Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:22:55.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rearticulating a Christian-Muslim Understanding: Gennadios Scholarios and George Amiroutzes on Islam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Angeliki Ziaka
Angeliki Ziaka*
Affiliation:
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From the eighth century, the Eastern Orthodox Churches engaged in various forms of theological dialogue and debate with newly emergent Islam. Although scholars have tended to study Islamic-Christian relations in terms of confrontation and direct conflict, this aspect, dominant as it may be, must not lead us to overlook another aspect of the relationship, that of attempts at rapprochement and understanding. Despite the acerbity of Byzantium’s anti-heretical and apologetic literature against Islam, there were also attempts at communication and mutual understanding between Christianity and Islam. These efforts became more tangible after the fall of Constantinople (1453), which marked a partial change in Orthodoxy’s theological stance towards Islam. The polemical approach, which had prevailed during Byzantine times, gave way in part to an innovative and more conciliatory theological discourse towards Islam. Modern Greek research categorizes the theological discourse that was articulated during this period according to two diametrically opposing models: the model of conciliation and rapprochement with Islam, which was not widely influential, and that of messianic Utopian discourse developed by Christians who had turned to God and sought divine intervention to save the community.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 51: Christianity and Religious Plurality , 2015 , pp. 150 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vryonis, Spyros, ‘Byzantium and Islam: Seventh-Seventeenth Century’, East European Quarterly 2 (1968), 205—40 Google Scholar; Sahas, Daniel,‘Eighth-Century Byzantine anti-Islamic Literature: Context and Forces’, Byzantinoslavica 57 (1996), 229—38Google Scholar; Bonner, Michael, Arab-Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times, (London, 2004)Google Scholar; Argyriou, Asterios, ‘Perception de I’Islam et traductions du Coran dans le monde byzantin grec’, Byzantion 75 (2005), 25–69.Google Scholar

2 Anastasios, Yannoulatos, ‘Byzantine and Contemporary Orthodox Approaches to Islam’, in George C., Papademetriou, ed., Two Traditions, One Space: Orthodox Christians and Muslims in Dialogue (Boston, MA, 2011), 147-77Google Scholar (f’rst publ. in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 33 [1996], 512-27); Angeliki Ziaka,’La recherche grecque contemporaine et l’lslam’ (doctoral thesis, Université de Strasbourg, 2002), 108-211, at 106-9.

3 Asterios Argyriou, ‘Les Exégèses grecques de l’Apocalypse à l’epoque turque (1453-1821). Esquisse d’une histoire des courants idéologiques au sein du peuple grec asservi’, 2 vols (doctoral thesis, Université de Strasbourg, 1977); idem.’Nationalismes et supranationalisme dans l’Eglise orthodoxe à l’epoque turque’, in Aspects de I’Orthodoxie: structures el spiritualite, Colloque de Strasbourg, novembre 1978 (Paris, 1981), 135—52; Nicolas Pissis, ‘Apokalyptik und Zeitwahrnehmung in griechischen Texten der osma-nischen Zeit’, in Andreas Helmedach et al., eds, Dai Osmanische Europa: Methoden und Perspektiven der Friilineuzeitforschung zu Siidosteuropa (Leipzig, 2013), 463—86.

4 On George of Trebizond, see, in this volume, Konstantinos Papastathis, ‘Christian-Muslim Encounters: George ofTrebizond and the ‘Inversion’ of Eastern Discourse regarding Islam in the Fifteenth Century’, 137—49.

5 Much later, they were edited and published: Petit, Louis, Sideridès, X. A. and Jugie, Martin, eds, Œuvres complètes de Georges (Gennade) Scholarios, 8 vols (Paris, 1928— 36), 3: 434—75Google Scholar. The first text was published for the first time by Christos Papaioannou in ‘Eκκλησιαστική ‘Aλήθεια 16 (1896), 203-96, at 210-12, 219-22, 227-9. The text in PG 160, cols 319A-332C, is that of a pseudo-Athanasian work, edited by Gass, W., Gennadius und Pletho: Aristotelismus und Platonismus in der Griechischen Kirche, nebst einer Abhandlung über die Bestreitung des Islam im Mittelalter, 2 vols in i (Breslau, 1844), 2: 16–30 Google Scholar. The genuine text in PG is the following one, entitled Confessio Fidei Posterior. PG 160, 333A-352A. See the critical edition of the original text: Petit, Sideridès and Jugie, eds, Œuvres, 3: 453—8.

