The Trinitarian Controversies in Fourth-Century Edessa*

THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES IN FOURTH-CENTURY EDESSA*

Introduction

The time of great theological dissension that struck Christianity in the fourth century did not spare the Syrian city of Edessa. Here, too, the representatives of the different Christian theologico-ecclesial alliances were engaged in that confrontation over the definition of the Son’s relationship to the Father that has come to be termed ‘Trinitarian controversy’. Edessa in the early fourth century exhibited a diverse religious landscape. The Syriac poet and theologian Ephrem (ca. 306-373) taunted in his writings a whole array of groups. To the sixteen items contained in the bipartite taxonomy Ephrem drew in his HymnsagainstHeresies1 we need to add the presence of a Jewish community, as well as that of denizens devoted to Greco-Roman and local cults2. The interactions and degree of overlapping among these communities, as well as their relations to Ephrem’s own faction, are mostly beyond recovery. It is certain, however, that even before the beginning of the heated debates over Arius’ teachings the camp of Edessa’s self-identified Christians contained communities of different orientations, perceiving themselves as separate from one another. Presumably only one of them (the so-called ‘Paluṭians’) was to split into the groups that would play an active role in the convulsed events

* I wish to acknowledge the support of Harvard University’s Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, in Washington, D.C., which allowed me, through a Research Fellow- ship, to conduct research for this article during the summer 2011. My thanks go to Professors Alberto Camplani (Sapienza – Università di Roma), Emanuela Prinzivalli (Sapienza – Università di Roma), Manlio Simonetti (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), and Lucas Van Rompay (Duke University), for their careful reading and helpful advice; to Professor Milka Levy-Rubin (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), for her kind assistance at the National Library of Israel; and to Jacob Golan, for his linguistic revision. It will readily be accepted that all remaining imperfections are my responsibility only. 1 Aetians, Arians, Audians, Bardaisanites, Borborians, Cathari, Chaldeans, Manichaeans, Marcionites, Messalians, Paulinians, Photinians, Quqites, Sabbatians, Sabellians, and Val- entinians are all mentioned by Ephrem in his HymnsagainstHeresies. For the respective loci, cf. the ‘Verzeichnis der Eigennamen’ in BECK, Hymnen, p. 198-200. On the bipartition of Ephrem’s taxonomy, cf. GRIFFITH, SettingRight, p. 102. 2 On the Jews in Edessa, cf. SEGAL, BlessedCity, p. 41-42 and 100-105; and J. Meyen- dorff’s remarks in MCVEY, Hymns, p. 13-14. On the pagan background of the city, cf. TEIXIDOR, Lafilosofía, p. 60-67; and HAIDER etal., Religionsgeschichte. Cf. also BAUER, OrthodoxyandHeresy, p. 1-43; GRIFFITH, Christianity; and STORI, Edessa.

998027.indb8027.indb 8585 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 86 E. FIANO

of the Trinitarian strife3. Upon canvasing the battlefield of Christian conflict in fourth-century Edessa, then, its boundaries have to be broad- ened to include a greater array of interactions than the Trinitarian clashes alone. Although the connections between theological developments in non- ‘Paluṭian’ and ‘Paluṭian’ kinds of Christianity in Edessa are well worth exploring, this paper will center on the events that marked the battle over the Trinity in the city, focusing in particular on the involvement of the episcopate. Neither classical treatments (such as those by M. Simonetti and R.P.C. Hanson) nor recent reassessments (such as L. Ayres’) of the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies have devoted particular attention to the Syrian scenario or to Syriac sources4. Through the discussion of testimonies typically excluded from presentations of the Blessed City, as well as of some new prosopographic data, I hope to integrate those and other scholars’ indispensable treatments, and to show the importance of a more thorough investigation of Edessa’s participation in the Trinitarian disputes that absorbed the attention of church leaderships for over sixty years5. Sections 2 through 5 of the present study will be devoted to a reconstruction of the unfolding of these debates. The city revered as the cradle of Syriac Christianity will reveal a surprising degree of doctrinal variety within the fold of what would come to be seen as the mainline brand of Christianity. An account of the Syrian Trinitarian controversies was already offered, in the fifth century, by the church historian Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Theo- doret, one of our main sources for these events, belonged to an establishment that attempted to preserve and consolidate the achievements of ecclesiastical unity inherited from the previous generation of church leaders, who with the aid of Roman power had brought an end to the hostili- ties about the ὁμοούσιος. Theodoret’s ChurchHistory, with its attempt to reintegrate the Eustathian memory into a project allowing the legiti- mization of Meletius’ political action, needs to be read as an example of

3 On the ‘Paluṭians’ and their eponymous alleged founder, cf. Ephrem, Hymnicontra haereses, 22, 5-6. The TeachingofAddai contains references to Paluṭ throughout. Cf. also ROSS, RomanEdessa, p. 126-127 (and CAMPLANI – GNOLI, EdessaeRoma on the views expressed in Ross’ book). 4 Cf.SIMONETTI, Lacrisi; HANSON, Search; and AYRES, Nicaea. 5 The evidence available for this enterprise is admittedly scarce. What is known about the controversy in other parts of Syria, and in the Eastern provinces in general, may help shape an idea of the ecclesial scenario at Edessa. Nevertheless, the forming and breaking of alliances affected (and was affected by) local developments in different ways, and the alternate fortunes of the various groups sometimes followed diverging patterns in the various corners of the Empire.

998027.indb8027.indb 8686 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 87

histoireengagée6. In Theodoret’s work, ideological concerns and expecta- tions about the contemporary institutional outlook and geo-ecclesiological positioning of the church of Syria are written back into the narrative of fourth-century events. Sections 6 through 8 of this paper will combine a recounting of the exile of the Edessene pro-Nicenes with an analysis of the ways in which Theodoret dealt with these events in his History. The paper is followed by three brief excursuses (on Aithallah’s presence at the council of Ancyra of 314; on Barses’ switch of allegiance; and on the return of the Edessene ‘orthodox’ from exile), mostly meant as chronological and bibliographical clarifications.

1. Beforethecontroversies

Ancient sources draw an indirect connection between Edessa and the earliest developments of the teaching of Arius. The first link attested concerns Lucian of Antioch (ca. 250-311/312)7, Arius’ teacher, who is reported to have received his earliest religious instruction in the Blessed City. There he would have studied under one Makarios, an exegete of Scrip- ture8. Our three informants on this detail of Lucian’s biography (the Suda, Symeon the Metaphrast, and an anonymous LifeofConstantine) are all reliant upon an older account of his martyrdom9. This text, thought by some to have been written in the immediate aftermath of Lucian’s exe- cution, had its terminuspostquem more conservatively established as 425 by P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri (who, however, admitted to its utilization of previous local accounts, composed in greater proximity to Lucian’s death)10. The historicity of the report about Lucian’s early religious education in Edessa, which made its way unquestioned into the writings of A. von Harnack, was rejected by L. Duchesne on no clear grounds, and

6 Cf. MARTIN, AntiocheauxIVeetVesiècles, p. 279. Cf. also IDEM, Églised’Antioche; and SPUNTARELLI, Didascaliaepotere, p. 80-81, n. 30. 7 On the year of Lucian’s martyrdom (on the seventh day of January), cf. SLUSSER, Martyrdom (suggesting 311) and BARNES, Martyrdom (arguing for 312). 8 Cf. Pseudo-Suida, Lexicon, Λ, 685 (s.v. Λουκιανὸς ὁ μάρτυς); Symeon the Meta- phrast, VitaLuciani, 1; and VitaConstantini, 1. On the anonymous VitaConstantini of the eleventh-century Codex Angelicus Graecus 22 (D.3.10), cf. BIDEZ, Kirchengeschichte, p. lxxxviii-xcvii. The short sentence about Lucian’s stay in Edessa contains a textual riddle, to which FRANCHI DE’ CAVALIERI, Frammento, p. 105-106 offered a solution. 9 Cf.FRANCHI DE’ CAVALIERI, Frammento, p. 105-109, and IDEM, Osservazioni, p. 37- 38. 10 Cf. FRANCHI DE’ CAVALIERI, Frammento, p. 130. For a fourth-century dating, cf. BATIFFOL, Etude. Cf. also FRANCHI DE’ CAVALIERI, Frammento, p. 110 and n. 1, 2, and 3.

998027.indb8027.indb 8787 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 88 E. FIANO

by G. Bardy because of what he considered “le caractère essentiellement syriaque de la communauté édessénienne”, in contrast with Lucian’s heavy Greek outlook11. After so many decades such outright denials are in need of a reassess- ment. Bardy’s characterization of Edessa’s environment as thoroughly Syriac-speaking does not capture the whole picture. Despite the scarcity of documentation about the second half of the third century, research has shown that, although Edessa remained a largely Semitic center, by 250 Greek cultural and linguistic influxes were well at play in the city12. Both Syriac and Greek “were in use in ordinary life, but […] Greek will always have maintained its status as the language of public life, both secular and ecclesiastical”13. Nor had the Edessene Christian community remained untouched by this Hellenization. The teaching of 2nd-to-3rd- century Christian author Bardaisan is undeniably a product, among other things, of Greek culture, and epigraphic evidence also points to Christian usage of Greek (though a somewhat rudimentary type thereof) in the third century14. While we possess no definitive evidence that Lucian did indeed study in Edessa, he certainly could have found there a more Hel- lenized kind of Christianity than Bardy suspected. The second connection concerns Eusebius of Emesa (ca. 300-ca. 359), whose writings, expressing moderate subordinationist views character- ized by insistence on the term ‘unbegotten’, testify to an involvement in the Trinitarian discussions. About half a century after Lucian’s alleged schooling under the elusive Makarios, Eusebius, an Edessene native, received in the Blessed City his first Christian and Greek instruction15.

11 Cf. VON HARNACK, Lehrbuch, vol. II, p. 183-184; DUCHESNE, Histoire, p. 498, n. 1; and BARDY, Recherches, p. 35-36. MILLAR, Greek and Syriac, p. 107-108 accepts the report as historical with no discussion (but ibidem, p. 107, n. 26 he mistakenly locates it in Philostorgius, HE, 6, 1, probably meaning to refer, instead, to the sixth section of Bidez’s edition of Philostorgius’ work, where the anonymous VitaConstantini is edited). 12 Cf.above all MILLAR, GreekandSyriac (for the following period, cf.IDEM, From EphremtoRabbula). Cf. also DRIJVERS, Hatra,PalmyraundEdessa, p. 885-896; BROCK, Greek Learning, p. 19; ROSS, Roman Edessa, p. 119-120; TAYLOR, Bilingualism and Diglossia, p. 326-327; and ANDRADE, ASyriacDocument. On Greek instruction in Edessa, cf. BETTIOLO, Scuoleeambienti, p. 60-64. On the Semitic character of Edessa, cf. SEGAL, BlessedCity; and MILLAR, HellenisticSyria, p. 126. 13 MILLAR, GreekandSyriac, p. 110. 14 Cf. FEISSEL, Recueil, p. 25-27; LLEWELYN, Review, p. 176-179; and RAMELLI, Iscrizione. On contact-induced changes in the Syriac of the Peshiṭta, due to Syriac-Greek bilingualism, cf. TAYLOR, BilingualismandDiglossia, p. 326-327. DRIJVERS, OdesofSolo- mon, p. 129 considers the 38th Ode to have been composed around 275 in Edessa in a bilingual Christian ‘orthodox’ environment. 15 Cf. Socrates of Constantinople, HE, 2, 9, 3; cf. also ibidem, 1, 24, 2-3; Sozomen, HE, 3, 6, 1-7; 3, 14, 42; and Jerome,Devirisillustribus, 91. On Eusebius’ life and works,

998027.indb8027.indb 8888 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 89

This must have occurred in the latest years of the episcopacy of Qōna (whose achievements are recorded in 311/312)16, and/or under the latter’s (possibly immediate) successor Sha῾ad17. These scattered reports provide no particular insight into the theological views preeminent among the ‘Paluṭians’ in the generation preceding the outbreak of the controversies. While it would be tempting to make the phantom of Makarios into a forefather of Arianism, adding another link to the chain of direct intellectual filiation that questionably sees Lucian as an “Arius vor Arius” would be an exercise in futility18. A similar reason- ing goes for the case of Eusebius of Emesa. To be sure, by the time of his Edessene stay (in the early 320’s, or shortly before) discussions over Arius’ teaching had already extended beyond Egypt, as the Alexandrian presbyter’s LettertoEusebiusofNicomedia indicates. However, it would be of little help to speculate about the theological orientation of the bishops during whose tenure Eusebius dwelt in the city on the sole basis of the later developments of his reflection. Eusebius’ adult theology, in all like- lihood, was more importantly influenced by the mentorship of the ‘Col- lucianist’ Patrophilus of Scythopolis and of Eusebius of Caesarea, with whom he later studied, than by that of his Edessene instructors19.

cf. BUYTAERT, L’héritagelittéraire; and PETIT etal., Eusèbed’Émèse, p. xxiii-xxix. MILLAR, TheodoretofCyrrhus, p. 121 asks if Eusebius’ taking up “the culture (paideia) of the Hellenes with a teacher in Edessa” was “simply a move from Christian to pagan literature, or also from Syriac to Greek”. Cf. also his discussion of Eusebius’ education in MILLAR, GreekandSyriac, p. 107-108. 16 Cf. ChroniconEdessenum, 12; and FEDALTO, HEO, p. 803. Qōna’s name is turned into Nōna by Barhebraeus (cf. ChroniconEcclesiasticum, 1, 20, edited in ABBELOOS – LAMY, ChroniconEcclesiasticum, p. 63 [textus]-64 [versio, where he becomes Nonnus]), and into Yōna by Michael the Syrian (cf. Chronicon, 6, 10, edited in CHABOT, Chronique, vol. IV, p. 120, col. 1, lines 6-7 [textus] and 203 [versio]; and IBRAHIM, The Edessa- AleppoSyriacCodex, p. 123, col. 1, lines 6-7). 17 For a slightly problematic discussion of Eusebius’ Edessene background (linked to his knowledge of the Abgar legend; to his anti-Marcionite, anti-Manichaean, and anti- pagan polemic; and to his valuing of asceticism, sexual renunciation, martyrdom, and education), cf.WINN, EusebiusofEmesa, p. 21-31. 18 The definition is found in HARNACK, Lehrbuch, vol. II, p. 184. Cf. BUONAIUTI, LucianoMartire; D’ALÈS, Luciend’Antioche; BOULARAND, Auxsources; BARDY, Recher- ches; SIMONETTI, Leorigini, p. 325-330; TOV, Lucian; SIMONETTI, LucianodiAntiochia; BRENNECKE, LukianvonAntiochien; and LÖHR, AriusReconsidered, p. 531-533. 19 On the Trinitarian theology of Eusebius of Emesa, cf. BUYTAERT, TrinitarianDoc- trine; SIMONETTI,Lacrisi, p. 192-198; HANSON, Search, p. 387-398; WILES, Theology; TER HAAR ROMENY, Eusebius, p. 10-12; and WINN, EusebiusofEmesa, p. 123-186. BUYTAERT, TrinitarianDoctrine, p. 41 speculates on what led Eusebius to leave Aithallah’s Edessa shortly after the Council of Nicaea, to study with non-Nicene thinkers such as Patrophilus of Scythopolis and Eusebius of Caesarea. Buytaert, however, does not explain his reasons for believing it likely that Eusebius of Emesa departed from the Blessed city “shortly after

998027.indb8027.indb 8989 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 90 E. FIANO

What these ancient reports do suggest, rather, is a certain degree of integration of Edessa in the wider theologico-ecclesial net of Syria and the East (or, in the case of Lucian, at least the possibility thereof as perceived by the authors of the accounts on which his now-lost Life is reliant). This integration is also illustrated by the careers of Lucian and Eusebius, who went on to perfect their Christian education elsewhere, and eventually rose to an important status within the church. Beyond the subsequent division across oikoumene-wide ecclesiastical party lines, these testimonies show the ‘Paluṭian’ community in Edessa as hosting a kind of theological teaching similar to that performed in other East- ern Christian centers, and as potentially receptive to the ferments that were to brew into the full-fledged Trinitarian debates of the following decades.

