New Book- Philip Stokes, The Linguistic Nature of Early Christian Arabic Literature

Philip Stokes, The Linguistic Nature of Early Christian Arabic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2026).

Abstract

This Element examines the forms of Arabic used by Christians during the early Islamic period in theological treatises and Bible translations. Linguistic analysis of these texts not only clarifies the nature of early Islamic Arabic but also illuminates Christian institutional and intellectual culture. The study challenges common views that Christian authors wrote either flawed Classical Arabic or in substandard
registers. Instead, it demonstrates their Arabic was typical of the early Islamic period. The Element identifies linguistic differences between theological treatises and biblical translations, connecting these to pre-Islamic monastic practices where Greek served theological discourse while Christian Palestinian Aramaic – a local spoken variety written in adapted Syriac script – was used to write texts for lay purposes. After the Muslim conquests, Arabic became the appropriate language for both genres. Christians adapted Arabic, writing deftly and creatively to their literary activities, employing language suited to different audiences and demonstrating sophisticated engagement with emerging Arabic literary registers and traditions.

 This book can be downloaded for free for the next two weeks here. 

Fr Sidney Griffith: Memory Eternal!

Fr Sidney Griffith was virtually the founder of the study of Christian Arabic in English, both as a writer, teacher and interlocutor to many. He will be very deeply missed. 

His department has shared the following announcement with the NASCAS mailing list:

I write with a heavy heart to share the news that Fr. Sidney H. Griffith, Professor Emeritus of Semitics at the Catholic University of America, passed away on July 1, 2026 in Maryland. 

Fr. Griffith was born in 1938 in Gaithersburg, Maryland where he attended school until 1952 when he began studies at the John Carroll High School in Washington, DC. He subsequently joined the Missionary Servants of the Most Holy Trinity and attended the congregation’s minor seminary in Alabama and major seminary in Monroe, Virginia. He was ordained as a priest in 1965. 

In 1965, Fr. Griffith began the first of his many years at the Catholic University of America by earning an M.S. in Library Science and a Licentiate in Sacred Theology the following year (1966). Fr. Griffith then began studies in the Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures where he would remain for the rest of his career. He earned his PhD in Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures in 1978. Fr. Griffith joined the faculty of Catholic University in 1977 and was promoted to ordinary professor in 2001. He held this position until his retirement in 2014. 

Fr. Griffith was internationally renowned as a scholar of Syriac and early Arabic Christianity. His numerous scholarly works include studies of the famous Syriac thinker Ephrem the Syrian, early Syriac asceticism, early Arabic Christian theology, and interreligious dialogue and spirituality. Fr. Griffith was the author of over 130 articles and seven books, including the award-winning The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam (2008); The Bible in Arabic (2013); Yahyā ibn ʿAdī, The Reformation of Morals: A Parallel English-Arabic Text Translated and Introduced (1992); and A Treatise on the Veneration of the Holy Icons Written in Arabic by Theodore Abû Qurrah, Bishop of Harrān (c. 755–c. 830 A. D.) (1997). His Marquette Lecture of 1997 was published as Faith Adoring the Mystery: Reading the Bible with St. Ephraem the Syrian.

Numerous institutions have recognized Fr. Griffith for his work. He was awarded fellowships from Dumbarton Oaks, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Institute for Advanced Studies. From 1986 to 1988 he was President of the North American Patristics Society; he also served as president of the Byzantine Studies Conference (1990–1991) and of the American Oriental Society (2007–2008). In 2009, he received a Rumi Peace Award for his work in interfaith dialogue. For over a decade he was a member of the Eastern Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue and was a frequent participant in various forms of Christian-Muslim dialogue.

Fr. Griffith was a pillar of the Catholic University of America community, having served as chair of the Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures for three terms, as director of the Center for the Study of Early Christianity from 1984–1999, and as secretary of the Institute of Christian Oriental Research for decades. He trained numerous graduate students in the languages and literatures of the Christian Near East, many of whom went on to become notable scholars in the field.

Colleagues, students, and friends remember Fr. Griffith for his engaging conversations and his scholarly generosity. Fr. Griffith was always eager to work through a text with students or colleagues, sharing their curiosity and offering insights from his immense learning. His generosity, knowledge, and humility will be missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him. 

 

Ecumenism in 18th Century Egypt: Mas'ad Nashw and the Copts

 

The descendent of an old Coptic family who at some point had settled in Damascus and converted to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, the priest Masʿad Nashw first came to prominence in the circle of Arabic-speaking intellectuals in the entourage of the Patriarch Sylvester of Antioch. In 1744, he arrived in Egypt where he became oikonomos of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, managing the small church's day-to-day affairs during the frequent absences of the patriarch.

 

The Orthodox of Egypt were subject to the same intense pressures from Latin missionaries as their brethren in Syria, so in order to protect his flock, Masʿad wrote a large number of apologetic treatises and addressed pastoral issues caused by the missionaries in his impressive homiletic corpus. He also worked closely with the Greek theologian Eustratios Argenti, translating some of his works into Arabic, which Sylvester then printed in Wallachia.

 

In contrast to his strident opposition to the missionaries, who posed an acute existential threat to his flock, Mas'ad takes a very nuanced but sympathetic attitude toward the Copts. This is expressed in detail in a letter he wrote to one of his parishioners who asked him to explain the difference between the two communities, which, as he says, "on the one hand isn't anything at all, but on the other hand is very great..."

 

This article presents Mas'ad's previously-unpublished letter for the first time in an English translation.

Read it here. 

New Open-Access Book: The Role of Italian Presses in Early Arabic Printing

 

The Role of Italian Presses in Early Arabic Printing:

Third Volume of Collected Works of the TYPARABIC Project

 

Edited by Octavian Negoiță and Ioana Feodorov

About this book:

This volume contains the proceedings of the fourth TYPARABIC Conference, held in Venice between May 27–29, 2025, together with a selection of additional studies on the religious and intellectual history of Arabic-speaking communities in the Ottoman Levant, that resulted from earlier team conferences. It documents a significant moment of scholarly exchange while offering a varied contribution to the study of Arabic print culture and Church history.

