The Arabic Version of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s "Mystical Theology", Chapter 1:...

THE ARABIC VERSION OF PS.-DIONYSIUS' MYSTICAL THEOLOGY, CH. 1 365

THE ARABIC VERSION OF PSEUDO-DIONYSIUSTHE AREOPAGITE’S MYSTICAL THEOLOGY, CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION, CRITICAL EDITION, AND TRANSLATION*

Introduction

The year 2009 will mark one thousand years since the CorpusDionysiacum was translated into Arabic by the Emesene scribe, appar-ently a Melkite, Abu ‘Ali ‘Isa b. IsÌaq, known as Ibn SaÌquq. Althoughof great significance for the study of the influence and reception historyof Ps.-Dionysius and for the study of Eastern Christianity alike, this factremains relatively unknown even to specialists in the subject1.

* The article is based on the present author’s unpublished MA thesis: On the ArabicVersion of Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite’s “Mystical Theology,” The Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem, 2001. I am grateful to Prof. F.W. Zimmermann of the Oriental Institute,Oxford, who very kindly brought to my attention, in July 2000, the existence of the Ara-bic versions of Ps.-Dionysius and encouraged me to write a thesis on the subject. I shouldlike to thank Professors Sarah Stroumsa and Dimitri Gutas for their invaluable critical re-marks as well as for their help and encouragement all the way through. Last but not least:I should like to thank the Center for the Study of Christianity at the Hebrew University ofJerusalem for its generous support of the thesis.

The works of Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite are abbreviated as follows:CH = Celestial Hierarchy; EH = Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; DN = Divine Names; MT =

Mystical Theology; Ep(p) = Epistle(s);CD = B.R. SUCHLA, G. HEIL and A.M. RITTER (eds.), Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols.

(Patristische Texte und Studien, vols. 33 and 36), Berlin – New York: Walter deGruyter, 1990-91; in references to Ps.-Dionysius’ works volume is not indicated,DN referring to vol. 1, CH, EH, MT and Ep(p) — to vol. 2; each reference is fol-lowed by column numbers of J.-P. MIGNE’s Patrologia Graeca, vol. 3, Paris, 1857.

Other abbreviations include the following:BLAU = Joshua BLAU, A Grammar of Christian Arabic, Based Mainly on South-Palestin-

ian Texts from the First Millennium, 3 vols. (CSCO, vol. 267, 276, 279; Subsidia,vol. 27, 28, 29), Louvain, 1966-1967 (continuous pagination);

GALex = G. ENDRESS and D. GUTAS (eds.), A Greek and Arabic Lexicon: Materials for aDictionary of the Mediaeval Translations from Greek into Arabic, Leiden – NewYork – Köln: E.J. Brill, 1992–;

PG = J.-P. MIGNE (ed.), Patrologia Graeca;PL = J.-P. MIGNE (ed.), Patrologia Latina;WRIGHT = W. WRIGHT, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Cambridge: University

Press, vol. 1, 1896, vol. 2, 1898 and reprints.

1 The new critical edition of the Greek Corpus Dionysiacum, published in 1990-91 bythe Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, passes the Arabic versions in silence,even as all the other ancient versions are listed in B.R. SUCHLA’s introduction: “Wirkennen Übersetzungen des C[orpus] D[ionysiacum] ins Syrische, Lateinische, Altarme-nische, Altgeorgische und Kirchenslavische” (CD, vol. 1, p. 36).

Le Muséon 120 (3-4), 365-393. doi: 10.2143/MUS.120.3.2024681 - Tous droits réservés.© Le Muséon, 2007.

366 A. TREIGER

It is the purpose of this study to present, for the first time, a sample ofIbn SaÌquq’s translation to the modern reader, in a critical edition withan annotated English translation and analysis. The text chosen for thisstudy, following the example of Jean-Michel Hornus’ 1970 article on theSyriac versions of Ps.-Dionysius, is the first chapter of the Mystical The-ology2. This choice will allow us to compare the Arabic translation ofMT, ch. 1 with the two Syriac versions of the same text, convenientlyavailable in the appendix to Hornus’ publication3. It will be shown thatthe Arabic translation is independent of the Syriac and the translator wasworking directly from the Greek original4.

A recent article on the Arabic translations of the Corpus Dionysiacumoffers a survey of the Arabic Ps.-Dionysius, with an analysis of the im-portant colophons of Sinai MS ar. 268 and a provisional inventory of theArabic translations known so far5. Its conclusions may be recapitulatedas follows.

1. The entire Corpus Dionysiacum exists in Arabic in at least two paral-lel manuscripts: Sinai MS ar. 268 and Sinai MS ar. 314. This factwas previously unknown: only two of Ps.-Dionysius’ works, the Ce-

2 J.-M. HORNUS, Le corpus dionysien en syriaque, in Parole de l’Orient, 1 (1970),p. 69-93.

3 The Syriac text of MT, ch. 1 in the two versions by Sergius of Res‘ayna and Phocasis printed on p. 85-93 of Hornus’s article. Apart from this publication and the publicationof certain parts of the EH (W. STROTHMANN, Das Sakrament der Myron-Weihe in derSchrift “De ecclesiastica hierarchia” des Pseudo-Dionysios Areopagita in syrischenÜbersetzungen und Kommentaren, 2 vols., Wiesbaden, 1977-1978), the Syriac versionsof Ps.-Dionysius remain unpublished.

The following is a select bibliography on the Syriac versions of Ps.-Dionysius (in ad-dition to the studies by Hornus and Strothmann mentioned above): P. SHERWOOD, Sergiusof Reshaina and the Syriac Versions of the Pseudo-Denis, in Sacris Erudiri, 4 (1952),p. 174-184; G. WIESSNER, Zur Handschriftenüberlieferung der syrischen Fassung desCorpus Dionysiacum, in Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen,1972, p. 165-216; M. VAN ESBROECK, La triple préface syriaque de Phocas, in Y. DE

ANDIA (ed.), Denys l’Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident: Actes duColloque International, Paris, 21-24 septembre 1994, Paris, 1997, p. 167-186; M. NASTA,Quatre états de la textualité dans l’histoire du Corpus Dionysien, in Y. DE ANDIA (ed.),Denys l’Aréopagite et sa postérité, p. 31-65; M. QUASCHNING-KIRSCH, Die Frage derBenennbarkeit Gottes in den syrischen Versionen des Corpus Dionysiacum Areopa-giticum, in R. LAVENANT (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta,vol. 256), p. 117-126; M. QUASCHNING-KIRSCH, Ein weiterer Textzeuge für die syrischeVersion des Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum: Paris B.N. Syr. 378, in Le Muséon,113.1-2 (2000), p. 115-124; I. PERCZEL, Sergius of Reshaina’s Syriac Translation of theDionysian Corpus: Some Preliminary Remarks, in C. BAFFIONI (ed.), La diffusionedell’eredità classica nell’età tardo-antica e medievale. Filologia, storia, dottrina. Atti delSeminario nazionale di studio (Napoli-Sorrento, 29-31 ottobre 1998), Alessandria, 2000,p. 79-94.

4 This is also indicated in the translator’s colophon. See n. 33 below.5 A. TREIGER, New Evidence on the Arabic Versions of the Corpus Dionysiacum, in Le

Muséon, 118 (2005), p. 219-240 (= TREIGER, New Evidence).


lestial Hierarchy and the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, were assumed toexist in Arabic.

2. The translator is a certain Ibn SaÌquq of Emesa (= Îums in Syria); theArabic version was produced in the month of ∑afar 400 AH (September-October 1009), presumably during the translator's stay in Damascus.

3. Ibn al-Yabrudi, whom previous scholarship misidentified as the Ara-bic translator of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, is not the translator butthe commissioner and copyist, and not of the Ecclesiastical Hierar-chy alone but of the entire Corpus Dionysiacum.

4. There are other Arabic translations, different from the complete one,of certain parts of the corpus: CH (chs. 1-9); DN (ch. 4, §§18-35);and Ep. 86.It should also be mentioned that the Arabic translation does not in-

clude the scholia by John of Scythopolis and Maximus Confessor7.However it does include (for the EH, DN and MT alone) the anonymoushexameter epigrams found in some Greek manuscripts and some Latintranslations of Ps.-Dionysius8.

6 These translations have not been studied. On the manuscripts in which they are pre-served see TREIGER, New Evidence, p. 237-239 under Nos. 2, 5 and 8 respectively.

7 On the scholia see P. ROREM and J.C. LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and theDionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, Oxford 1998, with comprehensive bibli-ography. A critical edition of the Greek text of the scholia is expected from the Akademieder Wissenschaften in Göttingen.

8 To my knowledge, the epigrams (in Arabic ‘anawin) have not been studied. In PG,vol. III, coll. 116-117 they are printed together with iambic verses by Christopher ofMitylene (11th cent.). It is stated that they were printed in the Paris 1562 edition of Ps.-Dionysius preceding the scholia. The only place in the Göttingen edition where these epi-grams are mentioned is the apparatus criticus at the beginning of the EH (ed. G. HEIL,CD, II, p. 63), where only three manuscripts seem to contain the verses (Pb, Lc, and Fb,see n. 57 below).

As for the Latin translations see PL, vol. CXXII, coll. 1037 [CH], 1069 [EH], 1111[DN], 1171 [MT]. Professor Paul Rorem of the Princeton Theological Seminary kindlyinformed me in an email message that these epigrams are lacking in Eriugena’s Vorlage(MS Pa). Therefore they must be a later addition, perhaps due, in the Latin version, toAnastasius the Librarian in the second half of the 9th century. On Anastasius the Librariansee recently B.R. SUCHLA, Anastasius Bibliothecarius und der Dionysius Areopagitalatinus, in Archiv für mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur (Sofia), 6 (2000), p. 23-31.

On the Latin translations, see also Robert Grosseteste’s testimony in the Preface to hiscommentary on the MT: “In nostris exemplaribus grecis non fuit prescriptum aliquod epi-gramma in hunc librum de mistica theologia. Aliqui tamen translatores ponunt epigrammaverbis latinis sic: Novam claritatem in reliqua et scientiam subsistentium noctem perdivinam, quam non iustum licet nominare [this is the version printed in PL, vol. CXXII, col.1171]. Vel sic: Et sensum refulgentem penetrasti et scientiam exsistentium noctem per divi-nam, quam non est fas nominare. Hoc epigramma non exponimus, quia ipsum grece scrip-tum non vidimus” (U. GAMBA [ed.], Il Commento di Roberto Grossatesta al “De mysticatheologia” del Pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita, Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1942, p. 19-20).

The Syriac versions by Sergius of Res‘ayna, 6th century and by Phocas, early 8th cen-tury (as published by Hornus) and the Armenian translation by Step‘anos of Siunik‘, early8th century (as published by Thomson) do not have these epigrams.

