# Early 20th Century Theological Controversies in Ethiopia:
A Letter of the Coptic Metropolitan Petros of 1904

MAGDALENA KRZYŻANOWSKA – STÉPHANE ANCEL,
Universität Hamburg*

In November–December 2012, the team of the Ethio-SPaRe project visited several churches and monasteries in the Tämben region (Däg'a Tämben wäräda, Central Təgray zone) and digitized a substantial portion of their manuscript collections. A very interesting document was found in one of the books housed in the Qəddəst Maryam monastery in Qäqäma – a letter written by the Coptic Metropolitan Petros (1881–1917) in 1904. The present article aims at editing and commenting this important historical document. Even if the tenure of Petros is known to historians in broad outline, clear information concerning his activity is certainly lacking. What is more, the period of his stay in Təgray between 1903 and 1914 is basically not documented. To the best of our knowledge, until now, no writings of the Metropolitan concerning the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have emerged and become known to the scholars. Thus far only one document signed by the Metropolitan has been published (though not commented), that is, his letter to Alfred Ilg dated to 1896.<fnref n="1" />

The present letter deals with the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines and is addressed to the clergy of Təgray. Because of its historical significance, we decided to translate this document, provide some comments on it and eventually publish it. For one thing, this publication gives the chance to lay down the facts of the tenure of Petros in Ethiopia. For another, it sheds light on information about a little known theological controversy, which appeared in Təgray at the beginning of the 20th century. Also, the analysis of the new historical material leads to proposing a more balanced and accurate view on the role of the Coptic bishop within the organization of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

## The tenure of Petros between 1881 and 1904

Petros was Coptic Metropolitan of the Ethiopian Orthodox Täwahədo Church from 1881 to 1917. He appears as Petros VII in the traditional lists of

<footnote>* The research resulting in this article was conducted for the project "Ethio-SPaRe: Cultural Heritage of Christian Ethiopia, Salvation, Preservation, Research", funded by the European Research Council within the EU 7th Framework Program IDEAS; http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/ETHIOSPARE. The authors wish to thank Abreham Adugna (Universität Hamburg) and Orin Gensler (Addis Ababa University) for their precious help and advice.</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ BAIRU TAFLA 2000: 213 (text), 472f. (tr.).</footnote>
the Coptic Metropolitans of Ethiopia, but as Pětros IV in the historically re-
constructed lists.<fnref n="2" /> The previous Coptic Metropolitan of Ethiopia, ʾAtnatewos,
died in 1876.<fnref n="3" /> Because of hostilities between Ethiopia and Egypt, King
Yoḥannəs IV (r. 1872–89) delayed the replacement of the metropolitan for
four years.<fnref n="4" /> He finally decided to request not for one but for four bishops.
The request for several bishops was not unprecedented in the history of Ethi-
opia, since its rulers usually tried to avoid the absence of the bishop after the
death of the incumbent bishop. The aim was keeping and, at times, even im-
proving the ecclesiastic control over clergy.<fnref n="5" /> However, such petition was ac-
cepted by the Alexandrian Patriarchate only once, during the reign of Zärʿa
Yaʾaqob (r. 1434–68) when two Metropolitans, Gäbrəʾel and Mikaʾel, were
consecrated.<fnref n="6" /> At the time of King Yoḥannəs IV, the problematic religious
situation dramatically conditioned his request. Even if Yoḥannəs did not ap-
parently need the bishop to convoke the council at Boru Meda in 1878 or to
impose the Täwaḥədo doctrine as the only one authorized in the kingdom, he
definitively needed several bishops to controll the local clergy and to super-
vise the conversion of the population.<fnref n="7" /> Thus, in January 1881, he sent 12,000
Maria Theresa thalers to the Coptic Patriarch in Cairo, Cyril V (1874–1927).<fnref n="8" />
Then, in June, an Ethiopian delegation was sent to Cairo with gifts for the
Patriarch and the Egyptian ruler.<fnref n="9" /> As a result, on 8 July 1881, the Coptic Holy
Synod accepted the Ethiopian request<fnref n="10" /> and Patriarch Cyril consecrated four
Coptic Bishops for Ethiopia: Matewos (1881–1926), Luqas (1881–99/1900),
Marqos (1881–83) and Pětros. The four prelates reached Mäqälä, the capital
city of Təgray, on 29 October 1881.<fnref n="11" /> The witness of their arrival in Mäqälä,
the French traveller Gabriel Simon, tells us that according to the initial plan of
Yoḥannəs, one of the Bishops, not indicated by the name, was to assume the
leadership of the Ethiopian Church.<fnref n="12" /> Without denying the fact that the ques-

<footnote n="2">² SHIFERAW BEKELE 2010: 139a; HÆRUY WÄLDÄ SËLLASE 2000: 96; MUNRO-HAY 2005: 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ TEDESCHI 1999: 109; BAIRU TAFLA 1977, note 131.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ ID. 1977: 150 (text), 151 (tr.); ZEWDE GABRE-SELLASSIE 1975: 108.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ *Ibid*.; SIMON 1885: 345.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ MUNRO-HAY 2007: 28–36; GETATCHEW HAILE 1981: 73–78.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ The population of Wallo was to be converted to Christianity while the populations of Goğğam and Săwa were to deny the Qab'at and Săgga lăğ doctrines, respectively. The problem of the conversion of people definitively won over the Coptic authorities; cf. ZEWDE GABRE-SELLASSIE 1930: 303.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ SIMON 1885: 249–251.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ ZEWDE GABRE-SELLASSIE 1975: 108.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ MURAD 1958: 1; ZEWDE GABRE-SELLASSIE 1975: 108.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ SIMON 1885: 346; ZEWDE GABRE-SELLASSIE 1975: 109.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² SIMON 1885: 344.</footnote>
tion of rank among the four prelates was posed at their arrival, the Italian Peri-
ni reports that the Coptic Bishops refused to establish any hierarchy among
them.<fnref n="13" /> Nevertheless, the chronicler of the reign of Yohannəs, *a posteriori*,
clearly sets apart Pełros, designated as ሲቀ፡ ጺጺሳት liqä papasat, from Matewos,
Luqas and Marqos, designated as ጺጺስ papas.<fnref n="14" /> Also Aşmä Giyorgis in his
historical work singles out Pełros from the other Coptic Bishops. Accord-
ing to him, however, Pełros was appointed as ጺጺስ papas and the three oth-
ers only ኢጺስ፡ ቆጺስ ⁴episqopos.<fnref n="15" /> Two possibilities are offered to us: the
differentiation in terms of rank between the Coptic prelates was established
after their arrival in Ethiopia and, consequently, concerned only the Ethio-
pian context, or Pełros was consecrated as Bishop of higher rank already by
the Patriarch.

Before we try to investigate which of these two options is more likely
and realistic, let us discuss the nomenclature and the usage of high rank
ecclesiastic titles by the Alexandrian Patriarchate and by the Ethiopian Or-
thodox Church. From the Patriarchate point of view, the Coptic Bishop of
Ethiopia was traditionally the *mutrān*, an Arabic word meaning “metropol-
itan”,<fnref n="16" /> which was always translated into Gɔ̄ez as *papas*.<fnref n="17" /> The Patriarch of
Alexandria in Gɔ̄ez sources was called *liqä papasat* that is “the head of the
metropolitans” – term which basically refers to his authority over them,
while in Arabic he was called ʿaba, “pope”, or *batriyark*, “patriarch”.<fnref n="18" /> Or-
dinary bishops were called ʿepisqopos, in Arabic ʿusquf*.<fnref n="19" /> In theory, the
Metropolitan (*mutrān/papas*) had the right to consecrate bishops (ʿusquf/
ʿepisqopos) who were subject to his jurisdiction. However, during the 13th
and 14th centuries, the Patriarch of Alexandria gradually became the only

<footnote n="13">13 PERINI 1905: 340.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ BAIRU TAFLA 1977: 152 (text), 153 (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 ID. 1987: 738 (text), 739 (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 GRAF 1954: 107. The Greek-Coptic word mētropolitēs is rendered in Christian Arabic as *matrūbūlīt* or *mutrān*. The term *mutrān* was always used in the letter sent by the Coptic authorities for designating the Coptic bishop of Ethiopia; see MURAD 1942: 132.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 The term *mutrān* corresponds also to another word in Gɔ̄ez, *መጥሮጺሊስ mätropalis*.
However, it was not used and *papas* was preferred by the Ethiopians. The translation of
the canon concerning the election of the Patriarch of Alexandria present in the *Senodos*
and in the *Fətʰa Nägäšt* is in this case very clear: “The election of a Patriarch shall take
place only in the presence of the bishops and the *mätropalis*, who is the *papas*”. See in
the *Fətʰa Nägäšt* in GUIDI 1936: 30f.; ID. 1899: 24; PAULOS TZADUA 1968: 19; see in the
*Senodos* in BAUSI 1995: 91.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 GRAF 1954: 25; see also MURAD 1942: 110, 130, 135.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ BITTNER 1909: 250; GRAF 1954: 8.</footnote>
hierarch who was eligible to appoint bishops.<fnref n="20" /> As a result, the Coptic Met-
ropolitans lost their power as archbishops in Egypt. From that time on-
wards, even the Metropolitan of Ethiopia could not consecrate bishops, just
like his counterparts officiating in Egypt. The change of the ecclesiastical
situation in Egypt explains the disparity in the *Senodos* and in the *Fətہa
Nägäšt*, the two main Gɔ̈ez canonical sources, about the authority of the
Coptic bishop of Ethiopia.<fnref n="21" />

As mentioned before, in the chronicle of Yohannas IV Pętros is referred
to as liqä papasat, the title which implies at least some jurisdictive power
over the bishops, as well as the right to consecrate them. The chronicler uses
almost the same term in reference to the Patriarch of Alexandria with the
exception that he adds the information IIIΑΝΙΚΗΣΙΩΣ (zä-ʿAskəndərya, “of
Alexandria”) after the title of the Patriarch.<fnref n="22" /> However, from the Coptic per-
spective, the Bishop of Ethiopia could not have a higher rank than the Metro-
politan (*papas/muṭrān*), since the Patriarch of Alexandria monopolized all the
archbISHIc powers. Furthermore, it is highly improbable that the Patriarch
of Alexandria would accept the same title as the “main” Metropolitan of
Ethiopia. All in all, it transpires that while Pętros was considered the Metro-
politan (*mētropolitēs* in Coptic/muṭrān in Arabic) by the Coptic Patriarchate,
he was addressed as *liqä papasat* in Ethiopia.

The disparity between the Coptic and the Ethiopian way of understand-
ing the Pětros’ position is reflected in his official seal. The seal appears in
the edition of the chronicle of King Mənilək II<fnref n="23" />, in the above mentioned

<footnote n="20">20 In the 14th century, the Coptic theologian Yūḥannā ibn ʿabī Zakaryā stated this fact in the 51st chapter of his nomocanon; cf. PERIER 1922: 746; see also KHS-BURMESTER 1967: 154.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 In the *Senodos*, the Bishop of Ethiopia is authorized to consecrate bishops subject to his jurisdiction; cf. MAURO DA LEONESSA 1942: 50 (text), 78 (tr.). However, in the *Fətہa Nägäšt*, the Bishop of Ethiopia did not have the right any more to appoint bishops; cf. GUIDI 1936: 23f.; ID. 1899: 29; PAULOS TZADUA 1968: 18. The canon concerning the authority of the Bishop of Ethiopia comes from a canonical work ascribed to Marūtā of Maipherqat written in Syriac probably in the 6th century; cf. VÖÖBUS 1982: 62f. (text), 55f. (tr.). Later, this canonical work was translated by the Coptic Church under the title “84 Arabic canons of Nicea”; cf. MEINARDUS 1962: 231–242. These canons were then translated into Gɔ̈ez and included in the Ethiopic *Senodos* before the 15th century; cf. BAUSI 2010: 623b. Yet a new translation appeared in the work of an Egyptian theologian al-Ṣāfī abū ʿl-Fadāʾil ibn al-ʿAssāl in the 13th century. This specific book, in turn, was rendered into Gɔ̈ez in the 16th century and appeared under the title *Fətہa Nägäšt*; cf. PAULOS TZADUA 2005: 534a.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 BAIRU TAFLA 1977: 86, 150 (text), 87, 151 (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ ZEWDE GUEBRE-SELLASSIE 1930: 308 figure 46.</footnote>
letter written to Alfred Ilg<fnref n="24" /> as well as in the letter to the Tğgrean clergy, which we will come to later on. The official rank of Pɛtros is inscribed in the seal in three languages: Arabic (Butros mutrān), Gɔcəz (Pɛtros liqä papasat) and Coptic Bohairic (Pitros mēetropolitēs [sic]). Thus, the inscription confirms that according to the Coptic Church, Pɛtros was considered, just like his predecessor, the Metropolitan in Ethiopia. However, in the Ethiopian context, Pɛtros had a higher ranking than the papas. Let us mention that even in his letter to Alfred Ilg, Pɛtros designates himself as liqä papasat (ኢጥሮስ ፤ ሊቀ ፤ ጽጻሳት).<fnref n="25" /> One could wonder if, in 1896, it implied the Bishop of Tğray's claim against the hegemonic aspirations of Matewos, the Bishop of Säwa. Basically, only few Ethiopian sources used the title liqä papasat. In manuscripts found by the Ethio-SPaRe team in Tğray and clearly identified as being written during the reign of Yoḥannəs IV, the scribes employed the term papas in reference to Pɛtros.<fnref n="26" /> Only once liqä papasat is used for this purpose.<fnref n="27" />