The conference papers concentrate on the Italian connection in the development of Arabic printing in 18^th-century Europe and the Near East. They analyze the technical, commercial, and ecclesiastical networks that linked Italian printing centers – above all Venice – with Levantine and Eastern European presses, emphasizing the circulation of type, texts, and craftsmen. The additional contributions expand the thematic scope of the volume by addressing theological debates and cultural interactions within Arabic-speaking Christianity. Through focused case studies, they place Eastern Christians within the wider Ottoman and Mediterranean contexts, highlighting patterns of exchange, adaptation, and intellectual continuity. Taken together, the essays provide a coherent and methodologically rigorous account of the dialogue between print, theology, and cross-cultural connections in the 18^th-century Ottoman Levant.

 

 

The book can be downloaded for free here. 

 

 

Antioch's First Encounter with Latin Missionaries: The Response of Anastasius ibn Mujalla

 Antioch's First Encounter with Latin Missionaries: The Response of Anastasius ibn Mujalla

In the early 1580s, Jesuits initially sent to the Levant to reform the Maronite Church attempted to exploit divisions in the Patriarchate of Antioch to their own advantage. This resulted in a series of exchanges where Latin missionaries attempted to convince the Orthodox to accept the Council of Florence and the Gregorian calendar, while the Orthodox were forced, for the first time in a century and a half, to define their faith and identity in relation to Rome and the wider world.

 

After returning from a journey to Russia, the Patriarch Joachim Daw tasked his disciple, the Metropolitan of Tripoli Anastasius ibn Mujalla with writing a detailed response. While Ibn Mujalla’s response relies heavily on earlier Byzantine and Christian Arabic apologetic literature, he places his community, which he calls “the Melkite Rum,” within a globe-spanning communion made up of “Rum, Russians, Georgians, Wallachians, Serbs, Moldavians, Turks [i.e., the Turkish-speaking Orthodox of Anatolia], Arabs and others in various places,” who, “despite the remoteness of their countries from each other and the differences in their language” are united in dogma, ritual and practice. Moreover, Anastasius places great emphasis on Antioch’s Petrine and Apostolic foundation to demonstrate that Rome cannot claim apostolic or Petrine support for any innovations.

 

Read the entire text in my translation here. 

 

Germanos Farhat on Euthymius Sayfi

 One of the most remarkable Arab Christian men of letters of the 18th century was the Maronite bishop of Aleppo Germanos (before his consecration, Gabriel) Farhat (d. 1732). Author of an extremely popular collection of poetry, he also wrote a number of works on grammar, rhetoric and theology and closely collaborated with the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch Athanasius Dabbas in his translation and publishing activities to improve their level of literary Arabic. One of his most unusual books, however, is the Register of Heresies (Dīwān al-Bidaʿ), a list of every heretic he knew of, organized by century. Strongly influenced by Counterreformation heresiography,  the cast of characters is remarkably wide: not only Arius, Macedonius and Sebellius, Nestorius and Dioscorus, but also Luther, Melanchthon, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Even Raymond Llull (today considered a 'blessed' by Rome) makes an appearance. Unsurprisingly, there are quite a few Orthodox and Byzantine figures. St Mark of Ephesus, Hesychasm, and St Gregory Palamas all receive detailed treatments, but so does Barlaam of Calabria.  The most historically valuable information, however, is found in the entries for three of Germanos' contemporaries: the metropolitan of Sidon and father of the Melkite Catholic Church Euthymius Sayfi, Patriarch Athanasius Dabbas, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem Chrysanthos Notaras.

Below is a translation of the entry for Euthymius Sayfi, made from ms Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale 32, ff. 197r-200v.

The origins of this Euthymius are in Baalbek. He was raised in Damascus in the Roman faith with the Jesuits. His name was Michael, then he was ordained bishop for the city of Sidon and took the name Euthymius. He was of upright faith and zealous to spread the Roman faith among the sect [milla] of the schismatic Rum, especially among his flock, and he returned many to knowledge of the Roman faith. He had an eloquent tongue, was much-read, and had studied histories, however he was impudent and had a boldness that outran his tongue, because it was his nature to be very proud and to seek advancement and praise, to be hypocritical in front of people, and to be famous. Such a one as this will not escape blame and reproach. For this reason, he was embroiled in many conflicts, both within his own denomination and outside it, and he came to be hated by everyone, especially since he wanted to win over the schismatic Rum of his denomination and bring them to the Roman faith by means that are not permitted, with which the holy Roman Church would not be pleased. That is, he started to change the customs, rituals and rites of the Rum in a manner that he was not legally allowed to do.

First of all, he permitted the Rum to eat fish during fasts when the eating of fish is not permitted. Second, he allowed the monks of the Rum to eat meat, something that is forbidden to Eastern monks as a mortal sin. Third, he toyed with the abstinences—that is, he shortened the abstinence of the Apostles, the abstinence of Our Lady, and the abstinence of Nativity. Fourth, he removed cheesefare week which is before the Great Fast and permitted meat to be eaten during it. Fifth, he removed zeon from the liturgy—that is, the hot water that the priest mixes with the Blood before communing. Sixth, he removed the invocation of the Holy Spirit [i.e., the Epiclesis] from the liturgy. Seventh, he shortened the Entrance and removed some prayers from the liturgy, disturbing the rite and rituals of the Rum from top to bottom.

He said that all these things are the idol of the Rum which prevents them from accepting the Roman faith. Here I must smash this idol and this is pure error on his part. First, because these things are ancient, received from the holy fathers. Second, the Roman Church does not permit the ancient rites and customs to be changed, but rather rejects novelty.

