No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Simeon bar Sabbae, metropolitan of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and second primate of the Persian Church, fell victim among the first to the general persecution of Sapor II. The date of his martyrdom has been the subject of considerable controversy, and it is the purpose of the present paper to prove that the saint's death occurred, not on Good Friday, as has always been supposed, but on Sept. 14, and in the year 344 A.D.
1 The best edition of both recensions is S. Simeon bar Sabbae, text with intr., transl. and notes by Michael Kmosko (Patrologia syriaca 2; Paris 1907) 659-1047. The Short Recension is also found in Acta Sanctorum Martyrum orientalium, text with intr., transl. and notes by Assemani, S. E. (Acta SS MM orientalium et occidentalium I; Rome 1748) 1-51. The Long Recension is translated by Braun, O. in Ausgewählte Akten persischer Märtyrer aus dem Syrischen (Bibliothek der Kirchenväter; Kempten and Munich 1915) 5–88. The present writer does not read Syriac and all references are to the translations.Google Scholar
2 B(ibliotheca) H(agiographica) O(rientalis), edd. Bollandiani, Socii (Subsidia hagiographica 10; Brussels 1910).Google Scholar
3 The latter is not in Kmosko, but only in Assemani, who separates it from the acts of Simeon and gives it a distinct title, Certamen plur. MM et Azadis regis eunuchi (p. 45). However, neither the separation nor the title exists in the MS; cf. Assemani, E.S. and Assemani, J. S., Bibl. Vat. MSS catalogus III (Rome 1759) 319f.; here the colophon is quoted: ‘Explicit martyrium S. Simeonis ep. et caedes magna SS Dei MM quae facta est in regione Huzitarum.’ (This is omitted in Acta MM or.; cf. p. 50.) We see from this that the correct title is, ‘Great Slaughter in Khuzistan.’ Whether it is justifiable textually, then, to speak of two pieces, as I do above, is, I daresay, rather doubtful. Nevertheless, it is definitely more convenient, the colophon does give two titles, and BHO numbers them distinctly.Google Scholar
4 15, 25, 28, 31, 35f., 45, 47 Ass. (cf. infra at n. 83); 728, 749, 757, 765, 773-77 Kmosko. For Guhashtazad, Ass. reads ‘luna decima tertia,’ but ‘luna’ is not in the Syriac, though it is in the parallel passage in the Long Recension (Skehan); 888 Kmosko, 36 Braun. (I owe all verifications of the original Syriac to my colleague of the Department of Semitic Languages, Right Rev. Patrick Skehan, S.T.D. — an indebtedness indicated by adding his name in parentheses, as here.) Google Scholar
5 789 Kmosko (has only acts of Simeon); 8, 74, 81, 83, 87, 88 Braun.Google Scholar
6 Assemani lxxv-lxxvi; Peeters, P., ‘La date du martyre de S. Syméon, archevêque de Séleucie-Ctésiphon,’ Analecta Bollandiana 56 (1938) 130f.Google Scholar
7 This paragraph summarizes my recent article, ‘Aphraates’ Dates for Persian Persecution,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951) 265–71. Date of Martyrdom of Simeon Bar Sabbae Google Scholar
8 Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden, aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari übersetzt und mit ausführlichen Erläuterungen versehn (Leyden 1879) 424; cf. infra at n. 26.Google Scholar
9 Cf. infra at n. 21.Google Scholar
10 Cf. supra at n. 6. and Kmosko 698, but he has some misgivings, 697 n. 1.Google Scholar
11 Labourt, J., Le christianisme dans l'empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide (Le christianisme dans l'empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide) (Bibliothèque de l'enseignement de l'histoire ecclésiastique; Paris 1904) 36–39.Google Scholar
12 de la Mas Latrie, L., Trésor de chronologie, d'histoire et de géographie, pour l’étude et l'emploi des documents du moyen âge (Paris 1889) 55, 56; Ginzel, F. K., Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie III (Leipzig 1914) 136; the Table gives only 29 days for lunar Aug., July 19 to Aug. 17 in yr. I, and in yr. III, July 27 to Aug. 25.Google Scholar
