Abstract
This article investigates a little-known yet highly significant facet of the Arabic liturgical Gospel books – the commentary that was introduced into the Gospel readings from at least the 11th century to the 19th century, notably during the time of Patriarch Athanasios III Dabbās, the last publisher to include this commentary. This study aims to shed light on the origin and evolution of this commentary, categorize its contents, and evaluate its theological importance in the context of the Arab Christian tradition. By offering fresh perspectives on the composition of Lectionary commentaries, this research enriches our comprehension of the history and theology of the Arab Christian tradition.
Within the realm of Arabic liturgical Gospel books lies a concealed yet profoundly significant facet – the commentary that accompanied Gospel readings from as early as the 11th century to the 19th century. This commentary, despite its relative obscurity in contemporary times, held a pivotal role in educating priests and guiding their homilies. It not only engaged with theological subjects, such as the Trinity and Christology, but also provided invaluable instructions for interpreting specific Gospel verses, alongside imparting moral teachings.
Although this commentary possesses remarkable theological potential, it regrettably found itself excised from the liturgical Gospel books and its existence is now barely discernible in specific contemporary scholarship.1
In the pursuit of knowledge, this scholarly endeavor embarks on an ambitious quest to reveal the concealed treasure nestling within the Lectionary meticulously printed by Patriarch Athanasios III Dabbās in the historic city of Aleppo back in 1706 – the enigmatic commentary, a hidden gem within the rich tapestry of history. Our mission is a triple one, seeking firstly to unveil the layers of this heretofore undisclosed commentary, then to categorize its profound and intricate content, and finally to evaluate its theological significance within the context of the enduring Arab Christian tradition. To trace the origins and essence of this commentary, we investigate the commentaries from the Patristic and medieval periods, seeking parallels and connections that provide insights into its exegetical roots. As we delve further into its evolution, we make our way through manuscripts dating back to the 11th century, shedding light on the transformative journey it undertook over the centuries. And in our endeavor to unravel the unique character of this commentary, we undertake an unprecedented analysis of selected commentaries, a task thus far unexplored in Biblical scholarship.
Through this research, we do not merely uncover the intricate evolution of patristic commentaries but also examine their irreplaceable role within the tapestry of liturgical texts. By casting a light on this relatively uncharted domain, we make a meaningful contribution to the broader understanding of the history and theology of the Arab Christian tradition, thereby enriching our knowledge in this field.
1 Origin
In 2 Peter, 3:15–16, the author acknowledges the inherent challenge in understanding certain portions of Scripture, recognizing the potential for misinterpretation. This recognition underscores the crucial importance of exercising wisdom and discernment when approaching the Bible, implicitly affirming the necessity of accurate interpretation. Right from the inception of Christianity, biblical interpretation assumed a central role in transmitting the Good News. Across various Christian traditions, scholars, theologians, and religious leaders have consistently provided invaluable guidance and insights for the proper comprehension of Scripture.
During the era of ecumenical councils, the practice of biblical interpretation gained significant momentum. Simultaneously, as Christian factions began to take shape, interpretation evolved into a powerful tool for advancing and solidifying conciliar perspectives. This coincided with a flourishing of Patristic commentaries, characterized by a rich mosaic of diverse stylistic and exegetical approaches. Within this historical context, notable figures emerged as revered authorities in the realm of biblical interpretation. Luminaries such as Origen of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ephrem the Syrian, and Augustine of Hippo ascended to positions of influence. Their enduring teachings continue to cast a profound and lasting impact on Christian exegesis, shaping it throughout the ages.2
At a later stage, Arabic-speaking Christian scholars played a pivotal role in emphasizing biblical commentary as a means of conveying the Church’s doctrines. They meticulously employed carefully selected scriptural passages, precise definitions of philosophical term, and theological explanations to elucidate the intricacies of their faith. In a similar vein, West Syrian scholars, exemplified by figures like Dionysius bar Salibi and Bar Hebraeus, as well as Arab Christian authors and Coptic Arabs in the 13th century, embarked on the task of composing commentaries on individual books of the Bible.3 Their efforts often included translations of Patristic commentaries, with the works of John Chrysostom enjoying widespread popularity.
Another style which became very popular consisted in compiling commentaries, homilies, and other literary forms, in a summarized fashion, to accompany an individual verse or a group of verses. Catenae, a significant feature of biblical commentary in Byzantium, emerged in Palestine around the 6th century as is commonly suggested. These texts often include extracts from ecclesiastical writings, sometimes quoted verbatim, sometimes rephrased, and attributed to the original author in the genitive case. Over time, catenae evolved to encompass not only patristic writings but also pre-existing catenae blended with these sources. The origins of the catena tradition have been a subject of intense scholarly debate.4
Except for the early Codex Zacynthius from around 700, the surviving manuscripts that shed light on the development of this tradition begin to appear from the 9th century onwards. To understand the evolution of this tradition, it is imperative to scrutinize the various forms of catenae. Catena manuscripts exhibit multiple alterations, including expansions and abbreviations, offering valuable insights into their growth. Although the inception of this tradition is often associated with Procopius of Gaza, it is possible that catenae on the New Testament have even earlier origins. The oldest catena on the Gospel of Mark can be traced back to the 5th century and is attributed to Victor of Antioch, while the one on Luke is linked to Titus of Bostra, originating several decades earlier, though it is feasible that it was extracted from his commentary. The earliest compilations on Matthew and John primarily draw on the writings of John Chrysostom, implying that they were probably compiled no earlier than the 5th century. The attribution of catenae on Matthew and Luke to Peter of Laodicea, likely active in the 7th or 8th century, is no longer accepted.5
Niketas of Heraclea’s Catena on the Gospel of Luke stands out as a paramount Byzantine catena. This work is an invaluable source of patristic commentary that is otherwise unavailable, encompassing insights from notable figures like Eusebios, Apollinarios, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Photios of Constantinople.6 However, this catena does not provide a commentary on all the Gospels.
