THE MUSLIM WORLD

VOL. LXXIII JANUARY, 1983 No. 1

GREGORY PALAMAS (1296-1360) ON ISLAM

At the beginning of 1354 Gregory Palamas (1296-1360), Archbishop

of Thessalonica and the leader of the hesychasts,1 was travelling from
Thessalonica to the Byzantine capital of Constantinople. The purpose
of this trip was to bring about a reconciliation between the young self-
exiled heir to the throne, John V Palaeologos (1341-1391), and the
Grand Domestic John Cantacuzenos, who, upon the death of
Andronicos III Palaeologos in 1341, had proclaimed himself
emperor—an event that sparked even another civil war in fourteenth-
century Byzantium. The trip was undertaken on the initiative of John
Palaeologos2 and his mother Empress Ann of Savoy who, fully aware
of Palamas' sympathies towards Cantacuzenos,3 was nevertheless
respectful of his integrity, theological soundness and statesmanship.
Palamas, travelling on a royal boat, made the first stop of his
journey at the island of Tenedos, where he received further
instructions. Upon leaving Tenedos on another ship, a fierce storm
forced the captain to seek refuge near Kallipolis, on the European side
of the straits. Kallipolis had just suffered from a severe earthquake
which had left the city almost in ruins and facilitated its capture by the
Osmanli Turks from the Asiatic side of the straits. The boat was taken
over by the Turks who demanded ransom for their release. Communi-
cation with the imperial administration was impaired and, as no

1
Of the extensive bibliography on Palamas, one of the older studies should be
mentioned, namely the work of Gregory Papamichael, Ho Hagios Gregorios Palamas,
Archiepiskopos Thessalonikis (St. Petersburg and Alexandria, 1911); among more recent
titles, the works of John Meyendorff, an authority on Palamas and the Palamite
theology, deserve special attention, particularly his A Study of Gregory Palamas
(London: The Faith Press, 1964; French original, Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 1959), and St.
Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality (New York: St. Vladimir's Press, 1974).
2
Philotheos, Encomion in Migne, P.G., CLI, col. 626A (on Philotheos' work see
notes 4 and 5 below). For the outcome of the struggle between Cantacuzenos and John
V Palaeologos see below note 44.
3
For the events of the Civil War and the political and religious complexities of
Byzantine society at the time, see George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956), pp. 454-75, and Meyendorff, A Study of Palamas, pp.
63ff.
1
2 THE MUSLIM WORLD

ransom was yet offered, a period of captivity began which was to take
Palamas and the members of the entourage through a number of cities
of North-Western Asia Minor, or Anatolia. Palamas' captivity lasted
for over one year, from March 1354 to July 1355.
Palamas found in these former Byzantine strongholds not only size­
able Christian communities, but also Muslims who were eager to
debate with him matters of religious persuasion. Palamas describes
three such encounters: one with Ishmael, the grandson of the Great
Emir Orkhan; a Dialexis, or debate, with a selective group of Jewish
converts to Islam, identified as "Chiones"; and a dialogue with a
Muslim imam in Nicea. The events which led to his captivity, his
journey through the conquered Christian cities, his contacts with the
Christians, his impression of the Turks and his debates with Muslims,
Palamas himself4 describes in a rather lengthy pastoral letter5 which he
most likely wrote in Nicea toward the end of his captivity and which

4
Philotheos, Patriarch of Constantinople (1354-55, 1364-76) who is the main source of
information of Palamas' life, gives only a minimal account of the captivity, Migne, Ρ G,
CLI, cols 626-27
5
The latter is known from various manuscripts The Athonite MS of St Panteleimon
Monastery, No 215, was copied by A Adamantios on August 3, 1895 at the instruction
of Sp Lambros who verified the accuracy of the transcript, and published by Κ
Dyovouniotes in Neos Hellenomnemon (Athens), XVI (1922), 7-21 (hereafter referred to
as Letter) A second manuscript of the letter is in Codex 1379 of the National Library of
Athens, between leaves 408b-415b, cf A I Sakkehon in Soter (Athens), XV (1892), 238
A third manuscript is that of Codex No 2409 of the National Library of Pans
mentioned by M Treu (Deltion of the Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece
[Athens], III [1889], 227) on information from notes in Fabncius' Library Cf Migne,
Ρ G, CL, cols 777-78 (VI) A fourth manuscript appears to be that of the Parisian
Codex Coislin No 97 & 98, Migne, Ρ G, CL, col 808 (LXVI) It seems that Philotheos
had originally included in his extensive Encomion (Migne, Ρ G ,CLl, cols 551-656) the
text of the letter itself, or that he was at least aware of its content, namely "the struggles
of the captivity and the victories and the triumphs over the error"—a fair
summary of what the letter is all about The edition of Migne has omitted the letter from
the Encomion (cf Ρ G, CLI, col 626B-C "Thus in the letter to his own Church he is
writing the following ") To our knowledge there has been no serious challenge to
the authenticity of the letter, even M Jugie does not press the issue beyond raising it as
an open question "À plusiers reprises, il a l'occasion d'exposer aux musulmans les
mystères de la Trinité et de l'Incarnation, comme il le raconte lui-même dans une lettre
adressée à son Église, si toutefois la piece est authentique ", Dictionnaire de Theologie
Catholique, XI (Pans, 1932), 1740 (italics, ours)
For an English translation of the Letter with the Dialexis see Daniel J Sahas,
"Captivity and Dialogue Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the Muslims," The Greek
Orthodox Theological Review, XXV (1981), 409-36 For a French translation with an
extensive Introduction and Commentary see Anna Philhpidis-Braat, "La captivité de
Palamas chez les Turcs, Dossier et commentaire," Travaux et Mémoires, VII (1979),
109-221 I received this work too late to be able to include its findings in this article
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 3

was addressed to the Christians of his Archdiocese.6 This letter, which

only lately became known and studied in some depth,7 is of great
interest to Byzantinists, historians of the Osmanli Turks and historians
of Muslim-Christian relations.
Of equal interest is Palamas' debate, or Dialexis, with the Chiones,
recorded by an eye and ear witness, Taronites, a Christian physician in
the service of Emir Orkhan. The letter "to his own Church"8 and
Taronites' script of the Dialexis9 are two significant documents which
describe in an eloquent way the Archbishop's own experience of, and
his dialogue with, the Muslim Turks.
While his views of and discussion with the Turks are the primary
concern of this article, the major events of Palamas' captivity will be
presented first, providing some idea of the context in which these
discussions took place.

