Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 22 (2025): 105-124

Rami Wakim

Université Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology: ʿAbd Allāh

Zākhir’s

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ

on the Trinity and Christology



The theological legacy of the 18

-century Melkite Church in the age of print remains an

underexplored field. Positioned at the crossroads of Islamic intellectual dominance and the

increasing influence of Western Catholicism, Melkite thinkers such as ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir

(1684-1748) found themselves navigating a delicate theological and cultural balance. Their

efforts reflect a simultaneous commitment to Patristic teaching and an openness to the

intellectual and ecclesial currents of their time. Zākhir’s Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ (The Evident

Proof), a theological treatise composed in 1721 at the request of a Muslim jurist

(mutafaqqih) and published in Shuwayr in 1764, stands as a testament to this combination. It

offers a rare and valuable lens into how Arabic-speaking Christians of the period articulated

doctrinal coherence on the Trinity and the Incarnation, while subtly engaging Islamic

critiques and integrating elements of Roman Catholic Scholasticism.

At the heart of this study lies the paradox of Zākhir’s identity at the time he composed

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ: though still a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Church of Aleppo, he

was simultaneously a zealous proponent of Catholic theology. This dual affiliation raises

essential questions: how does Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ present Trinitarian and Christological

theology in conversation with Patristic sources and medieval Arabic Christian thought?

How does it appropriate Aristotelian logic and Thomistic structures to frame these

doctrines? And most notably, how does Zākhir’s bold emphasis on taʾalluh (deification), a

theme often downplayed in earlier Arabic Christian apologetics to avoid accusations of

shirk (associating partners with God), signal a theological shift? In recovering deification as

essential to salvation, Zākhir does not merely echo Patristic theology; he reasserts its

centrality and expands the intellectual and spiritual horizons of Arabic Christian discourse.

This paper argues that Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ represents a key development in the trajectory

of Melkite theology. It stands as a connection between the medieval Arab Christian

tradition and the new theological currents of the early modern era, anticipating the

emergence of a distinct Melkite Greek Catholic identity following the 1724 split in Antioch.

Through a close reading of Zākhir’s Trinitarian and Christological formulations, this study



This research is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research

Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation

programme (Grant Agreement No. 883219-AdG-2019 –Project TYPARABIC).

Rami Wakim

106

shows that the treatise serves a dual purpose. It is both apologetic, defending Christian

dogma against Islamic objections, and catechetical, aiming to educate the Christian faithful,

especially through its printed form. Special attention is given to Zākhir’s ability to

synthesize the Antiochian heritage with Latin theological influences: does he maintain a

balance, or does he ultimately lean more toward one tradition?

The study proceeds in three parts. It begins by outlining the historical context of 18

century Antioch, then examines the principal theological themes of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, and

finally assesses the significance of these findings for researchers of Christian Arabic

thought and theology. In conclusion, this article holds that Zākhir’s work invites

contemporary scholars to reconsider the richness and relevance of the broader Melkite

tradition, especially its capacity to shape Christian identity in the Middle East today.

Historical Context of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ

The Arabic Christian theological tradition under Islam was fundamentally shaped by

Aristotelianism in the form of ʿilm al-kalām (rational discourse), an interreligious intellectual

movement where Christian mutakallimūn (scholars of kalām) engaged Muslim and Jewish

scholars through court debates (mujādalāt), question-answer treatises (asʼilawa-ajwiba), and

doctrinal treatises (mayāmir).

This tradition prioritized reason (‘aql) to verify theological

claims,

employed proof-texting strategies blending Biblical and Qur’anic citations, and

focused intensely on defending the Trinity and Incarnation against Islamic critiques.

The 18

century presented unique challenges for Arabic Christian theology, particularly

within the Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch. Under Ottoman rule, Melkite theologians were

compelled to articulate core Christian doctrines, especially the Trinity and the Incarnation,

in ways that avoided accusations of shirk (polytheism) while remaining accessible both to

their own faithful and to Muslim interlocutors. This task was further complicated by the

split of 1724, which divided the Melkite community into two factions: the Greek Catholics,

who favored union with Rome, and the Greek Orthodox, who upheld the traditional

rejection of union as formulated at the Council of Florence.

For the Melkite Catholics,

particularly in the spirit of the Shuwayr Monastery, alignment with Rome required a

delicate balance: preserving their Byzantine liturgical and theological heritage while also

engaging with post-Reformation Catholic thought, including Scholastic theology newly

translated into Arabic.

Cf. Sidney Griffith, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam.

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), pp. 77-92.

Cf. Najib George Awad, “Creatio ex Philosophia: Kalām as Cultural Evolution and Identity-Formation

Means in the Early Abbasid Era”, The Muslim World Journal 4, no. 109, (2019), pp. 510-534.

Cf. Bernard Heyberger, “La division de l’Église d’Antioche dans son contexte local et global”, in Bernard

Heyberger, Ronney el Gemayel and Željko Paša (ed.), La division du patriarcat grec d’Antioche en 1724,

(Beyrouth/Rome : Université Saint-Joseph/Institut pontifical oriental, 2024), pp. 1-84, esp. 49-55.

Cf. Charbel Nassif, “La scission de 1724 et ses répressions jusqu’à 1729 racontées par les Annales

chouérites”, in Bernard Heyberger, La division du patriarcat grec d’Antioche en 1724, pp. 405-438,

esp. 427-431.

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology

107

The origins of the division were complex, rooted in competing ecclesiastical visions, but

its theological consequences were profound. The newly established Melkite Catholic

Church sought to assert its identity through education and print, a project dear to the

hearts of Antiochian Patriarchs since the 17

century.

The Shuwayr Press, founded in

1734, became a cornerstone of this effort, producing thirty-three Arabic-language books,

primarily liturgical, spiritual and catechetical, to strengthen Catholic identity among Arabic-

speaking Christians.

Among these, Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, authored by ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir,

stands out as an influential text. Born in Aleppo in 1684 to a family originally from Ḥamāh,

Zākhir became one of the leading Melkite figures inclined toward Catholicism in the

century. Educated in Arabic literature and Christian theology under prominent scholars,

he collaborated closely with Jesuit missionaries due to his exceptional command of Arabic.

He was likely drawn to Catholicism after reading the anti-Latin Kitāb Al-silāḥ al-qāṭiʿ wa-lsayf

al-murhaf al-lāmiʿ. Later, he played a vital role alongside Patriarch Athanasius III Dabbās

(1685‑1694, 1720‑1724) in the transcription and printing of Arabic Christian texts in

Aleppo.

ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir’s 18

-century Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ inherited this framework and,

perhaps unconsciously, anticipated his post-1724 split context. He retained kalām and

avoided direct polemics, combining Patristic theology with Latin Scholasticism to create a

catechetical defense of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Notably, his unapologetic emphasis on

deification, a doctrine earlier Christian mutakallimūn often muted to avoid shirk accusations,

marked a theological boldness rooted in Byzantine tradition. Zākhir’s work drew on a rich

legacy of Arabic Christian thought. Yet, it also reflected newer influences: Roman Catholic

Scholasticism, imported via missionaries and translations, infused his arguments with

Aristotelian logic and Thomistic precision. This hybrid approach is evident in Al-burhān al-

ṣarīḥ’s structure, unapologetic yet philosophically robust treatise that avoids direct polemics

against Islam while simplifying complex doctrines for pastoral use. By marrying

Chalcedonian Christology with Scholastic distinctions, Zākhir offered a template of what

For more information, see Ioana Feodorov, Arabic Printing for the Christians in Ottoman Lands. The East-

European Connection, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2023).

Cf. Būlus Nazhā, 250 ʿamanalāwafāt al-šammās al-ʿallāmah ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir 1848-1998 mu’assis al-maṭbaʿah

al-ʿarabiyyah al-ūlā, (Khenchara :Monastère Saint-Jean, 1998), p. 35.

For a detailed information on Zākhir’s life, see: MS Ḥarīṣā, Bibliothèque de S. Paul – 209, 3° (numbering

according to Joseph Nasrallah, Catalogue des manuscrits du Liban [s.l.], 1958, vol. 1, p. 173; edited in Al-

Masarra 4 (1913), pp. 201-209; 34 (1948), pp. 386-396; contains a short biography of Zākhir probably

written by his disciple Yuwākīm Muṭrān [1696-1766]; French trans. in Joseph Kahale, Abdallah Zākhir.

Philosophe, théologien et fondateur de l’imprimerie arabe en Orient. Son époque. Sa vie. Ses œuvres, (Paris: 2000), pp. 39-

54; Paul Bacel, “Abdallah Zākhir. Ses premiers travaux (1680-1722)”, Échos d’Orient 71 (1908), pp. 218-

226; Paul Bacel, “Abdallah Zākhir et son imprimerie arabe”, Échos d’Orient 72 (1908), pp. 281-287; Paul

Bacel, “Dernières années d’Abdallah Zākhir”, Échos d’Orient 73 (1908), pp. 363-372; Yūsuf Sāyiġ,

“Tarğamat ḥayāt al-faylasūf alšammās ʿAbd Allāh al-Zāḫir”, Al-Masarrah 34 (1948), pp. 385-396; Ronney

el Gemayel, “ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir”, en David Thomas, John Chesworth (ed.), Christian-Muslim Relations. A

Bibliographical History, vol. 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 101-107.

Rami Wakim

108

would become a Melkite Catholic theology: one seeking to preserve its roots while adapting

to its Roman Catholic intellectual context.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ stands as a landmark work of 18

-century Arabic Christian theology.

Composed in 1721 while working with Patriarch Athanasius III Dabbās in Aleppo, and

published, posthumously in 1764 by the Shuwayr Press, this work systematically defends

Christianity’s central mysteries, the Trinity and the Incarnation, while addressing the

intellectual and religious challenges of its Ottoman context. Unlike most works from the

Shuwayr Press, which focused on liturgical or spiritual material, Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ stands out

as a somewhat comprehensive theological treatise designed to present and defend Christian

doctrine in the Arabic-speaking world. Significantly, it is the only book, authored by

Zākhir, that was printed at the Shuwayr Press. An analysis of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ’s structure,

methodology, and rhetorical strategies reveals how Zākhir navigated the tensions between

Patristic tradition, Scholastic reasoning, and Islamic theological discourse.

Ronney el Gemayel provides a comprehensive overview of the book’s structure as it

appears in the Shuwayr edition:

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ comprises: the front page (p. 1); a warning (tanbīh) written by the editors

(pp. 2-6); the preface (fātiḥa, pp. 8-9); a table of contents (fiḥris, pp. 10-13); the introduction

(pp. 14-21); the first treatise (baḥth) on the Trinity (pp. 21-79); the second treatise on the

Incarnation (pp. 80-157); and finally, a conclusion (khātima, pp. 158-69).

The full title, as it appears on the front page, is: Kitāb al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ fī ḥaqīqat sirray dīn al-

Masīḥ, wa-humā sirr al-tathlīth wa-sirr al-tajassud al-ilāhī (The Book of Evident Proof of the

Truth of the Two Mysteries of Christ’s Religion: The Mystery of the Trinity and the

Mystery of the Divine Incarnation). On the same page, the publishers explicitly attribute

authorship to Zākhir, describing him as: “The working scholar, the consummate

philosopher, unique in his age, unmatched in his land, steadfast in the pure faith, the

deacon ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir, Aleppan by origin, Catholic in denomination (madhhab)”.

The

publishers also state that the book was written at the request of “one of the mutafaqqihs”,

who had asked for a theological explanation of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

The Tanbīh (warning), written by the publishers, explains further the reason behind

printing this treatise. Though brief, it is of great value, serving as a resume of what many

theologians have explained regarding the mystery of the three hypostases and the one

nature of God, as well as the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ. The book is presented

as dealing with a subject of superior importance, responding to a great need, and offering

countless benefits. A series of biblical citations is provided to expand each point: for the

superior subject, 1 Timothy 3:16 is cited: “The mystery from which true godliness springs

is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was

Cf. Bernard Heyberger, Les chrétiens du Proche-Orient au temps de la Réforme catholique (Syrie, Liban, Palestine,

XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles), Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 284, (Rome : École

française de Rome, 1994), pp. 433-453.

El Gemayel, “ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir”, p. 103

ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir, Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ fī ḥaqīqat sirray Dīn al-Masīḥ, wa-humā sirr al-tathlīth wa-sirr al-tajassud al-

ilāhī. (Shuwayr – Saint John Monastery, 1764), p. 1.

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology

109

preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory”; for the

great need, Hebrews 11:6 is referenced: “without faith it is impossible to please God”; and

for the countless benefits, John 17:3 is quoted: “And this is eternal life, that they may know

You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent”. All three quotes

emphasize that God’s mystery is ultimately beyond full human understanding, highlight the

essential role of faith in seeking true knowledge, and affirm that genuine knowledge

consists in knowing God personally. These three principles form the foundation upon

which Zākhir organizes his arguments. One important observation in the Tanbīh is the

acknowledgment that most Christians are ignorant of these two mysteries, either due to the

scarcity of theological sources in Arabic or the absence of formal theological education.

This highlights that the primary aim of printing the treatise, though apologetic in nature, is

to enable Christians to understand and defend their faith with confidence, preventing it

from being ridiculed by others. In this way, the work also assumes a catechetical function.

