy of the report of the formulations of their doctrines, as well as the fact that Abu Ra’itah, Abu Qurrah, and 'Abd Isu' can all be established as contemporaries who conceivably could have been in close proximity with each other at some point, probably in the city of Baghdad. Although the vocabulary shows some divergence from the usual terminology used by Abu Ra’itah, this can easily be accounted for in the editing process. One can well imagine that a later editor replaced his usual اقنوم with the more current شخص in order to more intelligibly draw the parallels between the positions of the three participants.

This text is of interest to modern scholars for two reasons. First, it clearly lays out the christological formulae of the three major confessions at the beginning of the ninth century in terms that were apparently acceptable to each of them. The account establishes that the problem lay in defining the term hypostasis, and the implications of the definition for each viewpoint. Further, the editor has organized the presentations of each in such a way as to draw out the differences and highlight the issues, indicating that he was aware of the root of the problem.

Second, if the three figures participating in the interview can be identified with Abu Ra’itah, Abu Qurrah, and 'Abd Isu', the possibility that this is a reference to an actual historical meeting before an unnamed Muslim minister is greatly increased. It seems improbable that the summaries given in this text are a verbatim report of the presentations given. Nonetheless, the text provides valuable corroborating evidence that Abu Ra’itah was indeed a participant in staged discussions and munazarat, and that his writings reflect his own personal experience in them.

قا(انهدابد2۶المطانالذسطح I قةالاسقفالملك. I قيل ان عبد ايشوع المطران ا لنسطورى وايو قرة الاسقف ا لملكى وابو

الأ الد اد١ئداحدال,٠اوفطدمانسفى رائطة اليعقوبى اجتمعوا عند احد الوزراء ٠ فطلب منهم ان يصف كل واحد منهم اعتقاحه يقول موجز ولا يعترض احد منهم على صاحبه .

1. فقال النسطورى اقول ان المسجح شخسان شخص لم يزل مولودا من

الاب مساويا له فى طبيعته وجمع صفاته وشخص ا لنسى مقتضب من مريم مساويا لجمع الاشخاص الانسية ما خلا اختلاف الخطئة . وان اسم المسجح لا يقع على احد ا لشخصين دون الاخر بل عليهما جميعاً . فالمسجح شخصان وطبيعتان الاه وانسان . والبرهان على ذلك اثا وجدنا الاشياء اذا اقترنت ى لا الةا٠٠٠٠ا        ,        ٠        9ذك ال٠. ۶ ا٦

كانت لا محالة واقعة على جوهر او عرض . ولم يخلو ذلك الوقوع ان يكون ماً ا خاصا قد اتفقنا11 ان المسيم ليس .٠ لا محالة انه يكون عايا اوخاضيا . وقد اتفقنا ان المسجح ليس بعرض ولا محالة انه ٠ هر جدنا الجوب ليس يهطو12 ان يكون ماً ا خماً فان كانت الااالا.فعةظه .صنفاً لآ اسانا.فعة ط- الاسماء الواقعة عليه وقوعا مختلفا من الاه وانسان واقعة من طريقجوهر عاس لز 14ان يكون ا السيح ٠٠ ,الاب الا اش القد

عاقئ لزم ان يكون ام الميح يعم الاب والابن والروح القدس ويعم اط15 الح        r        ,ا ب ذلك ٠ ان الال اد II

ايضا الناس جميعا ولما استحال ذلك ثبت ان الاسماء المختلفة انما 'فعت عل ذات الاشخا هذا دلز 16انه ان شخصان خاصان وقعت على ذات الاشخاص ٠ وهذا يلزم انه جوهران شخصان خاضإبان جوهر الاهى وجوهر انى ■

2. وقال الملكى اقول ان المسجح شخص واحد وطبيعتان الهية وانية.

د        الالاهت18 الآ1 طلاسة انسان ٩ الا2 انان

فهو بالالاهية الاه وبالانيسة انسان وهو شخص واحد الاه وانسان من

It is said that 'Abd Isu', the Nestorian Mutran, Abd Qurrah, the Melkite Bishop, and Abd Ra’itah, the Jacobite, were gathered before one of the Ministers. He requested each of them to describe their faith in a brief statement, without making objections against either of his colleagues.

1. The Nestorian said: I say that the Messiah is two ashas2—a person unceasingly begotten from the Father, the same as [the Father] in His nature and in all of His attributes, and a human sahs taken from Mary, the same as all human ashas, the only difference being sin. The name “Messiah” is not applied to one of the two ashas to the exclusion of the other, but rather [is applied] to both of them. For the Messiah is two ashas and two natures, divine and human.

The proof of this is that when we find two things bound together, they necessarily occur either in an ousia or in an accident, and this occurrance can only be general or specific. Now we agree that the Messiah is not an accident, so it is necessary that He is an ousia, and we find that an ousia can only be general or specific. Now if the names applied to Him (that is, “God” and “human being”) are applied differently, and are applied in the manner of a general ousia, then it is necessary that the name the “Messiah” embrace the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as embrace the entire human being, and this is impossible, for it has been established that the different names are only applied to the being of the persons. So it is necessary that He is two individual proper ousiae: a divine ousia and a human ousia.

2. The Melkite said: I say that the Messiah is one sahs and two natures, divine and human. Through the divinity, He is God and

, There is no title given to this texts in the manuscripts.

2. “Persons” or “individuals”. I have retained the Arabic term (sahs, pl. ashas) here to underscore the confusion introduced by the lack of a definition of it from the outset.

جهتين مختلفتين . والبرهان على ذلك ادا 'فد اتفقنا على ان الميح واحد الاا2 سعة اذس١ن أاط        لا لأ2 ,ن كدن ون لال23

الاه بالطبيعة وا نسان بالطبيعة ولا يخلو ان يكون الذى هو الاله

١لط مة اس        ا٠أ، والط مة ,        ٠        فا٦كا٦        ى24 ا٦

بالطبيعة هو ا لذى هو ا نسان بالطبيعة او هو غيره . فان كان هو هو وجب ان
لكهنشخصااحداًالاهاً,طسةلأ2,طا2طا..كا اد٠
يكون شخصا واحدا الاها فى طبيعة وانسانا فى طبيعته وهذا فولنا . وان

كانالذح27        الاله28سعة٠        اذسانسعةو2 كا۵الد

كان الذى هو الاله بالطبيعة غير الذى هو انسان بالطبيعة وكان الذى هو

30        ١ ا3اللهالا٠١ل        )32 ٠        33

الاله بالطبيعة هو ابن الله الازلى وكان المسجح الاها فى طبيعه كان

المسيحغيرابناللهوبناللهغيرالمسيحوهذاذقضماءليهالذصراذية.

3. ٠فاإ34العف اذهئ اا35ا٦ ال ٩        د؛,

3 وقال اليعقوبى اذهب الى ان المسجح شخص واحد طبيعة واحدة'

"36        ٠٠        آذان اكتى الالد ا الا.        أ38

الاهية انسية . لانى ازعم ان الشخص الالهى اتحد بالانسى اتحادا

يزيل التغرقة تسمية ومعنى . فهو شخص واحد طبيعة واحدة' . والبرهان على
ذلك اثا اتفقنا على ان ا لمسجح واحد فى العدد . ووجدنا ا لواحد فى
المط لا دخل40 ان لكهن شخصاً ا •ءاًا حنساً لما اسحن
المنطق لا يخلو ان يكون شخصا او نوعا او جنا . ولما استحلل
بالمقاييس ان يكون المسجح واحدأ جناً او نوعاً . بقى ان يكون شخساً

احدا طعة احدة ادضالماحدذاالعدداذها-طالا المذن.
واحدا وطبيعة واحدة. . وايغا لما وجدنا العدد انما يقع على الامور المتقرئ
بخواصها التى هى اشخاص ووجدنا الشخص الازلى متخدأ بالشخص

ال.. منذى .42 ائدنالألا الاوان
الزمنى منذ كونه استحال منهما الافتراق تمية ومعئى ولما ارتفع الافتراق

43        44

بطل ائبات العدد لبطلان علته . ولو كان فى حال الاتحاد اثنين وفى حل

او ان يكون الذى هو اله بالطبيعة 24 O اله 23 O يخلوا 22 RO اله 21 O

غير الذى هو انان بالطبيعة. فان كان الذى هو اله هو انان بالطبيعة وجب من ذلك

26 Here the manuscript fragment of V(3) begins. 27 O انان 25 R

32 O بن 31 R اله 30 O ثبت هذا ؛29 O add اله O ; الالاه (3)28 V البارى

35 V(3) omits. 36 O ابو رابطه 34 O adds واناناً فى طبيعته 33 O الها

41 O replaces يخلوا 40 V(3)ROفد (1)39 V اتحاد 38 R وذلك 37 O الهية بطر من الثلثة وجهان وبى الود ا؛لثاب٠ وهو ابه ؛with (نوعما this (fr^m م ذدص و١حد' وذ*ه واًحدة ومن iلبي1ف توكيد'ا٠ لما ا"وول ؛ناً

الايتحاد 44 V(3)O به 43 O adds بالثخص الانى منذ حل كونه

through the humanity He is human, and He is one sahs, divine and human in two different ways.

The proof is this: We agree that the Messiah is one, God in nature and human in nature. It is necessary that the one who is God in nature is [either] the one who is human in nature or He is something else. Now if He is [the former], it is necessary that He is one sahs, God in His nature and human in His nature, and this is what we have said. And if He who is God in nature is other than He who is human in nature, and He who is God in nature is the eternal Son of God, and the Messiah is [both] God in His nature and human in His nature,^[334] then the Messiah is not the Son of God and the Son of God is not the Messiah, and this destroys what Christianity holds.

3. TheJacobite said: I believe that the Messiah is one sahs,^[335] one nature, divine and human. For I claim that the divine sahs is united with the human in a union which precludes [any] separation in name and meaning, for He is one sahs and one nature.

The proof is this: We agree that the Messiah is one in number. We find that “one” in logic can only be a sahs or a species or a genus. Now, it is impossible [to say] by analogy that the Messiah is one genus or species. It remains, then, that He is one sahs and one nature. We also find that number can only be applied to things which are differentiated in their properties ([these] are the ashas). And since we find that the eternal sahs is united with the temporal sahs from the beginning of His existence, a separation between them in name and meaning is impossible. And if separation [between them] is eliminated, an assertion of number [applied to the ashas] is false, because it is invalid.^[336] And if the condition of union is two, and if the condition of separation is two, then the condition of union is the condition of separation and the condition of separation is the condition of union, and this is absurd in name and meaning.

لا        لا        لا45        ٠        لا        لا        ٠

الافتراق اثنين        لكان حل        الاتحاد        فى        حال الافتراق        وحال الافتراق        فى        حل

46        ش^4٦

الاتحاد وهذامحادللتسمية وا لمعئى .

فاستحس٠-الا ماا"اله صإفعأ4 مك, -        للهالشك٠دائماً49

فاستحسنالوزيرمااتوا.لهوصرفهم مكرمين.وللهالشكردائما .

;(3)V» واصض 48 O الت—مية 47 O الايتحد 46 V(3)O الايتحاد 45 V(3)O ولله المجد 'نمح المقالة الحارة عثر يلام من الرب امين. والحمد لله والشكر O . والشكر كثيرا كما هو اهله.

The Wazir deemed what they brought him to be good, and he sent them away honorably.

Thanks be to God forever!

ABBREVIATIONS

EI2 Encyclopedia of Islam. H.A.R. Gibb, et al., eds. New ed. 9 vols. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1966-.

GAL Brockelmann, Carl. Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. 5 vols. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1937-1949.

ODB The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Alexander P. Kazhdan, Alice- Mary Talbot, et. al. eds. 3 vols. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

PG Patrologia Cursus Completus. Series Graeca. Ed. J.-P. Migne. 161 vols. Paris:J.-P. Migne, 1857-1887.

TCF Willis, John R., ed. The Teachings of the Church Fathers. New York: Herder and Herder, 1966.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, Armand. “L'apocalypse de Bala et la notion islamique de Mahdi.” Annuaire de ITnstitut de Philologie etd’Hisooire Orientales 3 193512-1 .؛..

———. “La Djizya: Tribut ou Ranyon?” Studia Islamica 32 (1970): 5-19.

Abo Ra'itah al-Takr t, Habib Ibn Hidmah. Die Schriften des Jacobiten Habib Ibn Hidma Abu Ra’itah. Translated by Georg Graf. CSCO 130 (Arabic text) and 131 (German translation). Scriptores Arabici 14-15. Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1951.

Aklnlan, N. TheodorAbuOraandAana (Aonnos) derSyrer inAmienienunddiearrnenische Ueberset ingdesKommentars aim Joi ante s E angeliumB onAana. Ins HandesArnsorya 36 (1922): col. 193-205, 357-368, 417-424 (Armenian).