2. 324-346:Aithallah

The early events of the Trinitarian strife in the Blessed City, in the long period during which the Eastern provinces of the Empire were under the rule first of Constantine (April 310-May 337) and then of Constantius II (May 337-November 361)20, remain mostly vague. Soon after the celebra- tion of the council of Nicaea (325), Constantine began to seek a balance between the orientation expressed by the synod’s canons (particularly their anathemas), perceived by many as crypto-monarchianist, and radical forms of subordinationism, antonomastically represented by the specter of Arius. Through a series of well-calculated episcopal reappointments and depositions, the Emperor managed to gain the trust and favor of a wide theologico-ecclesial area of moderate, typically Origenist, generi- cally subordinationist Eastern bishops. Though wary of the ὁμοούσιος, regarded as fundamentally Sabellian, these church leaders disagreed with those who were still in communion with Arius. Constantius, Constan- tine’s successor, shared his predecessor’s interest in pursuing the political unity of the church. After two decades of ongoing clashes, Constantius concluded that only a centralized and energetic imperial initiative could achieve the longed-for ecclesial unity. To this effect he summoned a series of councils aiming at conclusively settling the controversies21.

the General Council” (ibidem), as opposed to before it took place. In the absence of a reliable chronology, conclusions of this sort are best avoided. 20 Including the phase of his incumbency as co-Augustus first with Constantine II and Constans, from 337 to 340, and then with Constans only, from 340 to 350. 21 Cf. SIMONETTI, Dibattitotrinitario, p. 7-13; and SEGNERI, LetteraagliAntiocheni, p. 16-30. Cf. also SIMONETTI, L’imperatorearbitro, p. 449-459.

998027.indb8027.indb 9090 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 91

More than twenty years (324/325-345/346) of the stretch of time cov- ered by Constantine’s and Constantius’ offices were dominated in Edessa by the episcopal tenure of bishop Aithallah. It was perhaps the tradition, whose historicity we have no elements to judge, of Aithallah’s presence at the council of Nicaea22 that led to his being credited with having composed a LetteronFaith addressed to the Christians of Persia23. The treatise, most likely originally composed in Syriac (and not, as at times argued, in Greek) but preserved in Armenian translation, was attributed to Aithal- lah by scholars such as A. Vööbus, I. Ortiz de Urbina, and R. Murray, but its authenticity has now been disputed for almost half a century24. The profession of faith that the treatise reports and expounds expresses views perfectly congruent with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan dogma, couching them in a language typical of the more ancient Syriac creedal tradition. M.G. de Durand dates it to the last decades of the fourth century, and D. Bundy attributes it to a period between 410 (date of the council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, of whose creed the first two articles of the treatise’s profession are reminiscent) and 428-43125. This document being unable to reliably help us shed light on the Trinitarian leanings of the Edessene episcopate of Aithallah’s time, we have to content ourselves with the supposition of the bishop’s initial generic agreement with the tenets of Nicaea. It remains difficult to track Aithallah’s doctrinal evolution in the two decades that followed. Some indication could come from the circumstance that his name appears amid the spate of signatures appended to the ‘Dedication creed’ of the council held at Antioch in 341 (the so-called ‘synod inencaeniis’)26.

22 On the Eastern presence at Nicaea in general, cf. WALLACE-HADRILL, Christian Antioch, p. 165-166. Aithallah’s name is attested in different ways in the subscription lists of the council of Nicaea. For the Latin names, cf. CUNTZ etal., PatrumNicaenorumnomina, p. 20-21; Greek: ibidem, p. 64 [nr. 78] and 74 [nr. 173]; Coptic: ibidem, p. 84 [nr. 84 in the Latin translation]; Armenian (with some variants): ibidem, p. 194 [nr. 73] and n. adloc.; Arabic: ibidem, p. 156 [nr. 109]. For the Syriac names contained in BL Add. 14258, ff. 18a- 25a (on which, cf. WRIGHT, Catalogue, vol. II, col. 1030-33), cf. CUNTZ et al., Patrum Nicaenorumnomina, p. 102 [nr. 78]. Surprisingly, in the Syriac inventory of Nicene bishops included in ῾Abdisho῾ bar Brikha, Nomocanon, 1, 1, 5 (edited in ASSEMANI, Nomocanon) the bishop of Edessa who took part in the council is listed as (cf.ibidem, p. 126 [nr. 78]; on this list, cf.CUNTZ etal., PatrumNicaenorumnomina, p. xxiv). On the lists of the council of Nicaea, cf. also SCHWARTZ, Bischofslisten. 23 For further information about Aithallah, cf. Excursus nr. 1, in appendix to the present study (p. 122-123). 24 Cf. VÖÖBUS, Celibacy, p. 38; VÖÖBUS, NeueAngaben, p. 16-22; ORTIZ DE URBINA, PatrologiaSyriaca, p. 84; DE DURAND, Undocument; FIEY, Jalons, p. 123, n. 60; MURRAY, Symbols, p. 34, n. 2; BUNDY,Letter; BUNDY, Creed; BRUNS, AithallahasBrief; and BRUNS, BriefAithallahas. 25 Cf. DE DURAND, Undocument; BRUNS, AithallahasBrief; and BUNDY, Creed, p. 163. 26 Cf. MANSI, Collectio, vol. II, col. 1307 and n. 2.

998027.indb8027.indb 9191 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 92 E. FIANO

This declaration, indebted to Eusebius of Caesarea and the Origenist tradition, robustly condemned monarchianism. It proclaimed a three- hypostasis theology, making use of the weak term συμφωνία to describe the unity of the persons. It insisted on the Son’s status as revealer of the Father, and it made no mention of the consubstantiality between the two, trumpeted at Nicaea. As such, it represents a fairly unspecific formulation, representative of “a conservative theology of conciliation”, destined to attain widespread support among bishops of Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine27. We are not informed whether the creed was interpreted and popularized in Edessa from a staunchly Eusebian or a more pro-Nicene perspective28. If historically authentic, however, Aithallah’s signature suffices as a warning not to imagine the Edessene episcopate stuck in a conservative, vetero-Nicene upholding of the ὁμοούσιος, in contrast to the main Eastern stream.

3. 361-363:Barses’earliestyears

Of Aithallah’s immediate successor (Abraham, 346-361) little more is known than his name29. Michael the Syrian reports the names of two predecessors of his, Ḥabsai () and Barnai (), a piece of information unconfirmed by other sources 30. At Abraham’s death, in 361, Constantius II intervened heavily in the ecclesial politics of the Blessed

27 KOPECEK, Neo-Arianism, vol. I, p. 80. Cf. AYRES, Nicaea, p. 119-120. For the theological meaning of the Dedication creed of 341, cf. also PELTIER, Dictionnaire, vol. I, col. 146-150, s.v. ‘Antioche, l’an 341’, 147-149; SIMONETTI, Leorigini, p. 328, n. 33; and SIMONETTI, Lacrisi, p. 153-159. The validity of the creed of Antioch (341) was later reaf- firmed at the councils of Serdica (343), Sirmium (351), and Ancyra (358). For the other three creeds presented at the council of Antioch (341), cf. AYRES, Nicaea, p. 117-122. 28 On so-called ‘Neo-Nicenism’, cf. BRENNECKE, Erwägungen; MEIER, PrivateSpace; MARKSCHIES, Lateinischer“Neunizänismus”?; SIMONETTI, Dalnicenismoalneonice- nismo; and STUDER, Unavalutazione. 29 Cf. GUIDI, Chronicaminora, textus, p. 4 (lemmas 18, 21, and 23). 30 Cf. Michael the Syrian, Chronicon, 7, 4, edited in CHABOT, Chronique, vol. IV, p. 135, col. 3, line 23 (textus) and vol. I, p. 270 (versio); and IBRAHIM, Codex, p. 138, col. 3, line 23. No mention of the two bishops is made in DEVREESSE, Lepatriarcat, p. 290-291; FEDALTO, HEO, p. 803; or GUILLÉN PÉREZ, Elpatriarcato, p. 327-378, 354. On the name of Ḥabsai (), in its widespread variant Ḥapsai (), cf. DRIJVERS – HEALEY, The OldSyriacInscriptions, p. 100-101; on Barnai (), cf. ibidem, p. 99. Cf. also DRIJVERS, Inscriptions, p. 65. Generally speaking, there seems to be a great deal of usefulness to the enterprise of cross-reading the Syriac chronicles (e.g. the ZuqninChronicle) with the other sources available for the reconstruction of the history of Christian Edessa. The entries of Barhebraeus about Edessa [nr. 20], as well as the mentions of the city in Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle (cf. CHABOT, Chronicle, vol. I, p. 203, 270, and 277), e.g., would be worth examining against the account of the ChronicleofEdessa, with which they are only in partial agreement.

998027.indb8027.indb 9292 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 93

City by transferring Barses from Charrae to Edessa31. At the time of this appointment to the Edessene see Barses, later an adamant Homoiousian, was still an exponent of the Homoian alliance, spearheaded by Acacius of Caesarea, which had solidified at the council of Constantinople of 36032. Evidence about Barses’ theological views during the time between his election (361) and his exile as a pro-Nicene (373) is virtually non-existent. Theodoret of Cyrrhus – who does provide information about Barses’ later relegation – is no help, as the first mention of the bishop in his Church History occurs on the occasion of his deposition. The church historian, in his attempt to present Barses as a paragon of ‘orthodoxy’, zealously whitewashes the bishop’s Trinitarian record, omitting his uncomfortable Homoian past. This being the case, a profile of Barses’ theological persona in the early years of his episcopal term will have to be sketched by means of a tentative comparison with Meletius of Antioch. With him Barses shared the fate of an appointment qua Homoian to the see of a Syrian bishopric (Edessa for the former, Antioch for the latter) and of a removal there- from because of his Homoiousian views33. The two bishops’ journey from Homoianism to Homoiousianism – and therefore to what, as the latter began to command widespread support in the East, came to be termed as ‘orthodoxy’ – should not surprise in the unsteady ecclesiastical landscape of the 360s, constellated by proteiform theologico-ecclesial alliances34.

31 Cf.GUIDI, Chronicaminora, textus, p. 4 (lemma 24): “And in the same year bishop Barses came from Carrhae to Edessa by order of the king” (all translations in this article, unless otherwise indicated, are mine). According to Sozomen, HE, 6, 34, Barses had been ordained bishop not of a particular diocese, but, rather, simply as the bestowment of an honorific title. According to STERK, Renouncing, p. 22-23 Barses might have lived as an anchorite during the early years of his episcopate in Carrhae, while the city, a den of paganism, was being evangelized. Barses appears in the HistoryoftheHolyMarMa‘in: cf. BROCK, MarMaʻin, p. 8-9. 32 Cf. BRENNECKE, Studien, p. 199. For an account of the events of the council of Constantinople of 360, whose deliberations make no mention of the Nicene ὁμοούσιος, cf. PELTIER, Dictionnaire, vol. I, col. 362-372, s.v. ‘Constantinople (Conciliabule de), l’an 360’; on the significance of the council, cf. AYRES, Nicaea, p. 164-166. My reconstruction of Barses’ episcopal career differs from that of POSSEKEL, Transformation, p. 304, according to whom “the fact that Barses was later exiled from Edessa by Valens (in 372) on account of his firmly pro-Nicene position […] excludes the possibility that the ‘imperial command’ was based on any Neo-Arian tendencies Barses may have shown”. 33 A similar transition from Homoianism to Homoiousianism may be observed in the carreer of Acacius of Caesarea (who, however, assumed again anti-Nicenes positions at the time of Valens). 34 Sight should still not be lost of the complex, nonrandom nature of the doctrinal developments observed in the most critical historical moments:cf.for instance A. Martin’s

998027.indb8027.indb 9393 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 94 E. FIANO

An additional element to consider is the essential heterogeneousness of the historical categories of Homoianism and Homoiousianism, two magnitudes that do not lend themselves to direct comparison. The former was a true theological coalition (though one destined to splinter soon into different streams), which had taken a clearly antagonistic stance on radical subordinationism. The latter, on the contrary, was a cross-partisan political movement interested in seconding the Emperor’s global project of Christian unity through the elimination of the ‘extreme’ wings on both sides35. The Homoian alliance hosted bishops of the most divergent theological tendencies, ranging from sympathizers of Nicaea (the so-called Homoian ‘right’) to its most outspoken opponents (the so-called Homoian ‘left’)36. Meletius, who had briefly been the bishop of Sebaste (in Armenia, his land of origin), had partaken, as a Homoian, in the council of Seleucia (359). Toward the end of 360, bishop Eudoxius’ transfer to Constantino- ple created a vacancy on the Antiochene see, to which Meletius was then consecrated, by virtue of Acacius’ good offices. However, in 361 he was called to take part, along with Acacius and George of Alexandria, in a “session of sermon-tasting on the part of the Emperor” on Proverbs 8:2237. The identification of the ideological content of his homily, which is preserved, has spurred much scholarly debate38. Whatever its intended theological orientation, Meletius’ sermon persuaded Constantius to decree the first of his three exiles (the following two, under Valens, would be ordered in 365 and 369).

treatment of the narrow passage from the profession of faith of Sirmium (357) to the Homoian creeds of the years 359-360 in MARTIN, Review. 35 According to SIMONETTI, Omei the difference between Homoians and Homoiousians was eminently political, and is not to be sought in any specific set of beliefs. Simonetti affirms that Eudoxius, champion (along with Euzoius) of the Homoian alliance in the 360s, shared with Eunomius the view of the Son as a creature, though, for both, a creature supe- rior to all other creatures, and the first among them. Eudoxius, according to Simonetti, differed from Eunomius exclusively for his obstinacy to adhere to the intentionally ambig- uous formulation of the Homoian Council of Rimini (359), summoned by Constantius II. SIMONETTI, Ancorasulconcilio, p. 5-6, in reason of the merely political nature of the designation ‘Homoian’, recommended use of the term only with reference to the events of 359-360. 36 For usage of ‘right’/‘left’ terminology with reference to members of the Homoian front, cf. KARMANN, MeletiusvonAntiochien, p. 134, 144, and 464. 37 HANSON, Search, p. 383. 38 According to SIMONETTI, MeleziodiAntiochia, col. 3190, given the conformity of Meletius’ sermon to the Homoian creed of Rimini (359), an administrative or disciplinary pretext must have been adduced for his exile. The literature on this homily is very rich; cf. above all DÜNZL, Absetzung.

998027.indb8027.indb 9494 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 95

Besides this sermon, pinpointing Meletius and his followers’ theology is no easy task39. It was, however, the proximity of Meletius’ theological postures to Homoiousian doctrine that allowed him, after Constantius’ death (362) and his own return to Antioch, to preside over the small council that gathered there in 363. This reunion of Homoian and Homoiousian bishops accepted the Nicene ὁμοούσιος while bending it in the sense of the formula ὅμοιος κατ’ οὐσίαν (‘similar according to the substance’) – a twist that still failed to bring about a rapprochement with the Paulinian (olim Eustathian) vetero-Nicene faction. The theologico-ecclesial trajectory of Barses of Edessa may indeed have resembled closely Meletius’. External evidence could have something to contribute to the establishment of the chronology of Barses’ change of heart. A letter of Constantius’ cousin and successor, Emperor Julian (November 361-June 363), dated to 362/363 (one or two years after the beginning of Barses’ term), apprises us about imperial persecution of the anti-Nicenes in Edessa. According to this document “the members of the Arian church” (οἱ δὲ τῆς Ἀρειανικῆς ἐκκλησίας) of Edessa, reve- ling in their richness, had laid hands upon “the followers of Valentinus” (τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ Οὐαλεντίνου), committing outrageous acts against them, and thus inducing Julian to order the confiscation of their funds40. Although it is doubtful that Julian’s hostility toward the Ἀρειανικὴ ἐκκλησία translated into benevolence for the pro-Nicenes, his epistle testifies to a definite expansion of the sphere of influence of the Homoians in the city during the very first stint of Barses’ episcopacy, and, with some likeli- hood, to some halt brought to it by the Emperor’s championing of the rights of the Valentinians41. This leads to a series of questions about Barses. Was he at that time already to be counted among the ranks of the pro- Nicenes? And, if not, was the anti-Nicenes’ aggression against the Valen- tinians an act of institutional violence, avowed by the city’s ecclesial establishment, which he headed? Barses does not appear among the signatories of the synodal letter addressed to Emperor Jovian and issued by the previously mentioned

39 SIMONETTI, Il Concilio has shown, contra TETZ, Orthodoxie and ABRAMOWSKI, Hypostasenformeln, that the affirmations about upholders of a three-hypostasis theology contained in the TomusadAntiochenos (produced during the Alexandrian council summoned by Athanasius in 362 with the goal, among others, of mending the rift between Paulinians and Meletians in the city on the Orontes river) should not be considered a witness to Meletian doctrine. Cf. also CAMPLANI, Atanasio. 40 Julianus, Epistulae, 40 (ad Hecebolium); edited in WRIGHT, Julian, vol. III, p. 127. 41 For further discussion of Julian’s letter, cf.infra. This is the only occurrence of the lexeme ἀρειανικός in Julian’s works.