The Lectionary of Dabbās provides a commentary for the Gospels of Feast days and Sundays. Among the Byzantine catenae that could be the source for the commentary in the Melkite Lectionary, one of the most notable is the Catena of Theophylact of Ochrid, a distinguished theologian whose legacy endures through his insightful commentaries on various biblical texts.7 Drawing inspiration from the profound works of Chrysostom, Theophylact created commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles, and the Minor Prophets, enriching the understanding of these sacred writings. However, the oldest manuscript we found, which contains the commentary, is dated 1054, pre-dating the literary work of Theophylact. Furthermore, in the field of Christian exegesis, the Catena of Thomas Aquinas stands as an extensive compilation of commentaries on the four Gospels of the New Testament. This magnum opus meticulously interweaves the wisdom of the early Church Fathers, providing a harmonious and comprehensive understanding of the Gospel narratives, ultimately offering a rich theological and spiritual insight for generations to come.8 However, the comparison between the two texts shows dissimilarities. Once again, his work was created long after the first manuscript containing the commentary in question.
When delving into the potential sources of the commentary in question, a thorough examination leads us to consider several noteworthy figures in Patristic literature. One such figure is John Chrysostom, as many Lectionaries attribute the commentary to him. However, a simple comparison reveals significant disparities in both the extent of the commentary and its argumentation.
Another significant point of reference in Patristic literature might be the work of Cyril of Alexandria due to its comprehensive nature. Yet here again, differences in style and interpretation become evident, not to mention the substantial loss of portions of his commentary over time. Theodore of Mopsuestia is another vital source to explore. However, a comparative analysis highlights a radical contrast in style and content. Additionally, the renowned 13th-century canonist Al-Ṣafī ibn al-ʿAssāl, a member of the Coptic family of Awlād al-ʿAssāl, could not be the source for the commentary because the commentary exists in manuscripts prior to his time. Nevertheless, his recorded literary activities indicate that he did not embark on creating a full New Testament commentary but rather focused on summarizing and revising homilies by John Chrysostom on the Gospel of John.9 Photius of Constantinople also produced a series of homilies, but they exist in an entirely distinct context and style.10
Given the date of the oldest identified manuscript, it is important to examine the work of the deacon ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Faḍl al-Anṭākī (†1050), especially since Makarios III ibn al-Zaʿīm (†1672) attributed the Lectionary and its commentary to him.11 However, it should be noted that the list of authentic translations and works composed by ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Faḍl does not include a commentary on the entire Lectionary.12
The subsequent table provides a clear and comparative overview of the commentary found in the Lectionary of Dabbās on John 1:1, juxtaposed with the works of John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Cyril of Alexandria. Notably, the commentary within Dabbās’ Lectionary stands out for its unique style, characterized by a direct approach, avoiding counterarguments.
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
To identify a manuscript dating back to the 11th century that contains the same commentary, as will be demonstrated in the next section, and to clarify the absence of direct connections between Patristic commentaries and the commentary found in the Melkite Lectionary, it becomes imperative to give priority to a possible translation from a Greek or Syriac source, or to explore the works of an unidentified medieval Arab author. Unraveling the origins of this source demands additional research, contingent on the discovery of new materials that can provide the necessary insights.
2 Evolution
The study of Arabic Gospel texts is of significant importance, holding promise for various research fields. However, this endeavor faces certain challenges stemming from the heterogeneous nature of the Arabic translations, which have diverse origins, sources, and forms. One particular obstacle is the historical perception of Arabic translations as late adaptations, leading to their exclusion from the search for the original Gospel text. Moreover, the preservation of the Arabic Gospel text has primarily occurred within Lectionaries, further emphasizing their significance.18
Scholars have engaged in debates regarding the value of Lectionary texts, with some acknowledging their potential for shedding light on the early Christian tradition. In light of these complexities and debates, a comprehensive approach is essential for the study of the Arabic Gospels. The PAVONe Platform for Arabic Versions of the New Testament provides a valuable resource for scholars and researchers interested in the study of Arabic Lectionaries and commentaries. One notable feature of this platform is its collection of Lectionaries dating back to the 13th century, which can be accessed at pavone.uob-dh.org. These ancient Lectionaries offer insights into the history of the Arabic text of the Gospels, a domain that has remained largely unexplored.
A survey of manuscripts provided on the PAVONe platform along with other libraries can provide an insight on the source of Patriarch Dabbās’ Lectionary printed in 1706 at Aleppo within the Tetraevangelion titled Kitāb al-Inğīl al-šarīf al-ṭāhir wa-l-misbāḥ al-munīr al-ẓāhir (The Book of the Noble, Pure Gospel and the Bright, Illuminating Lamp).