The chronicler of Yoḥannəs IV points out that from the beginning of the negotiation with the Coptic Patriarchate, the King aimed at separating the Coptic Bishops and sending them to different regions.<fnref n="28" /> Simon does not believe in this plan but he mentions such a possibility.<fnref n="29" /> In fact, the four Bishops stayed with Yoḥannəs for the first two years. Sending them off to the regions was postponed because of the fierce rivalry between Täklä Haymanot, nəguš of Goğğam, and Mənilək, nəguš of Säwa.<fnref n="30" /> In 1883, Yoḥannəs made an effort to bring peace between them and summoned a reconciliation conference at Boru Meda where he met with the two Princes. At that time, the areas of jurisdiction of the four Bishops was also discussed. The rulers decided that Matewos would stay at the court of Mənilək, Luqas would follow Täklä Haymanot and Marqos would assist the son of Yoḥannəs, ras Arªaya Śəllase (1869/70–88), in Däbrä Tabor. Finally, only Pɛtros was to stay with King of Kings Yoḥannəs IV.<fnref n="31" /> Becoming the Metropolitan of the King of Kings also meant

<footnote n="24">²⁴ BAIRU TAFLA 2000: 213 (text), 472f. (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ *Ibid*.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ See manuscripts digitized by the Ethio-SPaRe team: MAC-004, KY-064, UM-022, QSM-009, AGM-005, AMQ-002.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ See the manuscript MR-019 digitized by the Ethio-SPaRe team.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ BAIRU TAFLA 1977: 152 (text), 153 (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ SIMON 1885: 344.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ During the battle of Embabo between the troops of Täklä Haymanot and Mənilək in June 1882, the four Bishops were still with Yoḥannəs; cf. BAIRU TAFLA 1977: 738 (text), 739 (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ ZEWDE GUEBRE-SELLASSIE 1930: 190, 303; Marqos died just after his arrival in Däbrä Tabor.</footnote>
that Pětros could have been designated as *liqä papasat*. However, it seems to be a matter of usage rather than a fact. The Metropolitan, who sat on the right of the King of Kings, took the title which enabled him to stand out from the others, but without real authority over them. And indeed, Pětros did not seize more power than the other Coptic prelates.<fnref n="32" /> Each *papas* was installed in the region under the rule of the Prince to whom he was entrusted, without disturbance from the others. The Bishopric was totally divided and, consequently, Matewos and Luqas were totally independent. The French traveller Jules Borelli does not mention any hierarchy among them and was extremely pleased when Pětros allowed him to enter Təgray after Matewos let him enter Säwa.<fnref n="33" />

Pětros accompanied Yoḥannas to the battle of Mätämma and was present when the King of Kings died from his injuries on 9 March 1889. On his deathbed, Yoḥannas bequeathed his throne to ras Mängäša and Pětros supported him against Yoḥannas' other nephews. On 3 November 1889, Mənilək of Säwa was crowned King of Kings by Bishop Matewos. Pětros protested against this act arguing that having been the Bishop of the previous King of Kings, he was the one who was supposed to crown the new ruler. Despite his objection a letter from the Patriarch of Alexandria confirmed the coronation and, at the same time, the new "status" of Matewos.<fnref n="34" /> Thus, the transfer of the secular power from Təgray to Säwa had the same repercussions for the Bishopric: Pětros, the Bishop of Təgray, lost his *primus inter pares* status in Ethiopia. But again, it did not mean that Matewos had an authority over Luqas and Pětros. Just after the battle of Mätämma, Luqas and Pětros stayed in Däbrä Tabor, but later Mənilək sent Luqas to Lalibäla and Pětros to Yäğğu,<fnref n="35" /> probably to isolate them from the centre of any secular power jeopardizing Mənilək's rule. Luqas was given back to Täklä Haymanot after the Prince submitted himself to the new sovereign of Ethiopia. Pětros, in turn, was kept in Addis Ababa until the problematic political situation in Təgray was settled: Mənilək definitively could not permit him to join ras Mängäša, who threatened his authority over the country.

Matewos and Pětros together exercised their power at the ecclesiastical court in Addis Ababa.<fnref n="36" /> In 1891 Mənilək decided to divide Ethiopia into three dioceses, intending to clarify the jurisdiction of the three Bishops. Two Bishops ruling at the same place with exactly the same power was definitively not

<footnote n="32">³² The role of the Bishop consisted mainly in the consecration of churches and in the ordination of priests and deacons; cf. *ibid*. 210; ANNARATONE 1914: 262f. They could also place excommunication; cf. BAIRU TAFLA 1987: 738f.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ BORELLI 1890: 118.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ ZEWDE GUEBRE-SELLASSIE 1930: 303f.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ *Ibid*. 284.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ *Ibid*. 299–302.</footnote>
a favourable situation and could probably provoked conflicts. Luqas, who
died in Goğğam between 1899 and 1900, was granted authority over Täklä
Haymanot's territories (Goğğam, Agäw Mədər, Käffa). Pɛtros received juris-
diction over Təgray, Eritrea, Lasta and Wag, while Matewos received au-
thority over the rest of Ethiopia.<fnref n="37" /> The diocese of Pɛtros was really smaller
than his previous one as he lost a large part of the central highlands (Gondär
region, Bägemdər). But the division into dioceses proves again that the three
Coptic Bishops had the same type of ecclesiastical authority and Pɛtros
could hope to enjoy the same independence as before. Finally, in 1899, ras
Mängäša submitted himself to Mənilək and from that moment on the situa-
tion in Təgray settled step by step. In 1903, Pɛtros was permitted to come
back to Təgray.<fnref n="38" />

The letter of Pɛtros found in the manuscript collection of the Qäqäma
monastery

Extremely limited historical information is available on Pɛtros' stay in
Təgray between 1903 and 1914. Only the Italian traveller Ferdinando Mar-
tini provides us with some information on the occasion of his visit to Pɛtros
on 27 April 1906.<fnref n="39" /> More information on the Coptic bishop appears later
when he crowned ras Mika'el Ali (1847/50-1918) as nəguš in Däse in 1914
and when he decided to support him against Şäwa aristocracy after the coup
d'état of 1916.<fnref n="40" />

The letter that we deal with has been found in a manuscript kept in the
Qəddəst Maryam monastery in a village called Qäqäma, located in Däg'a
Tämben wäräda between towns Hagärä Sälam and Abiy Addi.<fnref n="41" /> The mon-
astery was founded by King Yohannas IV, whose associate and close compan-
ion, Gäbrä Giyorgis, became the first abbot of the community. The monastic
library includes a fine Octateuch manuscript on the last folios of which we
find the letter of Pɛtros presented here.<fnref n="42" /> According to the colophon (on
fol. 150r), the manuscript<fnref n="43" /> was written in 1664, in the 32nd year of the reign

<footnote n="37">³⁷ *Ibid*. 304ff.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ *Ibid*. 305.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ MARTINI 1943: 309–312.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">40 Cf. POLLERA 1926: 221; BERHANOU ABEBE 2001: 317f.; SMIDT 2001: 67f.; GEBRE-IGZIABIHER ELYAS 1994: 346.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ NOSNITSIN 2013: 388–396.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² *Ibid*. 392–395.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">43 152 fols., dimensions: mm 394 x 295 x 75. The shelfmark given by the Ethio-SPaRe project to the manuscript is QDGM-003. The manuscript was identified as coming from Mäqdäla library; see ANCEL – NOSNITSIN 2014: 90–95, here 94.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1: Letter of Petros, manuscript, Qəddəst Maryam monastery, Qäqäma, Təgray, fol. 151v</figcaption></figure>
Early 20th Century Theological Controversies in Ethiopia

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Letter of Petros, manuscript, Qoddast Maryam monastery, Qāqāma, Təgray, fol. 152r</figcaption></figure>
of King Fasilädäs (1632–67, here called ʿAlämä Sägäd). The letter was written on 25 April 1904 (17 Miyazya 1896 ʿA.M.), but we do not know what the circumstances were when the document was penned. We can only assume that Pɛtros personally visited the monastery since the letter contains his seal. The letter of Pɛtros is written on the flyleaves of the manuscript, on two ruled and pricked folios, 151v and 152r [Figs. 1 and 2].<fnref n="44" /> The seal of Pɛtros appears twice, in the upper margin of fol. 151v and in the lower margin of fol. 152r. Even if faded, the Arabic inscription is still partly visible on fol. 151v [Fig. 3] while the Gɔ̈cəz inscription is to some extent legible on fol. 152r [Fig. 4]. As mentioned before, it is the same seal as the one published in the edition of the chronicle of Mənilək and in the letter of Pɛtros to Alfred Ilg from 1896.<fnref n="45" />

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3: Seal of Pɛtros, letter of Pɛtros, manuscript, Qəddəst Maryam monastery, Qäqäma, Təgray, fol. 151v</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4: Seal of Pɛtros, letter of Pɛtros, manuscript, Qəddəst Maryam monastery, Qäqäma, Təgray, fol. 152r</figcaption></figure>

Characteristic features and exact periodization of the script(s) of the 19th and 20th centuries have still not been sufficiently studied.<fnref n="46" /> Therefore, we will restrict ourselves to drawing attention to some features of the hand that penned the letter. The handwriting is of rather mediocre quality mainly because of the irregularity in the shape of the letters. They are produced in a manner common to the Ethiopic scripts with the pen nib at 0° angle to the writing line, resulting in bold upright vertical strokes and thin horizontal strokes. The curved stoke of such letters as የ, አ, ሲ appears thinner where it is most twisted and broader in its more straight areas. To make the writing of some letters easier, the scribe started penning the first stroke from a thin line,<fnref n="47" /> as in the letters ኣ and ደ (in ኢለያስ, fol. 151v, l. 6). Finishing the

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Fol. 151v: 29 lines; fol. 152r: 35 lines.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ ZEWDE GUEBRE-SELLASSIE 1930: 308, figure 46; BAIRU TAFLA 2000: 213.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ UHLIG 1988: 768–806.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ So called “Haarstriche”, see *ibid*. 781; “hair-like strokes”, see ID. 1990: 107.</footnote>
stroke with this simple flick of the pen is less frequent, for instance in the
letter ን (in መናፍቃን, fol. 152r, l. 3). The shape of the letters has an angular
form. The letters are tall, slender and spaced well apart. In a number of
words, for instance እንዴት (fol. 151v, l. 3), ይገኘ (fol. 151v, l. 9), ቄርሎስም
(fol. 152r, l. 2) and ዘላዕሌሁ (fol. 152r, l. 9) the loop of the letters of the 5th
order, that is, ዴ, ጡ, ቄ and ሌ is reduced to a short thick dash. Similarly, the
loop of the letters of the 7th order looks like two short thick dashes since the
scribe failed to connect them with two parallel lines. The examples that
illustrate this case mostly concern the letter ሎ as in ሀሎክሙ (fol. 151v, l. 3),
ብሎ (fol. 151v, l. 8, l. 9), ሌሎችም (fol. 151v, l. 23) and ቄርሎስም (fol. 152r, l.
2). Also, the vowel marker of the letter ቄ in በቂላስይስ (fol. 152r, l. 7) is re-
duced to simple dashes.

The Amharic writing does not differ that much from the contemporary
practice. There are only two peculiarities which may be worth a remark.
First, the letter ጡ (in ይገኘ, fol. 151v, l. 9) is penned with an additional dash
extending to the left from the bottom of the left leg. This feature is attested
in Amharic texts dated to the 18th century.<fnref n="48" /> Secondly, the palatalization
marker consists of two dashes that extend diagonally from the top of the
letter, one to the left and one to the right (for example ጟ and ች in ከልጾች ፣
ከወዳጾች, fol. 151v, l. 2). In contrast, the present day convention is to pen
the dashes horizontally.