998027.indb8027.indb 9595 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 96 E. FIANO

council of Antioch (363)42, which had seen the presence of bishops from both close-by Syrian dioceses and far-away Palestinian and Asia Minor locales. This would suggest – albeit, granted, through an argument from silence – that, two years after his consecration, Barses was still cleaving to the substantially anti-Nicene version of the Homoian creed to which he had subscribed in 360, and which had gained him his see the following year. If this is the case, at the time of Julian’s intervention the Edessene episcopate itself might have still been Homoian. The thought stands to reason that the anti-Valentinian abuses might have to be somehow traced back to the ecclesiastical establishment Barses led. But if so, should a correlation, or even a causal link, be seen between his nimble doctrinal re-alignment and Julian’s intervention of some time before, or the advent of the at least initially pro-Nicene Emperor Jovian (June 363-February 364)? Perhaps Barses – surely a lower-profile church exponent than Meletius – was simply one of those bishops of smaller cities who “seem to have avoided too strong or open a commitment to changing parties and were able to negotiate a position that enabled them to withstand changes in ecclesiastical and imperial regimes”43. Be this as it may, he appears to have shifted ‘right’ at some point of his career. He thus entered into the communion of that growing Homoiousian, pro-Nicene Eastern front that had found at Antioch (363) its doctrinal expression, and whose most illustrious local exponent was no doubt the politically savvy church leader Meletius44.

4. 363-373:Barses’Edessa

Shortly after adopting his punitive measures against Edessa, Julian died. His successor, Emperor Jovian, recalled the clerics exiled by Julian, and, as mentioned above, he appears to have shown at least at the beginning some sympathy for the pro-Nicene front. It is possible that during his brief rulership the growth of the ‘orthodox’ continued to gain momentum in Edessa45. The ‘orthodox’ found an authoritative voice in Ephrem after he moved to Edessa, in 363, as a result of Julian’s defeat and the Roman

42 Cf.Socrates of Constantinople, HE, 3, 25. 43 AYRES, Nicaea, p. 169. 44 For an examination of evidence possibly confirming this account, cf. Excursus nr. 2 (below, p. 123-124). More in general on the relative weight of Nicene and anti-Nicene parties in Edessa, cf. GRIFFITH, SettingRight, p. 108. 45 Cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE, 4, 2; Philostorgius, HE, in Photius, Compendium HistoriaeecclesiasticaePhilostorgii, 8, 5; Sozomen, HE, 6, 3.

998027.indb8027.indb 9696 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 97

surrender of Nisibis to the Sassanians. Ephrem, whose beliefs have been likened to the Homoiousian second formula of the synod ‘inencaeniis’ of 341, nevertheless always retained the Nicene creed as his theological compass46. A study of the specifics of Ephrem’s doctrinal beliefs lies outside the scope of this paper 47. Here it will suffice to say that, although Ephrem is rightly credited with playing a pivotal role in the development of a pro-Nicene strand of theology in the Blessed City, his relentless advocacy hardly translated into a triumph48. In his later compositions, in fact, the poet still lamented the silence of his fellow partisans in front of the Homoians49. His NisibeneHymns 26-31 – notwithstanding the title of the collection to which they belong – describe a situation of great inter- Christian conflict in Edessa, expressing a hope for reconciliation along with the certainty to belong to the “wronged and injured party”, “the true Christians”, to whom their opponents should submit50. On two occasions Ephrem refers to a current, unsolved split in the Christian community of Edessa as having lasted six years51. G. Bickell proposed to see the beginning of this period in 364, the year of the accession to the throne of Valens (March 364-August 378), since “[a]ntea […], tempore Joviani, Arianis tanta audacia non fuisse videtur”52. He therefore dated Nisibene Hymns 26-31 to the year 37053. In light of a passage in Ephrem’s NisibeneHymn 28 in which the ecclesial fabric of Edessa is said to have been rent and patched up twice in the past, Bickell also admitted to the possibility of a previous schism having unfolded under Constantius II54. One should add that the sexennial breach of communion decried by Ephrem, which could have begun as early as 357 (i.e. six years before his

46 Cf.LANGE, Portrayal, p. 116-119 and n. 29; and BECK, Theologie, p. 49, cit.ibidem Ephrem, Hymnicontrahaereses, 22, 20 mentions Nicaea (though not calling it by name). POSSEKEL, Doctrine, p. 200 considers Ephrem’s use of the expression “light from light” in Hymnicontrahaereses, 55, 2 evidence for his knowledge of the Nicene creed. 47 On Ephrem’s theology, cf. AYRES, Nicaea; POSSEKEL, Doctrine; BENETTON, Illin- guaggio; and SHEPARDSON, Anti-Judaism. On Ephrem’s loyal relationship with pro-Nicene imperial power, cf. GRIFFITH, DeaconofEdessa; IDEM, Hymns“AgainstJulian”; IDEM, Images; IDEM, SettingRight; and IDEM, Marks. 48 According to the LifeofRabbula, the fifth-century bishop of Edessa brought all the ‘Arians’ back into communion with the ‘orthodox’ church. Evidently, still after Rabbula’s death, the presence of an anti-Nicene faction was at least remembered as having posed a serious threat to orthodoxy at as late a time as that of his episcopacy (411-435). 49 Cf. Hymnidefide, 60, 6. 50 SHEPARDSON, ChristianDivision, p. 34. 51 Ephrem, CarminaNisibena, 27, 5; 28,7. 52 Cf. BICKELL, CarminaNisibena, p. 9. 53 Cf. BICKELL, CarminaNisibena, p. 22; and Ephrem, CarminaNisibena, 28, 4. 54 Cf. BICKELL, CarminaNisibena, p. 22.

998027.indb8027.indb 9797 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 98 E. FIANO

immigration to the Blessed City), must have been prepared by a time of dispute consumed within an institutionally still united community. Relevant to this discussion is the interpretation of a phrase contained in Julian’s letter quoted above. Frustrated by the behavior of the ‘Arians’, Julian ordered the seizure of “all their property, namely, that belongs to the church of the Edessenes” (αὐτῶν τὰ χρήματα τῆς Ἐδεσσηνῶν ἐκκλησίας ἅπαντα). It is difficult to discern whether this expression reflects a heavily split scenario, in which every faction possessed its own set of properties, or one in which mutually hostile Christian groups were still sharing into the same ecclesiastical estate55. The use of this phrasing, instead of a straightforward reference to the properties of the ‘Arians’, may suggest a lack of distinction in Julian’s time between the estate of the ‘Arians’ and that of the Edessene church. If not simply the product of Julian’s insufficient information, this lack of differentiation may be due either to the local church being in ‘Arian’ hands, or to the circumstance that the anti-Nicenes, though being a powerful and belligerent minority, were at the time institutionally indistinguishable from it, and did not exclusively own any properties that the emperor could seize. Finally, the wording could also indicate a punishment exacted upon the whole of Edessene Christianity, with no factional discernment, as a result of its vociferous fractiousness. The general antipathy Julian reportedly showed toward the city on another occasion, along with his reprimand of the Christians of Edessa in general contained in the letter, may point in this direction56. The chronology is further complicated by Ephrem’s references to an antagonism between the churches of Carrhae and Edessa. After the transfer

55 In big cities, different Trinitarian groups could gather in different churches. Whether this was the case for Edessa, it is hard to tell. The question could also be asked, if mutually hostile groups’ utilization of the same facilities meant that they were still communicating with one another and recognizing one and the same bishop, elected from time to time as a result of oscillations in the power balance. On the issue of conflicts over ecclesiastical property as part of fourth-century Trinitarian discussions, cf. WILLIAMS, Ambrose; and MARTIN, Athanase, p. 142. 56 The emperor is said to have hastened past Edessa on his way to Persia in order to avoid this pertinaciously Christian city: cf. Sozomen, HE, 6, 1; Socrates of Constanti- nople, HE, 6, 18; and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE, 3, 21. In Zosimus, HistoriaNova, 3, 12, however, we read that Julian was presented by Edessene envoys with a crown outside of Batnae (Sarug), and visited the Blessed City on his way to Carrhae. On the basis of the above-mentioned reports conflicting with this account SUDHAUS, Deratione, p. 7-8 (followed by RIDLEY, New History, p. 56 in his translation) emended οἰ Ἐδεσηνοί (‘the Edessenes’) into οἰ ἐγχώριοι (‘the inhabitants’), with reference to the Batnians. MENDELSSOHN, HistoriaNova, p. 129 proposed an emendation (and the reconstruction of a lacuna) going in the same direction. On Julian’s religious politics, cf. FATTI, Giuliano aCesarea.

998027.indb8027.indb 9898 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 99

of Barses away from Carrhae in 361, and Vitus’ appointment in his place57, controversy broke out in this small community. Ephrem, in his Nisibene Hymn 31, intervened in the dispute by voicing his appreciation for Vitus, a ‘shepherd’ mistaken for a ‘wolf’ by the ‘wolf’-loving Charrhaeans58. U. Possekel understood this image as indicating that “Vitus himself was being accused of holding unorthodox views” (an allegation she considers unfounded in light of Vitus’ full integration in the Basilian milieus)59. Within this reading, however, the ‘wolves’ who led astray the Carrhaeans would have to be identified with vetero-Nicene preachers, opposing from the ‘right’ the Homoiousian tendencies that Vitus shared with Ephrem60. But since there is no evidence even for the presence of such a faction in Edessa, it would be difficult to imagine its existence in the limited ecclesiastical scenario of Carrhae. More probably, Vitus had to face the opposi- tion of a powerful anti-Nicene congregation that had at some point taken over the local church. A rift had thus been created between the Carrhaean episcopate and the ‘orthodox’ Edessene community headed by Barses, by now a pro-Nicene hero, lauded by Ephrem for his forbearance before adversities and libelous accusations61. Since Edessa as a whole is praised in Ephrem’s hymns dealing with Vitus’ tribulations (NisibeneHymns 31- 33), and since Ephrem only made his way to the Blessed City in 363, it is fair to assume that at least for some time, after Barses’ ‘defection’, the pro-Nicenes became the majority group in Edessa. The success of the ‘orthodox’, however, was short-lived, as they were forced out of power and probably outnumbered by their direct opponents during the reign, and partly due to the intervention, of Emperor Valens, Jovian’s successor. Under his rulership the position of the anti-Nicenes

57 Cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE 4, 18; 5, 4; and Sozomen, HE, 6, 33, 3. The mention of one bishop Abgar in proximity to a tale about Carrhae in Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia, AM5855(AD362/363) (edited in DE BOOR, TheophanisChronographia, vol. I, p. 53, line 10 and translated in MANGO – SCOTT, Chronicle, p. 82) could be interpreted as signifying that he was bishop of that city at the time of Julian, before Vitus’ election. The historicity of this report, in any case, could still be questioned. 58 Cf. Ephrem, CarminaNisibena, 31, 26-30. Cf. POSSEKEL, Transformation, p. 305- 306. Ephrem portrays himself as having some responsibility over the Christians of Carrhae (or possibly over the Nisibene émigrés among them). 59 Cf. Basil of Caesarea, Epistulae, 92 and 255; and POSSEKEL, Transformation, p. 307. 60 Neither in Possekel’s nor in my interpretation of this passage (which POSSEKEL, Transformation, p. 306 quotes inextenso) can the signifier ‘wolf’, applied by Ephrem both to those who misguided the believers and to what the latter saw in Vitus, assume a fix meaning (such as ‘anti-Nicene’). It will have to assume, rather, a relative meaning, indicating somebody deemed ‘unorthodox’ by somebody else: in my reading, the anti-Nicene opponents of Vitus for Ephrem, and Vitus himself in their eyes. 61 Cf. Ephrem, CarminaNisibena,29, 5-10; 33, 8.

998027.indb8027.indb 9999 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 100 E. FIANO

in Edessa must have been strengthened by renewed imperial support for the Homoian initiative, aimed at promoting a political solution to the Trinitarian conflict. The extent and general significance of Valens’ intervention in ecclesial matters is debated, and it is hard to establish what exactly it might have meant for Edessa. E.H.C. Brennecke has shown that the traditional image of Valens as a fierce persecutor of the upholders of Nicene beliefs is unwarranted, and put in question even by contempora- neous sources. In the early years of his rulership Valens is reported to have been conciliatory toward the pro-Nicenes62. According to Brennecke, the Croatian Emperor – just like Constantine and, toward the end of his life, Constantius II before him – was primarily interested in the unity of the imperial church. With this goal in mind, he pragmatically stuck to the deliberations of the synod of Constantinople of 360 and to the Homoian leadership that embodied them, and acted against anybody who would jeopardize the ecclesial harmony by openly condemning these doctrines or bishops63. Valens’ pragmatism can be seen with particular clarity in his attitude toward Cappadocia, where he entertained not purely antagonistic relations with Basil of Caesarea, as well as toward Egypt, where in 366, dreading an outburst of political violence, he revoked Athanasius’ exile, ordered by himself few weeks earlier, and returned the bishop to his see64. Nevertheless, beginning with the bloody repression of some Alexan- drian pro-Athanasian riots in 373, the Emperor’s attitude toward the opponents of his intentions of reunifying the church under the banners of Homoian doctrine does appear to have become less sparing. In 375, at a time of shortage of manpower and military difficulty, Valens is believed to have punished pro-Nicene monks by drafting them into the army, and to have had no qualms in having the deserters beaten with cudgels65. Also in Edessa the pro-Nicenes are reported to have suffered from Valens’ stance on ecclesiastical issues. According to several reports, in 372 the pro-Nicene Christians defiantly forgathered outside the city walls, at the shrine of St. Thomas, under the guidance of bishop Barses. On that occasion the courage of a woman reportedly helped eschew a

62 Theodoret, HE, 6, 12, 1-4, resolved to chercher la femme behind this political evolution, attributed to Valens’ wife, who was under the ascendency of Eudoxius, the Emperor’s lapsing from his initial faithfulness to the “apostolic dogmas” into the snares of the “Arian deceit”. 63 Cf. BRENNECKE, Studien, p. 181-242, part. 239-242. 64 Cf. AYRES, Nicaea, p. 169. 65 Cf. LENSKI, Valens, p. 93-97. On the religious politics of Valens, cf. LENSKI, Failure; and, above all, BRENNECKE, Studien, who introduces a more nuanced view of the religious policies of this Emperor in the East.

998027.indb8027.indb 100100 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 101

brutal intervention on the part of the imperial army66. The following year (373) the “Catholics” had to flee the city because of their opponents’ persecutions67, and Valens went so far as to exile Barses, having him sent first to the Syrian island of Aradus, then to Oxyrynchus, and finally to the fortress-island of Phēnō, in the southern-Egyptian diocese of Syene68.