In this way, Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, though apologetic in nature, also assumes a catechetical

character, an outcome shaped by its manner of presentation. While it displays the typical

features of an apologetic treatise, particularly in its defense of foundational Christian

doctrines, it is clearly, if implicitly, addressed to a Christian audience. Supporting this view,

Zākhir states in his introduction that he agreed to write “when the one whose love

compelled me to submit to his command asked me, and the obligation to bear witness to

the truth urged me to comply with his counsel, to write something brief and accessible”,

thus hinting at an ecclesiastic authority, possibly Patriarch Dabbās. One of the more

intriguing aspects of the work is that, despite its apologetic purpose, it does not engage

directly with Islamic critiques. Instead, Judaism is invoked in response to objections

concerning Christian beliefs about the Messiah and the Trinity. Zākhir’s conscious decision

to avoid polemical confrontation gives the text an instructive tone, prioritizing the clear

articulation of Christian doctrine. His aim appears to be the strengthening of faith and the

reinforcement of theological foundations through teaching rather than argumentation.

Since the structure of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ has been thoroughly outlined in Ronney el

Gemayel’s presentation,

the current study will focus only on its most distinctive

theological themes. The thematic organization of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ reflects its dual purpose:

to defend and to teach. Its content may be divided into four major thematic sections:

1. The different levels of knowledge of God and the superior role of faith, presented

in the introduction of the book.

2. The distinction between created and uncreated natures, which implies differing

modes of categorization, discussed in the first treatise on the Trinity.

3. Deification as the primary motive for the Incarnation, the strongest theme in Al-

burhān al-ṣarīḥ, addressed in the treatise on the Incarnation. Deification is presented as the

spiritual purpose of human life, enabling human beings to glorify God adequately.

4. The defense of Scripture, treated in the conclusion of the book.

Cf. Bernard Heyberger, Les Chrétiens du Proche-Orient, pp. 139-179.

Cf. Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, p. 2-6.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, p. 8.

El Gemayel, “ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir”, pp. 103-107.

Rami Wakim

110

Given this distinctive combination of catechesis and theological defense, marked by

attachment to tradition and openness to innovation, Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ emerges as a singular

contribution to the body of Melkite theological literature produced at the Shuwayr press. It

underscores Zākhir’s role not only as a theologian but also as an educator deeply concerned

with the transmission of doctrine to the Arabic-speaking Christian faithful.

Core Themes of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ

In Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, Zākhir organizes his presentation of Christian theology around several

key themes. His approach combines rational explanations, natural analogies, and Scriptural

references to present complex theological ideas. The emphasis is on the Trinity, the

Incarnation, framed within the limitations of human reason in comprehending divine

mysteries.

The Levels of God’s Knowledge and the Role of Faith

The first foundational theme concerns the degrees of the knowledge of God. Zākhir opens

with a general reflection rooted in apophatic theology, emphasizing the fundamental

incapacity of human reason to comprehend the divine essence. Although rational inquiry is

acknowledged as valid, he insists that divine truths ultimately transcend reason and must be

approached with humility and faith. Here, he sets a methodological principle: Christians

should refrain from probing what lies beyond human comprehension and instead base their

knowledge on what God has revealed in the Scriptures. This premise supports his later

discussions on the Trinity and the Incarnation, in which he repeatedly reminds the reader

that these doctrines are, by nature, supra-rational. He writes:

However, since this knowledge surpasses the human intellect, and cannot be comprehended

by it, for the intellect is a finite creation, while the essence of God, exalted be He, is an

infinite creating nature, necessity thus required that God be known by His creation by means

of a trustworthy intermediary, appointed by Him for His servants. This trustworthy

intermediary is the complete submission and assent of the intellect to what God, exalted be

He, has testified about Himself in His Holy Book. For since we are unable to comprehend

the essence of God by the light of human reason or to understand His divine mysteries by

natural means, God elevated our intellect to the knowledge of His essence by a means

surpassing nature: namely, faith in what He has testified to in His Book.

Although this passage resonates deeply with the Cappadocian apophatic tradition, it also

reflects the structure and terminology of Scholastic theology, particularly in its conception

of grace as elevating the intellect beyond its natural capacity, rather than illuminating or

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, pp.15-16.

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology

111

purifying it, as the Byzantine tradition would emphasize.

Scholastic theologians, most

notably Thomas Aquinas, affirmed that while some truths (such as God’s existence) are

accessible to natural reason (Summa Theologiae I, q.2, a.2), the divine essence and mysteries

like the Trinity and Incarnation lie beyond its reach and are disclosed only through

revelation.

In scholastic theology, faith is described as a supernatural assent of the intellect to divine

truth, based on the authority of God who reveals, in Aquinas’ words: “The act of believing

is an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by

the grace of God”.

In a similar vein, Zākhir describes faith as the total surrender of the

intellect to divine testimony, even when such truths surpass understanding or appear to

conflict with natural reason:

Therefore, this submission, which is the essence of faith, consists in the complete yielding

and surrender of the intellect to what God has testified in His Book, even if it remains

unknown to us, surpasses our understanding and comprehension, or even appears to

contradict our natural light. This submission and yielding we are necessarily bound to

uphold.

This theological convergence raises a crucial question: to what extent does Zākhir’s

synthesis reflect a point of contact between Cappadocian apophatic theology and the

scholastic concept of grace as an elevation of the intellect? Might Zākhir’s emphasis on the

limits of reason and the need for divine initiative suggest a partial convergence in the

understanding of man’s relationship with God between Byzantine and Scholastic theology?

This convergence could be in contrast to their ultimate divergence on the highest form of

knowledge, where Byzantine theology affirms the vision of God (θεωρία) as the goal of

union, a notion largely absent within the scholastic framework.

The Distinction Between Created and Uncreated Natures

The second striking feature of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ is Zākhir’s treatment of the mystery of

Trinity with an interplay between traditional Byzantine language and Scholastic categories.

He begins his doctrinal exposition on the Trinity, focusing on the concept of one divine

nature in three distinct hypostases (aqānīm) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He

presents the Trinity as the central mystery of Christian faith and defends it using a

combination of rational arguments, analogies, and scriptural references. His thought

demonstrates an engagement with classical patristic theology, while introducing additions

that resonate with scholastic concerns, especially regarding the relationship between divine

unity and hypostatic distinction. One of Zākhir’s major achievements lies in his insistence

Cf. Paul O’Callaghan and Catalina Vial De Amesti, “Grace in Roman Catholic Theology”,

in Brendan N. Wolfe (ed.), St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology, (University of St Andrews, 2024)

<https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/GraceinRomanCatholicTheology>

Revised Edition, 1920), II, q.2, a.9.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, p. 17

Rami Wakim

112

on the impossibility of applying the categories of created, finite nature, to the uncreated,

infinite divine nature.

