No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 February 2019
When saints utter prophetic words, they must in some way come true, at least in the hagiographic tradition. But what if one holy person curses another (and vice versa)? Such was the case between Epiphanius and John Chrysostom during the so-called Origenist Controversy, which ensued at the end of the fourth century and into the fifth. Epiphanius, working at the behest of Theophilus of Alexandria, was suspicious of John's orthodoxy and accused him of harboring Origenist fugitives. Epiphanius played the provocateur, traveling to Constantinople and conspiring to discredit John and cast doubts on his leadership, while John did his best to accommodate his elderly colleague from Cyprus. Their differences, however, were irreconcilable. In the end, each bishop wished a dubious fate for the other, both of which came true: Epiphanius died on his journey home, and John was deposed twice and died in exile. Yet both are revered as preeminent fathers of the church, and so in order to reach a point in which they could be counted together as saints, a process of hagiographical rehabilitation and selective forgetfulness began soon after their respective deaths.
Young Richard Kim is Director of Educational Programs at the Onassis Foundation USA. With generous support from the Onassis Foundation USA, I presented an early version of this paper at the 43rd Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, held at the University of Minnesota. I am grateful to the editors and anonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions and corrections, and also to Annemarie Weyl Carr and Sharon Gerstel for sharing with me their expertise in Byzantine iconography. I also have benefitted greatly from an appointment as a research affiliate at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at NYU.
1 See “Painted Churches of Troodos Region,” UNESCO, last modified November 29, 2010, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/351. For a thorough survey of these churches, see Stylianou, Andreas and Stylianou, Judith, The Painted Churches of Cyprus: Treasures of Byzantine Art (London: Trigraph for the A.G. Leventis Foundation, 1985)Google Scholar. For an outstanding recent study on a specific church, Panagia Phorbiotissa, in the lower Troodos, see Carr, Annemarie Weyl and Nicolaïdès, Andréas, eds., Asinou Across Time: Studies in the Architecture and Murals of the Panagia Phorbiotissa, Cyprus (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2012)Google Scholar.
2 All photos taken and published with permission from the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus and His Beatitude the Archbishop of Cyprus Chrysostomos II.
3 On the churches in and around the village, see, Stylianou and Stylianou, Painted Churches, 53–83.
4 ibid., 54.
5 ibid., 54-75.
6 ibid., 71.
7 They appear together (with other saints) in many other churches (Panagia Theotokos in Kakopetria; Agios Sozomenos in Galata; Archangel Michael in Galata; Agia Paraskevi in Galata; Church of the Dormition in Kourdali; Stavros tou Agiasmati in Platanistasa; Timios Stavros in Pelendri; Agia Mavra at Kilani; Agios Mamas in Louvaras; Transfiguration of the Savior in Palaeochorio; Agios Ioannis Prodromos in Askas; Agia Christina in Askas; Agios Herakleidios in Kalopanayiotis; Panagia tou Moutoulla; Archangel Michael in Pedoulas; Agios Neophytos; Agios Nikolaos in Galataria; Agios Kirykos in Letimbou; Archangel Michael in Kholi; and Archangel Michael in Kato Lefkara), but none as prominently as in this case, right next to each other. All of the locations identified here can be found in Stylianou and Stylianou, Painted Churches.
8 For recent examinations of the life and legacy of Epiphanius, see Kim, Young Richard, Epiphanius of Cyprus: Imagining an Orthodox World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jacobs, Andrew S., Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Indispensable earlier studies include: Nautin, Pierre, “Épiphane (Saint) de Salamine,” in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 15 (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1963), col. 617–631Google Scholar; Dechow, Jon F., Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen, Patristic Monograph Series 13 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Pourkier, Aline, L'hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine, Christianisme Antique 4 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1992)Google Scholar; and Kösters, Oliver, Die Trinitätslehre des Epiphanius von Salamis: Ein Kommentar zum »Ancoratus«, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 86 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 On Epiphanius's time in Egypt and Palestine, see Kim, Epiphanius of Cyprus, 17–43, 83–103.