It is reasonable to assume that the letter found in the Octateuch is a copy of
the original letter of Petros that was made to record this important document.
The original letter, most likely written on paper, was sent to the addressee.
The present document is written continuously without any visual organiza-
tion of basic textual units, such as the part containing an address to the reader
and greetings, the main body of the letter and the concluding part. It is diffi-
cult to say whether this unstructured stream of words mirrors the visual or-
ganization of the original letter. However, among the edited letters, private
and official, penned around the same time as the letter of Petros, we most
often encounter letters with at least rudimental division into three parts.<fnref n="49" />

A few erasures and corrections made in the text show that the scribe
proofread the text, possibly under some kind of supervision. This, in turn,
indicates that he was aware of the significance of the document and serious
consequences which any unintended changes may have brought about. The
corrections usually involve adding omitted words and letters, and, in one
case, crossing out a part of the word and substituting it with another. Punc-
tuation is applied in a consistent and logical manner. There are three differ-

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ GETATCHEW HAILE 1983: 158.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ ULLENDORFF 1972: 229–270.</footnote>
ent punctuation signs used in the text: two dots (።) for separating words, four dots (።።) for separating sentences and two dots with a dash above and below (፮) for separating two related ideas within a sentence. Apart from a few exceptions, all numbers are written in Ethiopic numerals, for instance, ፩መለኮት “one Divinity”.

Since Amharic was used as the language of communication in the Ethiopian Church, the letter sent by the Metropolitan to the Təgrəntna-speaking educated community was in that language. Aside from Amharic, the letter also contains a few Gəcəz sentences. Both languages may be viewed as forming two layers: the author leads the main argumentation in Amharic, the profane language, and supports his stance with quotations in Gəcəz, the language of the Scriptures and authoritative religious texts. Let us discuss both layers beginning from Gəcəz. The Gəcəz layer of the letter consists of quotations from the New Testament, from Haymanotä abäw (“The Faith of the Fathers”) – theological miscellanea from which the author cites the Church Fathers – from the Anaphora of St. Mary and from some other unidentified writings. Also, Gəcəz is the source of numerous words employed as technical terms in the theological discussion. Finally, a few formulaic expressions, by which we mean fixed phrases applied in specific acts of communication, are written in Gəcəz. These are the introduction of the sender of the letter (መልእከት ፣ ዘፈነዋ... fol. 151v, ll. 1–2) and the excommunication (በሥልጣነ ፣ አብ... ውጉዘ ፣ ለይኩን, fol. 152r, ll. 30–34). Most of the quotations are introduced by various Amharic expressions indicating direct speech, such as the simplest and most common እንዳለ... “as he said”, ብሏል... “he said” as well as ብሎ ፣ መለሰለት... “he answered him saying:”, ብሎ ፣ መሰከረለት... “he testified to him saying:”, which specify the type of the speech act. With the exception of 1 Pet 3:18, all the remaining citations are identical or almost the same as in their source books.<fnref n="50" />

The Amharic layer appears very dominant in the letter. It starts with a formulaic expression used at the beginning of any letters (ይድረስ ፣ ከ..., “may it reach”, fol. 151v, l. 2) and the everyday greeting. Then, the author explains the cause of the letter and mentions the authority of the fathers that stands behind him. After that, the argumentation follows which is concluded with listing and anathematizing those who would deny the Täwahədo doctrine. In two instances, the author explicitly applies the way of leading a

<footnote n="50">50 The New Testament citations have been compared against the following church editions: ሐዲስ ኪዳን 1975; የቅዱስ ፣ ጸውሎስ ፣ መጽሐፍ ፣ ንባቡ ፣ ከነትርጓሚው 1948; ፆቱ ፣ መጻሕፍተ ፣ ሐዲሳት ፣ ንባብ ፣ ከነትርጓሚ 1951. The point of reference for the quotations from Haymanotä abäw is ሃይማኖተ ፣ አበው 1967.</footnote>
polemics known from the *andāmta*-commentary.<fnref n="51" /> They are indicated with such expressions as ስለምን ፣ ቢሉ ፣... “if they say ‘why’,” (fol. 151v, l. 25) and ይኽስ ፣ እንደ ፣ ምን ፣ ቢሉ ፣... “as for this, if they say ‘how’,” (fol. 151v, l. 28). The type of Amharic, in which the letter is penned, indicates Modern Amharic, namely the language that is known from written sources from the second half of the 19th century and is to a great extent in use today, especially in religious circles.<fnref n="52" /> Nevertheless, one syntactic peculiarity, which nowadays is obsolete but was still present in the language at the beginning of the 20th century, is worth mentioning. That is, on one occasion, the writer of the letter uses content clauses composed of the complement እንድ- and the simple imperfect form of the verb, ከልብ ፣ እንዲገኝ ፣ ነቅዕ ፣ ከነቅዕ ፣ እንዲገኝ ፣ ነው- (fol. 151v, l. 29). This construction is currently substituted by the complement እንድ- followed by the relative imperfect.<fnref n="53" /> The quality of Amharic is indicative of the native speaker knowledge of the language. The abundance of citations and their exactness, the smooth and skilful flow of argumentation, the knowledge of the *andāmta*-commentary jargon and the ease with which the theological matters are discussed suggest that the author of the letter was very well-versed in the teachings and the doctrinal position of the Tāwahādo Faith.

Given that the sender of the letter, Pɛtros, came from Egypt, where he also obtained his theological education, we may rightly ask if he initially wrote the letter in Arabic and had it translated into Amharic and Gəcəz. This possibility should be excluded based on the linguistic features and the content. Aside from one Arabic word, ከታቡ (fol. 152r, l. 8), being in fact a loan word in Gəcəz, the language of the letter does not show any signs of an Arabic *Vorlage* neither on the syntactic, morphological nor lexical levels. The word ከታቡ used in reference to the Pauline epistle, instead of Gəcəz መልከት suggests that, indeed, the Metropolitan had a major role in making up the letter. As for the content, it reveals the way and the sources of argumentation peculiar to the Ethiopian theological tradition. To make this claim even more convincing, let us mention that the Anaphora of St. Mary was still unknown to the Coptic Church at the time of Pɛtros.<fnref n="54" />

<footnote n="51">51 Concerning *andāmta*-commentary, see: COWLEY 1983: 19–61; STOFFREGEN-PEDERSEN 1995: 6f.; BÖLL 1998: 62–81; MERSHA ALEHEGNE 2011: 8–12; STOFFREGEN-PEDERSEN – TEDROS ABRAHA 2003: 258a–259b.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">52 APPLEYARD 2003: 111f.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">53 GOLDENBERG 1965: 10.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">54 At that time, the Coptic Church used only the Anaphoras of St. Cyril, St. Gregory and St. Basil.</footnote>
## Theological context of the letter

In his letter, Pełros aims at exposing the Trinitarian and Christological doc-
trines accepted by Alexandria, and thus by the Ethiopian Church and State,
to the clergy of the “land of Ag‘azi” (ብሔረ ፣ አግዓዚ). Although the expres-
sion “land of Ag‘azi” was usually employed in reference to Ethiopia, in this
case it may refer specifically to the central regions of Təgray. The expres-
sion is rather obsolete and does not exist in Modern Amharic. However, it
is still used by the elders in some parts of the present-day Təgray when they
talk about the region they live in.<fnref n="55" /> Pełros’ letter, being didactical in charac-
ter, presents and also explains difficult but crucial theological issues. In
what follows, we will summarise the contents of the letter and, subsequent-
ly, we will try to analyse the key points that it raises.

The letter was sent as a reaction to the presence of “wicked people” (ከፉ ሰዑች) among the clergy who were challenging the Täwaḥado doctrine (ወልድ ፣ ዋሕድ ፣ ማለትን ፣ ሃይማኖት). At first, he says that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same intellect (ልብ), word (ቃል) and breath (እስትንፋስ). Pełros explains that they represent one divinity, called Lord (እግዚአብሔር), Divinity (መለኮት) or God (አምላክ), in three persons, which respectively generates (ወላዲ), is generated (ተወላዲ) and is the sprout (ሠራዒ). Thus, he contests the existence of any hierarchy among the Persons of the Trinity. Then, he gives an answer to the technical problem posed by the statement which says, at the same time, “one Divinity in three Persons” (ይሄለሱ ፣ በአካላት ፣ ወይትዋሐዱ ፣ በመለኮት, fol. 152r, l. 3) and “one Person is equal to one Divinity” (መለኮት ፣ አካል ፣ አካል ፣ መለኮት, fol. 152r, ll. 3f.). In this way, he insists on the impossibility to separate notions of “person” (አካል) and “divinity” (መለኮት). After this, he comments on the statements concerning Christology by saying that “[Christ] is one Person, one Nature; united in the Mode of Existence, united in Nature, [being] the Son of the Father, the Son of Mary, He was honored by the [hyperstatic] union” (፩አካል ፣ ፩ባሕርይ ፣ ሆነ ፣ በከዊን ፣ ተዋህዶ ፣ በባሕርይ ፣ ተዋህዶ ፣ ወልደ ፣ አብ ፣ ወልደ ፣ ማርያም ፣ በተዋህዶ ፣ ከበረ, fol. 152r, ll. 9f.) and highlights that for him Christ knew (only) two births (፪ልደት). Then, he exposes the problem of the death of Christ on the cross. He contends that only the flesh and not the divinity died on the cross and explains that, on the contrary, “Divinity died in the flesh” (መለኮት ፣ በሥጋ ፣ ሞተ, fol. 152r, ll. 20f.). He finishes his letter by pointing out several theological ideas which he condemns.

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Information given by Wolbert Smidt (Mekelle University); see also SMIDT 2010a: 890b.</footnote>
Petros does not explicitly say who the people that are challenging the
Orthodox faith are and where they are. Nevertheless, the religious context
of Təgray at that time and the theological themes that he deals with allow us
to identify the characteristics of these opponents and their location. The
council of Boru Meda in 1878 had imposed Täwaḥədo/Wäld qəb Christo-
logical doctrine as the only one accepted in the Christian kingdom. Qəbʻat
and Sägga ləğ doctrines were condemned.<fnref n="56" /> But it did not put an end to
theological controversies in Ethiopia. At the end of the 19th century, a con-
troversy concerning the Trinity and the concept of divinity (መላኮት,
mäläkot) emerged.<fnref n="57" /> In Waldəbba hermitage, monks divided themselves
into two rival factions. The first one, called the “house of abunä Minas”,
after the name of a known spiritual father of that place, professed that Trini-
ty represents “one Divinity in Three Persons”. This doctrine was summa-
rized as the “one Divinity” (፪መለኮት, and mäläkot) doctrine. The second
one, called the “house of abunä ጡcəmä Krəstos”, after the name of another
recognized spiritual father, professed, on the contrary, that Trinity represents
“Three Divinities in Three Persons”. It was known as the “three Divinities”
(፫መለኮት, sost mäläkot) doctrine.<fnref n="58" /> Apparently, the religious dispute had its
source in the problematic interpretation of the statement written in the
Mälkə’a səallase (“Image of the Trinity”): መላኮት ፣ ለለ ፣ አሐዱ ፣ ዘዚአክሙ ፣
ገጻተ, “Each of Your faces has Divinity”.<fnref n="59" /> Starting from Waldəbba, the con-
troversy spread to other parts of Təgray and appeared among the clergy of
different monasteries like Däbrä Abbay and Däbrä Bizän, and finally among
the clergy of Aksum.<fnref n="60" /> The theological dispute gained vital importance and in
April 1907 King Mənilək II (r. 1889–1913) was urged to write a letter to
Waldəbba calling for reconciliation of the two movements.<fnref n="61" /> Evidently, it did
not solve the problem and so the monarch sent another letter in June 1910.<fnref n="62" />
In both letters, Mənilək threatened those who disobeyed with anathema from

