English – Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies (BRIIFS)

Visit the Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies Website

🟡

Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies (BRIIFS)

In his SOUVENIRS PERSONNELS, published posthumously in 1967,1 Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938), founder of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jerusalem, comments the publication in 1906 of the answers given by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to four doubts about the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch: “On June 27, the Holy Father gave approval to the decision of the Commission on Pentateuch, by which it considered that it was opening the door a certain distance to literary criticism, either on the theory of Moses’ secretaries, as they have been called, or by the admission of additions, notes and explanation. In order to appreciate the full significance of these concessions, we must remember that scholarly champions of the authenticity of the Pentateuch had been accustomed up to then to base their arguments on the antiquity of its linguistic forms.”2 A vision too optimistic, which immediately highlights the emptiness of the linguistic “proof.” As we shall see, the archaism of language had a precise apologetic purpose: to minimize the scope of certain embarrassing texts, assuming a “primitive” meaning for certain terms. But the French scholar insinuated another principle for the hermeneutics of the Vatican text: the silence on some matters. In addition to the timid opening of some doors, the document omitted to mention the “dangers” to which Catholic theology would have been exposed if it had relativized the whole belonging of the first five books of the Bible to the work of Moses. But Lagrange’s contemporaries knew well that any openings in this sense would gravely affect an apologetics based on the role of an eyewitness recognized to the ancient legislator.

The figure of Moses is very complex in the Islamic tradition, both in terms of the interpretation of the Qur’anic passages concerning him, as well as what is mentioned in the Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ (Tales of the Prophets), that is the vast literature which deals with the stories of the prophets prior to Muhammad.1 The present contribution offers a study of the figure of Moses on the basis of a structural analysis of the sacred text of Islam. It is based on two assumptions: that Moses is, without fear of contradiction, the most cited prophetic figure in the Qur’an; the fact that the Qur’an is increasingly shown to be, under the lens of linguistic and historical exegesis, to be a text that is anything but disorderly and chaotic (as it was judged by Francesco Gabrieli among the many, calling it an “unbearable jag”), but rather a wisely composed and ordered text.

“In the Hebrew Bible and in its ancient Greek and Aramaic versions, the figure of Moses is presented in a multitude of perspectives. Our focus is on the supernatural visions that, according to biblical texts, he experienced. In the Book of Exodus a series of extraordinary visions is granted by God to Moses (Ex 3:1-6; 19:16-25; 24:9-11; 24:15-17; 33:9-11; 33:17-23; 34: 27-33). These visionary experiences have the function of consecrating him as the guide of the people, as the liberator from Egyptian slavery, and as the mediator / transmitter of the law established by God. In Judaism of Roman-Hellenistic period, inside and outside the Land of Israel, different Jewish groups give various representations of the figure of Moses oriented to express different cultural functions of him and also various ways of relation between the Jews and the surrounding peoples. As an example of a transformation of the image of Moses through times we take into account the episode of the “transfiguration” narrated in the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew (Mk 9:2-9; Lk 90:28-36; Matt 17:1- 9) and also reported in other texts of Jesus’ followers of the first two centuries.1 In this episode, the figure of Moses plays a prominent role and his visionary experiences take on particular meanings.”

This contribution will explore the extent to which Abrahamic dialogue is dependent upon unity rather than diversity and will make reference to scriptural readings as well as interpretations about Moses. The setting of our conference is appropriate as it takes place near Mount Nebo, from where Moses is said to have seen the Promised Land and to have died nearby. Jews, Christians and Muslims share some of the same Scriptures and/or stories but read them in different ways. The Church Fathers, for example, were astonished at what they considered to be Jewish ‘blindness’: their failure to comprehend the truth proclaimed in their own sacred texts. This developed into what became known as the Adversus Iudeaoes literature. Likewise, Jewish writers were perturbed by Christian interpretations not rooted in the original Hebrew or that completely abandoned the simple meaning of the words in favour of other – especially messianic – significance. Muslims for their part would see their Scriptures, the Qur’an, as perfecting and fulfilling the other two. The main argument of my essay is that apologetics and polemic may be features of scriptural hermeneutics, there is however a more positive story to tell. It is a combination of the search for common scriptural ground (‘unity’) as well as the need to take difference seriously, including polemic (‘diversity’) that provides a sound basis for interfaith dialogue today.