13 This is clearest in Simeon and Malchus; cf. infra at nn. 25, 84.Google Scholar
14 Tabari (cit. supra, n. 8) 407f., 420-22; cf. following note.Google Scholar
15 The Persian War of the Emperor Maurice (582-602), Part I. The Chronology with a Brief History of the Persian Calendar (Cath. Univ. Amer. Byzantine Studies 1; Washington 1939) Ch. 1. The reader will find there all necessary information. On pp. 12f. is discussed the Nisan 1 of Nöldeke, Tabari 412f. The date for the coronation of Sapor I, suggested only tentatively in Persian War, has since been proven certain by Ensslin; cf. infra, at nn. 63, 69. To the bibliography in Persian War, n. 1, add: Nyberg, H. S., Texte zum Mazdayasnischen Kalender (Uppsala Univ. Årsskrift 1934); Lewy, H., ‘Le calendrier perse,’ Orientalia 10 (1941) 1-64; cf. infra at n. 70.Google Scholar
16 ‘Acta S. Mar Abdul Masich,’ ed. with intr., transl. and nn. by Corluy, J., Anal. Boll. 5 (1886) 51; ‘La passion arabe de S. Abd al-Masih,’ ed. with intr., transl. and nn. by Peeters, P., ibid. 44 (1926) 280, 291, 340. For the eras, cf. infra at nn. 54ff. Note that Oct. 1 is only an approximation for Era Sel.Google Scholar
17 144 Ass. Cf. infra at n. 55.Google Scholar
18 Acta MM et SS, ed. Bedjan, Paul (Paris and Leipzig 1890-97) II 603 (Skehan).Google Scholar
19 III 477 Bedjan (Skehan). For the feast on the first Friday of the Dedication, Wright, W., Catalogue Syriac MSS Brit. Mus. I (London 1870) 187; Idem, Catalogue Syriac MSS Univ. Cambr. I (Cambridge 1901) 184.Google Scholar
20 La légende de Mar Bassus martyr persan, ed. with intr., transl. and nn. by Chabot, J.-B. (Paris 1893) 7, 49.Google Scholar
21 IV 166 Bedjan (Skehan).Google Scholar
22 242, 256 Ass.; 150, 162 Braun. They have emended freely. Nöldeke, , Tabari gives the correct reading; cf. Persian War 18. Ass. 241 tells us himself that he has altered the MS. Bedjan II 557 agrees with Ass. word for word (Skehan). Devos, P., ‘Le dossier hagiographique de S. Jacques l'Intercis,’ Anal. Boll. 71 (1953) 177 (par. 44), translates Bedjan. Peeters’ objections, Anal. Boll. 61 (1943) 283f., are a non sequitur, as I show, infra at n. 33.Google Scholar
23 Hoffmann, G., Auszüge aus syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer (Abh. für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 7.3; Leipzig 1880) 9–16. The date, 9 Sapor II, is given on p. 9. On p. 13 it is related that the king's letter arrived on Thursday and on the 12th day after the discovery of the martyrs. The martyrdom took place on the 15th day after their discovery (p. 16). They died on II Kanun 12 (ibid.). If day 12 was Thursday, day 15 was Sunday.Google Scholar
24 V 467f. Bedjan (Skehan).Google Scholar
25 No Semitic lunar calendar would ever have a Nisan so deep in the post-Pentecostal season. This synchronism rules out definitively Nöldeke's hypothesis of a lunisolar calendar in the acts; cf. supra at nn. 13f.Google Scholar
26 50, 55, 58 Hoffmann; 179, 184, 187 Braun. Cf. Nöldeke, , Tabari 424; and Persian War 18. Cf. also supra at n. 12. Peeters’ objections, loc. cit. (supra n. 22) 283, are likewise answered infra at nn. 33, 91ff.Google Scholar
27 234, 236 Ass.; Nöldeke 421; Persian War 18. For the basic fallacy in Peeters’ objections, ibid. 284, cf. infra n. 33. His criticism, otherwise, is, to say the least, trifling. The hagiographer first gives the year of the saint's death, then recapitulates his long trials beginning under Yezdegerd I, and finally notes the day of his death. In this perfectly legitimate method of developing the narrative, Peeters finds a reason for rejecting out of hand the clear, positive statement of the text that the martyrdom took place on Saturday, I Teshri 10, 2 Bahram V. Again, in connection with the pit or cave in which Mihrsapor was sealed up alive, the writer reports some local folklore; he doesn't assume responsibility for it, but says explicitly that he is merely reporting it. This Peeters describes as ‘conditions de la couleur la plus fortement légendaire’! Google Scholar
