Coptica 15, 2016

Journal of the Saint Mark Foundation Journal of the Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society

C OPTICA vol. 15 2016

Los Angeles California

C OPTICA is the Journal of the Saint Mark Foundation and Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society.

E DITORIAL B OARD Dominique Bénazeth Gawdat Gabra Karel C. Innemée Siegfried Richter Mark N. Swanson Hany N. Takla Tim Vivian Youhanna N. Youssef

Volume 15, 2016 ISSN: 1541-163X

Coptica is an annual journal dedicated to publishing scholarly articles relating to the various branches of Coptic Studies.

M ANAGING E DITOR Maged S.A. Mikhail

Subscriptions Members of the two societies will receive Coptica as part of their membership benefits. Non-members and institutions may receive the Journal at the cost of $15.00 a volume; for addresses in Canada, $20.00; for international subscriptions $30.00. Subscription orders should be sent to the Journal’s mailing address. Contributors All editorial correspondences should be sent to the Journal’s mailing address. Manuscripts should be typewritten, and double-spaced throughout. The initial submissions may be in hard or electronic format. If accepted for publication, authors are then asked to conform to the Journal’s style-sheet at: www.stshenouda.com/coptica.

M AILING A DDRESS Coptica c/o St. Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society 1494 S Robertson Blvd Ste 104 Los Angeles, CA 90035-3482 USA

Coptica@stshenouda.com

St. Mark Foundation www.stmarkfoundation. coptic-history.org St. Shenouda Society www.stshenouda.com

Contents

Abstracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

A Little Known Episode in Coptic-Roman Relations: An Unpublished Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm (18 th c.) Lois Farag. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Commemorations in the Coptic Arabic Synaxarium, Part I Ashraf W. Hanna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Towards a History of Liturgical Vestments in the Coptic Rite: I - Minor Orders, Deacons, and Presbyters Ramez Mikhail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

From Elijah to Elisha: Athanasius’s Fighting Spirit Doubled in Shenoute Carolyn Schneider. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Alexander the Great among Medieval Copts: Some comments on the uses of Alexander-materials in Copto-Arabic literature Mark N. Swanson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Abstracts Coptica 15 (2016)

A Little Known Episode in Coptic-Roman Relations: An Unpublished Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm (18 th c)

This essay examines an unpublished theological letter that Anba Yūsāb (1735-1826), bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm, wrote on behalf of Pope John XVIII (r. 1769-1796), the 107 th Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church, to Bartholomew, a Catholic monk and envoy of the Roman papacy, in response to Rome’s proposal that the Coptic Orthodox Church submit to the Pope of Rome. The research is based on a rare manuscript that exists in only five known copies and is published here for the first time. This letter is a significant contribution to the thin eighteenth century Coptic theological library. It was written at a time when Egypt was going through a major political, social, education, and historical changes that had a lasting effect on the Church; in addition to the western religious missionary campaigns that targeted the Coptic Orthodox Church. Dr. Lois Farag Associate Professor of Early Church History Luther Seminary 2414-1 County Road D West, Roseville, MN 55112, USA lfarag@luthersem.edu

Commemorations in the Coptic Arabic Synaxarium Part I

This is the first part of a study based on the collation of eighteen manuscripts of the Coptic-Arabic Synaxarium. Each entry notes various spellings and forms attested for specific saints. Along with documenting a plethora of saints and events that have not been preserved in the published editions of the Synaxarium, this study demonstrates the stability of certain entries across most of the manuscripts surveyed, along with the various regional fluctuations that are attested with regard to the commemoration day(s) of other saints and events. Mr. Ashraf W. Hanna Independent Researcher

5952 N. Willard Ave. San Gabriel, CA 91775 ashrafwhanna@yahoo.com

Towards a History of Liturgical Vestments in the Coptic Rite: I - Minor Orders, Deacons, and Presbyters

The historical development of Coptic liturgical vestments is far from clear. There have been attempts by many scholars to list and describe the various vestments worn by each rank of the clergy. However, the topic still remains in need of a coherent, updated analysis that takes into account the historical development of the vestments, rather than a mere listing of all known items detached from their historical evolution. This article analyzes the historical development of Coptic liturgical vestments for the minor orders—i.e. readers and sub-deacons—as well as deacons and presbyters. A future contribution will focus on the vestments of bishops and patriarchs, and the vestments in current use in Coptic services. Mr. Ramez Mikhail, Ph.D. Cand. University of Vienna 6400 Lincoln Ave. Apt 3201 Buena Park, CA 90620 mikhail.ramez@gmail.com

From Elijah to Elisha: Athanasius’s Fighting Spirit Doubled in Shenoute

The Life of Shenoute preserved in Arabic tells a story about Athanasius’s complicity in the destruction of a pagan temple in Akhmim by the Archangel Michael, who then foretells the birth of Shenoute and his reception of Athanasius’s spirit two-fold, just as Elisha received Elijah’s spirit two-fold. An examination of Shenoute’s own references to Athanasius, especially in I Am Amazed , Who Speaks through the Prophet , and God Is Blessed , shows that Shenoute used Athanasius polemically to bolster his own positions against Gnosticism, Arianism, Manichaeism, and Paganism. The Arabic Life of Shenoute ’s later interpretation of Shenoute as Athanasius intensified may be the result of Shenoute’s appropriation of Athanasius for fighting purposes. Dr. Carolyn Schneider

Associate Professor of Church History The Lutheran Theological Seminary 50 To Fung Shan Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Carolyn.Schneider@elca.org

Alexander the Great among Medieval Copts: Some comments on the uses of Alexander-materials in Copto-Arabic literature

Important recent publications by Faustina Doufikar-Aerts and Adel Sidarus have reminded students of Copto-Arabic literature both of the presence of anecdotes about Alexander the Great in various genres of the literature (historical and sapiential, but also homiletic and even liturgical) as well as its role in the ongoing transmission of Alexander-material, e.g. to the Christians of Ethiopia. The present author was reminded of the presence and significance of Alexander-material in Copto-Arabic literature in the course of work towards a Catalogue of Coptic and Arabic manuscripts at the Syrian Monastery (sponsored by Yale University's Egyptological Endowment and led by Prof. Stephen J. Davis). Over the course of a few days in June 2015, our team found two initially puzzling treatises that turned out to be anecdotes concerning Alexander the Great. The present communication will present these findings, along with other instances of Alexander-material that have been pointed out in recent literature, in order to make some simple observations about the various ways in which this material functioned - and also to introduce some speculations as to the particular circles in which, and the particular purposes for which, medieval Copts might have been reading stories about Alexander the Great Prof. Mark N. Swanson Harold S. Vogelaar Professor of Christian-Muslim Studies and Interfaith Relations

Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago 1100 East 55th St. Chicago, Illinois 60615 mswanson@lstc.edu

A Little Known Episode in Coptic-Roman Relations: An Unpublished Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm (18 th c.) Lois Farag This study examines the theological letter that Anba Yūsāb (1735-1826), bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm, wrote on behalf of Pope John XVIII (r. 1769- 1796), the 107 th Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church, to Bartholomew, a Catholic monk and envoy of the Roman papacy, in response to Rome’s proposal that the Coptic Orthodox Church submit to the Pope of Rome. After explaining the significance of this letter, describing the manuscript used for this research, and providing the historical context within which this letter was written, the paper examines the content of the letter and the theology of Anba Yūsāb and concludes with the theological contribution of this bishop. The text of the letter is included in the Appendix. 1. The Significance of this Letter Anba Yūsāb is one of the last Coptic theologians educated under the non- Islamic, non-secular tutelage system. When Muḥammad c Alī (1805-48) began the process of modernizing Egypt, he formed an educational system emulating that of the West. Pope Cyril IV (r. 1854-1861), “the Father of Reform,” followed suit and established Coptic schools based on a similar westernized educational pattern. 1 We do not have a sample “curriculum” of the tutelage system, but we know that it gave many of the privileged Copts an educational edge through which they obtained prominent government positions where they were in control of the Egyptian financial system. The Copts developed this tutelage system before the Islamic invasion of Egypt in the seventh century and afterwards guarded it well, handing it down through families because it secured their livelihood. Anba Yūsāb’s literary production indicates he was a beneficiary of such tutelage which suggests his privileged social status. With the modernization efforts of Muḥammad c Alī, the Copts lost this educational edge and the financial monopoly. Another consequence was the loss of certain theological traditions, of which Anba Yūsāb is the last representative. The article will demonstrate his good knowledge of Greek language and rhetoric and his acquaintance with patristic writers, including Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria. Such knowledge represents the remnants of the Coptic tutelage education

1 Paul Sedra, From Mission to Modernity: Evangelicals, Reformers and Education in Nineteenth Century Egypt (London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2011).

Coptica 15 (2016), 1 – 28.

2 Lois Farag

system. He thus marks the end of an era, and of an education system that produced a theological treatise that has not been matched for a long time. This is the first academic publication of Anba Yūsāb’s letter and the first study of his theology. Historically, the letter reveals aspects of the communication between the Church of Rome and the Church of Alexandria during the eighteenth century. The Coptic Orthodox Church, though in a difficult position, did not accept political or theological protection either from Russia or from Rome. The letter displays the theological stance and position of the Coptic Orthodox Church during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. It also demonstrates the level of education of interested privileged Copts acquired on a secular level, i.e. knowledge of Greek rhetoric, philosophy, language, and the Coptic theological tradition. II. Consulted Manuscripts This letter is only preserved in manuscript form. There is no critical edition of this letter as this is the first scholarly publication. The research for this paper is based on Manuscript Theology 5 in the Monastery of St. Macarius. 2 Ms. Theol. 5 is twenty pages long, 18 lines per page, with an average of 12 to 14 words per line. It is written in a clear, orderly, and neat handwriting. It was copied in AD 1840 ( AM 1556). I also consulted the incomplete Manuscript Theology 143 in the Monastery of the Virgin Mary (al-Suryān). The letter occupies pages 130-137 in Ms. Theol. 143 , but pages 134 and 135 are missing. The extant pages have 25-27 lines per page with an average of 10 to 12 words per line. It was copied in AD 1860 ( AM 1576). Both manuscripts seemed to be copied from the same original. There is an older copy in the Monastery of St. Antony copied in year AD 1800 which I was unable to consult. 3 I hope later availability of and access to other manuscripts will make possible a critical edition accompanied by an English translation. Until such opportunity is available, the attached copy of Ms. Theol. 5 can serve researchers interested in the field and will be the basis of the present research. III. Historical Context Anba Yūsāb lived to the ripe-old age of 91 and was a bishop for 35 years. As bishop, he served three popes: Pope John XVIII (r.1769-1796), who ordained him as bishop, Pope Mark VIII (r. 1796-1809), and Pope Peter VII (r.1809-1852). According to al-Jabartī, in the 1760s the Nile did not

2 I would like to thank Bishop Epiphanius of St. Macarius for providing a photocopy of this manuscript. 3 S. Khalil Samir, “Yusab,” Coptic Encyclopedia , 7: p. 2361.

Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm 3 flood to its normal level and Egypt experienced famine. 4 Yūsāb witnessed the 1768 revolt of c Ali Bey al-Kabīr against the Ottomans’ central authority. The Georgian mamluks, led by c Ali Bey al-Kabīr, temporarily “took control of Egypt, the Hijaz, Palestine, and southern Syria” and c Ali Bey “openly courted Russian assistance in his military struggle against the Ottoman Empire.” The mamluks wanted to establish an autonomous Egypt and “sought an alliance with the Russian Empress against the Sultan’s government.” 5 The Ottoman counter assault was especially brutal on the Copts; the conquering soldiers pillaged Christian houses and “sold their property in public auctions.” 6 Five years later, in 1773, an outbreak of pestilence claimed the lives of 1,000 people per day in Cairo. 7 In 1798 Napoleon’s fleet arrived in Alexandria and the French occupied Egypt for three years. On the ecclesial level, Yūsāb witnessed the Russian attempt to offer “protection” to the Coptic Orthodox Church, most probably inspired by the unsuccessful military campaign during the Ottoman Rule and the Capitulation agreement between the Ottoman and European powers including Russia. Pope Peter VIII rejected the offer, famously answering that the Copts are protected by the Immortal power rather than an earthly one. Anba Yūsāb “struggled against the Catholic missionary propaganda campaign which was active in that period in his diocese” of Jirjā and Akhmīm 8 and against the various efforts of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, for which the present letter was produced. Thus, the writer of this letter experienced famine, civil war followed by severe persecution of the Copts, pestilence, French occupation, attempts from the Imperial Russian Court to control both Egypt and the Church, and aggressive Catholic missionary activity among Orthodox Egyptians. After all this Bartholomew, a Catholic monk, asked the Coptic Orthodox Church to submit ( yakhda c lahu ) to Rome unconditionally. The response to this Catholic proposal is the subject of this paper. IV. Content of the Letter We infer from Yūsāb’s letter that Bartholomew’s letter ordered the Coptic Pope to submit to the Pope of Rome by simply copying and signing a letter 4 A.S. Atiya, “John XVIII,” Coptic Encyclopedia , ed. A.S. Atiya, 4: p. 1350. 5 D. Crecelius and G. Djaparidze, “Relations of the Georgian Mamluks of Egypt with their Homeland in the Last Decades of the Eighteenth Century,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 45 (2002), 321-322. 6 A.S. Atiya, “John XVIII,” Coptic Encyclopedia , 4: p. 1350. 7 Ibid . 8 S. Khalil Samir, “Yusab,” Coptic Encyclopedia , 7: p. 2360.