10 See first Clark, Elizabeth A., The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and throughout Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism, for the theological issues that troubled Epiphanius. See also the recent collection of essays in Alciati, Roberto and Fatti, Federico, eds., La controversia origenista: un affare mediterraneo, Adamantius 19 (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2013)Google Scholar. For a broad historical survey (some of which is recapitulated below) of Epiphanius's involvement in the controversy, see Kim, Epiphanius of Cyprus, 211–236. On Theophilus, see Favale, Agostino, Teofilo d'Alessandria (345c.–412): Scritti, Vita, e Dottrina, Biblioteca del “Salesianum” 41 (Turin: Società Editrice Internazionale, 1958)Google Scholar; Fatti, Federico, “Trame mediterranee: Teofilo, Roma, Constantinopoli,” Adamantius 12 (2006): 105–139Google Scholar; Russell, Norman, Theophilus of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers (London: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar; and Banev, Krastu, Theophilus of Alexandria and the First Origenist Controversy: Rhetoric and Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Jerome (Jer.), in his Aduersus Ioannem Hierosolymitanum liber (Adu. Io. Hier.), albeit a source entirely hostile to John, provides a description of the conflict. See Kim, Young Richard, “Epiphanius of Cyprus vs. John of Jerusalem: An Improper Ordination and the Escalation of the Origenist Controversy,” in Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 119, ed. Leemans, Johan, Van Nuffelen, Peter, Keough, Shawn, and Nicolaye, Carla (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 411–422Google Scholar; Fatti, Federico, “Pontifex tantus. Giovanni, Epifanio e le origini della prima controversia origenista,” Adamantius 19 (2013): 30–49Google Scholar; and Kim, Epiphanius of Cyprus, 211–217.
12 On Jerome's friendship and enmity with Rufinus, see Murphy, Francis X., Rufinus of Aquileia (345–411): His Life and Works, Catholic University of America Studies in Mediaeval History, New Series 6 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1945), 59–81, 138–157Google Scholar; and Kelly, J. N. D., Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), 195–258Google Scholar.
13 Jer., Epistulae (Ep.) 51, which is Jerome's Latin translation of Epiphanius's letter to John. Cf. Jer., Adu. Io. Hier. 43. See Nautin, Pierre, “L'excommunication de saint Jérôme,” Annuaire de l’école pratique des hautes études Ve section—sciences religieuses 80–81 (1972–73): 7–37Google Scholar; and Kim, Young Richard, “Jerome and Paulinian, Brothers,” Vigiliae Christianae 67, no. 5 (2013): 517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The imperial action was not carried out due to the death of Flavius Rufinus, the Praetorian Prefect of the East on November 27, 395.
14 See Murphy, Rufinus, 76–81; Agostino, Teofilo, 88–93; Kelly, Jerome, 204; and Russell, Theophilus, 15–17. Prior to Theophilus, a “count Archelaus” tried but failed to secure peace; cf. Jer., Adu. Io. Hier. 39. See Fatti, “Pontifex,” 37. On Isidore and Theophilus, see Fatti, Federico, “Eretico, condanna Origene!” Conflitti di potere ad Alessandria nella tarda antichitá,” Annali di Storia dell'Esegesi 20, no. 2 (2003): 383–435, and on this episode, 399–403Google Scholar.
15 See Jer., Ep. 82 and Aduersus Rufinum libri III (Ruf.) 2.2. John of Jerusalem restored Jerome and his brethren on Holy Thursday, April 2, 397. See Murphy, Rufinus, 81; and Kelly, Jerome, 207–209.