<footnote n="56">56 Concerning the council of Boru Meda, see among others studies: CAULK 1972: 23–41; TESFAZGHI UQBIT 1973: 83–86; CRUMMEY 1978: 427–442; YAQOB BEYENE 1977: 1–9, 31–59.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">57 TEDROS ABRAHA 2010: 992a–993a.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 BERHANÄ MÄSQÄL TESFAMARYAM 1996: 238; BÄRIHUN KÄBBÄDÄ 1983: 124ff.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">59 መልክአ ፣ ሥሳሌ 1985: 2; TEDROS ABRAHA 2010: 992b; BERHANÄ MÄSQÄL TESFAMARYAM 1996: 241.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">60 TEDROS ABRAHA 2010: 992b; BERHANÄ MÄSQÄL TESFAMARYAM 1996: 242f.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">61 TEDROS ABRAHA 2010: 992b.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">62 The letter was sent in Waldəbba on 1 June 1910 (24 gənbot 1902 cA.M.). The photos of the letter and its transcription are published by Bärihun Käbbädä in his book about Waldəbba; cf. BÄRIHUN KÄBBÄDÄ 1983: 141–149.</footnote>
Bishop Matewos.<fnref n="63" /> As mentioned, Waldabba was under the jurisdiction of Matewos while Aksum and Central Təgray were under the jurisdiction of Pɛtros. In November 1914, a council in which Pɛtros participated, was even set up at Däse to overcome the problem involving clergy of Aksum and of Däbrä Abbay monastery.<fnref n="64" /> In fact, at that time Däse became the See of the new diocese of Pɛtros as the Bishop of Təgray and Wällo under the patronage of the newly crowned nəguš Mika’el.<fnref n="65" /> Even if, apparently, the dispute calmed down in Aksum and Däbrä Abbay, it continued over the 20th century in Waldabba where it still lingers on today.<fnref n="66" />

Obviously, the letter of Pɛtros written in 1904 refers to this Trinitarian controversy. It seems that it was sent to the clergy of Aksum or to the monks of Däbrä Abbay. In his letter, Pɛtros aims at proving that Trinity represents “one Divinity in Three Persons”. At first, he treats the old and well known heterodox doctrines like those of Arius, Macedonius, Apollinaris or Sabellius (fol. 151v, ll. 22–25). But then, when he exposes then the “arithmetic” problem posed by the statement telling, at the same time, that “they are Three Persons in one Divinity” and “one Divinity is equal to one Person” (fol. 152r, ll. 3f.), he refers to unnamed “heretics”. Thus, in this passage, Pɛtros targets the followers of the “three Divinities” doctrine without calling them as such, but he exposes their theological argument.

The letter also mentions other controversies. Pɛtros reminds the main theological statements officially accepted by the Ethiopian Church. In relation to the Trinity, he makes a clear reference to the statement saying that: “The Father generates, the Son is generated, and the Holy Spirit is the sprout” (fol. 151v, ll. 16–21). This reference permits him to contest the Catholic doctrine of the *Filioque*. As such, he invokes the dispute which occurred with Catholics during the 16th century.

If his purpose was both to remind the statements accepted by the Church and to confront those who, in the past, had contested them, he was also concerned with other Ethiopian theological movements. Just after explaining the necessity of not separating the notions of divinity and person for Trinity, Pɛtros invokes the statements accepted by the Täwabdo doctrine concerning the Christological teaching in telling that: ፌአካል ፣ ፌባሕርይ ፣ ሆነ ፣ በክዊን ፣ ተዋህዶ ፣ በባሕርይ ፣ ተዋህዶ ፣ ወልደ ፣ አብ ፣ ወልደ ፣ ማርያም ፣ በተዋህዶ ፣ ከበረ ፣ ፌልደት ፣ ብለን ፣ እናምናለን። “We believe that He is one Person, one Nature; united in the Mode of Existence (*käwin*), united in

<footnote n="63">⁶³ TEDROS ABRAHA 2010: 992b; BÄRIHUN KÄBBÄDÄ 1983: 144, 147.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ TEDROS ABRAHA 2010: 993a.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ ANCEL 2011: 506; SMIDT 2001: 361–373.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ TEDROS ABRAHA 2010: 993a; BÄRIHUN KÄBBÄDÄ 1983: 123–140.</footnote>
Nature (*bahrəy*), [being] the Son of the Father, the Son of Mary, He was honored by the [hypostatic] union, [so there are] two births" (fol. 152r, ll. 9f.). At first, this sentence exposes the statements accepted by *Täwaḥədo* doctrine during the controversy on "function" and "union", also summarized as "**በተዋሕዉ፡ ወልድ፡ ባሕርይ**" "[Christ] is the Son [of God] in nature by the [hypostatic] union". It opposes followers of both Qəbʻat and Sägga ləğ movements.<fnref n="67" /> It is interesting to note that Petros tries to avoid misunderstanding in using both "*kawin*" and "*bahrəy*" to express the notion of "nature".<fnref n="68" /> Secondly, it is a summary of the *Täwaḥədo* doctrine on the number of Christ's "births", as it was expressed at the council of Boru Meda in 1878. Even if Petros admits that during the hypostatic union "the Son was honored", he professes the "two births" ("*bulätt lədät*") of Christ, which are the eternal birth from the Father and the temporal birth from the blessed Mary. This doctrine opposed the "three birth" ("*sost lədät*") followers (mainly from the Sägga ləğ movement), who believed in a third "birth" which happened when the unction by the Holy Spirit took place (at His incarnation or His baptism).<fnref n="69" /> In fact, Petros continues his discourse by focusing on the absence of a third "birth" during the life of Jesus Christ.

The last part of the letter deals with the problem concerning the death of Christ and the statement claiming that "Divinity died in the flesh" (fol. 152r, ll. 20f.). Here again, it is a clear allusion to the debate with the Catholics.<fnref n="70" /> Finally, he concludes his letter by reminding the main doctrines that he refutes and he threatens those who profess them (fol. 152r, ll. 27–34). He refers to Catholics (those who profess Diophysite doctrine and *Filioque*), but also to Protestants (those who deny the transubstantiation), to the Sägga ləğ movement (those who say "Son of Grace through the unction"<fnref n="71" />), and to the Qəbʻat followers (those who say "Son of nature through the unction"<fnref n="72" />).

Written in 1904, the letter shows an early state of the involvement of high ecclesiastical and political authorities in the Trinitarian controversy, which occurred in Təgray at the beginning of the 20th century. The nicknames of each group ("one Divinity" and "three Divinities") do not appear. They will be clearly identified only in the letters of Mənilək in 1907 and 1910. Also, Waldəbba is not mentioned in the letter. The sending of this letter in 1904 was nevertheless motivated by the spread of the dispute about

<footnote n="67">67 GETATCHEW HAILE 1990: xi; cf. also ID. 1986: 205–209.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">68 TESFAZGHI UQBIT 1973: 33, 35f.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">69 ID. 1973: 84; YAQOB BEYENE 1977: 1–9; ID. 1981: 15 (footnote 48), 281f.; GETATCHEW HAILE 1990: ixf.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">70 ADMASU GÄMBÄRE, 1954: 180; TESFAZGHI UQBIT 1973: 65.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">71 GETATCHEW HAILE 1990: 27 (text), 25 (trs.); cf. also ID. 1986: 205–209.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">72 ID. 1990: 29–34 (text), 26–31 (trs.); cf. also ID. 1986: 205–250.</footnote>
the number of divinities for the Trinity in the central regions of Təgray. It
seems that Pɛtros did not really know all the characteristics of the contro-
versy or its origin, perhaps because the Waldəbba region did not belong to
his diocese. However, the controversy was brought into the heart of
Təgray. In this letter, Pɛtros targeted all potential opponents to the official
doctrine of the Ethiopian Church present in Ethiopia at that time, such as
Catholics, Protestants, Şägga lɔğ and Qəbət.
<fnref n="73" /> Pɛtros as bishop of that re-
gion, was apparently the first one who officially reacted to solve the prob-
lem. And one had to wait for the letters sent by Mənilək II to Waldəbba in
1907 and 1910 to see that the high authorities of the Church finally identi-
fied the origin and the two groups of the “mäläkot controversy”. Thus, it
may be concluded that the letter presented here is probably the oldest
known historical document issued from high ecclesiastical authorities which
refers to the “mäläkot controversy”.

Text

Fol. 151v: መልእክት ፣ ዘፈነዋ ፣ ጴጥሮስ ፣ ሊቀ ፣ ጳጻሳት ፣ ዘመንግሥተ ፣ ኢትዮጵ
ያ ፣ ገብሩ ፣ ወሐዋርያሁ ፣ ለእግዚእነ የ ኢየሱስ ፣ ክርስቶስ ፣ ወልዱ ፣ ለቅዱስ ፣ ማር
ቆስ ፣ ወንጌላዊ ፣ ይድረስ ፣ ክልጆች ፣ ከወዳጆች ፣ ቡሩካን ፣ ቅዱሳን ፣ እለ ሀሎክ
ሙ ፣ ውስተ ፣ ብሔረ አግዓዚ እንዴት አላችሁ እኔ ፣ ደጎና ፣ ነኝ እግዚአብሔ
ር ፣ ይመስገን ፣ ክፉ ፣ ሰዎች ፣ ወልድ ፣ ዋሕድ ፣ ማለትን ፣ ሃይማኖት ፣ የሚለውጡ ፣
ክ[ካ]ህኖት ፣ ዘንድ ፣ ተነሥተዋል ፣ ብሰማ ፣ እጅግ ፣ አዘንሁኝ ፣ የእስክንድርያና ፣
የኢትዮጵያ ፣ ሃይማኖት ፣ አንድ ፣ ነው ጌታች{ን} ፣ ኢየሱስ ፣ ክርስቶስ ፣ ሐዋርያት
ን ፣ በቂሳርያ ፣ ሰው ፣ ሁሉ ፣ ማን ፣ ይለኛል ፣ ብሎ ፣ ቢጠይቃቸው ፣ እነሱ ፣ ሲመል
ሱም ፣ ፌኤልያስ ፣ ፌኤርምያስ ፣ ፌእንዳንድ ፣ ነቢይ ፣ ነው ፣ ይሉሃል ፣ ቢሉት ፣ እናን
ተስ ፣ ማን ፣ ትሉኛላችሁ ፣ ቢላቸው ፣ ቅዱስ ፣ ጴጥሮስ ፣ አንተ ፣ ውእቱ ፣ ክርስቶስ ፣
ወልደ ፣ እግዚአብሔር ፣ ብሎ ፣ መለሰለት ፣ ጌታም ፣ ይኸን ፣ ስምቶ ፣ ብፁዕ ፣ አን
ተ ፣ ጴጥሮስ ፣ ወልደ ፣ ዮና ፣ አለው ፣ አብም ፣ በዚኸው ፣ ቃል ፣ ዝንቱ ፣ ውእቱ ፣
ወልድየ ፣ ብሎ ፣ [erasure<fnref n="75" />] ፣ መሰከረለት ፣ እኔም ፣ ይኸነን ፣ ይዢ ፣ ያባቶቻችን ፣
የሐዋርያትን ፣ የ፫፪ን ፣ ሃይማኖት ፣ እጽፍላችኋለሁ ፣ አብ ፣ ለራሱ ፣ ልብ ፣ ሲሆን ፣
የወልድ ፣ የመንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስ ፣ ልባቸው ፣ ነው ፣ ሌላ ፣ ልብ ፣ የላ{ቸ}ውም ፣ በሱ ፣ ለባ
ውያን ፣ ይባላሉ ፣ በተለየ ፣ ፍጹም ፣ አካሉ ፣ እግዚአብሔር ፣ መለኮት ፣ አምላክ ፣ ይባ

<footnote n="73">73 Catholics were very active in Agame and Irob regions, and of course in Eritrea due to the Italian colony; cf. ANCEL 2012: 92f. Less active Protestants were also present in the northern part of Təgray and in the Eritrean highlands. An Ethiopian ecclesiastic, Wäldä Śallase Kənfu (1841–76) had created a Protestant movement in ጩamasen; cf. SMIDT 2010b: 1110; ID. 2010c: 426a–427b.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">74 ግዚ, is a monogram.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ Still readable: መለሰለት ፣ ጌታም ፣ ይኸነን።</footnote>
Early 20th Century Theological Controversies in Ethiopia