28 67 Hoffmann; ‘Historia S. Mar Pethion M.,’ ed. with intr., transl. and nn. by Corluy, J., Anal. Boll. 7 (1888) 41. Cf. infra, n. 38.Google Scholar
29 Geschichte des Mar Abdisho und seines Jüngers Mar Qardagh, ed. with intr., transl. and nn. by Feige, H. (Kiel 1890) 53, 54; ‘Acta Mar Kardaghi,’ ed. with intr., transl. and nn. by Abbeloos, J. B., Anal. Boll. 9 (1890) 101; ‘Le martyrologe de Rabban Sliba.’ ed. with intr., transl. and nn. by Peeters, P., Anal. Boll, 27 (1908) 179.Google Scholar
30 24, 25, 26, 27 Hoffmann; cf. infra at n. 73. Hoffmann (25 n. 188, 26 n. 202) suggests II Teshri 17 as the date of both the first group and Anastasius, but this goes against the text. For the lacuna in the MS, cf. Bedjan IV 231 (Skehan).Google Scholar
31 Infra at nn. 68ff.Google Scholar
32 These martyrs are arranged alphabetically above to eliminate cross-references in the following discussion. Names not mentioned above are indicated by the addition of the BHO listing, e.g., Narses (BHO 786).Google Scholar
33 Naturally, the converse holds also, namely, if you prove that the date isn't correct, you don't thereby prove that it isn't Persian. Yet, this is the general line of attack adopted by Peeters in his rejection of my dissertation; cf. supra, nn. 22 and 27. If we apply the same reasoning to the Julian calendar, the non sequitur becomes apparent immediately. Thus, suppose that some Italian chronicle mentioned that Constantine the Great died on Friday, July 15, 326. The synchronism is correct for the Julian calendar. Yet, the date is wrong in the sense that Constantine certainly did not die on that day. But nobody would conclude that, therefore, the date isn't Julian; he'd simply conclude that the Julian date is wrong. In other words, the inaccuracy of the date doesn't affect the nature of the calendar involved. Or, to make this illustration parallel with what is said above, the mathematics of the calendar demonstrate that Julian July 15, 326 fell on Friday, and how would one demonstrate that it wasn't Friday by showing that Constantine didn't die on that day? Obviously, these two things have nothing to do with each other. Consequently, the only inference to which Peeters is entitled from his premises is that the Persian dates are mistaken and must, then, have been calculated. Actually, he seems to believe that the synchronisms are pure chance; but chance is ruled out by the fact that virtually all the synchronisms in the acts fit the Persian calendar and no other. Now, my aim in the dissertation was quite different from what it is here; there I was interested only in showing that the Persian calendar was the calendar of the acts, and whether the Persian dates were to be regarded as original or artificial was a matter of perfect indifference to me.Google Scholar
34 E.g., James, and Azad, (BHO 423) are said to have died on ‘Nisan 14, the day of the Lord's Crucifixion’; cf. Peeters, P., ‘Le « Passionnaire d'Adiabène »,’ Anal. Boll. 43 (1925) 287; cf. infra at nn. 82ff.Google Scholar
35 The weekday, for instance, does not appear in any ‘lunar’ acts, except Simeon bar Sabbae and Abdas and compp. (BHO 5) (162, 163 Ass.).Google Scholar
36 198, 205 (Acepsimas), 106 (cf. 109) (MM 120) Ass.; 129, 136 (Acepsimas), 97 (cf. 99) (MM 120), 145 (Narses) Braun; 37 (Narses) Hoffmann. Such general references as in Jacobus Notarius (BHO 412) (171 Braun), ‘At the time of the two Teshri's when the king left his summer residence,’ present no problem. Here the months are simply synonyms in the author's mind for the turn of the year, and are, of course, additions by him.Google Scholar