5. Theodoretandtheexileofthe‘orthodox’

Ancient sources are poor informants about the procedural aspects of Barses’ deposition and exile. Was he tried and deposed by a synod, as the law and consuetudes required69, or is Theodoret correct in his attri- bution of the decision (including the choice of ever more remote sites of relegation) to the Emperor himself? Barses’ progression of confinement makes him one of those exiles who were “relégués dans un premier temps en un endroit, puis jugés trop actifs et contraints à plus d’isolement encore”70. The reiterated choice of an island, commonly regarded “comme l’espace répulsif par priorité”, comparable “aux limites du monde”71, is particularly significant, and certainly a consequence of what must have been perceived as the bishop’s great charisma. Barses’ activism and integration in the ranks of the Homoiousian movement are testified by two letters of Basil of Caesarea addressed to him, in one of which mention is made of a visit Barses was going to receive on the part of a Basilian emissary, named Dominus72. Shortly after Barses’ exile, the prefect Modestus assembled the presbyters and the deacons of the city, addressing them about their duty to enter into communion with the new (unnamed) anti-Nicene bishop appointed by Valens. Having received a refusal from the presbyter Eulogius, who headed the group, Modestus exiled him, his colleague Protogenes, and several of their comrades. Initially the deportees were destined to Thrace, but after repeated demonstrations of sympathy received along the way they were split into pairs and sent to a series of different locations73.

66 Cf. Sozomen, HE, 6, 18; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE, 6, 15; Socrates of Constanti- nople, HE, 6, 17-18. 67 Cf. ChroniconEdessenum, 31. 68 Cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE, 6, 16. 69 Cf. VAN NUFFELEN, Arius, p. 150-151; and GIRARDET, Kaisergericht, p. 15 (cit.ibidem). 70 BLAUDEAU, Introduction, p. 14. 71 BLAUDEAU, Introduction, p. 13. 72 Cf. Basil of Caesarea, Epistulae, 264 and 267. 73 This could be considered an instance of the typical situation of traveling to one’s exile destination, where “le proscrit se retrouve, à intervalles réguliers, en terre de connaissance, auprès de fidèles ou dans ses propriétés foncières familiales” (cf. BLAUDEAU, Introduction, p. 14).

998027.indb8027.indb 101101 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 102 E. FIANO

Eulogius and Protogenes wound up in Antinoopolis. Here they made the acquaintance of the local bishop, whom they found to be of their very same theological persuasions (ὁμογνώμων). This figure probably needs to be identified with Arion, whose election had been confirmed by Atha- nasius himself around 346, and who had signed on that occasion the synodal letter of Sardica (343)74. The existence of a long-standing tradition of pro-Nicenism in the Antinoite episcopate is confirmed by the presence of the name of Tyrannus, bishop of the city, amid the signatories of the canons of Nicaea75, as well as among the subscriptions of a pro- Athanasian letter addressed to the bishops gathered at the first Synod of Tyre (335)76. At the time of the exile of the Homoiousians Eulogius and Protogenes, there persisted a lack of communion between Meletius, defacto leader of the Homoiousian alliance in Syria, and Acacius’ old foe Athanasius. The Alexandrian churchman, though calling for a mending of the Anti- ochene schism, had voiced his support for the Paulinians, communicating with this faction during his visit to Antioch in 346. This rift, however, was – at least in Theodoret’s irenic reconstruction – no obstacle to Eulogius and Protogenes’ establishment of communion and cordial relations with bishop Arion. The two exiles, in the report of the church historian, thought to have been hit by good fortune for landing under the authority of somebody they considered a doctrinally like-minded bishop. Indeed, confinement often proved to be a powerful instrument for networking and for intellectual exchanges among theologically close, yet not perfectly con- sonant, exponents of geographically non-contiguous dioceses. This was the case for Meletius himself, who through his exile came in contact with members of the Basilian circles. Theodoret’s narrative is the only source for these events. One of the difficulties of dealing with his account, written as late as the 440’s, lies with determining how much of it can be traced back to historical real- ity, and how much is to be assigned to his own reconstruction. If, as

74 We learn as much from Athanasius, Epistulaefestales, 19 and ApologiaSecunda, 49, 3, n. 195. J. Bouffartigue, in ThéodoretdeCyr.HistoireecclésiastiqueII, p. 246, n. 1, identifies with Arion the bishop encountered by the two Edessene. Cf. Athanasius, Epistulae, 19; BARNES, Athanasius, p. 96; and MARTIN, Athanase, table on p. 781, cit. by Bouffartigue. 75 Cf. TURNER, EcclesiaeOccidentalismonumenta, vol. I, col. 40-41; and CUNTZ etal., PatrumNicaenorumnomina, p. 80. 76 Cf.MANSI, Collectio, II, col. 1144C. On other attestations of the episcopal see of Antinoopolis (through the names of Lucius and Ammonius), cf. CAMPLANI, Letterefestali, p. 301. Cf. also the new information contained in the HistoriaEpiscopatusAlexandriae, whose edition was announced in BAUSI – CAMPLANI, NewEthiopicDocuments.

998027.indb8027.indb 102102 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 103

J. Bouffartigue suggests, for the redaction of the chapters of his Church History dealing with Edessa (IV, 16-18) Theodoret drew upon a local source, this would add trustworthiness to his narrative77. Generally speaking, A.M. Schor remarks, “Theodoret’s representations of his predecessors cannot be taken at face value, but […] they present a plausible narrative with which to begin”78. His snapshots are also a product of the geo-ecclesiological context in which he found himself acting as a church leader, siding with the Antiochene episcopate. As noted by A. Martin, “[c]’est aussi le point de vue antiochien qui, tout au long de cette histoire, est défendu, comme s’il agissait de démontrer qu’en matière de garantie de l’orthodoxie, l’Église d’Antioche est à l’Orient ce que Rome est à l’Occident, justifiant ainsi ce second rang auquel Théodoret la place, après Rome et, surtout, avant Alexandrie”79. In his account Theodoret describes the lack of centralization in the church of Syria, racked by the Trinitarian controversies. Antioch in the 360s witnessed three, and later even four, claimants to the episcopal see (Euzoius, Paulinus, Meletius, and, from 375 on, Vitalis), each with his own web of trans-ecclesial alliances and his share of control over urban masses, churches, and clergy80. As remarked by Schor, “[w]hat Theodoret found lacking in Antioch and Syria of the 360s was a system of inter- see cooperation. […] In some regions of the Empire these disputes were more centralized, thanks to traditions of episcopal hierarchy. Egypt, for instance, already accorded a high prerogative to the titular primate, the bishop of Alexandria. Syria, however, lacked such a tradition, and to Theodoret the contrast was clear”81. As Schor further notes, Theodoret’s first mention of Alexandria reminds the reader that its power stretched over “not only Egypt, but the adjacent regions of Libya and Thebaid as well”82 (a statement upon which the sixth Canon of Nicaea may have been influential). In his treatment of the exile of Barses, Theodoret draws a connection between the Egyp- tian experience of late-fourth-century Syrian church leaders83 and their

77 Cf. ThéodoretdeCyr.HistoireecclésiastiqueII, p. 240, n. 2. 78 SCHOR, Theodoret, p. 533. 79 Cf. Théodoret de Cyr. Histoire ecclésiastique I, p. 67-68. Cf. also URBAINCZYK, TheodoretofCyrrhus. 80 On the conflict in Antioch, cf. MCCARTHY SPOERL, Schism; GUILLÉN PÉREZ, El patriarcato, p. 329-335; MORALES, Théologie, p. 357-395; MARTIN, Unité, p. 65-66; and SEGNERI, LetteraagliAntiocheni, p. 36-67. 81 SCHOR, Theodoret, p. 537. 82 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE, 1, 2. 83 Syria-to-Egypt was not the only direction that exile under Valens could take: in 373 the emperor tortured and then exiled to the pagan city of Heliopolis, in Syria, nineteen

998027.indb8027.indb 103103 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 104 E. FIANO

attempts at implementing centralizing policies back in the Syrian scenario. Theodoret’s statement according to which Phoenicia, Egypt, and Thebes were under the spiritual ascendency of Barses’ legacy may assume, in the context just outlined, expansionistic overtones, alluding to the relations between the two rival pretenders to geo-ecclesiological supremacy in the East.

6. EulogiusandProtogenes’exile:Theodoret’srepresentationofAnti- noopolis

A similar interest seems to be at play also in Theodoret’s account of Eulogius and Protogenes’ deportation to Antinoopolis. Located in the Thebaid, this center was the fourth (or fifth) Egyptian city of Greek foundation (after Naucratis, Alexandria, Ptolemais Hermio and, possibly, Paraetonium)84. Emperor Hadrian had established it in 130 on the east bank of the Nile, across the river from Hermopolis, in the location of a past Egyptian settlement85. Since its foundation, Antinoopolis had been a bulwark of Greek culture in Middle Egypt, endowed with the munici- pal institutions typical of a Hellenistic city86. Many of its first colonists had been chosen among the men and women of Greek descent living in the Greek foundation of Ptolemais, which had remained almost entirely impervious to the penetration of Christianity, and where Hellenistic traditions were still held dear. Other colonists were Greek settlers from the nomes or veterans, two categories at the time still heavily Hellenized. The Antinoites were granted the right of ἐπιγαμία (intermarriage) with Egyptian women, probably in order to attract colonists also from areas such as the Fayum and Oxyrhynchus, where exogamy was not banned87. But in the long run this privilege paved the way to Egyptianization. After the year 330 no mention is found of the city’s typically Hellenistic organ- izational structure. To this process of de-Hellenization bears witness the amount of Coptic papyri and inscriptions found in the city. Protogenes and Eulogius, therefore, were parachuted into a center where a political and cultural transition was under way, and whose Hellenistic glories

Alexandrian supporters of the pro-Nicene Peter, who vied for the succession on Athana- sius’ see, which the Homoians had destined to Lucius. 84 Cf. JONES, Cities, p. 307; and BAGNALL, CultsandNames, p. 1093. 85 KÜHN, Antinoopolis, p. 8 sets “das offizielle Gründungsdatum von Antinoopolis” as October 30th, 130 CE. On the circumstances of the foundation of the city, cf. ibidem, p. 4-8 and 12-19. 86 Cf. KÜHN, Antinoopolis, p. 90-117. 87 Cf. BELL, Antinoopolis, p. 136-142.

998027.indb8027.indb 104104 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 105

were slowly giving way to more Egyptian (and Coptic-speaking) civic institutions and modes of life. When they began to partake in the assemblies of the local church, so the account goes, the two presbyters realized that these meetings gathered no crowds. As they had to find out to their dismay, the inhabitants of the city were Hellenes (Ἕλληνες). Without losing their heart, the two resolved to rectify this deplorable situation. Eulogius, who was a hermit, locked himself into a small house, interceding day and night for the souls of the Antinoites. Protogenes, evidently more prone to the vitaactiva, chose a different strategy. He had “learned the letters of Eunomius88, and had practiced to write fast”. Thus, “having found a fit place and having proclaimed it a school (διδασκαλεῖον) and a teaching hall (παιδαγω- γεῖον), [he] appointed himself teacher of boys, and taught [them] to write fast, and imparted them the divine words at the same time89. He explained to them also the Davidic songs, and prepared [them] to learn thoroughly the useful [teachings] of the apostolic doctrine”90. The image of Antinoopolis painted by Theodoret is, thus, that of an almost purely pagan center, where the two Edessene presbyters would have performed the first large-scale attempt of evangelization, as well as – possibly – of alphabetization. A short review of the extant documentation about literacy and the spread of Christianity in the city, however, appears not to entirely comport with this picture. As W.V. Harris wrote, the significance of the account of Protogenes’ opening of a school “is unclear, because it may imply that Antinoopolis, now a relatively important

88 PARMENTIER, Eunomiustachigraphe has shown, against all the emendations this text has undergone throughout its editions, that this lectio difficilior is correct: the tachygraphic system taught by Protogenes was precisely that invented, or systematized, by the loathed Heteroousian adversary. The strategy of attracting the youth to the cate- chesis by teaching them the marketable skills of shorthand writing could provide some hint to the demographic Protogenes targeted: the prospect converts must have been already literate in Greek. On the socio-linguistic status of Demotic, Coptic, Greek, and Latin in late ancient Egypt, cf. BOWMAN, Egypt, p. 157-164; and ADAMS, Bilingualism, p. 527-541. 89 Protogenes’ teaching curriculum and the models that inspired him are unfortunately unrecorded. It is conceivable that he would have taken as an example whichever educational institutions might have existed in Edessa at his time – possibly the School of Edessa, a center of learning of Greek philosophy and Hellenized Christian theology that would rise to its fame in the fifth century, and for whose foundations different datings have been proposed. Cf. DRIJVERS, SchoolofEdessa, p. 58 (dating its beginnings to the half of the second century); HUNTER, Transmission, p. 227-229; and BECKER, FearofGod, p. 42-43. BETTIOLO, Scuoleeambienti, p. 60-61 makes the interesting suggestion that a School was founded in the fourth century by the growing ‘Catholic’ community of Edessa, faced with the challenge of Manichaeism. 90 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE, 4, 18, 2-3.

998027.indb8027.indb 105105 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 106 E. FIANO

place, had previously not had a school at all”91. While it is hard to know whether this was indeed Theodoret’s intended claim, it is certainly impos- sible to conceive that a city like Antinoopolis, where a gymnasion had been active for over two centuries, might have lacked a school92. The city must have also certainly counted one institute, if not more, in which those who would later work in courts and government offices would be taught shorthand writing. The papyri do in fact offer clear evidence of a tachygraphic tradition predating Protogenes’ arrival93. Papyrological findings also suggest that the Christian presence in the city dated back at least to the third century, and possibly to the second94. This information is confirmed by Eusebius of Caesarea’s testimony95. Nor had Christianity in Antinoopolis waned by the time the Edessenes were exiled there. The late-fourth-century LetterofAmmon indicates the existence of a Pachomian monastery96. The HistoriaMonachorum inAegypto narrates the visit of the pilgrims in 394 to the anchorite Elias97 (mentioned also by Sozomen)98 in a mountain nearby. Palladius, who spent four years in Antinoopolis between 406 and 412, mentions – probably with some exaggeration – the presence, by then, of twelve women’s coenobia in the city, and of 1200 Christian cave dwellers in its surroundings99. Additionally, although Christian archeological evidence in Antinoopolis refers to a later period100, it has been suggested that the destruction of a pagan architectonical complex in the city, to be possibly dated to the fourth century, may also be a consequence of Christian, and more

91 HARRIS, AncientLiteracy, p. 310. 92 Cf. WIPSZYCKA, Laliteracy, p. 132. On the educational function of Hellenistic gym- nasia, cf. HADOT, Gymnasium. 93 Among the six fragments of a shorthand manual (both Syllabary and Commentary) found in Antinoopolis (cf. MILNE, Manuals), there is one (Pap. 3) written “in a fine, slop- ing, semi-cursive hand of the 3rd century” (ibidem, p. 9). The other five date to the fourth or fifth century. For another fourth-century Old Testament papyrus, cf. NACHTERGAEL – PINTAUDI, Deuxparchemins, p. 122-128. Cf. also MINUTOLI, Antinoe. 94 For the third century, cf.BARNS etal., AntinoopolisPapyri, vol. I, p. 23-24 (fragments of Matthew); vol. I, p. 24-26 (2 John); vol. I, p. 26-28 (fragments of the ActsofPaulaand Thecla); and vol. II, p. 6-8 (Oratiodominica). For the second century, cf. ibidem, vol. I, p. 1-2 (fragments of Greek Psalms); and, on the religious origin of the fragments, BELL, CultsandCreeds, p. 81. BARNS etal., AntinoopolisPapyri, passim presents many Jewish papyri from Antinoopolis, possibly as early as the second century. 95 Cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, HE, 6, 11, 3. Cf. also LEITCH – WILTSCH, Handbook, p. 59 and 196; CALDERINI – DARIS, Dizionario, t. I, fasc. 2, p. 68-114; Suppl. I, p. 39; Suppl. 2, p. 18-19; Suppl. 3, p. 17-18; and Suppl. 4, p. 16-17; and FEDALTO, HEO, p. 639-640. 96 Cf. Ammon, Epistula, 34. 97 Cf. Historiamonachorum, 7. 98 Cf.Sozomen, HE, 6, 28, 6. 99 Cf. Palladius, HistoriaLausiaca, 58-59. All cit. in MARTIN, Lalaure, p. 1, n. 2. 100 Cf. KRUMEICH – SEELIGER, Bischofssitze, p. 56-59.