ላል ። ወልድም ፣ ለራሱ ፣ ቃል ፣ ሲ[erasure]ሆን ፣ ለአብ[erasure<fnref n="76" />] ፣ ለመንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስ ፣ ቃላቸው ፣ ነው ፣ ሌላ ፣ ቃል ፣ የላቸውም ፣ በርሱ ፣ ነባብያን ፣ ይባላሉ ፣ በተለ የ ፣ ፍጹም ፣ አካሉ ፣ እግዚአብሔር ፣ መለኮት ፣ አምላክ ይባላል ። መንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስ ም ፣ ለራሱ ፣ እስትንፋስ ፣ ሲሆን ፣ ለአብ ፣ ለወልድ ፣ እስትንፋሳቸው ፣ ነው ፣ ሌላ ፣ እስትንፋስ ፣ የላቸውም ፣ በሱ ፣ ሕያዋን ፣ ይባላሉ ፣ በተለየ ፣ ፍጹም ፣ አካሉ ፣ እግዚአ ብሔር ፣ መለኮት ፣ አምላክ ይባላል ፣ ስለዚህ ፣ ነገር ፣ ፫ን ፣ እግዚአብሔር ፣ ፫ን መላኮት ፣ ፫አምላክ ፣ አስተካክለን ፣ እንላለን ። እግዚአብሔር ፣ በባሕርይ ፣ በመለኮ ት ፣ ፩ነው ፣ እግዚአብሔር ፣ በአካል ፣ ፫ት ፣ ነው ፣ ወላዲ ፣ እግዚአብሔር ፣ ተወላዲ ፣ እግዚአብሔር ፣ ሠራፂ ፣ እግዚአብሔር ፣ ፩እግዚአብሔር ፣ ወእግዚአብሔር ፣ ውእ ቱ ፣ ቃል ፣ እንዳለ ፣ ወንጌል ፫ መለኮት ፣ በባሕርይ ፣ ፩ነው ፣ በአካል ፣ ፫ነው ፣ ወላዲ ፣ መለኮት ፣ ተወላዲ ፣ መለኮት ፣ ሠራፂ ፣ መለኮት ፣ ፩መለኮት ፫ መለኮትሰ ፣ ውእቱ [erasure<fnref n="77" />] ፣ አካላት ፣ ዘውእቶሙ ፣ ገጻት ፣ ቅዱሳት ፣ እንዳለ ፣ ባስልዮስ ፣ ዘአ ንጾኪያ ፣ አምላክ ፣ በመለኮት ፣ በባሕርይ ፣ ፩ነው ፣ በአካል ፣ ፫ነው ፣ ወላዲ ፣ አም ላክ ፣ ተወላዲ ፣ አምላክ ፣ ሠራፂ ፣ አምላክ ፣ ፩አምላክ ፣ አምላክ ፣ ውእቱ ፣ አብ ፣ አም ላክ ፣ ውእቱ ፣ ወልድ ፣ አምላክ ፣ ውእቱ ፣ መንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስ ፣ እንዳለ ፣ አትናቴዎስ ። ዳግመኛም ፣ እንደ ፣ አርዮስ ፣ አብ ፣ ፈጣሪ ፣ ወልድ ፣ ፍጡር ፣ እንደ ፣ መቅዶንዮስ ም ፣ መንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስ ፣ ሕፁፅ ፣ ሳንል ፣ እንደ ፣ አቡሊናርዮስም ፣ መዓርገ ፣ መንግሥ ት ፣ መዓርገ ፣ ርቀት ፣ ሳንሰጥ ፣ እንደ ፣ ሌሎችም ፣ መናፍቃን ፣ ዘዘዚአሆሙ ፣ ሳን ል ። እኒኽንም ፣ አካላት ፣ [erasure] ፩እግዚአብሔር ፣ ፩መለኮት ፣ ፩አምላክ ፣ ናቸው ፣ እንላለን ፣ እንደ ፣ ሰባልዮስና ፣ እንደ ፣ እስላም ፣ ፩አካል ፣ ፩ገጽ ፣ ሳንል ። ስለም ን ፣ ቢሉ ፣ አካል ፣ በአካል ፣ ሕልዋን ፣ ሁነው ፣ በአሐቲ ፣ ምክር ፣ በአሐቲ ፣ ሥልጣ ን ፣ እንዳንድ ፣ ሰው ፣ ያንድነት ፣ ስራ ፣ ቢሰሩ ፣ ነው ፣ ያንድነት ፣ ስራም ፣ አባ ፣ ሕር ያቆስ ፣ አብ ፣ ወወልድ ፣ ወመንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስ ፣ ይሔልዩ ፣ ብሎ ፣ እስክ ፣ ይኔንኙ ፣ የተ ናገሩት ፣ ምሥጢር ፣ ነው ። ዳግመኛም ፣ ወላዲነት ፣ ከተወላዲነት ፣ ተወላዲነት ፣ ከወላዲነት ፣ አሥራፂነት ፣ ከሠራፂነት ፣ ሠራፂነት ፣ ከሥራፂነት ፣ ባለመለየቱ ፣ ይኸ ስ ፣ እንደ ፣ ምን ፣ ቢሉ ፣ የወልድ ፣ ልደቱ ፣ የመንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስ ፣ ፀእቱ ፣ ቃል ፣ እስትን ፋስ ፣ ከልብ ፣ እንዲገኝ ፣ ነቅዕ ፣ ከነቅዕ ፣ እንዲገኝ ፣ ነው [Fol. 152r] እንጂ ፣ ተመት ሮ ፣ የለበትምና ፣ ስለዚህ ፣ ነው ፣ ኢየኃልቅ ፣ ልደቱ ፣ እምኔሁ ፣ ቀዳማዊ ፣ ከመ ፣ ነቅዕ ፣ ዘእምነቅዕ ፣ እንዳለ ፣ አግናጥዮስ ፣ ሊቀ ፣ ጳጳሳት ፣ ዘአንጾኪያ ። ቅዱስ ፣ ቁርሎስ ም ፣ ከመ ፣ ነቅዕ ፣ ዘይ[erasure]ፈለፍል ፣ ዘልፈ ፣ እንዳለ ፣ ከዚኸም ፣ በሚበዛ ፣ ፩ናቸው ፣ መናፍቃን ፣ ግን ፣ ይሚለሱ ፣ በአካላት ፣ ወይትዋሐዱ ፣ በመለኮት ፣ ያለውን ፣ ይዘው ፣ መለኮት ፣ አካል ፣ አካል ፣ መለኮት ፣ አይባልም ፣ መለኮትስ ፣ ፫ን ፣ አካል ፣ የሚጠቀልል ፣ ነው ፣ ይላሉ ፣ እንዲህ ፣ ማለታቸው ፣ አካል ፣ ሌላ ፣ መለኮት ፣ ሌላ ፣ አድርገው ፣ ነው ። እኛ ፣ ግን ፣ መለኮትን ፣ ከአካል ፣ አካልን ፣ ከመለኮት ፣ ሳንለይ ፣ ከ፫አካላት ፣ ፩አካል ፣ መለኮት ፣ ወልድ ፣ ሰው ፣ ሆነ ፣ ሰው ፣ አምላክ ፣ ሆነ ፣ ቃል ፣ ሥጋ ፣ ኮነ ፣ እንዳለ ፣ ዮሐንስ ፣ ወንጌላዊ ፣ ጎርጎርዮ{ስ}ም ፣ ዘእንዚናዙ ፣ ውእቱ ፣ እግዚአብሔር ፣ ዘኮነ ፣ ሰብአ ፫ ወውእቱ ፣ ሰብእ ፣ ዘኮነ ፣ አምላክ ፣ ብሏል ፣ ጳውሎስም ፣

<footnote n="76">76 Still readable: ና.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">77 Still readable: ገጻት.</footnote>
በቄላስይስ፡ ክታቡ<fnref n="78" /> በ፪[erasure]ክፍል፡ ዑቁ፡ ኢይኒጡክሙ፡ በጥበበ፡ ነገር፡ ዘይየውሁ፡ ለክንቱ፡ ለስኲተ፡<fnref n="79" /> ዝንቱ፡ ዓለም፡ ወአኮ፡ ለሕገ፡ ክርስቶስ፡ ዘላዕሌ ሁ፡ ኀደር፡ ኾሉ፡ መለኮቱ፡ በሥጋ፡ ሰብእ፡ ብሏል ። ፌአካል፡ ፌባሕርይ፡ ሆነ፡ በከዊን፡ ተዋህዶ፡ በባሕርይ፡ ተዋህዶ፡ ወልደ፡ አብ፡ ወልደ፡ ማርያም፡ በተዋህዶ፡ ከበረ፡ ፌልደት፡ ብለን፡ እናምናለን። ወአመ፡ በጽሐ፡ ዕድሜሁ፡ ፈነወ፡ ወልዶ፡ እግዚአብሔር፡ ወተወልደ፡ እምብእሲት፡ እንዳለ፡ ጺውሎስ። ባሳልዮስም፡ ዘቂሳርያ፡ ሳዊሮስም፡ ዘአንጸኪያ፡ ወይደልወነ፡ ከመ፡ ንእመን፡ ቦቱ፡ ለወልደ፡ እግዚአብሔር፡ ፌልደት፡ ብሏል። ተወልዶም፡ በ፴ዓመት፡ ተጠመቀ፡ ተጠምቆም፡ ፫ዓመት፡ ከ፫ወር፡ አስተማረ፡ ለመድኃኒተ፡ ዓለም፡ መለኮት፡ ወልድ፡ በሰውነቱ፡ ተሰቀለ፡ ሞተ፡ ወእመሰ፡ ክርስቶስ፡ ተሰቅለ፡ በሥጋሁ፡ በእንቲአነ፡ ወበእንተ፡ ኃጣውኢነ፡ ውእቱ፡ ተሰቅለ፡ ዲበ፡ ዕፅ፡ በሥጋሁ፡ እንዳለ፡ ቅዱስ፡ ጴጥሮስ፡ ቅዱስ፡ ጺውሎስም፡ ወሶበ፡ እንዘ፡ ፀሩ፡ ንሕነ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር፡ ተሣሃለነ፡ በሞተ፡ ወልዱ፡ [erasure]እፎ፡ እንከ፡ ይሣሃለነ፡ ፈድፋደ፡ ብሏል። መናፍቃን፡ ግን፡ መለኮት፡ በሥጋ፡ ሞተ፡ ብንል፡ ለእመ፡ ትቤ፡ መለኮት፡ ሞተ፡ አንተ፡ ትከውን፡ ቀታሊሆሙ፡ ለሥሉስ፡ ቅዱስ፡ ያለውን፡ ንባብ፡ ይዘው፡ ሥጋ፡ እንጅ፡ መለኮት፡ አልሞተም፡ ይላሉ፡ እን{ዲ}ህም፡ ማለታቸው፡ አርእስቱን፡ ባይመለከቱ፡ ነው፡ ሊቁ፡ ግን፡ እንዲህ፡ ማለቱ፡ ኅድረት፡ ፌባሕርይ፡ ነፍስ፡ አልነሳም፡ ለሚሉ፡ ሰዎች፡ ነው፡ መለኮት፡ በሥጋ፡ ሞተ፡ ማለት፡ እንዴት፡ ነው፡ ቢሉ፡ የነፍስ፡ የሥጋ፡ መለየት፡ ነው። አማኑኤል፡ ሞተ፡ ከመ፡ ሞተ፡ ዚአነ፡ ዘውእቱ፡ ተፈልጠተ፡ ነፍስ፡ ወሥጋ። ዳግመኛም፡ ወእመሰ፡ ኘከመ፡ ንባቦሙ፡ ኢሞተ፡ በሞተ፡ ዚአነ፡ እፎ፡ ንትሜካህ፡ በሞቱ፡ ለመድኃኒነ፡ እንዳለ። ሳዊሮስ[erasure]፡ ዘአንጸኪያ፡ ሥጋም፡ በመለኮቱ፡ ሕያው፡ ነው፡ ዘኢይመውት፡ ነው፡ ሕያው፡ መለኮት፡ ነውና፡ መለኮት፡ የተባለ፡ በተለየ፡ አካሉ፡ ሰው፡ የሆነ፡ ወልድ፡ ነው። መከራ፡ የምንቀበልባት፡ መንግሥተ፡ ሰማይ፡ የምንገባባት፡ ይች፡ ናት። ኦደቂቅየ፡ ባቲ፡ ዕቀቡ፡ ፥እሰክሙ፡ እምኾሉ፡ እኩይ፡ በዚህ፡ የተጻፈውን፡ ሰምታችሁ፡ በዚህች፡ ሃይማኖት፡ የጸናችሁ፡ ቡሩካን፡ ቅዱሳን፡ ፍቱሐን፡ ያርጋችሁ፡ ከዚህ፡ ሃይማኖት፡ ግን፡ ወጥቶ፡ ፌባሕርይ፡ ፌአካል፡ የሚሉ፡ ከማርያም፡ ነፍስ፡ አልነሳም፡ የሚሉ፡ መንፈስ፡ ቅዱ{ስ}ን፡ ዘሠረፀ፡ እምወልድ፡ የሚል፡ በቅብዓት፡ መንፈስ፡ ቅዱስ፡ የጸጋ፡ ልጅ{፫ልደት}፡ የሚል፡ በቅብዓተ፡ መንፈስ፡ ቅዱስ፡ የባሕርይ፡ ልጅ፡ የሚል፡ ኅብስቱ፡ ተለውጦ፡ ሥጋ፡ መለኮት፡ ወይኑ፡ ተስውጦ፡ ደመ፡ መለኮት፡ አይሆንም፡ መዘከርያ፡ ነው፡ እንጅ፡ የሚል። በሥልጣነ፡ አብ፡ ወወልድ፡ ወመንፈስ፡ ቅዱስ፡ በሰይፍ፡ ዘ፪አፉሁ፡ ይትመተር፡ ወበአፈ፡ ፫ወ፪ሐዋርያት፡ ይት[erasure]{ፈለጥ፦} ወበዳግም፡ ምጽአቱ፡ እመንበሩ፡ ይርኃቅ፡ ወበሥልጣነ፡ ፫፪፫ወጀርቱዓነ፡ ሃይማኖት፡ ዘኒቅያ፡ ወበአፈ፡ ፫ወሃዘቀዶስጥንጥያ፡ ወበአፈ፡ ፌ፪ዘኤፌሶን፡ ወበአፈ፡ ኾሎሙ፡ ሊቃነ፡ ጺጻሳት፡ ወበአፈ፡ ዚአየኒ፡ ሊተ፡ ለጴጥሮስ፡ ውጉ