4 Lois Farag

provided by the papal representative. 8F 9 Yūsāb’s letter starts by ridiculing the audacious attempts of the Roman Catholic Church and the naive attempt at forcing submission. Yūsāb then launches his theological refutation in the form of question and answer, an erotapokrisis , a classical Greek rhetorical genre 9F 10 often used in epistles and later adopted by Coptic- Arabic writers. 10F 11 Yūsāb starts with a list of the theological disagreements that he plans to discuss. The list includes: the meaning of unity of natures ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ( ṭabī c a , φύσις), the meaning of hypostases ( ﺍﻗﻨﻮﻡ uqnūm , ὑπόστασις), Leo of Rome’s use of the term “form” ( ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ṣūra , μορφή) in his famous Letter 28 , additions to the Nicene statement of faith at the time of Chalcedon in violation of Canon One of the Council of Constantinople I (381 AD ), 11F 12 Chalcedon’s not conforming to Cyril’s writings and thus being liable to his fourth anathema in his Third Epistle to Nestorius , 12F 13 and finally, the addition of the filioque to the Nicene Creed in another violation of conciliar canons. Yūsāb concludes his epistle with a short statement of faith. V. Theological Arguments of the Letter Yūsāb begins his refutation with Leo’s use of the term “form” in his famous Letter 28 . Leo introduced the Latin term “forma” rather than the commonly used term “natura” to describe the unity of natures in Christ. 13F 14 According to Leo, “each form [ forma ] performs what is proper to it in communion with the other, the Word achieving what is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes what is the body’s.” 14F 15 Eastern theologians used the term “form” or morphē (μορφή) primarily to express the divine kenosis of 9 Unfortunately, I had no access to Bartholomew’s letter. I could not locate it in St. Macarius’ Monastery or elsewhere. 10 Y. Papadoyannakis, Instruction by Question and Answer: The case of Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis , in S.F. Johnson, ed., Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism, and Classicism (Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2006), 91-106. 11 . It was also used in “lectures, dialexeis, treatises, manuals, or dialogues.” This form was “a suitable vehicle for carrying out the wars of sectarian rivalry among Christians and was put to use in apologetic and polemical efforts”, as is the case in this letter. Ibid ., 93. 12 Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople (381) states that “the profession of faith of the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be abrogated, but it is to remain in force.” N.P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils , vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 31. 13 T.H. Bindley, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980), 218. 14 It should be noted that Nestorius chose to speak about the union of “prosopa”, Cyril chose to speak about the union of “natures according to the hypostasis,” while Leo speaks about the union of “forma” or “hypostases”. 15 R. Price and M. Gaddis, eds. and trans., The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon , vol. 2 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 19; Bindley, Oecumenical Documents , 170 and 227.

Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm

5

Phil 2:7 but never as an element of union. 15F 16 Further on in the Letter, Leo says that “it does not belong to the same nature to weep in an emotion of pity for a dead friend, and to raise that same friend from the dead with a word of power.” 16F 17 He also says that after the Incarnation “the properties of both natures and substances were preserved and co-existed in one person.” 17F 18 These quotes from Leo clearly indicate that he used the terms form ( forma ), nature ( natura ), and substance ( substantia ) synonymously. 18F 19 This created a lot of confusion, in response to which Yūsāb starts his defense with a definition of terms. He writes that “form” is performance ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ( al-qyām ), particularity ( ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ al-khāṣah ) conveys the meaning of hypostasis, and there can be no form without a hypostasis. 19F 20 Yūsāb reasons that if Leo believes in two forms, as he says in the Letter, then he has to believe in two hypostases. Lampe, in his Patristic Greek Lexicon , asserts that the use of substantia as the Latin counterpart of hypostasis was influenced by the exegesis of Hebrews 1:3. 20F 21 Yūsāb disentangles the confusion of terms by analyzing the term hypostasis ( )ﺍﻗﻨﻮﻡ in Hebrews 1:3. The RSV of Hebrews 1:3 reads as follows: “He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature [χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτου], upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” 21F 22 Yūsāb poses the question using the exact term as the Greek text: How did the hypostasis purify our sins? The hypostasis purified us from our sins by his crucifixion, suffering, and death. If the hypostasis referred to in Hebrews 1:3 is the divine person, then Chalcedonians attribute suffering to the divinity and have equally denied the presence of a human hypostasis (person). He further asks, If every human being has a hypostasis, since human nature is personified in a hypostasis (person), then did the divinity unite with human nature or with a human hypostasis (person)? 22F 23 Yūsāb shows from its biblical use in Hebrews that the term “hypostasis” means “person.” This brings the discussion to the crucial point: How does one define “nature”? Yūsāb writes that nature is essence ( ﺟﻮﻫﺮ jawhar , οὐσία). 23F 24 He then poses 16 G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 885 at μορφή. 17 Bindley, Oecumenical Documents , 227-228. 18 Ibid ., p. 226. 19 Ibid ., p.169-170 (for the Latin text). 20 Manuscript Theol. 5 , 170v. 21 Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon , 1458 at ὑπόστασις. 22 It is worth noting that the RSV translates ὑποστάσεως as “nature” rather than “person.” 23 Ms. Theol. 5 , 171v. 24 Cyril of Alexandria clearly differentiates between οὐσία and φύσις to establish that the Father and the Son are of the same nature. See Lois M. Farag, St. Cyril of Alexandria, A New Testament Exegete: His Commentary on the Gospel of John (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007), p. 81.