368 A. TREIGER

Among the peculiarities of the Arabic version one should mention thatin many cases the Arabic text diverges, often significantly, from theGreek. There are a variety of reasons for this phenomenon, and eachcase has to be examined separately. (1) In some cases the Arabic text aswe have it is corrupt. It is then the task of the editor to restore the origi-nal (i.e. the translator’s) version of the text. (2) In other cases the Arabictext is based on a variant Greek reading, which may or may not beattested in the critical edition of the Greek original, or on a misreadingof the Greek. (3) In many cases the translator misunderstood the Greek,often due to Ps.-Dionysius’ complex syntax. (4) In other cases he seemsto have been unfamiliar with Ps.-Dionysius’ terminology and attemptedto render it ad sensum. (5) On occasion the Arabic translator added aword or a phrase to clarify the meaning that in his view was intended bythe author. (6) In a limited number of cases he tried — whether con-sciously or unconsciously — to attenuate Ps.-Dionysius’ mystical doc-trines foreign to his worldview. (7) Finally, some differences are due tothe fact that the structure of the Arabic language is radically differentfrom that of the Greek: a striking example is offered by Greek partici-ples dependent on the main verb, which had to be recast into subordinateclauses, and by compound nouns, adjectives, and adverbs, abundant inthe Greek text of Ps.-Dionysius but not supported by the Arabic. Eventhe very title of the treatise comes out in Arabic as “On the Secret Di-vine Word,” for the word theology cannot be adequately translated intoArabic except through a circumlocution that renders each of its etymaseparately9.

The following analysis — as well as footnotes to the translation —will offer examples for all these categories. The analysis will be dividedinto four headings: Technical Terminology, Translation Technique,Comparison with the Syriac Versions, and Cases of Interpretation andMisinterpretation.

1. Technical Terminology

The majority of technical terms employed in the Arabic version of theMT belong to common philosophical terminology, for example: aîtía,

9 The Arabic word kalam, literally “speech,” used for Muslim theology, is not appro-priate in a Christian context. It is noteworthy that the earliest Graeco-Arabic translationsof the ‘Abbasid period also use circumlocutions to render the word theology: thus in thetitle of the so-called Theology of Aristotle, an Arabic compilation based on Plotinus’Enneads IV-VI, the word theology, transcribed as u†ulujiya, is glossed as “discourse on[divine] lordship” [qawl ‘ala l-rububiya].


a÷tion ~ WK (4, 6, 7, 36, 39, 45)10; ênérgeia ~ qF (24); noÕv ~ qI

(21, 68); oûsía ~ du (27, 36); tà aîsqjtá ~ Uu;« (6) or UO(«

(25); tà nojtá: ôuIF*« (7) or UOKIF« (25). The translator is consistentin his rendering of these terms, but also flexible enough to reflect nu-ances of meaning of the same term. Thus, in the last two cases, differenttranslations were chosen to denote “sensible / intelligible things” and“sensible / intelligible matters” respectively.

In what follows I shall confine myself to a few short notes, in whichthe translator’s rendering (and understanding) of several technical termswill be analysed. Only those terms will be examined in rendering whichthe translator failed to be accurate or consistent.

1. The terms katafatikóv (“affirmative”) and âpofatikóv (“nega-tive”) are rendered w«– and

ÔÒ

wÒ

respectively (5 and MT, Ch. 3, pas-sim). Similarly, katáfasiv ~ w«– ‰u (41), WO«– WEH (410Br:16)11;âpófasiv ~ W (41); âpofáskw ~ vK » Z&« (40)12. This is puz-zling, since w«– means “essential” (in philosophical terminology: asopposed to “accidental”)13, and

ÔÒ

wÒ

is an adjective from the noun W,meaning “evidence” or “proof,” or perhaps from the verb Z&«

ÒvK » ,

meaning “to infer.” I am inclined to think that the translator took theseterms to denote qualities “properly” (or “essentially”) predicated ofGod and qualities “inferentially” predicated of Him respectively. Thisunderstanding seems to originate from the prefixes kata- and âpo-,which can be taken to mean “according to [oneself, one’s own essence]”(as in kaqˆ ëautón, = proper) and “from [something else]” (=in-ferred)14. Ironically, these terms have precisely the opposite meaning in

10 All the references are to the line numbers of the present edition or, in cases wherethe text is not covered by this edition, to the folio and line numbers of Sinai MS ar. 314.

11 The microfilm of the Library of Congress, which I examined, has two folios num-bered 410: in what follows they are designated 410A and 410B.

12 Katáfasiv and âpófasiv are transcribed in the Arabic version of Aristotle’s Decaelo as fOUD (286a26) and fOu)√ (281b33, 282a4,6,7,10), cf. G. ENDRESS, ProclusArabus: Zwanzig Abschnitte aus der “Institutio Theologica” in arabischer Übersetzung,Beirut, 1973, p. 148 (= ENDRESS, Proclus Arabus). These terms are also rendered »U+«

and VK respectively; see references in G. ENDRESS, Die wissenschaftliche Literatur, inH. GÄTJE – W. FISCHER (eds.), Grundriß der Arabischen Philologie, vol. II, p. 400-506,Wiesbaden, 1987 (= ENDRESS, Die wissenschaftliche Literatur), and vol. III (Supple-ment), p. 3-152, Wiesbaden, 1992, at vol. III, p. 11, n. 57, especially F.W. ZIMMERMANN,Some Observations on al-Farabi and Logical Tradition, in S.M. STERN et al. (eds.), Is-lamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition: Essays presented by his friends and pupilsto Richard Walzer on his seventieth birthday, Oxford, 1972, p. 532-534 and the synoptictable on p. 530-531.

13 See e.g. A.-M. GOICHON, Lexique de la langue philosophique d’Ibn Sina (Avicenne),Paris, 1938, No. 266, p. 137-139.

14 The translation of the latter term may have also been influenced by the secondmeaning of âpófasiv (derived from the verb âpofaínw, “to give evidence, show by rea-soning,” rather than from âpofáskw / âpófjmi, “to deny”).

370 A. TREIGER

Greek: cataphatic theology is the “inferential” one, since it describesGod’s qualities in relation to those of the creatures, whereas apophatictheology is, in a way, “essential,” since it deals, by way of negation,with God’s unknowable and ineffable essence15.

2. The term âfaíresiv (“abstraction”) and the verb âfairéw (“toabstract”) when related to God, are close in meaning to âpófasiv andâpofáskw and can best be rendered in Arabic by the terms t+eM orb+d&

16. However, the Arabic translator does not use these terms at all; heemploys instead, in the majority of cases, derivatives of the root eO2, es-pecially the verbs and maÒadir of the second and the fifth forms: MT143:7 eOO9 (42), 145:5,7 O9

^e (409v:11,14), 145:8 «eOO9 (409v:16),

145:11 O1Òe (410Ar:3)17. It is likely that “distinctions” between God and

created things are meant thereby, and if so the translation is fairly closeto the original. In other cases, however, different Arabic words are used:147:16 WL (410Br:14), 147:18 WKOB (410Bv:1)18, and 150:5 W8U

(411v:1)19.3. Another curious terminological example is provided by the term

êpékeina (“beyond”), designating the transcendence of the One inNeoplatonic thought (as in the Platonic phrase êpékeina t±v oûsíav).In the Arabic translation it is usually rendered by pK vK [= êpˆêkeínjÇ] (51, 65)20, and only once, correctly, by l—«Ë vK« (411v:5)21.

4. The term Àlj (“matter”) in some of its derivatives is rendered,somewhat idiosyncratically, by qI= (“heaviness”): e.g. MT 146:4 ãÓlov~ t qI= ô Íc« (410Ar:13), MT 148:5 ülikóv ~ wKI= (410Bv:14). How-ever, in the Arabic version of DN, which belongs to the same translator,the loan word vuO (a transliteration of Àlj) is used (e.g. 366r:10).

15 Katáfasiv and âpófasiv are close in meaning to the Arabic terms tO8A and t+eMrespectively, but the translator does not use them.

16 For âfaíresiv ~ b+d& see references in ENDRESS, Wissenschaftliche Literatur,vol. III, p. 19, n. 155, esp. F. JABRE, Le sens de l’Abstraction chez Avicenne, in Mélangesde l’Université St. Joseph, 50 (1984), p. 282-310.

17 Cf. MT 145:7 êzairoÕntev ~ ÊËeO2 (409v:12) and a similar translation in DN166:14 (kaì oûsíav) ö qeòv êzßÇrjtai ~ p– s eOL&+ tDU tô« U2U (363v:12). The verbâforíhomai (“to distinguish oneself from,” and hence “to renounce”) is also renderedby eO9 (53, 56).

18 Read so for WKOC in the manuscript.19 In the first two cases the translator’s Greek Vorlage may have read diaíresiv in

place of âfaíresiv; in the third case it may have read stérjsiv, which is variously ren-dered by W8U (42) or Âb (410Bv:16). None of these readings, however, is attested in theGöttingen edition.

20 Cf. also DN 163:20 êpékeina ~ pK vK (361r:3).21 The term êpékeina in Prop. 73 of Proclus’ Elements of Theology (ed. E.R. DODDS,

Oxford, 19632, p. 70, l. 10) is rendered by r√Ë l—√Ò

in the Arabic version, cf. ENDRESS,Proclus Arabus, p. 156, and p. ≤µ, l. ±¥ of the Arabic section.


5. The term ∏nwsiv and the verb ënóomai, signifying mystical un-ion22, are rendered by WH« (“intimacy,” vocalized ilfa rather than ulfa inMS 314)23 and nQ (“be / become intimate with”) respectively: e.g.147:14 ënwqßsetai ~ nQ&+ (410Br:12), and also in the Arabic versionof the DN, e.g. 167:4 ∏nwsiv and 167:14-15 [∏nwsiv] (corrupted from™ nósov in the textus receptus)24 ~ WHô« (363v:3, 16)25. This translationseems to aim at attenuating the radical doctrine of the mystical union; afurther step in this direction is undertaken in MT 142:8, where ∏nwsiv isrendered by WHô«Ë WOD«bu« q2Q (26), “contemplation of unity and (of?)intimacy”26. In two additional cases, the translator took the verbënóomai in the passive rather than in the middle signification and relatedit to the idea of (professing) the oneness of God, implied by the Arabicterm bOu, but not by the Greek ∏nwsiv. Thus in MT 144:14ënoúmenov is rendered by ÁbOu (68), and ënoÕsqai in the title of Ch. 2by bOu&« lu+ (3-4) and u+

]b (409v:4)27.

2. Translation Technique

In this section I shall attempt to describe and analyse the translator’smethod in rendering some morphological elements of the Greek origi-nal28. I shall confine myself to an analysis of the alpha privativum andthe Greek compounds.

1. The alpha privativum before adjectives (“devoid of…”) or abstractnouns (“being devoid of” or simply “in-/un-”) is rendered in variousways:

(1) (adj. only) s2 √d82 + def. subst. (e.g. ãlogov ~ ‰uI« s2 …√d82 [46]) or(less frequently) dF2

Îs2 È + def. subst. (e.g. âdúnamov ~ s2 …«dF2

…—bI« [410Bv:14]);

22 On this notion in Ps.-Dionysius see: Y. DE ANDIA, Henosis: L’Union à Dieu chezDenys l’Aréopagite, Leiden – New York – Köln, 1996.

23 Reflecting in all likelihood a colloquial pronunciation: short /u/ in a closed syllableturns into /i/ in Syrian Arabic.

24 This reading is not attested in the Göttingen edition.25 To the best of my knowledge, the rendering ∏nwsiv ~ WH« is not attested in the

‘Abbasid translations from Greek into Arabic: it does not appear in GALex, Fasc. 3, s.v.WH√ (“ulfatun”), p. 295-296.

26 It is questionable whether the word “contemplation” should be taken to refer toboth the “unity” and the “intimacy” or only to the former. See Section 4 below for fur-ther discussion of this example.