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ The word ክታቡ is coming from Arabic language and is unusual even if it can be found in Gə’əz sources.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ A part is omitted. It should be: ዘይየውሁ፡ ለክንቱ፡ [በሥርዐተ፡ ትምህርተ ሰብእ] ለስኒ ተ፡ ዝንቱ፡ ዓለም.</footnote>
ዘ ፣ ለይኩን ፣ ተጽሕፈት ፣ ዛቲ ፣ መጽሐፍ ፣ በ፲፻ወጻ፻፺፮ ፣ ዓመተ ፣ ምሕረት ፣ በዘመ ነ ፣ ዮሐንስ ፣ አመ ፣ ፲ወ፯ ፣ ለሚያዝያ ፣ በደብረ ፣ ገነት ፣ ቀቀማ ።

English translation

[Fol. 151v] The letter sent by Petros, Metropolitan of the kingdom of Ethiopia, the servant and the apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the son of Saint Mark the Evangelist. May it reach the blessed and saintly children and friends who live in the land of ²Agcazi. How are you? I am well, thanks be to God. It greatly saddened me to hear that among the priests wicked people have risen who are changing the doctrine of (lit. "the doctrine which says") "the only Son". <fnref n="80" /> The faith of Alexandria and Ethiopia is one. When our Lord Jesus Christ asked the apostles in Caesarea [Philippi], "Who do all people say that I am?" they answered, "One says that you are Elijah, one that Jeremiah, some that one of the prophets (lit. "like one prophet"). When he said to them, "And you, who do you say that I am?" Saint Peter answered him, "You are the Christ, the Son of God". And upon hearing this, the Lord said to him, "Blessed are you, Peter son of Jonah".<fnref n="81" /> And the Father testified to Him in these words, "This is my Son." <fnref n="82" /> And I have taken this and I am writing to you the faith of our Fathers, the Apostles and the Three Hundred.<fnref n="83" /> The Father, being in and of himself intellect, is [also] the intellect of the Son and the Holy Spirit. They do not have another intellect. Through Him they are called possessors of intellect. In His separate perfect Person He is called Lord, Divinity, God.<fnref n="84" /> And the Son, being in

<footnote n="80">80 The Ethiopian Orthodox theologians commonly refer to the Tāwahədo Christological doctrine as the doctrine of the 'unique Son' (ወልድ ፣ ዋሕድ), an abbreviation of the statement: በተዋሕድ ፣ ወልድ ፣ ዋሕድ ('by the [hypostatic] union He is the unique Son [of God]'); cf. ADMASU GÄMBÄRE 1954: 64, 89. With this expression, they emphasise the union of the divine and the human nature in Christ.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">81 Mt 16:13–16.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">82 Mt 3:16.</footnote>

<footnote n="83">83 'The Three Hundred' refers to the 318 Orthodox Fathers who, according to Ethiopian tradition, were present at the Council of Nicaea in 325.</footnote>

<footnote n="84">84 In line with the Alexandrian tradition, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church emphasizes the unity of the Three Persons in one Divinity. The Tāwahədo doctrine accepts Jacob Baradaeus' declaration: "Ich spreche und glaube und bekenne, dass der Vater die Weisheit (voûc nous) und der Sohn die Vernunft (λόγος logos) und der heilige Geist das Leben (ζωή zōē) ist" ("I say, I believe and am convinced that the Father is the Heart, the Son is the Word and the Holy Spirit is the Life [and, or the Breath]"; CORNILL 1876: 443). The Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses these metaphors: the Anaphora of the Three Hundred, verse 47, reads: "My Father, I, and the Holy Spirit are the sun, the light and the heat"; cf. መጽሐፈ ፣ ቅዳሴ 1962: 131. Also, the Anaphora of St. Mary says: "The Father</footnote>
and of himself the word, is [also] the word for the Father and the Holy Spirit. They do not have another word. Through Him they are called possessors of speech. In His separate perfect Person He is called Lord, Divinity, God. And the Holy Spirit, being in and of itself the breath, is [also] the breath for the Father and the Son. They do not have another breath. Through it they are called possessors of life. In its separate perfect Person it is called Lord, Divinity, God. Because of this we call [all] Three equally Lord, [all] Three equally Divinity, [all] Three equally God. Lord in Nature and Divinity is one. Lord in Person(s) is three.<fnref n="85" /> Lord generates, Lord is generated, Lord [is] the sprout, one Lord.<fnref n="86" /> As the Gospel says, “And the Word was Lord”.<fnref n="87" /> The Divinity is one in Nature (and) is three in Person. The Divinity generates, the Divinity is generated, the Divinity [is] the sprout, one Divinity. And as Basil of Antioch says, “And the Divinity is the Persons who are the holy Faces”.<fnref n="88" /> God in the Divinity and Nature is one, in Person(s) is three. God generates, God is generated, God [is] the sprout, one God. As Athanasius says, “God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit”.<fnref n="89" /> Again, we do not say with Arius, “The Father is the creator, the

<footnote>is the sun, the Son is the sun, and the Holy Spirit is the sun”; cf. መጽሐፈ ፣ ቅዳሴ 1962: 115; see also TEDROS ABRAHA 2010: 990; PIOVANELLI 1994: 204f.</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ This is a reference to the statement accepted by the Täwahədo doctrine: “One Divinity in three Persons”. See in the Mäṣhetä ləbbuna: “ነአምን ፣ መቅድመ ፣ ኮሶለ ፣ በፌመላ ኮት ፣ ወቡእነካለት ፣ ዘውእቶሙ ፣ አብ ፣ ወወልድ ፣ ወመንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስ” (“We believe before everything in one Divinity and in three Persons who are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”); cf. CERULLI 1960: 140 (text), 164 (tr.). See also the words ascribed to John of Antioch as exposed in the Haymanotä ʾabäw, chapter 103, section 2, paragraph 1; cf. ሃይማኖተ ፣ አበው 1967: 463.</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ This a reference to the statement accepted by the Täwahədo doctrine: “The Father generates, the Son is generated and the Holy Spirit is the sprout”. See in the Mäṣhetä ləbbuna: “አብ ፣ ውእቱ ፣ ወላዴ ፣ ወልድ ፣ ወእሥራዔ ፣ መንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስ ፣ ኢተወልድ ፣ ወኢሠ ረፀ ፣ እምካልእ ። ወልድኒ ፣ ውእቱ ፣ ወልድ ፣ ተወላዲ ፣ እምአብ ። ወመንፈስ ፣ ቅዱስኒ ፣ ሠራዒ ፣ ውእቱ ።” (“The Father generates the Son and let proceed the Holy Spirit, He is not born and does not proceed from anyone else. The Son is (indeed) the Son, born from the Father. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; cf. CERULLI 1960: 145 (text), 170 (tr.). Here Petros clearly used this statement to explain that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit represent one Divinity (called Lord, Divinity or God) in three Persons, which respectively generates, is generated and is the sprout.”</footnote>

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ Jn 1:1.</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ From the letter of Basil of Antioch to Saint Mar Cosmas of Alexandria as exposed in the Haymanotä ʾabäw, chapter 96, section 1, paragraph 5; cf. ሃይማኖተ ፣ አበው 1967: 420.</footnote>

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ As exposed in the Haymanotä ʾabäw, chapter 25, section 4, paragraph 4; cf. ሃይማኖተ ፣ አበው 1967: 74.</footnote>
Son is the creation”<fnref n="90" /> and with Macedonius, “The Holy Spirit is inferior”<fnref n="91" /> and we do not with Apollinarius assign [different] hierarchy of dominion and [different] hierarchy of subtlety<fnref n="92" /> and we do not say what any other heretics [say]. We say, “These Persons are one Lord, one Divinity, one God”. We do not say with Sabellius and with Islam, “One Person, one Face”.<fnref n="93" /> If one asks “why”, [the answer could be:] because person existing within person, it is as if with one counsel, with one authority, like one man they produced a joint work. And the joint work is the mystery about which Cyriacus [of Behnesa] said [beginning from], “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit think” up to “they judge”.<fnref n="94" /> Again, if one asks how this is that there is no difference between generating from being generated, being generated from generating, causing to proceed from proceeding, proceeding from causing to proceed, it is like the birth of the Son, the origin of the Holy Spirit, the word and the breath issue from the intellect [and] a spring issues from [the same] spring, but it is [all] indissoluble. [Fol. 152r] It is because of this that, as Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch said, “His birth does

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ As exposed in the Māṣḥafā bōrhan, book VI; cf. CONTI ROSSINI – RICCI 1965: 134 (text), 75 (tr.); see also in the Mäzgäbä haymanot; cf. CERULLI 1960: 6f. (text), 72f. (tr.). In the preparatory service for the liturgy, chapter 4, verse 43 the statement that “we believe also that Christ is not in the least degree inferior because of His incarnation ...” is declared; see also the Anaphora of Cyril, verse 97; cf. *መጽሐፈ፦ቅዳሴ* 1962: 53, 229.</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ As exposed in the Māṣḥafā bōrhan, book VI; cf. CONTI ROSSINI – RICCI 1965: 134 (text), 75f. (tr.); see also in the Mäzgäbä haymanot; cf. CERULLI 1960: 7f. (text), 73f. (tr.). The statement, refuting it, is declared in the Anaphora of John Chrysostom, verse 72: “May this Holy Spirit, who is neither searchable nor inferior ...”; see also in the Anaphora of Jacob of Serug, verse 38; cf. *መጽሐፈ፦ቅዳሴ* 1962: 214, 235. The statement telling that the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Son seems to be an idea ascribed to the Catholics still recently by Ethiopians, even if it is not true; cf. TESFAGZHI UQBIT 1973: 50; ANCEL 2012: 98, 100.</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² The doctrine ascribed to Apollinarius has not been identified. Cyril of Alexandria mentions Apollinarius in his letter to Awfamius, *Haymanotä abäw*, chapter 73, section 15, paragraph 27; cf. ሃይማኖተ፦አበው፦ 1967: 274. However, only the Amharic “translation” of this passage (col. b, page 274) specifies the Apollinarius’ idea: “እንደ፦አቡሊናርዮስ፦ነፍስ፦አልነሳም፦አላልኩ-ም፦መዐርገም፦አልሰጠሁ-ም” (“I did not say with Apollinarius: ‘[Christ] did not assume a soul’ and I did not give any ranks”).</footnote>

<footnote n="93">⁹³ As exposed in the Māṣḥafā bōrhan, book VI; cf. CONTI ROSSINI – RICCI 1965: 133 (text), 75 (tr.); see also Māṣḥafā mōṣṭir, chapter 1; cf. YAQOB BEYENE 1990: 2 (text), 2 (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ Petros refers to the Anaphora of St. Mary (which is ascribed to Cyriacus of Behnesa), verse 58–66, where 27 joint activities of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are enumerated. He mentions the first joint work (verse 58: “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit think”) and the penultimate (verse 66: “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit judge”); cf. *መጽሐፈ፦ቅዳሴ* 1962: 114.</footnote>
not stop with his first [birth], just like a spring is from a spring".<fnref n="95" /> Also as Saint Cyrill [of Alexandria] said, "Like a spring which bubbles forth forever".<fnref n="96" /> And they are one in more than this [what is listed above]. The heretics, however, taking, "They are three in Persons and one in Divinity", they say, "Divinity cannot be called person, [and] person cannot be called divinity, but it is that Divinity encompasses Three Person[s]".<fnref n="97" /> By saying this they take person separately and divinity separately. We, however, do not separate divinity from person and person from divinity. Out of Three Persons one Person, the Divine Son, became man, man became God, "The word became flesh" as John the Evangelist says.<fnref n="98" /> Also, Gregory of Nazi anzus said, "He is God who became man and man who became God".<fnref n="99" /> Also, Paul in the second part of his epistle to the Colossians said, "See to it that no one deceives you with philosophy [and] what is vain deceit [and] errors of this world and not on the law of Christ in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form."<fnref n="100" /> We believe that He is one Per son, one Nature; united in the Mode of Existence (*käwin*), united in Nature (*bahrəy*), [being] the Son of the Father, the Son of Mary, He was honored by the [hypostatic] union, [so there are] two births.<fnref n="101" /> As Paul says, "When