Before delving into a comparative analysis of manuscripts, it is crucial to remember the historical context in which Patriarch Athanasius Dabbās was part of the 17th century literary movement that aimed to support the Melkite community during a period of significant challenges. Leaders of the Antiochian Orthodox Church faced multifaceted difficulties, including poverty, stringent imperial regulations, power struggles, the shortage of educated clergy, the arrival of Latin missionaries, and interference from European consulates.
A major challenge during this period was the transition from using Greek and Syriac in religious services to adopting Arabic, a transformation that unfolded over centuries and was firmly established by the 17th century. This shift underscored the necessity for a consistent Arabic version of the Bible.
Metropolitan Malātiyūs Karma, who later became Patriarch of Antioch as Aftīmiyūs II (†1635), played a significant role in this effort. He was educated in Jerusalem and became a leader in Aleppo. He believed that a unified Arabic translation of the Bible was essential, and he worked on this project.19 He even tried to get support from Rome but faced challenges due to differences in the Arabic translations. He suggested printing the Bible with columns in both Greek and Arabic to ensure accuracy. Karma also revised and completed various liturgical books.20
Makarios III al-Zaʿīm (†1672), another important figure, was a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Antioch. He strengthened connections with Catholic missionaries and travelled to various Orthodox countries. He left a legacy of books, including translations of Greek writings.21
Patriarch Athanasios III Dabbās (†1724), born in Damascus, continued the work of translating and publishing liturgical books and the Gospel. He visited Eastern Europe and collaborated with Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu to print liturgical books. He even set up a printing press in Aleppo, producing the first Arabic books printed in an Arab country.22
These three leaders played vital roles in preserving and promoting the Orthodox Christian faith in Antioch during a challenging period.
Turning our attention to the Melkite connection, a unique liturgical Gospel manuscript was discovered at the Library of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate in Damascus (Damascus, Greek Catholic Patriarchate 146). This manuscript, copied by two scribes, Talǧa al-Ḥamawī and Yūsuf al-Muṣawwir, offers us a closer look at the Arabic text and commentary on the Gospel, suggesting that it might serve as the direct source of Dabbās’s Lectionary. Talǧa al-Ḥamawī, the brother of Patriarch Aftīmiyūs II Karma, played a substantial role in the Church, working closely with his brother and contributing to renewal efforts. Talǧa copied numerous manuscripts between 1599 and 1649 (Fig. 1).23
MS GCPD00146, Lectionary copied by Talǧa al-Ḥamawī in the 17th c.
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
Now that we have pinpointed the primary source that under-pins Dabbās’s work, it is imperative that we delve deeper into history to understand the evolution of the commentary. Diligent exploration of the PAVONe platform has brought to light Lectionaries dating back to the 13th century, all of which contain commentary identical to that found in Dabbās’s Lectionary. However, our investigation into other collections has revealed that this same commentary can be traced in Lectionaries dating back to the 11th century. It is of the utmost importance that we undertake a comprehensive examination of various manuscripts from distinct eras to meticulously trace any possible alterations that may have emerged or remained constant throughout time. Five manuscripts were chosen with great care to represent the stages in the evolution of these manuscripts. Each one will show that the text of the commentary evolved very little over time.
The first manuscript is Sisanyia 1, preserved by the Greek Orthodox parish of Sisanyia, and dates back to the 15th century. It is a Lectionary copied by the deacon Sālim ibn Dāwūd ibn Mūsa. Titled Kitāb al-inğīl al-ṭāhir wa-l-miṣbāḥ al-munīr al-ẓāhir, it presents the texts in the order of the liturgical year, starting with the Pascha Gospel of John. For Sundays and Feast days, it includes the same commentary in question that begins with the phrase “qāla al-mufassir,” which means “the commentator said” (Fig. 2).
MS Sisanyia 00001, 15th c. Lectionary giving the commentary on the prologue of John, the same as in Dabbās’s Lectionary
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
The second important manuscript is NEST AC 8, dated 1318,24 which presents the Gospel in both Greek and Arabic in an interlinear version. The commentary is attributed to John Chrysostom. After a reading from the Gospel of John during the Pascha celebration, we read: Naktub tafsīr fuṣūl al-inğīl al-muqaddas allatī tuqrā fī sāʾir al-ḥudūd wa-l-subūt wa-ğamīʿ al-aʿyād talḫīṣ abīnā al-qiddīs Yūhānna al-Ḏahabī al-famm manaḥa-nā Allāh ṣalawātu-hu. Āmīn. Qāla al-mufassir. A translation of this would be: “We write the explanation of the chapters of the Holy Gospel read on Sundays, Saturdays, and during the feasts days. This is a summary from our Holy Father John Chrysostom, may God grant us his prayers. The commentator says” (Fig. 3).
MS 0000AC8 NEST, 14th century Lectionary giving the prologue of John in Greek and Arabic followed by a commentary similar to the one in Dabbās’s Lectionary
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
The third manuscript is MS Latakiyya 24 of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Latakiyya,25 which is dated in the 13th century. It features Gospel passages in both Greek and Arabic and with an interlinear text. The Pascha Gospel passage is followed by a commentary that begins with the expression: “Qāla al-qiddīs Yūḥannā al-ḏahabī al-fam mufassiran li-haḏā al-faṣl”; which can be translated as: “Saint John Chrysostom said explaining this passage” (Fig. 4).