6 Lois Farag

the question, With what did the divine nature unite? Did it unite with the general essence of humanity ( ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻋﺎﻡ jawhar c ām ) or with a particular essence ( ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺧﺎﺹ jawhar khāṣ )? If divine nature united with the general essence, it united with human nature in its totality; if it united with a particular essence, then it united with a human hypostasis, that is, a particular human being, for hypostasis is particularity. Yūsāb elaborates on the understanding of general and particular essence within the Trinity. If one speaks about the general essence of God, then one is addressing the Trinity, but if one speaks about the particular essence of fatherhood, then one is addressing the Father; if one addresses the particularity of life, we have specifically addressed the Holy Spirit. Particularity is hypostasis. Therefore, essence or nature encompasses or comprises hypostases but a hypostasis does not comprise natures because hypostasis is the particular. Therefore, a hypostasis cannot consist of two natures. General nature comprises one or more hypostases, but a particular nature comprises only one hypostasis. Hypostasis is particularity, and with particularity there is one particular nature. 24F 25 With this clarification about the meaning of terms, Yūsāb returns to Hebrews 1:3 and inquires about the hypostasis on the cross: Was it that of God or human? If the hypostasis on the cross bled from its wounds and suffered then it must have been a human hypostasis. But this contradicts Hebrews 1:3, which asserts that this hypostasis purified us of our sins, upheld the universe by its power, and sat on the right hand of the Majesty on high. It also contradicts 1 Cor. 2:8: “They would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” If it is a human hypostasis, how can we accept that simple ﺫﺝﺳﺎ ( sādhij ) human blood is capable of our salvation? Yūsāb is arguing that if it is a human hypostasis, its simple blood cannot complete salvation, but if it is a divine hypostasis capable of saving, then this implies the divinity suffers. Neither of these possibilities is acceptable. And since a hypostasis does not consist of two natures, as he has just proven, the crucified hypostasis is that of the “one nature” Incarnate Son. Yūsāb, as many of the pre-modern theologians, does not mention his sources. It is possible that he knew the two fourteenth-century Coptic scholars, Ibn Kabar and Ibn al-Makīn the Younger, who also clarified the term hypostasis by referring to Hebrews 1:3. For them, there is no division in the hypostasis of the Incarnate Son who purified us from our sins and who sat in glory on the right hand of the majesty. 25F 26 It is not clear if Ibn Kabar and Ibn al-Makīn reached this conclusion on their own or were dependent on St. Basil’s Letter 38, with the title “To his Brother Gregory, Concerning the Difference between Substance ( ousia ) and Person 25 Ms. Theol. 5 , 172r. 26 S.Kh. Samir, Miṣbāḥ al-ẓulmah fī īḍāḥ al-khidmah li-l-qiss Shams al-Riyāsa Abū al- Barakāt al-maʿrūf b-ibn Kabar (Cairo: Maktabat kārūz, 1971), 256.

Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm 7 (hypostasis),” 27 which also attempts to clarify the distinction between ousia and hypostasis by referring to Hebrews 1:3: For, if we have explained that “person” is the combination of the specific qualities in each [member of the Trinity] and it is admitted, as in the case of the Father, that that which is observed of an individualizing nature is something through which He alone is known, and in the same manner a like belief is held concerning the Only-begotten, how does the Scripture in this passage [Heb 1:3] ascribe the name of “person” to the Father alone, and say that the Son is a form “of his person,” characterized not by His own, but by the distinguishing marks of the Father? For, if the person is the special sign of the existence of each member and, further, it is admitted that being “unbegotten” is peculiar to the Father, but the Son has been formed by the attributes peculiar to the Father, then no longer, as it seems, does it remain to the Father exclusively to be called the “Unbegotten” in the sense of Himself alone, if, indeed, the existence of the Only-begotten is characterized by the property peculiar to the Father. 28 It is clear that Yūsāb, Ibn Kabar, Ibn al-Makīn, and Basil all considered Hebrews 1:3 a crucial text for defining hypostasis. The hypostasis of the Incarnate Son on the cross was the cause of our salvation. They followed the argument that particularity, what Basil called “individualizing nature,” is specific to and defines hypostasis. Both Yūsāb and Basil made it clear that nature and hypostasis are not interchangeable, nor are ousia and hypostasis. That Yūsāb’s argument is shared by Ibn Kabar, Ibn al-Makīn, and Basil, the latter being a Father respected by both Orthodox and Catholics, makes a convincing case in his letter. This argument makes clear the confusion caused by Leo’s use of the terms form, nature, and substance interchangeably. He confused particularity with the general; he mixed up the general nature with the particularity of the hypostasis. Yūsāb makes clear that the Coptic Orthodox Church does not use nature and 27 This letter is “also found among the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa addressed to his brother St. Peter of Sebaste.” It has been assigned to Basil for stylistic reasons and manuscript evidence. It was also assigned to Basil at the Council of Chalcedon. It was written in either 369 or 370. A.C. Way, trans., R. Deferrari, ed., Saint Basil Letters, vol. 1 (1-185), The Fathers of the Church 13 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981), 84. Manuscript evidence indicate that the writings of the Cappadocians were available in Coptic so Ibn Kabar and Ibn al-Makīn could have very well been familiar with such an argument. H. Takla, “Coptic Literature,” in L.M. Farag, ed., The Coptic Christian Heritage, History. Faith, and Culture (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014), 213. 28 Ibid ., 93; my emphasis.