16 On the elevation of John Chrysostom to the see of Constantinople, see Kelly, J. N. D., Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom: Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London: Duckworth, 1995), 104–14Google Scholar; and Mayer, Wendy, “John Chrysostom as Bishop: The View from Antioch,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55, no. 3 (2004): 455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
See Tiersch, Claudia, Johannes Chrysostomus in Konstantinopel (398–404): Weltsicht und Wirken eines Bischofs in der Hauptstadt des Oströmischen Reiches, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 6 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000)Google Scholar. On the friends and enemies he made as a result of his lifestyle and convictions, see Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G., “Friends and Enemies of John Chrysostom,” in Maistor: Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning, Byzantina Australiensa 5, ed. Moffatt, Ann (Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1984), 85–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 See Kim, Epiphanius of Cyprus, 217–236, for a more detailed account of what transpired between Theophilus and John Chrysostom.
18 Socrates (Socr.), historia ecclesiastica (h.e.) 6.2.5–10; Sozomen (Soz.), historia ecclesiastica (h.e.) 8.2.16–19. Cf. Pseudo-Martyrius (Ps.-Mart.), panegyricus Joannis Chrysostomi (pan.) 36.
19 Kim, Epiphanius of Cyprus, 222–225.
20 On the Anthropomorphites, see Patterson, Paul A., Visions of Christ: The Anthropomorphite Controversy of 399, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 68 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), esp. 2–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a helpful review of past scholarship on their alleged beliefs. He rightly demonstrates that the caricature of the Anthropomorphites as believing in a God with a body is incorrect.
21 Soz., h.e. 8.11.1–5, discussed Theophilus's festal letter that attacked any anthropomorphic conception of God. Cf. Socr., h.e. 6.7.7. Translations in this article are my own, unless otherwise indicated.
22 See Palladius (Pall.), dialogus de vita Joannis Chrysostomi (v. Chrys.) 6.76–117. Socr., h.e. 6.9.1–10, offered yet another reason.
23 Jer., Ep. 92; Socr., h.e. 6.7.4–10; Soz., h.e. 8.11.1–5. This was disingenuous, since Theophilus himself seems to have been sympathetic with the theology of Origen, which explains in part his support for the position of John of Jerusalem and Rufinus in the earlier dispute. See Dechow, Dogma, 403–408; and Russell, Theophilus, 18–34, although this is challenged by Patterson, Visions of Christ, 32–33.
24 The “Tall Brothers” were Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius, and Theophilus had consecrated Dioscorus as bishop of Hermopolis. On these events, see Russell, Theophilus, 18–22.
25 Pall., v. Chrys. 6.118–139. Compare with Soz., h.e. 8.12.1–12.
26 Jer., Ep. 92, is the synodal letter to the bishops of Palestine (and later to Cyprus), sent after the Tall Brothers and their brethren had left Egypt. Cf. Ps.-Mart., pan. 42. Banev, Theophilus of Alexandria, 35–49, places these events firmly in 400 and posits a prior council in Alexandria.
27 Jer., Ruf. 3.17. According to his later apology against Rufinus, the person at issue was apparently a bishop Paul, who had lost his position under the condemnation of Theophilus. Jerome, however, emphasized how he was able to bring Paul back to the fold of the orthodox. On these developments, see Kelly, Jerome, 243–246.
28 Jer., Ep. 63, which was Jerome's response.
29 On the four different accounts of these events, see Russell, Theophilus, 18–21. Pall., v. Chrys. 7.48–51. Soz., h.e. 8.13.1, had eighty monks with whom the Tall Brothers first went to Jerusalem, then to Scythopolis.
30 For a complete translation, see Russell, Theophilus, 93–99. Theophilus also sent word to Cyprus and to Rome.
31 Jer., Ep. 86.1–2.
32 Pall., v. Chrys. 7.61–83. Cf. Soz., h.e. 8.13.1.
33 Pall., v. Chrys. 7.92–102. Cf. Soz., h.e. 8.13.3.
34 Pall., v. Chrys. 7.104–114; Soz., h.e. 8.13.4. According to Kelly, Golden Mouth, 198 n. 43, this would have been a second envoy sent from Alexandria.