In fact, a central principle in Zākhir’s reflection on the Trinity is the impossibility of

knowing the divine essence. This position stands firmly in the patristic tradition,

particularly echoing the apophatic theology of the Eastern tradition. Zākhir maintains that

the divine essence is utterly transcendent and cannot be comprehended or measured by

human reason. Any attempt to apply human categories to the mystery of God risks

distorting the reality of the divine. This theme is explicitly articulated in his writings, where

he warns against transferring properties of the finite to the infinite. He writes:

Thus, according to what appears to us, we first assume that a nature subsists in a single

hypostasis, and that a multiplication of hypostases implies a multiplication of natures.

However, we must be attentive to the fact that this is not actually the case, though it may

seem impossible when considering finite created nature. Therefore, it must not be deemed

possible for the infinite creating nature, whose essence extends to three hypostases, even if

created nature does not exhibit such a reality, because the latter is finite, while the former is

infinite. And it is a manifest error to judge the infinite by the measure of the finite.

Here, Zākhir confronts a key philosophical challenge: in the realm of finite beings,

multiplicity of persons or subjects necessarily implies multiplicity of essences. This is

observable in the created order, where each human being possesses a distinct substance.

However, he insists that this pattern cannot be applied to the divine reality. God’s nature,

being infinite, admits of a mode of existence entirely beyond human categories. Thus, it is

possible, and indeed necessary, to affirm a multiplicity of hypostases without positing a

multiplication of essences.

But is Zākhir’s position totally rooted in Patristics? Yes, but not only Eastern but also

Western Patristics, to be more specific Augustine’s explanation of the Trinity as a

community of relations. Zākhir came to this idea from the scholastic tradition, particularly

in the work of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas explained the multiplicity of persons within the

Godhead through the distinction of relations. According to Aquinas, the divine persons are

distinguished not by their essence but by their relations of origin (paternity, filiation, and

procession). Although Zākhir does not explicitly use the scholastic terminology of

“relations of opposition” here, his approach shows a comparable concern to safeguard

simultaneously the divine unity and the personal distinctions without introducing division

into the essence. Like Aquinas, Zākhir places greater emphasis on the difference between

finite and infinite natures as the starting point for his reasoning.

He further strengthens

his argument by emphasizing the infinitude of the divine essence. He states:

Thus, the unity of the divine essence does not result in the unity of the divine hypostases,

nor does the Trinity of the divine hypostases result in a trinity of the divine essence, because

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, p. 23.

“The infinite cannot be traversed by the finite, nor by the infinite. But equality suffices for

comprehension, because that is said to be comprehended which has nothing outside the comprehender”.

Thomas Aquinas, The SummaTheologiæ, II, q.14, a.12.

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology

113

of the infinitude of the divine essence, which must not be measured by the standard of finite

nature.

This affirmation highlights Zākhir’s fidelity to classical Trinitarian doctrine: the one divine

essence subsists wholly and indivisibly in three distinct hypostases. The unity of essence is

not diminished by the trinity of persons, just as the plurality of hypostases does not entail a

division of the divine substance.

Zākhir’s presentation of the Trinity, particularly his distinction between hypostasis and

essence, aligns with the Patristic heritage which presents the Trinity as three distinct

hypostases sharing one essence, emphasizing that the hypostases are distinct in their

personal properties (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but identical in their shared divine

essence. Zākhir mirrors this approach, using similar terminology to explain the unity of

God and the distinction of persons. His analogies of the Sun (planet, light, and warmth)

reflect the Patristic use of natural analogies to illustrate how the Trinity can be both distinct

and unified.

His dependence on scholasticism becomes more apparent as he treats the questions of

the procession of Holy Spirit, which for Zākhir, proceeds from both the Father and the

Son. In his own words:

The Father and His essence are the same; likewise, the third hypostasis is called the Holy

Spirit because He proceeds from the Father and the Son by an action comparable to the

stirring of the will by love toward its beloved. And this is the most fitting manner by which

He is named”.

The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in a manner analogous

to the movement of love toward the beloved is a classical image, particularly prominent in

Latin theology, notably in the writings of Saint Augustine. In De Trinitate, especially in

Books IX and XV, Augustine explains that within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is to be

understood as the mutual love between the Father and the Son, describing Him as the

vinculum caritatis (bond of love) uniting them. Augustine further draws an analogy between

the internal movements of the human soul, memory, understanding, and will (love), and

the inner life of the Trinity, using the dynamic of love moving toward the beloved as an

explanatory model. Thus, the first clear articulation of this idea in Christian theology is

found in Augustine’s thought in the 4

and 5

centuries. Later scholastic theologians, such

as Thomas Aquinas, developed this understanding further, particularly in his treatment of

the procession of the Holy Spirit (Summa Theologiae, I, q.36). In Eastern theology, although

there is a rich reflection on love, notably in the writings of Saint Maximus the Confessor,

the notion of the Holy Spirit proceeding as the bond of love between the Father and the

Son is not a traditional formula and would generally be approached with greater caution.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, p. 25.

Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ, The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius,

Frederick Williams & Lionel Wickham (tr.), «Popular Patristics Series» 23, (New York: SVS Press, 2002),

pp. 117-148.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, pp. 49-50.

Rami Wakim

114

In ending this treatise, Zākhir offers biblical references to support the doctrine of the

Trinity. Key verses include: Genesis 1:26 “Let us make man in our image” where the use of

plural reflects clear evidence of the Trinitarian action; Genesis 18: the appearance of three

men to Abraham, whom he addresses as one Lord, serves as another symbolic proof of the

Trinity; Isaiah 48:16 “And now the Lord God has sent me, and His Spirit” a reference to

both the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father; Matthew 28:19 that is the

baptismal formula, where Christ commands the disciples to baptize “in the name of the

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” solidifying the threefold nature of God.

Compared to the Patristic tradition, Zākhir’s treatment of the relationship between

hypostasis and essence lacks a clear articulation of particular-general distinction, which

central to Gregory of Nazianzus. In his Theological Orations, Gregory emphasizes that while

the divine essence is one and shared, each hypostasis, the Father, the Son, and the Holy

Spirit, has a distinct mode of existence: the Father as source, the Son as begotten, and the

Spirit as proceeding. Zākhir’s omission of this conceptual framework indicates a

discontinuity with this foundational Cappadocian insight.