6 Theophanes the Confessor, Chronicle (PG 108, cols 684B-685B).

7 Theodore Abū Qurrah, Opuscula ascetica (PG 97, cols 1545-8).

8 Bartholomew of Edessa, Elechus et Confutation Agareni (PG 104, cols 1383A- 1448A, at 1421C).

9 George the Monk, Chronicon Breve (PG no, cols 869C-872A).

10 Ziaka, ‘La recherche grecque’, 37-200.

11 The life and work of Gennadios are examined in Theodoras N. Zissis, Γεννάδιος B‘ Σχολάριος, Bίος – Συγγράμματα – Διδασκαλία (Thessaloniki, 1988). Zissis’s massive work has been described as ‘controversial’ by John Monfasani, and challenged as arbitrary, unprofessional, and ‘bigoted’ by leading Byzantinists such as Darrouzès, Jean, in Revue des études byzantines 39 (1981), 350-5Google Scholar; Gill, Jean, in Sobornost 3 (1981), 240—3Google Scholar; Podskalsky, George, in Byzantinische Zeitschrijt 77 (1984), 59—60 Google Scholar: see Monfasani’s review of Montague Christopher Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon:Tlw Last of the Hellenes (Oxford, 1986), in Renaissance Quarterly 41 (1988), 116-19, at 118.

12 Gennadios’s second work was published by Martin Crusius (1526—1607), in both Greek and Ottoman (turcarabicam linguam): Turcogmecia, Book 2 (Basle, 1584), 108—20. Turcograecia is an eight-volume work with all the information that the German humanist managed to gather about the life of post-Byzantine Greek Christians in the Ottoman Empire. It belonged to the wider efforts made by Lutheran theologians of Tübingen, under the aegis of Martin Crusius, to engage in dialogue with the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople. See Dorothea Wendebourg, Reformation und Orthodoxie: Der ökumenische Briefwechsel zwischen der Leitung der Württembergische Kirche und Patriarch Jeremias II. von Konstantinopel in denjahren 1573—1581 (Göttingen, 1986).

13 Konortas, Paraskevas, ’Οθωμανικές θεωρήσεις γιά τó Οἰκου μενικὀ Πατριαρχεĩο (17ος ἀρχές 20ου αἰώνα) (Athens, 1998).Google Scholar

14 Krstić, Tijana, Contested Conversions to Islam: Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (Stanford, CA, 2011), 63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the legend, she refers to Halil Inalcik,’The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans’, Tunica 21—3 (1991), 407—36, at 409—10. Inalcik believes that by recognizing the spiritual leaders of the Greeks, the Armenians and the Jews, Mehmed II ‘attempted to make Istanbul a universal metropolis’.

15 Yannoulatos,’Approaches to Islam’, 156—7; Ziaka,’La recherche grecque’, 106—9.

16 Krstić, Contested Conversions, 63.

17 John Monfasani, ‘The “Lost” Final Part of George Amiroutzès’ Dialogus de Fide in Christum and Zanobi Acciaiuoli’, in Humanism and Creativity in the Renaissance: Essays in Honor of Ronald G. Witt, ed. S., Christopher Celenza and Kenneth Gouwens (Leiden, 2006), 197—229, at 204.Google Scholar

18 Whether or not he converted to Islam remains unknown. Some scholars maintain that he remained a Christian until the end of his life. For the argument against conversion, see Nicolaos Tomadakis, “Eτούρκευσεν óΓεώργιος ‘Aμιρούτζης;’, ‘Eπετηρίς ‘Eταιρείας Bυζαντινῶν ∑πουδῶν 17 (1948), 99-143; Anna Frangedaki, ‘On Fifteenth-Century Cryptochristianity:A Letter to George Amoiroutzes from Michael Apostolis’, Byzantine and Modem Creek Studies 9 (1984—5), 221—4. On his supposed conversion to Islam,see Ali Ezzati, Tlie Spread of Islam.Tlie Contributing Factors (London, 2002), 149. In Martyrology of Blessed Andreas of Chios, George ofTrebizond accused Amiroutzès of apostasy: John Monfasani, George ofTrehizond.A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden, 1976), 187 n. 37, citing PG 161, cols 883B-890.