998027.indb8027.indb 106106 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 107

specifically monastic, religious intolerance101. The seeds of this flour- ishing of Christian piety could have hardly been planted for the first time only about twenty or thirty years before, at the time of Eulogius and Protogenes’ exile.

7. Theodoret’srhetoric

All this evidence casts doubt on the objectivity of Theodoret’s portrayal of Antinoopolis, at the time of the arrival of the two clerics, as a hardly evangelized hotbed of paganism. The role of rhetoric in the historian’s account of the relegation of the ‘orthodox’ should therefore be acknowledged. Theodoret describes Eulogius and Protogenes’ exile as a journey from a known that has become unknown (the familiar diocese of Edessa, suddenly turned hostile) to an unknown that turns out to be known (the exotic and far-away exile destination of Antinoopolis, whose bishop is discovered to be one of their own). The two were called to turn the extreme periphery to which they were forced to travel into a new center of propagation of the Christian faith102. More specifically, Theodoret implicitly presents the frontier mission in Antinoopolis as an apprenticeship for the Syrian episcopal service of Protogenes. After engaging in a far-reaching activity of evangelization at Antinoopolis, Protogenes will be called to perform the same kind of healing labor in Carrhae. This small and ancient locale in Osrhoene, where Julian reportedly sacrificed in the temple of the moon god103, is described by Syriac works like the ActsofSharbel and the TeachingofAddai as a cesspool of vice and godlessnesss (“a barren spot filled with the thorns of Hellenic superstition”, as Theodoret has it)104. In the 360s Carrhae did host a Christian community, but this was, as Possekel explained, “a somewhat fragile one, which struggled to overcome severe obstacles, such as the city’s long history as a pagan cult center, a devastating inter- Christian controversy and a vulnerable geo-political situation”105. Theodoret’s account contains another connection between the ecclesiastical realities of Syria and those of Egypt. The influence of the Alexandrian

101 Cf. UGGERI, Lachiesa, p. 62. 102 Cf. BLAUDEAU, Introduction: “privé d’une part au moins de sa liberté, mais non de sa libertas, le condamné n’a d’autre solution que de s’approprier à la fois son nouvel état et l’endroit où on l’a repoussé. [… L]a périphérie redevient centre, le lieu de la mort pressentie celui où gagner l’immortalité ou la sainteté”. 103 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, ResGestae, 23, 3, 1-2. 104 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE, 4, 15. 105 POSSEKEL, Transformation, p. 300.

998027.indb8027.indb 107107 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 108 E. FIANO

archbishopric over the monastically populated region of Thebaid, where Antinoopolis is located, offered him a model for his representation of Antioch’s dominion upon the church of Osrhoene106. Theodoret’s keen- ness to represent the centralizing model of the Egyptian episcopal polity as reproduced in Syria, on a smaller scale, after the return of the pro- Nicene exiles can be observed in his portrayal of the relationship between Edessa and Carrhae107. In the context of increasing ecclesial fragmentation sketched above, Meletius, as Theodoret sympathetically recounts, had in fact begun to weave the threads of a more tightly knit pro-Nicene network. Setting the foundations for closer cooperation between episcopal sees of that theological orientation, in 379-380 he appointed bishops in many Syrian dioceses. In this context Eulogius, who was Protogenes’ master, rose to the episcopal rank of Edessa, the biggest and most important church of Osrhoene. In his capacity as bishop of this see he would attend the council of Antioch of 379 (where the Meletians reestablished communion with Damasus of Rome and other western bishops communicating with Paulinus) and, more importantly, that of Constantinople in 381108. Eulo- gius’ aide, instead, was consecrated bishop of Edessa’s younger-in-faith sister, Carrhae, where he succeeded to Vitus109. The derivative nature of the episcopal authority over Carrhae, treated as a satellite of Edessa, is evinced from Theodoret’s text, when he states that “Eulogiusconferred toProtogenes, his companion in hard service, the charge of Carrhae, as a healing physician for an ill town”110. Ephrem himself, in his Nisibene

106 On the geo-ecclesiologically meaningful relationship between Antioch and the see of Rome in the later phase of the Trinitarian controversy, cf. the detailed treatment of Meletius’ communion with Damasus in FIELD, OntheCommunion. Cf. TER HAAR ROMENY, Eusebius, p. 9, n. 10; and PETIT etal., Eusèbed’Émèse, p. XXV, n. 11. 107 The existence of a rivalry between Edessa and Carrhae, in which the religious and civic dimensions were intertwined, is hinted to in GREEN,City, p. 76, where the author interestingly connects the claims to apostolic foundation for Christianity in Edessa to the Edessenes’ will to counter “Harranian claims to the great antiquity of the devotion to the Moon god”. On the competition between the two cities, cf. SEGAL, EdessaandHarran, part. p. 16-18 (on the state of Christianity in Carrhae in the 360s). 108 On Eulogius’ presence at Antioch in 379, cf. FIELD, OntheCommunion, p. 20 (and for the emendation of ‘Eulogius episcopus de Mallu civitate’ into ‘Eulogius episcopus Edessae’ in the list of subscriptions to the anti-Arian, anti-Apollinarian Western documents undersigned by the Eastern bishops in that council, cf.ibidem, p. 205-214). Cf. also SCHWARTZ, Sammlung, p. 23. On Eulogius’ participation in the Council of Constantinople of 381, cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE, 5, 8; SCHULTHESS, Kanones, p. 115; TURNER, Eccle- siaeOccidentalismonumenta, vol. II, col. 442–443; TURNER, Canons, p. 168; and MANSI, Collectio, vol. III, col. 526CD and 569A. 109 Cf. Sozomen, HE, 6, 33. 110 Cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE, 5, 4 (italics mine). On the dating of the return of the orthodox of Edessa from exile, cf. Excursus nr. 3 in appendix (p. 124-125).

998027.indb8027.indb 108108 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 109

Hymns, testifies to Edessa’s missionary efforts toward Carrhae, evidently predating Eulogius’ appointment111. It is difficult to determine exactly what place Edessa occupied in Meletius’ (or Theodoret’s) ideal model of Antiochene supremacy in the East. By the time Theodoret was writing, the elites of Edessa had produced the TeachingofAddai, in which the origins of Christianity in the Blessed City were explicitly linked to Antioch and the Roman Empire. Not long thereafter, these or contiguous milieus were going to give expression to their expansionistic ambitions in the literary corpus asso- ciated with bishop Rabbula. An examination of the geo-ecclesiological dimensions of Edessa’s involvement in the Trinitarian controversies will then have to also take into account its relation to the ideological profile of the later, fifth-century groups that, expanding on a document earlier by about a century, produced the TeachingofAddai (a text sprinkled with anti-Arian statements)112. The Teaching may in fact represent the ripe fruit, and the later literary crystallization, of regional processes of ecclesiastical centralization and increasing connection between church hier- archies and imperial power, which had found a crucial catalyst in the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies113.

Conclusion

This paper has followed the inner development of the ‘Paluṭian’ line of Christianity in Edessa during the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies. It has highlighted its receptivity to intellectual and institutional stimuli of different kinds by examining its possible links to a variety of ecclesiastical environments. Some of these personal connections were the result of travel for study purposes; others, of regional processes of ecclesiastical integration; others yet, of the haps of exile. Through the highlighting of these encounters, I have intended to survey the development of Edessene intra-ecclesial institutional structures, explore the city’s participation in the solidification of wider doctrinal alliances, and trace the first steps of the construction of a local memory embedded in ecclesiastical propaganda. From this survey a new, more complex image begins

111 Cf. Ephrem, Carmina Nisibena, 33, 8. On Hymn 33, cf. RUSSEL, St Ephraem’s Carmina Nisibena. 112 Cf. DoctrinaAddai, 37; 39-40; 52; and 55. 113 On some of these historical developments, cf. GRIFFITH, The Doctrina Addai, p. 280-285; CAMPLANI, Letrasformazioni; IDEM, Traditions; IDEM, Perception; CAMPLANI – GNOLI, EdessaeRoma.

998027.indb8027.indb 109109 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 110 E. FIANO

to emerge, showing Edessa as fully taking part, though from its idio- syncratic position, in ampler ecclesiastical trends, influenced by imperial politics. In addition to contributing this portrait of an ideologically diverse Christian center, heavily affected by the doctrinal factionalism character- istic of the fourth century, I hope this study will have suggested the usefulness of pursuing citywide explorations of late-ancient theological debates, while also taking into account the sedimentation of local ecclesiastical traditions in ancient sources.

Bibliography

ABBELOOS – LAMY, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum = J.B. ABBELOOS – T.J. LAMY, ChroniconEcclesiasticum(GregoriiBarhebraeiChroniconEcclesiasticum), vol. 1, Louvain, 1872. ABRAMOWSKI, Hypostasenformeln = L. ABRAMOWSKI, Trinitarischeundchristolo- gischeHypostasenformeln, in TheologieundPhilosophie, 54 (1979), p. 38-49. ADAMS, Bilingualism = J.N. ADAMS, Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge – New York, NY, 2003. ANDRADE, A Syriac Document = N. ANDRADE, A Syriac Document and Its CulturalImplicationsforThird-CenturyRomanSyria, in M. DOERFLER – E. FIANO – K. SMITH (ed.), SyriacEncounters.PapersfromtheSixthNorth- AmericanSyriacSymposium,DukeUniversity,June26-29,2011 (Eastern ChristianStudies, 20), Louvain, 2015, p. 229-243. ASSEMANI, Nomocanon = G.L. ASSEMANI, Nomocanon ecclesiae Antiochenae Syrorum (Scriptorumveterumnovacollectio, 10.1), Rome, 1838. AYRES, Nicaea = L. AYRES, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth- CenturyTrinitarianTheology, Oxford, 2004. BAGNALL, CultsandNames = R.S. BAGNALL, CultsandNamesofPtolemaisin UpperEgypt, in W. CLARYSSE – A. SCHOORS – H. WILLEMS (ed.), Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of JanQuaegebeur (OrientaliaLovaniensiaAnalecta, 84-85), Louvain, 1998, p. 1093-1101. BALLERINI – BALLERINI, Disquisitiones = G. BALLERINI – P. BALLERINI, Disquisi- tionesdeantiquiscollectionibusetcollectoribuscanonum.Parsprima.De Graeciscanonumcollectionibus, in EIDEM, AppendixadS.LeonisMagni operaseuCodexcanonumecclesiasticorumetconstitutorumsanctaesedis apostolicae,omniumquihucusqueprodieruntvetustissimus (Patrologiae CursusCompletus.PatrologiaLatina, 56), Turnhout, 1846. BARDY, Recherches = G. BARDY, RecherchessursaintLuciend’Antiocheetson école, Paris, 1936. BARNES, Athanasius = T.D. BARNES, AthanasiusandConstantius.Theologyand PoliticsintheConstantinianEmpire, Cambridge, MA, 1993. BARNES, Martyrdom = T.D. BARNES, TheDateoftheMartyrdomofLucianof Antioch, in ZeitschriftfürAntikesChristentum, 8 (2004), p. 350-353. BARNS etal., AntinoopolisPapyri = J.W.B. BARNS – C.H. ROBERTS – H. ZILLIACUS, TheAntinoopolisPapyri, 3 vols., London, 1950-1967.

998027.indb8027.indb 110110 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 111

BATIFFOL, Étude= P. BATIFFOL, Étuded’hagiographiearienne, in Compterendu ducongrèsscientifiqueinternationaldesCatholiquestenuàParisdu1erau 6avril1891.Deuxièmesection.Sciencesreligieuses, Paris, 1891, p. 181- 186. BAUER, OrthodoxyandHeresy = W. BAUER, OrthodoxyandHeresyinEarliest Christianity, Mifflingtown, PA, 1996 (transl. of R.A. KRAFT – G. KRODEL, RechtgläubigkeitundKetzereiimältestenChristentum [Beiträgezurhisto- rischenTheologie, 10], Tübingen, 1934). BAUSI – CAMPLANI, NewEthiopicDocuments = A. BAUSI – A. CAMPLANI, New Ethiopic Documents for the History of Christian Egypt, in Zeitschrift für AntikesChristentum, 17 (2013), p. 215-247. BECK, Hymnen = E. BECK, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra haereses (CSCO, 169; Script. Syri, 76), Louvain, 1957. BECK, Theologie = E. BECK, DieTheologiedesheiligenEphrämsinseinenHym- nen über den Glauben (Studia Anselmiana philosophica theologica, 21), Città del Vaticano, 1949. BECKER, FearofGod = A.H. BECKER, FearofGodandtheBeginningofWis- dom.TheSchoolofNisibisandtheDevelopmentofScholasticCulturein LateAntiqueMesopotamia, Philadelphia, PA, 2006. BELL, Antinoopolis = H.I. BELL, Antinoopolis: A Hadrianic Foundation in Egypt, in JournalofRomanStudies, 30 (1940), p. 133-147. BELL, CultsandCreeds = H.I. BELL, CultsandCreedsinGraeco-RomanEgypt, New York, NY, 1953. BENETTON, Illinguaggio=P. BENETTON, IllinguaggiotrinitariodiEfrem, Rome, 2011 [Ph.D. Dissertation]. BETTIOLO, Scuoleeambienti = P. BETTIOLO, Scuoleeambientiintellettualinelle ChiesediSiria, in C. D’ANCONA COSTA (ed.), Storiadellafilosofianell’Islam medievale, Torino, 2005, p. 48-100. BICKELL, CarminaNisibena = G. BICKELL, S.EphraemiSyriCarminaNisibena additisprolegomenisetsupplementolexicorumSyriacorum, Leipzig, 1866. BIDEZ, Kirchengeschichte = J. BIDEZ, PhilostorgiusKirchengeschichtemitdem LebendesLucianvonAntiochienunddenFragmenteneinesArianischen Historiographen (DiegriechischenchristlichenSchriftstellerdererstendrei Jahrhunderte, 21), Leipzig, 1913. BLAUDEAU, Exiletrelégation = P. BLAUDEAU (ed.), Exiletrelégation.Lestribu- lations du sage et du saint durant l’antiquité romaine et chrétienne (Ier- VIesiècleap.J.-C.).ActesducolloqueorganiséparleCentreJean-Charles Picard,UniversitédeParisXII-Val-de-Marne,17-18juin2005, Paris, 2008. BLAUDEAU, Introduction = P. BLAUDEAU, Introduction, in BLAUDEAU, Exil et relégation, p. 9-15. BOULARAND, Auxsources = E. BOULARAND, Auxsourcesdeladoctrined’Arius. La théologie antiochienne, in Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique, 69 (1967), p. 241-272. BOWMAN, Egypt=A.K. BOWMAN, EgyptafterThePharaohs.332BC-AD642. FromAlexandertoTheArabConquest, Berkeley, CA, 1986. BRENNECKE, Erwägungen = E.H.C. BRENNECKE, ErwägungenzudenAnfängen desNeunizänismus, in W.A. BIENERT – D. PAPANDREOU – S. SCHÄFERDIEK (ed.), OecumenicaetPatristica:FestschriftfürWilhelmSchneemelcher zum75.Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 1989, p. 241-257.