27 Read so for bu in the manuscript. See nn. 50 and 156 below.28 In this analysis I follow the example of Gerhard ENDRESS’s analysis of the language

of the translations from Greek into Arabic in his Proclus Arabus, §2.1 (“Zum Lexicon”),p. 155-185, and Wissenschaftliche Literatur, esp. §8.7.2 (“Die sprachlichen Mittel derÜbersetzer”), vol. III, p. 7-12.

372 A. TREIGER

(2) (adj.) ÂœU + ‰ + def. subst. (e.g. ãlogov ~ WLKJK W2œU [410Bv:9])or (noun) Âb + def. subst. (e.g. âtazía ~ VOd&« Âb [410Bv:9]);

(3) (seldom, adj.) dOG) + indef. subst. (e.g. ânoúsiov ~ du dOG)

[410Bv:8]) or (noun) dOV + indef. subst. (e.g. ânomoiótjv ~ dOVW—UC2 [411r:7]);

(4) (adj. only) rel. pron. + ô + indef. subst. + ‰ + pron. suff. (e.g.ânómmatov ~ UN dX«uD ô w&« [21]);

(5) (seldom) a special root (e.g. âgnwsía ~ WUN [63]).

In the special case of the word ânenergjsía (“being devoid of activ-ity”) ~ tKF s2 ¡wZ uK[+ ô (67) the translator seems to have attemptedto translate ad sensum29.

It is not always clear why in each case a particular rendering was cho-sen. Constructions 1, 2, and 3 seem completely synonymous and aresometimes used in the same passage, presumably to avoid repetitions,e.g. MT 148:1-2 o∆te ânoúsióv êstin o∆te ãhwov, o∆te ãlogov o∆teãnouv ~WLKJK W2œU UND« ôË …UO(« s2 …√d82 UND« ôË du dOG) w XOË

qIFK W2œU ôË (410Bv:8-9). The same term is sometimes rendered dif-ferently on different occasions, even though there seems to be no differ-ence in meaning or in context, e.g. the term ãlogov in examples of Con-structions 1 and 2 above. Construction 4 seems to be used only when theadjective with the alpha privativum signifies being devoid of somethingconcrete, but one needs more examples in order to arrive at definite con-clusions in this regard. Construction 5 — a special root — is only rarelyemployed, mostly in the cases in which the Arabic possesses a steadyantonym to the adjective or a noun negated by the alpha privativum, asin the case of the term âgnwsía ~ WUN.

2. The alpha privativum preceding a verbal adjective with the suffix-tov (“not capable of being…” [passive] or “not capable of…” [active])or a concomitant adverb is rendered by the following constructions:(1) ô + impf.: (A) (passive signification) ô + pass. impf. (e.g. âgnÉ-

stwv ~ ·dF ô [26-27])30 or ô + act. impf. + prep. (if needed) +pron. suff. (e.g. ãgnwstov ~ … tdF+ ô [66], ãsxetov ~ UNM2 uDb+ ô[27]); (B) (active signification) ô + act. impf. (e.g. ãtreptov ~ ôqO^& [18]);

(2) dOV + part.: (A) (passive signification) dOV + pass. part. (e.g. âqéatov~ —uEM2 dOV [58]); (B) (active signification) dOV + act. part. (e.g. the

29 See discussion of ad sensum translations in Section 4 below.30 In the context of the Greek sentence this adverb has an active signification, but the

translator understood it in the passive. See Section 4 below for further discussion.


second part of the hendiadys âmújtoi ~ 5K2UJ« dOV 5B UM« [30-31]) 31;

(3) (adverbs only) dOV s2 + maÒdar (e.g. âperikalúptwv ~ dOV s2

—U&&« ôË ¡UH[&« [47-48] or, elsewhere, —U&&« dOV s2 ·UAJDU)

[410Ar:3-4]) 32;(4) a special root (e.g. the first part of the hendiadys âmújtoi ~ 5B UM«

5K2UJ« dOV [30-31])

3. The Greek compounds are rendered by the following constructions:

(1) subst. + adj.: (A) in the sg. (e.g. krufiómustov ~ wH` d [19],qeología ~ WON« WLKa [2, 4-5, 9, 12, 17-18, 43], or, elsewhere, WEH

WON« [410Av:6-7], qeosofía ~ WON« WLJ [15]); (B) (only adj. withpolu-) in the pl. (e.g. polueidßv ~ …dOba —uc [38]), polúfwnov ~…dOba «uc« [54]);

(2) adj./part. + adj./part. (e.g. ïeróplastoi ~ Wu8:« …dUD« [410Av:15],qeologikaí ~ WuI*« WONô« [410Av:3] and, elsewhere, ÿuHK*« UN)

WONô« [410Av:17]);(3) na‘t sababi (e.g. polúlogov ~ tu dOba [45], polúxutov ~ dOba

t=UF8D« [55]);(4) (seldom) (» +) maÒdar + s2/w + def. noun (e.g. braxúlektov ~

‰uI« s2 —UB&`U) [46] and similarly braxulogía ~ “U+ô«Ë —UB&`ô«

ÂöJ« w [410Br:5-6]);(5) (seldom) a single word (e.g. mustagwgía ~ d [35]).

In the majority of cases Construction 1 — subst. + adj. — is used. Thesubstantive always stands for the second term of the Greek compound,and the adjective for the first. This construction can be employed even incases in which the Greek compound constitutes an adjective, thus chang-ing it into a noun: e.g. krufiómustov ~ wH` d (19) and both examplesillustrating Construction 1B! Sometimes, however, Construction 2 is em-ployed in such cases. In the two examples in which the Greek compoundimplies a genitive relation between its terms (qeología and qeosofía)the adjective with ya’ al-nisba (WON«) is chosen to reflect it. Interestingly,the translator does not use annexation constructions (i∂afa), such as WLKa

«¶ or « WLJ¶ .Construction 3 is attested only in compound adjectives with polu-,

which can be rendered alternatively by Construction 1B. Interestingly,31 In the Greek, however, the word âmújtov (“uninitiated”) has originally a passive

signification, derived from the verb muéw, “to initiate into the mysteries.”32 Adverbs are usually rendered by the construction » + subst. / maÒdar, but when

alpha privativum is added » is changed into dOV s2.

374 A. TREIGER

the translator does not use for this purpose the improper annexation con-struction (i∂afa gayr Ìaqiqiya), such as ‰uI« dOba, ÀUF8Dô« dOba, etc. Al-ternatively, the synonymous Construction 4 can be employed, which isso far attested only in compounds with braxu-. Only rarely is one of themembers of the original compound disregarded completely, as inmustagwgía ~ d (35), Construction 5.

3. Comparison with the Syriac Versions

The translator’s indication, in Colophon A of Sinai MS ar. 268, thathe was working from the Greek original33 is supported by a philologicalcomparison of the Arabic translation with the two Syriac versions on theone hand and the Greek original on the other. Two examples will sufficeto prove this point.

The phrase êmoì mèn oŒn taÕta j∆xqw (MT 142:5 [997B], “let,therefore, these [words] be my prayer,” lit. “let, therefore, these [words]have been prayed by me”), following the author’s introductory prayer tothe Trinity at the beginning of the chapter, is rendered correctly intoSyriac by both Sergius of Res‘ayna (ena haÈel halen d-aykanna mÒalle-na) and Phocas (li man haÈel halen neÒ†allyan — a precise calque of theGreek, preserving even the passive voice of the verb j∆xqw ~neÒ†allyan). The Arabic translator, by contrast, did not recognize the dif-ficult form j∆xqw as the passive perfect imperative of the verb e∆xomai(“to pray”) and consequently misunderstood the phrase as a reference tothe following discussion, translating it as fa-ha∂ihi aquluha taba‘an(ll. 21-22, “these [things], therefore, I shall say subsequently”). Had hebeen using either of the Syriac versions, he would have recognized theverbal form — which presents no difficulty in Syriac — and avoidedthis misunderstanding.

On another occasion (MT 142:14 [1000A]) the words âllˆ oîoménouv(“but thinking”) are rendered correctly into Syriac as ella masbrin(Sergius) / ella saßrin (Phocas). The Arabic translator, by contrast, readthem as one word âlloio<u>ménouv (“changing”), translating it as al-mustaÌilun (l. 33, “changing,” in this context: fickle-minded). This mis-take clearly originated from a misreading of the Greek original andwould have been impossible had the translator been working from one ofthe Syriac versions.

33 See TREIGER, New Evidence, p. 229 for the text and an English translation of thetranslator’s colophon (Colophon A) and the subsequent pages for analysis.


4. Cases of Interpretation and Misinterpretation

In several cases the Arabic translator seems to have added a word or afew words to the text in order to clarify the meaning, which, in his view,had been intended by the author. For example, he translates a passage inMT 142:12 (… ºpwv mjdeìv t¬n âmußtwn êpakoúsjÇ, “so that no oneamong the uninitiated may hear”) as dOV 5B UM« s2 b« ÊuJ+ ô wJ

UNO« XBDË UNFL «–« UJJA2 5K2UJ« (30-31), “so that no one among thedeficient and imperfect may fall in doubt upon hearing these matters andlistening to them”34. The passage in Ps.-Dionysius speaks about with-holding esoteric knowledge from the uninitiated but does not state ex-plicitly, why this knowledge must not be disclosed to them; the Arabictranslator clarifies it by a gloss in which the supposed reason for this re-striction is specified.

Quite often this technique is employed when the Arabic translatorfails to understand the syntax of the Greek sentence and attempts totranslate ad sensum. For example, a passage in MT 142:1-2 (… katàtòn üpérfwton êgkekáluptai t±v krufiomústou sig±v gnófon,“[mysteries of theology] lie veiled in the supraluminous darkness of thehiddenly-secret silence”) is translated as U—uD uK V vK d=b&

wH)« Ud nAa s vË« XLB« ÊUa –« UN2öX ”bMË (18-19), “wrapthemselves according to the highness of their light and the murkiness oftheir darkness, since silence is more appropriate than revealing theirhidden secret.” The translator seems to have misunderstood the wordskatà tòn üpérfwton as an adverbial expression (cf. katà tò kre⁄ttonin MT 144:14) unrelated to the noun gnófon, this being facilitated bythe fact that in the Greek this noun stands separated from its article andadjective by a verb and another noun and its adjective in the genitive.Accordingly, he had to take the word gnófon with the expression ên t¬çskoteinotátwç (belonging to the following participial clause), whichwas then superficially added to katà tòn üpérfwton, resulting in “ac-cording to the highness of their light and the murkiness of their dark-ness.” The only part of the sentence that remained untranslated was theexpression t±v krufiomústou sig±v. Since it could not be taken to re-late to the noun gnófon (which had already been used in another syntac-tical construction), the translator decided to convert it into a separate(causal) clause. This clause was to explain the relationship between thenoun sig±v and its adjective krufiomústou, possibly misinterpreting it

34 Note also the two hendiadys: “deficient and imperfect” and “hearing … and listen-ing.”

376 A. TREIGER

as a genitive absolute, as if the text said t±v sig±v krufiomústou(o∆sjv)35. The adjective probably reminded the translator of the conceptof esoteric knowledge already referred to above, and he decided to addan interpretative gloss to emphasize that it is imperative to keep silencein respect to the hidden secret36.