MS Latakiyya 00024, 13th century Lectionary. The right page shows the beginning of a commentary similar to the one in Dabbās’ Lectionary
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
The fourth manuscript comes from Kura, MS Our Lady of Balamand 77,26 which is also a 13th century Lectionary, accompanied by notations within the text to indicate when this passage is read during the Divine Liturgy. The biblical text is written in Syriac, followed by its Arabic version. The commentary begins with the red ink expression: “Qāla al-mufassir”, which can be translated as “the commentator said”. Both manuscripts demonstrate that the Melkites utilized both Greek and Syriac, depending on their geographical location and the prevailing cultural influence (Fig. 5).27
MS Balamand 77, 13th c. Lectionary showing a commentary for the Gospel of the first Sunday after Pentecost similar to the one in Dabbās’s Lectionary
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
The final and most ancient manuscript that we were able to identify comes from St. Catherine’s Monastery of the Sinai, known as Sinai Arabic 144, and it bears a date of 1054, as indicated by the scribe at the end without disclosing his name. Within this highly significant manuscript, we encounter a Melkite Lectionary that adheres to the liturgical calendar, offering commentary on Sundays and Feast days. Unfortunately, the title remains unknown due to missing pages at the beginning of the manuscript. It is worth noting that the commentary found in this manuscript aligns precisely with that found in Dabbās’ Lectionary starting after a certain Gospel reading beginning with the expression: “Qāla al-mufassir” written in red ink (Fig. 6).
MS Sinai Arabic 144, 11th century Lectionary giving the Prologue of John in Arabic followed by a commentary similar to the one in Dabbās’ Lectionary
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
Despite changes in presenting the Gospel text, by comparing the commentary we find in Dabbās’ Lectionary of 1706 (Fig. 7 and 8) with the manuscripts presented above, it becomes evident that the same commentary is present in those Lectionaries intended for liturgical use, with variations dating back to the 11th century. Dabbās introduced two key changes to this commentary. He homogenized biblical quotes with his Arabic text and paid attention to grammatical details, enhancing the overall linguistic quality of the commentary.
Commentary on the Gospel for Pascha in Dabbās’s Lectionary, Aleppo, 1706, p. 79 (Gotha Research Library, University of Erfurt, Theol 2° 00058/03 <urn:nbn:de:urmel-ufb-179773> (Public Domain Mark 1.0))
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
Commentary on the Gospel for Pascha in Dabbās’s Lectionary, Aleppo, 1706, p. 7 (Gotha Research Library, University of Erfurt, Theol 2° 00058/03 <urn:nbn:de:urmel-ufb-179773> (Public Domain Mark 1.0))
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
3 Theological Significance
The commentary has not been studied for its exegetical value. After examining parallel commentaries from Patristic and medieval times, an evaluation of the theological significance of the commentary is important. In order to do so, I will present four examples chosen so as to convey to the reader the main aspects of the entire commentary for each of the four evangelists. The first case is the commentary on John 1:1–17,28 which is the prologue of the Gospel. It is the first Gospel reading in the Byzantine Lectionary as it falls on Pascha Sunday.29
The commentary begins by stating that John’s purpose in writing his Gospel was to elaborate on the meaning of salvation strategies within the Lord’s economy and to emphasize theological depth. It suggests that John was inspired by God to document the good news of Jesus Christ in a unique and divine expression.
The commentary begins by mentioning the promotion of falsehoods regarding the natures of Jesus Christ, such as denying His eternal existence, His equality with the Father, and His role in creation. The commentator credits John for refuting these claims. To do so, the commentator undertakes an exegesis of the verses in the prologue. The verse “In the beginning was the Word” is used to explain the eternal existence of the Word (Jesus Christ) rather than being of a temporal origin. It also emphasizes the agreement between Jesus (the Word) and the Father in their eternal nature. The commentator further affirms the unique equality of the Word with the Father in essence and eternity while each having a different hypostasis. The creative power of the Word is highlighted, stating that all things were made through Him. Additionally, the life-giving aspect of the Word is emphasized, indicating His care for the preservation and sustenance of all things. The proclamation of the Lord is described as shining in the darkness, symbolizing the defeat of darkness and death.
We can qualify this passage as a classical representation of the theology of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.
Next, the commentator discusses different interpretations of the terms “darkness” and “the world.” Some suggest that “darkness” represents the heaviness of the physical world, while others argue it refers to wickedness and ignorance. The commentator explains that when John mentions that the world did not know Him, it refers to those who are attached to earthly things and engaged in wicked deeds. The mention of the Word coming to His own and not being received by them specifically refers to the Jews. However, the commentator adds that not all Jews rejected Him, as John clarifies that those who received Him and believed in His name were given the right to become children of God.
Afterwards, the commentator discusses the birth of Jesus, stating that His birth is divine and significant while contrasting it with earthly birth. They emphasize that those who are born of God are not born of blood, flesh, or the will of man, but through the divine will. The commentator further explains that when the Word became flesh, it signifies that the hypostasis of the Word assumed a human body (
After that, the commentator explains that when John mentions beholding the glory of the Word, the term
At this stage, the commentator states that those who believed in Jesus, including the apostles, prophets, and righteous individuals, received His grace and perfection. The phrase “Grace for grace” is interpreted as the replacement of the old covenant and the old law with the life-giving Holy Spirit and the grace of the Gospel. The commentator sees that grace is superior to the law as he emphasizes that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, indicating the fulfillment of the law in Jesus.
