Coptica 15, 2016

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.