In the twenty-first century, the Coptic Orthodox Church is reaping the benefits of an ongoing renewal process that commenced in the early decades of the twen-tieth. Drawing inspiration from its heritage, especially monasticism and mar-tyrdom, the Church has been able to revitalize its rich traditions by encouraging a strong Sunday School movement and reviving monastic practices. Due to the apparent inability of Egypt’s political actors, most notably, the Wafa Party, to represent Coptic interests, the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Patriarch Shenouda III, has used his position as head of the community to provide civil as well as spiritual leadership. This is no departure from tradition as the office of patriarch has long possessed a temporal dimension, especially under the Ottoman millet system. A rise in violence against Copts marred Church-state relations during the presidency of Anwar Sadat, but a new president, Hosni Mubarak, and a change in tactics by Patriarch Shenouda has led to renewed cooperation. The government has acknowledged the role of the patriarch as the representative of the Coptic community to the state. During the reign of the patriarch, the Church has experienced global expansion providing new opportunities and challenges. Through ministering to Coptic expatriates and evangelizing in new mission fields, the Coptic Orthodox Church has reclaimed its credentials as a universal Church, while retaining its Coptic identity through close connections with the desert tradition.‬

Christianity in Iran goes back to the Apostolic Age, when it was first established in Edessa and Adiabene. However, for doctrinal and ecclesiastical reasons, the Church in the East separated from the Antiochian Syrian Church and proclaimed itself the ‘Church of the East. Buttressed by their faith and zeal, these Christians were moved to evangelize in Central Asia and China, before and after the coming of Islam. Historic circumstances, especially the invasion of Timur Lenk and many bloody conflicts in later days, caused membership in this Church and its sister Churches to dwindle to small communities living in Urmia-Salmas and northern Iraq. In the seventeenth century, the Armenian Apostolic Church was founded in Iran when Shah Abbas permitted a community of deportees to settle in the country. Roman Catholic missions were established early in the seventeenth century and Protestant ones in the eighteenth. Today, there are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches in Iran. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the war in Iraq has made the future of Christian communities precarious, but the Muslim majority can and must ameliorate the situation by granting these Christians all of the rights and privileges of citizenship. The future of Christianity in the Middle East is subject not only to external circumstances, but to internal ones as well. The ongoing Christian-Muslim dialogue, in which Iran is a strong participant, is a good omen that brings hope to the small Christian communities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. “But they were all amazed and marveled, saying, ‘Behold, are not all these that are speaking Galileans? And how have we heard each his own language in which he was born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia…” Acts II:7-9.

Leaving aside a discussion of the making of the Syriac-speaking world that built upon the heritage of Arameans, Greeks, Nabateans and Jews. This article traces some major trajectories of the development of Syriac-speaking Churches from the early Byzantine period to the early eighteenth century. Highlighting aspects of their early literary history in Edessa and Nisibis, as well as connections to Mesopotamia, this article offers extended discussion of the impact of theological, particularly Christological, controversies on the emergence of divisions among Syriac-speaking Christians. It traces aspects of the Syriac Renaissance, the impact of the Mongol invasion and Syriac Christian missionary activities in Central and East Asia, and the further diversification of the body of Syriac-speaking Churches through the emergence of the Maronite Patriarchate. During the later centuries covered, Syriac-speaking Churches increasingly faced divisions and hardships. The regulations under which some of these Churches fell during the Ottoman Empire did not improve their lot. It would take until the latter part of the twentieth century before perspectives and new opportunities for a brighter future emerged at least for some of the members of Syriac-speaking Churches.‬

