THE GREAT DEBATE
Timothy I, Patriarch of the Nestorian Church in the late eighth and early ninth centuries,
was a key character in the history of the Eastern Church. Historians within Western Christianity
often pass over the Nestorian Church and do not mention Timothy in any of their chapters. This
is an unfortunate oversight because the Nestorian Church in the late eighth century represented a
significant portion of Christianity and Timothy I was its leader from 779-823 CE.1 Timothy was
patriarch during height of the Abbasidian Empire, which had both positive and negative
repercussions. Because of the Islamic sympathies of the Abbasidians, the church faced
persecutions of many types. Christianity was no longer growing in the Middle East, and Islam
suppressed the church into remission. Being in a position of relative influence gave Timothy the
opportunity to have religious dialogue with Caliph Al-Mahdi, the religious and political leader of
the Abbasidians. Timothy I debated with Caliph Al-Mahdi effectively and engaged Islamic
rhetoric at its center, thus the accounts of these debates were instrumental in the preservation of
the Nestorian Church in the late eighth century CE, providing Christians with a model for public
dispute and audacity when discussing faith.
TIMOTHY AND THE NESTORIAN CHURCH IN CRISIS
The advent of Islam brought numerous challenges to the church in Middle East during
first millennium CE. Mohammed’s faith unified the Arabian tribes with the goal of universal
conversion to Islam. The Arabs quickly accomplished what the Byzantines had not in hundreds
1
Samuel Hugh Moffet, A History of Christianity in Asia Volume 1: Beginnings to 1500, Maryknoll: Orbis,
1998, 349.
1
2
of years, which was defeat the Sassanid Empire.2 The Zoroastrian Sassanid lords were far less
benevolent to Christianity than the new Islamic Abbasidians, but the lack of religious unity
among the Sassanid people curtailed its ability to execute suppressive persecutions. Despite the
slaughter of thousands of Christians, Zoroastrianism could not achieve religious dominance in
Persian. Islam brought greater religious unity to the Middle East than what the Zoroastrians ever
achieved. The new Abbasidian rulers respected Christianity more than the Sassanians and did not
violently persecute Christianity to the degree of the Sassanians. However, somewhat
inexplicably the new forms of persecution that the Abdisidians brought, which were primarily
financial,3 were able to suppress the expansion of Christianity in that region of the world. While
Zoroastrians and Christians engaged in intellectual polemics, these arguments were less
significant than religious debates would between Islam and Christianity. Islam was a more potent
debate partner with Christianity than Zoroastrianism, thus the Nestorian Christians had to create
new lines of argument to protect itself from the intellectual pressures that Islam brought.4
Crisis of Faith in the Nestorian Church
The Abrahamic faiths have a unique characteristic in common, which the other great
eastern religions do not share. Each of the Abrahamic religions is deeply concerned with specific
historical events and the progression of history. Judaism is concerned with the Israelite Exodus,
Christianity is concerned with the death and resurrection of Jesus, and Islam is concerned with
the special revelation of the Quran to Mohammed along with other events. Christianity, being
established on the foundation of Judaism, concerns itself with the act of remembering history. In
Israelite worship, one remembered the acts of God as a way of ensuring that God was still active
2
Moffet, 335.
Moffet, 337.
4
Moffet, 348-57
3
3
in the present history of the people.5 If God were active in the history of a people, then he is
likely still involved. The act of remembrance in specifically Christian contexts relates to the
giving of the Eucharist. The Eucharist was a way to participate continually in the salvation of
Christ until his return. (1 Cor 11:26) Nestorian Christians and Abbasidian Muslims had a high
view history and this played a significant role in their dialogue and debates.