MbI, Martin C. “Al d Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: Tie Form and Functon ojthe Early Christ an Testimonia Collect ons. Supplements to AooumTesta mett rn. V. XCVT. Leiden, Boston, Kin: Brill, 1999.

Aristotle. The Catgories. On Interpretation. Prior Analytes. Vol. I. Trans. and eA. by Harold P. Cooke and Hugh Tredennick. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1983.

—.Metaphysics.BooksIIX .Vol.11. Trans. by HughTredennick. ThelncbClassical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: St. Edmundsbury Press Ltd., 1933, repr. 1996.

al-Asara, Abolljasan ،Ala Ibn IsmSl. KtaabMaqaaat altsaamtytnuiaihtatj al-musalltn. Ed. Helmut Ritter. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag Gmbh., 1963.

AssemanI, Joseph s. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clc rncntino-Vaticana. T. أ:. De sciptoribus Syro Monophisites. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1721.

Atiya, Aziz Suryal. A History of Eastern Christianity. Millwood, New York: Kraus Reprint, 1991.

Barhebraei, Gregorii. Chronicon Fcclesiasticum. Tomus I. Ed. Johannes Baptista Abbeloos et ThomasJosephus Lamy. Lovanii: Excudebat car. Peeters, 1872.

Barsawm> latiyfls Afram al-Awwal. كتاب اللؤلؤ اببنثور في ترخ ابعلوم والآداب السريانية = Histoire des sciences et de la litterature syriaque. Him?: Acadenfie Irakienne, 1943, 1956, 1976; rep. Holland: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1987.

Basil of Cesarea. Saint Basil: Letters. Vol. I (1-185). Vol. II (186-383). Trans. Agnes Clare Way. In: The Fathers of the Church. Ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1951-1955.

Bell, RIcbarl. The Origin oj Islam in Its Christian Eiiron lent. The Gunning Lectures, Edinburgh University, 1925. London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1926.

Bishop, E.F.F. and A. Gunthrie. “The Paraclete, Al-Muhammana and Almad.” The Muslim World 41 (1951): 251-256.

Blan, Joshua. AGram maroJChristianAfabicIIIIBasedMainlyonSouth-PalestinianTets from the First Millenium. CSCO 267, 276, 279/subs. 27-29. Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1966-1967.

Bouamama, Ali. La litterature polemique musulmane contre le christianisme, depuis les origines jusqu'au XIII siecle. Algiers: Enterprise Nationale du Livre, 1988.

Brosset, Marie-Felicite, trans. Histoire chronologique par Mkhithar d’Airivank. Memoires de l’Academie imperiale des sciences de St. Petersburg, 7e serie, t. 13, fasc. 5. St.-Petersbourg: Acad. Imp., 1869.

Built Richard W. Conoersion to Islam in the Medicoal Period: An Essay in Qtanttat c

History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Butler, Christopher. Number Symbolism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970.

Caspar, Robert. “Les versions arabes du dialogue entre le Catholicos Timothee I et le Calife al-Mahdi (II/VIII siecle), ‘Mohammed a suivi la voie des prophetes’.” Islamochristiana 3 (1977): 107-175.

Caspar, Robert et Jean-Marie Gaudeul. “Textes de la tradition musulmane concernant le tahrf (falsification) des ecritures.” Islamochristiana 6 (1980): 63-64.

Charfi, Abdelmajid. “La fonction historique de la polemique islamochretienne a lepoqne abbassiA.” Pp. 44-51. In Christian Arabic Apologetics Dtring th« Abbasid Period (750-1258). Ed. Samir Khalil Samir andJorgen S. Nielsen. Studies in the History of Religions (Numen Bookseries). Vol. LXIII. Leiden, New York, K٥ln: E.J. Brill, 1994.

Cheikho, Louis. “Un traite inedit de Honein.” Pp. 283-291. In Orientalische Studien. 141ةف2س-ةص»1ا1)1ةس)س nGebutstag (2.Mar 1 06). Erster BanA. HrsqpCari Bezold. Gieszen: Verlag von Alfred Tpelmann, 1906.

Cheikho, Louis, ed. “Mimar li Tadurus Abi Qurrah ft Wugud al-Haliq wa d-Din al-Qawim.” Al-Machnq 15 (1912): 757-774.

Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234pertinens. Jean-Baptiste Chabot, ed. and trans. Syriac text and Latin trans. CSCO, T. 81/Syr. 36, 82/Syr. 37; 109/Syr. 56. A. Abouna, French trans., T. 354 (T. 15, series tertia). Pariis:J. Gabalda, 19161920, 1937; Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1974.

Clronique de Michel l« Syrten, Patriarch« Jacobite 1 Antioch« 11166-1199). Jean-Baptiste Chabot, ed. and trans. T. I-III, French trans., T. IV, Syriac text. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899-1910.

Daccache, Salim. “Polemique, logique et elaboration theologique chez Abo Rita al-Takrt.” Annales de Philosophie 6 (1985): 33-88.

Dennett, Daniel C. Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950.

Di Matteo, Ignazio. “Il ‘tahrif od alterazione della Bibbia secondo i musulmani.” Bessanone 26 (1922): 64-111, 223-260.

Dionysius of TeA Mahre. Chronicon = Incerti autoris clroniconanonymtm pseudo- Dionysianum vulgo dictum. Ed.Jean-Baptiste Chabot. Texte Syr. ed. 1927-1933 et trad. lat 1949. CSCO 91, 104, 121 (Latin), 507 (French) et 43, 53, 66, 213 (Syriac) Parisiis: E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1927-1989.

Dirries, Heinrich. “Erotapokriseis.” Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum. Vol. VI. Stuttgart, 1966.

Fakhry, Majid. A History of Islamic Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, 1983.

Ferre, Andre. “Chretiens de Syrie et de Mesopotamie au debut de l’Islam.” Isla- mochnstiana 14 (1988): 71-106.

Fiey, Jean-Maurice. Assyrte clritt nne: Bit Garrnaia, B tAramCyi et Maisan Xestoriens. Vol. 2. Beyrouth: Dar El-Machreq Editeurs, 1968.

—. Cl t enssyriaquessous lesAb^b^c^ssileSjStrtc^utaBc^glc^l (749-1258). CSCO 420, Subsidia 59. Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1980.

. “Habib Abo Ra'itah n’etait pas eveque de Takrit.” Pp. 211-214. Actes du deuxtimecongrisinternatialdtudesarabeschr t ennes (Oosterhesseleisejttembreld). Ed. Khalil Samir. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 226. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1986.

• Nisibe: merropoksynaque oriental« etses suffiagantsdesorigines hnos trs. CSCO 388, Subsidia 54. Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1977.

• PourunOriensChristnus Noous'.Rpeertoiredesdiocses syriaques orientauxetocci- dentaux. Beirut: In Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, 1993.

———. “Tagrit, esquisse d’histoire chretienne." L'Orient Syrien 8 (1963): 289-342. Reprintedini. Communatt s syrtaqu.es in Iran et Irak les ortgtnes a 1552. No. N. London: Variorum Reprints, 1979.

Frank, Richard M. “The Divine Attributes According to the Teaching of Abu al- Hudhayl al-'Allaf." Le Museon 82 (1969): 451-506.

■ “Hearing,andSayingWhat Was, Said." Jotmaloj tl eAteTt(^a٠iOTienaalSc^(^teti 116 (1996): 611-618.

———. “Remarks on the Early Development of the Kalam." Pp. 315-329. In: Alt lei terz.0 congresso It Stdt Arabi. e Islamict. Rarel, 1966. Napoli-. Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1967.

Gaudeui, Jean-Marie, Encounters at 1 Clashes: Islam at 1 Gist anti inHistory. VeA. I--. A Survey. Vol. II: Texts. Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e Islamici, 1990.

Gibb, H.A.R. “The Fiscal Rescript of 'Umar II." Arabica 2 (1955): 1-16.

Goldziher, Ignaz. Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. Trans. Andras and Ruth Hamori. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Grabar, Andre. L'iconoclasme byzantin: Dossier archeologique. Paris: College de France, 1957.

Grabar, Oleg. “The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem." Ars Orientalis 3 (1959): 33-62. Repr. in Studies in Medieval Islamic Art. London: Variorum Reprints, 1976.

Graf, Georg. “Christliche Polemik gegen den Islam." Gelbe Hefte 2 (1926): 825842.

———. “Das Schriftstellerverzeichnis des Abb Ishaq ibn al-'Ass 1." Oriens christianus. Neue Serie 2 (1912): 205-226.

———. “Zwei dogmatische Florilegien der Kopten." Orientalia Christiana Periodica 3 (1937): 345-402.

Griffith, Sidney H. “Comparative Religion in the Apologetics of the First Christian Arabic Theologians." Proceedings of the PMR Conference 4 (1979): 63-87.

———. “Disputes with Muslims in Syriac Christian Texts: from Patriarch John III (d. 648) to Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286)." Pp. 251-273. 25th Wolfenbutteler Symposion “Religionsgesprache im Mittelalter." 11-15June, 1989. Bernard Lewis und Friedrich Niewthner, eds. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992.

———. “From Aramaic to Arabic: The Languages of the Monasteries of Palestine in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51 (1997): 11-31.

———. “The Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into its Appearance in the First Abbasid Century." Oriens Christianus 69 (1985): 126-167.

——— “Greek into Arabic: Life and Letters in the Monasteries of Palestine in the Ninth Century; the Example of the Summa Theologiae Arabica." Byzantion 56 (1986): 117-138.

——— “Habib ibn Hidmah Abo Ra'itah, a Christian mutakallim of the First Abbasid Century." Oriens Christianus 64 (1980): 161-201.

———. “The Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic." The Muslim World 78, no. 1 (January 1988): 1-28.

———. “Muslims and Church Councils: the Apology of Theodore Abo Qurrah." Pp. 270-299. Studia Patristica 25. Leuven: Peeters Press, 1993.

———. “The Prophet Muhammad: His Scripture and His Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac from the First Abbasid Century." Pp. 99-146. In La Vie du Prophete Mahomet. Bibliotheque des Centres d’Etudes Superieurs Specialises, ed. Colloque de Strasbourg (octobre 1980). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1983.

———. “Reflections on the Biography of Theodore Abu Qurrah.” Parole de l’Orient 18 (1993): 143-170.

———. “Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Intellectual Profile of an Arab Christian Writer of the First Abbasid Century.” Hie Dr. Irene Halrnos Chair of Arabic Literature Annual Lecture. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1992.

———. “Theodore Abu Qurrah’s Arabic Tract on the Christian Practice of Venerating Images.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 (1985): 53-73.

Gut        DinAtri.        Greek        Thought,        Arabic        Culture:        The        GraecoArabic        Translation        Mooernent

in Baghdad ami Early ‘Abbasid Soceety (2nd-4th/8th-10th Centuries). London, New York: Routledge, 1998.

Haddad, Rachid. La Trinit dittne cle Ccs tl ologeensarabes 750-1050. Coll-. Beatichesne Religions 15. Paris: Beauchesne, 1985.

Haddad, Wadi Z. “Continuity and Change in Religious Adherence: Ninth-Century Baghdad.” Pp. 15-31. In•. ConoersionandCot nuttylndigenousChristianCommunttees in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries. M. Gervers & R.J. Bikhazi, eds. Coll. Papers in Mediaeval Studies 9. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990.

Hagy, Wolfgang. Die syrisch jakobit sche Kirche in friihislamischer لألآ nach orientaiischen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1966.

Hawting, Gerald. “5irk and ‘Idolatry’ in Monotheist Polemic.” Pp. 107-126. In: Dhimmis and Others: Jeus and Christians and the World of Classical Islam. Israel Oriental Studies 17. Ed. Uri Rubin and DavidJ. Wasserstein. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, Inc., 1997.

Hayek, Michel, ed. Ammar al-Basn: Apologie et Controverses. Orient Chretien 5. Beyrouth, Liban: Dar el-Machreq Editeurs, 1977.

Hodgson, MarshaUG.S. TheVenfureofIslam:ConscienceandHistory inaWorldCivlliea-- tion. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.

Heiberg, Bo. “Ahlifartq attaymanein ratoHes Epitheton.” Oricns Christians 78 (1994): 83-103.

Hopper, Vincent Foster. Medieval Number Sumboiism: Its Sources, Meaning, and Influence on Thought and Expression. Morningside Heights, NY: Columbia University Press, 1938.

Horton, Max. Diephilosophischen Systeme. Bonn: F. Cohen, 1912.

Hurst, Thomas Richard. “The Syriac Letters of Timothy I (727-823): A Study in Christian-Muslim Controversy.” Unpublished Ph.D. diss. The Catholic University of America, 1985.