However, in his use of natural analogies, Zākhir aligns more closely with both Gregory

of Nazianzus and John of Damascus. He employs examples such as the sun, its orb, light,

and heat, to illustrate how distinct realities can subsist within a single essence. Though such

analogies remain theologically limited, they effectively serve to convey the tension between

unity and distinction in the Trinity, following a method familiar from the early Church

Fathers through medieval Arabic theologians

Deification at the Center of the Incarnation

As we move forward, we reach the most important theme in the book, that is the

deification of man. The theme comes up in the book’s second and largest treatise where

Zākhir addresses the question of the Incarnation. His explanation of the hypostatic union

is central to his theological framework and reflects both Byzantine and Latin influences for

he argues that through the hypostatic union, not only is humanity saved, but it is also

elevated to divine life. This issue is brought up as he identifies two principal motives for

the Incarnation. The first motive is rooted in God’s infinite generosity (jūd ilāhī), a theme

consistently emphasized by early Arabic theologians, such as Yaḥyā ibn ʿAdī, Būlus of

Sidon, ʿAmmār al‑Baṣrī, and Būlus al‑Būshī, who explain the Incarnation as the supreme

act of divine generosity: God bestowing Himself upon humanity through the assumption

of human nature. He explains that the Incarnation is the supreme act of divine goodness,

by which God united Himself to human nature through the assumption of this nature into

one of His divine hypostases. The purpose of this union is that humanity might participate

in what belongs to God, becoming deified through its communion with the divine

hypostasis. In Zākhir’s words:

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, pp. 61-79. The placement of Scriptural references following logical arguments may be

attributed to the author’s intent to address a Muslim audience or to adherence to scholastic

methodologies. This approach, however, is not without a precedent in medieval Arabic theology.

Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ, The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, pp. 69-92.

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology

115

As for the manner of this infinite divine generosity (jūd ilāhī), in which God, exalted be He,

gave Himself to His creatures, it is His union with our human nature and the assumption of

this nature into a divine hypostasis of His three hypostases. This is so that it may partake in

what belongs to God, and this [human] nature is called the nature of God because of its

union with His divine hypostasis, by which it is deified and elevated to the supreme majesty

of divine lordship.

This vision of the Incarnation as the perfective act of divine goodness resonates with what

Thomas Aquinas describes as the second motive for the incarnation, the hypothetical

motive. In the Summa Theologiae (III, q.1, a.3, ad 2), Aquinas asserts that even if Adam had

not sinned, God might still have become incarnate in order to consummate human glory

through union with Himself. Aquinas emphasizes the notion of “union”, whereas Zākhir,

following Eastern theological traditions, speaks explicitly of the talaʾluh (deification) of

human nature. This nuance underlines a significant theological development: while Aquinas

focuses on fulfillment and union, Zākhir stresses the elevation and transformation of

humanity into the divine life.

Zākhir follows both Byzantine and Latin Christian traditions in teaching that the

Incarnation allows humans to participate in and be united with God’s divine nature (2

Peter 1:4). He draws heavily on Athanasius, asserting that “God became man so that man

might become God”.

However, his unique approach is revealed in his insistence on

deification being necessary for human to glorify God adequately. He claims that without

deification, man cannot offer adequate glory to God because the infinite cannot be

glorified by the finite. Plus, deification is also necessary for redemption because the only

way to save humanity is by elevating it to the level of divinity through hypostatic union:

And this could not have been possible unless human nature were elevated to the rank of

divinity and shared in the nature of God through its union with one of His divine

hypostases, so that its actions, attributed to the divine hypostasis united with it, would

possess an infinite worth.

Zākhir uses Scriptures to reinforce his argument. Notable passages include 2 Peter 1:4

which speaks of becoming “partakers of the divine nature”; John 17:22 where Jesus prays,

“The glory that you have given me, I have given to them”, signifying the elevation of

human beings to share in divine glory.

The second motive Zākhir identifies is remedial: the Incarnation was necessary to save

fallen humanity. This understanding is commonplace in Christian theology and

corresponds to the principal reason emphasized by Aquinas, who states that the Son of

God became incarnate chiefly to redeem humanity from sin (Summa Theologiae III, q.1, a.2).

Citing Romans 5:20, “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound”, Aquinas underscores

that the Incarnation responds to the human condition marked by sin and mortality.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, pp. 82-83.

Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, John Behr (tr.), «Popular Patristics Series» 44B, (New York:

SVS Press, 2012), 54:3.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, p. 88.

Rami Wakim

116

Zākhir aligns with this perspective by indicating that divine generosity manifests not

only in the deification of human nature but also in its restoration and healing through the

redemptive work of Christ. Thus, the Incarnation fulfills both a perfective purpose,

communicating divine life, and a salvific purpose, overcoming sin and death. Naturally, this

point is a shared heritage in Christian theology in East and West but what is surprising in

Zākhir’s depiction is prioritizing deification over redemption, a unique approach to the

Incarnation. Did he want to highlight to his “Mutafaqqih” the larger version of Incarnation

avoiding thus making it look accidental or linked to human’s sin? This is a probability that

reveals a deeply integrated theological vision, where the infinite goodness of God and the

need for human salvation are harmoniously combined. His emphasis on the deification of

humanity situates his work within the Eastern Christian tradition, while his theological

structure reflects a careful engagement with contextual challenges.

One more important element of his explanation of the Incarnation is the grafting

analogy where he compares the union of divine and human natures in Christ to the process

of grafting two trees together. In the same way that the grafted tree remains one yet carries

the characteristics of both types of trees, Christ’s human and divine natures are united in

one hypostasis while retaining their distinct properties.

We may find a likeness of this paradoxical union in nature, namely, what we observe in

the art of grafting, whereby a foreign branch is united to a tree of a different nature, so

that, through the process of grafting, the foreign branch and the tree united with it become

one single tree.

In a similar manner, we say that our nature was grafted into the hypostasis of the Word

by His union with it, so that it became, with it, one single person, namely, our Lord Jesus

Christ.

In Romans 11:11–24, grafting refers to how the Gentiles, though originally outside of

Israel’s covenant, are now inserted into the people of God through faith in Christ. They

share in the spiritual blessings and promises rooted in the original covenant. However, the

use of this organic metaphor to speak about the union of the Christ’s two natures is quite

unusual in earlier theological discussions, making Zākhir’s presentation both unique and

accessible.

Zākhir equally shows mastery of conciliar concepts related to Christology such as the

concept of Communicatio idiomatum (the communication of properties), explaining how

Christ’s divine and human natures share attributes in one person. He emphasizes that the

person of Christ (uqnūm) is the subject of all actions, not one nature acting independently

from the other. He explains this through simple examples: just as a man laughs, it is his

person that laughs, not his nature. This helps clarify how Christ’s actions as both divine

and human are attributable to the one hypostasis of the Word.

And similar to the previous treatise on Trinity, Zākhir concludes with Scriptural

references to explain the hypostatic union. Key verses include: John 1:14 “The Word

became flesh and dwelt among us” which affirms the Incarnation; Philippians 2:6-7where

Paul describes Christ, who, though in the form of God, took the form of a servant,

emphasizing the dual nature of Christ as fully God and fully man.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, pp.100-101.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, pp.118-157.

