Early Arab contact with Greek Philosophical Tradition

2. Early translations into Arabic

Already in Damascus, under the Umayyads, some philosophical writings had been translated into Arabic. Salim Abu l-‘Ala’, secretary to the caliph Hisham ibn ‘Abd al-Malik (r. 724–743), initiated the translation of the pseudo-Aristotelian letters on government to Alexander the Great.[12] This collection forms the nucleus of the most famous among the “mirrors for princes”, the Sirr al-asrar (Grignaschi 1967, 1976; Manzalaoui 1974), known in the Latin Middle Ages and early modern times as the Secretum secretorum.[13] One of the Arabic translations of the pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo also traces back to this period (Grignaschi 1965–66). However, it was under the ‘Abbasids (750–1258), and in particular in the first two centuries of their caliphate, that the translations blossomed.

Apparently, the first translations of the ‘Abbasid era were produced under the caliphate of al-Mansur (r. 754–775): his secretary Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (d. 756)[14] is credited with the translation (or production) of a compendium of Porphyry's Isagoge, plus the Categories, De Intepretatione and Prior Analytics.[15] It has been contended (Gabrieli 1932, Kraus 1934) that this authorship rests on a mistake and that this work should be attributed to his son, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdallah al-Muqaffa‘ (fl. under the reign of al-Ma’mun, see below); however, other scholars accept the father's authorship,[16] with the result that a companion of Aristotelian logic was already available in the first decades of the ‘Abbasid caliphate, under the ruler who founded Baghdad (762). His son and successor al-Mahdi (r. 775–785) had the Topics translated for him by the Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I (d. 823).[17] It has been advanced that the ancient Arabic translation of the Rhetoric, “edited” by Ibn al-Samh (d. 1027),[18] traces back to the 8th century (Aouad 1989c, 456–7). Under the reign of Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809) a translation of Aristotle's Physics was made by a certain Sallam al-Abrash.[19] Neither translation has come down to us.

Embedded References:
12. According to Gutas (2006), 97 “These letters (…) derive primarily from Byzantine manuals of administration and warfare (the Tactica) with accretions from Greek material from the classical and Hellenistic periods, and from so-called Hermetic material deriving from sundry sources”. The pseudo-Aristotelian letters have been edited by Maróth (2006), review by Gutas (2009).

13. Ryan and Schmitt (1982). For an up-to-date status quaestionis see Zonta (2003), 648–51.

14. According to the 12th century historian Sa‘id al-Andalusi, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ was the first to deal with logic: see Kraus (1934).

15. K. al-Fihrist, 248.27 Flügel = 309.9 Tajaddud and 249.4 Flügel = 309.14 Tajaddud. This work is extant and edited: Danish Pazuh (1978). The attribution either to Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ or to his son is categorically ruled out by Vallat (2011), 69. Be this as it may, Porphyry's Isagoge was known to some extent even before its translation from Syriac into Arabic by Abu ‘Uthman al-Dimashqi (see below, note 79), because it is echoed by the title of an Epistle by al-Kindi On the Five Predicables, now lost (256.16 Flügel = 313.22 Tajaddud).

16. Danish Pazuh (1978), cf. Elamrani Jamal (1989), 510.

17. Brock (1999); this translation might be hinted at in the K. al-Fihrist (249.18 Flügel = 309.28 Tajaddud); see Elamrani Jamal (1989), 525 and Gutas (1998), 61. Brock (1999) highlights the role of Aristotelian logic in the inter-faith controversy. The role of Greek philosophy and especially of Aristotelian logic in the formation of Muslim theology (Kalam) is matter of a prolonged debate in scholarship: see Wolfson (1976), van Ess (1976), Frank (1979) and (1992). On Kalam as such see the survey by Griffel (2011); the reference work on the formative period of Muslim theology is van Ess (1991–97). On the attitude of the Muslim theologians toward philosophy see the overview by Kukkonen (2011).