998027.indb8027.indb 111111 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 112 E. FIANO

BRENNECKE, Lukian von Antiochien = E.H.C. BRENNECKE, Lukian von Antio- chien in der Geschichte des Arianischen Streites, in IDEM – E.L. GRAS- MÜCK – C. MARKSCHIES (ed.), Logos. Festschrift für Luise Abramowski zum8.Juli1993 (BeiheftezurZeitschriftfürdieneutestamentlicheWis- senschaftunddieKundederälterenKirche, 67), Berlin – New York, NY, 1993, p. 170-192. BRENNECKE, Studien = E.H.C. BRENNECKE, StudienzurGeschichtederHomöer. DerOstenbiszumEndederhomöischenReichskirche (BeiträgezurHisto- rischenTheologie, 73), Tübingen, 1988. BROCK, Greek Learning = S.P. BROCK, From Antagonism to Assimilation: SyriacAttitudestoGreekLearning, in N.G. GARSOÏAN – T.F. MATHEWS – R.W. THOMSON (ed.), EastofByzantium:SyriaandArmeniaintheForma- tive Period. Dumbarton Oaks Symposium, 1980, Washington, DC, 1982, p. 17-34. BROCK, MarMaʻin = S.P. BROCK, TheHistoryoftheHolyMarMaʻinwitha GuidetothePersianMartyrActs (PersianmartyractsinSyriactextand translation, 1), Piscataway, NJ, 2008. BRUNS, AithallahasBrief = P. BRUNS, AithallahasBriefüberdenGlauben.Ein bedeutendesDokumentfrühsyrischerTheologie, in OriensChristianus, 76 (1992), p. 46-73. BRUNS, BriefAithallahas = P. BRUNS, BriefAithallahasdesBischofsvonEdessa (Urhai), an die Christen des Perserlandes über den Glauben, in Oriens Christianus, 77 (1993), p. 120-136. BUNDY, Creed = D. BUNDY, The Creed of Aithallah. A Study in the History oftheEarlySyriacSymbol, in EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses, 63 (1987), p. 157-163. BUNDY, Letter=D. BUNDY, TheLetterofAithallah(CPG3340).Theology,Pur- poseandDate, in R. LAVENANT (ed.), IIISymposiumSyriacum,1980.Les contactsdumondesyriaqueaveclesautrescultures.Goslar7-11Septembre 1980 (OrientaliaChristianaAnalecta, 321), Rome, p. 135-142. BUONAIUTI, LucianoMartire = E BUONAIUTI, LucianoMartire.Lasuadottrina elasuascuola, in Rivistastorico-criticadellescienzeteologiche, 4 (1908), p. 830-837, 909-923; 5 (1909), p. 104-118. BUYTAERT, L’héritagelittéraire = É.M. BUYTAERT, L’héritagelittéraired’Eusèbe d’Émèse.Étudecritiqueethistorique.Textes (BibliothèqueduMuséon, 24), Louvain, 1949. BUYTAERT, TrinitarianDoctrine = É.M. BUYTAERT, OntheTrinitarianDoctrine ofEusebiusofEmesa, in FranciscanStudies, 14 (1954), p. 34-48. CALDERINI – DARIS, Dizionario = A. CALDERINI – S. DARIS, Dizionariodeinomi geograficietopograficidell’Egittogreco-romano, 5 vols. (in 6 tomes) and 5 supplements, Milano, 1972-. CAMPLANI, Atanasio = A. CAMPLANI, AtanasioeEusebiotraAlessandriaeAntio- chia(362-363).OsservazionisulTomus ad Antiochenos,l’Epistula catho- lica eduefoglicopti(edizionediPap. Berol. 11948), in E. DAL COVOLO – R. UGLIONE – G.M. VIAN (ed.), EusebiodiVercellieilsuotempo (Biblioteca discienzereligiose, 133), Rome, 1997, p. 191-246. CAMPLANI, Letrasformazioni = A. CAMPLANI, Letrasformazionidelcristiane- simoorientale:monoepiscopatoesinodi(II-IVsecolo), in AnnalidiStoria dell’Esegesi, 23 (2006), p. 67-114.

998027.indb8027.indb 112112 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 113

CAMPLANI, Letterefestali = A. CAMPLANI, LeletterefestalidiAtanasiodiAles- sandria.Studiostorico-critico, Roma, 1989. CAMPLANI, Perception = A. CAMPLANI, Perceptiondel’altéritéreligieuseetiden- titéculturelle:l’élited’ÉdesseentrelesIIIeetVesiècles, in N. BELAYCHE – J.-D. DUBOIS (ed.), L’oiseauetlepoisson.Cohabitationsreligieusesdansles mondesgrecetromain, Paris, 2011, p. 39-57. CAMPLANI, Traditions = A. CAMPLANI, Traditions of Christian Foundation in Edessa.BetweenMythandHistory, in Studiematerialidistoriadellereli- gioni, 75 (2009), p. 251-278. CAMPLANI – GNOLI, EdessaeRoma = A. CAMPLANI – T. GNOLI, EdessaeRoma. Apropositodiunlibrorecente, in Mediterraneoantico:economie,società, culture, 4 (2001), p. 41-68. CHABOT, Chronique = J.-B. CHABOT, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, 4 vols., Paris, 1899-1910. CSCO = CorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium. CUNTZ etal., PatrumNicaenorumnomina = O. CUNTZ – H. GELZER – H. HILGEN- FELD, Patrum Nicaenorum nomina latine graece coptice syriace arabice armeniace (Scriptoressacrietprofani, 2), Stuttgart, 1995 [reprint, with an Introduction by C. MARKSCHIES; 1st ed.: 1898]. D’ALÈS, Lucien d’Antioche = A. D’ALÈS, Autour de Lucien d’Antioche, in Mélangesdel’UniversitéSaint-Joseph, 21 (1937), p. 185-199. DEBIÉ, RecordKeeping=M. DEBIÉ, RecordKeepingandChronicleWritingin AntiochandEdessa, in AramPeriodical, 12 (2000), p. 409-417. DE BOOR, TheophanisChronographia = C. DE BOOR, TheophanisChronographia, vol. 1, Leipzig, 1883. DE DURAND, Undocument = M.G. DE DURAND, Undocumentsurleconcilede Nicée?, in RevuedesSciencesphilosophiquesetthéologiques, 50 (1966), p. 615-627. DEVREESSE, Lepatriarcat = R. DEVREESSE, Lepatriarcatd’Antioche,depuisla paixdel’Églisejusqu’àlaconquêtearabe, Paris, 1945. DI BERARDINO, Nuovo dizionario patristico = A. DI BERARDINO (ed.), Nuovo dizionariopatristicoediantichitàcristiane, 3 vols., Genova, 2006, 2007, 2008. DRIJVERS, Hatra,PalmyraundEdessa = H.J.W. DRIJVERS, Hatra,Palmyraund Edessa.DieStädtedersyrisch-mesopotamischenWüsteinpolitischer,kul- turgeschichtlicherundreligionsgeschichtlicherBedeutung, in H. TEMPORINI (ed.), AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt.GeschichteundKultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, 1972-1996, vol. II.8, p. 799- 906. DRIJVERS, Inscriptions = H.J.W. DRIJVERS, Old-Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions (SemiticStudySeries, 3), Leiden, 1972. DRIJVERS, OdesofSolomon = H.J.W. DRIJVERS, OdesofSolomonandPsalmsof Mani:ChristiansandManichaeansinThird-CenturySyria, in R. VAN DEN BROEK – M.J. VERMASEREN (ed.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions.PresentedtoGillesQuispelonTheOccasionofHis65thbirthday (Étudespréliminairesauxreligionsorientalesdansl’Empireromain, 91), Leiden, 1981, p. 117-130. DRIJVERS, SchoolofEdessa = H.J.W. DRIJVERS, SchoolofEdessa:GreekLearning andLocalCulture, in H.J.W. DRIJVERS – A.A. MACDONALD (ed.), Centresof

998027.indb8027.indb 113113 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 114 E. FIANO

Learning.LearningandLocationinPre-ModernEuropeandtheNear-East (Brill’sStudiesinIntellectualHistory, 61), Leiden, 1995, p. 49-59. DRIJVERS – HEALEY,The OldSyriacInscriptions = H.J.W. DRIJVERS – J.F. HEALEY, TheOldSyriacInscriptionsofEdessaandOsrhoene, Leiden, 1999. DUCHESNE, Histoire=L. DUCHESNE, Histoireanciennedel’Église, vol. 1, Paris, 1906. DÜNZL, Absetzung = F. DÜNZL, DieAbsetzungdesBischofsMeletiusvonAntio- chien361n.Chr., in JahrbuchfürAntikeundChristentum, 43 (2000), p. 71- 93. FATTI, GiulianoaCesarea = F. FATTI, GiulianoaCesarea.Lapoliticaecclesia- sticadelprincipeapostata (Studietestitardoantichi, 10), Roma, 2009. FEDALTO, HEO = G. FEDALTO, Hierarchiaecclesiasticaorientalis.Seriesepisco- porumecclesiarumchristianarumorientalium, vol. II. PatriarchatusAlexan- drinus,Antiochenus,Hierosolymitanus, Padua, 1988. FEISSEL, Recueil = D. FEISSEL, RecueildesinscriptionschrétiennesdeMacédoine, duIIIeauVIesiècle (Bulletindecorrespondancehellénique.Suppléments, 8), Athens – Paris, 1983. FIELD, OntheCommunion = L.L. FIELD, OntheCommunionofDamasusand Meletius. Fourth-century Synodal Formulae in the Codex Veronensis LX (StudiesandTexts, 145), Toronto, 2004. FIEY, Jalons = J.M. FIEY, Jalonspourunehistoiredel’ÉgliseenIraq (CSCO, 370; Subs., 38), Louvain, 1970. FRANCHI DE’ CAVALIERI, Frammento = P. FRANCHI DE’ CAVALIERI, Diunfram- mentodiunaVitadiCostantinonelCodiceGreco22dellaBibliotecaAnge- lica, in Studiedocumentidistoriaediritto, 18 (1897), p. 89-131. FRANCHI DE’ CAVALIERI, Osservazioni = P. FRANCHI DE’ CAVALIERI, Osserva- zioni sopraalcuniattidimartiridaSettimioSeveroaMassiminoDaza, in Nuovobullettinodiarcheologiacristiana, 10 (1904), p. 5-39. GIRARDET, Kaisergericht=K.M. GIRARDET, KaisergerichtundBischofsgericht. StudienzudenAnfängendesDonatistenstreites(313-315)undzumProzess desAthanasiusvonAlexandrien(328-346), Bonn, 1975. GREEN, City = T.M. GREEN, TheCityoftheMoonGod.ReligiousTraditionsof Harran (ReligionsintheGraeco-RomanWorld, 114), Leiden, 1992. GRIFFITH, Christianity=S.H. GRIFFITH, ChristianityinEdessaandtheSyriac- speakingWorld:Mani,BarDaysan,andEphraem;theStruggleforAlle- giance on the Aramean Frontier, in Journal of the Canadian Society for SyriacStudies, 2 (2002), p. 5-20. GRIFFITH, Deacon of Edessa = S.H. GRIFFITH, Ephraem, the Deacon of Edessa, andtheChurchoftheEmpire, in J. EILLIMAN – T.P. HALTON (ed.), Diakonia: StudiesinHonorofRobertT.Meyer, Washington, DC, 1986, p. 22-52. GRIFFITH, Hymns “Against Julian” = S.H. GRIFFITH, Ephraem the Syrian’s Hymns“AgainstJulian”:MeditationsonHistoryandImperialPower, in VigiliaeChristianae, 41 (1987), p. 238-266. GRIFFITH, Images = S.H. GRIFFITH, ImagesofEphraem:TheSyrianHolyMan andHisChurch, in Traditio, 45 (1989-1990), p. 7-33. GRIFFITH, Marks = S.H. GRIFFITH, TheMarksofthe“TrueChurch”accordingto Ephraem’sHymns against Heresies, in A.C. KLUGKIST – G.J. REININK (ed.), AfterBardaisan:ChangeandContinuityinSyriacChristianity (Orientalia LovaniensiaAnalecta, 89), Louvain, 1999, p. 125-140.

998027.indb8027.indb 114114 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 115

GRIFFITH, SettingRight = S.H. GRIFFITH, SettingRighttheChurchofSyria.Saint Ephraem’sHymnsagainstHeresies, in W. KLINGSHIRN – M. VESSEY (ed.), TheLimitsofAncientChristianity:EssaysonLateAntiqueThoughtand CultureinHonorofR.A.Markus, Ann Arbor, MI, p. 97-114. GRIFFITH, TheDoctrina Addai=S.H. GRIFFITH, TheDoctrina AddaiasaPara- digm of Christian Thought in Edessa in the Fifth Century, in Hugoye, 6 (2003), p. 269-292. GUIDI, Chronicaminora,textus = I. GUIDI, ChronicaminoraI-III ([Syr.III,4, T.]CSCO, 1;Script.Syri,1), Louvain, 1903. GUILLÉN PÉREZ, Elpatriarcato=M.G. GUILLÉN PÉREZ, ElpatriarcatodeAntio- quía: una somera introducción, in A. GONZÁLEZ BLANCO – G. MATILLA SÉIQUER (ed.), Romanización y Cristianismo en la Siria Mesopotámica (Antigüedadycristianismo, 15), Murcia, 1998, p. 327-378. HADOT, Gymnasium = P. HADOT, II.TheHellenisticGymnasium, in H. CANCIK – M. LANDFESTER – H. SCHNEIDER (ed.), TheNewPauly, Leiden, 2010, vol. V, s.v. ‘Gymnasion’ (col. 1050-1059), col. 1054-1059. HAIDER etal., Religionsgeschichte = P.W. HAIDER – M. HUTTER – S. KREUZER (ed.), ReligionsgeschichteSyriensvonderFrühzeitzurGegenwart, Stutt- gart, 1996. HALLIER, Untersuchungen=L. HALLIER, UntersuchungenüberdieEdessenische Chronik (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Archiv für die griechisch-christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten dreiJahrhunderte, 9.1), Leipzig, 1892. HANSON, Search = R.P.C. HANSON, SearchfortheChristianDoctrineofGod. TheArianControversy318-381, Edinburgh, 1988. HARRIS, Ancient Literacy = W.V. HARRIS, Ancient Literacy, Cambridge, MA, 1989. HE = Historiaecclesiastica. HONIGMANN, TwoAlleged“Bishops” = E. HONIGMANN, TwoAlleged“Bishops ofGreaterArmenia”asMembersoftheSynodsofAncyra(314AD)and Caesarea in Cappadocia, in IDEM (ed.), Patristic Studies (Studi e testi, 173), Rome, 1953, p. 1-5. HUNTER, Transmission = E.C.D. HUNTER, TheTransmissionofGreekPhiloso- phyviatheSchoolofEdessa, in C. HOLMES – J. WARING (ed.), Literacy, Education and Manuscript Transmission in Byzantium and Beyond (The MedievalMediterranean.Peoples,economiesandcultures,400-1500, 42), Leiden, 2002, p. 225-241. IBRAHIM, TheEdessa-AleppoSyriacCodex = G.Y. IBRAHIM, TheEdessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great. A Publication of St.GeorgeParishandtheEdessanCommunityinAleppo (TextsandTrans- lationsoftheChronicleofMichaeltheGreat, 1), Piscataway, NJ, 2009. JANIN, Édesse = R. JANIN, 2. Édesse, in A. BAUDRILLART (ed.), Dictionnaire d’histoireetdegéographieecclésiastiques, 30 vols., Paris, 1912-, vol. XIV, col. 1421-1424. JONES, Cities = A.H.M. JONES, CitiesoftheEasternRomanProvinces, Oxford, 1937. KARMANN, MeletiusvonAntiochien = T.R. KARMANN, MeletiusvonAntiochien. Studien zur Geschichte des trinitätstheologischen Streits in den Jahren 360-364n.Chr., Frankfurt am Main, 2009.