Hussain, Showkat. “Status of Non-Muslims in Islamic State.” Hamdard Islamicus 16 (1993): 67-79.

Ibn Kabar,Abu !-Barakat bams ar-Rryasah. Liwcde laLaimpedesTni bresde (I'exposit n lumineuse) du Service (de lEglise). Louis Villecourt, Eugene Tisserant, Gaston Weit, ed. and trans. Patrologia Orientalis, 20/4, no. 99. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1928.

Kazimirski, A. de Biberstein. DictionnaireArabe-Franfais. 4 Tomes. Caire: Impr. V.R. Egyptienne, A. Boulec, 1875.

Keating, Sandra Toenies. “The Issue of the Createdness of the Qur’an from the ‘Refutation of the Gahmites’ by Al mad Ibn Hanbal.” Licentiate thesis. Pon- tificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d’Islamistica, 1995.

———. “Refuting the Charge of Talrif: Abu Ra'itah (d. ca. 835) and His “First Risala on the Holy Trinity.” Pys. 35-50. In: Ideals, !manges, and Methods ofPor- trayal: Insights into Classical Arabic Literature and Islam. Ed. Sebastian Guenther. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Kelly, J٠N.D. Early Christ anDoctrines. Rev. ed. SanFruncisco: Harper ى Rou),1978.

Khoury, Adel-Theodore. “Apologetique byzantine contre l’Islam (VIII-XII siecle).”

Proche Orient Chretien 29 (1979): 242-300.

Khoury, Paul. Mat riau.xpou.rseriiirdl’tledelacontronerse thologtqteeislamo-chr tiennede langue arabe du viiie au xiie siecle. 3 vols. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag / Altenberge: Telos-Verlag, 1989, 1991, 1997.

Klinge, Gerhard. “Die Bedeutung der syrischen Theologen als Vermittler der griechischen Philosophie an den Islam.” Zeitschriftfur Kirchengeschichte 58 (1939): 346-386.

LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991.

Lazarus-YafeL, Hava. Intei'tatmed.Woi'dss'.Me 1 enallslamat dBibleCriticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Lebon,Joseph. “La christologie du monophysisme syrien.” Pp. 425-580. In: Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart. Ed. Aloys Grillmeier u. Heinrich Bacht. Band I: Der Glaube von Chalkedon. Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1951.

—. Le monophysisme sttrien-. itude historique, iittraire et theologiqu.e str la resistance monophystternconcile de Chalet doine jtsq'd laconstt onde ligiise jacobife. Louvain-. Excudebat Josephus van Linthout, 1909.

Madelung, Wilferd. “The Origins of the Controversy Concerning the Creation of the Koran.” Pp. V504-525. In: Religious Schools and Sects in Medieval Islam. London: Variorum Reprints, 1985. Originally printed in Orientalia Hispanica sive studia F.M. Pareja octogenario dicta. Ed.J.M. Barral. Vol. I/1. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974.

Mai, A. Scriptorum veteram nova collectio. Tom. IV. Romae, 1831.

Margerie, Bertrand de. The Christian Trinity in History. Trans. Edmund J. Fortman. Studies in Historical Theology. Vol. 1. Still River, MA: St. Bede’s Publications, 1982.

Maries, Louis. “Epikourla = Aboukara.” Revue des Etudes Armeniennes 1 (19201921): 439-441.

Marr, N. Api'ayHB, MOHrOJIBCKOe HBaiie KpiCTiaHB, BB CBB3H CB BonpocoMB o6b apMIIHaXBXa.IKeflOHITaXB“Ark'aun, The Mongol Domination of the Christians and the Question of the Chalcedonian Armenians.” (Russian). In: Vizantiiskij Vremennik 12 (1906): 1-68.

Martinez, F.J. “The Apocalyptic Genre in Syriac: The World of Pseudo-Methodius.” In: HJ.W. Drijvers et al. (eds.). IV Symposium Syriacum 1984. Orientalia Christiana Periodica 229 (1987): 337-352.

Miles,J.C. “The Iconography of Umayyad Coinage.” Ars orientalis 3 (1959): 207213.

Mingana, N. Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garsl ni. Edited and translated with a critical apparatus. Vol. 2: 1) “Timothy’s Apology for Christianity.” Pp. 1-162. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Limited, 1928.

Morony, Michael G. Iraq after the Muslim Conquest. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.

al-Murtada, Al mad ibn Yahya ibn. Kitab al-Milal wa-’-Nihal. T.W. Arnold, ed. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1902.

MuylAermans, Jj. LadominationarabeenArmniie. Extraitde I’HistoireUnterselledeVardan. Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner; Louvain: Imprimerie J.B. Istas, 1927.

Nau, M. Franqois. “Un colloque du patriarche Jean avec l’emir des Agareens et faits divers des annees 712 a 715 d’apres le ms. du British Museum Add. 17193. Avec un appendice sur le patriarcheJean Ier sur un colloque d’un patriarche avec le chef des mages et sur un diplme qui aurait ete donne par Omar a l’eveque du Tour 'Abdin.” Journal Asiatique 11/5 (1915): 225-279.

Patton, Walter M. Ahmed IbnHanbaland the Mihna: ABiography oj the Imaminduding on Account of tic Mohammedan I q list on (mallei tic Mina, 218-234 AHI. Leldern. E.J. Brill, 1897.

Payne Smith, R., ed. et al. Thesaurus Syriacus. Tomus I. Oxonii: E Typographeo Clar- endoniano, 1879; repr. Hildesheim, New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1981.

Pellkan, Jaroslav. The Christm Tradition'. AHistory of the Dcueoopmentof Doctrine. Vol-.

1. Tie Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (1OO-6OO). Vol-. 2. Tie spirit of Eastern Christendom (6OO-17OO). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1971, 1974.

—. Cl 1س:اً1خأطحس0و1ئة1ا TeiTheMetamoTjlsisofNat ralThieologyin thieChris- tian Encounter with Hellenism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995.

Peters,, F.E. Aristotle and the Aratas'. Tie AristotelianTraditoninlslam. New York-'. New York University Press, 1968.

Putman, Hans. L'eglise et l’islam sous Timothee I. Beyrouth: Dar el-Machreq, 1975.

Reinink, Gerrit J. “The Beginnings of Syriac Apologetic Literature in Response to Islam.” Oriens Christianus 77 (1993): 165-187.

Rial, Eva. Stdees in the Syriac Preface. Acta Unlversltatls Upsallensls,. St^ndiaSemth^if^a Upsaliensia 11. Uppsala: Uppsala University; Stockholm, Sweden: Distributer Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1988.

Riedel-, Wilhelm. Abu ’l-Barakat InKabar'. Dcr Katalog der christi(chen Schriflen in ar(-- bischer Sprache von Abu ’l-Barakat. Nachrichten der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse. Heft V. Berlin: Weidmannche Buchhandlung, 1902.

Sahas,, Daniel- J John of Damascus on lam'. Tie “Heresy of the fshmaelttes.” Leldern. Brill, 1972.

Samir, Khalil. “Creation et incarnation chez Abo Ra'itah. Etude de vocabulair.” Pp. 187-236. Im Maangesenhommageauprofesseurctaupenseur iibanaisFaridJabrc. Publications de l’Universite Libanaise, Section des Etudes Philosophiques et Sociales, 20. Beirut: Departement des Publications de l’Universite Libanaise, 1989.

. “Liberte religieuse et propagation de la foi chez les theologiens arabes chretiens du ixe siecle et en Islam.” Pp. 93-164. In Witness of Faith in Life and Worship. Tantur Yearbook, 1980-1981. Tantur/Jerusalem: Ecumenical Institute for Theological Research, 1981.

Sbath, Paul. Bibliohue de Mannsertts Paul Sbath. Catoogue. Tome I-H. Cairo'. H-. Friedrich et Co., 1928-.

• Al-Filris'. Catabgue de Manuscritos Arabes. Premiere Partle. Calvo'. Impr. al- Chark, 1938.

Seale, Morris, 8. M^usiimTheology'. A Study ofOrigins wtthRefercnce to the ChurchFathers. London: Luzac & Co. Ltd., 1964.

Shaban, M.A. The 'Abbasid Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Sharon, Moshe. “An Arabic Inscription from the Time of the Caliph 'Abd al-Malik.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 29 (1966): 367-372.

Simaika Pasha, Marcus. Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in the Coptic Museum, the Patriarcate,          Vol. 2, fasc. 1. Cairo: Government Press, 1939, 1942.

Slane, WAllam MacGnckln. Cataoogue des manusertts arabes de laBibiioth que Natnaee.

Paris: Impr. national, 1883-1895.

Suermann, Harald. “Der Begriff ‘ifah bei Abo Ra'itah.” Pp. 157-171. In Christian Arabi Apologetoics Duringthe Abbasid Periled (75O-1258). Ed. Samir KhalA Samir and Jorgen S. Nielsen. Studies in the History of Religions (Numen Bookseries). Vol. LXIII. Leiden, New York, Koln: E.J. Brill, 1994.

• Deegeschichts-theooo٥sshe Reeaaioo aufdie einfaleendenMusiime indercdesswiischewi Apokalyptic des 7. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt am Main, New York: P. Lang, 1985.

——— “Orientalische Christen und der Islam. Christliche Texte aus der Zeit von 632750.” Zeittsclft fiir Missionswissenschaft und Rciigionswissenschaft 67 1983١: 120-136.

———. “Trinitat in der islamisch-christlichen Kontroverse nach Abo Ra'itah.” Zpttschrift fit Missionsuiisscnschaft un Rcligionswisscnschaft 74 (July 1990١: 219229.

Tartar, Georges. “L'authenticite des epitres d'al-Hasim! et d'al-Kindi sous le Calife al-Ma'mOn (813-834).” Pp. 207-221. In. Actes du premier congres international d’etudes arabes chretiennes. Ed. Khalil Samir. Roma: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1982.

——.Dialogecislgmo-chr t ensous lef^aitJeal-Ma’rntii [813-834).Ies tpitres d’Al-Hashimt et d’Al-Kindt. Etudes Coraniques. Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines, 1985.

Thomas, David, ed. and titans. Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam'. Abu ؛Isa al- Warraq’s “Against the Trinity”. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Thomson, Robert W. TheHistoricalCompllatnofVardanAreueele ؛i. DnmbartonOaks Papers 43. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1989.

———. “Vardan's Historical Compilation and Its Sources.” Le Museon 100 (1987): 343-352.

———. “Vardapet in the Early Armenian Church.” Le Museon 75 (1962): 367-384.

Trinhngham, J. Spencer. Christianity Among tie Arabs inPre-Islamic Times. London & New York: Longman; Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1979.

Tritton, Arthur Stanley. The Caiiphs and. Ti^ei,rNlonMusiimSub.eects:ACriticalSt dy of the Covenant of 'Umar. London, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1930.

Uri, Johannes. BibiiothccaeBodleianaecodicummss.orientaiium.. .catalogs. Pars prima. Oxionii, 1787.

Van Ess, Josei. Anfangcmusiimisch erTheologie: Zweiantiqadaritische Traktate aus dem ersten Jahrhundert der Higra. Beiruter Texte u. Studien, Bd. 4. Beirut: Orient-Institut; Wiesbaden: In Kommission bei F. Steiner, 1977.

———. “Disputationspraxis in der islamischen Theologie. Eine vorlaufige Skizze.” Revue des Etudes Islamiques 44 (1976): 23-60.

Van Roey, A. “Une apologie syriaque attribuee a Elie de Nisibe.” Le Museon 59 (1946): 381-397.

———-. Nlonnus de Nisibc, Trait Apolog tquc, ا tu le, texte Ct traduction. Biblotlqne du Museon, vol. 21. Louvain: Bureaux du Museon, 1948.

Vollers, Kurt, ed. “Das Religionsgesprach vonJerusalem (um 800 D).” Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 29 (1908): 29-71, 197-221.

Voobus, Arthur. Early Versions of the New Testament: ManuscriptSt decs. Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 6. Stockholm: [Estonian Theological Society in Exile], 1954.

———. The Statutes of the School of Nisibis. Stockholm: Etse, 1962.

———. History of the School of Nisibis. CSCO 266, Subsidia 26. Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965.

Watt, W. Montgomery. The Formative Period of Islamic Thought. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1998.

Wensinck, A. J. The Muslim Creed: Its Genesis and Historical Deuclpmcnt. Cambridge: University Press, 1932; rep. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporta- tion, 1979.

Wolfson, Harry Austryn. The Philosophy of the Kalam. Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press, 1976.