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ Unidentified quotation.</footnote>

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶ Unidentified quotation.</footnote>

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷ He refers to the contradiction which says at first that "one Divinity, three Persons" and secondly "Divinity and Person are equal". His response is clearly an answer to the problem posed by monks in Waldobba and then in Däbrä Abbay when they proposed that Trinity is composed with three Divinities rather than only one.</footnote>

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸ Jn 1:14.</footnote>

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ As exposed in the *Haymanotä'abäw*, chapter 61, section 4, paragraph 23; cf. ፲ፌማኖተ፦ አበዥ 1967: 217.</footnote>

<footnote n="100">100 Ref. to Col 2:8f.</footnote>

<footnote n="101">101 At first, this sentence is a summary of statements accepted by Täwaḥədo doctrine during the controversy on “unction” and “union”, also summarized as በተዋሕዙ ወልዒ ባሕሮዒ “[Christ] is the Son [of God] in nature by the [hypostatic] union”. It opposed to both followers of Qəb'at and Sägga ləğ movements; cf. GETATCHEW HAILE 1990: xi. Petros uses both kawin and bahrəy to express the notion of “nature”; cf. TESFAZGHI UQBIT 1973: 33, 35f. But also, it is a summary of Täwaḥədo doctrine as it was expressed at the council of Boru Meda in 1878 on the controversy concerning the number of “birth” of Christ. Even if he admitted that during the hy- postatic union “the Son was honored”, Petros professed the “two birth” (hulätt lədät) of Christ which are the eternal birth from the Father and the temporal birth from the blessed Mary. It opposed to the “three birth” (sost lədät) followers (mainly issued from Sägga ləğ movement) who believed in a third “birth” which happened when the unction by the Holy Spirit took place (at His incarnation or His baptism); cf. GETATCHEW HAILE 1990: ixf.; YAQOB BEYENE 1981: 15, footnote 48, 281f.; TESFAZGHI UQBIT 1973: 84.</footnote>
the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman".<fnref n="102" /> Also, Basil of Caesarea [and] Severus of Antioch said,<fnref n="103" /> "And it is fitting for us to believe in two births of the Son of God".<fnref n="104" /> And after being born, He was baptised in His 30th year; having been baptised, He taught for 3 years and 3 months. For the salvation of the world the Divine Son was crucified in the flesh [and] He died.<fnref n="105" /> As St Peter said, "For Christ was crucified in the flesh for us and for our sins. He was hung on a tree in the flesh".<fnref n="106" /> Also, St Paul said, "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, all the more so, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life".<fnref n="107" /> When we say Divinity died in flesh, then here-tics, in taking the reading which says, "If you say Divinity died, you will become the killer of the Holy Trinity" [they] are saying that the flesh died but not the Divinity.<fnref n="108" /> Saying like that they must be ignoring the sub-ject matter [of this passage]. The scholar, however, said like that to people who say, "[the nature of the relationship between the two natures is that of] dwelling, [Christ has] two natures, He did not assume the soul". If one says, "How is it that Divinity died in the flesh?" it means separating the flesh and the soul. Emmanuel died like we die, which is a separation of soul and flesh.<fnref n="109" /> Again, as Severus of Antioch says, "For according to their reading if He did not die our death [so] how could we glorify his death for our sal-vation?"<fnref n="110" /> Also, flesh in the Divinity is everlasting, it is immortal, since the Divinity is everlasting. What is called the Divinity is the Son who became [was incarnated as] man in His separate Person. It is this [faith] through which either we receive suffering or through which we enter the Kingdom

<footnote n="102">102 Gal 4:4.</footnote>

<footnote n="103">103 In singular in the text.</footnote>

<footnote n="104">104 Homily of Basil of Caesarea as exposed in *Haymanotä ʾabäw*, chapter 34, section 5, paragraph 6; cf. ሃይማኖተ፡ አበው 1967: 117. አetros refers also to words ascribed to Severus of Antioch as exposed in *Haymanotä ʾabäw*, chapter 84, section 1, paragraph 8; cf. *ibid*. 357.</footnote>

<footnote n="105">105 Here Petros aims at showing that there was no “birth” of Christ after the eternal birth from the Father and the temporal birth from the blessed Mary.</footnote>

<footnote n="106">106 Reference to 1 Pet 3:18.</footnote>

<footnote n="107">107 Rom 5:10.</footnote>

<footnote n="108">108 Petros refers to Catholics as this doctrine was ascribed to them by the Ethiopian theologian at that time. See the report of the dispute between Ethiopian scholars and Catholic missionaries proposed by the Ethiopian theologian; cf. ADMASU ጤAMBÄRE 1954: 180; TESFAZGHI UQBIT 1973: 65. But this dispute was also reported by Pedro Páez; cf. BOAVIDA – PENNEC – RAMOS 2011: 338.</footnote>

<footnote n="109">109 Statement ascribed to Severus of Antioch in *Haymanotä ʾabäw*, chapter 85, section 3, paragraph 25; cf. ሃይማኖተ፡ አበው 1967: 367.</footnote>

<footnote n="110">110 As exposed in *Haymanotä ʾabäw*, chapter 85, section 3, paragraph 28; cf. *ibid*. 368.</footnote>
of Heaven. Oh my children, in her [the faith] guard yourselves from all evil. He who has heard what is written here and firmly stays in this faith, may He make you blessed, saintly, and absolved. However, he who would go astray from this faith: those who say two natures [and] two persons;<fnref n="111" /> those who say He did not take on [His] soul from Mary;<fnref n="112" /> he who says that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son;<fnref n="113" /> he who says [Christ is the] Son of grace through unction of the Holy Spirit [the three births];<fnref n="114" /> he who says [Christ is the] Son of nature through unction of the Holy Spirit;<fnref n="115" /> he who says that the bread having changed does not become divine flesh and the wine having changed does not become divine blood but is [just] a reminder;<fnref n="116" /> by the authority of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, may he be split by a two-bladed sword, may he be excluded by the mouth of the 12 Apostles, and at the Second Coming may he be kept far from His throne, by the authority of the 318 Orthodox of Nicaea and by the mouth of the 150 Constantinople [fathers] and by the mouth of the 200 Ephesian [fathers] and by the mouth of all the bishops and by my own mouth of me Petros, may he be cursed. This writing was written in 1896 Year of Mercy in the year of John on the 17th of the month of Miyazya (25 April 1904 A.D.) in Däbrä Gännät Qäqäma.

<footnote n="111">111 Christological doctrine usually ascribed to diophysites by Ethiopian theologians. Here Petros refers to the Catholic doctrine even if it should be described as “one Person, two natures” (as described in the Mäzgäbä haymanot; cf. CERULLI 1960: 11 [text], 77 [tr.]). In fact, according to Ethiopian theologians, to separate the two natures of Christ means also to divide the person in two, because they did not believe that there may be in Christ a nature without its own subsistence and personality. So, according to them, to accept two natures of Christ would mean recognizing two natures with two wills in contradiction with each other; cf. AYELE TEKLEHAYMANOT n.d.: 253; BANDRÈS 2003: 27; see also the letter of Diyonasyos to Səntyos in *Haymanotä ʾabäw*, chapter 99; cf. 47–61, 1967: 438–444.</footnote>

<footnote n="112">112 It is a reference to the dispute with Catholic concerning the origin of the soul of Christ; cf. COHEN 2009: 136–140. It is also possible that Petros targets all those who deny the *Theotókos* doctrine, namely that of Mary as ὀλιγαί : ἀμαλική (“begetter of God”), meaning Protestants.</footnote>

<footnote n="113">113 It is a reference to the dispute with the Catholics concerning the Filioque doctrine; cf. COHEN 2009: 133–136. King Gälawdewos (1540–1559) have already contested it in his letter to the Catholics; cf. ULLENDORFF 1987: 166 (text), 170 (tr.). The proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Father is also explained in the Mäzgäbä haymanot and in the Mäṣḥetä labbuna; cf. CERULLI 1960: 7f. (text), 73f. (tr.); 140 (text), 165 (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="114">114 Petros refers to followers of the Sägga ləğ movement; cf. GETATCHEW HAILE 1990: 27 (text), 25 (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="115">115 Petros refers to the followers of the Qəbʻat movement; cf. ibid. 29–34 (text), 26–31 (tr.).</footnote>

<footnote n="116">116 Petros may refer to those who refute the transubstantiation, meaning the Protestants.</footnote>
Bibliography

ADMASU ĞÄMBÄRE 1954 ʿA.M. [1961/62 A.D.], መድለዉተ፡ አሚን፡ የሃይማኖተ፡ ሚዛን። [Mädlotä ʾamin: yä-haymanot mizan], Addis Ababa: Tənśaʾe zägubaʾe mattämiya bet.

ANCEL, S. 2011, “The Centralization Process of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church”, *Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique* 106/3–4, pp. 497–520.

— 2012, “Discourse against Catholic Doctrine in Təgray (Ethiopia): A Nineteenth Century Text”, *Aethiopica* 15, pp. 92–104.

— D. NOSNITSIN 2014, “On the History of the Library of Mäqdäla: New Findings”, *Aethiopica* 17, pp. 90–95.

ANNARATONE, C. 1914, *In Abissinia*, Roma: E. Voghera.

APPLEYARD, D.L. 2003, “An ‘Old Amharic’ Commentary of the Nicene Creed”, *Aethiopica* 3, pp. 111–136.

AYELE TEKLEHAYMANOT n.d., “The Theological Terminology of the Haymanota Abaw”, in: AYELE TEKLEHAYMANOT, *Miscellanea Aethiopica II*, *Ethiopian Review of Culture special issue*, III, Addis Ababa, pp. 219–286 [also published in the journal *Adveniat Regnum Tuum* in 1986].

BAIRU TAFLA 1977, *A Chronicle of Emperor Yohannes IV* (1872–89) = ÄthFor 1, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

— 1987, *Aṣma Giyorgis and his Work, History of the Gāllā and the Kingdom of Šawā* = ÄthFor 18, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

— 2000, *Ethiopian Records of Menelik Era, Selected Amharic Documents from Nachlaṣ of Alfred Ilg, 1884–1900* = AethFor 54, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

BANDRES, J.L. 2003, “La doctrine christologique de l’Eglise orthodoxe Tawahedo d’Ethiopie: évolution au cours des siècles”, *Irénikon*, *Revue des moines de Chevetogne* 76/1, pp. 5–46.

BÄRIHUN KÄBBÄDÄ 1983 ʿA.M. [1990/91 A.D.], የዋልድባ ፣ ገዳም ፣ ታሪክ [Yä-Waldabba gädam tarik], Addis Ababa: Artistik mattämiya bet.

BAUSI, A. 1995, *Il Sēnodos etiopico. Canoni pseudoapostolici, Canoni dopo l’Ascensione, Canoni di Simone Cananeo, Canoni Apostolici, Lettera di Pietro* = CSCO 552–553, SAe 101–102, Lovanii: Peeters.

— 2010, “Senodos”, in: *EAe* IV, pp. 623a–625a.

BERHANÄ MÄSQÄL TESFAMARYAM 1996 ʿA.M. [2003/04 A.D.], ታሪክ፡ ገዳማት፡ ዘምድር፡ አግአዚት፡ ኤርትሪ፡ ወስርዓተ፡ ብሕትውና፡ ንኑም፡ ወዋልድባ፡ ካብ፡ ጥንቲ፡ ክሳብ፡ ሕጉ፡ [Tarik gädamat, zämədrä Ag’azi Erətra wäsər atä bəhtəwənna nənum Wäldəbba kab təntu kəsab həğği], Asmära.

BERHANOU ABEBE 2001, “Le coup d’État du 26 septembre 1916 ou le dénouement d’une décennie de crise”, *AÉ* 17, pp. 309–359.