On account of this, a great schism and indescribable disturbance was created among the Rum of Sidon, Damascus and the villages and countries dependent on them. The majority were inclined toward the extensive change, especially the peasants, and they called Euthymius their prophet. The Rum were divided in many places into parties, some with him and some against him, some following the customs of the Latins and some following others’ customs, especially the Rum of Damascus, who went their different ways.  

Truly, had this bishop called people to the Roman faith without changing rites and customs, he would have done a lot of good, been of more benefit, and returned to the holy Church many of his Rum community, for whom customs and rituals are at the level of religion.

When word the changes and substitutions that Euthymius had made in the rites and customs of the Rum reached the Holy Congregation [i.e., the Propaganda Fide] through the missionaries, it was not at all pleased. Indeed, it wrote him two or three times or more to restore what he had changed, but Euthymius refused and he did not obey the Apostolic See in what it commanded him. Instead, he said, “We obey the Apostolic See in matters of faith alone. As for matters of customs and rituals, we are not obliged to obey the Romans.” He erred in this to the point of heresy. He missed what the Apostles James said, “He who keeps the whole law but stumbles in one thing is guilty of the whole” [cf. James 2:10], for God wants obedience from us, not sacrifice [cf. 1 Samuel 15:22]. The error of the schismatics is none other than this: their lack of obedience to the Apostolic See. For this reason, Euthymius hated the missionaries very much, especially the Jesuits, because they rebuked him over this and disputed with him. As we see it, Euthymius brought the Rum out of schism by one route and returned them to it by another.

Nevertheless, when his death approached while he was in Damascus, he asked the missionaries to confess him, but none of them accepted his confession. Then he called a second time for the Jesuits, whom he hated on account of the truth. The zealous father Claudius Girine [? كلوديوس جيرين] went to him saying—as this missionary told me personally—“I have not accepted your confession because you oppose the command of the Apostolic See. If you obey, I will confess you.” That is, “Give me confirmation that if you live now, you will return the rites and customs of the Rum to how they had been at first, as the Apostolic See commanded you.” At that point, he declared his obedience to the command of the Roman Church and that honorable missionary father confessed him.

Then the holy reverend father, the Jesuit priest François-Louis Pousset [? فرنسيس لودويكوس بوسسي] also came and took his affirmation of the holy Roman faith a second time and communed him the body of our Lord Jesus Christ as a viaticum. He died as a true believer in 1723.

Phillip Stokes: A Multipolar Approach to Early Christian Arabic

Phillip W. Stokes, A Multipolar Approach to Early Christian Arabic: Vatican Arabic Ms 13 in the Linguistic Landscape of Early Islam (Cambridge: Faculty of Asian and Middle-Eastern Studies, 2026).

This volume offers the most comprehensive linguistic analysis to date of Vatican Arabic MS 13, a late 9th/early 10th-century Arabic Gospel manuscript. Combining meticulous quantitative study with wide-ranging comparative evidence, this book provides an in-depth examination of the manuscript's orthography, phonology, morphology, morpho-syntax, and syntax. Through extensive charts, tables, and multiple interpretive frameworks, the author illuminates how linguistic features pattern across every dimension relevant to accurate analysis.

Crucially, the study does not treat MS 13 in isolation. Its features are systematically compared with those of other Christian Arabic manuscripts, Quranic traditions, medieval Arabic registers, early poetry, and modern dialects. This contextualised approach situates the manuscript within the rich linguistic diversity of medieval Arabic and challenges long-standing assumptions about 'Middle Arabic' and 'Classical Arabic'. By demonstrating that many features of MS 13 align with broader scribal and linguistic practices of the period, the book makes a compelling case against the notion that scribes worked towards a single, unified register or variety. Rather, they drew creatively and pragmatically from a diverse repertoire of features and linguistic traditions, revealing a far more dynamic and multifaceted approach to written composition than previously recognised.

An outstanding and field-shaping contribution, this volume provides an essential model for future work on Christian Arabic, medieval Arabic varieties, and the history of Arabic more broadly.

Download this book in open-access here.

Radu Dipratu: The ʿarżuḥāls of Sylvester, Patriarch of Antioch

Radu Dipratu, "The ʿarżuḥāls of Sylvester, Patriarch of Antioch: Negotiating church affairs with the sublime porte in the first half of the 18th Century."

 

Abstract

While persecutions endured by non-Muslims under the “Turkish yoke” still represent a common trope both in the public perception and in certain academic circles in Orthodox-majority countries today, recent scholarly work has offered more nuanced approaches to the history of the Orthodox Churches under Ottoman rule. Making use of the rich information provided by Ottoman archival sources, this paper examines several unpublished documents from the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul, representing petitions (ʿarżuḥāl ) submitted by Sylvester, the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch (1724–1766). It is no surprise that an important theme of these petitions concerned the conflict between the Orthodox and Catholic factions in Greater Syria, the latter being recently energised by the election of a separate patriarch in 1724, in the person of Cyril VI, and the establishment of an independent Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate. While previous studies have highlighted the crucial help that Sylvester received from the other Orthodox Patriarchs in Istanbul and Jerusalem in having his seat recognised by Ottoman authorities, the ʿarżuḥāls examined in this paper showcase Sylvester’s own agency in negotiating Church affairs with the Porte. Either demanding imperial commands to reinforce his election as patriarch or to prevent Orthodox Christians from converting to Catholicism and imprisoning his rivals, Sylvester made full use of his position in the Ottoman administrative apparatus by using state-sanctioned practices to solve inter-confessional struggles. The paper argues that the Ottoman Empire provided a legal and administrative framework in which Orthodox Churches were not merely compelled to function under duress, but one which they found advantageous and from which they sought legitimisation for their own factional struggles.

Read the entire article here.

Fr Alexander Treiger: Patriarch Athanasius III of Alexandria's Arabic Encyclical Epistle (ca. 1300 AD)

Alexander Treiger, "Patriarch Athanasius III of Alexandria's Arabic Encyclical Epistle (ca. 1300 AD)," The Historical Reporter 53 (2025), 344-359.

