This article is the second part of an investigation into the controversy between the Arab-Muslim philosopher Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb b. Isḥāq al-Kindī (died after 256/870, ca. 873) and the Christian-Jacobite logician and theologian Yaḥyā b. ʿAdī (d. 363/974). It argues that we can draw a line from Basil of Caesarea’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s refutation of Eunomius of Cyzicus to Yaḥyā b. ʿAdī’s refutation of al-Kindī. According to Gregory’s and Ibn ʿAdī’s reasoning Eunomius’ and al-Kindī’s refutation of the consubstantiality of God-Father and God-Son is grounded in a series of misunderstandings starting from the fundamental error of a false interpretation of the relationship between substance and hypostases. The term ‘hypostases’ in Gregory’s and Ibn ʿAdī’s interpretation does not indicate ‘individual substances’ but rather different subsistences of a nature or essence realised by the properties peculiar to that nature. The nature in turn is knowable by its intelligible properties, and the fact of the subsistence of properties is signified by an appellation or by the predication of a circumscription (περιγραφή) or characterisation and attribute (ṣifa) respectively.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
C. Schöck, “The Controversy between al-Kindī and Yaḥyā b. ʿAdī on the Trinity, Part One: A Revival of the Controversy between Eunomius and the Cappadocian Fathers,” Oriens 40 (2012), 1–50.
A. Périer, “Un traité de Yaḥyā ben ʿAdī (1): Défense du dogme de la Trinité contre les objections d’Al-Kindī (2), text arabe publié pour la première fois et traduit,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 22 (1920–1921), 3–21. For further details and references to translations and studies see Schöck, “The Controversy between al-Kindī and Yaḥyā b. ʿAdī on the Trinity, Part One,” 1–3.
Périer, “Traité,” 9.14. Cf. Schöck, “The Controversy […], Part One,” 42–44.
Porphyry, In Cat. 75.27–28; R. Bodéüs, ed., Commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote, 170: … τὰ μὲν συμβεβηκότα ἐστὶν ὥσπερ καὶ αἱ οὐσίαι, τὰ δὲ καθόλου τι λέγεσθαι οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ὑπάρξει, ἀλλὰ μέχρι ἐπινοίας λέγεται. Emphasis added.
Porphyry, In Cat. 74.33; Bodéüs, ed., Commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote, 168.
Porphyry, In Cat. 75.2; Bodéüs, ed., Commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote, 168.
Porphyry, In Cat. 75.5–6; Bodéüs, ed., Commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote, 168: ῞Οτι ἄνθρωπος διχῶς λέγεται καὶ ὡς οὐσία και ὡς καθόλου καὶ οὐ τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους τι. Numbering added.
Porphyry, In Cat. 75.6–7; Bodéüs, ed., Commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote, 168: οὐσία ἐπινοεῖται.
Porphyry, In Cat. 75.7–11: ‹Π.› Πῶς οὖν οὐσία ἐπινοεῖται; ‹Ἀ.› Ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲ συμβεβηκός τι. ‹Π.› Πῶς δὲ καὶ ὅτι καθόλου; ‹Ἀ.› Ὅτι καθ’ ὑποκειμένου λέγεται τοῦ τινὸς ἀνθρώπου καὶ οὐκ ἔστι μερικόν τι και ἄτομον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πλειόνων λέγεται τῷ ἀριθμῷ διαφερόντων. Emphasis added.
Cf. R. Cross, “Gregory of Nyssa on Universals,” Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002), 373.
Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium, 41.2–7: ἡ δὲ φύσις μία ἐστίν, αὐτὴ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἡνωμένη καὶ ἀδιάτμητος ἀκριβῶς μονάς, οὐκ αὐξανομένη διὰ προθήκης, οὐ μειουμένη δι’ ὑφαιρέσεως, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἓν οὖσα καὶ ἓν διαμένουσα κἂν ἐν πλήθει φαίνηται, ἄσχιστος καὶ συνεχὴς καὶ ὁλόκληρος καὶ τοῖς μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς τοῖς καθ’ ἕκαστον οὐ συνδιαιρουμένη. Cf. J. Zachhuber, “Das Universalienproblem,” 152.
Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium, 38.8–9: Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἱωαννης, ἔν μιᾷ ὄντες τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι, τρεῖς ἄνθρωποι λέγονται. Zachhuber, “Das Universalienproblem,” 150, translates: “Petrus, Jacobus und Johannes werden drei Menschen genannt, obgleich sie in einer menschlichen Natur sind.”—To my mind ἔν μιᾷ ὄντες τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι is not meant adversatively, but rather explains the reason why the three of them are said to be three men.
