¹ Ps(eudo-)E(lias) N(isibenus) is prefixed by El(ias) Nis(ibenus) to his Opus chronologicum , tr. by Brooks, E. W. (CSCO 63; Rome-Paris-Leipzig 1910) 27f. This list is usually quoted as Elias’ own, but it was not drawn up by him nor does it even receive the stamp of his approval. For instance, it synchronizes 4 Sapor I with 557 Sel. (p. 27) and sets 1 Tomarsa in 1 Bahram IV (p. 28), while Elias himself makes 1 Sapor I parallel with 553 Sel. (p. 45) and 1 Tomarsa with 1 Sapor III (p. 51). In fact, ElNis follows Ishodenah of Basra (cf. p. 51) and discards what I call here PsEN. The author of the latter lived after Ishodenah (c. 850; for the date, cf. Baumstark, A., Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn 1922, 234), whom he quotes (p. 27), and, of course, before ElNis (c. 1050; cf. Baumstark 287), but is otherwise unknown. His name was probably mentioned by ElNis, but the beginning of the catalogue has been lost through mutilation of the MS.Google Scholar

Chr(onicle of) S(eert), ed. and tr. by Scher, A. and Périer, J. (PO 4.219-312; Paris 1908), by Scher, A. and Dib, P. (PO 5.221-334; Paris 1910); for the date, cf. Graf, G., Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur II (Studi e Testi 133; Vatican City 1947) 195.Google Scholar

Mari, Amri and Sliba, , De patriarchis nestorianorum commentaria, ed. and tr. by Gismondi, H., S.J. (2 vols. Rome 1896-99); for the dates, cf. Graf 200, 216f. These authors are cited here by page and line, though Gismondi does not number the lines, because a reference to page alone would be too vague. The page averages 44 lines, so the reader can readily gauge just about where to locate a passage without counting the lines himself.Google Scholar

Ps(eudo-)E(lias) D(amascenus) in Assemani, J. S., B(ibliotheca) O(rientalis clementinovaticana) II (Rome 1721) 392; for date and identity, cf. Graf 134.Google Scholar

(Gregory) Bar H(ebraeus), Chronicon ecclesiasticum, ed. and tr. with notes by Abbeloos, J. B. and Lamy, T. J. III (Paris-Louvain 1877); for the date, cf. Baumstark 313.Google Scholar

Additional lists are given by Ass. BO II 388-92 and Sachau, E., Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek Berlin I (Berlin 1899) 232, 233f.; these are not cited here because they contain no dates (Skehan).Google Scholar

The present writer is not familiar with the Semitic languages and all references are to translations. The writer’s colleague, Rev. Patrick Skehan, S.T.D., has been kind enough to check the original wherever it seemed necessary, and this is indicated by putting his name in parentheses after the item concerned.Google Scholar

² Untersuchungen über die Quellen und die Glaubwürdigkeit der Patriarchenchroniken des Mari ibn Sulaiman, Amr ibn Matai und Saliba ibn Johannan: I. Abschnitt, bis zum Beginn des nestorianischen Streites (Diss. Strasbourg) (Kirchain N.-L. 1901).Google Scholar

³ This question is discussed at length below, pp. 88–94.Google Scholar

⁴ 18f. A clear proof of Westphal's view occurs infra , p. 71.Google Scholar

⁵ 9, 11.Google Scholar

⁶ For the Persian calendar, reduction of dates to the corresponding Julian, etc., cf. Higgins, Martin J., The Persian War of the Emperor Maurice, Part I: The Chronology, with a Brief History of the Persian Calendar (Diss. Washington 1939) 1–23.Google Scholar

⁷ Nöldeke, Th., Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden, aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari übersetzt und mit ausführlichen Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen versehn (Leiden 1879) 417, gives 5 (Persian) mos. as the interval between the beginning of Hormisdas’ last year, Sept. 10, 309, and his death.Google Scholar

⁸ ChrS V 260.Google Scholar

⁹ Infra, p. 64.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Infra, p. 65.Google Scholar

¹¹ The references for the following are given in connection with the detailed discussion below.Google Scholar

¹² Mari 15.42 says that Simeon died ‘in the ninth year’; this should read ‘ninth hour’; cf. ChrS IV 303.Google Scholar

¹³ Infra, p. 54.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Simeon's 18 yrs. run 637-55 Sel.; therefore, 18-36 Sapor II.Google Scholar

¹⁵ ChrS V 224, 305-7; PsEN 28; ElNis 51; Mari 24.17, 23; BarH 46; Amri and Sliba 12.20-23, 26, 29. As stated above, p. 47, the ‘conflations’ of PsEN's corrector are difficult to interpret. Here, for instance, does he agree with ChrS’ original that Sapor II reigned 71 yrs.? or does he assign Sapor only 70 yrs.? and, if so, is he then suggesting that 1 Tomarsa coincided with 2 Sapor III? or is he rather hinting that the vacancy began in 38, not 39, Sapor II? My own opinion is that the ‘conflation’ has no implications at all beyond the factor immediately involved; in this case, for instance, it points out that the interregnum did not end with the death of Sapor II but was prolonged 4 yrs. more until after the demise of Ardashir II, and it abstracts entirely from the question as to how long Sapor II occupied the throne. This conclusion is based on the treatment of Tomarsa's tenure; cf. infra, n. 46. Into Amri's text, Gismondi, the editor, inserts figures in parentheses, e.g., (21) after 31 yrs. for the vacancy, and (39) after 49 Sapor II. Presumably, these are intended as emendations; at all events, the original reads 31 and 49 resp. (Skehan). Qardag is called a contemporary of Barbashmin and his martyrdom in 49 Sapor is related in close connection with the metropolitan's by ChrS 225, 227; Mari 18.39 (without date); Amri 12.11, 14.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Infra, p. 69.Google Scholar