35 Pall., v. Chrys. 16.205–208. Socr., h.e. 6.10.2, was more specific about how Theophilus criticized Epiphanius for his alleged Anthropomorphite views, although there is no evidence that he held such beliefs.
36 Jer., Ep. 90.
37 Socr., h.e. 6.10.5–8; Soz., h.e. 8.14.3–4.
38 Soz., h.e. 8.13.6, on the rumor. Pall., v. Chrys. 7.117–122, said that the charges were so appalling that he refused to repeat them. See Kelly, Golden Mouth, 198–199.
39 Pall., v. Chrys. 7.129–136.
40 Ibid., 8.7–11. See Kelly, Golden Mouth, 200–201.
41 Soz., h.e. 8.13.5. Kelly, Golden Mouth, 201. On Eudoxia, see Holum, Kenneth, Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 3 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 48–78Google Scholar.
42 Pall., v. Chrys. 8.17–22.
43 Ibid., 8.23–36. On Elaphios, see Malingrey, Anne–Marie and Leclercq, Philippe, Palladios: Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, Tome I, Sources Chrétiennes 341 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1988), 158 n. 2Google Scholar.
44 Ps.-Mart., pan. 39; Soz., h.e. 8.14.5.
45 Nautin, “Épiphane,” col. 624, suggests that Epiphanius had traveled in 402 after the synod in Cyprus on his own initiative to confront John, but Socr., h.e. 6.12.1, emphasized that Epiphanius acted at the suggestion of Theophilus. On the date of Epiphanius's travel to Constantinople, see Kim, Epiphanius of Cyprus, 226.
46 Kelly, Golden Mouth, 205.
47 Socr., h.e. 6.12.2; Soz., h.e. 8.14.6.
48 Socr., h.e. 6.12.3; Soz., h.e. 8.14.6–7.
49 Socr., h.e. 6.12.3–6; Soz., h.e. 8.14.8. Namely, Theotimus, a bishop from Scythia.
50 Socr., h.e. 6.14.1–4; Soz., h.e. 8.14.9.
51 Ibid., 6.14.6.
52 Ibid., 6.14.9–10.
53 Soz., h.e. 8.15.1–7.
54 Nautin, “Épiphane,” col. 625, is highly critical of Sozomen and his “amplification postérieure,” but Kelly, Golden Mouth, 209, seems less skeptical.
55 Gaddis, Michael, There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 39 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 225Google Scholar: “Socrates's report of the confrontation between John and Epiphanius, monk and bishop of Salamis, presented the curious spectacle of two holy men, equally beloved by God, hurling curses at each other . . . The holy man's curse, a public prediction or invocation of divine vengeance upon the evildoer, is a common feature of hagiography. But in this case, the cursing was reciprocal. Since both men were saints, both predictions came true: John was soon deposed, and Epiphanius died on his way back to Cyprus.”
56 Ps.-Mart., pan. 52–59. On the Synod of the Oak, see Kelly, Golden Mouth, 211–227; Elm, Susanna, “The Dog that Did Not Bark: Doctrine and Patriarchal Authority in the Conflict between Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom of Constantinople,” in Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, ed. Ayres, Lewis and Jones, Gareth (London: Routledge, 1998), 68–93Google Scholar; Tiersch, Chrysostomus, 327–353; Russell, Theophilus, 30–34; and Van Nuffelen, Peter, “Theophilus against John Chrysostom: the fragments of a lost liber and the reasons for John's deposition,” Adamantius 19 (2013): 139–155Google Scholar.
57 Ps.-Mart., pan. 83–144.
58 Claudia Rapp, “The Vita of Epiphanius of Salamis: An Historical and Literary Study,” 2 vols. (DPhil. diss., Worcester College, Oxford University, 1991). See also Jacobs, Epiphanius of Cyprus, 223–227.
59 vita Epiphanii (v. Epiph.) 77–80.
60 v. Epiph. 107–108.