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology

117

In evaluating Zākhir’s Christology, one notes a strong reliance on the doctrinal

formulations of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the Second Council of Constantinople

(553). His terminology reveals a deep familiarity with the conciliar tradition and the

Patristic sources that shaped it, particularly in his treatment of the hypostatic union and the

distinction between the two natures and two wills of Christ. Although Maximus the

Confessor is not explicitly cited, his influence is evident in Zākhir’s affirmation of

dyothelitism, the doctrine that Christ possesses both a divine and a human will. Zākhir

clearly upholds the orthodox position that each nature retains its distinct will and energy,

yet both operate in perfect harmony within the one person of Christ.

Responding to Accusations of Scriptural Alteration

The last theme of importance highlighting Zākhir’s contribution is his defense against

accusations of Scriptural alteration, a notion refuted in his conclusion. Although he avoids

direct polemics with Islam throughout the book, this section engages with the accusation

of falsification that has been central to Islamic critiques since Ibn Taymiyyah’s Al-ǧawāb al-

ṣaḥīḥ li-man baddal

dīn al-Masīḥ

(The Sound Reply to Those Who Have Altered the Religion

of the Christ).

In Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, Zākhir provides a systematic response to the accusation of

scripture falsification, focusing on three primary reasons to defend the authenticity of both

the Old and New Testaments. His argument underscores the credibility of the sacred

Scriptures, particularly in the face of Islamic claims of their alteration (taḥrīf). Zākhir’s

reasoning reflects a profound understanding of historical continuity and the shared nature

of Christian and Jewish sacred texts, the preservation of the Gospel across divisions within

Christianity, and the consistency of scriptural interpretation over centuries.

Zākhir first points to the undeniable authenticity of the Old Testament, emphasizing its

shared possession with the Jews, who, as he notes, are enemies of Christianity. He writes:

For there is no way for anyone to doubt the authenticity of the sacred Scriptures from which

these testimonies (Shahādāt) are drawn. First, there is no possibility for anyone to doubt the

authenticity of the Torah, which comprises the five books of Moses, the books of the

Prophets, the Wisdom writings, the accounts of the Kings, and others; For if these books

were in the possession of us Christians alone, there would be reason to claim that we had

altered or modified them according to our own design and belief. However, they remain,

even to this day, in the hands of the Jews, enemies of our faith, serving as witnesses to the

truth of our faith.

This argument appeals to the Jews as independent custodians of the same scriptural

tradition. Zākhir insists that if Christians had falsified the Old Testament, the Jewish

The treatise is a comprehensive Islamic polemical work written in the early 14

. The work is significant

for its detailed critique of Christian theology (the Trinity, Christology, falsification of Scriptures), and its

role in shaping later Muslim apologetics. It also offers insight into interreligious polemics in the Mamluk

period and remains influential in contemporary Islamic thought.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, p. 159.

Rami Wakim

118

community, who historically opposed Christian theological claims, would have objected to

any such tampering. The continued presence of these texts in the Jewish tradition functions

as an external validation of their integrity. While it is true that the Christian Old Testament

includes additional books not found in the Jewish canon, Zākhir’s point rests on the

substantial overlap between the two traditions, especially regarding the Law, Historical

Books, and Prophets. His argument is that the core of the Old Testament remains

unaltered and is verifiably authentic due to its preservation in both traditions, thereby

discrediting claims, such as those advanced by Ibn Taymiyyah, that Christians manipulated

earlier scriptures to fit their theology.

Zākhir also addresses the authenticity of the New Testament, noting that despite the

various divisions within Christianity, the Gospel has remained unchanged. He writes:

The Apostles of Christ, who proclaimed the Gospel, did not write it in a single language

(lughah wāḥidah), nor in a single place (makān wāḥid), nor at a single time (zaman wāḥid), nor

through a single mutual agreement (mashūrah wāḥidah); and none of them knew what the

others had written. Then, after them, the Gospel was transmitted into various different

languages, and the Christians themselves were divided into many sects and groups. And they

all possess the Holy Gospel in their own languages without any total alteration or change, so

that it is as though it were one single copy and one single translation.

Zākhir highlights the diversity in the early transmission of the Gospel across languages and

regions, which provides a safeguard against any single group altering the text. This diversity

ensures that despite doctrinal disagreements and sectarian splits, all Christian groups

continue to possess the same Gospel text. The consistency of the text, despite different

interpretations, points to the preservation of the original scriptures. Zākhir further

elaborates that:

For although some may differ in the interpretations, they have adopted due to their failure to

grasp the true meaning of the Gospel, yet they do not differ at all concerning the text itself.

This statement refutes the idea that the Gospel could have been altered by any one group

to fit its own doctrinal agenda, since all factions, despite their theological differences, retain

the same foundational text.

Additionally, Zākhir contends that the Gospel’s preservation is further supported by the

historical context of early Christian divisions:

For if such a thing were possible, each sect (shīʿa) would have altered it according to its own

belief. Since, from the time of the Apostles, many factions (aḥzāb) arose, differing from the

sound doctrine (al-mustaqīm ra’yuhum) in their opinions, and each group (firqa) would deny

what the others professed, how then could all of them have agreed upon a single text by

altering (taḥrīf) the Gospel?

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, pp. 160-161.

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, pp. 160-161

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, p.162.

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology

119

The multiple and diverse Christian factions, each with its own interpretation, would not

have been able to unite in the alteration of the Gospel. This collective preservation of the

text, despite theological disputes, further undermines the possibility of falsification.

Finally, Zākhir argues that the longevity of scriptural interpretation, spanning over six

centuries from the time of Christ to the Islamic period, reinforces the authenticity of the

sacred scriptures. He states:

Changing (taghyīr) these very Books would necessarily require changing the books of their

interpreters and also changing their interpretations, since these Books had already been

interpreted by many eminent scholars in various languages, from the time of the Apostles of

Christ until six hundred years after them, a long period during which even the objectors do

not deny the authenticity of the sacred Books.

Here, Zākhir highlights the extensive history of biblical exegesis by respected Christian

scholars, which would have been impossible to alter without notice. The continuity of

interpretation over such a long period of time, across various cultures and languages,

further affirms the unbroken transmission of the original texts. This makes any claim of

widespread falsification unfeasible, as the corpus of interpretations and commentaries

would have reflected any such changes.

The origins of such arguments can be traced back to the early Church Fathers. Irenaeus

appeals to the harmony among the four Gospels, despite their different human authors and

audiences, as evidence of their truth.

Origen underscores the early diffusion of Scripture

into multiple languages, arguing that this wide dissemination served to preserve its

authenticity.

Later, Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa contra Gentiles (Book I, chs. 6-7),

develops a related line of reasoning: the Gospel, having been proclaimed throughout the

world and translated into various languages, was preserved by diverse groups, even those

divided by heresy, thus rendering any possibility of deliberate falsification implausible.