¹⁷ 12.21, 26f., 29.Google Scholar

¹⁸ (Amri) 11.34; 12.2, 7, 22, 29. The reckoning continues incorrect down to the reign of Chosroes I; cf. Westphal 123f.Google Scholar

¹⁹ PsEN 27f.; ChrS IV 305, 311; V 221f., 224; BarH 38, 42; Mari 16.15; 17.13; 18.31 (read decem for duodecim: Skehan); 24.16; Amri and Sliba 11.32, 34; 12.1f., 7-11, 19, 22. Amri says actually that Shahdost was arrested in his 2nd yr., which, I presume, represents again the interchange of cardinal and ordinal; cf. supra , p. 46. Moreover, he does not state explicitly that he assigns 8 yrs. to Barbashmin, but this is implied in the parallel Sel. dates given by Sliba, 664-72 Sel.Google Scholar

²⁰ 11.28; cf. Higgins, Martin J., ‘Aphraates’ Dates for the Persian Persecution,’ Byz. Ztschr. 44 (1951) 271.Google Scholar

²¹ PsEN 27; ChrS IV 297 (cf. 300); BarH implies the same yr.; cf. infra , p. 54.Google Scholar

²² Acta Martyrum orientalium (i.e., Acta MM orientalium et occidentalium I) ed. and tr. with notes and intr. by Assemani, S. E. (Rome 1748) 89f., 91, 111, 114, 117; Ausgewählte Akten persischer Märtyrer aus dem Syrischen übersetzt by O. Braun (Bibliothek der Kirchenväter; Kempten-Munich n.d.) 94, 96, 100, 101, 104 (the original reads lunar II Kanun: Skehan).Google Scholar

²³ Higgins, , Persian War 17f.Google Scholar

²⁴ Nöldeke, , Tab, (cf. supra, n. 7) 408.Google Scholar

²⁵ ChrS in two passages from obviously the same source (IV 288, 297) says that Sapor began the persecution in his 31st yr. after the death of Constantine. However, it states elsewhere (IV 251) that Constantine died in 30 Sapor. This assertion comes from a different authority and stands in a context having nothing whatever to do with the Persian persecution but dealing with the heresiarch Arius. This is the only trace, if trace it can be called, of any date other than 31 Sapor for the beginning of the persecution.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. infra, nn. 42, 82.Google Scholar

²⁷ Infra, p. 87. However, the figure is actually mentioned only by ChrS IV 298; the rest ignore it entirely.Google Scholar

²⁸ 9.15, 20 (read sexto for decimo sexto: Skehan); 11.28 (cf. supra, n. 20); ChrS IV 304; Mari 16.1; BarH 36 (cf. supra, n. 21). ChrS associates the attack on Nisibis with the beginning of the persecution in 31 Sapor (IV 288, 297), but he says (IV 299) that the persecution lasted 6 yrs. in the neighborhood of Nisibis before Simeon’s death. This brings us down to 37 Sapor, unless the statement came from the same source that dated the attack on Nisibis in 30 Sapor (cf. supra, n. 25). At all events, it is obviously a reminiscence of the true year of Simeon’s martyrdom. Westphal, p. 83, seems to overlook the fact that Amri himself gives 18 yrs. for Simeon’s tenure, thus making clear that he counts it only from Papa’s death. Westphal (p. 84) hesitates to conclude that Papa was deposed; but he must have been for Simeon to be consecrated as his successor; cf. Labourt, J., Le christianisme dans l'empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide (224-632) (Bibliothèque de l’enseignement de l’histoire ecclésiastique; Paris 1904) 23.Google Scholar

²⁹ Synodicon orientale, ed. and tr. with intr. and notes by Chabot, J.-B. (Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibl. Nat. et d’autres bibl. 37; Paris 1902) 289–91.Google Scholar

³⁰ Die Chronik von Arbela: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des ältesten Christentums im Orient, tr. with intr. and nn. by Sachau, E. (Abhandlungen der k. preuss. Akademie d. Wiss. 1915, philosoph.-hist. Kl. 6; Berlin 1915) 71f.; Chronica ecclesiae arbelensis, tr. with intr. and nn. by Zorell, F., Orientalia Christiana 8 (1926-27) 177f.Google Scholar

³¹ Hallier, Ludwig, Untersuchungen über die Edessenische Chronik mit dem syrischen Text und einer Uebersetzung (Texte u. Unters. 9, 1; Leipzig 1892) 93f. (XII-XIV); Chronicon Edessenum, tr. by I. Guidi (CSCO 2; Paris-Leipzig 1903) 5.Google Scholar

³² MM or. (supra, n. 22) 69–71, 72f.Google Scholar

³³ 58 Nöld.Google Scholar

³⁴ IV 288.Google Scholar

³⁵ 48.