This special interest in History gave significant advantage to the Muslims over the
Christians. Islam had quickly taken over the region with a seemingly unstoppable advance. If one
believed that God favored a people group because of its religious convictions, it would be
difficult not to see God favoring the Abbasidian Muslims. Many empires across the landscape of
human history have claimed divine election, and as long as one empire continued to have
sustained military victories, it would be difficult to persuade people that God did not favor that
empire. Timothy’s account with Caliph Al-Mahdi does not mention a debate about the Islamic
conquest being proof of God’s favor towards Islam. It is possible that Timothy omitted such
section from his apology or that Caliph Al-Mahdi did not consider this argument productive for
his cause. The problem was not as significant when the Sassanians were in power because
despite the more horrendous persecution, Christianity continued to grow. This was not the case
after the advent of Islam. This was a clear problem the Nestorian Church. Other Nestorians
solved the issue of Muslim lordship similarly to the Hebrew prophets’ resolving the issue of
foreign empires conquering Israel.6 Isaiah 10:5 describes Assyria, the conquerors of the Northern
Harry Nasuti “Historical Narrative and Identity in the Psalms.” In Horizons of Biblical Theology Vol. 23
(2001), 135.
6
Sidney Griffith “Griffith, Sidney “Disputing With Islam In Syriac: The Case Of The Monk Of Bêt Lê
Anda Muslim Emir” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 3 (2000), 34.
5
4
Israelite kingdom, as the rod of God’s wrath. For the Nestorians, casting Islam as the rod of
God’s wrath was the easiest way to cope with the problem.7
Christianity as a Matter of Faith
For many denominations, Christianity was fundamentally intellectual. One did not need
to have high intellectual capacity in order to be a Christian, but the rationale to be a Christian
played a large role in the endurance of one’s Christian faith. Christianity did not arise as an
indigenous faith that was specific to an ethnic group, but it relied on gaining converts through
persuasion. Various Christian groups identified themselves as orthodox, which means correct
thinking, highlighting what was important within those groups. One way to bolster the rationale
to be a Christian is to make Christianity appear more intellectually viable than the alternative,
namely Islam. Writing and disseminating accounts of debates with alternative faiths was one way
church leaders sought to accomplish this task. The church leaders needed to provide the church
with sound arguments and reasons for their Christian faith. Timothy I, the Patriarch of the
Nestorian Christians from 779-823 CE,8 was one of the famous interlocutors of eighth-century
Islam, who had the audacity to debate publicly within the burgeoning Abbasidian Empire.9 In his
work, The Apology of Timothy I,10 Timothy openly debated Caliph Al-Mahdi about Islam,
Christianity and why he refused to acknowledge Mohammed as a prophet from God.
Al-Mahdi and many other Islamic polemicists claimed that Mohammed had equal
credibility to all the other prophets11 from either the Hebrew Bible or New Testament, thus
Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 49.
Moffet, A History of Christianity in Asia, 349.
9
Timothy was not the first person to debate Islam in the Abbasidian Empire, although he became the most
famous. See Griffith “Disputing with Islam in Syriac,” 41.
10
Also known as The Apology of Patriarch Timothy I, Timothy’s Apology, and The Apology of Timothy I
before Caliph Al-Mahdi.
11
This group of prophets includes Jesus
7
8
5
Timothy should have acknowledged his authority. Timothy argued vehemently that Christianity
was the true religion and the Mohammed was not a true prophet. The positive result of these
debates was not the conversion of the Caliph or any Muslim to Christianity, but it was the
support of oppressed Christians in their faith. Patriarch Timothy I’s work gave Christians reasons
to continue to be Christians in a world that was increasingly hostile towards Christianity.
TIMOTHY I AND AL-MAHDI
The Nestorian Church remembers Timothy fondly, but the beginning of his patriarchate
was clouded with controversy. In order to become patriarch, Timothy implied that some heavy
sacks were full of money and that he would give them to the electorate if elected. The electorate
voted for Timothy and he became Patriarch Timothy I of the Nestorian Church, but the sacks
were not full of money.12 Timothy would have many chances throughout his life to exhibit his
quick wit and capability as a diplomat, a feature that was important in his dialogues with the
Caliph.13 Timothy began his patriarchate in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, but with the increasing
importance of Baghdad, his seat moved there. It was in Baghdad that the famous debates took
place between Timothy and Al-Mahdi.