19 Michel Balivet, Byzantins et Ottomans: Relations, interactions, succession (Istanbul, 1999), 139-50, at 149.

20 Jugie, Martin, ‘La Lettre de Georges Amiroutzès au Due de Nauplie Demetrius sur le Concile de Florence’, Bυζάντιον 14 (1939), 77—93 Google Scholar; Ziaka,’La Recherche grecque’, 113—15.

21 According to the footnotes of the first version of the text, Gennadios began to write it after an unexpected visit by Mehmed to the Pammakaristos monastery, to which the patriarchate had moved its seat. Eventually, during 1599—1600, the patriarchate was moved to the monastery of St Georgios, in the heart of the Fanari neighbourhood, where it remains: Manuel Gedeon, Xροvικά τοῡ Πατριαρχικοῡ Oίκοʋ καί Nαοῡ (Constantinople, [1894?]); Germanos Sardeon, “O πατριαρχικóς οἶκος. καί ναóς. ἀπó τοũ 1453 καί ὲξῆς’, ‘Oρθοδοξία 14 (1939), 110-15, 264-7, 299-305; Aristeidis Pasadaios, ‘O Πατριαρχικóς Oίκος τοῡ Οίκουμενικοῡ Θρóνου (Thessaloniki, 1976).

22 According to Muslim belief, God re-sent his eternal word, the Qur’ān, to his messenger Muḥammad due to the alteration of the Gospel by Jews and Christians: Sūra al-Maida (Q 5: 15).

23 The Qur’ān is written on an eternal tablet (al-Lauh al-Mahfūz) which is kept next to God (Q 85: 21-2). This is the archetype, the ‘Mother of the Bible’ (Umm al-Kitāb), and is the prototype not only of the Qur’ān but also of all forms of revelation, particularly the Pentateuch and the gospel. It is the eternal Word of God, his speech: Gregorios Ziakas, Ισλάμ Θρησκεία και Πολιτεία (Thessaloniki, 2001), 37; Francis Edward Peters, 77ic Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, 2: The Words and Will of Cod (Princeton, NJ, 2003), 52.

24 Petit, Sideridès and Jugie, eds, Œuvres, 3: 441, 442, 443.

25 Ibid. 436-7.

26 Ibid. 438.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid. 440.

29 Ibid. 439.

30 Ibid. 440.

31 According to Justin Martyr, all truths to which pre-Christian humanity adhered constituted the message of the seminal divine word, emerging from his illumination of, and presence with, every human being, provided they do not fall into darkness deriving from their passions and desires: 1 Apol. 46 (PG 6, col. 397C); see George Martzelos, ‘H Θεολογία του σπερματικού λὀγου και η σημασία της για τους θεολολογικούς και διαθησκειακού διαλὀγονς’, Θεολογία 84/2 (2013), 69-80, at 71.

32 Yannoulatos, ‘Approaches to Islam’, 157-8.

33 Petit, Sideridès and Jugie, eds, Œuvres, 3: 441-52.

34 Ibid. 449.

35 Ibid. 452.

36 Yannoulatos, ‘Approaches to Islam’, 157.

37 Petit, Sideridès and jugie, eds, Œuvres, 3: 453-8.

38 Q 4 : 171.

39 See Γρηγоρίоυ τοῦ Παλαμᾶ, ҅Διάλεξιζ πρóζ τούζ ἀθέουζ Xιóvαζ҆, in Panayotis K. Christou, ed., Γρηγορίον Παλαμᾶ, ∑νγγράμματα, 5 vols (Thessaloniki, 1962—91), 4: 109—65, at 151—2.