61 Ibid., 109–111. On the problems with this story and its implications for the relationship between John and Eudoxia, see Barnes, Timothy D. and Bevan, George, The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, Translated Texts for Historians 60 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2013), 28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
62 Ibid., 112 (emphasis mine).
63 Ibid., 113.
64 Ibid., 114.
65 Ibid., 115.
66 Rapp, “The Vita of Epiphanius of Salamis,” 59–97, discusses the sources for the Vita and concludes that the author(s) did not have access to Sozomen, so we have here variant traditions.
67 v. Epiph. 117.
68 On the “After Lives,” see Jacobs, Epiphanius of Cyprus, 221–261. On the long reception, see Rapp, Claudia, “Epiphanius of Salamis: The Church Father as Saint,” in The Sweet Land of Cyprus’: Papers Given at the Twenty-Fifth Jubilee Spring Symposium on Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1991, ed. Bryer, Anthony and Georghallides, G. S. (Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre, 1993), 169–87Google Scholar.
69 See first Wallraff, Martin, “Tod im Exil: Reaktionen auf die Todesnachricht des Johannes Chrysostomos und Konstituierung einer „johannistichen “Opposition,” in Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 105, ed. Wallraff, Martin and Brändle, Rudolf (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; in the same volume, Mayer, Wendy, “The Making of a Saint: John Chrysostom in Early Historiography,” 39–59; and Wendy Mayer, “Media Manipulation as a Tool in Religious Conflict: Controlling the Narrative Surrounding the Deposition of John Chrysostom,” in Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to Early Islam, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121, ed. Mayer, Wendy and Neil, Bronwen (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
70 On Palladius, see Katos, Demetrios S., Palladius of Helenopolis: The Origenist Advocate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
71 See Ommeslaeghe, Florent van, “Que vaut le témoignage de Pallade sur le procès de saint Jean Chrysostome?” Analecta Bollandiana 95, no. 3–4 (1977): 389–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katos, Palladius, 33–97; Nuffelen, Peter Van, “Palladius and the Johannite Schism,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 64, no. 1 (2013): 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially for questions on the date of composition; and Van Nuffelen, “Theophilus against John,” 144–146. See also Minets, Yuliya, “Palladius of Helenopolis: One Author, Two Ways to Write,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 25, no. 3 (2017): 411–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who concentrates on the apparent thematic differences with Palladius's other famous work, the Lausiac History. She demonstrates that the exoneration of John was a clear priority in the Dialogue, even if some of the concepts were in contrast to expected ascetic ideals later highlighted in the Lausiac History and after the rehabilitation of John was well on its way.
72 Katos, Palladius of Helenopolis, 33–97.
73 Pall., v. Chrys. 8.49–62. Palladius reproduced the letter in the second chapter of the Dialogue.
74 Pall., v. Chrys. 16.204–214. The second mention (Pall., v. Chrys. 16.195–200) was in connection to the charitable activities of Olympias.
75 Mayer, “Media Manipulation,” 161, observes that Palladius was much more reserved in placing blame on Eudoxia, concentrating instead on “a cabal of bishops, monks, and senatorial women,” and these would have included Acacius of Beroea, Severianus of Gabala, Antiochus of Ptolemais, and the monk Isaac (cf. Ps.-Mart., pan. 45). Van Nuffelen, “Palladius and the Johannite Schism,” 12–13, argues along similar lines about Palladius.
76 For the critical edition and introduction, see Wallraff, Martin, ed., Ps.–Martyrius: Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi, Quaderni della Rivista di Bizantinistica 12 (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull'alto Medioevo, 2007)Google Scholar, with an Italian translation by Cristina Ricci. I follow the general convention of Pseudo-Martyrius, although the authorship is of some dispute, for which see Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech, 6–9. For a recent analytical study, see Barry, Jennifer, “Diagnosing Heresy: Ps.–Martyrius's Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 24, no. 3 (2016): 395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech, 33. Ps.-Martyrius explicitly linked Eudoxia as Jezebel to Theophilus as Pharaoh.