Abstract:

The article presents, for the first time, an Arabic encyclical epistle by the Melkite Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria Athanasius III (sed. ca. 1275--ca. 1315), written during his exile in Constantinople. It is preserved in the unicum 14th century manuscript Sinai ar. 451 and is addressed to Athanasius III's locum tenens archbishop Peter (otherwise unknown). In this epistle, Patriarch Athanasius shares his views on the proper order of church life and seeks to correct certain problematic practices that had become widespread among Orthodox Christians in Egypt. Patriarch Athanasius' recommendations include the following: the liturgy is to be celebrated at the third hour (9am in modern time-reckoning), the antidoron should be handled in a proper fashion, hot water must be added into the chalice towards the end of the liturgy, it is forbidden to rent candles for use at the church or to use oil from the church lamps for worldly purposes, and some others. The epistle sheds light on both day-today life and liturgical practices of the Egyptian Melkites, on the progressive Byzantinization of their church services, and on their struggles under Mamlūk rule; it adds important details to the portrait of this outstanding Alexandrian hierarch. If earlier we knew him only as a church official of the era of Emperors Michael VIII and Andronicus II Palaiologos, as the author of an epistle to the Russian Church, and as a bibliophile, the epistle published herein allows us to see him as a pastor caring for his flock. The article includes a critical edition and English translation of this important treatise. 

 

Download the article here. 

Monastic Literature in Early Islamic Palestine and Sinai: Manuscripts, Scribes, Translators, Authors, and Later Readers

 The journal Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Bulletin has just released in open-access a special issue entitled Monastic Literature in Early Islamic Palestine and Sinai: Manuscripts, Scribes, Translators, Authors, and Later Readers with several articles of interest about early Orthodox literature in Arabic. The table of contents is as follows:

 

 

Monastic Literature in Early Islamic Palestine and Sinai: Manuscripts, Scribes, Translators, Authors, and Later Readers
ed. Adrian C. Pirtea

• pp. 7-14: Monastic Literature in Early Islamic Palestine and Sinai: Studies on Manuscripts, Scribes, Translators, Authors, and Later Readers. An Introduction (Adrian C. Pirtea)
  DOI: 10.25592/uhhfdm.18346
• pp. 15-57: Building a Christian Arabic Library at Mount Sinai: The Scribe Thomas of Fusṭāṭ and the Manuscripts of His Workshop (Peter Tarras)
  DOI:  10.25592/uhhfdm.18348
• pp. 59-89: Scribes, Owners, and their Multilingual Annotations in the Byzantine Euchologia of Saint Catherine’s Monastery (Giulia Rossetto)
  DOI:  10.25592/uhhfdm.18350
• pp. 91-115: ‘Inhabiting the Word of the Other’: Linguistic Hospitality, Early Christian Arabic Psalters, and the Functions of Bilingual Manuscripts (Miriam L. Hjälm)
  DOI: 10.25592/uhhfdm.18352
• pp. 117-139: From Greek into Arabic through a Syriac Intermediary: New Evidence from Palestinian Hagiography (André Binggeli)
  DOI: 10.25592/uhhfdm.18354
• pp. 141-171: St Macarius the Great at Mar Saba: Melkite Syriac, Arabic and Georgian Translations of the Corpus Macarianum in Early Islamic Palestine and Sinai (Adrian C. Pirtea)
  DOI: 10.25592/uhhfdm.18356
• pp. 173-208: A Ninth-Century Arabic Christian Refutation of the ‘Eternalists’: David of Damascus’ Homily on Palm Sunday (Alexander Treiger)
  DOI: 10.25592/uhhfdm.18358

 Download and read the articles here.

Ahmad al-Jallad: Echoes of Deuteronomy 6:5 in two Pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions

 Ahmad al-Jallad, "Echoes of Deuteronomy 6:5 in two Pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions (Paleo-Arabic) from Northwest Arabia"

 

This contribution proposes that two Paleo-Arabic inscriptions from Northwest Arabia contain a rough rendering of Deuteronomy 6:5 (via Matthew 22:37/Luke 10:27), providing evidence for contact with Christianity in Arabia Deserta in the first century BH (before the Hiǧrah), awareness of the Bible, and indeed an effort to translate it idiomatically into the vernacular.

 

Read the entire article in pre-print here. This Arabic rendering of the "greatest commandment" seems to give some small hint of how Arabs were being evangelized in their own language immediately before Islam..

 

Paul Ulishney: New Evidence for Conversion to Islam in Anastasius of Sinai’s Hodegos

Paul Ulishney, "New Evidence for Conversion to Islam in Anastasius of Sinai’s Hodegos," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 78 (2024), 29-48.

 

Abstract:

Contrary to the judgment of earlier scholars, who suggested that all that could be found concerning early Islam in the writings of Anastasius of Sinai had already been discovered, this article unearths new evidence for conversion to Islam in Anastasius’s Hodegos: a list of aporiai raised by those “who now apostatize from Christianity.” I argue that these apostates should be understood as Christian converts to Islam, and that the aporiai themselves shed new light on the nature and content of the earliest Christian–Muslim disputations. In the context of other evidence for early Islamic belief in other seventh-century Christian authors, Anastasius’s aporiai distinguish themselves by offering evidence for the actual intellectual content of Christian–Muslim disputation, rather than words put into the mouths of fictional Muslim interlocutors. The unique nature of this evidence also parochializes traditional conceptions of Christian–Muslim disputation in the Middle Ages, i.e., that of the “monk in the emir’s majlis.” Instead, they offer us a likelier portrait of what Christian–Muslim disputations may have looked like in the earliest days: Greek-speaking converts to Islam engaging in aporetic questioning on the subject of the Greek Christian scriptures with members of their old faith.

Read the full article here.

  

Jack Tannous: What is Syriac? Explorations in the History of a Name

 Jack Tannous, "What is Syriac? Explorations in the History of a Name," Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 28.1 (2025), 65-153.