To conclude, the commentary ends with a prayer, expressing a desire for the blessings of Pascha, asking for preservation from sin, and hoping to attain the eternal promise and everlasting bliss that Jesus offers.
Looking at the Patristic commentaries, written by the early Church Fathers such as Origen and Chrysostom, they focused heavily on the exegesis of the biblical text. They employed various interpretive methods, including allegory, typology, and rhetoric, to uncover hidden meanings and deeper spiritual truths in the text.
In contrast, the commentary in Dabbās’s Lectionary seems to prioritize theological and doctrinal exposition over detailed exegetical analysis. While it does offer some interpretations of specific verses, its focus is more on affirming theological truths and refuting theological errors. Thus, these commentaries aimed to edify and instruct believers in their faith.
Both the commentary in Dabbās’s Lectionary and Patristic commentaries exhibit a strong emphasis on theological and doctrinal matters. However, the specific theological concerns may differ. Patristic commentaries often grappled with issues such as Christology, the Trinity, and the relationship between law and grace. They engaged in debates against various heresies of their time and sought to defend orthodox Christian beliefs. The commentary under study does not engage with specific heresies or provide extensive theological arguments as the Patristic commentaries often do. It seems as if the commentary tries to sum up different views and avoid debate for the sake of providing a clear summary for priests to prepare their homilies. The distance in time could also be a reason on why it did not engage further in theological debates.
Unlike Patristic commentaries that incorporated literary and rhetorical analysis, the Melkite Commentary does not appear to engage extensively with the literary or rhetorical aspects of the passage. Its focus is primarily on communicating theological concepts rather than exploring the nuances of John’s Prologue as a literary work.
Patristic commentaries often drew heavily on the authority of Scripture, as well as the teachings and interpretations of earlier Church Fathers. They valued the continuity of theological understanding within the Church and sought to uphold the Apostolic tradition. While the commentary may also reference the teachings of earlier Church figures, its focus seems more on affirming certain theological truths without explicit references to specific patristic sources.
As we can see, the commentary provides a somewhat basic yet essential theological and doctrinal interpretation of John 1:1–17, highlighting the eternal existence and divine nature of Jesus Christ, His role in creation, His victory over darkness and death, and the superiority of His grace and truth compared to the old law.
If we were to compare with modern commentaries, given the fact that the commentary survived until the 19th century in printed books, we notice that modern commentaries on John 1:1–17 may approach the passage from a variety of perspectives, including historical, literary, theological, and linguistic analysis. While the medieval commentary at hand focuses primarily on theological and doctrinal interpretations, modern commentaries often incorporate a wider range of scholarly methods and perspectives such as studying the historical context, providing a literary analysis, examining the socio-cultural perspectives, and evaluating the linguistic and textual analysis.
As for the scope of the commentary, we notice that while it offers a theological interpretation of John 1:1–17 from a specific perspective, there are a few potential flaws in its logic that could be identified:
A limited engagement with alternative interpretations as it appears to present its interpretation as the correct understanding of the passage without engaging with other valid interpretations or addressing potential counterarguments. This limits the breadth of analysis and may present a one-sided view of the text.
A lack of textual and contextual analysis because the commentary focuses primarily on theological and doctrinal assertions but does not engage deeply with the specific wording, literary context, or historical-cultural background of the passage. An analysis that incorporates these aspects can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the text and its intended meaning.
The commentary does not cite specific sources or provide references to support its interpretations. Including references to relevant biblical passages, Church Fathers, or theological works would add scholarly support to the arguments presented.
The second example to be tackled comes from the commentary on Mark 16: 1–8.30 This Gospel is the second Matins’ Gospel in which we find the announcement of the Resurrection. The commentary emphasizes the importance of the evangelists’ testimonies regarding the Resurrection and highlights their differences as a sign of authenticity. The commentator points out that the evangelists did not hide any deficiencies in their accounts. The most important point remains the unity of the evangelists’ accounts over the reality of the Resurrection. This is why the commentary highlights the unanimous agreement among the evangelists in mentioning and explaining the event. The commentator refutes false claims, such as the idea that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, by emphasizing the impossibility of moving the large stone and the presence of vigilant guards.
The appearance of the angel to the women at the tomb is analyzed, noting the angel’s role in dispelling fear and confirming Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. The commentary reflects on the significance of mentioning Jesus’ association with Nazareth, emphasizing that the crucifixion was not more heinous than its perpetrator.
The commentator highlights the angel’s declaration of the Resurrection and praises the mention of inanimate things that diminish in the face of the Resurrection and deliverance from suffering. The power of Jesus to rise and free humanity from death is acknowledged, along with his willingness to submit to death for the salvation of humanity.
The commentary references the words of the prophet regarding the one who rises from Edom and associates them with Jesus shedding his blood. This point has a strong Christological content because it sheds light on the power of the Incarnation: God is capable by His word to bring back the creation to non-existence but to save humanity, a shedding of blood is the only way.