BIBLICAL CITATION INDEX

OldTesttammt		22:	16-17	329
		22:	17-19	302
Genesis 1: 2	301, 309	24: 7-8		302, 331
1: 26	117, 201, 302,	33:	6	205, 301, 304,
	304, 309			313
2: 18	201	41:	5-7	329
3: 22	117, 201, 302,	41:	6-8	302
	304, 309	41:	9	327
11: 7	119, 203, 302,	41:	10	302
	309	46:	5-6	331
18: 1-3	119, 205, 301,	46:	6	302
	309	46:	9	302
18: 16	302, 311	47:	8	331
18: 22-32	302, 311	50:	3	129
19: 10-14	301, 311	50:	13	137
19:24	311	56:	6	302
49: 10	131, 302	56:	10	119, 207, 313
49: 11	302, 319	56:	11	301
		57:	5	331
Exodus 3: 1-6	302, 311	63:	1-2	331
3: 7	99	67:	2	302
3: 8	95, 99	67:	5	302
3: 10	99	67	19	302
3: 11	99	67	: 25	302
3: 17	95	67	: 33-34	302
4: 2-4	99	68	:1	329
4: 6-7	99	68	:4	329
4: 10-12	99	68	18	331
6: 20	95	68	: 24	319
16:3	139	68	: 33	329
34:5	313	68	: 33-34	329
34: 5-6	301	69	: 21	329
34: 6	313	69	: 22	302
		74	: 12	301, 313
Leviticus 20: 24	95	78	: 65	302, 331
		79		300
Deuteronomy 6: 4	205	84: 7		129
		84: 8		301
2 Kings 3: 19	327	88: 4		329
		88: 5		302
Job 19: 25	302, 319	106: 43		302
		107: 20		129, 207, 301,
Psalm 4: 8	317			304, 313
8: 1-2	302, 319	107: 43		327
15:3	302	110: 1		207, 301, 313
16: 10	327	118: 22-23		302, 331

119: 89	119, 301, 313	Habakkuk 3	: 4	302, 317
119: 105	301, 313
139: 7	301, 313	Zephaniah 3	: 8	302, 329
141: 10	301
143: 10	313	Zechariah 6: 12		302, 317
144:5	129	9:	9	302
		9:	9-10	319
Proverbs 30: 4	302 315	1	1: 12-13	302
		1	1: 12-14	327
Wisdom 2: 12	302, 325	12: 10		325
14: 7	302, 327	13: 1		325
		13:7		325
Isaiah 6: 3	207	14: 6-7		325
7: 14	131, 302, 315
9: 6	131, 302
9: 6-7	317	NeuiTestament
35: 3-8	302, 321
40: 22	, 302	Matthew 5: 22		89
48: 16	207 302 315	5: 28		89
49: 7-10	,, 302 323	5: 32		89
50: 4-7	, 321	6 4 1 5: 39-41		91
50: 4-8	302, 321	5: 42		1          / 167
53: 2-12	302, 325	44 ٥٠ 44 :5		89
63: 1	, 302	6 1 1 6: 11		85
64: 4	87	6: 19		85
65: 1-2	302, 327	6: 26 7: 14		85 85
Jeremiah 11: 19	302	10 10 10	:9 10 : 10	91 87 91 87, 91
23: 5-6	302, 317	10	19	167
31:31-33	141	10	: 40	91
		12	:8	269
Baruch 3: 35-37	131	12	10	302
3: 36-38	302, 317	12	: 39-40	289
		13	:1	302
Ezekiel 16: 60	141	13	:7	302
		14	: 6-7	302
Daniel 4: 28	302	14	19	137
4:31	203, 315	15	: 36	137
7:9-10	315	16	: 21	287
7: 9-14	302	16	: 22-23	287
7: 13-14	315	19	: 24	89
9: 25-26	302, 333	19	: 27-28	283
		20	: 23	269
Amos 8: 9	302, 327	22	: 30	87
		24	: 27	135
Jonah 1-2	287	26	: 26-29	137
		26	: 52	89
Micah 1: 2	129, 302	27	10	327
1: 2-3	302	27	: 47	269
1: 3	129, 319	28	: 9-10	302
5: 1	302, 325	28	18	269
5: 2	317	28	19	119

Mark 13: 32	269, 279	14: 9	269
14:22-25	137	14: 28	269
		20: 17	269
Luke 10: 3	91
10:4	91	Romans 1: 14	338
12: 4-5	167	1:22	338
17: 10	87
18:31-33	287	1 Corinthians 1: 18-24 89
20: 35	87	1:25	338
22: 17-19	137	1:27	338
22: 31	283	2:9	87
		10: 16	137
John 5: 23	275	11: 23-26	137
8: 58	271
10:30	269	Ephesians 5: 15	338
10: 38	269
12: 24	289	Hebrews 13: 16	91
13: 13	269

St a 2	30-39	117	4:	169-171	16
2	34	203	4: 171		4, 5, 103, 173,
2	35	203			229
2	37	203	4:	172	4
2	42	22	4:	173	203
2	61	295	5:	13	207, 209
2	63-64	8	5:	17	4
2	67	137	5:	19	4, 245
2	75	207, 209	5: 41		207, 209
2	75-76	209	5:	72	173
2	77-79	8	5:	73	5, 103
2	87	287	5:	75	5, 218
2	97	117	5:	77	173
2	102	117	5:	78	229
2	111	148, 265, 335	5:	103	293
2	113	5	5:	110	4
2	116	5	5:	116	281
2	117	125	6: 6		203
2	140	22	6: 22-23		5, 183
2	146	22	6: 33		151
2	159	22	6: 83-88		245
2	168	133	6: 84-90		4
2	174	22	6:	100	5
2	208	133	6:	101	5
2	213	93	6:	125	117
2	249	117	6:	136-137	5
2	251	117	6:	143	133
2	253	93	6:	154	99
2	256	13, 76, 259	6:	163	5, 183
2	256-257	151	7:	19-25	117
3		95	7:	117	99, 203
3	33-34	245	7:	133-141	95
3	42	265	7:	137	203
3	49	117	9: 29		13
3	71	22	9: 30-31		229
3	145	117	10	13	203
3	166	117	10	: 24	203
3	187	22	10	: 60	293
4	46	207, 209	10	: 68	5
4	50	293	10	: 69	293
4	51	151	11	: 40	203
4	60	151	11	: 69-73	119
4	64	117	12	:2	22
4	155	295	12	: 37	22
4	157	287	13	:7	340
4	165	245	13	: 27	340

13	36	151	29	47	151
14	10-13	245	29	49	151
15	26	203	31	32	151
15	51-56	119	33	40	4
15	85	203	33	54	16
16	18	5	34	43-45	245
16	40	125	36	81-82	181
16	43-44	245	36	82	125
16	106	117	37	149-153	5
16	116	293	40	68	125
17	94	340	41	43-45	76
17	111	183	41	44	22
18	110	285	42	7	22
19	34-37	16	42	13-14	76
19	35	5	43	48-56	95
20	9-36	97	43	59	5
20	18-21	99	43	63-64	5
20	25	117	43	65	5
20	44	281	46	9	173
20	116-123	117	51	24-30	119
21	7-9	245	54	49-50	125
21	22	103	57	25	93
23	23-52	4	57	25-27	117
23	23-50	245	60	7	281
23	91	5	61	6	93
23	93	103	66	12	95
24	45	123	74	38	285
25	4-9	340	94	1	117
25	7-8	245	112		16, 218
26	172	203	112:1		229
28	75	148, 335	112:1-4		5
29	22	117	112:4		173
29	46	25, 169

INDEX

Aaron 95, 187, 189, 211, 213

'Abbasid

Arabization policy 34 caliphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 34, 49, 55 dynasty 1, 6, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 34, 75, 77, 152, 153, 337

period 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 21, 24, 27, 52, 78, 154, 341

' Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, Umayyad caliph 15, 16

'Abd al-Masl ibn Ishaq al-Kindi 55,161, 168

'Abd Isu', Nestorian Mutran 347-349, 351, 353

AbdiSa', Metropolitan ofNisibis 347-48 'Abdullah b. Tahir 39

Abel 115, 117, 187, 189, 191, 195, 201

Abiram 39

Abraham 51, 76, 119, 141, 193, 205, 245, 271, 309, 311

Abraham of Tiberias 193 abrogation 143

Abu ’l'Abbas Asot ibn Simbat see Asot Msaker

Abu l-Barakat ibn Kabar, ’ams ar-Riy'a- sah 40, 42, 336

Abu ’l-Farag, Gregory (Bar Hebraeus) 38, 44

Abu Hanifah 154

Abu l-Hulayl al-'Allaf 55, 337

Abo Islaq al-Mu'taman ad-Dawlah ibn al-'Assal 336

Abu Qurrah, Theodore, Melkite Bishop of Harran 6, 16, 23, 27, 28, 32, 35-38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 51, 53, 55, 59, 133, 193, 301, 347, 348, 349, 351, 353

Abu Ra'itah al-Takr t , Habib ibn Hid- mah:1, 2, 3, 6, 8-12, 19, 20, 21-22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30-49, 51-72, 73-75, 77-82, 83, 95, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 119, 125, 127, 133, 135, 137, 147-162, 165, 169, 173, 177, 185, 193, 195, 201, 209, 217-220, 223, 231, 235, 289, 299, 301-306, 335-341, 343, 347-351, 353, 355

Abyssinia 300

Adam 76, 115, 117, 127, 135, 187, 189, 191, 195, 201, 209, 213, 215, 239, 241, 245, 287, 309

adoptionism 233

ahl al-kitab 13, 75, 76; see also People of the Book

hlftTTa 187

Aleppo, Syria 69

al-Amin, 'Abbasid caliph 41, 55

Allah 281

'Ah b. Abi Talib 39

'Ammar al-Ba§ ri, Nestorian 23, 51, 53, 55, 59, 362

Amos 302, 327

'Amr b. 'Ubayd 49

'Amram, father of Moses and Aaron 95

Ancient Southern Palestinian 34; see also Christian Arabic

Anthony the Rhetor 34 anthropomorphism 50, 199 anti-Islamic polemic 23

Apikura 36, 37, 43

apocalyptic 6, 14, 152, 302 literature 14

apologetic (-al, -ist) 3, 6, 11, 19, 23, 24, 27, 31,49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 60, 61, 65, 157, 299, 300, 303, 305

literature 3, 6, 21, 23, 27, 56, 59, 63, 148, 303, 305

Arab Christian 11, 23, 32, 51, 59, 157, 341

Apostles 75, 93, 117, 119, 135, 295, 339

؛aqtla 154

jto-'aqtla 156

Arab (Arabia) 1-3, 5-7, 13, 14, 300; see also Arabic

Arabic 3, 5, 6. 9, 10, 16, 19-24. 27, 32-35, 37, 45, 47, 48, 51-55, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64-70, 77, 91, 148, 149, 151-153, 195, 299, 300, 301, 303-306, 335, 353 Middle Arabic 34

Arabization 12, 16, 67, 75; see also 'Ab- basid Arabization Policy

Arabophone Christians 6, 22

Aristotle (Aristotelian) 4, 9, 10, 25, 30, 55, 111, 157, 158, 173, 175, 177, 179, 199, 223

Categories 111, 175, 177, 179, 223

De Caelo 199

Metaphysics 173, 175

Sophistikoi Elenchoi 25

TojitsVI 25,30

Armenta 23,35-40,42-48,62

Armenian isxan 35-37, 42, 44, 45, 62

al-ASair, Abul-Hasan 'Al! ibn Ismail 154, 155

Asot, Abu ’l'Abbas ibn Simbat Msaker, Armenian isxan 35, 37, 40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 60, 62

Asphoulos 39

Assyria 97

attribute (divine) 10, 31, 38, 45, 52, 80, 103, 105,        107.        109,        113,        117,        119,

123, 127,        143,        149,        154,        155,        158,

171, 179,        181,        183,        189,        191,        193,

195, 197,        199,        201,        215,        239,        249,

255, 261,        267,        271,        273,        275,        279,

281, 299, 301, 335, 353

Babel 117

Babylon 97

Baghdad 1, 9, 10, 13, 20, 34, 41, 47, 49, 53, 55, 75, 152, 155, 156, 160, 337, 351

Bagratid dynasty 35, 37

Bal rayn 58

Bal n 58, 59, 72, 147, 159, 218, 295

Bar Hebraeus see Abu 'l-Farag, Gregory (Bar Hebraeus)

Baris, Nestorian diocese 58

Baruch 131

Basil of Caesarea 107, 177

Basilius ofBalad I,Jacobite Maphrien 40, 41

Ba§ra 49, 55, 337

Beirut 7, 25, 33, 41, 336

Bethlehem 317

Bisr ibn al-Mu'tamir al-Hilal! 55, 337

Black Stone see Ka’bah

Butana^ar (Nebuchadnezzar) 203

Buret 36, 37, 43

burhan 148, 335

Byzantine (Byzantium) 1, 2, 3, 14, 16, 21, 23, 358

caliph(s) 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 34, 39, 41, 49, 55, 77, 78, 79, 80, 85, 161, 337, 349