18. See below, note 63.

19. K. al-Fihrist, 244.5–6 Flügel = 304.27 Tajaddud (where however Sallam and al-Abrash appear as two people).

Philosophical Chapters (Kephálaia philosophiká) – commonly called 'Dialectic', it deals mostly with logic, its primary purpose being to prepare the reader for a better understanding of the rest of the book.
Concerning Heresy (Perì hairéseōn) – the last chapter of this part (Chapter 101) deals with the Heresy of the Ishmaelites.[33] Unlike earlier sections devoted to other heresies, which are disposed of succinctly in just a few lines, this chapter runs into several pages. It constitutes one of the first Christian refutations of Islam.
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Ékdosis akribès tēs Orthodóxou Písteōs) – a summary of the dogmatic writings of the Early Church Fathers. This writing was the first work of Scholasticism in Eastern Christianity and an important influence on later Scholastic works.[34]

John of Damascus was the last of the Greek Fathers. His genius was not for original theological development, but for compilation of an encyclopedic character. In fact, the state of full development to which theological thought had been brought by the great Greek writers and councils left him little else than the work of an encyclopedist; and this work he performed in such manner as to merit the gratitude of all succeeding ages. Some consider him the precursor of the Scholastics, whilst others regard him as the first Scholastic, and his "De fide orthodoxa" as the first work of Scholasticism. The Arabians too, owe not a little of the fame of their philosophy to his inspiration. The most important and best known of all his works is that to which the author himself gave the name of "Fountain of Wisdom" (pege gnoseos). This work has always been held in the highest esteem in both the Catholic and Greek Churches. Its merit is not that of originality, for the author asserts, at the end of the second chapter of the "Dialectic", that it is not his purpose to set forth his own views, but rather to collate and epitomize in a single work the opinions of the great ecclesiastical writers who have gone before him. A special interest attaches to it for the reason that it is the first attempt at a summa theologica that has come down to us.

The "Fountain of Wisdom" is divided into three parts, namely, "Philosophical Chapters" (Kephalaia philosophika), "Concerning Heresy" (peri aipeseon), and "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" (Ikdosis akribes tes orthodoxou pisteos). The title of the first book is somewhat too comprehensive for its contents and consequently is more commonly called "Dialectic". With the exception of the fifteen chapters that deal exclusively with logic, it has mostly to do with the ontology of Aristotle. It is largely a summary of the Categories of Aristotle with Porphyry's "Isagoge" (Eisagoge eis tas kategorias). It seems to have been John Damascene's purpose to give his readers only such philosophical knowledge as was necessary for understanding the subsequent parts of the "Fountain of Wisdom". For more than one reason the "Dialectic" is a work of unusual interest. In the first place, it is a record of the technical terminology used by the Greek Fathers, not only against the heretics, but also in the exposition of the Faith for the benefit of Christians. It is interesting, too, for the reason that it is a partial exposition of the "Organon", and the application of its methods to Catholic theology a century before the first Arabic translation of Aristotle made its appearance. The second part, "Concerning Heresy", is little more than a copy of a similar work by Epiphanius, brought up to date by John Damascene. The author indeed expressly disclaims originality except in the chapters devoted to Islamism, Iconoclasm, and Aposchitae. To the list of eighty heresies that constitute the "Panarion" of Epiphanius, he added twenty heresies that had sprung up since his time. In treating of Islamism he vigorously assails the immoral practices of Mohammed and the corrupt teachings inserted in the Koran to legalize the delinquencies of the prophet. Like Epiphanius, he brings the work to a close with a fervent profession of Faith. John's authorship of this book has been challenged, for the reason that the writer, in treating of Arianism, speaks of Arius, who died four centuries before the time of Damascene, as still living and working spiritual ruin among his people. The solution of the difficulty is to be found in the fact that John of Damascene did not epitomize the contents of the "Panarion", but copied it verbatim. Hence the passage referred to is in the exact words of Epiphanius himself, who was a contemporary of Arius.