The events of the captivity

The fall of Kallipolis10 marks the establishment of the sovereignty of
Ottoman Turks on European soil, which eventually led to the conquest

6
Two manuscripts indicate in their titles that Palamas "sent this letter to his Church
from Asia while captive." The Parisian one has it that Palamas ". . . wrote this letter
. . . ." The letter was, indeed written in Nicea and most likely sent to Thessalonica after
Palamas' release and his arrival in Constantinople. It is otherwise difficult to explain
how such a long letter, containing very negative and at times harsh derogatory
expressions against the Turks and their religion, would have been allowed to leave
Anatolia and how it could have reached Thessalonica safely.
7
The credit of drawing attention to the existence and to the historical significance of
this letter belongs to G. Georgiades Arnakis in his Hoi Pròtoi Othómanoi, No. 41 of the
Beihefte of the Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher (Athens, 1947) where he lists all
three documents related to Palamas' activity (p. 204); see also "Gregory Palamas among
the Turks and documents of his Captivity as Historical Sources," Speculum, XXVI
(1951), 104-18. The letter was unknown even to Papamichael, who, although he mentions
the Dialexis and a letter of Palamas about his captivity to David Disypatos, makes no
reference to the letter to the Thessalonians, cf. bibliography of sources in his St. Gregory
Palamas, ρρ.μ(^ΐί. and 142.
8
Or, according to the MS. of the National Library of Athens, "to his own Church, the
bishops and the presbyters and the people." Soter, XV (1892), 238.
9
Published by A. I. Sakkelion in Soter, XV (1892), 240-46, from MS. No. 1379 of the
National Library of Athens, f. 415b-418a.
10
Demetrios Cydones, the famous Byzantine scholar-theologian, wrote an "Advisory
speech on Kallipolis, demanded by Murat" (Migne, P.G., CLIV, cols. 1009-1036). In it
he defends the thesis that the Byzantines must resist the demands of Murat to deliver the
city, in spite of its weakness after the exodus of the population and the destruction of its
fortification because of the earthquake. "We always considered it [Kallipolis] to be the
most precious of all our possessions," he writes (col. 1012B), and he reminds the
Byzantines that although itself small, Kallipolis protected the greatest metropolis, that is
Constantinople (col. 1024D).
4 THE MUSLIM WORLD

of Constantinople itself one hundred years later. As stated above, the

fall of Kallipolis is often seen as related to a major earthquake,
reported by different sources. The most explicit account is given in a
chronicle written by an anonymous writer in 1391:

On March 2, 6862 (1354), the seventh indiction, the night of the

feast of Orthodoxy, during the reign of John Cantacuzenos, a
violent earthquake took place. The walls of Kallipolis and the
surrounding towns collapsed, and for sins that God knows, were
surrendered to the Turks. 11

This date has been challenged by Arnakis, who, reversing his earlier
position, 12 suggested 1355 as the year of the earthquake, the fall of
Kallipolis and, in the same year and month, the beginning of Palamas'
captivity, basing this on the assumption that only a fortnight—rather
than a whole winter—lapsed between Palamas' appearance at Orkhan's
summer resort and his disputation with the Chiones. Since P. Charanis
has convincingly shown the erroneousness of this assumption, 13 we
hold to the March 2, 1354 date for the earthquake, the fall of Kallipolis
immediately after, and Palamas' arrest at this city's nearby shore "a
few days after," following the storm from Tenedos "during night and
winter time." 1 4
Palamas defines the general territory of his captivity as the
Anatolian provinces of Bithynia and Mesothenia, and refers to cities
across the coastal area of Propontis on the Asiatic side of the straits,
most of which had recently fallen into the hands of the Osmanli Turks,
whom he calls Achaemenidae. 15 It does not seem that he travelled in

11
Ρ Charanis, "An Important Short Chronicle of the Fourteenth Century,"
Byzantion, XIII (1938), 347 The chronicle has been published by Joseph Muller,
"Byzantinische Analekten," Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wis­
senschaften, Philologisch - Historische Klasse, IX (1852), 336-419
12
Hoi Pro toi Othömanoi, ρ 201 For his later view see his article m Speculum, XXVI
(1951), 111-12, and his "Gregory Palamas, the Chiones and the fall of Gallipoli,"
Byzantion, XXII (1952), 310ff
13
"On the date of the Occupation of Gallipoli by the Turks," Byzantinoslavica, XVI
(1955), 113-17 Cf also below, note 24
14
Letter, ρ 9
15
Letter, ρ 9 " since that earthquake had placed that city [Kallipolis], too, under
the Achaemenidae, whom we now call Turks " "Achaemenidae" is a term by which the
Persians were known It is the name of an ancient dynasty of Persian kings that came to
an end with Alexander the Great's victory over their last ruler in 330 Β C In A D 226
Artaxerxes, claiming to be a descendant of those kings, assumed the title, revitalized the
ancient religion of Zoroaster and began claiming the territories which were part of the
kingdom of Darius, seven centuries earlier Artaxerxes' claim posed a serious threat for
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 5

the inland of Anatolia, whose Christian and Muslim communities were

therefore not known to him.16
The captives were taken to Lampsakos, across from Kallipolis on the
Asiatic side of the straits, where they were initially subjected to harsh
physical and mental treatment. Palamas appears most indignant of the
manners of the Turks who were interested only in raising the ransom
price for their Christian captives. It is at this juncture that he gives his
first and very uncomplimentary "impression of their ways"; in general,
Palamas' view on Islam must be understood in the light of these early
and extremely unhappy experiences of his captivity. His stay in
Lampsakos lasted for seven days after which a most painful three-day
journey followed to Pegae, a coastal city east of Lampsakos, near
Parium. The city, which had been pillaged and desolated by the
Turks,17 had become a refuge for uprooted Christian populations.
Palamas refers to "monks and lay people living about the church—
pleasant harbors on the opposite side for those who were ending up
there from captivity—from whom we, too, received no less comfort."18
The captives were allowed to settle among their co-religionists in the
Christian quarter of the city. This, however, must not be seen as a
measure of freedom but as a policy of expediency on the part of the

