Nikolai N. Seleznyov (ed. and trans.), Liber sessionum sive
disputatio inter Eliam metropolitam Nisibenum et vezirum Abū ʾl-Qāsim
al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Maġribī et Epistola eiusdem Eliae Nisibeni ad vezirum
Abū ʾl-Qāsim missa
Alexander
Treiger
Dalhousie University
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2018
Volume 21.1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv21n1prtreiger
Alexander Treiger
Review of: Liber sessionum sive
disputatio inter Eliam metropolitam Nisibenum et vezirum Abū ʾl-Qāsim
al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Maġribī et Epistola eiusdem Eliae Nisibeni ad vezirum
Abū ʾl-Qāsim missa
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol21/HV21N1PRTreiger.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2018
vol 21
issue 1
pp 236–240
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
File created by James E. Walters
Nikolai N. Seleznyov (ed. and trans.), Книга собеседований Илии,
митрополита Нисивина, с везиром Абу-л-Ḳасимом ал-Хусайном ибн ʿАли
ал-Магриби и
Послание митрополита Илии везиру Абу-л-Ḳасиму / Kitāb al-Maǧālis li-Mār Iliyyā muṭrān Nuṣaybīn wa-Risālatuhu ilā l-wazīr
al-kāmil Abī l-Qāsim al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Maġribī / Liber sessionum sive
disputatio inter Eliam metropolitam Nisibenum et vezirum Abū ʾl-Qāsim
al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Maġribī et Epistola eiusdem Eliae Nisibeni ad vezirum
Abū ʾl-Qāsim missa (Moscow: Grifon, 2017/8). Pp. 210 + ٢٦٨. ISBN 978-5-98862-366-3 +
978-5-98862-367-0 (two volumes); 978-5-98862-371-7 (one-volume edition).
The East Syriac theologian Elias of Nisibis (975–1046) has been rightly
acclaimed as one of the most influential Syriac and Christian Arabic
writers. The book under review presents a first complete critical edition
and Russian translation of two of Elias’ Arabic treatises: Book of Sessions (Kitāb
al-Maǧālis) and Epistle to the Vizier Abū l-Qāsim al-Maġribī.
Previous editions of the Sessions include
Louis Cheikho’s uncritical and abridged edition,
Louis Cheikho, “Maǧālis Īliyya muṭrān Nuṣaybīn,” al-Mašriq 20 (1922), 33–44, 112–122, 267–272, 366–377, 425–434 (reprint: Louis Cheikho, Trois
traités anciens de polémique et de théologie
chrétiennes, Beirut, 1923, pp. 26–73). Cheikho presents a collated text with no critical apparatus, based on four manuscripts: Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale 564 (year 1826, a copy of a copy of Vat. ar. 645, written in 1234) – B in Seleznyov’s edition; Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale 676 (year 1715) – Ḅ in Seleznyov’s edition; an unspecified Beirut manuscript, which Cheikho dated to the thirteenth century (cf. Louis Cheikho, “al-Maḫṭūṭāt al-ʿarabiyya fī ḫizānat kulliyyatinā al-šarqiyya,” al-Mašriq 6 (1909), 374–378, at p. 376, No. 99); and Aleppo, Maronite Archdiocese 258 (year 1631).
Samir Khalil Samir’s editions of Elias’ Introduction and the First, Sixth,
and (partially) Seventh Sessions,
Introduction and First Session: Samir Khalil Samir, “Entretien d’Élie de Nisibe avec le vizir Ibn ʿAlī al-Maġribī sur l’Unité et la Trinité,” Islamochristiana 5 (1979), 31–117 (reprint: Samir Khalil Samir, Foi et culture en
Irak au XIe siècle, Aldershot: Variorum, 1996,
Essay VII).
Sixth Session: Samir
Khalil Samir, “Deux cultures qui s’affrontent: une controverse
sur l’iʿrāb au XIe siècle entre Élie de Nisibe et le vizir Abū l-Qāsim,” Mélanges de
l’Université
Saint-Joseph 49 (1975–1976), 619–649 (reprint: Samir, Foi et
culture, Essay XI); Samir Khalil Samir, “Langue arabe, logique et théologie chez Élie de Nisibe,” Mélanges de
l’Université
Saint-Joseph 52 (1991–1992), 229–367. I was unable to consult Samir Khalil Samir, Iliyyā
al-Naṣībī: Kitāb
al-Maǧālis,
al-Maǧlis al-sādis fī
al-naḥw wa-l-luġa
wa-l-ḫaṭṭwa-l-kalām, Cairo: n.p., 1975, 53 pages). Samir Khalil Samir, “Bibliographie du dialogue islamo-chrétien,” Islamochristiana, 3 (1977), 257–286 (reprint: Samir, Foi et
culture, Essay I), p.