³⁶ Evelyn White, H. G., Monasteries of Wadi ‘n Natrun II (New York 1933) 46 n. 10. White also relates that Anthony, by his example, must have largely influenced Ammon’s own decision to leave the world, and, by his visits and advice, actually played a prominent role in moulding the nascent community (ibid. 48f.). Ammon could, therefore, certainly be called a disciple of Anthony without doing violence to the term. However, taking the word in its strictest sense, Lenain de Tillemont, M., Mémoires pour servir à l’hist. eccl. des six premiers siècles VII (Venice 1732), ‘Notes sur S. Siméon de Perse’ 5, and ‘S. Antoine,’ art. 16 (last paragraph), identifies Miles’ host with a different Ammon, Anthony’s disciple and successor, who flourished 356-95. This would, of course, make the acts guilty of the glaring anachronism of which Labourt, op. cit. 31, accuses them. But a criticism that insists upon a rigid interpretation of the word ‘disciple’ and rejects an equally acceptable meaning certainly does not stand on a very firm foundation. Furthermore, the acts were composed no later than c. 400, and it is very difficult to believe that heir author would have associated liles with a contemporary of his own (cf. infra, n. 39).Google Scholar

³⁷ MM or. 73; Amr 9.15; PsEN 27; ChrArb 75 Sachau, 181 Zorell.Google Scholar

³⁸ 30 (synod occurred 9 yr. after Nicaea in 36 el., 31; cf. supra , p. 54.Google Scholar