BITTNER, M. 1909, [review] “Ruzicka, Rodolf, Konsonantische Dissimilation in den semi-tischen Sprachen”, *Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes* 23, pp. 249–250.

BOAVIDA, I. – H. PENNEC – M.J. RAMOS (eds.) 2011, *Pedro Páez’s History of Ethiopia*, 1622, I = Hakluyt Society, Third Series 23, London: The Hakluyt Society – Ashgate.

BÖLL, V. 1998, “Unsere Herrin” Maria: Die traditionelle äthiopische Exegese der Marien-anaphora des Cyriacus von Behnesa = AethFor 48, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

BORELLI, J. 1890, *Ethiopie méridionale, Journal de mon voyage aux pays Amhara, Oromo et Sidama de septembre 1885 à novembre 1888*, Paris: Quantin.
CAULK, R.A. 1972, "Religion and the State in Nineteenth Century Ethiopia", JES 10/1, pp. 23–41.

CERULLI, E. 1960, *Scritti teologici etiopici dei secoli XVI–XVII, II: La storia dei quattro Concili ed opuscoli monofisiti* = Studi e testi 204, Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

COHEN, L. 2009, *The Missionary Strategies of the Jesuits in Ethiopia (1555–1632)* = AethFor 70, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

CONTI ROSSINI, C. – L. RICCI 1965, *Il libro della Luce nel negus Zara Yāqob (Maṣḥafa Berhān)*, II = CSCO 261–262, SAe 51–52, Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO.

CORNILL, C.H. 1876, "Das Glaubensbekenntniss des Jacob Baradaeus in äthiopischer Uebersetzung", ZDMG 30, pp. 417–466.

COWLEY, R.G. 1983, *The Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St. John in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church*, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CRUMMEY, D. 1972, *Priests and Politicians: Protestant and Catholic Missions in Orthodox Ethiopia, 1830–1868*, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

— 1978, "Orthodoxy and Imperial Reconstruction in Ethiopia, 1854–1878", *The Journal of Theological Studies* 29/2, pp. 427–442.

GEBRE-IGZIABIHER ELYAS 1994, *Prowess, Piety and Politics: The Chronicle of Abeto Iyasu and Empress Zewditu of Ethiopia (1909–1930)*, ed. and tr. by R.K. MOLVAER, Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.

GETATCHEW HAILE 1981, "The Letter of Archbishops Mikaël and Gâbreël concerning the Observance of Saturday", JSS 26/1, pp. 73–78.

— 1983, "Old Amharic Features in a Manuscript from Wollo (EMML 7007)", in: S. SEGERT – A.J.E. BODROGLIGETI (eds.), *Ethiopian Studies Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Seventy-fifth Birthday*, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 157–169.

— 1986, "Material on the Theology of Qobat or Unction", in: G. GOLDENBERG (ed.), *Ethiopian Studies: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, Tel-Aviv, 14–17 April 1980*, Rotterdam – Boston: A.A. Balkema, pp. 205–250.

— 1990, *The Faith of the Unctionists in the Ethiopian Church* = CSCO 518, SAe 92, Lovanii: Peeters.

GOLDENBERG, G. 1965, "Studies in Amharic Syntax", JES 3/1, pp. 6–22.

GRAF, G. 1954, *Verzeichnis arabischer kirchlicher Termini* = CSCO 147, sub. 8, Louvain: Durbecq.

GUEBRE-SELLASSIE 1930, *Chronique du règne de Ménélik II, roi des rois d'Ethiopie, traduit de l'amharique par Tèsfa Sellassié, publié et annoté par Maurice de Coppet*, I, Paris: Maisonneuve frères.

GUIDI, I. 1899, *Il Fetha Nagast o Legislazione dei Re, codice ecclesiastico e civile di Abissinia* = Pubblicazioni scientifiche del R. Istituto Orientale in Napoli 3, Napoli: R. Istituto Orientale.

— 1936, *Il Fetha Nagast o Legislazione dei Re*, Napoli: R. Istituto Orientale [1st ed. 1897].

obygl: ἀγάπη [Haddis kidan], 1975 c.A.M. [1982/83 A.D.], Addis Ababa: Tənśa'e zäguba'e mattämiya bet.

Γουμφημα: ηπαθω [Haymanotä abäw], 1967 c.A.M. [1974/75 A.D.], Addis Ababa: Tənśa'e zäguba'e mattämiya bet.
Early 20th Century Theological Controversies in Ethiopia

ḤEBRY WÄLDÄ ŚĒLLASE ṁ2000 ᶜA.M. [2007/08 A.D.], Wazema, Bä-mängəstu yä-Ityopyan
yü-tarik bä'al lä-makbär, Addis Ababa: Goha şəbah mattämiya.

KHS-BURMESTER, O.H.E. 1967, *The Egyptian or Coptic Church, a detailed of her liturgical services and the rites and ceremonies observed in the administration of her sacraments*, Cairo: French Institute of Oriental Archeology.

መልከለ ፣ ማላሌ ፣ ማደረሰ ፣ እባ ፣ ስብሐት ፣ ለአብ ፣ ማዮንደር [Mälkə’a səllase zä-’abba Səbhat lä-’ab zä-Gʷändär], 1985 c.A.M. [1992/93 A.D.], Addis Ababa: Täsfa mattämiya bet.

MARTINI, F. 1943, *Il diario eritreo*, I–IV, Firenze: Vallecchi.

መጽሐፈ ፣ ቅዳሴ ። በግዕዝና ፣ በአማርኛ [Mäṣḥafä Qəddase bä-Gə’əzənna bä-’Amarəñña], 1962 ᶜA.M. [1969/70 A.D.], Addis Ababa: Täsfa mattämiya bet.

MAURO DA LEONESSA, P. 1942, “Le versione etiopica dei canoni apocrifi del concilio de Nicea secondo i codici vaticani ed il fiorentino”, *RSE* 2/1, pp. 29–89.

MEINARDUS, O. 1962, “A study on the canon law of the Coptic Church”, *Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte* 16, pp. 231–242.

MERSHA ALEHEGNE 2011, *The Ethiopian Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Critical Edition and Translation*= AethFor 73, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

MUNRO-HAY, S.C. 1997, *Ethiopia and Alexandria, the Metropolitan Episcopacy of Ethiopia*, I = Bibliotheca nubica et aethiopica 5, Warszawa – Wiesbaden: ZAŚ PAN.

— 2005, *Ethiopia and Alexandria, the Metropolitan Episcopacy of Ethiopia*, II = Bibliotheca nubica et aethiopica 9, Warszawa – Wiesbaden: ZAŚ PAN.

MURAD, K. 1942, “Letters to Ethiopia from the Coptic Patriarchs Yo’annas XVIII (1770–1796) and Morqos VIII (1796–1809)”, *Bulletin de la société d’archéologie copte* 8, pp. 89–143.

— 1958, “La dernière phase des relations historiques entre l’Eglise copte d’Egypte et celle d’Ethiopie”, *Bulletin de la société d’archéologie copte* 14, pp. 1–22.

NOSNITSIN, D. 2013, *Churches and Monasteries of Təgray: A Survey of Manuscript Collections* = Supplement to Aethiopica. International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies 1, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

PAULOS TZADUA 1968, *The Fetha Nagast, the Law of the Kings*, Addis Ababa: Haile Sellassie I University.

— 2005, “Fətہa nägäšt”, in: *EAe* II, pp. 534a–535b.

PERIER, J. 1922, *La perle précieuse traitant des sciences ecclésiastiques (chapitres I–LVI) par Jean, fils d'Abou-Zakaryâ, surnommé Ibn Saba* c = PO 16/4, Paris: Firmin-Didot et Cie, pp. 591–760.

PERINI, M. 1905, *Di qua dal Marèb*, Firenze: Tip. cooperativa.

PIOVANELLI, P. 1994, “Les controverses théologiques sous le roi Zar’a Ya’eqob (1434–1468) et la mise en place du monophysisme éthiopien”, in: A. LE BOULLUEC (éd.), *La controverse religieuse et ses formes*, Paris: Cerf, pp. 189–228.

POLLERA, A. 1926, *Lo stato etiopico e la sua chiesa*, Roma – Milano: Società editrice d’arte illustrata.

፯ቱ ፣ መጻሕፍተ ፣ ሕዲሳት ፣ ንባብ ፣ ከነትርንሚ [Śālástu māṣaḥoftā ሕaddisat nəbab kännātørgʷame], 1951 ᶜA.M. [1958/59 A.D.], Addis Ababa: Artistik mattämiya bet.

SHIFERAW BEKELE 2010, “Pełros”, in: *EAe* IV, pp. 139a–140b.

SIMON, G. 1885, *L’Ethiopie, ses mœurs, ses traditions, le négouss Iohannès, les églises monoliths de Lalibéla, voyage en Abyssinie et chez les Gallas-Raias*, Paris: Challanel aîné.
SMIDT, W. 2001, “The Coronation of Negus Mikael in Desse in May 1914: a photograph from the Nachlass Jensen and its historical background”, *AÉ* 17, pp. 361–373.

— 2010a, “Təgray”, in: *EAe* IV, pp. 888a–895a.

— 2010b, “Wäldä Śollase Kənfu”, *EAe* IV, p. 1110a–b.

— 2010c, “Şăazzăga”, *EAe* IV, pp. 426–427b.

STOFFREGEN-PEDERSEN, K. 1995, *Traditional Ethiopian Exegesis of the Book of Psalms* = ÄthFor 36, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

— TEDROS ABRAHA 2003, “Andømta”, in: *EAe* I, pp. 258a–259b.

TEDESCHI, S. 1999, “Les débuts de la politique religieuse de Yohannes IV: 1868–1876”, in: A. ROUAUD (ed.), *Les orientalistes sont des aventuriers, Guirlande offerte à Joseph Tubiana par ses élèves et ses amis*, Paris: Sépia, pp. 108-110 [previously published in: M.G. CARAVAGLIOS (ed.) 1983, *L’Africa ai tempi di Daniele Comboni, Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Studi Africani (Roma 19-21 novembre 1981)*, Roma: Istituto Italo-Africano e Missionari Comboniani, pp. 161-178].

TEDROS ABRAHA 2010, “Trinity”, in: *EAe* IV, pp. 990a-994b.

TESFAZGHI UQBIT 1973, *Current Christological Positions of the Ethiopian Orthodox Theologians* = Orientalia Christiana Analecta 196, Roma: Pont. Insitutum Studiorum Orientalium.

UHLIG, S. 1988, *Äthiopische Paläographie* = ÄthFor 22, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

— 1990, *Introduction to Ethiopian Palaeography* = ÄthFor 28, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

ULLENDORFF, E. 1972, “Some early Amharic letters”, *BSOAS* 35/2, pp. 229–270.

— 1987, “The Confessio Fidei of King Claudius of Ethiopia”, *JSS* 32/1, pp. 159–176.

VÖÖBUS, A. 1982, *The Canons Ascribed to Marūtā of Maipherqat and Related Sources* = CSCO 439–440, Sriptores Syri 191–192, Lovanii: Peeters.

*የቁትስ ፕሮግራም ወረድኤትስ አባላት አገላግሎት አይነት አባላት አገላግሎት አይነት አባላት አገላግሎት* [Yä-qəddus Pawlos mäšhaf nəbabu kännä-tərgʷamew], 1948 A.M. [1955 A.D.], Addis Abäba: Tənśa'e zäguba'e mattämiya bet.

YAQOB BEYENE 1977, *Controversie cristologiche in Etiopia. Contributo alla storia delle correnti e della terminologia nel secolo XIX* = AION Supplementi 11, Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli.

— 1981, *L’unzione di Cristo nella teologia etiopica. Contributo di ricerca su nuovi documenti etiopici inediti* = Orientalia Christiana Analecta 215, Roma: Pont. Insitutum Studiorum Orientalium.

— 1990, *Giyorgis di Saglā, il libro del mistero*, I = CSCO 515-516, SAe 89-90, Lovanii: Peeters.

— 1993, *Giyorgis di Saglā, il libro del mistero*, II = CSCO 532-533, SAe 97-98, Lovanii: Peeters.

ZEWDE GABRE-SELLASSIE 1975, *Yohannes IV of Ethiopia: A Political Biography*, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

## Summary

In November–December 2012, the team of the Ethio-SpaRe project found a letter written by the Coptic Metropolitan Pétros (1881–1917) in 1904. The letter was copied into one of the books housed in the Qəddəst Maryam monastery in Qäqäma. It deals with the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines and is addressed to the clergy of Təgray. Because of its historical significance, the present article aims at editing and commenting this document.