998027.indb8027.indb 115115 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 116 E. FIANO

KAUFHOLD, Griechisch-syrischeVäterlisten = H. KAUFHOLD, Griechisch-syrische VäterlistenderfrühengriechischenSynoden(mit1Abb.), in OriensChris- tianus, 77 (1993), p. 1-96. KOPECEK, Neo-Arianism = T.A. KOPECEK, A History of Neo-Arianism, Cam- bridge, MA – Winchendon, MA, 1979. KRUMEICH – SEELIGER, Bischofssitze = K. KRUMEICH – H.R. SEELIGER, Spätantike BischofssitzeÄgyptens (ArchäologiederantikenBischofssitze, 1), Wies- baden, 2007. KÜHN, Antinoopolis = E. KÜHN, Antinoopolis.EinBeitragzurGeschichtedes HellenismusimrömischenÄgypten, Göttingen, 1913. LANGE, Portrayal = C. LANGE, ThePortrayalofChristintheSyriacCommentary ontheDiatessaron (CSCO, 616; Subs.,118), Louvain, 2005. LEITCH – WILTSCH, Handbook = J. LEITCH – J.E.T. WILTSCH, Handbookofthe GeographyandStatisticsoftheChurch, London, 1859. LENSKI, Failure = N. LENSKI, FailureofEmpire.ValensandtheRomanStatein theFourthCenturyAD, Berkeley, CA, 2002. LENSKI, Valens = N. LENSKI, ValensandtheMonks:CudgelingandConscrip- tionasaMeansofSocialControl, in DumbartonOaksPapers, 58 (2004), p. 93-117. LLEWELYN, Review = S.R. LLEWELYN (ed.), AReviewoftheGreekInscriptions and Papyri Published in 1984-1985 (New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 8), Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, 1998. LÖHR, Arius Reconsidered = W. LÖHR, Arius Reconsidered (Part 1), in Zeit- schriftfürAntikesChristentum, 9 (2006), p. 524–560. MANGO – SCOTT, Chronicle = C. MANGO – R. SCOTT, TheChronicleofTheopha- nesConfessor.ByzantineandNearEasternHistoryAD284-813, Oxford, 1997. MANSI, Collectio = G.D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova, et amplissima collectioinquapraetereaquaePhil.Labbeus,etGabr.CossartiusS.J.et novissimeNicolausColetiinlucemedidereeaomniainsupersuisinlocis optimedispositaexhibentur, 53 vols. (in 57 tomes), Paris, 1901-1927. MARKSCHIES, Lateinischer“Neunizänismus”? = C. MARKSCHIES, Wasistlatei- nischer“Neunizänismus”?EinVorschlagfüreineAntwort, in Zeitschrift fürAntikesChristentum, 1 (1997), p. 73-95. MARTIN, Antioche aux IVe et Ve siècles = A. MARTIN, Antioche aux IVeet Vesiècles:unexemplederéécritureorthodoxedel’histoirechrétienne, in StudieMaterialidiStoriadelleReligioni, 75 (2009), p. 279-294. MARTIN, Athanase=A. MARTIN, Athanased’Alexandrieetl’Églised’Égypte auIVesiècle(328-373), (Collectiondel’ÉcolefrançaisedeRome, 216), Rome, 1996. MARTIN, Église d’Antioche = A. MARTIN, L’Églised’Antioche dans l’Histoire ecclésiastiquedeThéodoret, in B. CABOURET – P.-L. GATIER – C. SALIOU (ed.), AntiochedeSyrie.Histoire,imagesettracesdelavilleantique.Col- loqueorganiséparB.Cabouret,P.-L.GatieretC.Saliou,Lyon,Maisonde l’OrientetdelaMéditerranée,4,5,6octobre2001 (Topoiorient-occident. Suppléments, 5), Lyon – Paris, 2004, p. 481-506. MARTIN, Lalaure = M. MARTIN, LalauredeDêralDîkàAntinoé (Publications del’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientaleduCaire.Bibliothèqued’études coptes, 8), Cairo, 1971.

998027.indb8027.indb 116116 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 117

MARTIN, Review = A. MARTIN, Review of SEGNERI, Lettera agli Antiocheni, in Adamantius, 18 (2012), p. 589-596. MARTIN, Unité = A. MARTIN, Antioche ou la difficile unité: les enjeux d’un schisme, in P.-G. DELAGE (ed.), LesPèresdel’Égliseetlesdissidents.Des- sinerlacommunion.Dissidence,exclusionetréintégrationdanslescommu- nautés chrétiennes des six premiers siècles. Actes du IVe colloque de La Rochelle,25,26et27septembre2009, Royan, 2010, p. 65-85. MCCARTHY SPOERL, Schism = K. MCCARTHY SPOERL, The Schism at Antioch since Cavallera, in M.R. BARNES – D.H. WILLIAMS (ed.), Arianism after Arius.EssaysontheDevelopmentoftheFourthCenturyTrinitarianCon- flicts, Edinburgh, 1993, p. 101-126. MCVEY, Hymns = K.E. MCVEY, EphremtheSyrian.Hymns, New York, NY – Mahwah, NJ, 1989. MEIER, Private Space = H.O. MEIER, Private Space as the Social Context of ArianisminAmbrose’sMilan, in JournalofTheologicalStudies,45 (1994), p. 79-93. MENDELSSOHN, HistoriaNova = L. MENDELSSOHN, Zosimicomitisetexadvocati fisci:HistoriaNova, Lepizig, 1887. MILLAR, FromEphremtoRabbula = F. MILLAR, GreekandSyriacinEdessa: FromEphremtoRabbula(CE363-435), in SemiticaetClassica, 4 (2011), p. 99-114. MILLAR, Greek and Syriac = F. MILLAR, Greek and Syriac in Edessa and Osrhoene,CE213to363, in ScriptaClassicaIsraelica, 30 (2011), p. 93- 111. MILLAR, Hellenistic Syria = F. MILLAR, The Problem of Hellenistic Syria, in A. KUHRT – S. SHERWIN-WHITE (ed.), HellenismintheEast.TheInterac- tionofGreekandnon-GreekCivilizationfromSyriatoCentralAsiaafter Alexander, Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA, 1987, p. 110-133. MILLAR, TheodoretofCyrrhus = F. MILLAR, TheodoretofCyrrhus:ASyrianin GreekDress?, in H. AMIRAV – R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY (ed.), FromRome to Constantinople: Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron (Late Antique HistoryandReligion, 1), Louvain, 2007, p. 105-125. MILNE, Manuals = H.J.M. MILNE, Greek Shorthand Manuals: Syllabary and Commentary,EditedfromPapyriandWaxedTabletsintheBritishMuseum and from the Antinoë Papyri in the Possession of the Egypt Exploration Society, London, 1934. MINUTOLI, Antinoe = D. MINUTOLI, Recuperoerestaurodeipapirinellecampa- gne di scavo 2003-2008 ad Antinoe, in R. PINTAUDI (ed.), Antinoupolis, Scaviemateriali, 1, Firenze, 2008, p. 75-99. MORALES, Théologie = X. MORALES, Lathéologietrinitaired’Athanased’Alexan- drie (Collection des études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 180), Paris, 2006, p. 357-395. MURRAY, Symbols = R. MURRAY, SymbolsofChurchandKingdom.AStudyin EarlySyriacTradition, London – New York, NY, 1975. NACHTERGAEL – PINTAUDI,Deuxparchemins = G. NACHTERGAEL – R. PINTAUDI, Deuxparcheminsbibliquesd’Antinoé, in R. PINTAUDI (ed.), Antinoupolis, Scaviemateriali, 1, Firenze, 2008, p. 117-130. ORTIZ DE URBINA, PatrologiaSyriaca = I. ORTIZ DE URBINA, PatrologiaSyriaca, Rome, 19652 (1st ed.: 1958).

998027.indb8027.indb 117117 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 118 E. FIANO

PARMENTIER, Eunomius tachygraphe = M.F.G. PARMENTIER, Eunomius tachygraphe, in RevuedePhilologie, 33 (1909), p. 238-245. PARVIS, Ancyra = S. PARVIS, MarcellusorVitalis:WhoPresidedatAncyra314?, in M.F. MILES – P.M. PARVIS – E.J. YARNOLD (ed.), PapersPresentedatthe ThirteenthInternationalConferenceonPatristicStudiesHeldinOxford, 1999 (StudiaPatristica, 34-38), 5 vols., Louvain, 2001, vol. I, p. 197- 203. PARVIS, Canons = S. PARVIS, The Canons of Ancyra and Caesarea (314): Lebon’sThesisRevisited, in JournalofTheologicalStudies, 52 (2001), p. 625-636. PELTIER, Dictionnaire = A.-C. PELTIER, Dictionnaire universel et complet des concilestantgénérauxqueparticuliers,desprincipauxsynodesdiocésains, et des autres assemblées ecclésiastiques les plus remarquables, composé sur les grandes collections de conciles les plus estimées (Encyclopédie théologique, 13-14), 2 vols., Paris, 1846-1847. PETIT etal., Eusèbed’Émèse = F. PETIT – L. VAN ROMPAY – J.J.S. WEITENBERG, Eusèbed’Émèse.CommentairedelaGenèse.Textearméniendel’édition deVenise(1980).Fragmentsgrecsetsyriaques (TraditioExegeticaGraeca, 15), Louvain, 2011. POSSEKEL, Doctrine = U. POSSEKEL, Ephrem’sDoctrineofGod, in A.B. MCGOWAN – T.J. GADEN (ed.), GodinEarlyChristianThought:EssaysinMemoryof LloydG.Patterson (SupplementstoVigiliaeChristianae, 94), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2009, p. 195-237. POSSEKEL, Transformation = U. POSSEKEL, TheTransformationofHarranfrom aPaganCultCentertoaChristianPilgrimageSite, in Paroledel’Orient, 36 (2011), p. 299-310. RAMELLI, Iscrizione =I. RAMELLI, Un’iscrizionecristianaedessenadelIIIsec.d.C.: contestualizzazionestoricaetematiche, in ᾿Ilu:revistadecienciasdelas religiones, 8 (2003), p. 119-126. RIDLEY, New History = R.T. RIDLEY, Zosimus. New History (Byzantina Aus- traliensia, 2), Sydney, 1982. ROSS, RomanEdessa = S.K. ROSS, RomanEdessa.PoliticsandCultureonthe EasternFringesoftheRomanEmpire,114-242C.E., London – New York, 2001. RUSSEL, StEphraem’sCarmina Nisibena = P.S. RUSSEL, StEphraem’sCarmina Nisibena 33:AHymnonPaganism’sPlaceintheWorld, in St.Vladimir’s TheologicalQuarterly, 49 (2005), p. 395-415. SCHOR, Theodoret=A.M. SCHOR, Theodoretonthe“SchoolofAntioch”.ANet- work Approach, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 15 (2007), p. 517- 562. SCHULTHESS, Kanones = F. SCHULTHESS (ed.), DiesyrischenKanonesderSyn- oden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon nebst einigen zugehörigen Dokumenten herausgegeben (Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaftenzuGöttingen.Philologisch-historischeKlasse.NeueFolge, 10.2), Berlin, 1908. SCHWARTZ, Bischofslisten = E. SCHWARTZ, ÜberdieBischofslistenderSynoden vonChalkedon,NicaeaundKonstantinopel (AbhandlungenderBayeri- schenAkademiederWissenschaften.Philosophisch-historischeKlasse.Neue Folge, 13), München, 1937.

998027.indb8027.indb 118118 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 119

SCHWARTZ, Sammlung = E. SCHWARTZ, ÜberdieSammlungdesCod.Veronensis LX, in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde derälterenKirche, 35 (1936), p. 1-23. SEGAL, BlessedCity = J.B. SEGAL, Edessa“TheBlessedCity”, Oxford, 1970. SEGAL, Edessa and Harran = J.B. SEGAL, Edessa and Harran. An Inaugural LectureDeliveredon9May1962, London, 1963. SEGNERI, LetteraagliAntiocheni = A. SEGNERI, LetteraagliAntiocheni, Bologna, 2010, p. 11-75. SHEPARDSON, Anti-Judaism = C.C. SHEPARDSON, Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy. Ephrem’s Hymns in Fourth-Century Syria (North American PatristicsSociety.PatristicMonographSeries, 20), Washington, DC, 2008. SHEPARDSON, Christian Division = C.C. SHEPARDSON, Christian Division in AncientEdessa:EphremtheSyrian’sCarminaNisibenaXXVII–XXVIII, in JournaloftheAssyrianAcademicSociety, 12 (1999), p. 29-41. SIMONETTI, Ancorasulconcilio = M. SIMONETTI, AncorasulconciliodiAlessan- driadel362,edintorni, in Augustinianum, 50 (2010), p. 5-25. SIMONETTI, Dal nicenismo al neonicenismo = M. SIMONETTI, Dal nicenismo alneonicenismo.Rassegnadialcunepubblicazionirecenti, in Augustinia- num, 38 (1998), p. 5-27. SIMONETTI, Dibattitotrinitario = M. SIMONETTI, Dibattitotrinitarioetensioni ecclesiali in Cappadocia e Ponto dal 360 al 380, in P. BETTIOLO (ed.), L’Epistula fidei diEvagrioPontico.Temi,contesti,sviluppi.Attidel3°Con- vegno del Gruppo italiano di ricerca su Origene e la tradizione alessan- drina (StudiaephemeridisAugustinianum, 72), Rome, 2000, p. 7-23. SIMONETTI, Il Concilio = M. SIMONETTI, Il Concilio di Alessandria del 362 e l’originedellaformulatrinitaria, in Augustinianum, 30 (1990), p. 353-360. SIMONETTI, Lacrisi = M. SIMONETTI, LacrisiariananelIVsecolo (Studiaephe- meridisAugustinianum, 11), Rome, 1975. SIMONETTI, Leorigini=M. SIMONETTI, Leoriginidell’arianesimo, in Rivistadi storiaeletteraturareligiosa, 7 (1971), p. 317-330. SIMONETTI, L’imperatore arbitro = M. SIMONETTI, L’imperatore arbitro nelle controversieideologiche, in Mediterraneoantico:economie,società,culture, 5 (2002), p. 445-459. SIMONETTI, LucianodiAntiochia = M. SIMONETTI, LucianodiAntiochia, in DI BERARDINO, Nuovodizionariopatristico, vol. II, col. 2930-2932. SIMONETTI, MeleziodiAntiochia = M. SIMONETTI, MeleziodiAntiochia, in DI BERARDINO, Nuovodizionariopatristico, vol. II, col. 3190-3191. SIMONETTI, Omei=M. SIMONETTI, AllaricercadeicosiddettiOmei, in Cassio- dorus.Rivistadistudisullatardaantichità, 2 (1996), p. 41-49. SLUSSER, Martyrdom = M. SLUSSER, The Martyrdom of Lucian of Antioch, in ZeitschriftfürAntikesChristentum, 7 (2003), p. 329-337. SNEE,Valens’Recall = R. SNEE, Valens’RecalloftheNiceneExilesandAnti- Arian Propaganda, in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26 (1985), p. 395-419. SPUNTARELLI, Didascaliaepotere = C. SPUNTARELLI, Didascaliaepotereepi- scopaleadAntiochianell’ideologiadeipanegiricidiGiovanniCrisostomo, in AnnalidiStoriadell’Esegesi, 27 (2010), p. 77-100. STERK,Renouncing = A. STERK, RenouncingtheWorldyetLeadingtheChurch. TheMonk-BishopinLateAntiquity, Cambridge, 2004.