Canons of Henana 47

Cappadocian (Fathers) 8, 11, 52, 158, 177

Categories (Aristotle) see Aristotle

census 15

Chalcedon, Council of 2, 4, 35, 36

Chalcedonian (Melkite) Christians 4, 21,

38, 56

Christian:

- Arabic apologetic see Arab Christian apologetic

evangelization 22

mutakallim(un) 3, 49, 51, 54, 65, 162

scriptures 4, 7, 24, 52, 53, 56, 217

“Christians of the East” 58; see also Nes- torians

Christological (Christology) 4, 10, 57, 72, 160, 231, 347, 349, 351, 352-356

Chronicle (of Dionysius) 15, 38, 39

Chronicle (of Michael the Syrian) 38-39, 44

Chronicon see Chronicle of Dionysius

Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234, anon 39,

152

Chronicon Ecclesiasticum 44

Church Fathers 10, 12, 25, 31,46, 47, 50,

52, 55, 115, 135, 295, 303, 358

Clement of Alexandria 25

concubines 74

Constantine 21

Coptic

language, culture 23, 33, 41, 57, 65,

69, 70

church 32, 58, 65

corporeal body 231, 239, 251, 255, 257

cosmology 5

Council of Chalcedon see Chalcedon,

Council of

Covenant

of God, Law of 61, 85, 97, 117, 137, 141, 143, 321

of 'Umar 17, 18, 77, 365

Cross 17, 24, 61, 74, 77, 89, 101, 131, 133, 135

Crucifixion 8, 218, 219, 285, 287, 289,

293, 295, 301, 302, 303

Cyprian 8

Cyriacus of Antioch, Jacobite Patriarch 34,

38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 48

Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria 2

Daniel, Jacobite Maphrien 41

De Caelo see Aristotle

dialectical (method) 56, 60, 61, 149, 157, 162

Didascalia (James, Hieronymous ofJeru- salem) 25

jj"|"i 13,76

dimmi (conversion and exemption) 5,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 39, 77

Dionysius of Tell Mae, Patriarch of Antioch 15, 19, 38, 39, 40, 44

Diophysite 35

Dirar ibn 'Amr 28,49

distinctive dress 17

divinity 72, 127, 141, 148, 195, 223, 247, 249, 251, 269, 271, 353

Docetists 285

Dome of the Rock 16, 361

Ecumenical Councils 2, 4, 56

Edessa 15, 47

Edom 331

Egypt, Egyptian 15, 40, 69, 95, 97, 99, 137, 139, 141

Elchasaites 76

Elias, deacon 45

Emmanuel see 'Immanuel

Ephraem the Syrian 47

Ep ikura see Ap ikura

Erotapokrtts 60

eschatological 6, 340

Ethiopia 300

Eve 115, 117, 187, 189, 191, 195, 201, 213, 215

Fall of Adam 135

fasting 6

Father (First Person of the Trinity) 107, 113, 115, 119, 143, 189, 195, 207, 209, 211, 213, 215, 223, 245, 263, 265, 269, 271, 273, 275, 279, 353

fear of the sword 36, 75

FiqlAkbar 154

Fiqh Akbar II 154, 340 free-will 24, 49, 52, 239

glia (66 (سي ,سلاع

al-Gal iz, Abu 'Utman 50, 337

Galen 9

Garden (of Eden) 181, 227, 239

Garshuni 336

Georgia 23, 37

32 ,19 ,13-17 د

Golden Age (of Islam) 1

Gospel 5, 6, 8, 21, 22, 85, 89, 137, 143, 167, 289, 295, 300, 301, 336

Graf, Georg 24, 25, 35, 41, 42, 57, 58, 68, 70, 335 grammar, grammarians 20, 34, 295 Greek

culture, tradition, language 5, 9, 19, 20, 23, 25, 34, 49, 57, 60, 69, 78, 149, 150, 203

philosophy 9, 10, 19, 31, 34, 50, 52, 55, 66, 78, 154, 157, 158, 162, 338 Gregory of Nazianzus 115

Gregory of Nyssa 115

Habib ibn Hidmah Abu Ra'itah al-Ta- kriti, see Abu Ra'itah al-Takrt, Habib ibn Hidmah, the Jacobite

lit glalit) 9,78

Harun ar-RaSid, 'Abbasid caliph 12, 18,

19, 55, 337

al-HaSim! 161

heaven 83, 85, 87, 109, 119, 129, 177, 181, 205, 207, 259, 285, 311, 313, 315, 329, 331

Hebrew

culture 203

scriptures 4, 7, 315

Hellenism 4, 7, 9, 49, 52 heresy 5, 23, 39, 43, 44

Holy Land 95, 97

Holy Spirit (Third Person of the Trinity) 11, 36, 107, 115, 119, 143, 189, 195, 205-215, 233, 235, 273, 275, 301, 309, 313, 315, 353

Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Nestorian 336 Hypocrates 9

hypostasis (hypostaseis) 8, 103, 107, 109, 113, 115, 127, 177, 185-211, 217, 218, 223-231, 301, 303, 350, 351, 355

Iblis 145

Ibn Hanbal, Al mad 80

Ibn al-Rawandi 28

Ibrahim ibn Sayyar an-Na??am 55

Idolatry 7, 8, 24, 362

lias 7

'Imalkalam 25,49,50,60

Ilyan, Deacon see Nonnus ofNisibis, Archdeacon

'Immanuel 131, 315

'Imran, father of Mary 95

Incarnation 4-8, 11, 24, 28, 33, 50-62, 68, 70, 71, 73, 81, 103, 121-135, 141149, 154-162, 173, 207, 217-305, 323, 349, 350

Iraq 2, 12, 75, 305, 306

Irenaeus 8

'Isa 281; see also Jesus of Nazareth

Isaac 311

Ishmaelites 5, 364

Islam(ic) 1-26, 28, 33, 36, 47, 48, 49, 50-7, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 73-81, 119, 143, 148, 149, 151-157, 160, 161, 163, 173, 187, 218, 219, 277, 300, 313, 337, 340, 341, 358 apostasy 22

muniaaia m٠uniata) 25-31,157, 158, 160, 351

Islamization 16, 32, 47, 56, 340 ism (personal name) 33

اؤل' bar nfln, Nestorian Catholicos 348349

Israel (Israelites) 3, 8, 95, 97, 99, 101, 131, 137, 139, 141, 145, 205, 263, 283, 317, 321, 325, 327

ifran 35-37, 42, 44, 42, 62

Jacob, the Patriarch 131, 311, 317, 319 Jacob of Sarug 47

Jacobite (Cyrillian Monophysites) 2, 10, 15, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, , 33, 35, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 72, 79, 131, 147-149, 159, 162, 165, 217, 231, 235, 347351, 353, 355

Church 41, 45, 47, 48, 55, 62, 149, 300, 305

Syrian 2, 32 , 45, 55, 60, 62, 159 Jerusalem 16, 25, 33, 135, 137, 287, 319, 325, 348

Jesus of Nazareth 4-6, 8, 9, 51, 72, 75, 76, 95, 167, 218, 281, 340

Jew (Judaism) 1-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 26, 27, 29, 51, 53, 55, 56, 61, 63, 64, 74, 75, 76, 77, 156, 157, 209, 285, 287, 289, 291, 295, 303, 335, 341

John Catholicos 37

John III, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch 6, 53

John of Damascus 3, 5, 23, 25, 115

Jonah, Son of Amittai 287

Jovian, Emperor 21

Judah 131, 141, 317, 319

Judgment 51, 148, 269, 277, 279, 283, 291

Justin Martyr 8

Ka’bah 135, 152

kalam 10,52 ي«« also ilmal-kaam, malalib alkalam)

karag (land tax) 14, 15, 16

al-Kindi see 'Abd al-Mas 1 ibn Ishaq al- Kindi

Kingdom (of Heaven, of God) 21, 87,

89, 239, 269, 283

kitabalbt 1 an 148

kitab alUmm 18

kunya (surname) 33

law 17, 21, 22, 61, 75-77, 83, 87, 91, 93, 99, 139, 141, 143, 151, 165, 345,

Leo V, Emperor 37 lexicographers 20 logos 113

ma lai balkalm 49

Magians 76; see also Zoroastrians al-Mahdi, ’Abbasid caliph 22, 23, 27 Makka (Makkans) 13, 133, 152, 340 malpono 47, 48, 55, 305

al-Ma'mfln, 'Abbasid caliph 27, 39, 41, 49, 55, 79-80, 155, 161, 337, 349

Mandaeans 76

Manicheism 50

Maphrien 40, 41

Mar Dionysius of Asphoulos, Patriarch of

Antioch see Dionysius of Tell Mahre

Mar Sabas monastery 300

Maronites 2

martyrdom 291

Maryam 95, 281

Mary 95

mas lai IjagT 30,158

mas lai tajtol 30

Matthew (Gospel of) 74, 302

Maximus the Confessor 35, 38

Mazdaism 5, 50

Mediterranean 6, 14, 20, 35, 55, 63, 67, 152, 340

Melkite 2, 23, 35, 43, 48, 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 69, 72, 127, 159, 300, 347, 348, 350, 351, 353

Chalcedonians 2

Church 56, 300

Mesopotamia 1, 2, 13, 15, 36, 43, 46, 48

Messiah 6, 51, 72, 85, 87, 93, 119, 127, 135, 137, 141, 143, 145, 167, 218, 219, 249, 263, 269, 271-295, 301, 302, 321, 331, 350, 353, 355

Metaphysics (Aristotle) see Aristotle

Michael the Syrian, Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch 15, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43

Mihna ("Mohammedan Inquisition”) 80 military service 1, 17, 101

Miriam 95

modalism 227

Mongol (invasions) 2, 38

Monophysite 2, 21, 32, 35, 45, 58, 62, 63, 160, 231, 347, 350

Monotheism 4-6, 7, 8, 11, 24, 51, 61, 64, 16'; sttalso tauil d.

Mosaic law 21; see also law

Moses, the Prophet, son of 'Imran 51, 76, 95-101, 117, 119, 131, 139, 143, 187, 189, 201, 203, 205, 209, 211, 213, 245, 281, 309, 311, 313, 319

Mossul 58, 159

Mount Horeb 311

Msaker see At, Abu ’l'Abbas ibn Simbat

Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, Umayyad caliph 26

mUtazilah (mUtazili) 28, 30, 40, 49, 55, 62, 80, 81, 154, 155, 158, 336, 337, 338, 340, 341, 343

Mulammad, the Prophet 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 75, 76, 143, 151, 153, 300, 340, 341

Multiplicity (in God) 6, 24, 50

munazara (munazarat) 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 157, 158, 160, 351

Muslim proselytism 21

8 ا"-مل,„

mutakallim(un) 3, 9, 49-50, 51, 54, 65, 149, 162, 217; see also Christian muta- kallimi(-in)

al-Mu'tasim, 'Abbasid caliph 55

al-Mutawakkil, 'Abbasid caliph 19, 77, 80

Mxithar of Ayrivankh 37

mysterion 101, 137, 141, 189, 197, 205, 207, 235, 275, 321

Nana, Deacon 36; see also Nonnus of Nisibis, Archdeacon

nasab (kinship name) 33

Nebuchadnezzar 315

Neo-Platonism 4, 54, 150, 199

Nestorian School of Nisibis 47

Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople (Nestorians) 2, 10, 22, 23, 37, 43, 48, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62, 63, 336, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 353

New Testament 21, 219, 300, 340 nisbah (place of origin) 33, 41, 45

Nisibis 23, 32, 35, 36, 38-48, 71, 148, 177, 335, 336, 343, 348

Noah 145, 245

nomadic 5, 7

Nonnus of Nisibis, Archdeacon 23, 3545, 148,

North Africa 2

Old Syriac 301, 304

Old Testament 21, 51, 157, 219, 299, 300, 302, 303, 305, 340

Origen 8, 50

ousia (ousiai) 103, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 123, 127, 133, 143, 169, 175, 177, 179, 183, 185, 187, 189, 191, 195, 197, 199, 201, 205, 211, 223, 229, 231, 233, 235, 239, 245, 253, 257, 263, 269, 275, 287, 293, 295, 353

pagans 7, 9, 12, 13, 21, 199

Palestine 23, 300

Patriarch Dionysius of Tell Mahre see Dionysius of Tell Mahre

Patriarch Cyriacus of Antioch see Cyriacus of Antioch

patristic 6, 61, 66, 177

"People of the Book” 13, 25, 75; see also llalttab

"People of the South” 63, 148, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 165, 169; see also Muslim