the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire in the third century A.D.: the Persians were
the old time adversaries of the Greeks and later of the Byzantines. The ferocity of the
Turks as well as the general geographical area of their advances made the equation
Achaemenidae-Turks plausible for the Byzantines. The struggle between the Byzantines
and the Persians was viewed by many as a struggle between faith in God and unbelief.
(Consider the struggles of Heraclius with the Persians and the events related to the
conquest of Jerusalem by the Persians, and the subsequent capture and recovering of the
cross.) Ironically enough, the Qur'än itself portrays this struggle as one between faith
and unbelief, and it predicts that the Byzantines, as the force of faith, will ultimately be
victorious; Súrat al-Rum (30): 1-5.
16
Of particular interest regarding the history of Anatolia during the period under
study is the work of Speros Vryonis, Jr., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia
Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971).
17
a . Vryonis, Decline pp. 242, 254 n. 687.
18
Letter, p. 11. In the early fourteenth century Parium was given to the Bishop of
Pegae because of the poverty of the latter. In the same year that Palamas arrived at
Pegae (1354), its bishop, by a decision of the council of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, received the metropolitanate of Sozopolis as an epidosis, i.e., for
support. The statement dealing with that grant gives a grim picture of a city "that has
been reduced into nothing and it is unrecognizable even by its remnants," and where "its
most pious bishop is in need of even the bare necessities of livelihood." Fr. Miklosich
and Jos. Müller, Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, I (Vindobonae: Carolus
Gerold, 1860), 330.
6 THE MUSLIM WORLD

Turks: the impoverished Christian community was made responsible

for the support of the Christian captives. Palamas writes:

I . . . and all the others who were with me were offered

hospitality by Mavrozoumis, who was different from all the rest
in kindness. He was an hetenarch. He gave us shelter; when we
were naked he clothed us, when we were hungry he gave us food
and when we were thirsty he gave us drink. He actually nourished
19
us for almost three months.

From there, presumably by the end of June, the captives were taken
to Prusa (Bursa), 20 in a journey that lasted for four days. 21 They stayed
in Prusa for only two days, and, in another two-day journey, were led
to the summer resort of the Great Emir, where they must have arrived
in the first part of July. It is not clear from the letter where this resort
is located. From its description as a hilly place with cool weather "even
during the summer," 22 one can gather that it was in the nearby Mount
Olympus area. After an initial dialogue between Palamas and Ishmael,
the emir's grandson, Palamas and the captives were brought "before
the presence of the ruler" on that same evening. Palamas does not tell
us how long he and his company remained at the summer resort, but
one must assume that this was only a short and somewhat formal visit
between the supporter of the troubled Byzantine Emperor and his

19
Letter, ρ 11 The "Great Hetenarch" in the imperial court was the officer
responsible for receiving guests and those who were fleeing to the imperial court,
especially the foreigners and friends among them Cf D Du Cange, Glossarium ad
scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis (Vratislaviae, 1891), I, col 439 It seems that
Mavrozoumis was given a similar responsibility with regard to the Greek captives or
refugees who arrived at Pegae Such an hetenarch m Anatolia had, perhaps, additional
duties, such as being the spokesman of the local Greek population to the Osmanli
authorities Arnakis characterizes Mazvrozoumis as "a collaborationist Byzantine
general, [whose] name should be added to those of Kose-Mikhal, Evrenos, and
Markos—prominent Greeks who threw in their lot with the rising star of the Osmanhs",
Speculum, XXVI (1951), 115
20
The city had capitulated to Orkhan on April 6, 1326 Cf H Inalcik, "The
Emergence of the Ottomans" in the Cambridge History of Islam (Cambridge Cambridge
University Press, 1970), I, 268-74
21
One may note here that the journey from Lampsakos to Pegae lasted for three days,
while the one from Pegae to Prusa—at least three times the distance—lasted for four
days That particular journey from Lampsakos to Pegae Palamas characterized as a most
painful one "Even if I wanted to tell you in detail the sufferings of this journey, neither
the ink nor the paper that I have now available would suffice [On arrival at Pegae]
we were utterly exhausted from the walk and from what they did to us during the
journey " Letter, ρ 11
22
Letter ρ 12
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 7

Muslim son-in-law (Orkhan was married to Theodora, the daughter of

Cantacuzenos).
By the middle of July and at the command of Orkhan—obviously as
a friendly gesture—Palamas was led from the emir's summer resort to
still another unidentified place. This is how Palamas describes his
residence in this place:
At his [Orkhan's] command we were led to the neighboring town
which had been inhabited by Roman Christians for a long time
and in which there was also a residence for the royal
ambassadors. We were meeting with them [the Roman
Christians] . . . day after day receiving from them provisions and
some consolation. The roughness and the severe cold weather of
the place, as well as the needs of the necessary goods for those in
my company who were sick, did not succeed in destroying the
good will of those men.23

On reading this passage closely and its reference to the "roughness

and severe cold weather of the place" one gains the impression that
Palamas spent most (if not all) of the winter of that year (1354-55) in
the "place of the ambassadors."24 There are some indications that this
place was also the winter residence of Orkhan. Palamas narrates that
when Orkhan fell sick from a liver ailment, the Christian physician,
Taronites, mentioned above, was called upon to treat him. The story
seems to imply that Taronites was summoned to that "place of the
ambassadors." It was on this occasion that Taronites spoke to Orkhan
about the reputation of Palamas and his competence in theological