8 Lois Farag

hypostasis synonymously; unlike Leo, it does not use form, substance, and nature interchangeably. Yūsāb then denies the accusations that the Copts profess Eutychian theology and that Pope Dioscorus gave absolution to Eutyches in the Council of Ephesus II based on his theology. Yūsāb clarifies that the absolution was based on Eutyches acknowledging the Nicene faith, since the Nicene Symbol is the mark of orthodoxy. He also asserts that the faith of Dioscorus was distinctively non-Eutychian since he confessed that the unity of natures were “without mixture, without confusion, and without change.” 29 Yūsāb is referring to the liturgical confession recited in the liturgy immediately before partaking of the Eucharist. This statement has its roots in Cyril’s words that, in the case of Christ, the divinity and the humanity “came together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion or change. The manner of this union is entirely beyond conception.” This incomprehensible union in the one nature of the Word Incarnate occurred without confusion or mixture, says Cyril. If anyone thinks in another way, that person will “be offering us two sons and two Christs.” 30 Cyril also wrote in his First Letter to Succensus that the unity “took place without blending, without change, without alteration.” 31 Another major point of concern to Yūsāb is the notion of the unity of Christ: What are the elements of this unity and how do we define unity? He starts with the explicit reference to Cyril’s assertion that after the union we speak only of one nature, for whoever claims two natures annuls the meaning of unity. 31F 32 Yūsāb provides the example of the simple being ( ﺍ ﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺫﺝ al-insān al-sādhij ). According to Yūsāb, a human being is composed of a mortal flesh, a sensitive living soul, and a rational soul. Every being who is mortal, living and rational is a human being. Yūsāb then inquires if the mortal portion of the human being is an essence ( ﺟﻮﻫﺮ jawhar , οὐσία) or an accident ( ﻋَﺮَﺽ c araḍ ). If the mortal flesh is an essence and not an accident and the same applies to the living soul and the rational soul, then a person has three essences. Do we speak about three essences for the human being? Does Christ then have four essences? 32F 33 It is clear that is not the case. After the soul is united with the body we speak about one essence and one nature of the human person, not two. When natures unite they 29 Ms. Theol. 5 , 173r. 30 J. A. M C Guckin, trans. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ (Crestwood, NY, 1995), 77-79. 31 John I. McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria Letters 1-50 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), Letter 45; p. 192. 32 Ms. Theol. 5 , 173r. 33 It is interesting to note Bindley’s comment on Leo’s letter: “The same sort of difficulty arose later in scholastic theology when St. Thomas Aquinas found it necessary to postulate ‘accidents’ without a ‘subject’ in the doctrine of Transubstantiation.” Bindley, Oecumenical Documents , p. 123.

Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm 9 form one essence because the meaning and the understanding of unity is oneness not multiplicity. 33F 34 This is followed by a lengthy discussion about the four elements (in Arabic ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ṭabī c a , the same word for nature) that form the components of humanity, that is, fire, air, water, and dust or earth, following the Aristotelian four-element theory. He concludes that unity is oneness with no multiplicity or division; all the natures of the elements that compose the human being are united in the one human nature. The same applies to the one Christ, who is from divine and human natures but is of one nature. Yūsāb refers to the divinity as the simple nature and humanity as the dense nature and writes that the unity of the simple with the dense ﻛﺜﻴﻒ( kathīf ) nature is like the unity of fire with iron and the unity of the soul with the body, as the examples used by Cyril and Dioscorus illustrate. 34F 35 After presenting various examples, Yūsāb again affirms that unity means oneness and composition means two or more than one. 35F 36 Yūsāb next points seem to follow the theology of Athanasius. In his Contra Gentes , Athanasius writes that the likeness that humanity shares with the Word is reason, intellect (or mind, nous ), and the ability to express itself in speech. Being created in the image of the Logos means the human soul is endowed with a nous that is always oriented towards the contemplation of God. 36F 37 The constant contemplation of God lends the person purity. One’s senses become superior to bodily impressions and by the power of one’s intellect one is in constant contemplation of and is close to the divine. 37F 38 Athanasius further describes how the body might become captive to its lusts. When they are not used in their proper way, the hands commit murder or robbery, the ears hear disobedience, “other members” are used not for procreation but for adultery, the feet shed blood, and the belly moves to drunkenness or gluttony. Although created to do good, each member of the body willfully chooses to do what is evil. The soul chooses to turn away from God and drives each member of the body to do what is against its created purpose and against God. 38F 39 Athanasius asserts that being created in the image of God means humanity is endowed with reason and this reason influences the body to do things not of the nature of the body. Yūsāb continues his argument based on this Athanasian theology. He explains that the rational soul has two 34 Ms. Theol. 5 , 173r, 173v. 35 Ms. Theol. 5 , 173v, 174r, 174v. Theol 5 mentions only Dioscorus at this point, But Cyril uses this example in many of his writings. For example, Cyril of Alexandria mentions the example of the unity of fire with iron in his interpretation of Jn 17:4-5 in his Commentary on the Gospel of John . 36 Ms. Theol. 5 , 176v. 37 P.T. Camelot, Athanase d’Alexandrie, Contre les païens , Sources chrétiennes 18 (Paris: Cerf, 1977 2 ), 19-21. 38 Athanasius of Alexandria, Contra Gentes , 2. 39 Ibid ., 5.

10 Lois Farag

aspects. One aspect is the ethereal and spiritual soul, which is like the angels; the other aspect is the rational mind, which is simple because it is created in God’s image. When God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26 RSV), the image and similarity meant the rational aspect of humanity. Yūsāb continues that the unity of the two aspects of the soul indicates that man became one subject ( ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ mawḍū c wāḥid ) of one essence and one nature. The unity of the two aspects of the rational soul is expressed in the physical activities that originate from the soul united naturally to the body. For example, the body expresses certain spiritual sentiments like standing in prayer, kneeling, standing in supplication, fasting and vigilance, sometimes to extents that are beyond physical capacity and endurance. In this case the two natures are united in one nature. When the ethereal spiritual soul guides the body, the body becomes spiritual. Those who pursue virtue and live a spiritual life are called spiritual people. Those who follow the rational mind and are focused on the works of the body are called carnal beings whose body has overwhelmed the soul and conquered it. Yūsāb gives as an example the time of Noah, when the whole population is described as carnal. This does not mean that the ethereal/ spiritual soul left or was separated from the body of the people at the time of Noah. When two natures unite they become one soul though we know that the soul is both spiritual and rational. Though composed of these different natures the human being has one essence and one nature. 39F 40 Therefore, after the union, Christ also has one nature. We do not describe the unity as “one” and “another”, for such descriptions of unity introduce quantity ( ﻛﻤﻴﺔ kimmīya ) or multiplicity into the Incarnation and not oneness. 40F 41 This was one of the arguments of Timothy II (r. 458-480) against the Chalcedonian Definition. 41F 42 Yūsāb emphasizes his understanding of unity: It does not mean mixture or confusion as it does for Eutyches, and it does not divide or separate as it does for Nestorius. But as Cyril wrote, unity means one nature of God the Word Incarnate. 42F 43 He concludes his argument by quoting verbatim Cyril’s Third and Fourth Anathemas, which summarize this understanding of unity and warn against dividing the hypostases and dividing the words of the evangelists. 43F 44 40 Ms. Theol. 5 , 176r, 176v, 177r. 41 Ms. Theol. 5 , 177r, 177v. When Yūsāb writes that after the unity Christ is not “one” and “another” ( ,)ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ he is directly referring to Leo’s description of unity in his Letter 28. 42 R.Y. Ebied and L.R. Wickham, “Timothy Aelurus: Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon,” in C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz and L. Van Rompay, eds, After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday , Orientalia Lovanienisia Analecta 18 (Louvain: Peeters, 1985), 115-166, at 152. 43 Ms. Theol. 5 , 177v. 44 “Anathema III: If anyone divideth the hypostases after the union in respect of the One Christ, connecting them by a mere association in dignity or authority or rule, and not rather by

Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm 11 The Eucharist shapes the content of Yūsāb’s next argument, which is guided by Cyril’s Eleventh Anathema. 44F 45 Yūsāb poses the following question to the papal delegate Bartholomew: When the gospel says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51 RSV), to which nature after the Incarnation do you attribute the life-giving bread descending from heaven? 45F 46 You cannot say that it is the human nature and human flesh. “For this reason we do not say that Christ after the union is two natures, or two hypostases, or two energia (operations) but one nature, one energia ﻓﻌﻞ( fi c l ) from the one Christ”. 46F 47 Yūsāb concludes the paragraph with another statement of faith: “We believe he is one Christ, one hypostasis, and one energia .” 47F 48 Yūsāb’s final topic is the validity of the claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. This is the final and shortest argument. Most probably it is mentioned to cover all the bases of debated issues between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Another reason for the terseness of the discussion might be because the filioque is clearly in direct violation of conciliar canons and does not require much debate. In addition, the problem is shared with other Orthodox Churches and does not uniquely define the Coptic Church’s difference with Rome. VI. Final Observations Anba Yūsāb wrote a rhetorically well-crafted letter. He follows the erotapokrisis style and the Aristotelian method of investigation. 48F 49 He starts with a list of questions that outline the issues of investigation and define the subject matter. He systematically considers the difficulties involved by methodically investigating the key problematic terms that caused the a conjunction of real union, be he anathema. Anathema IV: If anyone assigns to two persons or hypostases the words of the evangelic or apostolic writings, which are spoken either of Christ by the saints of Himself by Himself, and applies some to a man considered apart from the Word who is from God, and others, as God-befitting, solely to the Word from God the Father, be he anathema”. Bindley, Oecumenical Documents , p. 218. It is worth noting that Yūsāb translated the anathemas accurately. 45 “Anathema XI: If anyone does not confess the flesh of our Lord to be life-giving and the own flesh of the Word Himself who is from God, but (regards it) as the flesh of some other than Himself conjoined to Him in dignity, or having a mere divine indwelling, and not rather life-giving, as we affirm, because it became the own flesh of the Word who hath strength to quicken all things, be he anathema.” Bindley, Oecumenical Documents , p. 219.

46 Ms. Theol. 5 , 178r. 47 Ms. Theol. 5 , 178r. 48 Ms. Theol. 5 , 178v.

49 I am considering the broad outlines of Aristotle’s method of investigation, which includes defining the subject matter, considering issues and different views on the subject matter and, finally, presenting the writer’s argument and solution.

12 Lois Farag

division, such as hypostasis, nature, essence, and substance. He then investigates the meaning of the concept of unity, which means oneness; any other form of bringing things together does not fulfill the understanding of the term. His frequent listing of Cyril’s anathemas and liturgical confessions is Yūsāb’s way of fulfilling the rhetorical form by presenting a final solution to the argument. He explicitly mentions two church fathers, Cyril and Dioscorus. All quotations from Cyril were accurate and precise. His accurate quotation of Cyril and Leo indicates that these texts were available to consult. He never mentions Athanasius, Basil, Ibn Kabar or Ibn al-Makīn the Younger by name, though he closely follows the arguments of the last three when he defines hypostasis as particularity, and St. Athanasius’ understanding of human reason as God’s image and of the centrality of the nous or reason in contemplating God and controlling the flesh. He proves to be an astute reader of the fathers and a close reader of texts. In this short letter, Anba Yūsāb proved to be a well- trained rhetor and an articulate theologian knowledgeable of the early Christian writers. 50 The educational reform Pope Cyril IV introduced in the Church led to a disjunction with the inherited Coptic-Arabic rhetorical styles influenced by classical rhetoric and early Christian writers. Close reading of early texts was revived a century later. The letter presents an eighteenth century theological exposition of the theological stance of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Coptic theological documents are rare. Most surviving manuscripts are hagiography or texts concerning liturgical use. This is a manuscript not for popular circulation because it is part of the patriarchal correspondence, which is why very few copies survive and what makes it significant. The presence of copies of this letter in a few monasteries beyond the patriarchal library indicates that its theological content was deemed valuable for monastic education, as church leaders are chosen from monasteries. Yūsāb’s arguments are rather sophisticated and learned, theologically sound and logically compelling. He provided for Coptic leaders an enriching argument for their own edification and for use in their encounters with other foreign missionaries in Egypt. This letter is a 50 It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all the influences on or the particularity of Yūsāb’s writing, but it is worthwhile mentioning that he did not follow the form used by either Timothy II or Severus of al-Ashmūnayn. Timothy II, in his letter to Constantinople referred to in footnote 42 of this paper, analyzed and refuted the Chalcedonian Definition word by word. A similar approach was followed by Severus of al-Ashmūnayn, who expounded on the Nicene Creed in an attempt to prove that it has the fullness of faith and there is no need for other creedal definitions such as that of Chalcedon. Both writers followed Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople, that the Nicene Creed is the standard of Orthodoxy and no changes or additions can be applied, and thus took the creedal approach. On the other hand, Yūsāb refuted the main issues following the ancient style of applying rhetoric and Biblical arguments.

Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm 13 significant contribution to the thin eighteenth century Coptic theological library. It is evident that Catholic attempts to get the Coptic Orthodox Church to submit to its authority did not succeed. The letter also reveals that when the eighteenth century Catholic Church spoke about unity it meant submission to Rome and when Orthodox Copts spoke about unity they meant theological agreement. The letter lists the theological disagreements that if not overcome will make unity a dim possibility. It sends the message that unity will not be completed by signing a letter of submission, as Yūsāb’s letter indicates in the introduction, but by signing a theological agreement to the points written in response. The letter abruptly ends with the short argument against the filioque without mentioning any expectation of a response from the Roman papacy, of further dialogue, or of possible future meetings. It is interesting that the Catholic Church submitted its letter in Arabic while the Coptic Orthodox Church did not attempt to provide a response in a different language or even attach a translation to the original. The question is, Did the Catholic side attempt to translate the letter? There is no evidence that there was any response or any further actions from either side.

14 Lois Farag

A PPENDIX The Arabic Text of the Theological Letter of Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm Manuscript Theology 5 Monastery of St. Macarius, Egypt

The appendix includes a semi-diplomatic edition of MS Manuscript Theol. 5 in the Monastery of St. Macarius. It is twenty pages long, 18 lines per page, with an average of 12 to 14 words per line. It is written in a clear, orderly, and neat handwriting. It was copied in AD 1840 ( AM 1556) with a colophon that indicates it belonged to Hegemon Michael, the head of the Monastery of Saint Macarius: ﺍﻻﺏ ﺍﻟﻣﻛﺭﻡ ﺃﺑﻳﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻣﺹ ﻣﻳﺧﺎﺋﻳﻝ ﺭﺋﻳﺱ ﺩﻳﺭ ﺃﺑﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﺭ . The colophon is at the end of the manuscript not at the end of the text. Hegemon Michael seems to have ordered a personal copy of the manuscript, which most probably was deposited in the monastery’s library after his death. The full stop punctuation in the manuscript, which I copied as is, does not follow any literary rule. The text has been “standardized” to help the monastic reader make a difficult theological text intelligible to the listener. This indicates that the letter was not ordered for the personal edification of Hegemon Michael but was copied with the main purpose of public delivery for the edification of monastery’s monks. It might have been read during traditional monastic educational opportunities such as monastic meetings or even during monastic meals. Page (176V) of the manuscript does not include any punctuation and was most probably copied from another manuscript. There are very few copies of this letter. According to the Coptic Encyclopedia there are two copies, one in the Coptic Patriarchate, Theology 138 , and another in the monastery of Saint Anthony, Theology 125 . 50F 51 I discovered one incomplete text at the Monastery of the Virgin Mary (al-Suryān), Theology 143 , and another at St Macarius’s Monastery, Theology 5 . 51F 52 It is no coincidence that the letter is found in these monastic venues and the patriarchal library. It is natural to find patriarchal correspondence deposited in the patriarchal library. Its presence in three monastic libraries highlights the theological value of this letter and its instructional use within monastic communities.

51 S. Khalil Samir, “Yusab,” Coptic Encyclopedia , 7: p. 2361. 52 I was unable to gain access to the Patriarchal library or the library of the Monastery of St. Anthony.

Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm 15 ﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﻻﺏ ﻭﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻻﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺪ ﺩﺍﻳﻤﺎ ﺍﺑﺪﻳﺎ ﺍﻣﻴﻦ (169V)

ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺃﻧﺒﺎ ﻳﻮﺳﺎﺏ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺍﻣﺮﻩ ﺍﻻﺏ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻧﺒﺎ ﻳﻮﺍﻧﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻳﻪ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﺍﻷﻟﻄﻴﻨﻲ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻟﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﺍﻧﻪ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﻊ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺠﻬﺪ ﺭﺿﻲ ﻭﻛﺘﺐ ﻫﺪ ﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻛﺎﺍﻧﻪ ﺍﻻﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﺮﻳﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﻬﺪﺍ ﺍﻻﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺳﻮﻡ ﺍﻋﻼﻩ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻜﺮ ہﻠﻟ ﺩﺍﻳﻤﺎ: ﻣﻦ ﻳﻮﺍﻧﺲ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ. ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻋﻮ ﺑﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠـﻪ ﻭﻣﺮﺍﺣﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺭﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﻮﺕ ﺗﻠﻤﻴﺬ ﻣﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﺮﻗﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ. ﻭﺧﺎﺩﻡ ﻛﺮﺍﺯﺗﻪ. ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺍ ﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻟﻲ. ﻣﻦ ﻁﻮﺍﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﻴﻦ. ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻣﻨﻲ. ﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﻻﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺿﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﺐ.ﺑﺮﺗﻠﻤﺎﻭﻭﻱ ﺍﻻﻟﻄﻴﻨﻲ. ﺍﻟﺪﻱ ﻳﺪﻋﺎ ﻣﺮﺳﻮﻻ. ﺑﻞ ﺭﺳﻮﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ. ﺍﻟﻲ ﺑﻼﺩﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ. ﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﻫﺪﻱ ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ. ﺍﻟﻲ ﺣﻀﺮﺗﻜﻢ. ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻜﻢ ﺍﻧﻜﻢ ﺍﺭﺳﻠﺘﻢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ. ﻧﻜﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑ ﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ. ﻭﻣﻀﻤﻮﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﻥ ﻧﺘﺒﻊ ﺭﺍﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ. ﻭﻧﺼﻴﺮ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻪ. ﻛﻨﻴﺴﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﻩ. ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ. ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺍﻳﻒ. ﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﻟﻤﺘﻌﺠﺐ ﻏﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﺠﺐ. ﻣﻦ ﺯﻛﺎﻭﺕ ﻋﻘﻠﻜﻢ. ﻭﺩﻗﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻤﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﻴﻊ.ﺍﻟﺪﻱ ﻟﻢ ﺭﺍﻳﻨﺎﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻗﻂ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﻩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﻩ. ﺑﻞ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻴﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻒ ﻭﻣﺎﻳﺘﻴ ﻦ ﺳﻨﻪ. ﻟﻢ ﺳﻤﻌﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺳﻠﻴﻦ. ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ. ﻛﺘﺐ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﺑﺎﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﻠﻔﻮﺍ ﻗﺒﻠﻨﺎ. ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ. ﺍﻥ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ. ﻭﻳﺨﻀﻊ ﻟﻪ ﻭﻳﺼﻴﺮ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩﻩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻢ ﺍﻻﻥ ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻌﻠﺘﻢ ﺩﻟﻚ. ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻤﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻳﻀﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻜﻢ. ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺠﻤﻌ ﻮﺍ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺍﻳﻒ (170R) ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺍﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﻪ. ﺍﻭ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺗﺤﺮﻙ ﻓﻴﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﻗﻠﻴﻂ. ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺠﻤﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺨﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺣﻀﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ. ﺍﻭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻳﻠﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻣﻊ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ. ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﻼﺧﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ. ﺯﻋﻢ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻳﺮﺩ ﻗﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻻﺑﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻦ. ﻭﺍﻻﺑﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﺑﺎﻳﻬﻢ. ﻭﻳﻌﺪ ﻟﻠﺮﺏ ﺷﻌﺒﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤﺎ . ﻻﻧﻜﻢ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺍﺭﺳﻠﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﻪ. ﺍﻟﺪﻱ ﻧﻜﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ. ﻗﺪ ﺗﻬﻴﺎ ﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺭﺳﺎﻟﻜﻢ ﺗﻠﻚ. ﺗﺮﻳﺪ ﺗﺮﺩ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻴﻘﻪ. ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻧﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ. ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﻘﺴﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﺭﺍﻳﻜﻢ. ﺑﻞ ﻏﺮﺿﻜﻢ ﻫﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻧﻮﻋﻴﻦ. ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ. ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻥ

16 Lois Farag

ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺗﺤﺮﻙ ﻓﻴﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ. ﻭﻣﻼﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﻳﻞ. ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﻞ ﺍﺗﻌﺎﺑﻬﻢ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺩﺍﺗﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻱ ﺻﻨﻌﻮﻫﺎ. ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﻛﺎﻓﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ. ﺍﻥ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻮﻥ ﺭﺍﻳﻬﻢ. ﻭﻳﻤﺸﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻁﺎﺭﻳﻘﻬﻢ. ﻟﻴﺴﻴﺮﻭﺍ ﻣﺜﻠﻬﻢ. ﻭﺣﺼﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺼﻠﻮﻩ. ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺍﻳﻲ. ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻻﻧﺠﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻳﺴﻌﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺩﺍﻳﻞ. ﻭﺩﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻉ. ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻴﺎﻁﻴﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ. ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﻳﺠﺪﺑﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻲ ﻁﺮﺍﻳﻘﻬﻢ. ﻟﻴﺴﻴﺮﻭﺍ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ ﺣﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﻩ. ﻭﻟﻢ ﺍﻋﺮﻑ ﺍﻱ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻫﻮ ﺿﻤﻴﺮﻛﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ﺍﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻧﻲ. ﺣﻤﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﻠـﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻟﻚ. ﻭﺍﻫﺪﺍﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻖ ﻻﻧﻪ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﻋﻴﻨﻰ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻜﻢ. ﻟﺘﻌﺮﻓﻮﺍ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ. ﻭﺗﻬﺪﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺍﺏ. ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﺭﺳﺎﻟﻜﻢ ﺩﻟﻚ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻫﻞ ﻳﺎﺗﺮﺍ . ﺩﺭﺳﺘﻢ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ. ﻭﻓﻬﻤﺘﻢ ﺩﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻏﻮﺍﻣﻀﻬﺎ. ﻭﺣﻘﻘﺘﻢ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻨﺪﻛﻢ. ﺣﺘﻲ ﺃﺭﺩﺗﻢ ﺗﺠﺪﺑﻮﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ. ﺍﻭ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺖ ﻭﺣﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء. ﻭﺍﺧﺒﺮﻛﻢ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻻﻣﺮ ﺍﻥ ﺗﺼﻠﺤﻮﺍ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺍﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﻴﻦ ﻻﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﺤﻦ (170V) ﺍﺗﻄﻠﻌﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩﻛﻢ. ﺍﻧﻜﻢ ﺗﻘﺮﻭﺍ ﺑﺎﺗﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﺎﻳﻊ. ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻜﻢ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﺎﻳﻊ ﺍﺗﺤﺪﻭﺍ ﺛﻢ ﺗﻨﻘﻀﻮﺍ ﻗﻮﻟﻜﻢ ﻫﺪﺍ. ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻣﺸﻴﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻓﻌﻠﻴﻦ. ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﻘﻀﺘﻢ. ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻻﺗﺤﺎﺩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ. ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﻌﺘﻢ ﺭﺍﻱ ﻧﺴﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﺪ. ﻻﻥ ﺩﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻗﻨﻮﻣﻴﻦ. ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻻﻭﻭﻥ ﻣﺮﺷﺪﻛﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭﺗﻴﻦ. ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻳﻞ ﻭ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻧﺎ. ﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﻩ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﻪ. ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺮﻩ ﻣﻠﻘﻴﻪ ﻟﻠﺴﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻬﻮﺍﻥ. ﻭﻗﺪ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻟﻜﻢ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺍ. ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ. ﻭﻫﺪﻡ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻨﺎﻩ ﻭﻋﻘﺪﻩ.ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﻘﺎﻭﻱ.ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻫﺪﺍ ﺍﻻﻣﺎﻧﻪ. ﺃﻭ ﻧﻘﺺ ﺷﻴﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻠﻴﻜﻦ ﻣﺤﺮﻭﻡ.ﻻﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺗﻴﻦ. ﻗﺪ )ﺻﻴﺮ( 52F 53 ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻻﺗﺤﺎﺩ.ﻋﺒﺪ ﻭﻣﻌﺒﻮﺩ. ﻭﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ. ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﺎﻗﺾ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻻﺏ ﻛﻴﺮﻟﺺ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ.ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺳﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﻪ. ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﻗﻨﻮﻣﻴﻦ.ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻲ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﻦ. ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺤﺴﻦ ﺍﻥ ﺍﺗﺤﺎﺩﻫﻤﺎ ﺍﺗﺤﺎﺩﺍ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﻲ. ﻓﻠﻴﻜﻦ ﻣﺤﺮﻭﻡ. ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻻﺏ ﻛﻴﺮﻟﺺ. ﻣﻦ ﺍﻓﺮﻕ ﺍﺻﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻛﻮﺭﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻧﺠﻴﻞ. ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍ ﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪﺳﻪ. ﻭﻧﺴﺐ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ ﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ. ﻭﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ. ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﻥ. ﻧﻌﻢ

53 Added to clarify the meaning.