The mention of Peter specifically signifies his repentance and the possibility of returning to a state of love for Christ. The comment on Peter’s inclusion or exclusion is seen as a reminder that God’s acceptance of repentance is possible and that what may seem difficult or impossible for humans is easy and possible for God.
The commentator concludes by encouraging believers to hasten to the holy sites, maintain pure thoughts and righteous conduct, and follow in the footsteps of Jesus. The ultimate goal is to reach the kingdom of heaven through the grace and presence of Jesus.
The commentary in question adopts a similar tone and structure to a homily, offering interpretations, insights, and moral lessons based on the biblical text. It focuses on conveying spiritual messages, emphasizing the significance of the Resurrection, and providing guidance for the Christian life.
The third example to study is the commentary on Luke 24:15–3531 which provides a detailed analysis of the events surrounding the Resurrection and the conversation between Jesus and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.
The commentator asserts that the Evangelists (including Luke) carefully and diligently explain matters related to salvation. The Resurrection, being the most significant cause of salvation, is summarized by each Evangelist. This emphasizes the importance of the Resurrection and its impact on the faith of believers. The commentary suggests that Luke’s account of the Resurrection is based on what he heard and witnessed from Jesus during the journey to Emmaus. The two disciples, who were initially filled with doubt and sadness, returned to the village while still questioning the matter of Jesus. However, the Lord, concerned for their salvation, joined them on the road in a friendly manner.
The commentary draws a parallel between the disciples’ inability to recognize Jesus and Adam’s lack of awareness of his nakedness. The restrained perception serves a divine and mysterious purpose, allowing the disciples to contemplate Jesus’ blessings, listen to His words, and observe Him. This restraint also ensures that they fully internalize and proclaim the teachings they receive.
This interpretation in particular is very interesting because of its uniqueness in comparison with Patristic and modern commentaries. This is the only place in the history of interpretation where the commentator links Adam’s limited sight with the disciple’s inability to recognize Christ. The blindness in this case helps to focus on the importance of understanding Christ’s teaching over sensorial faculties that could block deeper understanding of the resurrected Christ. We read in the commentary:
But their eyes were restrained from recognizing Him, just as Adam’s eyes were restrained from knowing that he was naked. And this matter was by divine and mysterious economy for them to contemplate His blessings, to listen to His words, and to look at Him. Because if they had been amazed with joy and awe, they would not have been able to retain in their hearts what they heard from Him and to proclaim and declare it to everyone. Or perhaps they would think that the scene was an imaginary one without reality.32
If we were to compare this passage with some patristic interpretations, we find that the blindness of the Disciples is regarded negatively (e.g., Augustine, lib. xxii. Chap. 9 De Civit); or it is linked to the blindness of Adam, with the idea of innocence and the opening of eyes as the result of experiencing sin (Theodoret of Cyrus, Question 28 on Genesis); or, in a similar vein, as a blind eye is linked with the glorious situation prior to sinfulness (Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis, Sec. 3.14). Modern commentaries, generally speaking, focus on the opening of the eyes by Christ rather than the initial incapacity to see. They may also discuss the appearance of Jesus in a different form from His usual appearance or the Apostles’ expectation to see Him, even though it required the strongest evidence to convince them that He had truly risen from the dead.
As we continue the reading of the commentary, we find that it describes the disciples’ conversation with Jesus, in which they discuss the actions and attributes of Jesus, both before people and before God. They mention Jesus’ miracles, such as healing the blind, cleansing the lepers, raising the paralyzed, and resurrecting the dead. They also refer to significant events where God declared His favor and glory upon Jesus. The commentary highlights the disciples’ doubt regarding Jesus’ redemptive role and their shattered hope. It mentions their discussion of the empty tomb, the testimony of the women, and Jesus’ appearance to Peter and John. The commentator suggests that Jesus patiently allowed the disciples to express their doubts and reveal their hearts fully, leaving them with no argument. Jesus reproaches the disciples and reminds them of prophecies related to His suffering, death, and resurrection. The commentary references passages from Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms that allude to Jesus’ life and crucifixion, highlighting the fulfillment of these prophecies in His earthly ministry.
During the meal with the disciples, the commentator emphasizes the significance of Jesus’ blessing, breaking, and sharing of bread. It signifies the Last Supper, reminding the disciples not only of the Resurrection’s reality but also of Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist. The commentator draws a parallel between the disciples’ insistence on Jesus staying with them and Abraham’s hospitality towards strangers. This highlights the disciples’ love for the stranger, mirroring Abraham’s example.
Overall, this medieval commentary examines the theological significance of the Resurrection, the disciples’ doubts, Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies, and the symbolism of the Eucharist. It emphasizes the role of the Evangelists in conveying the message of salvation and provides insights into the spiritual lessons derived from the events described in Luke 24:15–53.
The fourth and last commentary to be examined is on Matthew 8: 28–34 and 9:1.33 The commentary offers an analysis of the events described in the passage regarding the demon-possessed men. The commentary begins by describing the two possessed men as “crazy” and “extremely scary,” emphasizing the fear they instilled in others. It highlights that no one dared to approach them, but Jesus took the initiative to go to them. This demonstrates Jesus’ compassion and fearlessness in the face of danger. The presence of the possessed men in the tombs is attributed to the affliction caused by the demons. The commentary suggests that the demons wanted to spread a false belief that souls, after death, become demons. This highlights the deceptive nature of the demons and their intention to mislead and instill wicked beliefs in people’s hearts.