It is likely that on a few occasions not only vexed syntax but also cer-tain doctrinal considerations were at stake. Ps.-Dionysian ideas, pertain-ing to what may be termed his “apophatic mysticism,” were foreign tothe translator’s Weltanschauung. This explains both his misunderstand-ing of certain key terms37 and his occasional attempts to attenuate someradical concepts of the text. Let us consider two examples of such mis-understanding and attenuation.

… kaì tàv aîsqßseiv âpóleipe kaì tàv noeràv ênergeíav kaì pántaaîsqjtà kaì nojtà kaì pánta oûk ∫nta kaì ∫nta (MT 142:6-7), “aban-don the senses and the intellectual activities, all sensible and intelligiblethings, all non-existent and existent things” ~

lOLË UOKIF«Ë UO(« qaË WOKIF« ‰UF_« vK q8 √Ë WO(« «uNA« qL«Ë

«œuu*«Ë «œuu2 dOV w w&« (24-26), “abandon sensual appetites andturn to the intellectual activities, [abandon] all sensible and intellectualmatters, all non-existent and existent things.”

In this passage the translator introduced two significant changes. First,the words tàv aîsqßseiv (“the senses”), which mean the sensual per-ception in general, are rendered by the expression WO(« «uNA« (“sen-sual appetites”), which has pronounced negative connotation. Second,the verb vK q8 √ (“turn to”) is interpolated. The former change indi-cates that it seemed reasonable to the translator that the sensual percep-tion should be abandoned; moreover, he felt the need to reinforce thisimperative by adding the derogatory term “appetites.” On the otherhand, it appeared unreasonable to him that intellectual activities, too,should be renounced along with sensual appetites. Therefore, he at-tempted to “correct” the text by adding the verb “turn to” before theexpression “intellectual activities.” That this verb would not fit well inthe syntax of the Arabic sentence, interrupting as it does the list of mat-ters that should be abandoned, did not prevent him from doing so.

35 This would explain the causal i∂ kana clause. I am grateful to Professor DimitriGutas for bringing the possibility of a genitive absolute to my attention.

36 The compound adjective krufiómustov (“hiddenly-secret”) is converted intosubst. + adj. wH` d (“hidden secret”), in accordance with the general pattern outlined inSection 2 above.

37 Such as e.g. katáfasiv and âpófasiv. See Section 1 above.


The passage continues as follows:… kaì pròv t®n ∏nwsin …âgnÉstwv ânatáqjti38 toÕ üpèr p¢san oûsían kaì gn¬sin (MT142:8-9), “and be uplifted unknowingly … to the union with that whichis above every being and knowledge” rendered into Arabic as ÆÆÆ o—«Ë

du qa ‚u UNDô ·dF ô UuKF XDUa Ê≈Ë WHô«Ë WOD«bu« q2Q v«

WdF2Ë (ll. 26-27), “and rise … toward the contemplation of unity and in-timacy, even though [It] is unknowable because of Its highness, for It isabove every substance and knowledge.” Let us take note of the fact thatthe term ∏nwsiv (“[mystical] union”) is rendered by WOD«bu« q2Q

WHô«Ë (“contemplation of unity and [of?] intimacy”). The translator ob-viously tried to avoid the radical notion of union with (marked by geni-tive in the Greek) “that which is above every substance and knowl-edge”39. In order to do so he may have substituted for the word ∏nwsiva more opaque and neutral expression, which would suggest contempla-tion rather than mystical union, and converted the object of ∏nwsiv (inthe genitive) into a harmless causal clause40. Note also that the termoûsía, which in this context means “being” (we are dealing here with aNeoplatonic text!), is rendered into Arabic by du (“substance”) — thestandard translation of oûsía in the Aristotelian sense of term.

The second example appears towards the end of the first chapter ofthe MT:

Kaì tóte kaì aût¬n âpolúetai t¬n örwménwn kaì t¬n örÉntwn kaìeîv tòn gnófon t±v âgnwsíav eîsdúnei t¬n ∫ntwv mustik¬n41, kaqˆ Ωnâpomúei (MT 144:9-12), “then he [Moses] disengages himself from thesesights and seers and enters the darkness of ignorance of things truly mysti-cal, according to which [darkness] he becomes blind” ~wL tDô WUN'« ÂU& w „UA« q`b+Ë s+dXUM«Ë «—uEM*« Ác s2 oKD+ crMOË

—«dô« WIOI s tJA) (62-64), “then he disengages himself from thesesights and seers, and the doubter enters the darkness of ignorance, since inhis doubt he has become blind to the true meaning of secrets.”

The words „UA« (“the doubter”) and tJA) (“in his doubt”) have nocorrespondence in the Greek original. Apparently, what made the Arabictranslator introduce them into the text is the expression “darkness of ig-norance,” which in Ps.-Dionysius denotes the concept of mystical dark-ness, but which the translator understood in the negative sense. Thus the

38 From ânateínw.39 But cf. MT 147:14 ºlwv (or: ºlov) ënwqßsetai ~ t) nQ&+ qJ«Ë (410Br:12).40 As Professor Gutas suggested to me, the translator most likely read âgnÉstou in-

stead of âgnÉstwv and interpreted âgnÉstou … toÕ üpèr p¢san oûsían kaì gn¬sinas a genitive absolute.

378 A. TREIGER

whole paragraph, which in the original Greek refers to Moses’ mysticalascent on Mount Sinai, was taken to refer to the alleged “doubter,” andas a result the crux of the Ps.-Dionysian mystical doctrine got lost in theArabic translation42.

Edition and Translation

The present edition of the first chapter of the Arabic version of Ps.-Dionysius’ Mystical Theology is based on the Library of Congress mi-crofilm copies of the only two known manuscripts of the text — SinaiMS ar. 314 [= MS A], fol. 407r ff. and Sinai MS ar. 268 [= MS B], fol.268r ff43. — as well as a critical comparison of their readings to theGreek original. In each case of disagreement between the manuscripts Ichose the reading that better agrees with the Greek44, since it can be as-sumed that it is this reading that reflects the translator’s original. In casesin which it was impossible to determine the original reading I usuallyfollowed the better preserved and vocalized MS A. Other readings wererelegated to the apparatus. In a few cases I decided to emend the textagainst all manuscript evidence (A+B or A only, when B was illegible),usually on the basis of the Greek. Such cases are marked by the word“nos” in the apparatus and explained in notes to the translation.

The orthography has been normalized according to the rules acceptedtoday. In this I followed the method of editing Christian Arabic texts,laid down by Khalil Samir in his La tradition arabe chrétienne: État dela question, problèmes et besoins45. In particular, ta’ marbu†a and alifmaqÒura ‘ala Òurat ya’ have been distinguished from the final ha’ andya’ respectively, and hamzat qa†‘ has been marked in all cases.

Some orthographical features of the vocalized MS A provide justifica-tion for this approach. Thus, the fact that it invariably vocalizes the ta’marbu†a indicates that, in accordance with classical usage, the sound /t/is intended, and the absence of the diacritical points is due to anorthographical convention, not to pronunciation. Similarly, the vocaliza-tion of the alif in cases in which it should, but does not, bear a hamza in

41 Reading t¬n … mustik¬n with MS Rc in place of tòn … mustikón in the textusreceptus. See n. 145 below.

42 It is possible that the words „UA« and tJA) were added not by the translator himselfbut by a later reader. However, the fact that the root pJZ is used in the translator’s inter-pretative gloss in line 31 (see above) speaks against this suggestion.

43 The Library of Congress microfilm of MS B is unreadable in many places and for abetter edition one needs to consult the manuscript itself.

44 For this purpose textual variants of the Greek text, both attested and unattested inthe Göttingen edition, were also considered.

45 SAMIR, Part V: “Méthode d’édition des textes arabes chrétiens,” §199-256, p. 74-85.


the manuscript indicates that the absence of hamza is merely ortho-graphical. Furthermore, in some cases the manuscript does indicatehamzas: e.g. ¡«b&)ô« (407v:2 [= line 16 of the edition]), q2Q& (407v:11[= 19]), wZ

Ò (408r:13 [= 30]) Íb&8D

Ò (410Br:14)46. As regards alif maqÒura

‘ala Òurat ya’ versus final ya’ the orthography of MS A is not consist-ent: both may or may not have diacritical points. Therefore, I felt myselfjustified in using the standard orthography in all cases.

For the purposes of the present edition the vocalization of MS A hasbeen disregarded. All the vowels that appear in the text are mine. Col-umns of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca and references to the Göttingencritical edition of the Greek original (A.M. Ritter, CD, II, p. 141ff.) aregiven in the left margin (the latter in square brackets).

The text is translated as precisely as possible, according to how, in myopinion, the Arabic translator understood (or misunderstood) the originalGreek. Other possible interpretations of the text, which may not havebeen intended by the translator himself, but could have suggested them-selves to later readers, were relegated to footnotes. Some of these inter-pretations are based on the textual variants indicated in the apparatus.

The translation is followed by an appendix with a Graeco-Arabicglossary, documenting the translator’s terminology and approach.

46 In the last two examples the hamza is written over the final ya’, whose diacriticalpoints are nevertheless indicated.

380 A. TREIGER

Æ”bI« ÕËd«Ë s)ô«Ë »_« r)

s ≠ ‰Ë_« ∫W+d« WONù« WLKJ« s ‰uI« sLC&+ w&« ‰uBH«

bOu&« ôË√ lu+ Ê√ wG8M+ nOa ≠ wDUb« ¨W+d« WONù« WLKJ«

≠ YUb« ¨qJ« ‚u u Íc« qJ« WKF bOUL&«Ë ULKJ« w U2

b«Ë ¡wZ fO tD≈ ≠ l)«d« ÜO(« w U2Ë UO«c« UONù«

f2U)« ¨ÊUDK« w qJ« WK qb2 ”u^2 qa ôË Uu;« s2

w qJ« WK qb2 ‰uIF2 qa ôË ôuIF*« s2 b«Ë ¡wZ fO tD≈ ≠

ÆWFd«Ë uKF«

ÆW+d« WONù« WLKJ« w ◊u8G*« ”uOODu+b Ê«uM

qa w t) oOK+ ô U0 nOD wKI —uD vL+ Ê√ V«u) fO tD≈

ÆöO U—uD ‚dA …UO t) WdF*« –≈ «œuu*«

ÆW+d« WONô« WLKJ« s ≠ nI_« ”ËU=uLO v≈ ‰Ë_« qBH«

ÆWOOI« w t „—UA*« v≈ fOI« ”uOODu+œ s2

[1]s2 qC√Ë t≈ qa s2 vK√Ë du qa ‚u Íc« ÀuUb« UN+√

u ¨5OÔLK UNOR2Ë WONù« WLJ(« w&J2 U+ ¨dO` qaÒ

vK UM2

t&+UND „—b ô dOM2 qa ‚uË ·dF+ ô U2 qa ‚u u Íc« ¡«b&)ô«

UIKD*«Ë UDO8« UMUN Ü+d« ULKJ« ÕdAM¸WLKJ« dz«dË

U—uD uK V vK d=b& b Ë qO^& ô w&« WONù«¸”bMË

qa ‚u ÊUa Ê≈Ë wH)« Ud nAa s vË√ XLB« ÊUa –≈ UN2öX

1 ”bI« ÆÆÆ r) om. B 2 sLC&+ nos] sLC& A 3 u om. A 7 qa om. A, sed

add. in marg. 9 ”uOODu+b] ”uOM+b B post W+d« add. in marg. ‰Ëô« qBH« A 10

qa om. B? 11 t) om. A 12 nIô« ÆÆÆ v« om. B 13 ”uOODu+œ] ”uOuDu+œ B

WOOI«] WOI« B 14 s2 (ante t« qa)] vK A 16 u om. B qa (ante U2)] om. A

„—b] „—b+ B 17 ÕdAM] ÕdA B 18 d=b& nos] dOM A, dOM& B 19 Ê«Ë] ÊU B dUX]

dU~ B Èd+] Èd A

5

10

15

997A [141]