Timothy and Caliph Al-Mahdi, had much in common. Both people were well-educated
people. They both had interest in Aristotelian philosophy,14 which influenced each of their
thinking. Each of these men was a religious leader of a significant group of people, but their
respective groups were experiencing opposite phenomenon. Islam, Al-Mahdi religious group,
12
Moffet, 352.
Timothy’s dialogue with Caliph Al-Mahdi was of great importance and garnered the most fame, but as he
was patriarch for many years, he interacted with five Caliphs.
14
Sidney Griffith “The Syriac Letters of Patriarch Timothy I,” Pages 103-32 in Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 170, Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, Ed. Wout Jac. Van Bekkum, Jan Willem
Drijvers and Alex C. Klugkist, Paris: Peeters, 2007, 105.
13
6
was experiencing unprecedented success, while the Timothy’s Nestorian Church was struggling
to stay alive. Al-Mahdi belonged to the faction that had political power and therefore had more
influence over the time and place of the conversations than Timothy, but Timothy had a larger
history of interpretation to draw from to answer the arguments of the Caliph. The results from a
debate between two individuals as well educated and influential as Timothy and Al-Mahdi would
carry great weight for people all over the Abbasidian Empire. These debates were not two
random people having a conversation, but rather the heads of opposing religions having a debate.
The time of Caliph Al-Mahdi’s rule from 775-785 CE was comparatively peaceful,15 and
this resulted in one of the most peaceful times for Christians under Abbisadian rule. This allowed
this remarkable dialogue to take place that probably could not have happened at most other times
in history when Islam had complete power over the Christians. The Apology of Patriarch
Timothy I emerged at a critical time because the degree of Islam’s tolerance to Christianity was
rare in history and subsequent generations, which would not have the opportunity to produce a
similar work, could was able to benefit from it. Although Timothy could not prevent to later
persecutions, his work helped the Church endure those persecutions.
TIMOTHY I AND HIS APOLOGY
The primary source of information about Timothy’s encounters with Caliph Al-Mahdi
comes from Timothy’s Apology. Timothy’s Apology is not a formal transcript of the debates
between the Patriarch and the Caliph, but it is Timothy’s letter relating the events.16 Timothy
addressed the letters to Sergius and historians are not sure who this was,17 but Alphonse Mingana
H. Kennedy, “Al-Mahdi,” Pages 1238-39 in vol. 5 of Encyclopedia of Islam, edited by C. E. Bosworth,
E. Van Donzel, B. Lewis and Ch. Pellat, 12 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1986, 1238.
16
Griffith “Disputing With Islam In Syriac:” 40.
17
Griffith, Church in the Shadow, 78
15
7
speculates that this was likely Sergius, the contemporary Metropolitan of Elam, or another monk
well known for teaching.18 Timothy wrote the letters in Syriac as that was the liturgical language
and the language of the people who would likely read the letters; however, the conversations
between him and Al-Mahdi nearly certainly took place in Arabic.19 When the Abbasidians came
to power, Arabic became the lingua franca of the Middle East. The government conducted all of
its affairs in Arabic and the Caliph was at the center of the government. Timothy I was like
fluent in Arabic, but it is unlikely that Al-Mahdi knew Syriac. Arabic and Syriac are
linguistically related, which implies that Timothy’s translation of the conversation should not
have been difficult,20 but the letter’s Syriac composition likely colors the language of the
debate.21
The way in which Timothy depicts the debates seems to be an unlikely proceeding for the
dialogue. Over the course of two days, the Caliph asks a series of short questions, which
resemble a typical student’s question, and Timothy has little trouble answering. Timothy appears
as a calm interlocutor whom Al-Mahdi is unable to confound with his questions. With the
exception of a few questions, Timothy’s responses appear to satisfy Al-Mahdi. However,
Timothy maintained a high view of the Caliph and continuously identified him as the “Godloving Lord.”22 The questions that the Caliph raises in Timothy’s account are stereotypical of
Islamic complaints and arguments towards Christianity in the period. It seems unlikely that
Timothy would fabricate the entirety of the discourse between himself and Al-Mahdi,23 but
18
Alphonse Mingana, The Apology of Patriarch Timothy, Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009, 15.