 

Abstract

This article looks into various aspects of the history of the name “Syriac,” arguing that this glottonym has had different meanings at different points in history. While scholars today use “Syriac” to refer to the Aramaic dialect of Edessa, historically, it has also been a word that referred more generally to the northwest Semitic language that today is commonly called “Aramaic.” This is true for both “Syriac” as an English word and its various cognates and equivalents in other languages. “Syriac” was a language used by pagans, Jews, Manichees, and a variety of different Christian groups and its association with specific Christian confessions in the Middle East is also a historical development. The article ends by
suggesting possible reasons that Edessene Aramaic—as opposed to some other type of Aramaic—became the linguistic vehicle of choice for many Middle Eastern Christian groups.

  

In addition to being an incredibly useful article about what premodern writers meant when they described someone or something as "Syriac", there is also a lot of information about the much-neglected use of Syriac by Chalcedonian Orthodox communities, such as the following:

"There are more dated Melkite manuscripts from the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, than there are dated manuscripts from the Church of the East."

"Many Christians of Maʻlūlā were of course Chalcedonians and one only need point to the history of this church to further show that liturgical language in a Middle Eastern context does not reflect the language of day-to-day life: in this church, usually regarded as the most Arabophile and Hellenophile and least Syriac of all the Christian communities of Greater Syria and the Fertile Crescent, Syriac was still in use liturgically until the seventeenth century. Indeed, Korolevsky suggested that, apart from international centers like Jerusalem, Alexandria, and the Sinai, places which received a constant-influx of Greek speakers from outside the Middle East, all Chalcedonian liturgical manuscripts from the ninth to seventeenth centuries throughout the region were in fact Syriac ones.72 St. Catherine’s monastery in the Sinai, an institution whose Chalcedonian credentials are impeccable, has one of the most precious collections in existence of Christian Greek manuscripts; it is perhaps less well-known that its collection of Syriac manuscripts is regarded as one of the 'ten most important collections in the language in the world.'"

Download the entire article in open access here. 

Adrian Pirtea on a Newly-Discovered Maronite Chronicle from 713

Adrian Pirtea, "A Hitherto Unknown Universal History of the Early Eighth Century: Preliminary Notes on the Maronite Chronicle of 713." Medieval Worlds 23 (2025), 155-167.

 

Abstract

This research note introduces the Maronite Chronicle of 713, a hitherto unknown Christian world chronicle in Arabic, recently identified by the author in the collection of manuscripts at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai. Extant in a single thirteenth-century manuscript (Sinai Ar. 597), this Arabic chronicle is a translation of a lost Syriac work, originally composed in 712-713 CE, probably in a Syriac Monothelete milieu with close ties to the Monastery of Mar Maron. The chronicle covers the history of the world from Adam to 692-693 CE and exhibits numerous parallels with the so-called »eastern source«, which informed the chronicles of Theophanes, Michael the Syrian, Agapius of Mabbug and the anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234. To demonstrate the links between these sources and the new chronicle, the note analyses, as a case study, a passage discussing the main events of the year 633-634 CE. The author argues that the Maronite Chronicle of 713 provides an alternative chronology of events for this year and thus represents an independent source for the early stages of the Arab conquests. A more detailed study and a critical edition and annotated translation of this new chronicle are in preparation.

 

Read the entire article in open access here. 

Joe Glynias: Ibn Buṭlān, a Physician on the Move between the Byzantine and Islamic Worlds

 

Ibn Buṭlān, a Physician on the Move between the Byzantine and Islamic Worlds

 

Joe Glynias 

 

Medieval Worlds 23 (2025), 115-138.

 

 

Abstract:

 

In this paper, I introduce a novel perspective on the Baghdadi physician Ibn Buṭlān, analyzing how he flexibly deployed his Christian identity, his Baghdadi medical education and connections, and his knowledge of the Greek and Arabic traditions to gain employment and fame as he traveled across both the Byzantine and Islamic worlds. Ibn Buṭlān is known to scholars of medieval Arabic medicine and literature as an exemplary Arabic litterateur of the Islamicate world. However, his actions and career as a Christian Arabic author – including his authorship of a treatise on the Eucharist for the Byzantine patriarch in the midst of East-West schism in Constantinople in 1054 – are much less well understood. In this paper, I show how Ibn Buṭlān marketed his Baghdadi intellectual heritage as he traveled across the Islamic world. Furthermore, I show that he converted to join the Byzantine church and became a Byzantine monk. This enabled him to join other Arabic-speaking Christian scholars active under Byzantine rule in the city of Antioch, and to market his Baghdadi heritage to new Byzantine audiences, both Arabic- and Greek-speaking. I argue that, by composing Arabic texts and instructing students in Antioch, he helped instigate a wider, long-lasting Byzantine interest in the Greco-Arabic medicine of Baghdad. 

Download the article free in open access here.

 

Habib Ibrahim: The Correspondence of Mūsā Ṭrābulsī (1732-1787)

This new book, free to download in open access here, provides an Arabic edition and English translation of letters written in the circle of Orthodox churchmen and intellectuals around the secretary of the Patriarch Sylvester of Antioch. Taken alongside Mihai Țipău's monograph on Sylvester, published last year and available in open access here, we now have a vastly richer understanding of the life of the Patriarchate of Antioch in the immediate aftermath of the Melkite Schism.

 

The Correspondence of Mūsā Ṭrābulsī (1732-1787)

Critical Edition, English Translation, and Introduction

Habib Ibrahim, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany

 

The correspondence of Mūsā Ṭrābulsī preserved in the unique MS 300 of the Orthodox Syriac Patriarchate in Homs is a collection of 71 letters (+1 repeated) received mainly by Mūsā from various correspondents during his tenure as a secretary of Patriarch Sylvester of Antioch (1724-1766) and his travels in the Patriarch's company. The letters exchanged by Yūsuf Mark and Mūsā Ṭrābulsī illustrate the help that Sylvester received in Moldavia and Wallachia and his efforts to secure the printing of Christian Arabic books there in 1745–1747, and in Beirut in 1750–1753. Other letters connect Ilyās Fakhr and Sophronios of Kilis with this circle of Syrian intellectuals who supported many of Patriarch Sylvester’s projects.