[142]

997B


+ ô WU qa wË dOD qa ‚uË dUXÔ

qa ‚u tD_ «dEDË U* Èd

ÁcN ¨UN dX«uD ô w&« ‰uIF« rL&2 u –≈ «dO)«Ë U8ODK qLJ2

ÆUF8 UNu √

W+d« dXUM*« s ‰uI« q2Q& ¨”ËU=uLO o+bB« UN+√ ¨XD√ U2√

‰UF_« vK q8 √Ë WO(« «uNA« qL√Ë ”—œË t)—œË ’d^) t2e√Ë

«œuu2 dOV w w&« lOLË UOKIF«Ë UO(« qaË WOKIF«

ô UuKF XDUa Ê≈Ë WHù«Ë WOD«bu« q2Q v≈ œuU) o—«Ë «œuu*«Ë

ÔdFÓ

qJ« UNM2 uDb+ ô WdF2Ë du qa ‚u UND_ ·¸ tD_ ***…—UN~

Ÿe&M+ uË UFL UNKa —«uD_« dOM+ wNù« UNOH`Ë du'« ‚u UND_ ¡UIDË

ÆUN) WdF*« v≈ ÈœR+ qJ« s2Ë UNK2Q s —UB)_« vAV U2

[2]dOV 5B UM« s2 b√ ÊuJ+ ô wJ UMO) «dED «c v≈ dEDU

5K2UJ« dOV 5B UMU) wM√ ¨UNO≈ XBDË UNFL «–≈ UJJA2 5K2UJ«

[2 «uH√ b s+œuu*« w r s+c«]qJ« ‚u b«Ë ¡wZ fOË s+d

«Ë– w ÊuKO[&*« ÊuKO^&*« ¡ôR —UB du qa ‚u u Íc« ô≈

qO ULa ÂöE« ÊUa –≈ rNM t&dF2 XOH` U2 WdF0 5KU rNHD√

Ê√ qC_U qC√Ë Ác ‚u WONù« —«d_« XDUa ÊS Æt&OH`¸Ác

¨qbL&Ë qJA& UNM2 w&« …dO`_« d«u'« s2 qC√Ë l—√ w WKF«

ULa «c bI&F+ ôË UNOK qCH+ ôu8:« U uK<« s2 b«Ë ¡wZ ôË

ÆUNOK WKb2√Ë …dOba «—uc «ud&`« b s+c« …dHJ« s2 ”UD√ ÁbI&F+

WK w UMK U2 V vK «œuu*« s2 lu b Uuu*« qaË

‚u w –≈ U bcË UI dba√ UND√ vK UN) Z&^+ b UNKa ÁcË qJ«

20

25

30

35

40

1000A

1000B [143]

23 XD« U2« nos] XD«Ë A, X+U B ”ËU=uLO] ”ËU=ULO~ B dXUM*«] dXUM« A 26 o—«Ë]

uDœ«Ë (sic!) A, et add. in marg. dED« wMF+ uDœ«? WHù«Ë sic in A! 27 uDb+] «uDb+ B tDô]

ô A ***] UNOdO^D? AB 28 Ÿe&M+] Ÿu8M+ B 29 UN) nos] t) AB 31 5B UMU)] 5&cUMU) B

32 s+d[2 nos] s+d[&2 A 35 t&OH`] WIOI A 36 post w add. qC« B 37 ôu8:«]

ôu8<« B qCH+] qBH+ B 38 ”UD«] ”UD B …dOba om. A 39 s2] w B b

om. A 40 Z&^+] Z&% A UND« nos] tD« AB

382 A. TREIGER

ôË œuu« ‚uË qJ«Ô8AÒ

tÚ

UO«– ‰«u √ w w&« «œUC*« Z(U)

ÆlËË eOO9 qa s2 l—√Ë V«u« s2 vK√Ë U2bI dba√ UNMJ

[3]ÊuJ b UND≈Ë WONù« WLKJ« w VOF« ”ËU*u=d) ‰U «cJN

UD√Ë ¨öBH2 bu+ bI UC+√Ë d8a√Ë lË√Ë ÷d√ qO$ù«Ë …dO+Ë …dOba

UNu dOba W(UB« qJ« WK Ê_ rNH+ WFO8D« ‚u tD√ „«– s2 sIO√

oDD UN ÊuJ+ ô nOa ¨‰uI« s2 …√d82 UC+√ ‰uI« s2 —UB&Ù)Ë w

ôË ¡UH[&« dOV s2 Æ«œdH*« ‚u du'« s2 uKF) wË ‰uIF2 ôË

qJ)Ë U+dND« w WJU 5+bI« w …dUX UND≈ WIOI(U)Ë —U&&«

WONù« —«uD_« lOLË ¨ÊuId+ UN8 ¨5+bI« lOL' WF—Ë ¡UI—«

58zUGK ÂULG« wË ¨ÊurOC&+ UN8 ¨WOzUL« ‰«u _«Ë «uc_«Ë

w&« pK vK ULKJ« XU ULa ¨ÊËdOM&+ ULN) ¨—uDË WIOI(U) ¡UO

Æ—UB&`ô« WN vK ô≈ «c dacD UMK Êü«Ë ¨qJ« WK w

√ wNù« vu2 Ê≈Ôqb2 s2 eOL&+ rK UC+√Ë tHD dND+ Ê√ ôË√ d2

lL UNKa …—UND« Ác bF) s2Ë Áç …dObJ« U u8« «uc√ ¸dEDË

r= ÜN=UF8D« dObJ« WOIM« …dOM« UUFAU) UF2ô ÊUJ …dOba ©°® —«uD√

WFOd« ‰“UM*« „—œ√ 5KUH« WMNJ« l2Ë …dObJ« ¡UOZ_« s eO9 tD≈

« dEM+ Ê√ t sJ+ rK »U8_« Ác t sJ ÊS ÆWONù«¶tD_ t«c)

‰b+ «c vK Ê√ È—√ UD√Ë ÆtO n Ë Íc« lu*« sJ —uEM2 dOV

s wö« ULKJ«Ë UOU8&*«Ë dXUM*« s2 UONû u Íc«

d2 l—√Ë qJ« s2 qC√ u Íc« ÊËœË Uuu2 UOKIFK]U8Ï¨

ÁcN8ÔO8]bUA2 sÔWOKIF« UULU) ‰uIF2 qa ‚u w w&« t

crMOË ÆÁ—uNX UNO pK+ w&« WbI*« tF«u* w w&« U+UNM«Ë

45

50

55

60

41 «œUC*«] «œœUC*« A 43 ”ËU*u=d)] ”ËU2ôud) B 45 „«–] p– B rNH+] rNH)

B Êô] tDô B 46 w nos] u A, om. B, sed add. in marg. nOa] nOJ B 47 wË]

uË A uKF)] «uKF B 48 U+dND«] U+dNE« B qJ)Ë] qaË B 49 UN8] UNO B 50

ÊurOC&+ nos] ÊuC&+ A 52 ô« om. A 54-55 …dObaÆÆÆU u8« om. A, in B U d8« loco

U u8« scriptum esse videtur 57 sJ] sJ+ A

1000C

[144], 1000D


65

tD_ WUN'« ÂU& w „UA« q`b+Ë s+dXUM«Ë «—uEM*« Ác s2 oKD+

¡«—ü«Ë WdF*« «Ë– PUJ*« ·dF+ rË —«d_« WIOI s tJA) wL

w w&« pK vK ‰uIU) wM√ ¨Á—uM) qJ« dOM+ Íc« s2 W8zUB«

tdF+ tHD w d`¬ ôË t«– w u ¡wZ fOË ¨UOKJ«Ë qJ« WK

WKOC V vKË ¨tKF s2 ¡wZ uK[+ ôË ¨t&dF2 WIOI vK

ÆqIF« ‚u tDú ·dF+ ô ÊUa Ê≈Ë ·dF+ uN ¨ÁbOu

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit47.

Chapters, contained in the “Discourse on the Secret Divine Word”48:1) “On the Secret Divine Word”49; 2) “How, first of all, should unity beaffirmed50 of and praises be given to the Cause of all, Who51 is aboveall”52; 3) “What are the essential divine words, and what are the inferen-tial”53; 4) “That nothing among the sensible things, nor the sensible as a

47 This standard Christian formula, common both in Greek and in Arabic, is mostlikely an addition of a copyist in the latter language. On the definite article added to thestatus constructus in ”bI« ÕËd« see BLAU, vol. II, p. 350B. However, it seems likely thatat certain stages of Christian Arabic the word ”b was reinterpreted as an adjective – cf.Ub UË—Ë UM)«Ë U)«, Sinai MS ar. 274, fol. 514v, quoted in A.S. ATIYA, Catalogue Raisonnéof the Mount Sinai Arabic Manuscripts, translated into Arabic by J.N. Youssef, vol. I(manuscripts 1-300), Alexandria, 1970 [all published], p. 508. For adjectives of the formfu‘l in Classical Arabic see WRIGHT, I 134C, §232,6-7.

48 Index of chapters with similar titles appears in the Latin translation of Eriugena. Itis represented neither in the Patrologia Graeca nor in the Göttingen critical edition ofPs.-Dionysius. In PG and in the apparatus criticus of the Göttingen edition these titlesappear only at the beginning of the respective chapters, although the editor of theGöttingen edition mentions in the apparatus (p. 141) that some manuscripts (Ec, Gb [un-certain], Lc, Pb, Pn, Pt, Ra) have an “index singulorum capitum.”

49 In the PG edition, the first chapter is entitled “What is the Divine Darkness” (tív öqe⁄ov gnófov); however, our title is attested in Phocas’ Syriac and Eriugena’s Latintranslations (‘al te’ulugya razanayta and De mystica theologia respectively). The appara-tus criticus of the Göttingen edition lists several manuscripts with perì mustik±vqeologíav as the title of the first chapter (Ec, Fb, Lc, Pb, Pn, Pt, Ra, Rc, Vb); signifi-cantly, these include all the manuscripts that also have the index of chapters (with theexception of the uncertain Gb, see n. 48 above).

50 bOu&« ÆÆÆ lu+. Greek: ënoÕsqai (“be united [with]”). See also n. 156 below.51 Personification of the Cause; cf. S. STROUMSA (ed. and tr.), Dawud ibn Marwan al-

MuqammiÒ’s “Twenty Chapters” (‘Ishrun Maqala), Leiden – New York – København –Köln, 1989, p. 55, 57. I am grateful to Professor Sarah Stroumsa for this reference.

52 The wording of the title as it appears at the beginning of the second chapter isslightly different: u+ Ê√ wG8M+ nOa

]qJ« ‚u u Íc« qJ« WKF bOUL&« lu Ê« Ë« b .