[10]/264 describes it as an “édition polycopiée,” i.e., a
handwritten or typewritten text reproduced by a duplication
machine; no copy of it seems available in major university
libraries.
Seventh Session: Samir Khalil Samir, “La réfutation de l’astrologie par Élie de Nisibe,” Orientalia
Christiana
Periodica 43 (1977), 408–441 (reprint: Samir, Foi et
culture, Essay X);
revised edition: Samir Khalil Samir, “Īliyyā al-Nuṣaybīnī
(975–1046 m) wa-l-wazīr Abū l-Qāsim al-Maġribī. II. Iʿtiqād
al-naṣārā fī aḥkām al-nuǧūm,” al-Mašriq 77 (2003), 83–105.
and Martino Diez’s recent edition of the Fifth Session.
Martino Diez, “The Profession of Monotheism by Elias of Nisibis: An Edition and Translation of the Fifth Session of the Kitāb
al-majālis,” Islam and
Christian-Muslim
Relations 28.4 (2017), 493–514.
The Sixth Session, in particular, has a paramount importance for Syriac
Studies in that there Elias offers a detailed comparison between Syriac and
Arabic with reference to grammar, lexicography, and script and makes a case
for the superiority of Syriac over Arabic.
David Bertaina, “Science, Syntax, and Superiority in Eleventh-Century Christian-Muslim Discussion: Elias of Nisibis on the Arabic and Syriac Languages,” Islam and
Christian-Muslim
Relations 22.2 (2011), 197–207. On Elias of Nisibis’ contribution to Syriac lexicography, see Adam McCollum, “Prolegomena to a New Edition of Eliya of Nisibis’s Kitāb
al-turjumān fī taʿlīm luġat
al-suryān,” Journal of
Semitic
Studies 58.2 (2013), 297–322.
The Epistle was never
published before.
For his edition of the Sessions, Seleznyov
consulted thirteen manuscripts, five of which were collated systematically
(V = Vat. ar. 143, adopted as the manuscrit de base;
Online: .
Ṽ = Vat. ar. 155; Ṿ = Vat. ar. 180; P = Paris, BnF ar. 206; K = Berlin, Staatsbibliothek syr. 115 [Sachau 67] in
Garšūnī), and three others partially (H =
Oxford, Bodleian, Huntington 240 [Uri 38]; A
= Aleppo, Salem ar. 274 [Sbath 1080]; S =
Berlin, Staatsbibliothek syr. 114 [Sachau 205]).
The critical apparatus includes only the most significant variant readings (minor variants, e.g., wa- vs. fa-, are
disregarded).
Five additional manuscripts of the Sessions—including two of the Beirut
manuscripts employed by Cheikho—were judged to be unreliable and
disregarded. The Epistle is edited on the
basis of the only accessible manuscript: Aleppo, Salem ar. 318 [Sbath
1131].
As Seleznyov indicates (p. 29, n. 3), the only other manuscript of the Epistle—Sbath 1130 (year 1231)—is now kept in a private collection in London. See Peter J. Starr, “The Epistle to
Bišr b.
Finḥās (Maqālah
ʿamilahā ilā Bišr b. Finḥās) of Ibn Zurʿah (m. A.H. 398 / A.D.
1008): Edition, Translation, and Commentary,” PhD diss.,
University of Cambridge, Emmanuel College, 2000, p.
74.
Seleznyov’s publication breaks new ground in two respects. First, it
offers, for the first time, a reliable integral text of the Sessions. This is particularly significant for those
parts of the Sessions that had been
hitherto available only in Cheikho’s edition: i.e., the Second, Third, and
Fourth Sessions. Crucially, Seleznyov’s edition (pp. ٥٢:9–٦٣:7) includes an important
passage from the Second Session in which Elias discusses the notion of ḥulūl, “inhabitation,” of the Divine Word
in Jesus. (The Christology of the Church of the East, espoused by Elias of
Nisibis, is peculiar in that it construes the Divine Word and Jesus as two
distinct subjects—divine / uncreated and human / created, respectively—and
hence is predisposed to speaking about the Incarnation in terms of
“inhabitation” of the former in the latter.) This passage had been omitted
in Cheikho’s edition for doctrinal reasons,
Cheikho explains this omission in the introduction to his edition: “We shall print these Sessions in our journal with the exception of the Second Session, of which we shall publish only a short fragment, because [this Session] contains Nestorian heresy [al-bidʿa
al-nasṭūriyya]
concerning the Incarnation of the Lord Christ, and [if we were
to publish it in full], it [would] necessitate a long rebuttal”
(Cheikho, “Maǧālis,” p. 34; cf. p. 117, n.
