A Question on Syriac Christological Terminology
Ayse Icoz
Dear all,
Recently, I have been looking at the debate on the createdness of the Qur’an, which became a major issue in the Islamic world in the ninth century and its reflections in the writings of Arabophone Christian authors. Some Melkite authors from this period appear to have used this debate polemically, drawing a parallel between Muslim discussions on the eternality of God’s kalām and Christian claims about the pre-existent and uncreated nature of Jesus. Their argument seems to be that if God’s Word (kalām Allāh) is eternal, then the one identified in the Qur’an as God's “Word” (kalima) and “Spirit,” namely Jesus, must likewise share in this eternal status. This line of reasoning is particularly evident in certain ninth-century Melkite works. (I am aware that this issue was also addressed in Dispute Between a Saracen and a Christian, traditionally attributed to John of Damascus.)
Interestingly, this approach does not appear in the writings of Syriac-background authors such as ʿAmmār al-Baṣrī or Abū Rāʾiṭah, both of whom were active and prolific in the same century. Given Abū Rāʾiṭah’s familiarity with Muʿtazilī theology and his connections to courtly circles, his silence on the issue is especially striking. One possible explanation, as far as I can see, lies in the different conceptual histories of Logos terminology in Greek and Syriac. In Greek, Logos can denote both the eternal, pre-existent divine reality and the incarnate Jesus, making it relatively straightforward to connect Muslim debates on the divine Word to Christology. As far as I am aware, in the Syriac tradition, however, John 1:1 renders Logos as melṯā, while Christ’s incarnate manifestation is more commonly expressed through memrā. This terminological distinction may have made the Christian polemical use of the “createdness of the Word” debate less compelling or less theologically natural for Syriac authors.
With this background in mind, I would be grateful for your insights on a few points:
-
Are there examples in Syriac theological literature where melṯā is used specifically in reference to the incarnate Jesus?
-
If my hypothesis above is at all plausible, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions for secondary literature on this conceptual/terminological divide.
-
And finally, if anyone has come across later reflections of this debate in the works of Arabophone Syriac authors, I would be very interested to hear about it.
Many thanks in advance for any thoughts or references you might be willing to share.
Best regards,
Dr. Ayşe İçöz
Assistant Professor of History of Religions
Marmara University
Faculty of Theology
Department of History of Religions
Prof. Dr. Najib George Awad
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To post to this group, send email to nas...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
nascas+un...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nascas?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nascas+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/63dd2a9b-fd69-45ae-8a5e-67aaaa432b97n%40googlegroups.com.
Ali B. Langroudi
Dear Ayşe,
--
roger akhrass
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 9:02 PM
To: North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies <nas...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [nascas] A Question on Syriac Christological Terminology