998027.indb8027.indb 119119 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 120 E. FIANO

STORI, Edessa = E. STORI, Edessalacittàbenedetta:alcunenotesuiprimigruppi cristianiinSiria, in AnnalidiStoriadell’Esegesi, 29 (2012), p. 49-61. STUDER, Unavalutazione = B. STUDER, Unavalutazionecriticadelneonicenismo, in Augustinianum, 38 (1998), p. 28-41. SUDHAUS, Deratione= H. SUDHAUS, DerationequaeintercedatinterZosimiet AmmianidebelloaIulianoImperatorecumPersisgestorelationes, Bonn, 1870. TAYLOR, BilingualismandDiglossia = D.G.K. TAYLOR, BilingualismandDiglos- siainLateAntiqueSyriaandMesopotamia, in J.N. ADAMS – M. JANSE – S. SWAIN (ed.), BilingualisminAncientSociety:LanguageContactandthe WrittenText, Oxford, 2002, p. 298-331. TEIXIDOR, Lafilosofía = J. TEIXIDOR, Lafilosofíatraducida.Crónicaparcialde Edesaenlosprimerossiglos (Estudiosorientales, 4), Sabadell (Barcelona), 1991. TER HAAR ROMENY, Eusebius = R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY, A Syrian in Greek Dress.TheUseofGreek,Hebrew,andSyriacBiblicalTextsinEusebiusof Emesa’sCommentaryonGenesis (TraditioExegeticaGraeca, 6), Louvain, 1997. TETZ, Orthodoxie = M. TETZ, ÜbernikäischeOrthodoxie.Dersog.Tomusad AntiochenosdesAthanasiosvonAlexandrien, in ZeitschriftfürdieNeutes- tamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche, 66 (1975), p. 194-222. ThéodoretdeCyr.HistoireecclésiastiqueI = J. BOUFFARTIGUE – P. CANIVET – A. MARTIN (ed./tr.), ThéodoretdeCyr.Histoireecclésiastique,LivresI-II (Sourceschrétiennes, 501), Paris, 2006. ThéodoretdeCyr.HistoireecclésiastiqueII = J. BOUFFARTIGUE – P. CANIVET – A. MARTIN (ed./tr.), ThéodoretdeCyr.Histoireecclésiastique,LivresIII-V (Sourceschrétiennes, 530), Paris, 2009. TOV, Lucian = E. TOV, LucianandProto-Lucian.TowardaNewSolutionofthe Problem, in RevueBiblique, 79 (1972), p. 101-113. TURNER, Canons = C.H. TURNER, CanonsAttributedtotheCouncilofConstan- tinople,A.D.381,togetherwiththeNamesoftheBishops,fromTwoPatmos MSSPOB’POΓ’, in JournalofTheologicalStudies, 15 (1914), p. 161-178. TURNER, EcclesiaeOccidentalismonumenta = C.H. TURNER, EcclesiaeOcciden- talis monumenta iuris antiquissima. Canonum et conciliorum Graecorum interpretationeslatinae, 2 vols., Oxford, 1899-1939. UGGERI, Lachiesa=G. UGGERI, Lachiesapaleocristianapressolaportaorien- tale, in MISSIONE ARCHEOLOGICA IN EGITTO DELL’UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA (ed.), Antinoe(1965-1968), (Seriearcheologica, 21), Roma, 1974, p. 37-67. URBAINCZYK, Theodoret of Cyrrhus = T. URBAINCZYK, Theodoret of Cyrrhus. TheBishopandtheHolyMan, Ann Arbor, MI, 2002. VAN NUFFELEN, Arius = P. VAN NUFFELEN, Arius,Athanaseetlesautres:enjeux juridiquesetpolitiquesduretourd’exilauIVesiècle, in BLAUDEAU, Exilet relégation, p. 147-175. VON HARNACK, Lehrbuch=A. VON HARNACK, LehrbuchderDogmengeschichte, 3 vols., Freiburg, 1885-1890. VON HEFELE etal.,Histoire = K.J. VON HEFELE – J. HERGENRÖTHER – A. KNÖPF- LER – H. LECLERCQ, Histoiredesconcilesd’aprèslesdocumentsoriginaux, vol. II, Paris, 1908.

998027.indb8027.indb 120120 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 121

VÖÖBUS, Celibacy = A. VÖÖBUS, Celibacy, a Requirement for Admission to BaptismintheEarlySyrianChurch (PapersoftheEstonianTheological SocietyinExile, 1), Stockholm, 1951. VÖÖBUS,NeueAngaben =A. VÖÖBUS,NeueAngaben überdietextgeschichtli- chenZuständeinEdessaindenJahren326-430.EinBeitragzurGeschichte des altsyrischen Tetraevangeliums (Papers of the Estonian Theological SocietyinExile, 3), Stockholm, 1951. WALLACE-HADRILL, Christian Antioch = D.S. WALLACE-HADRILL, Christian Antioch.AStudyofEarlyChristianThoughtintheEast, Cambridge – New York, NY, 1982. WILES, Theology=M. WILES, TheTheologyofEusebiusofEmesa, in E.A. LIV- INGSTONE (ed.), StudiaPatristica, vol. XIX.Historica,Theologica,Gnostica, BiblicaetApocrypha. PaperspresentedtotheTenthInternationalConfer- enceonPatristicStudiesHeldinOxford1987.Louvain, 1989, p. 267-280. WILLIAMS, Ambrose = D.H. WILLIAMS, Ambrose, Emperors and Homoians in Milan:TheFirstConflictoveraBasilica, in M.R. BARNES – D.H. WILLIAMS (ed.), Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth- CenturyTrinitarianConflicts, Edinburgh, 1993, p. 127-146. WINN, Eusebius ofEmesa =R. WINN, EusebiusofEmesa.ChurchandTheology intheMid-FourthCentury, Washington, DC, 2011. WIPSZYCKA, Laliteracy = E. WIPSZYCKA, Encoresurlaquestiondelaliteracy après l’étude de W.V. Harris, in EAD., Études sur le christianisme dans l’Égypte de l’Antiquitétardive (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 52), Rome, 1996, p. 127-135. WRIGHT, Catalogue = W. WRIGHT, CatalogueofSyriacManuscriptsintheBritish MuseumAcquiredsincetheYear1838, 3 vols., London, 1870-1872. WRIGHT, Julian = W.C. WRIGHT, The Works of the Emperor Julian, 3 vols., London – New York, NY, 1923.

Duke University Emanuel FIANO Graduate Program in Religion 209 Gray Building – Box 90964 Durham, NC 27708, USA [email protected]

Abstract — This paper offers a first examination of the unfolding of the Trinitarian controversies in the Syrian city of Edessa. By indicating possible contacts with a variety of ecclesiastical milieus, it explores institutional developments in the Edessene Church, traces its participation in the broader empire-wide debates, and suggests an avenue for further research concerning the earliest stages of construction of a local memory, embedded in ecclesiastical propaganda. The so-called ‘Paluṭian’ community of the ‘Blessed City’, linked to the origins of the Trinitarian disputes through Lucian of Antioch and Eusebius of Emesa, reportedly saw the participation of its bishop Aithallah in the Council of Nicaea. One of Aithallah’s successors, bishop Barses, appointed to the Edessene see by virtue of his Homoian, anti-Nicene affiliation, later came to head the heavily embattled

998027.indb8027.indb 121121 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 122 E. FIANO

pro-Nicene community of the city as the result of a doctrinal re-alignment paral- leling Meletius of Antioch’s. Barses and other members of the Edessene pro- Nicene establishment (such as the presbyters Protogenes and Eulogius) were eventually exiled to Egypt during the incumbency of the pro-Homoian emperor Valens. Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ account of the Egyptian exile of the ‘orthodox’, filled with competitive and expansionistic overtones, calls for further examination in light of the self-representation and geo-ecclesiological projects of the Edessene and Anti- ochene episcopates. Overall, fourth-century Edessa appears as a theologically diverse Christian center, receptive to outside intellectual and institutional trends, and fully integrated in the imperial Church.

APPENDIX

Excursus nr. 1: Aithallah’spresenceatthecouncilofAncyraof314

JANIN, Édesse, referring also to the variant spelling ‘Aetherius’, cites MANSI, Collectio, vol. II, col. 1135B as his source of information about Aithallah’s presence at the council of Ancyra of 314 (on the dating of this council, cf. VON HEFELE etal.,Histoire, p. 298-299), whose twenty-five canons focus on disciplinary issues, mostly concerning penance and dealing with the lapsi. Although the focus of this council was in no way theological, if it could be ascertained that a member of the Edessene clergy partook in this reunion this would still be of some importance for tracing the latter’s degree of integration into the broader net of the church in the East. However, I have been unable to identify this reference in Mansi’s volume, where the documents relative to this synod are presented, rather, on cols. 513-544, and its subscription list is offered in col. 528, n. 1 (cf. also BALLERINI – BALLERINI, Disquisitiones, col. 434C; TURNER, Eccle- siaeOccidentalismonumenta, vol. I, col. 32; and, for the Syriac subscription lists, SCHULTHESS, Kanones, p. 29-31). The only name vaguely reminiscent of one of the variant spellings of the name of Aithallah that one finds in the Latin subscriptions lists of the council of Nicaea is that of an Eutolius or Eustolius, appearing in the Latin tradition, but whose bishopric is unequivocally given as Nicomedia. In addition, any reliance upon the subscription lists of Ancyra (314) is tanta- mount to an actusfidei in reason of their late authorship, as shown already by the Ballerini brothers. It should also be noted, with PELTIER, Dictionnaire, vol. I, col. 101-110, s.v. ‘Ancyre (Concile d’) en Galatie, Ancyranum, l’an 314’, part. col. 101, that “[o]n ne trouve dans les souscriptions que dix-huit évêques au plus, presque toujours un pour chaque province; ce qui donne lieu de croire ou qu’on n’en avait député qu’un ou deux de chaque province, ou que l’on n’a mis que les principaux dans les souscriptions; car elles ne sont pas originales”. At the time of the council of Ancyra the Edessene see was occupied either by Qōna or by his successor Sha῾ad. It would be difficult to imagine Aithallah sitting, as the only Edessene representative, in a council held ten years before he was to be consecrated bishop. It is not inconceivable, however, that a later redactor of the subscription lists, knowing of the authority of an Aithallah bishop of Edessa, in his attempt to include names from various Eastern dioceses might have taken no notice of chronological incompatibility. According to lemma 12 of the Chronicon Edessenum, edited in GUIDI, Chronica minora, textus, p. 4, “in the year 624

998027.indb8027.indb 122122 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 123

[= 311/312] the bishop Qōna laid the foundations of the church of Edessa. And bishop Sha῾ad, who came after him, built (it) and finished the construction”. The death of Qōna and the accession of Sha῾ad to the episcopacy could have occurred any time between 311/312 and Aithallah’s election in 324/325 (cf. lemma 14 of the ChronicleofEdessa, as well as FEDALTO, HEO, p. 803). It is therefore hard to guess, based on the Chronicle only, who of the two would have been in office at the time of the council of Ancyra. HONIGMANN, Two Alleged “Bishops”, p. 3-4 suggested to identify the cited in both manuscripts of the Syriac subscription lists (cf. SCHULTHESS, Kanones, p. 31 [nr. 17]) with Sha῾ad of Edessa. This name is missing in the Latin lists, and the names most closely resembling it are those of Selaus, mentioned in one ms. (cf. MANSI, Collectio, vol. II, p. 427, n. a), and Saebius, found in the version called prisca (cf. TURNER, EcclesiaeOccidentalismonumenta, vol. 1, col. 32 [nr. 9]). Might Janin have intended to refer to Sha῾ad, rather than to Aithallah, as a participant in the council of Ancyra? On this council, cf. also PARVIS, Ancyra; and PARVIS, Canons. On the Greek and Syriac lists of fathers in attend- ance of councils, cf. KAUFHOLD, Griechisch-syrischeVäterlisten.

Excursus nr. 2. Barses’switchofallegiance

An indirect testimony potentially tallying with the reconstruction of Barses’ switch of allegiance could come from the Syriac chronicles. The thirteenth-century Syriac Orthodox polygraph Barhebraeus, in his ChroniconEcclesiasticum, 1, 20 (edited in ABBELOOS – LAMY, ChroniconEcclesiasticum, p. 65 [textus] and 66 [versio]), informs us that “after him (i.e. Sha῾uth) rose Aithallah, and he built the eastern side of the church, and built the cemetery of the foreigners as well. And after him rose Abraham, and he built the sanctuary of the house of the Con- fessors. And after him rose Barses, and he built the baptistery. And in that same year the orthodox of Edessa retrieved the great church, which the Arians had seized. Then rose bishop Eulogius in Edessa”. It could be surmised that Barhe- braeus intended to place the ‘orthodox’ repossession of the great church of Edessa, appropriated by the ‘Arians’, in the same year of Barses’ erection of the baptistery, distinguished from that of his appointment. This would make Barhebraeus (or his sources) a potential witness to the memory of the fact that the early years of Barses’ episcopacy were marked by Homoian tendencies. DEBIÉ, Record Keeping, p. 411-412 and 415, while excluding the existence of something akin to a primeval full-fledged chronicle of Edessa, has argued for the existence of archival books recording the most important civil as well as ecclesiastical events, including bishops’ lists with relative chronologies, and preserved in the archives of the city’s main church. It would be tempting to suggest that an Edessene source of this kind stood behind Barhebraeus’ unique report about the return of the ‘orthodox’ at some point during (that is, well into) Barses’ episcopacy. How- ever, caution should be used. Barhebraeus is here reproducing information about Edessa found also in Michael the Syrian, Chronicon, 6, 10, edited in CHABOT, Chronique, vol. IV, p. 120, col. 1, lines 10-24 (textus) and vol. I, p. 203- 204 (versio): “And after those things rose for Edessa Aith Allah, and he built the eastern side of the church, and built the cemetery of the foreigners as well. Anno 656 (i.e. 345 CE). And after these things rose for Edessa bishop Abraham, and

998027.indb8027.indb 123123 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 124 E. FIANO

he built the sanctuary of the house of the Confessors. Anno681 (i.e. 370 CE). And he built the baptistery. Anno689 (i.e. 378 CE). In that same year the orthodox of Edessa retrieved from the Arians the great church, that one which they had seized iniquitously. And Eulogius became bishop in Edessa”. Barhebraeus and Michael’s versions run strictly parallel, and according to CHABOT, Chronique, vol. I, p. 203, n. 13 the former is here copying the latter. (This is also Chabot’s reason for supposing [cf.ibidem] that a line was omitted in the copy he himself commissioned in 1899 [cf. ibidem, p. xlii] of the only known, 1598 Edessene manuscript of Michael’s universal chronicle: the string w-batrehqāmBarsā [‘and after him rose Barses’] before the words wa-bnā l-beth ma῾mud[ithā] [‘and he built the baptistery’] would have accidentally fallen out. While it is now possible to verify in IBRAHIM, TheEdessa-AleppoSyriacCodex, p. 123, col. 1, lines 17- 18 that this is in fact not the case, the mistake suggested by Chabot might have occurred at a previous stage of transmission). A comparison between the two sources suggests as plausible that Barhebraeus might have simply failed to notice, upon copying his information, that the entry about the return of the orthodox referred in Michael’s Chronicle (as in that which HALLIER, Untersu- chungen famously identified as Michael’s – as well as Barhebraeus’ – source, i.e. the ChronicleofEdessa, here specifically in lemmas 32-33) to a later year (689, i.e. 378 CE), and not to the same year of Barses’ erection of the baptistery (681, i.e. 370).

Excursus nr. 3: ThereturnoftheEdessene‘orthodox’fromexile

On Barses’ death, cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HistoriaEcclesiastica, 4, 18, 4. The sequence of events concerning the return from the exile of the pro-Nicenes is described in entries 32-34 of the Chronicon Edessenum, edited in GUIDI, Chronicaminora, textus, p. 5: “In the year 689 (i.e. 378) in the month of Adar left the world Mar Barses, bishop of Edessa. And on the 27 of the month of first Konun of the same year the orthodox entered and received the church of Edessa. And in those days Eulogius became bishop, in the year in which Theodosius the Great became king; and Eulogius built the house of Daniel, which was called house of Saint Dimet”. HALLIER, , p. 102 argued that the words Untersuchungen in lemma 33 should be considered either an interpolation or the remainder of an excision, and maintained that the return of the exiles should be dated to 27 December 378 (not 377), and should therefore be attributed to a decree of Emperor Gratian (on the general amnesty that followed Valens’ death, cf. Socrates of Constantinople, HistoriaEcclesiastica, 5, 2, 1; Sozomen, Histo- riaEcclesiastica, 7, 1, 3; and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HistoriaEcclesiastica, 5, 2, 1-2). SNEE, Valens’Recall, p. 398-402, showed, contraHallier, that the inten- tion of the ChronicleofEdessa was indeed to date the return of the orthodox to 377, and that they reentered Edessa thanks to a decree of Valens. As can be seen, the Chronicle assigns Barses’ death to March 689 (i.e. March 378 CE); the return of the ‘orthodox’ to Edessa to December 689 (i.e. December 377 CE); and Eulogius’ consecration to 689 (i.e. 378/379 CE). Snee argued that, since the chronicler was working on the basis of an episcopal list, he simply inverted the position of the first and the second entry. Snee intended to prove the correctness of the testimony of Jerome, Chronicon, a. 378 (and of that, dependent thereupon,

998027.indb8027.indb 124124 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52 THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES 125

of Rufinus, HistoriaEcclesiastica, 11, 13) about an edict of recall of the exiles issued by Valens before his departure from Antioch, where he had set up his capital, for the war with the Goths, in which he was to encounter death on the battlefield of Adrianople. VAN NUFFELEN, Arius, p. 171-173 opposed Snee’s reconstruction, stating that the chronological disorder of the ChronicleofEdessa can be explained with the chronographers’ tendency, upon recalculating dates they derived them from sources using different calendars (the Julian, starting on January 1st, and the Seleucid, beginning on October 1st), to simply equate Julian and Seleucid years.

998027.indb8027.indb 125125 44/06/15/06/15 111:521:52