When confronted by Jesus, the demons recognize His divinity and address Him as the “Son of God.” They express fear and ask if Jesus has come to torment them before the appointed time of punishment. This reveals their knowledge of prophecies about the coming of Christ and the cessation of their power. They perceive Jesus’ presence as a sign of impending judgment.
Some people doubted the true nature of the possessed individuals and attributed their healing to medical remedies instead of divine power. The commentary mentions that there were even heretical sects among the Jews who denied the existence of angels and demons. Jesus allows the demons to enter a herd of pigs to refute these claims. This action demonstrates that demons do exist and have the power to influence and harm creatures.
Next, the commentator emphasizes Jesus’ care for the salvation of the possessed individuals. By allowing the demons to enter the pigs instead of harming the possessed men further, Jesus shows that demons have no authority to treat humans worse than animals. This underscores Jesus’ authority over the demons and highlights His compassion for those suffering from possession. The demons’ intention in drowning the pigs is described as evil and malicious. They wanted to sow enmity between the pig owners and Jesus, leading to the rejection of His teaching and the doctrine of salvation. The commentator justifies the destruction of the pigs by explaining that animals were created for the benefit of humans and their death was inevitable. This perspective considers the sacrifice of the pigs as secondary to the well-being of the possessed men and the overall purpose of salvation.
The conclusion of the commentary offers a prayer, invoking the God of peace to guard souls and bodies from the tricks and deceit of demons. It highlights the ongoing spiritual battle and the need for divine protection against the influence and manipulation of demonic forces.
Beyond the classical demonstration of Christ’s authority over demons, the commentary highlights the compassion of Christ towards the possessed men. The commentary does not say much about the reason of the possession but rather about the action of Christ. It is important to note that the text creates a difference between healing insanity with medication and the healing of demonic possession by divine power. This distinction has been present in Christian history since the time of the early Fathers. The commentary also includes elements of exhortation and prayer, further aligning with the style and purpose of a homily.
In conclusion, the research into this particular commentary on the New Testament raises several intriguing questions and insights. The commentary in question, which persisted from the 11th century to the 19th century, presents a fascinating confluence of historical, linguistic, and theological elements.
Upon closer examination, the content and structure of the commentary indeed align more with the format of a homily, rather than the traditional commentary we are accustomed to. It fervently conveys spiritual messages, emphasizes the Resurrection, and imparts guidance for living a Christian life. This compels us to question whether this commentary may have originated from oral homilies that were later transcribed. The interplay between oral and written tradition in preserving theological knowledge invites further exploration into how religious teachings were disseminated and preserved through the ages.
The ambiguity surrounding its origins and the similarity in structure and style to a homily suggest the possibility that it could be a translation from Greek. This raises questions about why Greek Catholics and later the Orthodox chose to remove it from their traditions.
The primary purpose of this commentary, it seems, was to serve as an educational tool for the clergy, aiding them in the preparation of homilies, which could be utilized repeatedly over the years. This raises an intriguing question about the role of tradition and continuity in religious practices. To what extent were these homilies foundational in shaping the spiritual understanding of the community? Did the repetition of these teachings hold a deeper significance in the religious life of the time?
While the commentary bears the hallmarks of homilies, it offers interpretations of biblical passages and theological perspectives that are both unique and noteworthy. This duality – its homiletic nature and its distinctive theological insights – compels us to consider how theological understanding evolves and adapts over time. It invites us to contemplate the dynamic interplay between tradition and innovation in religious thought.
Considering these findings, it is strongly recommended that a translation of this commentary be undertaken. The urgency increases as we draw closer to resolving the question of its origin – whether it is indeed of Greek origin or the work of an unknown Arab interpreter. Such an edition could serve not only as an invaluable contribution to our understanding of the Arabic interpretation of the New Testament but also as a window into the historical and theological context in which this commentary thrived for eight centuries. Its unique perspectives and interpretations could significantly enrich modern biblical scholarship, providing a fresh lens through which to view familiar texts and theological concepts.
To sum up, this research journey opens doors to a myriad of intellectual avenues, from the cross-cultural transmission of knowledge to the dynamics of religious tradition and innovation. The commentary’s intriguing presence and potential significance in the evolution of biblical interpretation make it a compelling area of study for scholars and theologians alike, offering an opportunity to reshape our understanding of both the past and the future of scriptural interpretation.
Appendix
Commentary on the Gospel for Pascha in the Melkite Lectionary34
Citation: Scrinium 19, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18177565-bja10085
This research is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 883219-AdG-2019 – Project TYPARABIC).
ʿAbdallāh al-Zāḫir removed the commentary from the Lectionary in 1776, while the Orthodox removed it in 1863.
See H.A.G. Houghton, D.C. Parker, “An Introduction to Greek New Testament Commentaries with a Preliminary Checklist of New Testament Catena Manuscripts,” Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition, Gorgias Press 2016, pp. 14–15.
See S.P. Brock, “Biblical Exegesis in the Syriac Tradition,” Syriac Theology: Past and Present, Brill 2022, p. 49.
See Houghton, Parker, “An Introduction to Greek New Testament Commentaries”, p. 17.