Griffith, “Disputing With Islam In Syriac,” 40.
20
The letter was later translated into Arabic from the Syriac in order circulate among a wide audience. See
Griffith “The Syriac Letters of Patriarch Timothy I,” 103.
21
Griffith “The Syriac Letters of Patriarch Timothy I,” 104.
22
Mingana, 16ff.
23
Griffith, “Disputing with Islam in Syriac,” 40.
19
8
apparently, Timothy tuned the letters to be of greater value to the Nestorian layperson than to
those who were engaging Islamic elites in debates. The epistolary format, which Timothy used
for this account, is the writing style of most of the surviving material from Timothy. This style
recalls the apostolic period in which Paul wrote letters to congregations intending for many to
hear.24 Whether Timothy I intended it or not, other people read his letters in the subsequent
generations.
Al-Mahdi and the Corruption of the Bible
Connected to the historical appreciations of Christianity is its love for the Biblical text.
Timothy and the Nestorian Church used a Syriac translation of Bible, known as the Peshitta, as
their Biblical text, but they were proud of the textual tradition.25 Christians and Muslims share a
deep devotion to their holy texts, the Quran and the Bible. However, the Christian tradition has
been more accommodating to other languages in its history. Early Christians translated the Bible
into many languages, including Syriac, in the early centuries of it existence, and the related
cultures viewed the translated texts as highly as their vorlagen. Islam was not as accommodating
to other languages. The question of the validity of texts proved to be one of the more contentions
points in Christian/Muslim relationships in the eighth and ninth centuries.
The Muslims claimed that the Christians had corrupted their scriptures26 and the text in
its pristine condition predicted the coming of Mohammed27 but did not contain the material
implying Jesus was divine. While corruption during the course of transmission is a reality, there
24
Sidney Griffith, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
78
25
Timothy might have had access to the Syro-Hexepla, which contained the Peshitta. See R. B. Ter Haar
Romeny “Biblical Studies in the Church of the East: The Case of Catholicos Timothy I” Studia Patristica vol. 34
(2001), 505.
26
The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament
27
Barbara Roggema, The Legend of Sergius Bahıra: Eastern Christian Apologetics and Apocalyptic in
Response to Islam, Leiden: Brill, 2009, 27.
9
is little evidence that this type of corruption occurred. Regardless of material evidence, Al-Mahdi
and other prominent Muslims affirmed it.28 This belief came from the contradictions between the
Christian Bible and the Quran, which affirms the validity of the Bible. Muslims would have
propagated the idea that Christians had corrupted the Bible, and many of the Nestorian Christians
would not have been able to answer adequately the questions of their Muslim neighbors.
Although Timothy’s response was circumstantial, it was logical. He said that Christians would
have had no reason to change the text prior to advent of Islam29 and that there would be
Christians awaiting the Mohammed figure, which he implied was not happening.30 On this point
Timothy answered adequately, but not decisively.
Al-Mahdi and the Interpretation of Scripture
In addition to trying to discredit the opposing party’s scripture, Timothy and Al-Mahdi,
along with their constituents, tried to co-opt each other’s texts. Islamic polemicists were
constantly looking for places within the Christian Canon to find references to Mohammed.
Proving that the Christian canon contained a prophesy of Mohammed would have been a
decisive blow to Timothy’s argument and would establish the authority of Mohammed. Once
Islam established Mohammed’s credibility as a prophet of God, Timothy and the Nestorian
Christians would likely convert to Islam.31 Caliph Al-Mahdi found the place in scripture that
seemed to predict the coming of Mohammed in Jesus’ words about the Paraclete.32 Timothy took
great pains to explain why Mohammed could not be the Paraclete. 33 Timothy used this point to
28
Mingana, 55.