³⁹ Labourt returns repeatedly to the problem of Miles’ acts. On pp. 70f. he presents an excellent résumé, showing how the narrative emphasizes above all the hero’s role as the scourge of God, divinely commissioned to punish the sins of men; because of the author’s bias, therefore, we must reserve judgment on the 12-yr. interval (p. 26 n. 1) between Papa’s synod and death; however, we have no ground for suspicion about the account of the synod, particularly since it is confirmed by the independent Dadisho’s minutes (p. 22 n. 4); on the other hand, we must reject Miles’ journey to Jerusalem and Egypt, partly because of the gross anachronism (this objection has already been disposed of, supra, n. 35), and partly because the Egyptian type of monasticism did not make its appearance in Persia until s. vi (p. 31); obviously, the Passion contains much that is pure fantasy (p. 71 n. 2), elements of legend and folklore, and has fused into one person at least two individuals, Miles the monk and Miles the bishop, the latter, perhaps, alone historical. — The cogency of Labourt’s arguments no one will deny. But the mere fact that a hagiographical composition draws on the marvelous and mythical does not prove it a work of the imagination in its entirety; it is possible always that the writer has simp y added such details, and that this is the case here can be conclusively demonstrated. His accuracy in chronology has already been shown. His truthfulness in other essentials can also be established beyond doubt: we know from Aphraates that Seleucia-Ctesiphon was made a primatial see before Simeon bar Sabbae (cf. Higgins, , op. cit. supra n. 20, 268f.); that Miles was martyred before the general persecution of Sapor II is made evident by the Martyrology of 412 (ed. Nau, F., PO 10, Paris 1915, 23.10). Furthermore, these acts were written very early. They are already known to Sozomen (2.14) and, in all likelihood, formed part of the collection traditionally ascribed to Maruthas (cf. Baumstark, , op. cit. supra n. 1, 53 f.), made shortly after 400 and brought west by him. Consequently, the composition of the Passion cannot at the latest be placed long after the beginning of the fifth century, and may, of course, go back much farther. It should, moreover, be observed that the main acts, the destruction of Susa, the synod and the martyrdom, fitted neatly into the author's thesis of Miles as the scourge of God; as a result, he didn’t need to alter them, he had only to slant them. Thus, apropos of Susa, he adds that, according to a report, Miles cursed the city on leaving it, and three months later followed the punishment. Likewise, he makes Papa’s stroke the sequel of Miles’ imprecation. Consequently, I would not agree at all with Labourt’s suspicion of the 12 yrs.; any figure or no figure would have suited the writer’s purpose as well, and if none had been given, he would have invented none. The proof is a parallel in the acts themselves, the anecdote of a man guilty of perjury and inflicted at Miles’ command with leprosy, where not a word is said about how long the victim survived. In fact, of all the accounts of the synod, this strikes me as the closest to the event, so vividly does it convey the bitter resentment felt towards the upstart Papa. It doesn’t dally with silly or undignified accusations (cf. Labourt 22), but excoriates the bishop’s arrogant and overbearing deportment that had made him heartily detested not only by the hierarchy but even by his own clergy; and, as can be read between the lines of the other sources, this was, in the main, undoubtedly true (cf. infra, p. 95). In short, the factual content of the acts is subject to multiple controls, and, in every case, emerges as substantially correct but one-sided, honestly so, however, in that the author does not repeat the calumnies against Papa. Consequently, the document contains the original and authentic Passion of Miles, slanted, it is true, but virtually unchanged. The addition of a few miracles is standard practice in hagiographical compositions. The reliability of the acts has been attacked from a different angle by Peeters, P., ‘La légende de Saint Jacques de Nisibe,’ Anal. Boll. 38 (1920) 290f., 340f. Peeters argues that ElNis’ notices about James reflect too strongly the myth of Augin to be trusted; that the legend of James of Nisibis started very early, and under its influence the reference to him in Miles was added by some redactor after Sozomen’s time, though Augin’s Life depends on Miles’, not vice versa; that, however, the building of the church may have some foundation in fact. It should, first of all, be noted that these objections affect only one detail of the acts, the Nisibis episode, which Sozomen happens not to vouch for explicitly. However, Peeters agrees that the Greek historian used the same version as has come down to us. It must, consequently, have been composed about 400, as already stated, and the question boils down to whether we have the original text or not; if the former, then there can be no doubt but that James did build a church and that ElNis is correct, even if he did add items from Augin’s legend. The doubt cannot be finally settled until we get a critical edition of the Syriac acts, but since the Passion served as the source of the later sagas, I see no reason for supposing that it has been interpolated, Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. Labourt, 23f.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Cf. supra , pp. 48, 55. ChrArb was composed between 540 and 569; cf. Baumstark 135. Its version of the Papa affair has a number of peculiarities: (1) Simeon, backed by clergy and laity, leads the opposition; (2) nothing is said about the synod or Papa’s affliction, and Papa himself appoints Simeon as his successor; (3) nothing is said about what part the metropolitans of Arbela took in the prolonged controversy, but emphasis is laid on the fact that the neighboring and rival see of Karkha-de-Bet-Slokh actively participated in the cabal against Papa. In connection with the second peculiarity, we might first point out another proof that Arbela opposed the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Later on, ChrArb asserts that in 640 Sel., shortly after the death of Papa, John journeyed to Seleucia to help elect a successor; if John had any such design, he manifestly did not acknowledge Simeon. Now, in ChrArb, if compared with the acts of Miles and Dadisho, we can clearly discern that a strong party in the hierarchy objected to Papa’s ambitions, that Miles acted as its leader and rallying point and that Simeon took the initiative in proposing a synod to depose him. ChrArb differs from the rest of the sources in asserting that the threat of deposition was so serious as to alarm and restrain Papa and induce him to seek legitimation of his position by an appeal to Antioch. As we shall see later (cf. infra, p. 95), this is substantially correct, but that neither the synod nor Papa’s stroke ever occurred is incredible. Why otherwise would Dadisho’s council and the whole subsequent tradition have accepted without a word of protest so discreditable an incident? After all, ChrArb’s narrative is capable of a very flattering interpretation, if we ascribe Papa’s conduct to zeal instead of ambition, whereas, no matter what construction is put upon the other version of events, the whole affair is a disgrace. In my opinion, the total silence about the synod is part and parcel of the total silence about Sheria’s stand on the issue. No doubt, as pointed out above, he, too, joined forces with the enemies of Papa, and participated in his condemnation and deposition, just as John, his successor, fought against Simeon. The Nestorian compiler of ChrArb would naturally regard this as a blot on the history of his see and conceal it, particularly if Sheria was numbered among those censured by the Western Fathers, as is implied by the continued hostility to the primacy of Seleucia-Ctesiphon under John. Aqballaha is not, of course, the Aqballaha that attended the Council of 410 (Syn. or. 274), but another and earlier metropolitan of the same name.Google Scholar

⁴² 28-32. BarH’s chronology seems to agree with the spurious letter of Papa to the Church of Nisibis; cf. Braun, O., ‘Der Briefwechsel des Katholikos Papa,’ Zeitschr. f. kathol. Theol. 18 (1894) 560f. This yields, according to Braun, 334 for Papa’s synod, makes the persecution begin in 341 (31 Sapor) and end after 28 yrs. in 369. Since the false correspondence gives the wrong date for Simeon’s martyrdom, it could not have been composed in 363-68, as Braun argues. Probably, the 28 yrs. for the duration of the persecution include the mysterious 8-yr. aggregate for Shahdost-Barbashmin discussed above (supra, pp. 51-3). The interrelationship of the chronicles with the apocryphal epistle cannot be determined on the basis of the material studied here; cf. supra, n. 26, and infra, n. 82.Google Scholar

⁴³ PsEN 28; ChrS V 305f., 313, 317-19; Mari 24, 25-27; BarH 42-52; Amri (and Sliba) 12-15.Google Scholar