23
Letter, p. 13. One might suggest that this place was either Nicomedeia, or Pythia, or
possibly Pylae. It was in Nicomedeia that Cantacuzenos proposed to meet with Orkhan
to settle their difference regarding Kallipolis, a meeting which Orkhan failed to attend
alleging illness (something which Palamas' letter seems to support when it refers to the ill
health of Orkhan). Cf. Arnakis in Speculum, XXVI (1951), 112. In the late Byzantine
period, at least before 1300, the areas along the coast between Chalcedon and
Nicomedeia as well as the coast southwest of Nicomedeia, in what is known as Pythion,
included imperial residences. I owe this information to Prof. G. Walker of the
Department of Geography, York University.
24
Arnakis seems to have underestimated this passage when he insists that between
Palamas' appearance before Orkhan and the discussion with the Chiones "there was at
least a fortnight's interval"; in Speculum, XXVI (1951), 111, and in Byzantion, XXII
(1952), 310. Arnakis' calculation makes Palamas' captivity a short one (from the spring
of 1355 to July of the same year), something that contradicts not only the internal
evidence of the letter, but also the explicit statement of Philotheos that Palamas and his
fellow-captives spent "a full year . . . in captivity." Migne, P. G., CLI, col. 627A. Cf. also
above, note 13.
8 THE MUSLIM WORLD

debates, and that he requested his transfer to Nicea. As Palamas

writes:
The latter [the emir] asked him about me saying, "who and what
kind of man is this monk?" And when he answered whatever he
answered, the emir said, "I too, have wise and reputable men who
would engage in a dialogue with him."25

The exchange or Dialexis of Palamas with Orkhan's own "wise and

reputable men," known as "Chiones," is a subject of its own, with
which we will deal shortly. But as this point we must be reminded of
Arnakis' informative suggestion that:
it is probable that the Christian town was deliberately chosen as
the scene of the disputation in order to impress the Byzantine
ambassadors who resided there by demonstrating the inferiority
of the Christian religion, represented, as it was, by the leading
Greek theologian, who was then at the mercy of the Turks.26

Who are, then, these Chiones! The question has been debated
primarily between Arnakis and P. Wittek. Arnakis maintains that
Chiones—the name being a distortion and hellenization of al·
akhiyän—were none other than the Akhis: a militant religious group
"contemporary with the growth of the Ottoman state and undoubtedly
one of the main factors that brought it about."27 P. Wittek, objecting
to Arnakis' thesis, suggests that the word could more successfully be
linked to âkhônd which means "teacher" or "theologian." The Chiones,
therefore, are "Muslim theologians."28 Furthermore P. Wittek suggests
that there is an inherent evolution from Monas (sing, of chiones) or
chionades to choggias—one of the various forms which the Middle
Greek evolved from Pers. Turk khoja, 'master', 'teacher', 'clergyman'."29

25
Letter, p. 14.
26
In Byzantion, XXII (1952), 309.
27
In Speculum, XXVI (1951), 114. For a more extensive discussion and bibliography
on the subject see his Prötoi Othômanoi, pp. 110-24.
28
"Chiones," Byzantion, XXI (1951), 122. Interestingly enough, Arnakis himself
describes in his Prôtoi Othômanoi, p. 18, the Chiones as "Ottoman theologians."
29
In Byzantion, XXI (1951), 123. Du Cange {Glossarium, II, col. 1752) gives as the
meaning of the word Chionades: Legis doctor, apud Persas, seu Turkos but he did not
know the Akhis, and simply attributed to the Chiones "a meaning that was more or less
apparent from the context." It must be noted that Du Cange's sources for the word are
Palamas' Letter and his contemporary, George Chrysophocas. The common—not
necessarily most learned—opinion is that the Chiones were Turcarum doctores, as
Combefisius notes in Migne, P.G., CLI, col. 722, n. 3.
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 9

Arnakis has rebuffed Wittek's arguments and has reaffirmed his belief
that Chiones is a corrupted derivative of the plural akhiyän, usually
denoting the Akhi community, or a group of representative individuals
belonging to the Brotherhood.30 What both Arnakis and Wittek seem
not to have taken into account are two matters. First, that the Chiones
were Muslim converts of Jewish origin. They themselves make this
disclosure, and Palamas had the same information from other
sources.31 Second (and this is implied rather than explicitly stated), that
these Chiones appear to be Greek-speaking. There is no indication that
Palamas used a translator in conversing with them, as was the case
later with the tasimanes in Nicea. The Chiones were not only eager, but
insisted not to converse with Palamas in the presence of Orkhan. When
at the end of the disputation they apparently had been defeated, one of
them insulted and even assaulted the Archbishop physically. It is
obvious that their reputation and their alliance with Orkhan were
secure as long as their competence in matters of faith was not
challenged and the question of their loyality to the Ottomans was not
raised—both of which their dialogue with Palamas did. The Dialexis
seems to give the impression that the religious differences between the
Chiones and the Ottoman Muslims were sharper and more decisive
than the Chiones had claimed or had Orkhan believe. Palamas seems
to treat the Chiones with some contempt, possibly because he had no
sympathy for people who became converts to any religion for reasons
of personal convenience and expediency. For Palamas the Chiones
were:
men who had studied and had been taught by Satan nothing else
but blasphemies and shameful things about our Lord Jesus the
Christ, the Son of God.32

As it becomes evident in these documents, Arnakis writes,

religion was one of the main concerns of the Osmanlis. From
Gregory's epistle we gather that, from Orhan's grandson down to
the last hangers-on at the Eastern gate of Nicea, they were keenly

30
In Byzantion, XXII (1952), esp. 306ff.
31
"We were taught ten commandments which Moses brought down, written on slates
of stone. We also know that the Turks maintain the same. We left, therefore, the faith
which we were holding before, came to them and we became Turks, too." Cf. also
Palamas' reaction: "I will not be responding to the Chiones. For they, from what I heard
about them before and from what they are now saying, seem to be Jews, . . . not
Muslims; and my talk now is not to the Jews." Soter, XV (1892), 241.
32
Letter, p. 14.
10 THE MUSLIM WORLD

aware of the significance of the struggle going on between

Christianity and Islam. It was a struggle of succession to the
Byzantine Empire.33