Eunomius, Apologia, 7.1–11, in The Extant Works, ed. and tr. Richard P. Vaggione (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 40; cf. Basil of Caesarea, Contre Eunome, ed. B. Sesboüé (Paris: Cerf, 1982–1983), vol. 2, 244–246: … οὐκοῦν εἰ μήτε αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ μήθ᾿ ἕτερόν τι αὐτοῦ προϋάρχειν δέδεικται, πρὸ δὲ πάντων αὐτός, ἀκολουθεῖ τούτῳ τὸ ἀγέννητον, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτός ἐστιν οὐσία ἀγέννητος. Engl. transl. T.A. Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism (Cambridge: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979), vol. 2, 311; translation modified; cf. the French transl. by Sesboüé, Contre Eunome, vol. 2, 245–247. See Schöck, “The Controversy […], Part One,” 11; 18.
See Eunomius, Apologia, 10.10–11.3 (Vaggione, 44–46; cf. Sesboüé, vol. 2, 254); see Schöck, “The Controversy […], Part One,” 24 with n. 92.
Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium, 56.17–20: πρότερον δὲ ἡμᾶς εἶναί τι πιστεύειν ἐπάναγκες, καὶ τότε πῶς ἐστι τὸ πεπιστευμένον περιεργάσασθαι· ἄλλος οὖν ὁ τοῦ τί ἐστι καὶ ἄλλος ὁ τοῦ πῶς ἐστι λόγος. Emphasis added.
Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium, 42.19–20: ἡμεῖς δὲ ταῖς τῆς γραφῆς ὑποθήκαις ἑπόμενοι ἀκατονόμαστόν τε καὶ ἄφραστον αὐτὴν μεμαθήκαμεν.
Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium, 42.22–43.2: καὶ πᾶν ὄνομα, εἴτε παρὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης συνηθείας ἐξηύρηται εἴτε παρὰ τῶν γραφῶν παραδέδοται, τῶν περὶ τὴν θείαν φύσιν νοουμένων ἑρμηνευτικὸν εἶναι λέγομεν, οὐκ αὐτῆς τῆς φύσεως περιέχειν τὴν σημασίαν. Cf. 43.14–15: “by the things said something of the things around it (sc. nature) is made known” (τι τῶν περὶ αὐτὴν διὰ τῶν λεγομένων γνωρίζεσθαι).
Basil of Caesarea, ep. 38, 2.1–19, in Saint Basile: Lettres, vol. 1, ed. Yves Courtonne (Paris: Les belles lettres, 1957), 81–82: Πάντων τῶν ὀνομάτων τὰ μὲν ἐπὶ πλειόνων καὶ τῷ ἀριθμῷ διαφερόντων λεγόμενα πραγμάτων καθωλικοτέραν τινὰ τὴν σημασίαν ἔχει, οἷον ἄνθρωπος. Ὁ γὰρ τοῦτο εἰπών, τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος δείξας, οὐ περιέγραψε τῇ φωνῇ τὸν τινὰ ἄνθρωπον, τὸν ἰδίως ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος γνωριζόμενον. Οὐ γὰρ μᾶλλον Πέτρος ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ἢ καὶ Ἀνδρέας καὶ Ἰωάννης καὶ Ἰάκωβος. Ἡ οὖν κοινότης τοῦ σημαινομένου, ὁμοίως ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ ὄνομα τεταγμένους χωροῦσα, χρείαν ἔχει τῆς ὑποδιαστολῆς δι᾿ ἧς οὐ τὸν καθόλου ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸν Πέτρον ἢ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἐπιγνωσόμεθα. Τὰ δὲ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἰδικωτέραν ἔχει τὴν ἔνδειξιν δι᾿ ἧς οὐχ ἡ κοινότης τῆς φύσεως ἐνθεωρεῖται τῷ σημαινομένῳ, ἀλλὰ πράγματός τινος περιγραφή μηδεμίαν ἔχουσα πρὸς τὸ ὁμογενὲς, κατὰ τὸν ἰδιάζον, τὴν κοινωνίαν, οἷον ὁ Παῦλος ἢ ὁ Τιμόθεος. Οὐκέτι γὰρ ἡ τοιαύτη φωνὴ ἐπὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς φύσεως φέρεται, ἀλλὰ χωρίσασα τῆς περιληπτικῆς σημασίας περιγεγραμμένων τινῶν πραγμάτων ἔμφασιν διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων παρίστησιν. For a full translation of this passage see Schöck, “The Controversy […], Part One,” 33–34.