^43a That Mari has done this is evident, because (1) he doesn't mention the synod of 410 at all, and, if we consider its importance, this would be an extraordinary omission, and (2) the legislation imposed by that synod is here attributed to Qayuma's council.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ PsEN 28; ChrS V 305, 313 (Qayuma held office until accession of Yezdegerd, i.e., 1 Yezdegerd); Mari 24.17, 18, 29; 25.33, 36f.; PsED (supra, n. 1); BarH 44, 46; Amri and Sliba 12.29; 13.2-4 (original reads 721, as in Gismondi, but octo for tribus; Skehan) (but 721 is a scribal error for 711, i.e., 703 plus 8), 14, 16, 35-37. Since Sliba 15.8 puts Isaac’s death in 12 Yezdegerd, 728 Sel., and thus allows only 9 yrs. for his tenure, 719-28, whereas Amri 15.9 gives him 11 yrs., i.e., 1-12 Yezdegerd, it is clear that Sliba assigns Isaac’s accession to 3 Yezdegerd. As I have already mentioned (supra , p. 47), despite the fact that the Sel. yrs. are ascribed to Amri by the manuscript, they must belong to Sliba, as is clear from a comparison of the summaries given here. In the following list, ‘gross’ means the total number of years for Tomarsa’s and Qayuma’s terms and the latter’s retirement.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ He states distinctly that Qayuma held office for 4 yrs., 10 Bahram IV to 3 Yezdegerd, that he resigned at the accession of Yezdegerd, and that Isaac functioned 11 yrs. to 12 Yezdegerd (15.8f.), i.e., 1-12 Yezdegerd. Therefore, Amri undoubtedly regards both as patriarchs during 1-3 Yezdegerd. However, he does not say explicitly either that 3 yrs. of Qayuma’s tenure were spent in retirement, nor that Isaac remained subordinate to his senior. But, I believe this to be an oversight occasioned by the complicated dovetailing, in which Amri indulges, of three disparate narratives, ChrS, Mari and BarH. Furthermore, as the chronicler has obviously taken over all the elements of the 4-3 distribution, he must, like it, intend to round out Qayuma’s last partial year, 3 Yezdegerd, into a full one, and, as a result, he assigns only 10 yrs. to Bahram IV. If he counted 11 yrs. for Bahram IV and excluded 3 Yezdegerd (10-11-1-2), then the retirement would amount to only 2 yrs. (1-2), and we have no justification for assuming that he adopted a 4-2 distribution.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ As mentioned previously (n. 15), the corrector’s changes have no implication beyond the immediate one. Here, for instance, he has patently altered 1-9 Bahram IV to the senseless 1-8 Bahram IV, but he insinuates neither that Tomarsa reigned only 7 yrs. nor became catholicus in 1 Bahram IV. How could he mean the latter when he had already equated 1 Tomarsa with 1 Sapor III? (Cf. infra , p. 67). Furthermore, since the interval between 1 Sapor III and 1 Yezdegerd, 16 yrs. (5 of Sapor III and 11 of Bahram IV), is already too long to be filled out by the Tomarsa-Qayuma gross of 15 yrs., he obviously cannot want to shorten Tomarsa’s term.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Supra, p. 49.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The crudity of what is assumed here is no objection to it; it is no worse than the chronology presupposed by Mari or BarH at times.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Infra, p. 71.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Supra, p. 49.Google Scholar

⁵¹ This is confirmed by the fact that BarH, who preserved the 8-2-5 distribution, associates Tomarsa with Sapor II. This is easy to understand if the 8-2-5 distribution put Tomarsa under Sapor III; BarH, finding Tomarsa and Qayuma under Sapor II in his source, might readily have assumed that Sapor II was meant by the 8-2-5 distributor, as stated further on in the next paragraph.Google Scholar

⁵² There was no catholicus at all between the death of Sapor II and the accession of Isaac; cf. infra, pp. 83f.Google Scholar

⁵³ Supra, pp. 48f.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Infra, n. 82.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ 24.17.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ ChrS IV 288f.; Mari 14.10-13.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ i.e., ‘permitted the churches to be rebuilt;’ BarH 44; ChrS, and Mari, , ibid. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. infra , pp. 73f.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ That between 399 and 410 Maruthas did not attend a council held in 381 needs no proof. Whether he was actually present at that of Constantinople does not concern us here, but it is unanimously denied by modern scholars; cf. Labourt (cf. supra, n. 28) 88, n. 2; Westphal (cf. supra, n. 2) 130f.; Braun, O., De sancta nicaena synodo (Kirchengeschichtl. Studien hrsg. Knöpfler-Schrörs-Sdralek 4.3; Münster i.W. 1898) 3f. BarH does not say explicitly that Maruthas was present at the Council of Constantinople, but in my opinion, it is undoubtedly what he means.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ ChrS V 307; Claudian, , in Eutr. 2.474-84; Soz. 9.4 (cf. 9.1-3); Cod. Just. 4.63.4 (dated March 23, 409 by Seeck, O., Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste 311-476, Stuttgart 1919, 317). ChrS says that Bahram IV lived only 18 days of his last yr., which brings us down to Sept. 6, 399. For the date of the agreement to negotiate the differences, cf. Demougeot, E., De l'unité à la division de l’Empire Romain 395-410: Essai sur le gouvernement impérial (Paris 1951) 233, 344. (It suffices to refer the reader to this very careful and painstaking work, which has an exhaustive bibliography both of sources and modern treatises.) Scholars take Claudian to mean that Persia threatened war before the fall of Eutropius; cf. Demougeot 225f. That this is chronologically impossible has already been pointed out by E. W. Brooks, CMH I 459, n. 2. The pretorian prefect fell on Aug. 17, 399; cf. Demougeot 230, 232. To reconcile the sources, Nöldeke (cf. supra, n. 7) 418 suggests that Bahram IV was assassinated in summer 399, that a brief period of anarchy followed, and that Yezdegerd counted his yrs. only from the following Persian New Year. Claudian, however, says distinctly ‘armatum rursus Babylona minari rege novo’; whom could ‘rege novo’ allude to but Yezdegerd, particularly when we consider the protracted negotiations for peace? The inference drawn above from Soz. has not been made by other students of the subject; cf. Demougeot 344 n. 702; Tillemont, , Hist. des empereurs VI (Venice 1739), ‘Theodose II,’ art. 1 (towards end). Nevertheless, the inference seems to me obvious, if we consider that Claudian speaks of a threat of war, that the oriental chronicles all put a truce in 1 Yezdegerd, that Socrates remarks about the frequency of embassies in just this connection, and that the law implementing the treaty appeared only in 409. Actually, Demougeot (233 n. 603; 344) comes virtually to the same conclusion, but regards the relationship as an ‘entente cordiale.’ This agrees very ill, it seems to me, with the tone of Sozomen's narrative.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Hist. eccl. 7.8, 10; 6.15, 19; Soz. 8.16; cf. infra, n. 67.Google Scholar