78 Ps.–Mart., pan. 38–46, 52–59. Whereas Palladius was more muted about Eudoxia's role; Mayer, “Media Manipulation,” 161.
79 Translation from Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech, 59–60.
80 The development and reception in modern scholarship of the Eudoxia narrative are complex; see Ommeslaeghe, Florent van, “Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l'impératrice Eudoxie: le dossier et les origines d'une légende,” Analecta Bollandiana 97, no. 1–2 (1979): 131–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Mayer, “Media Manipulation,” 153–162, for a discussion of how both sides, pro- and anti-Johannite, might have manipulated an account of the fissure between John and Eudoxia, one to demonize her, the other to imply John's treason.
81 Van Nuffelen, “Palladius and the Johannite Schism,” 2–3.
82 See throughout, Mayer, “Media Manipulation.” See also Wallraff, “Tod im Exil,” 23–37.
83 Mayer, “The Making of a Saint,” 40, notes that even when Socrates was composing his history, accounts hostile to John were still in circulation. Furthermore, the alleged charges leveled against John at the Synod of the Oak included his disparagement of Epiphanius, who also refused to be in communion with John. The full acta do not survive but were preserved in part by Photius. See Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech, 153–159, for a translation.
84 See Elm, “The Dog that Did Not Bark,” especially vis-à-vis the relationship between the sees of Alexandria and Constantinople. Barry, “Diagnosing Heresy,” explains well how Ps.-Martyrius focused intensely on upholding John's orthodoxy. Katos, Palladius, 91–96, takes a middle view on the role of theology.
85 Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech, 4–5, for a brief description of the step-by-step restoration and elevation of John's saintly status. See also Rapp, Claudia, “Palladius, Lausus, and the Historia Lausiaca,” in Novum Millennium: Studies on Byzantine History and Culture Dedicated to Paul Speck, 19 December 1999, ed. Sode, Claudia and Takács, Sarolta (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), 279–289Google Scholar.
86 Socr., h.e. 7.45.1; Theodoret, historia ecclesiastica 5.36.1–2.
87 For a sense of how revered John is today, see George D. Dragas, “Perceptions of John Chrysostom in Contemporary Greek Orthodoxy,” in Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren, ed. Wallraff and Brändle, 373–409.
88 For a list of John's hagiographers, see Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech, 9–12. For the text, see Halkin, François, Douze récits byzantins sur saint Jean Chrysostome,” Subsidia Hagiographica 60 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1977)Google Scholar. Efthymiadis, Stephanos et al. , “Greek Hagiography in Late Antiquity (Fourth-Seventh Centuries,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, Vol. 1, ed. Efthymiadis, Stephanos (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 39Google Scholar. For George's source material, see Baur, Chrysostomus, “Georgius Alexandrinus,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 27 (1927): 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
89 George of Alexandria (Geo. Al.), vita Ioannis Chrysostomi (v. Chrys.) 40.
90 Geo. Al., v. Chrys. 43.
91 Geo. Al., v. Chrys. 44; cf. v. Epiph. 117. See above, page 996.
92 Geo. Al., v. Chrys. 44.
93 See Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech, 10 n. 53.
94 Theodore of Trimithous (Thdr. Trim.), de vita et exilio Joannis Chrysostomi (v. Chrys.) 2.
95 Cf. v. Epiph. 115.
96 Thdr. Trim., v. Chrys. 24.
97 Their scrolls both repeat the liturgical formula for the consecration of the bread. See Gordana Babić and Walter, Christopher, “The Inscriptions Upon Liturgical Scrolls in Byzantine Apse Decoration,” Revues des études byzantines 34 (1976): 269–280Google Scholar.
98 There is, of course, another hagiographical problem that emerges from this, namely the status of Theophilus, who, for example in the Apophthegmata Patrum, appears in an entirely positive light. See Banev, Theophilus of Alexandria, 182–191.