The disputation34 of Palamas with the Chiones took place in front of

"a number of [Turkish] officials and someone called Palapanes."35 As
Taronites himself states, "this exchange took place in the month of
July, on the eighth indiction of the year 6863 [1355]." There is no
compelling reason to doubt the reliability of this date unless one
doubts the historicity of the entire encounter.36 It confirms that
Palamas lived in the "place of the ambassadors" at least until July
1355, and that he wrote the letter to the Thessalonians some time after
this date, since he mentions his dialogue with the Chiones and refers to
Taronites for its details. Furthermore we gather from this chronology
that Palamas was not transferred to Nicea before July 1355.37
As referred to earlier, it was upon the initiative of Taronites the
physician, who saw that it would be beneficial for the Archbishop to be
moved from the place with, it seems, its constant psychological
pressures and its cold climate, that Palamas was transferred to Nicea,
Taronites' hometown. There he settled in the Monastery of Saint
Hyacinth, and was received warmly by the Christians "who were
eagerly expecting us and wishing this [the transfer] to happen." A letter

33
Speculum, XXVI (1951), 114 In the search for the identity of the Chiones one may
wonder whether they are at all related to those whom Vryonis (Decline, ρ 176) describes
as mixobarbaroi hellênizontes, people of mixed marriages, Turks and Christians, who
spoke Greek although they were Muslims One could also raise the question whether the
term "Chiones" might be related to the name of the city of d u s (Chius7), a place near the
city of Pythia, possibly (see note 23 above), "the place of the ambassadors "
34
See note 9 above
35
Arnakis identifies him with Balaban, "one of the most prominent of Osman's
associates, usually mentioned as Balabangik, who is connected with the blockade of
Brusa" Speculum, XXVI (1951), 112-13
36
Sakkehon informs us that at the end of the MS edition of the Dialexis there is a
note that on the date given for the Dialexis Patriarch Arsenios (9) was ordained deacon,
and that the Patriarch of Bulgaria, Leo, ordained that day John as presbyter and, a week
later, as Bishop of the diocese of Urbens Cf Soter, XV (1892), 238
37
Wittek's suggestion in Byzantion, XXI (1951), 122, η 2, that the "Epistle and the
Dialexis belong strictly together" and that "the date which figures at the end of the
Dialexis seems therefore to be that of the epistle" is, indeed, unfounded Cf
Charanis is Bvzantinoslavica, XVI (1955), 116 Sakkehon also was wrong in stating that
the Dialexis was given in Nicea, in 1355 Soter, XV (1892), 239 Meyendorffs calculation
that Palamas spent a short time at the place of the ambassadors in June 1354 and was
transferred during the next month to Nicea—where he remained for almost a year—
seems also questionable in the context of the Epistle and of the Dialexis Cf A Stud\ of
Palamas, ρ 107
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 11

of Palamas to David Disypatos,38 adds at this point the information

that Taronites,"a reservoir of God's love, hurried to us ahead of the
others, self-invited and self-called; for he was as desirous to see us as
we were to see him."39 It seems that by the time Palamas reached
Nicea, proceedings for paying the ransom and securing the release of
the captives had begun. Two priest-monks from Palamas' company,
Joseph and Gerasimos, had already reached Constantinople.40 How
long Palamas stayed in Nicea is not clear from the letter. The main
event he narrates is his attendance of a Muslim funeral and a
subsequent dialogue he had with one of the officiating Muslim
tasimanes.41 After reporting on this dialogue Palamas writes that:
As to what went on the next days, the spirit is willing to write
about, but the hand is not strong enough. I wrote that much for
those who have a desire [to know].42

The letter ends with a rather long statement of admonition to the

Thessalonians to accompany their faith with appropriate works of
virtue. The main point of the letter is that although the Muslims
confess Jesus as Christ and as Word and Spirit of God, they do not
accept him as the Son of God and Savior, and thus their works are
works of damnation.43
When exactly and under what circumstances Palamas was set free is
not entirely clear. Philotheos attributes the liberation of Palamas to
three factors: to the change in the affairs of the Church and of the
State;44 to the fact that those in the administration who were interested

38
Published by M. Treu in Deltion of the Historical and Ethnological Society of
Greece, III (1889), 229-34, from a Greek Codex in Upsala. Treu maintains that the
Letter was originally written to this monk and then expanded by the author into an
encyclical to the Thessalonians; ibid., 229. The similarity of the two letters is indeed
striking, and there are several passages that are identical.
39
Ibid., 230.
40
Letter, p. 14. We also know two other persons in Palamas* company by name,
namely his own chartophylax (archivist and secretary) and a certain Constans Kalamaris,
whom Palamas had freed in Prusa by paying the balance of his ranson. He had him now
brought to Nicea to be at his own service.
41
According to Wittek, Byzantion, XXI (1951), 423, n. 3, derived from danishmand, a
word used for an imam or religious leader. Cf. also Du Cange, Glossarium, II, col. 1535.
42
Letter, p. 19. The expression "what went on the next days" indicates a rather short
stay of Palamas in Nicea.
43
Letter, pp. 8, 10, 18, 19.
44
John V. Palaeologos was about to replace John Cantacuzenos. He succeeded in
entering Constantinople in November 1354; Cantacuzenos had withdrawn to Mt. Athos
and became a monk under the name Joasaph.
12 THE MUSLIM WORLD

in his liberation were now closer to power; and to the payment of

ransom money by Serbian Christians who did so because they were
"good and virtuous men, but also for the good of their own nation."45