See G. Dorival, The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae, online edition, Oxford Academic, 2021: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0007, pp. 135–154 (accessed August 22, 2023).
See B. Roosen, “The Works of Nicetas Heracleensis (
See G. Parpulov, Catena Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament: A Catalogue. Texts and Studies, 3rd Series, vol. 25, Gorgias Press, Piscataway, NJ, 2021, pp. 1–2.
See Th. Aquinas, Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers, Creative Media Partners, LLC, 2018.
See S.K. Samir, The Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. 7.
See C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, English Translation, Introduction, and Commentary, Dumbarton Oaks, 1958.
See Makarios ibn al-Zaʿīm, Kitāb al-naḥla (unpublished), cited in J. Nasrallah, HMLEM III.1, pp. 191–192.
See A. Treiger, S. Noble, “Christian Arabic Theology in Byzantine Antioch:ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Faḍl al-Antākī and his Discourse on the Holy Trinity”, Le Muséon, 123.3, pp. 371–417.
Kitāb al-Inğīl al-šarīf al-ṭāhir wa-l-misbāḥ al-munīr al-ẓāhir, Aleppo, 1706.
I have completed the translation for the purpose of this article.
John Chrysostom, Homily 4–1, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, transl. Ch. Marriott, First Series, Vol. 14, ed. Ph. Schaff, Buffalo, NY, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John, transl. M. Conti, ed. J.C. Elowsky (Ancient Christian Texts – IVP Academic), Downers Grove IL, 2010, p. 5.
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 1, Chapters 2 and 5, transl. P.E. Pusey, LFC, 43, 48, 1874/1885.
Most of the old Gospel books have preserved rubrics that indicated when to read each passage. This phenomenon suggests that they were issued from Lectionaries.
See I. Feodorov, Arabic Priting for the Christians in Ottoman Lands; the East-European Connection (Early Arabic Printing in the East, vol. 1), Berlin – Boston, De Gruyter, 2023, pp. 98–101.
See J. Nasrallah, HMLEM IV.1, pp. 214–217; Ch. Nassif, “Autour de l’euchologe melkite de Malatios Karmé”, Proche Orient Chrétien, 98, 2018, pp. 46–61; A. Raheb, Conception de l’Union dans le patriarcat orthodoxe d’Antioche (1622–1672), Beirut, Saint Sauveur, 1981, pp. 45–82.
See I. Feodorov (ed.), Makāryūs III Ibn al-Zaʿīm et Paul d’Alep: Relations entre les peuples de l’Europe Orientale et les chrétiens arabes au XVIIe siècle: Actes du Ier colloque international, le 16 septembre 2011, Bucarest, Romanian Academy Editing House, 2012.
I. Feodorov, “The Romanian Contribution to Arabic Printing”, in Impact de l’imprimerie et rayonnement intellectuel des Pays Roumains, ed. by E. Siupiur and Z. Mihail, Bucharest, Romanian Academy Editing House, 2009, pp. 41–61. Also V. Cândea, “Dès 1701: Dialogue roumano-libanais par le livre et l’imprimerie”, in Le livre et le Liban jusqu’à 1900, ed. by C. Aboussouan, Paris, 1982, pp. 283–294.
See H. Ibrahim, “Talǧat an-nāsiẖ fils du prêtre Ḥūrān al-Ḥamawī”, Chronos, 39, 2019, p. 125–171. In the list of books copied by Talǧat, Habib Ibrahim does not speak of MS 146 of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate because it was not available to him at the time of his research.
J. Pollock, “Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Library of the Near Eastern School of Theology”, The Near East School of Theology Theological Review, 4, 1–2 (1981), p. 21.
S. Slim, Al-maḫṭūṭāt al-ʿarabiyya fī abrašiyyāt Ḥums wa-Ḥamā wa-l-Lāḏiqqiya li-l-rūm al-urṯuḏuks, Balamand University, Balamand, 1994, pp. 101–102.
S. Slim, Al-maḫṭūṭāt al-ʿarabiyya fī al-adīra al-urṯuḏuksiyya al-anṭākiyya fī Lubnān, vol. 2. Dayr Sayyidat al-Balamand, Balamand University, Balamand, 1994, p. 86.
Fig. 5 gives the commentary on the Gospel of first Sunday after Pentecost. MS Balamand 77 is missing pages at the beginning, making it impossible to show the commentary on the Gospel for Pascha.
See Kitab al-Inğīl al-šarīf al-ṭāhir wa-l-misbāḥ al-munīr al-ẓāhir, pp. 7–9.
See in the Appendix below a basic English translation of the commentary on the Gospel for Pascha.
Kitab al-Inğīl al-šarīf al-ṭāhir wa-l-misbāḥ al-munīr al-ẓāhir, pp. 382–386.
Kitab al-Inğīl al-šarīf al-ṭāhir wa-l-misbāḥ al-munīr al-ẓāhir, pp. 392–398.
Kitab al-Inğīl al-šarīf al-ṭāhir wa-l-misbāḥ al-munīr al-ẓāhir, p. 392.
Kitab al-Inğīl al-šarīf al-ṭāhir wa-l-misbāḥ al-munīr al-ẓāhir, pp. 100–102.
I have completed this translation for the purpose of this article. The choice of wording was made to reflect the style of the Arabic text.