Mingana, 36.
30
Roggema, 28.
31
Mingana, 36.
32
Mingana, 33.
33
The Gospel of John records Jesus talking about the Paraclete in John 14. “Paraclete” is a Greek word
meaning “helper” or “comforter.” Common Christian interpretation of this is the Holy Spirit.
29
10
distinguish Mohammed from Jesus, saying that Isaiah and the prophets had predicted the work of
Jesus, a luxury that Mohammed did not have.34 Timothy demonstrated that Mohammed did not
have the proper characteristics to be the Paraclete, and it appears that he satisfied the Caliph.
One of the characteristics that Mohammed did not have that the Paraclete and other
authentic agents of God needed to have was the ability to do miracles. Timothy claimed that
miracles of the apostles, prophets and Jesus confirmed the credibility of the Hebrew Bible and
the New Testament. A short sight in the argument, which Caliph Al-Mahdi did not take
advantage of, was that these works are the sole attestation of many of the miracles that Timothy
referred. This may only appear as a short sight to highly critical western thinkers, who are more
likely to doubt ancient texts and question their motives. Timothy compared Mohammed’s lack of
miracles and lack of any prophesy predicting his coming with the fulfillment of a prophesy about
Jesus’ birth encased in a miracle. Timothy quotes Isaiah 7, which claims that a virgin will give
birth to a child, and then describes Jesus’ miraculous and prophesied birth from the Virgin
Mary.35 It is on this point that Timothy provided one of his most decisive arguments. In the
context of this answer, Al-Mahdi had no rebuttal. The Caliph moved on very quickly to other
matters at this point in the conversation.36 The miracles and prophesy of Jesus’ birth would have
been ample evidence for a Nestorian layperson that Christianity was true. Reading or hearing of
this report where Timothy so adequately answered the questions of Islam would have augmented
the force of the argument for Nestorians. Islam needed to look for better arguments.
The divinity of Jesus was one of the most egregious beliefs of Christianity in the eyes of
Islam. A central point to Islam is that there is only one God, thus the Christian doctrine of the
34
Mingana, 32-3, 35.
Mingana, 56-7.
36
Mingana, 59.
35
11
trinity was incompatible with Islam’s strict monotheism. Similar to their use of the Christian
Bible to attempt to legitimate Mohammed as a true prophet of God, Muslims tried to
delegitimize the divinity of Jesus with the Bible. While the Nestorian Church did not accept all
of the ecumenical councils, it accepted the Council of Nicaea. The council of Nicaea, which
established the divinity of Christ, garnered a level of respect that rivaled Bible among Christians
before the Protestant Reformation.37 Attempting to deconstruct the divinity of Christ was a direct
attack on the Nestorian faith. While the Muslims may not have been the most robust exegetes,
they knew where to exploit the Christian texts to deconstruct the divinity of Jesus. The Caliph
used John 20:17 as proof for Christ’s subservience and lack of divinity,38 which reads, “I am
going to my father and your father and to my God and your God.” 39 The Caliph emphasized the
last part where Jesus identifies God as his God. The verse proved to the Caliph that Christ
considered himself a mere servant of God.40 Such an argument would not have been problematic
for an Arian Christian,41 but was a potent argument against Nestorians. John 20:17 became a
favorite of Muslims42 as a proof against Christianity.43
Timothy joined a host of other Christian exegetes who sought to solve this problematic
verse. Al-Mahdi was not the first Muslim to use this verse polemically against the divinity of
Jesus. Other famous church leaders who wrote about this verse include Lazarus of Beit-Qandasa,
37
For more on the Council of Nicaea, see Everett Ferguson, Church History, Volume One:From Christ to
Pre-Reformation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, 196-7.
38
Martin Accad, “The Ultimate Proof-Text: The Interpretation of John 20:17 in Muslim Christian Dialogue
(Second/Eighth - Eighth/Fourteenth centuries)” Pages 199-214 in Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule: Church
Life and Scholarship in Abbasid Iraq. Edited by David Thomas, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 200.