The point and counterpoint

Many historians have been intrigued by one of the greatest
upheavals of all times: the conquest of Anatolia, the process of
Islamization and the eventual fall of the Byzantine Empire. Palamas'
letter to the Thessalonians, complementing contemporary Byzantine
(Nicephorus Gregoras and John Cantacuzenos) and Muslim sources
(Ibn Batuta and Ibn Khaldùn), is a significant document in the study
of this period. As Arnakis concludes, "The archbishop of Thessalonica
was the first prominent Byzantine to witness the Turkish control of the
straits almost a hundred years before the fall of Constantinople."46
While Palamas' epistle has been used as a historical source, relatively
little attention has been paid to it as a document of Muslim-Christian
dialogue in the fourteenth century. As stated earlier, it contains a
rather detailed account of three of Palamas' exchanges with Muslims:
his dialogue with Ishmael at an early stage of his captivity, his debate
with the "Chiones," and his conversation with the Muslim imam in
Nicea.
Three principles seem to permeate Palamas' treatment of Islam and
of the Muslims. First, the conviction that the Turkish conquest of
Anatolia, as well as his own personal affliction, are part of God's
redemptive providential act. Second, that the encounter between
Christianity and Islam represents a conflict and antagonism between
two religious cultures and ways of life, mutually exclusive of each
other. And, third, the belief that Islam, as everything else, must be
viewed in the light of the event of Christ, God's God-man Word.
The first one of these, the question of divine providence, is very
prominent in Palamas' letter to the Thessalonians. Various positions
on this matter are referred to: the view expressed by the Christian
populace, attributing the conquests to God's abandonment and to His

45
Cf. Migne, P.G, CLI, col. 627AB. According to Gregoras, contemporary and
opponent of Palamas, it was Cantacuzenos who, although dethroned, paid the ransom
for Palamas to his son-in-law Orkhan. Roman History, XXIX, 42 (Bonn ed., Ill, 252).
But Gregoras* account regarding the hesychastic controversy and the principal
theologian of the hesychasts, "does . . . lose all objectivity and degenerate into a diffused
and disquietingly tendentious account"; Ostrogorsky, History, p. 415.
46
Byzantion, XXII (1952), 312.
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 13

wrath for their iniquities;47 the Muslim position that the conquest and
the defeat for the "unbelievers" represents a proof that God rewards
the Muslims for their authentic faith;48 and, finally Palamas' own
conviction that political upheavals which result from the use of human
force are manifestations of the world living in evil. On the personal
level, Palamas perceives his misfortune as an opportunity to expiate his
own sins, and to bring the message about Christ to the Turks:
For it seems to me that it is through this dispensation that the
truth about our Lord Jesus Christ, the God over all, becomes
manifest even to those most barbaric among the barbarians, so
that they may be without excuse in front of His most fearful
tribunal, in the age to come, which is already at hand.49

During his captivity Palamas experiences and becomes part of the

antagonism between two rival theocratic states and two religious
cultures, the Muslim and the Byzantine. He employs harsh adjectives
when he refers to the Muslim Turks as adversaries of the Byzantine
nation and particularly of the Byzantine religious tradition, calling
them "this impious and God-hated and all-abominable race"—one of
the strongest expressions found in the letter.50
Palamas' knowledge of Islam is limited to a few basics which he
seems to derive from popular Christian sources. In describing Islam
and the religious behavior of the Turks he begins from the Christian
assertion that Christ is the God-man Word, as well as from the
presupposition that although the Muslims know him, they do not
honor and worship him as such. Here is a characteristic statement in
which Palamas introduces Islam to the Thessalonians:
They, too, although they knew Christ—for they confess that he is
word and spirit of God, and also that he was born from a virgin,
and that he did and taught like God, that he ascended into
heaven, that he remains immortal, and that he is going to come

47
Consider also the initial reaction of the Christians to the Arab conquests in the
seventh and eighth centuries. Cf. D.J. Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam, the "heresy of
the Ishmaelites" (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972), p. 23.
48
"Thus, this impious and god-hated and all-abominable race boast that they
dominate the Romans on account of their own love for God. . . . " Letter, p. 10.
49
Letter, p. 8. Philotheos echoes Palamas* words when he describes him as "an
evangelist and preacher, mediator and counciliator" for the Achaemenidae (the Turks),
"so that they may be led to the true freedom and kingdom." Cf. Migne, P.G., CLI, col.
626AB.
50
Letter, p. 10.
14 THE MUSLIM WORLD

to judge the entire world—although, therefore, they knew Christ

this way, they did not honor him as Christ, that is as God-man
Word. Instead, they exchanged the truth for falsehood and they
believed, honored and followed a mere man, mortal and buried,
namely Muhammad, rather than the God-man, the ever-living
and eternal Word. Who, although he tasted death in flesh, did so
in order to abolish death and to become ruler of the eternal and
inviolate life, a life which the passion, death and resurrection of a
mere man could never provide. Thus all those who rose from the
dead lived the mortal and our kind of life, and died again.
"Death," however, once Christ rose from the dead, "no longer
has dominion over him"; on the contrary, the future and
everlasting life is made known beforehand [through him]. Since
they, therefore, although they knew who Christ was, did not
glorify nor worship him as Christ, "God gave them up to a base
mind," to passions and dishonorable deeds. As a result they live a
reproachful inhuman life hated by God, like that of the son Esau,
hated by God and cast out of his father's blessing, to live a
prodigal life in swords and knives, indulging in slavery, murder,
plundering, rape, licentiousness, adultery, and homosexuality.
And not only are they doing such things, but—what a
madness!—they even believe that God gives His consent to these.
This is my impression of them, now that I know their ways
better.51

The earliest dialogue of Palamas, namely that with Ishmael, the

grandson of Emir Orkhan, is carried on at the most general level and
reveals a lack of knowledge of each other's religion. Through it,
Ishmael discovered that Christians practice fasting while Palamas
learned about the Muslim prescription of almsgiving which led the
latter to remark that in Christianity
true charity is the product of one's authentic love for God, and
that the more one loves God, the more, and truly, charitable he
is. 52

With this remark Palamas seems, in a way, to criticize Islam for

legislating zakät, and Orkhan for enforcing it as a rule every Friday.
The key point in this discussion—as it is, in a sense, in Muslim-

51
Letter, pp. 10-11.
52
Ibid., p. 12.
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 15

Christian dialogue in general—is the prophethood of Muhammad and

the divinity of Jesus. Palamas denied the prophethood of Muhammad
on the basis that Christians do not accept his word and teaching, while
Ishmael denied the divinity of Jesus because he finds it irreconcilable
with the Christian belief in the crucifixion and rejects the notion of
Mary as mother of the "son of God." Palamas responded that the
crucifixion does not contradict the divinity of Jesus, as the passion that
occurred in his human nature does not affect the impassible divine
nature. As to the second dilemma, Palamas denies that the veneration
of Mary as Theotokos implies that God has a wife:
The Turks say that Christ is the word of God, and that he was
born from a virgin, [named] Mary, whom we glorify as
Theotokos. Therefore, if Mary, who gave birth to Christ insofar
as the flesh is concerned, did not have a husband and did not
need one—since he to whom she gave birth, physically, was the
Word of God—much more is this so with God, Who, in giving
birth to His own word, incorporeally [being Himself incorporeal]
and in a God-like manner, has no wife, and does not need any, as
you wrongly presume.53