53 The terms “proper” (lit.: “essential,” UO«–) and “inferential” (UO) translatethe Greek katafatikaí (“affirmative”) and âpofatikaí (“negative”) respectively. SeeSection 1 above and nn. 104 and 105 below. The wording of the title as it appears at the

384 A. TREIGER

whole54 is similar in dominion to the Cause of all”; 5) “That nothingamong the intelligible things, nor the intelligible as a whole55 is similarin highness and exaltedness to the Cause of all.”

Epigram by the Blessed Dionysius on the Secret Divine Word56.It is not necessary that [the] subtle intellectual light be named by what

is not fit for it among all the existent things, since knowledge thereof islife that radiates its light at night57.

[141] [997A] Chapter 1 [dedicated] to the Bishop Timothy58: “On theSecret Divine Word” — from Dionysius the priest to his companion inpriesthood.

beginning of the third chapter is different: WË Wôœ «Ë– ¡UOZ√Ë WO«– WuI2 ¡UOZ√ UMU. Onplural usage of ULKa with an adjective cf. D.J. LASKER and S. STROUMSA (eds.), The Po-lemic of Nestor the Priest, vol. I: “Introduction, Annotated Translations and Commen-tary,” Jerusalem, 1996, p. 136, last paragraph. I am grateful to Professor Sarah Stroumsafor this reference.

54 The expression ”u^2 qa ©ôË® is indefinite and should be rendered “(nor) every /any sensible thing,” but this translation would be tautological, and one is perhaps justifiedin taking it as referring to the sensible realm as a whole, in accordance with the Greek. Itshould also be noted that in the Greek this expression is in the genitive case governed bythe word “Cause”: ºti oûdèn t¬n aîsqjt¬n ö pantòv aîsqjtoÕ kaqˆ üperox®na÷tiov (“that the Cause of all the sensible [realm] is nothing among the sensible things inpre-eminence,” cf. the Latin of Eriugena: quia nihil sensibilium omnis sensibilis perexcellentiam causalis). In the title at the beginning of the fourth chapter the wording isdifferent and closer to the original: ”«u(« s2 ¡wZ fO tD«

Òqa ‚u u Íc« qJ« WK qb2

tDUDK w f.55 I am taking the expression ‰uIF2 qa ©ôË® to refer to the intelligible realm as a

whole, in accordance with the Greek — see n. 54 above. In the title at the beginning ofthe fifth chapter the wording is different and closer to the original: b«Ë ¡wZ fO tD√ w

tDUDK w ‰uIF2 qa ‚u u Íc« qJ« WK qb2 ôuIF*« s2.56 W+d« WONù« WLKJ« w ◊u8G*« ”uOODu+b Ê«uM. The original Greek text must have

been: ˆEpígramma eîv tò toÕ makaríou Dionusíou Perì mustik±v qeologíav, “Epi-gram to the Blessed Dionysius’ [sc. book] ‘On Mystical Theology’ ” (cf. the Latin:epigramma in beatum Dionysium de mystica theologia). The fact that the Arabic transla-tion ascribes the epigram to Dionysius himself may be due to the words eîv tò havingbeen omitted or unreadable in the Greek Vorlage, or ignored by the translator.

57 This is a paraphrase of the two anonymous hexameter verses that serve as an epi-gram to the Mystical Theology: kaì nóon aîglßenta lípev kaì gn¬sin êóntwn //núkta diˆ âmbrosíjn, t®n oû qémiv êzonom±nai (PG, III, 117A).

On these epigrams see n. 8 above. The Göttingen edition, unfortunately, does not men-tion the epigrams at all, except in the apparatus criticus at the beginning of the EH (ed.G. HEIL, CD, II, p. 63), where only three manuscripts seem to contain the verses. Interest-ingly enough, the text of the MT in two of these manuscripts (Pb and Lc, both of the sec-ond half of the 10th century) shares two additional features with the Arabic translation ofthis work, namely the index of chapters (see n. 48 above) and the name of the first chapter(see n. 49 above), whereas the third manuscript (Fb, of the 10th century) shares only thelatter feature.

58 Ps.-Dionysius chose Timothy, a disciple of Paul to whom two of Paul’s epistles areaddressed, as the dedicatee of all his major works. According to the church tradition, this


<§1> O Trinity, which is above every substance59, higher than everydivinity, and nobler than every good, You that conceal60 the divine wis-dom [sc. from non-Christians] and give it to the Christians, direct us tothe Beginning, which is above everything that is unknowable and aboveevery source of light, and whose61 end cannot be reached62, so that wemight elucidate63 the secret words (for here there are things simple andabsolute64 [142] and the unchangeable mysteries of the divine word,which wrap themselves65 according to the highness of their light [997B]and the murkiness of their darkness66, since silence is more appropriatethan revealing their hidden secret67), even though It68 is above everymanifest thing and69 above every luminous thing and is inaccessible toany sense, either that of touch or that of sight, because It is above every-thing that accomplishes good70 and71 noble things, for It perfects intel-lects that possess no eyes, as I shall say subsequently72.

As for you, o friend Timothy, contemplate the discourse on the secretsights, cling to it with longing, train and educate [yourself] in it73, aban-

Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus (EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl., 3.4.5). See also n. 108below.

It is peculiar to the Arabic of MS A that the dedication appears at the beginning of thefirst chapter, rather than at the beginning of the treatise, as in the Greek. In MS B thededication is lacking altogether.

59 In compounds with the prefix üper- the translator usually adds the word qa

(“every” or “any”) before rendering the main part of the compound.60 w&J2, “cover oneself.” This verb is obviously used here in a transitive meaning,

cf. BLAU, vol. I, p. 155-156, n. 58, where a few examples are adduced of the eighth formbeing used in a transitive meaning instead of the second.

61 The relative clause must refer to the “Beginning,” in accordance with the Greek.62 Or: “is incomprehensible.”63 The word ÕdAM (“so that we might elucidate”) was added by the Arabic translator.64 The Arabic seems to agree with those Greek manuscripts (Rc), which add tá before

âpóluta.65 Thus in Greek: êgkekáluptai; in the Arabic manuscripts: dOM or dOM& (“shine”), a

corruption of bÒ

d= or d=b& respectively.66 The Arabic can also be rendered: “… which [= the divine word] wraps itself to the

extent of the highness of its light and the murkiness of its darkness.”67 wH)« Ud nAa s vË√ XLB« ÊUa –≈. Greek: t±v krufiomústou sig±v — “of the

hiddenly-secret silence.” See Section 4 above for further discussion.68 The verb ÊUa seems to refer to the “Beginning.”69 The word kaí is lacking in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but is attested in one

of them (Rc).70 The Arabic may represent a variant kal¬n (instead of üperkálwn), which is not

attested in the Göttingen edition. Alternatively, the translator may have ignored the pre-fix.

71 The word kaí is lacking in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but is attested in oneof them (Lc, mentioned in nn. 48, 49, and 57 above).

72 UF8 UNu √ ÁcN. Greek: êmoì mèn oŒn taÕta j∆xqw (the last word being 3 sg. impv.perf. pass. of e∆xomai, which takes êmoí as dat. agentis) — “let these [words] be [or:suffice for] my prayer.”

73 It is also possible to read and translate: “with longing, training (W)—œ) and practice,”as vocalized in MS A.

386 A. TREIGER

don sensual appetites74 and turn to75 the intellectual activities, [abandon]all sensible and intellectual matters, all non-existent and existent things,and rise with affection76 toward the contemplation of unity and inti-macy77, even though [It78] is unknowable79 because of its highness, be-ing above every substance and knowledge and inaccessible80 to any-thing, [1000A] since ***81 in purity and cleanness, because It82 is abovesubstance83, and its divine hiddenness radiates all the lights84 together,whereby one85 removes what prevents86 the eyes from contemplating It87

and is led from everything to the knowledge of It88.<§2> So look at it carefully so that no one among the deficient and

imperfect89 may fall in doubt90 upon hearing these matters and listening

74 WO(« «uNA«. Greek: tàv aîsqßseiv — “the senses” or “sensual perception,”without negative connotation.

75 This verb does not fit well in the sentence and seems to have been interpolated bythe translator, who failed to understand why intellectual activities should also be aban-doned, as the Greek has it. See Section 4 for further discussion.

76 œuU) o—«Ë. The translator may have misunderstood the Greek Üv êfiktón (“as far aspossible”) as derived from the verb êfíemai, “to desire.”

77 WHù«Ë WOD«bu« q2Q v≈. Greek: pròv t®n ∏nwsin — “toward [mystical] union,”taking toÕ üpèr p¢san oûsían kaì gn¬sin (“That, which is above every substance andknowledge”) as the object of the union. The Arabic is much more cautious here. Theword WH« is vocalized ilfa rather than ulfa in MS A. See Sections 1 and 4 for further dis-cussion.

78 Syntactically, the verb XDUa seems to refer to the unity and intimacy. Yet, theseunity and intimacy clearly belong to the above-mentioned transcendent “Beginning,”which is why I have decided to substitute the capitalized “It” for the subject of the clause.

79 ôÔdFÓ

· . In Greek this is an adverb, which refers to the mystical ascent. The transla-tor most likely read âgnÉstou instead of âgnÉstwv and interpreted âgnÉstou … toÕüpèr p¢san oûsían kaì gn¬sin as a genitive absolute. I am grateful to ProfessorDimitri Gutas for this suggestion.

80 UNM2 uDb+ ô. The pronominal suffix in UNM2 seems to reflect the reading aûtoÕ in placeof ëautoÕ, which is attested in one Greek manuscript (Rc).

81 The text is corrupt at this point. (It is not vocalized in MS A.) The meaning shouldprobably be: “… since [one] falls short of It in purity and cleanness.”

82 As in n. 78 above, the pronominal suffix in UNDô, although in the feminine, seems torefer logically to the above-mentioned “Beginning.”

83 du'« ‚u UND_. In the Greek the word üperoúsion is an attribute of âkt⁄na.84 UFL UNKa —«uD_« dOM+ wNù« UNOH`Ë. The translator took the word âkt⁄na (acc. sg. of

âktív — “ray”) together with the following adjective pánta, as if it were acc. pl. n., likethe adjective.

85 In the Greek the participle âfelÉn depends on the main verb ânaxqßsjÇ, which isin 2 sg. and relates to Timothy. The translator seems to have taken the verb as if it were in3 sg. (the verb may be also spelled ânaxqßsei, -ei being a common ending of 3 sg.).

86 Literally: “veils.”87 The expression “what prevents the eyes from contemplating It” has no correspond-

ence in the Greek.88 The words “to the knowledge of It” have no correspondence in the Greek.89 The hendiadys “the deficient and imperfect” (5K2UJ« dOV 5B UM«) renders the Greek

t¬n âmußtwn — “the uninitiated.”90 The words “fall in doubt” have no correspondence in the Greek.


to them. By “deficient and imperfect”91 I mean those who became ac-customed and subjected to the existent things, and there is nothing aboveall92 except what is above every substance93, so these fickle-minded94

who fantasize in their souls became ignorant of the knowledge of thatthe knowledge of which was hidden from them95, since “darkness” —as has been said96 — “was His hiding place”97.