⁶² PG 104.233A (Theodoret's encomium quoted in Phot. Bibl. 273); 65.832B (Proclus). These are apparently the only independent witnesses to Chrysostom's missionary activities; cf. Baur, Chrys., Der Hl. Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit (Munich 1929-30) II 326f. Baur is noncommittal about Theodoret's encomium and about Proclus; cf. I xixf. On the other hand, Tillemont, , Mém. eccl. XI (Venice 1732), ‘S. Jean Chrys.’ art 107, accepts them without demur. The wording of Theodoret's encomium is very striking: ‘Nay more, you replied to the Persian bowman with the arrow of your preaching, and they, though clothed in steel, adore the Crucified. Your tongue overcame the crafty devices of Chaldaeans and magi, and barren Persia burst into flower with houses of prayer. No longer was Babylon alien to the true worship.’ The writer, it is obvious, purposely is paraphrasing Socrates’ description of Maruthas’ work and ascribing it directly to St. John Chrysostom.Google Scholar

⁶³ PG 52.618. Tillemont loc. cit. remarks that Chrysostom never dreamt of employing anybody but Maruthas for the Persian affair, but whether he means by this that the saint had also procured the appointment of Maruthas prior to the letter is not altogether clear to me. Braun, O., Nic. syn. 3-5, believes that the best way to explain Maruthas’ favor with Arcadius is to suppose that Chrysostom had heightened, if not aroused, the emperor's interest in Persian Christianity and himself introduced the Mesopotamian prelate to the court; Braun further conjectures that, as Maruthas had studied medicine, he had probably done so in Antioch and had there first become acquainted with Chrysostom. No other scholar gives St. John any credit at all for Maruthas’ role; cf. also infra, pp. 78-80. St. John’s pessimism about Maruthas’ success may simply result from his having heard nothing and jumping thence to the conclusion that there was nothing to hear; it may, too, reflect a general disappointment with the negotiations for a treaty; these must have registered no appreciable gain, since they were to drag on still for four years, and even then, so Soz. implies, to reach a conclusion rather suddenly and unexpectedly.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Stilting, J., De. S. Joanne Chrysostomo ep. Cplo. et ecclesiae doctore prope Comana in Ponto comment. hist. (AS Sept. IV; Paris-Rome 1868) 630DE, dates ep. 14 in Oct. 404; at all events, it was certainly after the exile in June 404. Tillemont, , op. cit., art. 106, believes that Maruthas made a journey to Persia between the Synod of the Oak (Sept. 403; cf. infra, n. 67) and the letter to Olympias in Oct. 404. He did not have the oriental sources at his disposal that we command and could not know that Maruthas had gone there before the Synod of the Oak. At all events, this supposition is impossible. Theophilus and the rest of John’s enemies fled Constantinople at the beginning of winter and returned to their sees (Socr. 6.17; Soz. 8.19). John had fallen into disgrace again by Christmas and the bishops had returned and condemned him again by Easter (Socr. 6.18; Soz. 8.20f.). There is no reason whatever to suppose that Maruthas did not participate in all these proceedings, particularly since Chrysostom’s letter shows him still an enemy and still in Constantinople at the moment of writing. Manifestly, there was no time for a trip to Persia and return.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Demougeot, 315.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Syn. or. (cf. supra, n. 29) 254-56, 261 (Isaac’s); 292f. (Dadisho’s). For the chronicles, cf. supra, n. 43.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ ChrEd (cf. supra, n. 31) 106 Hallier, 6 Guidi. For Synod of Oak, cf. Baur II 204 n. 6. For beginning of Maruthas’ embassy, cf. infra , p. 80. That Maruthas made two journeys between 399 and 410 is, I believe, established by the reasons above, and this is all that really concerns the present paper about the very disputed question of the number of his missions; cf. Braun, , Nic. syn. 4, 5 n. 4, 7, 8; Westphal 125-27, 141f.; Labourt 88f. n. 5, 89 n. 5, 90 n. 1. All these scholars agree that the prelate did go twice to Persia between 399 and 410, while Westphal and Labourt assign him a third embassy later. I agree with Braun that the third mission is a fiction. It would take too long to detail the argument here, but it may be summarized. It should be noted that all the sources without exception give Maruthas two journeys and only two journeys, but differ merely as to their distribution. As I have pointed out, the source allied with Socrates caused confusion in the date of Isaac's accession. In like manner, it is my view that Mari, in attempting to adjust the two trips related in the same source to the narrative of ChrS, was misled by the latter's telescoping of events to identify the whole series of occurrences from Isaac's election to the synod of 410 with Maruthas’ first embassy (this was all the easier after he had himself associated the synod of 410 with the resignation of Qayuma and accession of Isaac). He had then to find room for the second mission and simply ‘conjectured’ that he accompanied Acacius.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Demougeot, 230, n. 575, 251, 259f., 265.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Braun, , Nic. syn. 4, and Westphal 126 both think that Maruthas’ mission was primarily political; for Labourt 87 a bishop accompanied every embassy. Isaac's synod describes him as ‘mediator of peace between East and West’; cf. Syn. or. 255. Among the chroniclers, only BarH speaks of him as negotiating the peace; cf. supra, n. 43. These statements of the sources I interpret, as I say above, as referring to his official status; no doubt his status was that of a member of the peace commission.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Syn. or. 293; cf. supra , p. 76.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Demougeot, 303f.Google Scholar