Palamas reports on the outcome of this dialogue that Ishmael, in

spite of his previous violent disposition towards the Christians, was not
angry towards him and not disturbed by his uncompromising answers.
IshmaeFs sarcasm at one point of the conversation indicates that he
had already formed some definite opinions about Christianity.
The next and most important debate of Palamas was with the
Chiones. This is actually a Jewish-Christian-Muslim trialogue. Ad-
dressing himself to the Muslim representatives of Orkhan, Palamas
suggested that it would profit the emir if he were to be present in these
discussions as he would become more knowledgeable about the
religion of his subjects. Palamas was interested in defending Christianity
to Jews and Muslims at the same time, with a view toward winning the
sympathies of the latter. Consistent with this goal, he made a rather
elaborate exposition of the Christian doctrine of God and defended the
Trinitarian doctrine using Old Testament quotations. To Taronites'
surprise, who was recording the debate, the Muslim officials and the
Chiones conceded to Palamas. What they were actually agreeing to
was Palamas' assertion that "God has both, Word and Spirit, which
are with Him and in Him, without beginning and without separa-

53
Ibid., p. 13.
16 THE MUSLIM WORLD

tion. . . . Therefore all three are one and the one is three"54; not that
Christ is this Word of God. "God only spoke, and Christ, too, was
made," they maintained, in an obvious paraphrase of the Qur'àn.55
Palamas then talks about the righteousness of God, the creation of
man and his dignity, the failure of man, and God's initiative in taking
the fallen nature upon Himself by the incarnation of His word:
Since man obeyed and submitted himself to the devil willingly
and sinned by transgressing the divine will and was, justly,
sentenced to death, it was not appropriate for God to redeem
man from the devil by force; that way He would have been unjust
to the devil, having pulled out from his hands by force man
whom he [the devil] did not get by force. Also man's own free
will would have been destroyed by the force and the power of
God as He would be freeing man; and it is not like God to
destroy His own work. . . . For this reason the only sinless word
of God becomes a son of man . . . [and] he takes upon himself
the passions of us who were responsible. . . ,56

As to the creation of Christ, Palamas gives the following answer:

How is it, then, that the Word is made again by another word? In
such a case it will mean that the word of God is not co-eternal
with God Himself. But I showed you this at the beginning and
you, too, confessed that God has a Word and a Spirit co-eternal
with Him. . . .If Christ is the Word and Spirit of God because he
was made by the Word of God, then the stone, the herb and
every one of the reptiles is also word and spirit of God because
in their case also He spoke and they were made.57

The conversation then turns to the issue of Muhammad as prophet,

and moves to circumcision and veneration of icons. The Chiones
questioned Palamas as to why the Christians do not practice
circumcision. Palamas answered with a pointed reversal of the question
to the effect that they do so for the same reason that the Chiones and
the Muslims have abolished a number of religious practices which go
back to the early times, even to the time of Moses. Taronites remarks

54
Soter, XV (1892), 241-42
55
Cf S 3 59 "Lo' The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam He
created him of dust, then He said unto him Be' and he is "
56
Soter, XV (1892), 243-44
57
Ibid , 244
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 17

that neither the Chiones nor the Turks had any response to this.58
The opponents then raise the question how Christians can justify
their practice of making and worshipping representations and icons
since this is clearly prohibited by the Mosaic law. Palamas responds in
the classical fashion by making a distinction between "worship"
(latreia) and "veneration" (proskynèsis), stressing that worship indeed
belongs to God alone. In reversing the argument he reminds his
opponents that Moses "left almost nothing of which he did not make a
representation"—referring to the tabernacle and the Cherubim.
Taronites writes: "Then the Turks said again: 'Did, indeed, Moses
make these things thenT Answered many of them, 'Yes, he did all these
things'."59 With this unanimous response the meeting was called to an
end, as Taronites reports:

At this point the officials of the Turks stood up, greeted with
respect the bishop of Thessalonica and they started leaving. One
of the Chiones, however, stayed behind, insulted the great bishop
of God, attacked him and beat him in the eye. The rest of the
Turks who saw him, got hold of him, rebuked him severely and
brought him in front of the emir to whom they said whatever
they said. What the Turks said to the emir we did not hear
exactly. As to what we have written down we have been ear-
witnesses. We wrote down what we saw and heard as if God
Himself was seeing.60

The third dialogue took place in Nicea between Palamas and a

Muslim imam. By that time Palamas' fame and his self-confidence in
dealing with Muslims had increased considerably.61 The central theme
of this debate is a comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. For
Palamas, Jesus is the Christ, indivisible from the Father, who will
return to judge all men. For the imam, Christ is only a "servant of
God"62 and a prophet whom the Muslims accept as one of the prophets
of written revelation contained in the Gospel, one of the "four
books."63 Why then is it that the Christians do not accept Muhammad

s« Ibid., 245.
59
Ibid., 246.
60
Ibid.
61
". . . it would have been something very pleasant, indeed, to the ears of Christians, if
one had the time to record . . . simply all the conversations we had. . . . " Letter, p. 14.
62
Cf. S. 4:172; 19:30, (93); 43:59.
63
Obviously the Tawrat of Moses, the Zabür of David, the Injil of Jesus, and the
Qur'än.
18 THE MUSLIM WORLD

or "the Book that came down from heaven?" For Palamas the
reliability of Jesus, attested to by previous witnesses and the
64
extraordinary deeds and signs he performed, is also confirmed by the
fact that he is

the only one ever born of a virgin, and the only one who ever
ascended into heaven and remains there immortal, and the only
one who is ever hoped to come back thence to judge the living
and the dead who will be raised. I say about him only what you,
65
the Turks, also confess.