Since the divine secrets are above these [matters] and more excellentthan they are, even more so is98 [143] [1000B] this Cause higher andmore excellent than the last substances99, which are formed and fash-ioned out of It100. There is nothing among the created and mouldedthings that is more excellent than It, and let no one believe otherwise101

as do people among the infidels who have made up102 many forms andsimilitudes for It103. All the propositions from existing things may beapplied, according to what we have said104, to the Cause of all, and from

91 The Arabic seems to agree with those Greek manuscripts (Rc and Wb), which haveâmußtouv in place of toútouv.

92 The Arabic seems to reflect the (otherwise unattested) reading tà pánta, in place oftà ∫nta.

93 The Arabic diverges significantly from the original Greek, which reads: kaì oûdènüpèr tà ∫nta üperousíwv e¤nai fantahoménouv — “and those who imagine that noth-ing supraessentially exists above the existent things.”

94 ÊuKO^&*«. The translator seems to have read âllˆ oîoménouv as one word:âlloiouménouv.

95 The Arabic translation of the whole passage is paraphrastic.96 Probably translating qémenon as if from fjmí.97 Ps. 18 [17]:12.98 The words [t¬n] m¢llon âmústwn, ºsoi t®n (or: t¬n — MS Vv) pántwn that

follow in the Greek have no correspondence in the Arabic translation and may have beenomitted in the translator’s Vorlage (homoioteleuton).

99 Probably translating oŒsin as if from oûsía.100 The Arabic may reflect the (otherwise unattested) reading xaraktjrihoúsjn (act.

part. referring to aîtía) in place of xaraktjríhousin (3 sg. of a verb, which in the Greekrefers to the m¢llon ãmustoi, not mentioned in Arabic, see n. 98 above). In this case theend of the sentence in Arabic should be rendered: “… out of which It is formed and fash-ioned.”

101 Literally: “that.”102 The words “and let … made up” were added by the Arabic translator in order to

render intelligible the end of the sentence, which, in the Greek, refers to the m¢llonãmustoi, not mentioned in Arabic (see n. 98 above).

103 In the Greek the meaning of this sentence is radically different: “they [sc. them¢llon ãmustoi, not mentioned in Arabic, see n. 98 above] say that It is not at all pre-eminent to the ungodly and diverse formations, which they fabricate.” The words “for It”(UNOK) seem to correspond to the prepositional phrase êpˆ aût±Ç, which, in Greek, belongsto the following sentence.

104 This is a peculiar rendering of the verb kata-fáskein, whose prefix and main partare translated separately: katá = “according to,” fáskein = “to say.” It may reflect the(otherwise unattested) reading kaqˆ † + a form of the verb fáskein. The word kaí seemsto be omitted before katafáskein, as in MS Ka.

388 A. TREIGER

all these [propositions] it may be inferred105 that It is truer and more au-thentic [than they], because It is above all and above existence106. Do notliken to the inferences the opposite [statements], which are proper say-ings, but [consider] It more advanced and higher than negations andmore elevated than every distinction107 and proposition.

<§3> For thus said the wondrous Bartholomew108 about the divineword that it can be [both] extensive and short, and the gospel [1000C][can be] wider, broader, and larger, and can also be arranged in sec-tions109. From this I know for certain that he comprehends above nature,because110 the good Cause of all needs extensive discussion, but admitsof brief discussion or no discussion at all, for how111 can It have112 no

105 Ê√ vK UN) Z&^+ b UNKa ÁcË. Greek: âpofáskein — “to deny,” see n. 53 above.Incidentally, the verb Z&« has another meaning, “to object,” which better agrees with theGreek, but as the propositions governed by this verb in our text seem to indicate, this isnot the meaning intended here.

106 The whole passage has a radically different meaning in Greek: “One should stateand affirm regarding It all the statements from the existent things, because It is the Causeof all, and even more vigorously should one deny them all, because It super-exists aboveall.”

On this passage of Ps.-Dionysius an Arabic saying seems to be based, which is attrib-uted to Aristotle in al-MuqammiÒ’s ‘Ishrun Maqala (al-qa∂aya al-sawalib ala llah aÒdaqmin al-mujabat, p. 201, ed. S. STROUMSA [see n. 51 above], quoted verbatim in Moses ibn‘Ezra, Maqalat al-Ìadiqa fi ma‘na al-majaz wal-Ìaqiqa, Jerusalem, MS heb. 80570,p. 33-34, referred to in P. FENTON, Philosophie et exégèse dans Le jardin de la métaphorede Moïse ibn ‘Ezra, philosophe et poète Andalou du XIIe siècle, Leiden – New York –Köln: E.J. Brill, 1997, p. 98 and n. 118) and BaÌya ibn Paqu∂a’s Duties of the Hearts(p. 72). See B. CHIESA, Filologia storica della Bibbia ebraica, Brescia, 2000, vol. I,p. 149-150 (who, however, refers to CH 2:3 rather than to the present passage in the MTas the source of the saying). The saying seems to have originated in a Syriac milieu (suchas the one in which al-MuqammiÒ was educated) and may be based on one of the Syriactranslations of Ps.-Dionysius. I am grateful to Professor Sarah Stroumsa who kindlybrought CHIESA’s book to my attention.

107 On this rendering of âfairéw and âfaíresiv see Section 1 above.108 The apostle Bartholomew is intended here. References to authorities of the apos-

tolic age are common in Ps.-Dionysius, who often quotes them as his alleged contempo-raries. See also n. 58 above.

109 Greek: suntetmjménon — “concise, summarized,” but literally “cut-together”(cf. the Latin concisus from con-cido). The Arabic manuscripts have öBH2, “arranged insections” or “detailed.” As Professor Sarah Stroumsa suggested to me, the root qB

probably renders the Greek témnw, cf. témnesqai ~ qBHD« in the Arabic version of Prop.74 of Proclus’ Elements of Theology (Greek text ed. E.R. DODDS, Oxford, 21963, p. 70. l.19; Arabic text in ENDRESS, Proclus Arabus, p. ≤∂, l. ≤). It is possible that here oneshould read öBHM2 instead of öBH2 as in the Arabic version of Proclus; yet, I preferred thereading preserved in the manuscripts (and the translation “arranged in sections”) since itbetter expresses the meaning of the prefix sun-.

110 Ê_. Greek: ºti, which can also mean (and in this context apparently means)“that.”

111 The Arabic nOa seems to reflect the reading p¬v in place of Üv; this reading is notattested in the Göttingen edition, but seems to have existed in the MS Pa, from whichEriugena’s Latin translation, which reads quomodo here, was produced.

112 Greek: Üv … ∂xousa — “as having …”


speech113, and no intelligible114, being more aloof than substance, aboveindividual things? Without concealment and hiding away, in truth, Itmanifests itself in the saints115 and proceeds116 in the pure matters and inevery ascent and elevation117 of all the saints, so that they may ascend bymeans of them, and [in] all the divine lights and the heavenly voices andsayings, so that they may be illumined118 by them, and in the cloud119 forthe absent120 [as], indeed, illumination and light, so that they may be en-lightened by them121, as the words say122 with respect to That which isthe Cause of all123, — and we shall only mention this briefly now124.

The divine Moses was commanded to purify himself first, since hehad not yet renounced125 such [sc. impure] matters126, and after all thatpurification he heard [144] many voices127 of trumpets128 [1000D] andsaw many lights, and became shining129 with bright and pure rays of

113 oDD. Greek: lógov.114 The Arabic may reflect the (otherwise unattested) reading nojtón, in place of

nójsin.115 5+bI« w. Translating ênag± as if ên ägíoiv. The Arabic agrees with those Greek

manuscripts (Py), which have the word pánta omitted here.116 Taking diabaínousi to refer to the Cause as if diabainoúsjn.117 The Arabic agrees with those Greek manuscripts (Vb and Vv), which read

âkrotátjn in place of âkrotßtwn.118 Translating âpolimpánousi as if from âpolámpw.119 In the Greek this is a reference to Ex. 20:21 [18], which is hardly recognizable in

the Arabic.120 58zUGK. This word seems to correspond to the Greek eîsduoménoiv (“to those who

enter”). It is possible that the translator read eîv + a form of the verb déomai, but such avariant is not attested in the Göttingen edition.

121 The words “illumination … by them” have no correspondence in the Greek.122 ULKJ« XU ULa. Greek: Üv tà lógiá fjsin. This formula is often used by Ps.-

Dionysius to introduce quotations from the Scripture (for the reference itself see n. 119above). Cf. Paul ROREM, Biblical and Liturgical Symbols Within the Pseudo-DionysianSynthesis (Studies and Texts, vol. 71), Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,1984, p. 16.

123 Greek: ö pántwn êpékeina — “He who is beyond all.” The word êpékeinaseems to be rendered by “with respect to That,” pK vK [= êp’ êkeínjÇ]. Similar transla-tion appears in two other cases — cf. n. 151 below and DN 163:20 (MS A 361r:3). Forêpí ~ vK see n. 103 above and also MT 141:3, line 15 of the Arabic text, and cf. BLAU,§149.1, vol. I, p. 245f. But at the end of the MT (150:9) the word êpékeina is renderedcorrectly: l—«Ë vK« (MS A 411v:5).

124 —UB&`ô« WN vK ô≈ «c dacD UMK Êü«Ë. This is a peculiar rendering of the beginningof the following sentence: Kaì gàr oûx äpl¬v (ö qe⁄ov MwÓs±v…) — “For it is nomere chance [lit.: simply] (that the divine Moses…).” For —UB&`U) rendering äpl¬v seealso MT 150:9, MS A, 411v:4.

125 Literally: “distinguished himself from.”126 Taking t¬n (m®) toioútwn in the neuter rather than in the masculine. The clause

has a different meaning in Greek: “The divine Moses was commanded first to purifyhimself and again to be separated from those who were not such [sc. pure].”

127 Greek: polufÉnwn.128 …dObJ« U u8« «uc√. Cf. Ex. 19:16, where these trumpets are mentioned.129 In the Greek the participle âpastráptonta refers to the lights, not to Moses.

390 A. TREIGER

wide diffusion. After that he renounced125 many things and together withthe eminent130 priests reached131 the high divine ranks132. But eventhough he had achieved these qualities133, he did not come134 to see Godin His very essence135, since He is invisible, but only the spot on whichHe stood136. I suppose that this is indicated137 by what belongs to divineand most splendid among the sights, and to the words, which underlieintellectual matters and are subordinate to That which is more excellentand higher than all138. For by means of these [sc. sights and words] isclarified its witnessing139, which is above every object-of-intellect140

[and is performed] in the intellectual sounds141 and the limits belongingto its holy places, in which its appearance142 proceeds.

At this point he143 disengages himself from these sights and seers andthe doubter144 enters the darkness of ignorance, since in his doubt144 he

130 Possibly translating êkkrítwn (“select”) as if from kreíttwn.131 Thus in the Greek: fqánei. The Arabic can be also understood as “compre-

hended.”132 Greek: ânabásewn (“ascents”). The Arabic ‰“UM2 can be translated “ranks” (from

WeM2) or “mansions” (from ‰eM2).133 »U8_«. Literally: “causes,” “means,” or perhaps “prerequisites.” This word was

added by the Arabic translator to clarify the ambiguous toútoiv.134 The Arabic t sJ+ r renders the Greek oû suggínetai.135 « dEM+ Ê√ t sJ+ rK¶t«c) . Greek: aût¬ç mèn oû suggínetai t¬ç qe¬ç, qewre⁄ dè

oûk aûtón (“he does not come to be with God Himself, nor does he contemplates Him”).136 Cf. Ex. 24:10 (LXX, the Masoretic text is different at this point). This reference is

lacking both in MIGNE’s edition and in the Göttingen edition of Ps.-Dionysius.137 Taking toÕto as the object rather than the subject of the acc. cum inf. clause gov-

erned by o¤mai.138 The translator misunderstood the complex syntax of the Greek sentence: toÕto dè

o¤mai sjmaínein tò tà qeiótata kaì âkrótata t¬n örwménwn kaì noouménwnüpoqetikoúv tinav e¤nai lógouv t¬n üpobebljménwn t¬ç pánta üperéxonti (“I sup-pose that this indicates that the most divine and the highest among the visible and intelli-gible things are hypothetical logoi of things subordinate to That which is above all”).