"People of Truth” 62, 65, 85, 148, 159, 165, 171; see also Syrian Orthodox

"People of Wisdom” (philosophers) 158, 175

persecution of dimmi 18

Persia (Persian) 1, 2, 5, 17, 19, 20, 152

Pharaoh 97, 99, 101, 281

Philoxenus of Nisibis 39, 44, 48

Plato 4, 9, 199

Parmenides 199

Timaeus 199

polygamy 74

polytheism (polytheistic) 5, 7, 8, 24

pre-Islamic 7, 300

property ownership 16, 17, 87

prophesy (prophet) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 16, 21, 23, 41, 53, 57, 71, 75, 76, 79, 95, 117, 119, 129-143, 151, 203, 205, 207, 245, 287, 295, 299, 301, 302, 309, 313-331, 340, 341

Ptolemy 9

Pygla (Theodore Abu Qurrah) 43, 44 Pythagoreans 199

qiblah 133, 135, 152

Qur’an 1, 4-10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 61, 63, 66, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 87, 93, 95, 113, 117, 123, 125, 133, 137, 143, 148, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 173, 183, 202, 209, 218, 219, 281, 293, 335, 340, 341, 349

quraisi (-dialect) 20

radd 28, 337

Ras 'Ayna (ReS'ayna) 39, 40, 42, 44, 48 religion, public displays 17 resurrection 8, 9, 87, 137, 219, 227, 243, 253, 287, 303, 340

revelation 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 22, 25, 51, 63, 76, 79, 117, 129, 141, 143, 151, 209, 227, 253, 277, 340

“Rightly-Guided Caliphs” 85

risalah (rasa’il) 28, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 71, 72, 73, 78, 79, 81, 83, 147, 148, 149-210, 212-280, 282-296; see also radd

Roman empire 300

Sabbath 143, 269

Sabta 131,16

SabriSl, Nestorian Catholicos 47 sacraments 6, 24

sacred books 150, 197, 201

salvation 99, 121, 125, 129, 135, 218, 220, 239, 241, 243, 245, 249, 251, 273, 277, 313, 321

Sarah 309

Sarbil, Maphrien Jacobite 40

Sarflg (Diocese) 41, 42, 47

Sasanian Empire 14, 46

Satan 125, 285, 287

Savior 241, 251, 319, 321

scripture

Christian 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 21, 24, 30, 32, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 71, 79, 117, 150, 157, 163, 207, 217, 219, 300, 301, 303, 335, 338, 343

Hebrew 7, 157

Muslim 6, 8, 9, 22, 30, 217 Other 76

“Seal of the Prophets” (Mui ammad) 7 6

Seluecia-Ctesiphon 47

Septuagint 315

Severus of Antioch 231

as-Safi'1 18

sahada (Islamic profession of faith) 16, 75

’am'fln I, Jacobite Maphrien 40

’am'Qn II, Jacobite Maphrien 40

Sams ar-Riy'asah Abu l-Barakat ibn Kabar see Abu l-Barakat ibn Kabar, Sams ar-Riy'asah

Sapuh Bagratuni 37

SarTal see law

sirk 7, 8, 24

‘ibawayh of Basra 20

Simeon (brother of Abiram) 39

Sinai 139

Sodom and Gamorrah 311

Solomon 315, 317, 325

Son (Second Person of the Trinity) 5, 115, 119, 189, 195, 207, 209, 211, 213, 215, 223, 225, 263, 265, 267, 275, 279, 287, 302, 353, 355

Sojl stkotElenc 1 (seeAi!s١o١le)

Sophonias the Prophet 329

soul 85, 87, 95, 127, 129, 167, 193, 195, 203, 227, 231, 235, 237, 243, 249, 251, 271, 277, 285, 323, 325

St. Catherine’s monastery 300

Stoic 4

sunna (sunan) 75, 99, 101, 151, 273

Synod of RaS 'Ayna (ReS'ayna) 39, 40, 42, 44, 48

Syriac 3, 6, 9, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 34, 41, 47, 48, 52, 55, 57, 66, 67, 69, 301

literature / texts 6, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 48, 53, 60, 61, 65, 148, 150, 152, 177, 301, 304, 306, 314

anaphora 137

Syrian Orthodox 32, 38, 42, 45, 47, 62, 65, 67, 72; see also Jacobite

Syrians 203

Syro-Christian 9

at - T abari, Abu ’!-Hasan ' All Sahl Rabban 50

tafiq 30, 31, 158

tahrif (falsification of the scriptures) 8, 30, 31, 62, 157, 158, 219, 303, 335

takafu’ al-adilla (religious truth) 26

Takrit 1, 34, 41, 42, 43, 58, 152, 162, 217, 337

taqsim 30, 31, 158

tawhid (monotheistic belief) 8, 24 testimonia 303

Thomas Aquinas 11

Timothy I, Nestorian Catholicos 22, 27, 28, 43, 55, 193, 348

•irhan district 58, 159

Topics VIII (Aristotle) see Aristotle

Torah 5, 53, 57, 71, 117, 139, 141, 143, 145, 205, 231, 281, 299, 301, 303, 3(3 308-332

Traditionalists 80

Trinity 3-8, 11, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57-64, 69, 70, 71, 73, 81, 83, 101, 109, 115, 117, 119, 147-220, 269, 275, 299, 301-305, 309, 349, 350 begetter 189, 201, 213, 215, 265, 267, 275

begotten 113, 115, 189, 201, 213, 215, 245, 263, 265, 273, 353 procession 113, 115, 189, 215 property (ofpersons in the Trinity) 107, 111, 181, 189, 195, 201, 227

Trinitarian 5, 10, 11, 53, 219

Trinitarian economy 11

Trlagton 619

Tritheism 7, 8

Tumamah ibn al-Aas (an-Numary!) al- Ba?rl, Abo Ma'an 40, 55, 62, 155, 336-7, 341, 343

Twelve Thrones 283

Twelve Tribes of Israel 283

'Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, Umayyad governor 12

'ulama’ 80

'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz ('Umar II, Umayyad caliph) 17, 77, 361

'Umar ibn al-Hatta b (Umar I, caliph) 18

'Umayr ibn Sa'd al'An^ar! 21

Umayyad 12, 15, 16, 17, 77

umma (؛mam) 26 15 3

uqnum (aqamm) 67, 355 see also hypostasis

vardapet (teacher) 36, 37, 43, 46-48

veneration of images 6

Virgin Mary 127, 227

al-Walid b. 'Abd al-Malik, Umayyad caliph 19

al-Warraq, Abo 'Isa 3, 28, 50, 5

Wai b. 'Ata 49

Western Syriac community 34

Wisdom 165, 179, 183, 300, 302, 317

Word of God 10, 80, 113, 119, 127, 205,

207, 225, 235, 237, 302, 313

Yatrib (Madinat an-Nabi, “City of the Prophet”) 13

Yemen 300

Yol annan Sedra,Jacobite Patriarch of

Antioch 21

zakat (alms tax) 16, 17

zanadiqa (unbelievers) 49

Zion 129,319

Zoroastrians 13, 46, 47, 76

1 ۶raf: read 1 2 بدا S 3 اعتمنة Graf: read 4 يخلو Graf: read 5 يرجو Graf:

read تواطؤ

71 S 71 72 ضلالت Text is corrupt. Graf suggests this to replace 73        الى تكميل Graf:

read ترون

77 Graf: read 77 78 تترجى S 79 ذكر لما طالت Text is corrupt here. 80 Correct

to تعظيمنا.

I P I 2 الاولة P3 المعتلى S 4 والطاغوة PS 5 با,لله P ج اعتلائه Graf: read

7 .بهيئة P 8 ابعى S الكرة 9 وقلمت

اللثة

read المراء

116 Graf: read 116 117 ابتداء Graf: 118        مبتذى Graf: read 119 ابتداء Graf:

120 الحجاد S omits 121 فما اجبتم S عن ما

1 P reverses the heading: 1 2 فى التجمد الرسالة الخ S add. لانها Graf: a half

line is left blank. On the margin 3 هكذا وجدت P مسايلكم

5 Graf: read المشيئة passim. 5 6 P 7 يكلما Graf: read 8 التراءى Graf: read

9 تراءى S omits. ,٥ Graf: unusual form for منطيق passim. H P omits. ,2 P

13 فانه Pءلى

52 المستعار S واذ

90 S omits. 90 91 S 92 سالوا S 93 كان اجمل وافضل Graf: read 94 يدعو S

omits. 95 S 96 اتو P التزوج

43 PS,        البس 42 S, كانه 4, Sل يلطفوا 40 PSا        .38 PSomit, والد S ;ولد 38 P,

الاخره 145 P لم 43 44 PSل للاب

152 له Graf: read 153 تلاميذا S 154 فظهرة PS 155        عنوا S انما

87ا        الخطيط? 87 88ا ائها ? 185 مخطرة 84ا S 168 ليدلك S

170        يقح Graf: وعادتهم? 171 كثرت

omits. 234 S يناله

read 240        تأتى Unclear. p ا٠دذالى ; S صلا

8 S 8 9 يبيعهم S ٥,        فعند S in margin.اول سوال ابراهيم لبه قال خمون. H S

adds 12 نرل P 15        وغامور S 14 .من يدى Graf: read 5؛ .'ندن P الذى

40 الماء S 4 الغماء, S 42 الملطون Graf: 43 وسرآ S 44 وللمحبوسين S

ليرعوا

1 This edition does not include notes found in Graf from Za, since the

المقالة الحادية عبر احتت© عبد دش© 2 O at printed text are un٣wn٠؛sources of t عبدوشع المبر'ان سعنو6 ٠ اعذد٢حدوزراألسرى O ث ٠ ٠٥; O© ١بورابطه 3 O ولن كعتم! ؤدي عير! ذك ٥O adds؛ يخلوا٦ 9 OR ١له 8 O ’موبذد 7 R 15 O adds هده المقايسة 14 O adds اله ه 13 O يخلوا 12 OR علي n O adds ابو قرة اسقف الملكية O        علي ذات الخصوص ومتي يلزم ههدا يلزمه O        مع هده ,,العمو؛

اله 20 O ا0        داف ٠الالهية 18R O

---

[1]        I.e., the Gospels.

[2]        Cf. Lk 12:4-5

[3]        Cf. Mt 5:42

[4]        Cf. Mt 10:19

[5] S ادعاركم P 2٥ من ايوحانية 8 S, ما اقراركم 8 S, قضاء 7 Graf: read,

[6] The citations found in the manuscripts of 'Abd al-MaSil ibn Ishaq توحيد .al-Kindi of this text begin here

[7]        I.e., Christians and Muslims.

[8]        Cf. Sura 29:46.

[9]        Ar.هخ ماهيخ. According to Kazimirski, this is a fgureof speech, coming from the commandfor a camel to kneel down (A. de Biberstein Kazimirski, Dic- tionnaire Arabe-Franfais, 4 tomes [Caire: Impr. V.R. Egyptienne, A. Boulec, 1875), IV/779). See also Graf, Abu Raitah, 130/4, n. 2.

[10]        I.e., those who search for the truth.

[11],٥ I.e., this should be thrown to the winds and abandoned.

[12]n Arabic: their description.

[13] S 32 تنطرم S 33 جواب Graf: 34 لم P واحدا

[14]        Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 5.6 [1016b-1017a] (Metaphysics. Books I-IX, vol. 17, trans, by Hugh Tredennick, The Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: St. Edmundsbury Press Ltd., 1933, repr. 1996]). Abu Ra'itah does not include analogy in his list here, probably because it is problematic for many of his Muslim opponents.

[15]        The Trinity and Incarnation are considered in the Qur’an to be innovation and exaggeration. Cf. Sura 4:171; 5:72, 77, 46:9, etc.

[16]        I.e., that Christians agree with Muslims and therefore should convert to Islam.

[17]        Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 5.6 [1016b].

[18]        Sura 112:4. Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 5.6 [1016b].

[19] PS add. 36 ام Graf: 37        تعبون S 39 غير غير؟ 38 كلامكم S omits

[20]٠٠ئ S 41 فالأ ما P 42 يحالف هذا Graf’s acc٦epta٠nGe of the correctio؛١n

[21]’s manuscript of يعم for يغير appears to be correct. 43 S 44 يصف' Graf:

[22]read واحدا

[23]        Cf. the example of the man and the animal in Aristotle, Metaphysics 5.6 [1016b].

[24]        The Arabic فى الجوهر واحدا is the equivalent of dpoouaio؛ here.

[25]        I.e., the philosophers.

[26]        Cf. Aristotle, Categories 5 [2a-2b] (IThe Categories. On Interpretation. Prior Ana

[27]lytics, vol. I., trans. and ed. by Harold P. Cooke and Hugh Tredennick, The Loeb

[28]Classical Library [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William

[29]Heinemann, 1983]).