39
Original translation taken from Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Gracea, 27th Edition.
40
Accad, 207.
41
Arianism was a heretical branch of Christianity that claim that Jesus was not God.
42
Accad, 207.
43
The Gospel of John has been the source of evidence to both sides of Christological debates, although
proponents of Jesus’ total divinity tend to use it more than those try to disprove it.
12
Ishodad of Merv and Nestorius,44 the Nestorian church’s names sake. Timothy’s explanation of
the verse is not as compelling as that of other Christian exegetes. Timothy likely was familiar
with the work of these other church leaders, but chose not to give an explanation similar to any
of their conclusions. Timothy’s answer also reveals some of his dyophysite45 heritage when
explains Christ being in his nature God, yet not his father, but also having the nature of a
human.46 Timothy’s answer was terser than others’ who commented on the passage, and perhaps
his letter does not give his full explanation to the Caliph and he was relying on the works of
others to supply adequate argumentation for his Nestorian audience.
Caliph Al-Mahdi and the Islamic polemists were not alone in their guilt of abusing their
opponents’ scripture. Timothy I and the Christians tried to prove that the trinity, a concept that
Al-Mahdi and most Muslims find deplorable, is a concept that Mohammed taught in the Quran.
Timothy’s claims about the Quran were equally dubious as the claims Al-Mahdi made about the
Bible and its corruption.47 This section of the debate shows that trying to reinterpret another
religion’s scriptures is usually counterproductive to conversations between two religious groups.
Telling another religious group that it has failed to interpret its holy texts correctly is deeply
offensive and corrodes beneficial dialogue, as was the case with Timothy and Al-Mahdi.
Al-Mahdi on the Trinity and the Dyophysites
As mentioned above, Islam’s strong commitment to monotheism made the Christian
doctrine of the trinity egregious. Mohammed preached to the Arab people in order to free them
44
Accad, 203-4.
The term “dyophysite” refers to the Nestorian Church’s belief that Christ had two natures (divine and
human), which was the major distinguishing factor between them and other Christians. This belief branded them as
heretics to some Western Christians.
46
Mingana, 20.
47
Norris, Frederick, “Timothy I of Baghdad, Catholicos of the East Syrian Church, 780–823: Still a
Valuable Model” Pages 133-36 in IBMR 30 (2006), 35.
45
13
from idolatry and the deluge of gods in their pantheon, thus by Islamic understandings,
Christianity was a polytheistic religion.48 Muslims were not interested in the result of the
Christological debates among the Christian denominations in the first millennium, but the
apparent contradiction of the dyophysite convictions of the Nestorians was an attacking point
against the trinity.49 If the Caliph could deconstruct the divine nature of Christ, he could then
break down the trinity.50 This point of the argument was familiar to Timothy. The Nestorian
church and its leaders had often received questions about its dyophysite beliefs from other
Christian sects. This point of the argument shows that Timothy may have been directing his letter
towards Nestorians who needed to hear good arguments to be a dyophysite. While this was not
Timothy’s strongest point of emphasis, his dedication to his particular sect appeared in his
arguments. Timothy argued satisfactorily on this point, but it would be unlikely that anyone
would change his or her mind based on this argument.
When debating about the metaphysical possibility of the Trinity, the two parties do not
seemed to answer each other adequately. Timothy provided a slew of metaphors expressing how
three can also be one, but none of these seems to have satisfied Al-Mahdi. On the second day of
the debate, the subject returned to the subject of Trinity, and Timothy used the same response as
he did the previous day.51 Timothy’s main metaphor is the sun having both light and heat, and
these things inseparability. Without its presence in the sky, the light it provides or its heat, the
sun would cease to be the sun. Similarly, he compares the trinity to a three denarii gold piece.52
The coin was both one and three. According to Timothy’s letter, Al-Mahdi considered Timothy
48
Moffet, 327-8.