139 bUA2Ôt . Greek: parousía (“presence”). But cf. n. 142 below.140 ‰uIF2. Greek: êpínoia (“thought”).141 The translator may have misunderstood the word âkrótjsi (dat. pl. of âkró-

tjv — “summit”) as derived from the verb âkroáomai, “to listen.” The word “limits”(U+UNM«) below can be another possible rendering of the word âkrótjsi — cf. line 16 ofthe Arabic text in which âkrótatov seems to be rendered by t&+UND „—b ô.

142 The words “its appearance” may be another possible rendering of the Greekparousía — cf. n. 139 above.

143 In the Greek the whole paragraph refers to Moses and describes his mystical ascentto the “darkness of ignorance” (cf. Ex. 20:21 [18]).

144 The words “the doubter” and “in his doubt” do not have correspondence in theGreek text and seem to have been interpolated by the translator, who took the expression“darkness of ignorance” in the negative sense. Interestingly, the vocalized MS A has

+Ô

bÚ

`qÔ„UA« ] , substituting the verb “insert” for “enter” and taking “the doubter” as the ob-ject of this verb. According to this reading, the whole passage can be rendered: “At thispoint he disengages himself from these sights and seers and inserts the doubter into thedarkness of ignorance, since the latter has become blind in his doubt etc.,” but this inter-pretation, although it reduces the divergence of the Arabic translation from the originalGreek, is hardly tenable. See Section 4 for further discussion.


has become blind to the true meaning of secrets145 and failed to know therewards of146 knowledge and the correct opinions147 with respect to Thatwhich illuminates148 everything with its light149, that is to say150, to Thatwhich is the Cause of all151 and of the general things152. Nothing — nei-ther he himself nor something else in his soul153 — knows It accordingto its true meaning154 ([although] nothing is devoid of its activity155) andaccording to the eminence of its unity156, so that he knows [It], eventhough he does not know [It]157, because he [has risen] above intellect.

145 The Arabic seems to agree with those manuscripts (Rc), which read t¬n mustik¬nin place of tòn mustikón.

146 Literally: “possessing.”147 W8zUB« ¡«—ü«Ë WdF*« «Ë– PUJ*«. The expression tàv gnwstikàv ântilßceiv seems

to be translated twice, according to the double meaning of the term ântíljciv in Greek:“reward” (hence PUJ2) and “conception” (hence ¡«—¬).

148 This is a mistranslation of the word ânafe⁄ (dat. sg. of ânaf±v, “intangible”), asif it were a verb derived from f¬v, “light.” The expression ên t¬ç pámpan ânafe⁄ kaìâorátwç appears above, where it is rendered correctly: «dEDË U* Èd+ ô WU qa wË (l. 20).Interestingly, Eriugena makes (both here and above) the same mistake, as the Arabictranslator here: “in qua omne relucet.” It is possible that the Greek manuscripts, fromwhich these translations were produced, had had a different reading; such a reading, how-ever, is not attested in the Göttingen edition.

149 The word âorátwç (“invisible”) that follows in the Greek seems to have no corre-spondence in the Arabic translation. The words “with its light” are probably added by thetranslator.

150 The words “that is to say” seem to have been added by the Arabic translator.151 The Arabic qJ« WK w w&« pK vK renders toÕ pántwn êpékeina — “He who

is beyond all.” See n. 123 above.152 The Arabic seems to agree with those Greek manuscripts (Ja, Le, Pt, and Ra)

which have pas¬n in place of p¢v æn.153 tHD w. The words “in his soul” seem to correspond to the Greek pantel¬v (“ut-

terly”), but I do not know why it was so rendered.154 Literally: “knowledge.”155 tKF s2 ¡wZ uK[+ ôË. The clause renders the Greek ânenergjsíaç (“by inactivity”),

which refers to the visionary.156 ÁbOu WKOC V vK. Greek: katà tò kre⁄tton ënoúmenov (“most excellently

united”). See also n. 50 above.157 ·dF+ ô ÊUa Ê≈Ë. Greek: t¬ç mjdèn ginÉskein (“by knowing nothing”).

392 A. TREIGER

Appendix: Graeco-Arabic Glossary

âgnwsía ~ WUN (63)

ãgnwstov ~ tdF+ ÆÆÆ ô (66); âgnÉstwv ~

·dF+ ô (26-27)

âqéatov ~ —uEM2 dOV (58)

[a÷sqjsiv] aï aîsqßseiv ~ WO(« «uNA«

(24)

[aîsqjtóv] tà aîsqjtá ~ Uu;« (6),

UO(« (25)

aîtía, a÷tion ~ WK (4, 6, 7, 36, 39, 45)

ãlogov ~ ‰uI« s2 √d82 (46)

âmújtov ~ q2Ua dOV h UD (30-31)

ânenergjsía ~ tKF s2 ¡wZ uK[+ ô (67)

ântikeímenov ~ œUC2Ò

(41)

ântíljciv ~ Í√—Ë ÆÆÆ …QUJ2 (64)

âperikalúptwv ~ —U&&« ôË ¡UH[&« dOV s2

(47-48)

âpólutov ~ oKD2 (17)

âpolúomai ~ oK~« (63)

âpófasiv ~ W (41)

âpofáskw ~ vK » Z&« (40)

âpofatikóv ~ w (5)

ãsxetov ~ tM2 uDb+ ô (27)

ãtreptov ~ qO^&+ ô (18)

âfaíresiv ~ eOO9 (42)

[âfairéw] âfelÉn ~ Ÿe&D« (28)

âforíhomai ~ eO9 (53, 56)

ginÉskw ~ ·d (66)

gnófov ~ ÂöX (18), ÂULV (50), ÂU& (63)

gn¬siv ~ WdF2 (11, 27, 34, 67)

gnwstikóv ~ VzUcË ÆÆÆ WdF2 Ë– (64-65)

[e¤nai] tà ∫nta ~ «œuu*« (11, 26, 39);

tà oûk ∫nta ~ «œuu2 dOV w w&«

(25)

ênérgeia ~ qF (24)

ênnoéw ~ rN (45)

[ënóomai] ënoÕsqai ~ bOu&« ÆÆÆ lu+ Ê«

(3-4); ënoúmenov ~ ÁbOu (68)

∏nwsiv ~ WHô«Ë WOD«bu« q2U (26)

[êpékeina] ö pántwn êpékeina ~ pK vK

qJ« WK w w&« (51-52, 65-66)

êpínoia ~ ‰uIF2 (61)

qe⁄ov ~ wN« (28, 35, 53, 57), VO (43);

tà qeiótata ~ UONô« (59)

qeología ~ WON« WLKa (2, 4-5, 9, 12, 17-18,

43)

qeóv ~ «¶ (57)

qeosofía ~ WON« WLJ (15)

qésiv ~ Ÿuu2 (39), lË (42)

qewréw ~ dED (57)

katáfasiv ~ w«– ‰u (41)

katafáskw ~ UMK U2 V vK (39)

katafatikóv ~ w«– (5)

krufiómustov ~ wH` d (19)

lógion ~ WLKa (17, 51)

lógov ~ ‰u (2, 50), oDD (46), WLKa (59)

mórfwma ~ ‰Ub2 (38)

mustagwgía ~ d (35)

mustßrion ~ …d+d (17)

mustikóv ~ Íd (2, 9, 12, 17, 23), d (64)

noeróv ~ wKI (25)

[noéw] tà nooúmena ~ UOKIF« (60)

nójsiv ~ ‰uIF2 (47)

nojtóv ~ wKI (61); tà nojtá ~ ôuIF*«

(7), UOKIF« (25)

noÕv ~ wKI (10), qI (21, 68)

oûsía ~ du (27, 36)

polueidßv ~ …dOba —uc (38)

polúlogov ~ tu dOba (45)

polúfwnov ~ …dOba «uc« (54)

polúxutov ~ t=UF8D« dOba (55)

skótov ~ wH` (28), ÂöX (34)

[skoteinóv] tò skoteinótatov ~ ”bM

(18)

stérjsiv ~ W8U (42)

tópov ~ lu2 (58, 62)

Àmnov ~ bO9 (4)

üperágaqov ~ dO` qa s2 qC« (14-15)

üperágnwstov ~ ·dF+ ô U2 qa ‚u (16)

üperéxw ~ vK qC (37); üperéxwn ~

l—«Ë qC« (60)


üpérqeov ~ t« qa s2 vK« (14)

[üpérkalov] tà üpérkala ~ U8OD« (21)

üperkeiménov ~ qC«Ë l—« (36)

üperlámpwn ~ dOD qa ‚u (20)

üperoúsiov, -wv ~ du qa ‚u (14), ‚u

du'« (28), du'« s2 uKF) (47)

[üperoxß] kaq’ üperoxßn ~ ÊUDK« w

(6), WFd«Ë uKF« w (7-8)

üperpljrówn ~ qLJ2 qa ‚u and rL&2

(20-21)

üperfaßv ~ dOM2 qa ‚u (16)

[üperfanßv] üperfanéstatov ~ qa ‚u

dUX (19-20)

üperfu¬v ~ WFO8D« ‚u (45)

[üpérfwtov] katà tòn üpérfwton ~ vK

Á—uD uK V (18)

üperÉn ~ œuu« ‚u (41)

[üpobállw] üpobebljménov ~ ÆÆÆ Vd2

ÊËœ (60)

üpoqetikóv ~ Ÿuu2 (60)

[fantáhomai] fantahómenov ~ qO[&2 (33)

xaraktjríhw ~ qb9Ë qJA (36)

Yale University Alexander TREIGER

Near Eastern Languages and CivilizationsPO Box 208236New Haven CT [email protected]

Abstract — The article offers a critical edition, annotated English translation,and detailed analysis of the Arabic version of Pseudo-Dionysius theAreopagite’s Mystical Theology, chapter 1. The analysis is divided into fourheadings: Technical Terminology, Translation Technique, Comparison with theSyriac Versions, and Cases of Interpretation and Misinterpretation.

The version presented and edited in this article is part of the complete transla-tion of the Corpus Dionysiacum into Arabic, produced in 1009 by a certain Abu‘Ali ‘Isa b. IsÌaq of Emesa, known as Ibn SaÌquq. It is preserved in two Arabicmanuscripts, Sinai MS ar. 268 and Sinai MS ar. 314. For background informa-tion on the Arabic translations of Pseudo-Dionysius the reader is referred to thepresent author’s earlier study New Evidence on the Arabic Versions of the Cor-pus Dionysiacum, published in Le Muséon, 118 (2005), p. 219-240.

The Arabic Version of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s "Mystical Theology", Chapter 1:...

Documents

Transcript of The Arabic Version of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s "Mystical Theology", Chapter 1:...