The volume contains the Arabic edition of the letters, an English translation, an introduction presenting the biography of Mūsā Ṭrābulsī and key figures in the letters, a codicological study of the manuscript, and indexes. Through various sources, the editor was able to gather new bibliographical material. Thanks to these findings, we now have a deeper knowledge of the Nawfal family members, Mūsā himself, the books that interested him, and his translation activity. The present edition demonstrates that Mūsā was an exceptional figure in the history of the Antiochian patriarchate during the challenging period following the 1724 division. Although he did not attain higher ecclesiastical ranks, he was held in special esteem by the clergy of the patriarchate.

 

Venera Kotchlamazashvili on the 17th Century Arabic Translation of the Typikon

 Venera Kotchlamazashvili, "Peculiarities of the 17th c. Arabic Translation of the Typicon of Mar Sabas's Laura and Its Role in the Revival of Christian Arabic Literature," Herald of Oriental Studies 1 (2025), 564-583.

 Abstract:

This paper deals with the development of 17th century Christian Arabic literature and discusses the significance of one of its literary monuments. In the 17th century, both the clergy and the laity of the Patriarchate of Antioch were Arabic-speaking Christians, and the renewal of translation processes contributed to raising the level of education among the clergy in their native language. This study places particular emphasis on the Arabic translation of the Typicon of Mar Sabas, which, as a significant example of ecclesiastical literature, plays an important role in the Greek Orthodox liturgical tradition. This research is based on comparative-philological, historical, and linguistic methodologies, which allow for an analysis of the textual and structural changes in the translations. The paper analyzes the main manuscripts that reflect the linguistic and cultural tendencies of the period. The findings of the study indicate that Christian Arabic literature is not only a component of religious practice but also a significant phenomenon within a broader cultural and linguistic context, reflecting the transformation of Greco-Syriac traditions within the Arabic cultural sphere.

Download the entire article here. 

Ilkka Lindstedt on Pre-Islamic Arab Christian Poets

 The issue of pre-Islamic Arabic Christian poetry revisited
 

Abstract
Why is so little distinctly Christian poetry preserved in Arabic from pre-Islamic times? While distancing myself from Louis Cheikho’s (1859–1927) view that almost all pre-Islamic poets were Christians, I contend in this article that some of them were indeed that. I begin by discussing the current evidence (in particular, epigraphic record) on the existence of Arabophone Christians before Islam. The documentation at hand suggests that Christianity had spread to all parts of Arabia. At least hypothetically, I note that Christians formed the majority among Arabic-speaking groups on the eve of Islam. I then proceed to discuss the surviving corpus of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry and pinpoint (often overlooked but explicit) Christian themes in it.

Download the entire article here. 

Holger Gzella: Christian Palestinian Aramaic between Greek and Arabic

Holger Gzella, "Christian Palestinian Aramaic between Greek and Arabic," in Aaron D. Hornkohl et al. (eds.), Interconnected Traditions: Semitic Languages, Literatures, Cultures—A Festschrift for Geoffrey Khan: Volume 1: Hebrew and the Wider Semitic World (pp. 747–770). 

 

 Among the three Western Aramaic literary traditions of Late Antiquity, Christian Palestinian Aramaic is arguably the one least studied from a historical-linguistic point of view. And yet, it offers a number of insights into the language situation in Byzantine Palestine that cannot easily be gained from Jewish Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic. A less well-known but significant point is the substrate evidence that, cumulatively, documents a certain presence of Arabic in the region already in pre-Islamic times. Such data ties in with both very recent work on the diversity and diffusion of Old Arabic varieties and ongoing interest in identifying the still under-researched factors that eventually led to the creation of another Christian Aramaic written language besides Greek and Syriac by the fifth century CE at the latest.

[...]

Read the entire article, freely available in open access, here. 

Met Antony Bashir: Possibilities for Orthodox and Roman Catholic Reunion (1964)

Met Antony Bashir's 1964 talk on Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement is interesting for the history of Orthodox responses to Vatican II and the role that that Melkite Catholic Church played in it. It should be read alongside the essay by Melkite Catholic Patriarch Maximos Sayegh that was published in the Word the previous year. The talk is also noteworthy for its discussion of Western Rite Orthodoxy within the context of the problem of Uniatism.

The following is taken from The Word / Al-Kalemat vol. 8, issue 5 (May 1964), pp. 3-5, accessed through the The Hoda Z. Nassour and Herbert R. Nassour Jr., MD, Archive of Lebanese Diaspora, here.

 

Possibilities for Orthodox and Roman Catholic Reunion

A convocational address  delivered in St. Mary-of-the-Woods College, Indiana, at the invitation of His Excellency, Archbishop Shulte, April 15, 1964

by Metropolitan Antony Bashir

We all share the privilege of living in a most exciting, even exhilarating, time for Christian believers; the age of mutual recriminations and proliferating schisms appears to be drawing to a close and all who profess loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ feel now the challenge of His will that "all may be one." However, Christians differ from each other in their understanding of their heritage they seem to be laying hold upon the vision of a united Christendom. Orthodox and Catholics can turn from the frustration engendered by the observation of the bewildering variety of sectarian creeds and customs, and contemplate with satisfaction the truly vast area of agreement which they have in common. They can draw further comfort from the significant fact that, while orthodoxy (with a small "o") does not depend on the counting of noses, as St. Athanasius well knew, the great general agreement that includes Orthodox and Catholics in an almost unanimous tradition places the onus on Christians outside of these two bodies to justify their minority witness.