Périer, “Traité,” 4.10–13; for the full quotation and translation of al-Kindī’s abstract of the Christian Creed see Schöck, “The Controversy […], Part One,” 31.
Périer, “Traité,” 4.18–19: maʿnā l-ǧawhari fī kulli wāḥidin mina l-aqānīmi wa-hiya fīhi muttafiqatun.
Périer, “Traité,” 5.1–2: wa-li-kulli wāḥidin ḫāṣṣatun lam tazal bihā tuḫālifu baynahū wa-bayna ṣāḥibayhi.
Périer, “Traité,” 5.2–6: wa-ḏālika anna hāḏihi ṯ-ṯalāṯata l-aqānīma hiya ʿindahum ḫawāṣṣun li-ḏālika l-ǧawhari wa-hiya ʿindahum ṣifātun yūṣafu bihā l-ǧawharu l-wāḥidu bi-annahū ǧawādun ḥakīmun qādirun fa-l-ǧūdu ʿindahum huwa l-musammā aban wa-l-ḥikmatu hiya l-musammātu bnan wa-l-qudratu hiya l-musammātu r-rūḥu l-qudsu wa-kullu waḥidin min hāḏihi l-maʿānī ġayru ṣāḥibayhi.
Périer, “Traité,” 5.7–8: … anna kulla wāḥidin minhā mutarakkabun mina l-ǧawhari llaḏī ʿammahā wa-mina l-ḫāṣṣati llatī ḫaṣṣathu.
Périer, “Traité,” 5.8–11: in kunta turīdu bi-l-murakkabi annhū yufhamu fīhi maʿnan tattafiqu fīhi ǧamīʿuhā wa-maʿnan yaḫtaṣṣu wāḥidan wāḥidan minhā wa-lam yūǧad kullu wāḥidin minhā illā wa-l-maʿniyāni kilāhumā mawǧūdāni lahū fa-qawluka muwāfiqun li-qawli n-Naṣārā.
Périer, “Traité,” 5.15–16: ayyuhā l-faylasūfu taṣifu l-bāriʾa ǧalla wa-ʿazza bi-annahū ilāhun wa-bi-annahū wāḥidun wa-bi-annahū ǧawharun … Emphasis added.
Périer, “Traité,” 5.16–6.6: wa-aʿnī bi-qawlī ǧawharun annahū laysa huwa fī mawḍūʿin wa-ḏālika annahū in lam yakun laysa fī mawḍūʿin fa-wāǧibun an yakūna fī mawḍūʿin wa-ḏālika anna aḥada n-naqīḍayni wāǧibun ḍarūratan an yaṣduqa fī kulli mawṣūfin fa-bi-ayyi hāḏayni qulta fa-maʿnāhu ġayru maʿnā annahū ilāhun wa-ġayru maʿnā annahū wāḥidun wa-kullu wāḥidin min hāḏihi l-maʿānī lam yazal wa-ḏālika annahū lam yaṣir ilāhan baʿda an lam yakun ilāhan aw lam yaṣir wāḥidan baʿda an lam yakun wāḥidan wa-lā ṣāra fī mawḍūʿin baʿda an lam yakun ka-ḏālika aw lam yaṣir fī mawḍūʿin baʿda an lam yakun ka-ḏālika fa-hāḏihi ṯ-ṯalāṯatu l-maʿānī iḏan lam yazal mustaḥaqqan an yūṣafa bihā fa-huwa iḏan bi-ḥasabi qawlika mutarakkabun minhā wa-kullu mutarakkabin bi-ḥasabi qaḍiyyatika maʿlūlun wa-kullu maʿlūlin laysa bi-azaliyyin fa-maʿbūduka iḏan ġayru azaliyyin wa-huwa ʿalā qawlika azaliyyun wa-hāḏā min ašnaʿi l-muḥāli fa-hāḏā muwāzinun li-qawlika wa-mumāṯilun li-burhānika. Emphasis added.