Throughout the early Islamic period, people from various Shurāt subgroups identified themselves in their poetry and to others as ‘the exchangers’ (al-shurāt), an appellation derived, along with related words, from Qur’an 2:207. The faces of different categories of exchangers-the ideal, the elegized, the summoned and the leader —depict various facets of the concept of exchange. The singular form, ‘exchanger’ (shārin), was claimed as an identity by people from across the spectrum of Shurāt groups, activist and quietist, from the earliest moments of the Shurāt experience until the late Umayyad period. Its basic meaning is two-fold: making a choice and taking decisive action. Whether activist or quietist, each person who called himself an exchanger (shārin) was distinguishing himself from the governing authority. It was his interpretation of exchange that determined how he expressed his opposition. The poems containing this term give us insight into the variety of meanings that exchange could signify. In addition to being used to define ideas about governing authority and leadership, it has often been associated with fighting the adversary in battle. The poems show that it can also mean to retreat, to be executed in captivity and even to admit defeat. The exchanger (shārin) is presented in the context of his life beyond the battlefield and beyond mere rhetoric. Thus, the poetry sheds valuable light on various social relations within Shurāt communities.

The Ibāḍī sect of Islam originated in Iraq during the first/seventh century, but missionaries soon travelled west to the Maghrib where many Berbers, who had already converted to Islam, became followers. The Ibāḍī missionary effort culminated with the establishment of an Ibāḍī Imamate by ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Rustam in about AH 160/AD 776. Many Berber tribes in North Africa became affiliated with this state while establishing good relations with the Aghlabids, who then ruled modern-day Tunisia and Tripolitania. When the Aghlabids launched their conquest of Sicily in 212/827, members of Ibāḍī Berber tribes were among the Muslim forces. With the establishment of Muslim rule on the island, Ibāḍī tribes from North Africa began to settle there. Arabic and Ibadi historical sources suggest that their communities in Sicily became part of the Ibāḍī trade network that flourished between sub-Saharan Africa and the Mediterranean. The rise of Ibāḍī commercial interests on the island may have led Ibāḍīs there into conflict with the new Fāṭimid state that replaced Aghlabid rule. It seems possible that some of the struggles between the Muslims of Sicily and the Fāṭimid central government in Ifrīqiya were due to Fāṭimid attempts to control the Ibāḍī trade network and to undermine the economic power of the Ibāḍī tribes on the island, much as they had done in North Africa.

Ibāḍī Islam, practiced by the sultans who ruled Zanzibar from 1832-1964, is a moderate sect that emerged out of Khārijism. Like the Khārijīs, Ibāḍīs recognize as Muslims only those who belong to their own sect; unlike the Khārjīs, they do not support violence against non-members. Although they advocate ‘dissociation (barā’a) from non-Ibāḍīs, this is an attitude of withholding religious ‘friendship’ (walāya) and not one of hostility. Ibāḍism emerged during the heated political disputes of early Islam and was nurtured in the relative isolation of Oman’s mountainous interior and of remote areas of North Africa. The sultans of Zanzibar ruled over a highly diverse population, mainly Sunnī Muslims. Bū Sa’īdī rulers sponsored the development of Zanzibar as a centre of Islamic scholarship for both Ibāḍīs and Sunnīs. In practice, Ibāḍī-Sunnī relations were very friendly and Sunnī scholars were among the sultans’ closest confidants. During the reign of Sayyid Barghash (1870-88), some conversions of Ibāḍīs to Sunnī Islam provoked a severe reaction from the monarch; Ibāḍī scholars of the time also felt threatened by the attraction of Sunnī Islam. Nonetheless, Ibāḍī and Sunnī scholars had cordial and collegiate relations and crossed sectarian lines for the purposes of study and adjudication.