Zākhir’s contribution lies in his ability to integrate these strands into a single, cohesive

argument, strengthening the case for the authenticity of Scripture.

Al-Burhan al-ṣarīḥ’s Novelties, Value, and Implication on Research

One of the most striking aspects of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ is its bold articulation of theological

themes that appear to extend beyond established medieval Arabic Christian sources. Chief

among these is the concept of deification, which ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir presents not merely as

a result of the Incarnation but as an essential and natural element of Christian soteriology.

This emphasis on deification may reflect either Zākhir’s original theological development

or the integration of teachings not commonly found in other medieval Arabic Christian

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, p.163.

Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 11.8.

Origène d’Alexandrie, Philocalie 1-20 Sur les Écritures et la lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne, Nicholas

De Lange (tr.), Sources Chrétiennes 302, (Paris : Éditions du Cerf, 1983), PG 11: 48-86.

Rami Wakim

120

sources. Whether these positions constitute genuine innovation or draw on less-known

traditions remains an open question for further scholarly inquiry.

Zākhir maintains that through the Incarnation, Christ not only redeems humanity but

also elevates human nature to present adequate glory to God. This theological stance seems

to go beyond what is typically found in the works of medieval Christian authors such as

John of Damascus. In De Fide Orthodoxa, John discusses the deification of Christ’s human

nature as a singular reality tied to the unique hypostatic union, viewing the Incarnation

primarily as a means of restoring humanity’s original dignity. He does not, however, frame

universal human deification as the central aim of the divine economy.

By contrast, Zākhir presents deification as the ultimate goal of human existence: not

simply to be saved, but to be divinized, sharing in the divine nature in a way essential to

rendering adequate glory to God. This broader application of deification in Al-burhān al-

ṣarīḥ is notable, as it treats the doctrine not as a mystical or peripheral theme but as a

central tenet of Christian theology. In this regard, Zākhir’s vision evokes earlier Patristic

voices, particularly Athanasius of Alexandria,

who famously affirmed linked the

knowledge of God with deification, and Maximus the Confessor, for whom deification lies

at the heart of the mystery of the Incarnation.

Zākhir’s presentation of deification as the

culmination of the Incarnation marks a notable departure from the caution characteristic of

medieval Arabic Christian theology. Melkite and Jacobite theologians, writing in Islamic

contexts, were generally restrained in articulating the divine-human relationship, aware of

the theological sensitivities it raised among Muslim interlocutors.

Zākhir exhibits a striking boldness in asserting that elevation of human nature to the

level of divine nature is not only possible but essential for salvation. His unambiguous

stance suggests a possible shift in Melkite theological discourse, one that may signal the

emergence of a more confident theological voice within the Catholic milieu. This approach

pushes beyond the boundaries maintained by earlier Arabic Christian writers, potentially

inviting renewed theological reflection on deification within the Arabic-speaking Christian

world.

It is worth considering whether this development reflects the influence of post-

Reformation Catholic theology. While the concept of deification appears in Scholastic and

later Catholic thought, often framed as participation in divine life or adoption as sons of

God, it never occupied a central place as it did in Eastern theology. Zākhir’s emphasis may

thus represent a retrieval of the Eastern tradition within the broader Catholic theological

currents, offering a distinctive synthesis that enriched Melkite Christology.

Another aspect of Zākhir’s work that stands out is his use of unique analogies and

explanations that do not have clear precedents in earlier theological literature. For example,

the Grafting Analogy employed to speak of the Hypostatic Union. Zākhir’s use of the

analogy of grafting, where the human and divine natures are united without losing their

distinct characteristics, is a curious and potentially original contribution to Christological

Cf. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Ch. 61.

Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, 11-13.

Maximus the Confessor, Ambiguum 7.22.

Cf. Būlus Ḫūrī, Al-Kalima al-mutajassida ʿinda al-masīḥiyyīn 2 (The Incarnate Word according to the

Christians, part 2), (Lebanon: Paulist Press, 2004), pp. 203-233.

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology

121

thought. While the grafting image is not commonly found in earlier Patristic works, it

serves as a powerful metaphor for explaining how two distinct natures can coexist in the

one person of Christ. Whether Zākhir derived this analogy from a specific source or

whether it was his own theological invention remains an open question that further

research could clarify.

In assessing the value of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, one must highlight its timely clarification of

essential Christian doctrines, particularly the Trinity and the Incarnation. Amidst a period

of ecclesial and cultural transition, Zākhir’s systematic exposition served to reinforce the

faith of Melkite believers, an impact evidenced by the numerous surviving copies preserved

in monastic libraries. Ronney el Gemayel notes that the treatise was equally admired by

Protestants, who reprinted it in Malta in 1834.

The significance of the work lies in

Zākhir’s ability to elucidate theological mysteries through natural analogies, such as the sun

to explain the Trinity and grafting to illustrate the hypostatic union, thus rendering abstract

doctrines more accessible, especially in catechetical contexts. By reaffirming the core

theological tenets of the Byzantine tradition while integrating select Catholic influences,

Zākhir contributes to shaping a distinct Melkite Catholic identity, faithful to its liturgical

heritage yet open to constructive engagement with Scholastic theology.

From a historical and academic perspective, Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ offers valuable insight into

the intellectual landscape of the 18

-century Melkite Church. The text functions as a

connection between medieval Arabic Christian thought and the developing theological

currents of the early modern period. It provides a lens through which scholars can examine

how Eastern Christian theology was articulated amid both Latin Catholic and Islamic

influences. Although Zākhir refrains from direct polemical engagement with Islam, his

robust defense of the Scriptures and his emphasis on deification reflect the broader

intellectual challenges encountered by Melkite Christians living under Islamic rule. His

refutation of the accusation that Christian scriptures had been altered indicates an acute

awareness of Muslim critiques and reveals his pastoral intent to reinforce the faith of his

community by addressing such concerns within a systematic theological framework.

With that in mind, the implications of this treatise for the study of Arabic Christian

thought prior to the Nahda should not be underestimated. The analysis of Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ

underscores the significance of Arabic-language theology within the wider Christian

tradition, demonstrating that, while trying to remain attached to ancient doctrinal

foundations, it also exhibits originality in developing and articulating new theological

insights. The work of ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir illustrates that Arabic Christian theologians were

not merely passive transmitters of Greek or Latin traditions, but active contributors who

engaged these sources to respond to the particular theological and cultural challenges

confronting Middle Eastern Christians in their historical context.

What are the implications of Zākhir’s Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ for theological research today?

Beyond its historical value, does it not challenge us to reconsider the place of Arabic-

written theology in the broader Christian tradition? Too often marginalized in favor of

Latin or Byzantine sources, this tradition reveals, in works like Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ, a

theological creativity and depth that remain largely unexplored.

Cf. El Gemayel, “ʿAbd Allāh Zākhir”, p. 106.