Accad, 199.
50
Mingana 69-73.
51
Mingana, 48, 69.
52
Mingana 69.
49
14
to be a worthy debate partner,53 but in this area, it appeared that Timothy did not give sufficient
answers to Al-Mahdi’s litany of questions. Timothy appeared to have been satisfied with his
answers, as the Timothy does not change his explanation after reflecting on the conversation of
the first day of the debate. Even if the two metaphors did not persuade the Caliph, they may have
been beneficial for the Nestorian layperson, which would have been Timothy’s primary goal.
CONCLUSION
Timothy’s rhetoric was not potent enough to convert either the Caliph or any other
Muslim to Christianity, but that was not the central purpose. The Abbasidian Empire had laid
heavy penalties to anyone who converted from Islam to Christianity, so converting someone
would have taken extremely persuasive language. Timothy’s goal in recording his debates with
Caliph Al-Mahdi was to provide fellow Christians reasons not to leave their Christian faith, a
task that he did effectively. The Nestorian Church faced numerous difficulties, but without the
efforts of individuals like Timothy I, it is possible that Islam would have been able to eradicate
the last of the Christians in Mesopotamia. Timothy and other church leaders could not do much
to assuage the social pressures, but their efforts did help resolve some of the philosophical and
religious pressures of Islam. Although Timothy was not responsible for the peace that
Christianity enjoyed during the early period of his lifetime, he did take advantage of the
opportunity that Caliph Al-Mahdi afforded, and the Nestorian church benefited greatly from his
work.
53
Mingana, 88.
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Accad, Martin “The Ultimate Proof-Text: The Interpretation of John 20:17 in Muslim Christian
Dialogue (Second/Eighth - Eighth/Fourteenth centuries)” Pages 199-214 in Christians at
the Heart of Islamic Rule: Church Life and Scholarship in Abbasid Iraq. Edited by David
Thomas, Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Bundy, David “Timotheos I” Pages 414-15 in Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage,
edited by Sebastian Brock, Aaron Butts, George Kiraz and Lucas Van Rompay.
Piscataway: Gorgias, 2011.
De Nicola, Angelo “Timothy I, Nestorian,” Page 840 in Vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Early
Church, edited by Angelo Di Bernardio, Translated by Adrian Walford, 2 vols.
Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1992.
Ferguson, Everett Church History, Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005.
Griffith, Sidney, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2008.
Griffith, Sidney “Disputing With Islam In Syriac: The Case Of The Monk Of Bêt Lê Anda
Muslim Emir” pages 29–54 in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 3 (2000).
Griffith, Sidney “The Syriac Letters of Patriarch Timothy I,” Pages 103-32 in Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 170, Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink,
Edited by Wout Jac. Van Bekkum, Jan Willem Drijvers and Alex C. Klugkist, Paris:
Peeters, 2007.
Kennedy, H “Al-Mahdi,” Pages 1238-39 in vol 5 of Encyclopedia of Islam, edited by C. E.
Bosworth, E. Van Donzel, B. Lewis and Ch. Pellat, 12 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Mingana, Alphonse. The Apology of Patriarch Timothy, Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009.
Moffet, Samuel Hugh, A History of Christianity in Asia Volume 1: Beginnings to 1500,
Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998.
Nasuti, Harry “Historical Narrative and Identity in the Psalms.” Pages 133-53 In Horizons of
Biblical Theology Vol 23 (2001).
Norris, Frederick, “Timothy I of Baghdad, Catholicos of the East Syrian Church, 780–823: Still a
Valuable Model” Pages 133-36 in International Bulletin for Missionary Research. Vol. 3
(2006).
Roggema, Barbara. The Legend of Sergius Bahıra: Eastern Christian Apologetics and
Apocalyptic in Response to Islam, Leiden: Brill, 2009.
16
Ter Haar Romeny, R. B. “Biblical Studies in the Church of the East: The Case of Catholicos
Timothy I” pages 503-10 in Studia Patristica vol. 34 (2001).