For the imam the reliability of Muhammad is attested to by the

testimony of Jesus himself, recorded in the Gospel 6 6 and later deleted
by the Christians. The Muslim teaching of the tahrlf, or "corruption"
of the Scriptures by the Christians in order to conceal the prophesies
foretelling the advent of Muhammad, is raised. Palamas, apparently
unprepared for this argument which he had not encountered earlier,
makes the startling remark that "If there were anything good written in
the Gospel about Muhammad, this would have been also in the books
of the Prophets."67 Another tangible proof of this authenticity of
Muhammad according to the imam was his military success. Palamas
disassociates such success from claims of divine mission and cites the
case of Alexander the Great who, in spite of his military success, was
never proclaimed as prophet or savior of souls by his contemporaries.
The last statement of Palamas is a violent attack on Muhammad, "who
even though he resorted to violence and suggested licentious things, did
not take into his fold even one whole portion of the world."68 The
hostility this kind of remark aroused is understandable, and, noticing
it, Palamas quickly changed his tone. But it was especially due to an, in
this situation, conciliatory remark of a Muslim that the conversation

64
In my "The Formation of Later Islamic Doctrines as a Response to Byzantine
Polemics The Miracles of Muhammad," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review,
XXVII (1982), 307-24 I have indicated that there is ample evidence that the
embellishment of the life of Muhammad with miracles was the result of, among others, a
direct challenge of the Muslims by early Byzantine polemicists
65
Letter, ρ 17
66
The reference here is to S 7 157 and 61 6, as well as to the Gospel according to John
15 23-26 and 16 7-15, in regards to the Paraclete, Counsellor, or Comforter Ahmad of S
61 6 is equated with the Paraclete
67
Letter, ρ 18
68
Ibid , ρ 19
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 19

ended on a note of hope. Palamas reports on this last phase of the

dialogue:
At these [words] the Christians who happened to be there, seeing
that the Turks were already getting irritated, signalled to me to
finish my speech. Turning to a milder tone and smiling gently at
them, I said again, "Had we, after all, been in agreement in our
dialogue, we would be of one and the same faith, too.". . . . Then
one of them said, "There will come a time when we will agree
with each other." I consented and I wished even further that such
a time may come quicker.69

Palamas' Letter to the Thessalonians is primarily of a pastoral

nature, utilizing the experiences of his captivity to admonish his flock
about active faith. He makes a rather clear distinction between Islamic
faith and the actual life of the Turkish Muslims. At times he is
indignant with the latter and uses the Muslims as a negative illustration
of his admonition. As a spiritual leader of a major Christian
community and a hesychast theologian, Palamas is concerned with that
faith which manifests the redeeming, sanctifying grace. Thus he writes
to the Thessalonians:
Watch not to suffer anything like these ill-minded men; I do not
mean in regard to their reverence of God [i.e., their faith in God],
but rather in regard to their behavior. . . . Take heed, therefore,
not to be like them and find yourself on the one hand confessing
that the virtues and the Biblical injunctions are righteous, and on
the other hand with your deeds breaking away from them. . . . 70

In summary three concluding observations seem in order.

1. Gregory Palamas is rightly considered "the greatest Greek
theologian of the Middle Ages."71 His place in the Byzantine anti-
Islamic literature is important, mainly because of his encounter with
Muslims and the valuable historical and personal information he
provides. As a mystic Palamas was in a position to transcend the
temporal circumstances and to address himself to the human spiritual

69
Ibid.
70
Ibid., pp. 20-21.
71
Meyendorff, A Study of Palamas, p. 115.
20 THE MUSLIM WORLD

condition. While contemporary pro-Latin authors urged the Byzantines

to unite with the West in order to resist the onslaught of the Turks,
Palamas insisted on the purity of Orthodoxy, irrespective of the
unavoidable political consequences. In the words of Meyendorff,
"Palamas was much better prepared than many of his contemporaries
to accept the final ruin of the Empire at the hands of the Turks."72 He
had lived with them even in captivity for over one year and he had
entered into frequent, perhaps daily, dialogue with them, earning both
their anger and their respect.
2. The documents here surveyed are significant not because of the
information on Islam which they provide, but rather as sources for a
fuller understanding of Christian-Muslim exchange taking place in
Anatolia in the middle of the fourteenth century. Palamas himself
certainly did progress in his awareness and understanding of Muslims
and their faith. Circumstances led him into different types of
involvement. At first he is, as a teacher of Christianity, invited for a
dialogue with Ishmael. This is a formal and general discussion, aiming
at the articulation of a minimal common ground for coexistence. In the
second phase he is drawn into a debate with the Chiones and the
Turks. This is a theological scrutiny of certain issues dividing the two
parties and Palamas' role here is that of an apologist. In the third
phase Palamas takes the initiative and precipitates a debate which is
more of a direct confrontation, and in which he seems to be speaking
as an authority.
3. The topics discussed are the traditional ones found in Muslim-
Christian conversations since the time of John of Damascus. Obviously
the Christian uses the Christian scriptures as his point of departure,
and the Muslim the Qur'än, at times leading to an impasse. And there
is no real bridge-building even when either one of the parties is using
the Scripture of the other, for in those cases the other's Scripture is
interpreted from within the framework of one's own tradition and for
one's own apologetic purposes. So Palamas is using Qur'anic
affirmations about Jesus as Christ, Word and Spirit of God, born of a
virgin and ascended into heaven, while the Muslim refers to the
Christian Scripture as a source of foretelling the coming of
Muhammad as prophet. In short, Scriptural arguments derived from
each other's Scripture are no more convincing—in either case—to the
partner in this dialogue than those deduced from one's own Scripture.

72
Ibid., p. 91.
 GREGORY PALAMAS ON ISLAM 21

Rather than ending with a critical remark about this fourteenth-

century instance of an in many respects unimaginative use of
arguments and counter-arguments it seems appropriate to admit that
even in our time we have made in many circles little progress towards a
more open-ended and truly common search for the truth.

University of Waterloo DANIEL SAHAS

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.