How pleasant it would be if we, Orthodox and Catholics, were able to consider our reunion only in terms of our common beliefs, perhaps 90% of all we profess! A famous Roman ecumenist once asked me, 

"Your eminence, you believe that only the Papacy separates us. The doctrine of the Papacy is such a tiny fragment of the total de fide deposit of the Catholic faith, don't you think you could find a way to accept it?"

Of course I replied,

"Father, if the Papacy is such a tiny fragment of your faith why don't you give it up and unite with us?"

Reunion will not result from reviewing with satisfaction the much that we share, but from the prayerful, charitable and patient examination of the little in which we differ. As a kind of preliminary frame of reference for the comments that follow, and to avoid any misunderstanding of my position and attitude, let me read into the record a statement that I issued when Pope John XXIII, of blessed memory, initiated the good relations that we still enjoy:

"Immediately after the first announcement of the Papal comments on exploring the possibility of Orthodox and Roman reunion the public press asked me for a reaction. At that time, and ever since, I have made the most positive and encouraging responses consistent with my responsibilities as a bishop of the Church. These have been quoted, and misquoted, in the public and church press, and elsewhere, and I have received so many inquiries from so many sources as to the exact nature of my proposals that I am issuing this statement in clarification of my basic convictions. Neither I nor anyone else can control adequately the use or abuse of my statements in the mass media of communication, and serious and sincere inquirers are well aware of this. The statement which follows outlines my ideas. Sections of it need theological amplification, and all of it must be seen against the background of the full Orthodox tradition, but it is a summary of my position.

In the history of efforts to end Christian disunity which have marked the period since the first World War, the most encouraging event from the viewpoint of the Orthodox Church has been the suggestion of the Roman Pope John XXIII that serious consideration be given to Orthodox and Roman reunion. Without analyzing the exact nature of the Papal overture in its several developing phases, the mere fact of the possibility of eirenic and practical steps were referred to, an advance over Papal action for centuries past, is a tremendous achievement. The resistance or indifference of a few Orthodox spokesmen, the evident alarm of some protestant ecumenists, and the extreme caution of later comments from Rome, do not detract from the value of this truly courageous act. The apparent intention of the Pope to pass beyond the traditional formalities and the empty euphonies of the past should enlist the utmost support of Orthodox leaders.

I find the principle excellent and endorse it fully. In my opinion maximum effectiveness of any negotiations will ultimately depend on the methods employed, among which I consider the following to be of primary importance.

a) The initial meetings and discussions must be restricted to Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics. While one cannot generalize about Protestantism in its innumerable variations, it is nevertheless true that all of its branches have enormous basic doctrinal divergences from both Orthodox and Romans--the idea of a visible church, Apostolic succession and sacramentalism, the nature of Revelation and Authority, the position of the Theotokos, etc. The inclusion of Protestant spokesmen in an Orthodox-Roman dialogue could only result in chaos. If Orthodox and Roman differences were adjusted, the protestant would would numerically and psychologically be faced with a serious reassessment of its genesis and development. (In this connection it should be emphasized that Orthodox participation in the World Council of Churches implies no commitment to any policies of that agency, other than its function as a vehicle for Christian reunion among its members. It does not preclude unilateral action wherever justified. The World Council of Churches exists as the servant of Christian Communions, not as their master.)

b) If the Roman Pope, was or is, sincerely interested in in more than diplomatic overtures, His Holiness must begin by addressing Orthodoxy through the Oecumenical Patriarch, as Primate of the Church, calling for a joint commission of theologians and canonists with a large Orthodox membership to prepare an appropriate agenda for inclusion in a letter carrying the signature of His Holiness the Pope as Primate of the West and His All Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch as Primate of the East, and addressed to both Churches.

c) The meeting which would follow, although it might not arrive at immediate union, would provide an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to act, and might well lead to eventual unity.

d) The major difficulty between Orthodoxy and Rome is the question of the basis for the Papal Primacy and the concomitant dogma of Papal Infallibility. One cannot minimize the differences, evident and implied, in these dogmas, nor forget the discouraging history of the attempts at solution, but is it not possible that the time has arrived when the two mutually exclusive but closely related teachings, an infallible Church and an infallible Primate, may be so restated as to synthesize both traditions on a new and higher level? This is a daring, perhaps rash, conception, but our Lord will not hold us guiltless if we choose lesser problems for easy solution while we neglect the divisions among those who call upon His name.

In conclusion, and to avoid any misunderstanding, or exploitation by the popular press, I insist that these proposals are made as a loyal representative of the Orthodox Church, who holds it to be the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the creed outside of which there is no salvation. I am not glossing over the schism or heresy of the West, and by no means suggesting any other solution to divisions than the reunion of all Christians with the same Orthodox Church. If reunion cannot be accomplished by a restatement of the two positions, however, I do not see it as possible by any other way."

I shall expand on one or two of these proposals today, but let me but let me begin by outlining a few of the ties that bind, or should bind, us together.

In comparison with the question of the Papacy the differences between Orthodox and Catholics are relatively minor. They spring from differences between eastern and western mentality and temperament, from differences of attitude and emphasis in the approach to common beliefs and ideas, all aggravated by our centuries-long separation from each other. I do not share the conviction of some Orthodox thinkers that the West is somehow poisoned at the root, so that all subsequent growth as well as all the fruits of the Roman faith are fatally tainted. This is, I think, a theological provincialism of which we have had more than enough for longer than the nine hundred years that we have spent apart. It antedates the schism and, human nature being what it is, might well survive reunion. We cannot over simplify true differences, but it is spiritual pride and the most vicious hypocrisy, to condemn each other for views or attitudes which are no further apart than the conflicting opinions of our own theologians! Therefore let us isolate essential differences of faith, and let us place in the proper perspective the theologoumena--or private opinions--that exist between Orthodoxy in general and Rome in general, as they exist in our respective bodies between Thomists and Scotists, and between disciples of Khomiakov and Bulgakov and Khrapovitsky and others. This is not the time to single out minor differences of mood or attitude and exaggerate them.