40 Petit, Sideridès and Jugie, eds, Œuvres, 3: 458-75.

41 Ibid. 458.

42 Ibid. 458-9.

43 Ibid. 461—3, 464—7.

44 Ibid. 468.

45 Ibid. 468-70.

46 Ibid. 470-1.

47 Referring to Islam’s belief that the Qur’ān was given to Muhammad through God’s messenger, the archangel Jibrīl.

48 Petit, Sideridès and Jugie, eds, Œuvres, 3: 472—3.

49 Ibid. 471—2.

50 Ibid. 473-5.

51 Ibid. 475.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid. 459.

54 Ibid. 466.

55 Ibid. 467.

56 Ibid. 461.

57 Ibid. 467.

58 Ibid. 473.

59 Ibid. 461.

60 Ibid. 461-4.

61 Ibid. 473.

62 Paris, BN, MS Latinus 3395, fols 83-144. Emile Legrand published Amiroutzès’ preface in Bibliographie Hellénique ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés par des grecs aux XVe et XVIe siècles, 4 vols (Paris, 1885—1906), 3: 197. Asterios Argyriou and Georges Lagarrigue published the text of MS Latinus 3395 with a French translation:’Georges Amiroutzès et son Dialogue sur la foi au Christ tenu avec le Sultan des Turcs’, Byzantinische Forschungen II (1987), 29—222. The most recent edition and translation were done in Spanish by Oscar de la Cruz Palma (2000), who reedited the Latin text, correcting the translation by Argyriou and Lagarrigue wherever the sixteenth-century Latin copyist referred to the Greek original in the margins:Jorge Ameruzes de Trebisonda. El diálogo de la fe con el sultán de los turcos, Nueva Roma: Bibliotheca Graeca et Latina Aevi Posterioris 9 (Madrid, 2000); reviewed by John Monfasani, Speculum 79 (2004), 1024-5. In 2006, Monfasani published an article concerning the conclusion of Amiroutzes’ work, supporting the theory that three manuscripts which had been attributed to an anonymous author (Vat. Lat. 3469, 5619, 8603) were in fact the continuation of Amiroutzes’ work and that ‘this missing part helps us follow Amiroutzes’ argument in detail’.The three manuscripts date from sixteenth-century Rome and are independent of MS Latinus 3395: Monfasani,’Final Part’.

63 Monfasani, review of de la Cruz Palma, 1024.

64 MS Latinus 3395, fol. 114A (Argyriou and Lagarrigue, ‘Amiroutzès’, 137).

65 Ibid., fol. 121A (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 155—7).

66 Ibid., fol. 114A (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 128-37).

67 Ibid., fol. 96B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 93-5). See also Q 3: 49; 5: 112-14.

68 Ibid., fol. 84B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 65).

69 Ibid., fols 86A-91B, 112B-113B, 118A-118B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue, ‘Amiroutzès’, 69—81); cf. for example, fols 135—7, J49 (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 193-201).

70 Ibid., fols 91B-97A (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 81—89, 91—5).

71 Ibid., fols 97A—100B, 122B—126A (Argyriou and Lagarrigue, ‘Amiroutzès’ 96-105, I59-69).

72 ’2 Ibid., fols 100B—118B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 105—49).

73 Ibid., fols 122B— 141B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue, ‘Amiroutzès’, 175—209).

74 Ibid., fol. 100B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 105).

75 Ibid., fol. 102B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue, ‘Amiroutzès’, 109).

76 Ibid., fols 104B-105A (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 115).

77 Ibid., fols 107A—107B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 121—3).

78 Ibid., fols 126A—127A (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 169—71).

79 Ibid., fols 84B—85 (Argyriou and Lagarrigue, ‘Amiroutzès’, 65).

80 Ibid., fols 83A-83B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue, ‘Amiroutzès’, 63). Here he refers to Ottoman rule without clearly naming it. Later, however, he mentions that there is one element which fuels hatred and leads to the Greeks’ unbearable subjection. This element is not political difference, which Greeks had faced in the past with other peoples, such as the Scythians and the Romans, and had managed to overcome, but religious difference: ibid., fol. 84B (Argyriou and Lagarrigue,’Amiroutzès’, 65).

81 Kwok Pui-Lan, Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Tlieobgy (Louisville, KY, 2005), 67.