Périer, “Traité,” 6.12–17: … kānū innamā yaqūlūna inna l-ǧawhara mawṣūfun bi-kulli wāḥidin min hāḏihi ṣ-ṣifāti ṯ-ṯalāṯati wa-innahā azaliyyatun ġayru ḥādiṯatin lahū baʿda an lam yakun wa-qad bayyanā anna miṯla ḏālika yalzamuka fī waṣfika l-bāriʾi ǧalla wa-taʿālā bi-annahū ilāhun wa-annahū wāḥidun wa-annahū lā fī mawḍūʿin aw annahū fī mawḍūʿin fa-iḏā kāna l-amru ʿalā hāḏā fa-qadi ttaḍaḥa fasādu ḥuǧǧatika wa-buṭlānu dalīlika bi-tawfīqi llāhi wa-ḥusni tasdīdihī. Emphasis added.
Périer, “Traité,” 7.15. Cf. Périer, “Traité,” 4.14: kullu maʿlūlin laysa bi-azaliyyin; Schöck, “The Controversy […], Part One,” 41 with n. 148.
Périer, “Traité,” 7.18–8.6: wa-l-ʿunṣuriyyatu tanqasimu qismayni fa-minhumā hayūlāniyyun wa-huwa llaḏī min šaʾnihī an yaqbala ṣuwaran baʿda an lam yakun qablahā wa-l-murakkabātu min hāḏā l-qismi mina l-ʿunṣuri wa-mina ṣ-ṣuwari llatī yaqbaluhā ḥādiṯatun baʿda an lam takun wa-qismun huwa mawḍūʿun ġayru hayūlāniyyin wa-ḏālika annahū lā yaqbalu ġayra ṣ-ṣūrati l-mawǧūdati fīhi wa-ka-ḏālika l-ʿillatu llatī tusammā fāʿilatun tanqasimu qismayni aḥaduhā muḥdiṯun li-ṣ-ṣuwari llatī takūnu baʿda an lam takun wa-l-āḫaru huwa ʿillatun li-l-wuǧūdi lā li-l-ḥudūṯi fa-hāḏā l-qismu ṯ-ṯāniyu maʿlūlātuhū maʿahū wa-lā yataqaddamu maʿlūlātuhū fī l-wuǧūdi wa-ʿalā hāḏā ḍ-ḍarbi taqūlu n-Naṣārā anna l-aba ʿillatu l-ibni wa-r-rūḥi wa-innahumā maʿlūlāhū.
Périer, “Traité,” 8.9: … anna l-aba wa-huwa ʿillatu l-ibni wa-r-rūḥi maʿan la yataqaddamuhumā qidamatan zamāniyyatan.
Périer, “Traité,” 12.14–15: wa-yuqālu ayḍan wāḥidun li-l-ašyāʾi llatī l-qawlu d-dāllu ʿalā māhiyyatihā wāḥidun.
Périer, “Traité,”,13.8–11: wa-qad yakūnu l-wāḥidu wāḥidan fī l-ḥaddi kaṯīran fī l-mawḍūʿi ka-l-insāni ayḍan fa-inna ḥaddahū min ḥayṯu huwa insānun ḥaddu wāḥidin wa-mawḍūʿātahū llatī tūṣafu bihī kaṯīratun ka-Zaydin wa-ʿAbdillāhi wa-Ḫālidin fa-inna kulla wāḥidin min hāḏihi mawḍūʿun li-waṣfihī bi-l-insān.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 430 | 49 | 14 |
Full Text Views | 210 | 8 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 82 | 36 | 3 |
This article is the second part of an investigation into the controversy between the Arab-Muslim philosopher Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb b. Isḥāq al-Kindī (died after 256/870, ca. 873) and the Christian-Jacobite logician and theologian Yaḥyā b. ʿAdī (d. 363/974). It argues that we can draw a line from Basil of Caesarea’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s refutation of Eunomius of Cyzicus to Yaḥyā b. ʿAdī’s refutation of al-Kindī. According to Gregory’s and Ibn ʿAdī’s reasoning Eunomius’ and al-Kindī’s refutation of the consubstantiality of God-Father and God-Son is grounded in a series of misunderstandings starting from the fundamental error of a false interpretation of the relationship between substance and hypostases. The term ‘hypostases’ in Gregory’s and Ibn ʿAdī’s interpretation does not indicate ‘individual substances’ but rather different subsistences of a nature or essence realised by the properties peculiar to that nature. The nature in turn is knowable by its intelligible properties, and the fact of the subsistence of properties is signified by an appellation or by the predication of a circumscription (περιγραφή) or characterisation and attribute (ṣifa) respectively.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 430 | 49 | 14 |
Full Text Views | 210 | 8 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 82 | 36 | 3 |