Rami Wakim

122

Can this heritage offer something vital for Middle Eastern Christians today, many of

whom face existential questions of identity and continuity? Zākhir’s emphasis on

deification and the Incarnation, presented with clarity and pastoral concern, suggests that

Arabic theology is not merely a relic but a resource. His approach models how to remain

faithful to tradition while responding to the cultural and religious context with intelligence

and confidence.

What, then, might the global Church gain from engaging with this forgotten chapter of

Christian thought? Studying Arabic Christian theology could broaden ecumenical

understanding and enrich both Catholic and Orthodox traditions. It also opens a path to

understanding how theology develops not only through Councils and schools but also

through lived interaction with other faiths.

Conclusion

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ stands as a formative work in 18

-century Arabic Christian thought,

embodying both apologetic and catechetical dimensions. Zākhir’s theological discourse

combines traditional Eastern Christian teachings with a distinctive reliance on Scholastic

methodology, positioning the work at a critical intersection of two theological traditions. It

serves simultaneously as a defense of core Christian doctrines and a tool for catechesis,

making it a significant contribution to the Melkite Church’s intellectual and pastoral

mission during a time of shifting cultural and intellectual landscapes.

Although Zākhir writes in an Antiochian Arabic style enriched by Patristic vocabulary

and doctrinal references, the dominant theological method in his exposition is

unmistakably Scholastic. His treatment demonstrates a thorough grasp of classical Patristic

doctrines: the distinction between essence and person, apophatic caution in speaking of

divine realities, the differentiation between the generation of the Son and the procession of

the Holy Spirit, the Chalcedonian definition of the hypostatic union, and the soteriological

theme of deification. Yet these elements, while faithful in content, are reframed within a

structure of logical demonstration, systematic argumentation, and dialectical reasoning,

features more characteristic of Latin Scholasticism than of traditional Arab Christian

expression.

This gives Zākhir’s work a distinctive character: a nuanced double-method of

theological reflection. While rooted in Eastern tradition, he integrates Scholastic tools such

as syllogism and dialectic to articulate doctrine with precision and clarity. This synthesis

reveals not only intellectual creativity but also a conscious attempt to reconcile Byzantine

and Latin modes of theological reasoning. The text ultimately leans toward a Scholastic

framework and compromise core Patristic insights.

Among his notable contributions are Zākhir’s treatment of deification, framed within an

apologetic structure responsive to the Islamic intellectual milieu. While his references to

Islamic critiques are indirect, the theological balancing act is evident, revealing how Arabic

Christian theologians maintained doctrinal integrity under Islamic rule while subtly

addressing external challenges.

Tradition and Renewal in 18

-Century Arabic Theology

123

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ thus emerges as both a theological and cultural connection. Its impact

within the Melkite Church and the broader Arabic-speaking Christian world is significant,

particularly as Eastern Catholics navigated identity formation amid increasing Latin

influence. Zākhir’s selective appropriation of Scholasticism while remaining grounded in

Patristic thought raises critical questions for contemporary Eastern Catholic theology: did

his synthesis preserve the distinctiveness of both traditions, or does it risk becoming a

veiled expression of Latin theology within an Eastern context?

In our current theological climate, Zākhir’s work offers important insights for Christian

communities seeking to remain faithful to their heritage while engaging a pluralistic world.

His model prompts a broader reflection: should Eastern Catholicism preserve its traditional

identity, embrace Scholastic theological models, or attempt a third path that integrates both

traditions meaningfully? Zākhir’s theological vision is not only of historical interest but also

a living invitation to reimagine how the Eastern Church can inhabit its identity in dialogue

with tradition, modernity, and the global Church.

Rami Wakim

124

Abstract: This article examines Al-burhān

al-ṣarīḥ (The Evident Proof), a theological

treatise written in 1721 by ʿAbd Allāh

Zākhir, a key figure in the 18

-century

Melkite Church. Composed in Arabic at the

request of a Muslim jurist and later printed

at Shuwayr in 1764, the work stands as a

rare and significant example of systematic

theology articulated in the Arabic Christian

tradition during a period marked by both

Islamic dominance and rising Catholic

influence. While Zākhir adopts the

vocabulary and tone of Eastern Arabic

Christian theology, his method reveals a

distinctly scholastic orientation, particularly

through the use of Aristotelian logic and

Thomistic structure. This paper argues that

Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ is more than an apologetic

defense: it is a catechetical synthesis that

bridges the Antiochian theological heritage

with early modern Catholic intellectual

currents. By boldly reasserting the notion of

taʾalluh (deification) within a context where

such language was often suppressed to

avoid Islamic accusations of shirk, Zākhir

revives a core Eastern doctrine and marks a

turning point in the history of Arabic

Christian thought. This study thus

reassesses Zākhir’s work as a foundational

moment in the Melkite theological

resurgence following the 1724 split, and as

theological synthesis across traditions and

contexts.

Resumen: Este artículo examina Al-burhān

al-ṣarīḥ (La prueba evidente), un tratado

teológico escrito en 1721 por ʿAbd Allāh

Zākhir, figura clave de la Iglesia melquita

del siglo XVIII. Compuesta en árabe a

petición de un jurista musulmán e impresa

posteriormente en Shuwayr en 1764, la obra

constituye un ejemplo excepcional y

significativo de teología sistemática

articulada en la tradición cristiana árabe

durante un período marcado tanto por el

dominio islámico como por la creciente

influencia católica. Si bien Zākhir adopta el

vocabulario y el tono de la teología cristiana

árabe oriental, su método revela una

orientación marcadamente escolástica, en

particular mediante el uso de la lógica

aristotélica y la estructura tomista. Este

artículo argumenta que Al-burhān al-ṣarīḥ es

más que una defensa apologética: es una

síntesis catequética que conecta la herencia

teológica antioquena con las primeras

corrientes intelectuales católicas modernas.

Al reafirmar con audacia la noción de

taʾalluh (deificación) en un contexto donde

dicho lenguaje se suprimía a menudo para

evitar acusaciones islámicas de shirk, Zākhir

revive una doctrina oriental fundamental y

marca un punto de inflexión en la historia

del pensamiento cristiano árabe. Este

estudio reevalúa así la obra de Zākhir como

un momento fundacional en el

resurgimiento teológico melquita tras la

escisión de 1724, y como una síntesis

teológica que atraviesa tradiciones y

contextos.

Keywords: ʿAbd Allāh al-Zākhir; Al-burhān

al-ṣarīḥ; Melkite Catholic Theology; Arabic

Christian theology; Deification (taʾalluh),

Christian-Muslim polemics.

Palabras clave: ʿAbd Allāh al-Zākhir; Al-

burhān al-ṣarīḥ; Teología católica melquita;

Teología cristiana árabe; Deificación

(taʾalluh); Polémica cristiano-musulmana.