Let me repeat that aside from the Papacy our divergencies are relatively minor. And what a wide area of agreement we have, as my statement suggests! We need only place your theology or mine over against any of the Reformation traditions to discover that we are members of one household of faith, and that our basic attitudes and orientation are the same. The hierarchy, the sacraments, the saints, the liturgical and devotional practices that express them in life, all are one and  the same in broad outline. As we explore differences we must constantly revert in thought to this common ground for inspiration and encouragement; in order to stimulate our hope for reunion.

There is another point at which I differ from some Orthodox in seeing positive ground for hope where they see only added obstacles for understanding. That is your Uniates. I do not deceive myself about the Uniates, the so-called Greek Catholics, they were organized as the result of some of the most deceptive proselytizing campaigns ever engaged in by Christians. Commercial privileges and civil, and military, pressure brought them into being, and in many instances simple laymen were deliberately deceived. This is why there has been no Orthodox protest when, in the Ukraine and Romania, they have been recently reunited to the Church, sometimes by the forceful removal of their hierarchs. Even now Uniate propagandists willingly exploit local Orthodox difficulties to pervert our people. There are not enough Latin clergy to holy traditionally Catholic Latin America, but there are enough to staff the missions working among the Orthodox in the Middle East. All of this I deplore, but I do understand and respect the ideal of the Unia--your belief that Rome is the one, true Church of Christ, to which all must belong and in which all may worship according to their particular ancient rites. While I cannot respect the "rice Christians," I admire any faith that acts consistently with its conviction that it is the unique Christian Church.

It has been our Orthodox failure that we long spent our energies fruitlessly protesting your Uniate program rather than in imitating it, for we too claim to be the one, true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. Within the last quarter of a century the Orthodox Church has tardily corrected this policy, and today there are Orthodox faithful in Europe and America who follow the Roman Latin rite. In my own diocese I have four parishes and a mission that use the Latin rite in the vernacular, and I am proud that my Archdiocese has led the way in this movement in the United States. In the last issue of Unitas magazine I read with pleasure the positive appraisal of Western Rite Orthodoxy by a Father Kelleher of the Franciscans of the Atonement.

It is my sincere conviction that Greek Rite Catholics and Latin Rite Orthodox can teach their correligionists much that will destroy the ignorance and prejudice that contributes to our separation. Proselytism, that is the tempting away of the members of one Christian communion by the propagandists of another by the use of force, or deception, or offering material advantages, is an ugly thing, especially when highly trained representatives of one body are sent to the ignorant and poor faithful of another. But the Christian missionary compassion that allows your Church or mine to accept converts of conviction and permit them to retain liturgical usages that antedate the Schism cannot be objectionable to anyone.

When the Orthodox of the Arabic speaking world think of the Uniates we think of your venerable Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This good man, and his "brain trust," are almost an Orthodox voice in your midst as the role they played in the Vatican Council showed us. If his message is heard and heeded in the Roman Church the schism will be shortened by centuries. If you cannot hear him with understanding as a first step, you will never be able to speak to us!

It is in Patriarch Maximos' analysis of what is for us the problem of the Papacy that I am most encouraged. You will remember that my statement suggested that the possibility of reunion for us would seem to lie in a new synthesis of your opinion of Papal Infallibility and our doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church. Patriarch Maximos' observations on the Second Chapter, "The Episcopate," in the Vatican Council Schema, "On the Church," moves far in this direction.

Let me review his conclusions. Christ is, he says, the only head of the Church, the Pope, a successor of St. Peter, is head of the episcopal college. The Pope as head of the bishops governs them but is not distinct from them. The bishops are the true heads of their dioceses. The Orthodox Church is the result of a living Apostolic tradition in which Rome intervenes only by way of exception. The primatial power of the Pope is personal and pastoral, it cannot be delegated, and is only to be understood in light of the Pope's position as head of the episcopal college. The Patriarch assumes that these conclusions are possible even after the first Vatican Council of 1870 in which it was solemnly proclaimed that he Pope in Infallible in himself, and without the consensus of the Church. If Patriarch Maximos is correct, then we Orthodox may hope that the first Vatican Council did not shut the door forever on a reconciliation with the Latin Church.

We Orthodox approach the whole matter in a somewhat different way. We will not expect progress from the declaration of some new, or newly discovered, dogma. Rather it is by reference to tradition, to the faith and witness of the fathers, by the analogy of faith, to the ancient constitution of the Church, by retracing our two paths to the point where they converge that we will expect fruitful results. There is not now, and never can be, the slightest hope that the Orthodox Church of Christ will ever confess or accept any creed that will not conform to the ancient, traditional faith which she has always held. It would be our feeling that our Roman brethren will confirm and strengthen their own faith by reference to the ancient tradition which we shared.

Let me be quite clear about all of this. Your Church has shown great adaptability in all things: ours has not, in fact we make absolute fidelity to the past a touchstone of truth. We are very cautious about even externals and details, it is not to be expected that we shall suddenly modify our convictions about the essential structure of the Church. Add to this the fact, all too obvious to us, that your own understanding of that structure had to be formally stated, or restated so short a time ago as 1870, and you will begin to realize that we Orthodox must expect you Catholics to take the lead in any creative readjustments. There is no question of heretics or schismatics, these have been dead for centuries, and it is not the Christian spirit of this age to fasten responsibility for ancient errors on the sincere believers of today, many generations removed from the original misunderstandings. Today, who can say it is not by the grace of God the good will to reunion exists? We stand face to face and recognize each other as brothers. We cannot see the way to reunion that will commend itself to all. At least I cannot, except by loyalty to the ancient tradition which we hold, and which we will hold, and which we believe, you hold with us. But let us not despair, surely the good God who has brought us so far will not leave us in sight of each other but painfully separated. He has lifted the veil, has shown us the glorious possibility, can we do less than assault the very gates of heaven with prayer, forgive forty times forty thousand, and study and work that His will may be done in our day?