⁷² Socrates says that Yezdegerd decimated the magi; cf. supra , p. 73.Google Scholar

⁷³ Sapor II put a stop to the persecution of the Christians; cf. infra , pp. 84–86.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ ChrS V 260, 306. That persecution raged under both Sapor III and Bahram IV is proven infra , pp. 83f.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Chron. misc. (Liber calipharum) tr. by Chabot, J.-B. (CSCO 4; Paris-Rome-Leipzig 1904) 106f.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ De civ. Dei 18.52 is often quoted as proof that Yezdegerd I persecuted the Christians at the beginning of his reign; cf. Demougeot 225, n. 554. However, St. Augustine refers to the persecution at the end of the reign, since Book 18 was written shortly before 425; cf. Schanz-Hosius-Krüger, , Geschichte der römischen Literatur IV 2 (Handb. d. klass. Altertumswiss. 8; Munich 1920) 418. That Yezdegerd did begin by persecuting the Church is explicitly stated by BarH 46; ChrS V 317 (Letter of Arcadius, also quoted by Amri 14.14-24). Westphal (p. 136) gets the impression from this letter that Yezdegerd had already ruled some time when it was supposedly written.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Tab. 74 Nöld. (cf. supra, n. 7).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Supra, pp. 70–72.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Infra, p. 84.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Supra, p. 76.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Contra Iudaeos et gentiles quod Christus sit Deus, PG 48.814. The context is that the expansion of Christianity proves the divinity of Christ; it has spread not only among the Romans but also among the Persians and the barbarians — and that, too, despite all obstacles. ‘The extraordinary thing is…’ The treatise was composed shortly before Aug. 29, 387; cf. Rauschen, G., Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen (Freiburg i.B. 1897) 512.Google Scholar

⁸² Supra, pp. 69f. Westphal, p. 80, points out that Jovian could not have imposed the edict of toleration as a stipulation of the treaty with Sapor. This is perfectly true. As a matter of fact, if the emperor had made any such condition, it is inconceivable that it would not have been mentioned by his Christian apologists. It seems to me, however, that the acts of the martyrs give a very distorted portrait of Sapor II; that he was not personally opposed to Christianity but forced into persecution largely by the power of the magi and provoked by the treason of his Christian subjects; that after his victory over Jovian his supremacy stood unchallenged at home and he was in a position to legislate as he pleased, while the peace with Rome eliminated the other incitement. It is an interesting fact that legend has preserved a vivid memory of the respite under Sapor II; cf. Westphal, , loc. cit.; Labourt 305, n. 1; also supra, n. 42.Google Scholar

⁸³ Supra, p. 51f.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Infra, p. 87.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Cf. supra, n. 22. The calendar is Persian; cf. supra, n. 6.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ 78 Sachau, 184 Zorell (cf. supra, n. 30).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cf. supra, n. 20.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Infra, pp. 86f.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ MM or. (cf. supra, n. 22) 206f.; 137f. Braun. Where Ass. has 31 Sapor, Braun reads 30 Sapor — (MS var. according to Bedjan's ed.: Skehan). This colophon has occasioned controversy, which need not concern us here, because it does not affect the fact that Era Pers. begins either in 31 or 32 Sapor. The var., 30 Sapor, may be ignored since it has no support in the oldest redaction of Simeon's acts.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ MM or. 15, 45.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ibid. 144, 165, 168 and n. 1; cf. Labourt 80.Google Scholar