1).
and had therefore remained unpublished.
Nikolai N. Seleznyov, “«И вселисѧвъ ны»: Боговселение
(al-ḥulūl) в
мусульманско-христианском диалоге—Илия Нисивинский и Абу-л-Ḳасим
ал-Магриби” [“‘And
Dwelled in Us’: Divine Inhabitation (al-ḥulūl) in Muslim-Christian Disputation—Elias of Nisibis and Abū l-Qāsim al-Maġribī”], Христiанскiй Востокъ / Christian
Orient 8 (14) (2017), 297–312. On the peculiarities of the Christology of the Church of the East in an Arab Christian milieu, see also Alexander Treiger, “The Christology of the Letter from
the People of
Cyprus,” Journal of
Eastern Christian
Studies 65.1–2 (2013), 21–48.
Second, Seleznyov’s publication presents an editio princeps of the Epistle.
This allows him to reconstruct the relationship between the two works.
Seleznyov argues (pp. 12–13) that the Epistle was written first, in response to Abū l-Qāsim’s
letter.
This letter as well as Abū l-Qāsim’s response to Elias’ Epistle are also included in Seleznyov’s publication (pp. ١٦٣–١٦٥ and ٢٥٥–٢٥٩ respectively).
After Abū l-Qāsim’s death in 1027, Elias compiled the Sessions, which is a reworking of the Epistle with several omissions and additions. The
division into seven “sessions” is, according to Seleznyov, a literary ploy.
Though it loosely reflects the chronology of Elias’ meetings with Abū
l-Qāsim, it is doubtful that all the subjects treated in the Sessions were discussed in these meetings. It is more
likely that Elias used this occasion to engage more deeply in various
subjects of Christian-Muslim polemic.
Minor shortcomings of the publication include occasional misprints,
For example, wa-ḏālika on p. ٢٤:4 should be corrected to wa-li-ḏālika (the reading of Vat. ar. 143, fol. 19r); aw
laysa on p. ٣١:10 should be corrected to a-wa-laysa (spelled as one word); kāna l-amr
hāḏā on p. ٥٢:5 should be corrected to kāna l-amr
ʿalā
hāḏā (the reading of Vat. ar. 143, fol. 42r).
an overly literal translation,
For example, the term qawl, literally “statement” but frequently employed in the sense of “teaching” or “doctrine” (cf. the title of al-Ašʿarī’s heresiographical work Maqālāt
al-islāmiyyīn, Doctrines
of the Muslims),
is translated throughout as “statement” [высказывание] or
“affirmation” [утверждение], though “doctrine” [учение] would
have been more idiomatic and, arguably, more
precise.
and omission of folio numbers of the manuscrit de base (though the beginning of
every manuscript page is helpfully indicated). While it is commendable that
the Arabic text is reproduced the way it appears in the manuscripts, some
punctuation would have been useful for most readers. Occasionally, it is
noticeable that the text diverges slightly from the manuscrit de base with no explanation.
For example, Vat. ar. 143, fol. 19r:4 reads: wa-li-ḏālika ḥaṣala l-ḏāt ġayr ʿaraḍ wa-ġayr qābil
li-l-aʿrāḍ; Seleznyov’s edition, p. ٢٤:4–5 has: wa-ḏālika
ḥaṣalat l-ḏāt {bi-muǧarradihā—supplied from
manuscripts P ṾṼ} ġayr ʿaraḍ ġayr
qābila li-l-aʿrāḍ.
Despite these minor deficiencies, Seleznyov’s edition of the Book of Sessions and the Epistle to the Vizier Abū l-Qāsim al-Maġribī—the first to provide
a complete and reliable access to these two works—is certainly a landmark
contribution to Syriac and Christian Arabic Studies. It is to be hoped that
it will stimulate further research into the thought of Elias of Nisibis, one
of the most influential medieval Syriac and Christian Arabic theologians and
a central figure in the history of Christian-Muslim polemic.