[30] S omits 46 فى الجوهر Graf: read 47 يأتى Graf: read 48 يعدوا Graf:

[31]2, Abu Ra'itah's approach here is similar to the Cappadocian arguments, particularly those of Basil. Cf. Ep. 8 {PG 32, col. 248 [TCP, 272]).

[32]        Such numerical “proofs” are common in patristic texts, although this particular one may be original to Abu Ra'itah. Griffith points out that a more extensive explanation is found in the Syriac apology of Nonnus of Nisibis: “One is an odd number, but two is an even number. While three is even and odd at the same time, one even [digit], and one odd [digit]. Every number above three, either does not preserve this completeness of the species of numbers (e.g., four is two even numbers, and there is no odd number; while five, even though it includes an odd number, also has two even numbers.) or, if they somewhere preserve the appearance [i.e., of the completeness of number], they are doubled, and they procdeed to an infinite magnitude without cause.” Van Roey, Nonnus, 7-8, as translated by Griffith in “Abu Ra'itah,” 181.

[33]        There appears to be a word missing here. Kindi has added اهى.

[34]        Cf. this distinction in Basil, Contra Eunomius (PG 29, cols. 497ff.)

[35]        Cf. Aristotle, Categories 1-4.

[36] Graf: read 50 برأ S 51 مما S 52 على غير S omits 53 ما S بل ان يغارق

[37]        Cf. Aristotle, Categories 7 [6a].

[38]        At this point in the text, the term صفة begins to take on the specific philosophical meaning of ‘attribute’, rather than simply ‘description’. The remainder of the translation will employ the term most appropriate to the context.

[39] S 55 فان Graf: read 56 ناقمين Graf: read 57 يبرأ S 58 انا نقول Graf:

[40]        The switch to third person plural (يزعموا) in the Arabic text appears to be a copiest’s error.

[41]        Cf. Sura 36:81-82

[42] Here the excerpts found in al-Kindi end. 60 S 61 هكذى P omits 62 ولا S

[43]adds ج,6 لان كل مدروك هدروك Graf: read 64 يدعو S 65 وهذه S 66 انها S

[44]67 ينبون S omits. افيكون, ه

[45]        The worship of anything other than the One God is explicitly rejected by the Qur'an (Sura 6:22-23, 163; 17:111, etc.).

[46]3, Ar.امر. Previously, the text uses شىء.

[47] Graf: 70 الهادة Graf: read 71 ملائمة Graf: read 72 بلى P add. 73 متسق P

[48]74 اضو Graf: 75 ببنه Graf: read 76 الضواء S omits.

[49] S روا 2 Sه!        دم 101 S        فا٠ديذوذا :00 Grafث        لعض٠م 99 S

[50]ناً 105 S مشيئته 04 Graff, read! يستت

[51]        I.e., never conflicted within oneself.

[52]        Among others, Graf notes this analogy is found in the disputations of the monk Abraham of Tiberias and the Catholicos Timothy I, as well as in the anonymous Tract on the Trinity and the writings of Abu Qurrah (Abu Raitah, 131/19, n.1).

[53] S وحواة 114 اولاس 3 Sا        للذى 112 S من غير m S الشمس no S

واوضحنا

[54]        Abu Ra'itah employs the Arabic حال (state) here instead of نحو (mode) to express what is meant by rpono؟ bpxcw؟ (mode of existence.) The reasons for his use of it are twofold. First, it communicates more concretely the idea of a property as a state of the divinity. Further, Arabic grammarians defined it as that which is predicated of a subject when it is specified by a particular attribute (Griffith, “Abu Ra'itah”, 185, esp. n. 91).

[55]        Such arithmological proofs are common in the writings of pagans and Christians alike before the modern period. In general, they can be traced through NeoPlatonism to one or more of the writings of Plato, particularly the Timaeus. Although the source of this reference has not been identified, similar arguments are found throughout the Parmenides of Plato and in Aristotle’s De Caelo, 1.1 [268a-268b]. Aristotle attributes the insight that the world and everything in it is determined by the number three to the Pythagoreans. This is because three includes a beginning,

[56]middle, and end, and consequently, the gods are worshipped with the triad. Many of these ideas would have been familiar to Abu Ra'itah's readers. Cf. Christopher Butler, Number Symbolism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970), esp. 22-44 and Nincent Foster Hopper, Media Number Sumbofismt Its Sources, Meaning, and Influence on Thought and Expression (Morningside Heights, NY: Columbia University Press, 1938), esp. 1-42.

[57]        Gen 1:26

[58]        The speaker here is God, not Moses.

[59]        Gen 2:18

[60]        Gen 3:22

[61]        Gen 11:7

[62]        Dan 4:31

[63]        Sura 2:34, 35, 37; etc.

[64]        Sura 15:26, 85; etc.

[65]        Sura 10:24; 11:40; etc.

[66]        Sura 4:173; 7:117; etc.

[67]        Sura 6:6; 10:13; etc.

[68]        Sura 7:137; 26:172; etc.

[69] Graf: التوبة 42 P,        .تكلتى 14° Somits. ,41 S تعظيم 38 S, تعظيم 138 S

[70]الاهك 145 S وهو 144 S تراءى read

[71]        Gen 18:1-3

[72]        Deut 6:4

[73]        Ps 33:6

[74]        Ps 56:10

[75]        Ps 110:1

[76]        Ps 107:20

[77]        Is 48:16

[78]        Is 6:3

[79]        Cf. Sara 4:46; 5:13,41; 2:75

[80] Graf: read 50ا ملائماً P 151 تظليلكم S واحدا لاختلاف

[81]        Abu Ra'itah assumes a desire within theJewish community for fidelity to the original revelation, even if there is an attempt to mislead others. The Qur’an, however, claims that the revelation was distorted almost immediately after its rev- elatin to Moses, and that no authentic copy was preserved (cf. Sura 5:13, 41; 2:7576; 4:46).

[82]        Cf. Sura 2:75; 4:46; 5:13,41.

[83] S omits 55ا        لم S 56ا اذ Graf: reading unclear. S 57ا        الرقاب Prepeats

[84]يعض) العددا وهو كامل يذاته)

[85]        Text unclear: Sbath gives الرقاب (“persons”); Graf corrects with الرباب.

[86]        S: and glory forever! and we shall make plain the second teaching, if God wills, exalted is His remembrance!

[87] Griffith, “Abu Ra’itah,” 191-192.

[88] Keating, “Talf.”

[89]        This distinction is made in Aristotle, Categories 5 [2a] with regard to primary and secondary substances.

[90]        This argument is directed against any suggestion of modalism.

[91] P 15 تنونه Graf: read فى instead of 16 لا S 17        نصف Graf: add اذ

[92]        لا is certainly incorrect (Graf, 131, p. 41, ftn. 3).

[93]        Cf. Sura 4:171; 5:78; 9:30-31; 112:1

[94]        These examples are common among Monophysite writers. The comparison with union between the human soul and body is especially favored, and was developed by Severus of Antioch. Griffith, “Abu Ra'itah,” 193. Cf. Joseph Lebon, “La christologie du monophysisme syrien,” pp. 425-580, in: Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Aloys Grillmeier u. Heinrich Bacht, Band I: Der Glaube on Oialkedon Wtoburg'. Echter-Verlag, 1951) and Le monophysisme stttn.'. It de ائ1لأ1,او5ا0اأا ett ologiqte st la.isi.stat e monophystte atcoac lie de Oialc loine jtsq’d la constitution de l’eglise jacobite (Louvain: Excudebat Josephus van Linthout, 1909).

[95]        That is, the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in creatures. If applied to the Incarnation, this would lead to some form of adoptionism.

[96]        لا is missing in Graf.

[97] P repeats 1 ان PS 32 محيط S better 33 بل كل واحد S نجدة', P

[98]تجتدب

[99]        The contrast is being made here between those things that are contained when they are embodied in something else and those things that are not contained when they are embodied. Abu Ra'itah is arguing that some things, like fire, can be embodied in something else, like coal, but not limited or contained by it.

[100] PS وحقيق and passim. 35 P فرقنا جوهرنا; S 36 فرقناً جوهرنا Graf: read

[101]37        فرق P 38 فانه P 39 وكالفعل P 49 اقتصار S بانها

[102]        I.e., the questions that are being asked.

[103],٥ Through God’s authority humanity is endowed with free will and selfdetermination.

[104] God could not have justly rewarded human beings for following Him if He had not become incarnated as a human being, since then human beings would not have participated in the plan for their own salvation.

[105] S 49 فالموت PS 50 الميتين Graf: better 51        المستعار Graf: better

[106],2 Error in the manuscripts: من for ل.

[107] PS 54 افتقادهم Somits. 55 S 56 ولما Graf: read 57 يدعو S 58 لرافته S

[108]م بتجسدة S فصاراً

[109] Cf. Sura 3:33-34; 4:165; 5:19; 6:83-88

[110],4 Cf. Sura 23:23-50; 34:43-45

[111],5 Cf. Sura 14:10-13; 16:43-44; 21:7-9; 25:7-8

[112] ?63 موه"ة 62 مخالغتة,ج من يعد Graf: 65 كحال؟ 64 المتجد S

[113]omits. 66 Graf: read 67 معترى S repeats 68 يبصره Graf: read 69 المعى P

[114]70 حواسكم S omits.

[115] This is meant sarcastically.

[116] P الاعما, Graf: read 72 العمى S 73 موة S 74 نحال The following text

[117]until كما وصفنا is cited in the florilegium Confession of the Fathers (Vat. ar. 101, f.

[118]375r). 75 V 76 قيل V 77 مات V 78 يفراق V 79 من حسده V متحد لها دائماً ابدا

[119]80 S كالنمو

[120] Graf: 82 كثيرة PS 83 وانيته S 84 فالنمو S 85 حقق P 86 العقين P

[121]87 فان P 88 عليها P 89 نعاين Graf: read المرش

[122] Sbath ms.

[123]        I.e., contained or bounded.

[124]        Sura 2:256

[125]        Graf correctly adds لا.

[126] P 113 فلووصغه Graf: read 114 هتين P115 وارد P 116 ولودياً S 117 ولدة P

[127]ج11 متبديه S 119 ينفى P ه12        متبدية Sf

[128]        I.e., adopt him.

[129]        Cf. Sura 2:111; 3:42, etc.

[130]        A creature who submits to the Creator.

[131]        Omitted in Sbath.

[132]        Missing in the Arabic text.

[133]        Following Sbath; Graf: you.

[134]        Creaturely fathers and sons are only called so derivatively, since fatherhood and sonship are from God, and according to Christian understanding, reflect the relations of the Trinity in a limited way, not vice versa.

[135]        I.e., human being.

[136]        Jn 20:17

[137]3, Similar toJn 14:28.

[138]        Mk 13:32

[139]        Mt 20:23

[140]        Cf. Mt 27:47

[141]        Jn 14:9

[142]        Jn 10:38

[143]        Jn 10:30

[144]        Mt 12:8

[145]        Cf.Jn 13:13

[146]        Cf. Mt 28:18

[147]ا P 47ا        لمناسبه S 148 كان P 149 سار S '15 جديدا° S 151 كا S adds

[148] Jn 8:58

[149] S, الموضع 58 S,        هى 58 S adds,        وتنزهى 57 S,        حق منه ولدة 58 S,

[150]وعليم 162 P        ايديكم 161 S الاهى

[151]        Human beings are favored by God above animals.

[152]        Stia.

[153]        I.e., in social class.

[154]        I.e., in authority.

[155]        Jn 5:23

[156] Graf: read 173 عرا P 174 من Prepeats 1 ولا        P 176 مكرهم Graf: read

[157]اخفاؤه

[158]        This is a defense of the notion of divine pedagogy and the legitimacy of speculative theology against the Islamic idea that God has sent only one unchanging revelation to all people.

[159]        Christ is remembered in the Christian act of veneration. The exclamation is probably to be understood within the context of the contemporary debate over the veneration of icons. See Proof 38-39.

[160]        God knows that if the details of future events are made known, they will cause great suffering for human beings; therefore, He only reveals or keeps hidden those things that are necessary for the benefit of humanity.

[161]        Mk 13:32

[162]        I.e.,        God.

[163]        I.e.,        human        beings.

[164]        The        text is        unclear here.

[165]        I.e., He is only a creature.

[166] S, هل انا نقول نقع 185 S انفى 84 Graf: read, فاناة 83, المناني 82 S,

[167]ساكيا او ميرا omits. 1        Text is corrupted in the manuscript. ,88 P

[168]        Human beings. The emphasis in the following lines is on the great difference between creatures and Creator, servants and Master.

[169]        The Qur’an.

[170]        Sura 20:44

[171]        Sta 60W

[172]        The question is from God directed to 'I (Jesus), son of Maryam.

[173]        Sura 5:116

[174]        Manuscript is corrupt here.