⁹² For Aphraates, supra, n. 20. Jerome (Eusebii Pamphili chronici canones latine vertit, adauxit, ad sua tempora produxit S. Eusebius Hieronymus, ed. Fotheringham, J. K., London 1923, 318) notes under 01. 280.4 (Oct. 1, 343/44), 2360 Abraham (Oct. 1, 343/44), 7 Constantius (Sept. 9, 343/44), that Sapor persecuted the Christians, i.e., gives, equivalently, 344 as year of Simeon bar Sabbae’s death.Google Scholar

⁹³ MM or. 99f., 153f.; AS Nov. IV 425-29.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ This discrepancy has always bothered scholars; cf. Westphal 117-19; Labourt 85f., n. 4.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ MM or. 31 (Simeon); 129 (Barhadbeshabba). For James, cf. Peeters, P., ‘Le « Passionnaire d’Adiabène »’ Anal. Boll. 43 (1925) 285.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ La légende de Mar Bassus martyr persan, suivie de l'histoire de la fondation de son couvent à Apamée, ed. with intr., tr. and notes by Chabot, J.-B. (Paris 1893) 7, 49.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Hoffmann, G., Auszüge aus syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer (Abh. für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 8.3; Leipzig 1880) 49 (Aqballaha), 50. For Bokhtisho, cf. supra, p. 61. For the date of the acts, cf. Labourt 55.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ 17-19; cf. supra , p. 45.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Cf. references to Baumstark, and Graf, , supra, n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Supra, pp. 62, 65, 69.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ 7.31-36; it is Miles that is stricken with paralysis in punishment for his audacity against Papa. For Qayuma’s resignation, etc., cf. supra , pp. 61–63.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Cf. Westphal 131, who notes that this is propaganda.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ For the material in this paragraph, cf. supra , pp. 49f., 53f., 62, 67, 69f., 71f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Hoffmann, 17.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Daniel bar Maryam, principal source of ChrS, was in four parts; cf Graf 195.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ However, because of the peculiar dating, 2 Pers. (cf. supra , p. 86), it seems to me much more likely that Shahdost is in the wrong order. Then the list would run: Simeon-Barbashmin-20-yr. vacancy-Tomarsa-Qayuma-Shahdost-22-yr. vacancy-Isaac.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Syn. or. 287-97. Cf. supra , pp. 54f., 76, for the passages on Papa and Isaac.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. 286: The bishops asked Dadisho to return to his see, put himself again at the head of the Church and resume the direction of Christ’s flock. This seems to me to imply that he resigned, as it does also to Labourt 121, but not to Westphal 162.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ The pertinent passages have been summarized supra , pp. 54–56.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ This is what Mari 7.30f. means by saying that he was accused of ordaining two bishops for one see. There isn't the slightest doubt that this accusation is true, since the acts of Simeon mention two simultaneous bishops of Gundeshapur, Gadyabh and Sabina, and we know that the former consecrated Miles, so the latter must have been Papa's partisan; cf. Braun (cf. supra, n. 22) 5, and MM or. 70.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Syn. or. 261, 269f., 273.Google Scholar

¹¹² BO (supra, n. 1) IV 176f. His chronological objections are obsolete, as also others'; cf. Braun, O., Buch des Synhados (Stuttgart-Vienna 1900) 51, n. 1, 53, n. 3, and Chabot, , Syn. or. 290, nn. 1, 3. The latter two put Miles’ martyrdom after 31 Sapor, but cf. supra, n. 39.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Braun, , Synh. 56, n. 1; Labourt 125f., n. 1; Westphal 162.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ According to Labourt 124, Agapetus’ assertion that conditions prevented the Western Fathers from concerning themselves with Persia was merely a pretext, and the real grounds were different. This, whether true or false, does not affect the issue here. However, I might point out that (1) it is the only reason given and it convinced the rest of the bishops, though only after some hesitation, and (2) there seems to be something faulty with Labourt's chronlogy. On p. 120 n. 3, he dates Dadisho's imprisonment in 422, but this forces the text, which requires 423; cf. Chabot, , Syn. or. 288 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Abdisho, , Coll. can. tr. Assemani, A. (Scrr. vett. nova coll. 10, ed. Mai, A.; Rome 1838) 161–63; cf. Labourt 11f.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Braun, , Briefw. (cf. supra, n. 42) 178-82, esp. 181f.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Cf. supra, n. 112; Westphal 56, 162f.; Labourt 21 n. 1, 125f. n. 1. With reference to Labourt's parallelisms, that between Papa-Miles and Yahbalaha-Mana does not exist in Mari, as he asserts; cf. supra, n. 101. As to Agapetus, Westphal is undoubtedly correct for the reasons given above. Chabot, , Syn. or. 286, n. 3, thinks that the letter of the four patriarchs is referred to in the opening words of the synod: ‘By the agreement and advice of saints, confessors, archbishops, doctors by their works, illustrious and martyrs by their sufferings…, the gift of the patriarchate has been given and confirmed to the great church of Koke.’ If he finds the allusion in the use of the word ‘patriarchate,’ it means no more than the application of ‘catholicus’ to Isaac; cf. Westphal 135. In a canonical collection such as this, substitutions of current titles for the original terminology would be bound to occur almost subconsciously, and would prove little or nothing.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Cf. supra, n. 39.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Cf. supra , p. 46.Google Scholar