[175] S 190 واذا S 191 صن P 192 محبه P محبه ; S 193 بمجيه S 194 اذا Error

[176]here: probably تبعمناك not 195 .تبعناك S وكذلك

[177]        I.e., proof or demonstration.

[178]        Similar to Lk 22:31

[179]        Mt 19:27-28

[180] S 97ا واذا ٠ ٠ ٠ سالتمانى Graf: read 198 ابدى Graf: read 199 ابدى Graf:

[181]read ادعى

[182]        Sura 74:38

[183]        Cf. Sura 18:110.

[184]        That Christ’s body is not a true fleshly body, but only appears to be so. A reference to the Docetists.

[185] S 201 شهدة P 202 ايو S 203        اوربلتم S 204 ثك S 205        وثلث S

[186]ة20 امض S ط اصلب S م تخلف Graf: read تعطى

[187]        Cf. Sura 2:87; 4:157.

[188]        Cf. Mt 16:21; Lk 18:31-33.

[189]        Cf. Mt 16:22-23.

[190]        Jon 1-2

[191] P ه21        ثلث S 211 وثلاث P omits.

214 S 215 الموة P 216 مكروه Graf: read برضى

[192]        Literally, “the pit”.

[193]        Mt 12:39-40

[194]        Jn 12:24

[195]        That is, they complied and did not try to stop what He had consented to.

[196]        In the following passage, Abu Ra'itah is examining the active and passive forms of the verb.

[197] Graf: better 2,20 غير ما S 221 وكذلك S 222        لفبلهم P 223        للقتل S

[198]224 واحد Graf: read على, as in the following phrase. 225 S كنحو

[199]        Literally, “from them”.

[200]        In His sight; that is, in His judgement.

[201]        Arabic is “the one killed”.

[202]        That is, the suffering inflicted by a killer is different from the suffering received by the one killed.

[203] Graf٦ read و لاتراء and passi227 .؟ S 228 وبالمفعول S 229 امنيتم P

[204]230 شياً S ا23 تقرؤون Graf: reTd لاءتلاء ; P 232 ٠لاقلى S 233 منهملة P

[205]        Can slander affect God?

[206]        The Qi 11

[207]        Sura 4:50; 5:103; 10:60, 69; 16:116

[208] والموة 8 35ئ ps 237 كتيرا P 233 المتوج Graf: read 239        ناتى Graf:

[209]        Sura 2:61; 4:155

[210]        Manuscript is unclear here

[211]        Beginning here, “you” is singular, refering to the “brother” mentioned throughout.

[212]        Sbath-, Biblti&que,116>.

[213]        Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 130/iii, 131/iii.

[214]        Most of the manuscripts which were thought to have been early translations have now been positively dated much later. Arthur V٥٥bus, Early Versions of the New Testament: Manuscript Studies, Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 6 (Stockholm: [Estonian Theological Society in Exile], 1954), 271-277.

[215]        Griffith, “Gospel,” 128.

[216]        Ibid., 131-134; see also Sidney H. Griffith, “The Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic,” The Muslim World 78, no. 1 January 1988): 1-28.

[217]        HavaLazarus-Yfeia, iCThJittiedWoilds '.MdiroallslamandBibleC'rtiCiiism princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 118.

[218]        V٥٥bus, Early Versions, 277-280. V٥٥bus suggests that this is evidence that an “archaic translation” of the Gospels in Arabic was available to those who include passages in their Arabic writings (280).

[219]        The verses of Zechariah cited are based on this text of Matthew.

[220]        Graf notes that the text given by Abo Ra'itah is not found in Jeremiah; however, this verse is very similar to it (Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 130/124, n. 9).

[221]        Graf states that the text, “Truly, certainly, God sits upon the Earth” (حفاً يغيناً جلى الله على الارض), is not found in Wisdom (Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/120, n. 6). However, it is similar to this passage in Isaiah.

[222]        Mark Swanson has drawn my attention to the similarity between this text and the so-called ‘testimonia’ found in the Church Fathers. Cf. Martin C. Albl, “And Scrptturre CannotBe Broken”; Hie Formal. Rnionof the Eady Christian Testimonial Collections, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, v. XCVI (Leiden, Boston, K٥ln: Brill, 1999). See my forthcoming article on this topic.

[223]        W = Wttnesses', TTintty, R= Refutation', ؟=Piof

[224],3 It should be borne in mind that at least one, and perhaps two, of Abu Ra’itah’s writings on the Incarnation have been lost, increasing the likelihood that he employed some of these passages elsewhere.

[225]        Gen 1:2

[226]        It is not clear to what this refers. It may be that this was an appendix to another document.

[227]        Gen 1:26

[228]        Gen 3:22

[229]        Gen 11:7

[230]        Gen 18:1-3

[231]        Gen 19:10-14

[232]        Gen 18:16

[233]        Gloss in the margin of Sbath ms.: The first question of Abraham to God, he said fifty.

[234]        Gen 18:22-32

[235]        Gen 19:24

[236]        Cf. Ex 3:1-6

[237] S adds 17 الرب S omits. 18 S 19 ونورا لسبلى S omits. 20 Graf: add.

[238]حتى اضع اعداك تحت قدميك

[239]        Prov 30:4

[240]        Is 48:16. In the Hebrew version, but not the Septuagint.

[241]        Cf. Dan 4:31

[242]        Dan 7:9-10

[243]        Dan 7:13-14

[244]        Is 7:14

[245] Graf: 28 .يمى Graf: 29 .اللم S ارض

[246]        Is 9:6-7

[247]3, Jer 23:5-6

[248]        Mic 5:2

[249]        Bar 3:36-38

[250]        Citation not found. Cf Ps 4:8

[251]        Zech 6:12

[252]        Hab 3:4

[253] S ,بن حرمته; P omits. In the margin of S in a later hand:. رابطتاً بالكرم جحشه

[254] وفى الكرمة الأنا P بيت; S 32 ابنة S 33 اللام S 34 اعددة Sadds الذى قبل

[255]        Mic 1:3

[256]        Job 19:25

[257]        Ps 68:24

[258]        Gen 49:11. In the margin of Sbath in a later hand: “tying to the vine His donkey foal and to the grapevine the donkey.”

[259]        Zech 9:9-10

[260]        Ps 8:1-2

[261] P 36 وصلوا Graf: read 37 جاوى P حيئيذآ; S '38 حيئيذ Graf: 39 يتبت P

[262]        Is 50:4-7

[263]        Is 35:3-8

[264]        Other manuscripts have mysterion.

[265] PS 46 جاييته PS 47 الارض S omits. 48 Graf: 49 حظايا S 59 للكثير PS

[266]النهب

[267]        Is 49:7-10

[268]        Literally: the child.

[269] Graf: 52 حظايا P مناعب; S 53 مبعاب PS 54 للفطر S 55 الخراف S ج5 سات Graf: 57 اعداءنا S 58 اخلة S الذى

[270]        Is 53:2-12

[271]        Zech 12:10

[272]5٥ Not clear: قطر

[273]        Zech 13:1

[274]        Zech 13:7

[275]        Mic 5:1

[276]        Wis 2:12

[277]        Zech 14:6-7

[278] PS 60 غاموص P omits. 61 S 62 ووجدة P omits.

[279]        Cf. Zech ]]:12-14; Mt 27:10

[280]        Amos 8:9

[281]        Source not known. Cf. 2 Ki 3:19

[282]        Wis 14:7

[283]Is 65:1-2

[284]Ps 16:10

[285]Ps 107:43

[286]Ps 41:9

[287]        Ps 41:5-7

[288]        Ps 69:21

[289]        Ps 68:4

[290]        Ps 68:33

[291]        Ps 68:33-34

[292]        Ps 22:16-17

[293]
76. Ps 88:4

[294]        Not found in the prophets.

[295]        Zeph 3:8

[296]        Ps 68:1

[297]68 من الخمرة P اعدا; S 69        اعسفنا S سبعة

[298]        Ps 78:65

[299]        Ps 118:22-23

[300]        Cf. Ps 63:1-2

[301]        Ps 24:7-8

[302]        Cf. Ps 46:5-6

[303]        Ps 47:8

[304]        Ps 68:18

[305]        Ps 57:5

[306]        Cf. Dan 9:25-26

[307]        Note in Sbath ms.: “The copy from which it was transcribed includes to here where the discussion ends and no other risala is mentioned. In the original copy is a white page as here.”

[308]        Samir, “Libert102-100 ",؛. Samir gives a full examination of the text in this article.

[309]        Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/iii. This text was previously edited by Cheikho, “Honein,” 1/287, trans. 291. Cheikho’s edition was prepared from two manuscripts owned by the Universite St.Joseph in Beirut of Abu Islq al-Mu’taman ad-Dawlah ibn a!-'Assl’s كتاب اصول الدين. The earliest of these can be dated to the 14th or 15th century, the second is not dated, but is written in Garshuni (ibid., 293-284). See GCAL II (1947): 407-414 for a complete list of Ibn al'Assl’s works.

[310]        Cheikho, “Honein,” 284.

[311]        ’ams ar-Riyasah Abu l-Barakat ibn Kabar (c. 1305). See GCAL II (1947), 438-445 for a complete list of his works.

[312]        Thefll title ,reads: قيلز سال يعفى المعتزلة الاب ٠ايا رداح حبيب اين حديئة التكريتى'اليعقو.ى ١لرباذى سفن تكرين من 'كرسى سرح ا۵ يوضح قه دين التع٠راذية من حيث يقبله العقل. Samir, “Liberte,» 99.

[313]        Sbath, Manuscrits, 133-134. Samir notes that he did not consult the manuscript itself.

[314]        The title given by Sbath is: جواب ايى رائطة التكريتى اسقف نعيبين ليمامة المعتزلى عندما ساله عن الدليل على صحة النصرانية

[315]        Samir, “Liberte,” 100, n. 15.

[316]        See GAS I (1967): 615-616 for Tumamah’s known writings.

[317]        See GAL, S. 1, 338-339.

[318]        a!-6aliz is known to have been interested in the teachings of Christianity and wrote his Radd'ala an-nasara as a refutation of them. Cf. Ch. Pellat, “DJAHIZ,” EI2, vol. 2: 385-387.

[319]        Almad ibn Yahya ibn al-Murtada, Kitab al-Milal wa-l-Nihal, T.W. Arnold, ed. (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1902), 35.

[320]        Max Horton, “Thumama b. Alas,” EI2, 8/739-740. For further information, see Max Horten, Die philosophischen Systeme (Bonn: F. Cohen, 1912), 309-317.

[321]        Wensinck, Creed, 225-226.

[322]        Ibid., 224.

[323]        Ibid., 193. This is found in article 16 of the Fiqh Akbar II. For a full explanation and dating of the Fiqh, see ibid., 188-247.

[324]        Abdelmajid Charfi, “La fonction historique de la polemique islamochretienne aAfepoqueabbassA-” fn ClibtanAiabicAjjologet sDiting tlAbbast lPtl (750-1258ا ed. Samir Khalil Samir and Jorgen S. Nielsen, Studies in the History of Religions (Numen Bookseries), vol. LXIII (Leiden, New York, K٥ln: EJ. Brill, 1994), 52-53.

[325], This ecclesiastical title is a mistaken later addition.

[326]        Literally, “demonstrating in it”.

[327]        Read: Tumamah.

[328], They are Bodl. ar. christ. Uri 38, Vat. ar. 1492, and Par. ar. 82. The variations are found in the first of these, which labels the text as “the eleventh treatise” المغالة الحادية عشراً . . . .) (Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 130/163, 131/iii).

[329]        Ms. Hunt. 240 (Bodl. ar. christ. Uri 38) adds عتد احد وردا الشرق-“before one of the Ministers of the East”.

[330]        Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/xxvi-xxvii.

[331]        Griffith, “Abu Ra’itah,” 166. Several of these encounters have been edited and translated into a modern language, including: Nau, “Colloque,” 225-279; Putman, Timothee I; Kurt Vollers, ed., “Das Religionsgesprach vonJerusalem (um 800 D١“، ^itschii, KrchimgeshCchtte 29 f!908١. 29-71, 197-221.

[332]        Gra؟, Ab tRa’ital 131/xxv'A.

[333]        Ffey, Ot لأ2,دساأ0ةاا, Cl 67-65,ة»اا'لآذةئ , Jean-Maurfce Ffey,        sibe".

ا t ojle sqiriaque oriental t SIS stfffagants les origins a nos jours, CSCO 388>, Subsda

54 (Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1977١, 81-82.

[334]        This phrase following.

[335]        Abu Ra'itah rarely uses the term sahs in his other extant writings, nearly afway؟, preferfng tpitm Ityjjostasts].

[336]        Things that cannot be distinguished from each other by separation cannot be counted.