37 For Jac. Int., Assemani 237-9; Peeters (supra, n. 29) 169. For Shahdost, , p. 91 Ass.; 96 Braun; Les versions grecques des actes des martyrs persans sous Sapor II, ed. with intr., transl. and nn. by Delehaye, H. (PO 2; Paris 1907) 450.Google Scholar
38 The acts of Pethion are interwoven into a continuous story with those of Yazdin (BHO 434), Adurhormizd (BHO 25) and Anahid. The eras given at the beginning are 759 Sel., 223 Sass., 9 Yezdegerd II (II 559 Bedjan) (Skehan). Yazdin died earliest, Elul 21 (p. 565); next, Adurhormizd was martyred, Nisan 25, 9 Yezdegerd II (p. 582); then Anahid, and finally Pethion (p. 629, with var. lect., Wednesday of 10 Yezdegerd). (No year is assigned for Yazdin.) Some MSS have only the Passion of Pethion by itself, but this has simply been cut off from the above complex. This is evident from the opening sentence: ‘And after a few days the same Mobedanmobed gathered a secret conference of the mobeds’ (61 and n. 527 Hoffmann). The narrative states later that Pethion was executed at the same place as the daughter of Adurhormizd (p. 65).Google Scholar
39 Cf. Chabot, , Légende de Mar Bassus (cit. supra n. 20) 8–10, with Hoffmann's Saba, pp. 23f.; cf. also Baumstark, A., Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922) 236f.Google Scholar
40 Its author was Gabriel of Siarzur (9 Hoffmann), for whom cf. Baumstark, , op. cit. 222. I don't mean to imply here that Mahdukht's date is necessarily incorrect; it, too, may have been a traditional date reduced to the Julian calendar from the Persian at the time of the transition. However, any informed writer like Gabriel could have computed the synchronism of the Julian reckoning with the weekday as easily as we ourselves can — so you have no proof one way or the other.Google Scholar
41 Of the personalities enumerated in the next sentence, Augin and Malchus were fourth-century monks, Bassus and Berichiesus fourth-century martyrs, Mihrsapor a martyr under Bahram V, and Jacobus Intercisus and MM of Karkha martyrs under Yezdegerd II. On our list, only Abdas and Simeon bar Sabbae have the designation ‘lunar.’ Badai (BHO 130), though with a ‘lunar’ dating, may not belong under Sapor II — a possible exception; cf. Peeters (supra, n. 34) 297 n. 7.Google Scholar
42 Cf. infra at n. 49.Google Scholar
43 Die Chronik von Arbela, transl. with intr. and nn. by Sachau, E. (Abh. Akad. Berlin 1915 No. 6) 72; Chronica eccl. Arbelensis, transl. with intr. and nn. by Zorell, F. (Orientalia Christiana 8.4; Rome 1927) 178.Google Scholar
44 78, 79 Sachau; 184, 185 Zorell. The acts add ‘lunar’; cf. Peeters, , loc. cit. 268 (John) and 271f. (Abraham).Google Scholar
45 75 Sachau; 181 Zorell; Histoire nestorienne inédite (Histoire nestorienne inédite), ed. with transl. and nn. by Scher, A. and Périer, J. (PO 4; Paris 1908) 300.Google Scholar
46 Synodicon orientale, ed. with intr., transl. and nn. by Chabot, J.-B. (Notices et extraits 37; Paris 1902) 257f.; Braun, O., Das Buch der Synhados (Stuttgart and Vienna 1900) 11.Google Scholar
47 75 Sachau; 181 Zorell.Google Scholar
48 Nöldeke 14 (the reduction on p. 411 must be corrected in accordance with the Revised Tabel in Persian War 22).Google Scholar
49 For Cosmogony: Andreas, F. C. - Henning, W., ‘Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch Turkestan,’ Sb. Akad. Berlin 1932, pp. 188 n. 2, 189 n. 1; Nyberg, , op. cit. (supra n. 15) 57, 76. Cf. Persian War 16f.; supra n. 15 and infra nn. 56, 61. The reader will find a veritable Mani encyclopedia in Puech, H.-Ch., Le manichéisme: son fondateur, sa doctrine (Musée Guimet, Bibl, de diffusion 56; Paris 1949), which has supplied much of the information used here; cf. 138f. nn. 210, 216. Google Scholar
50 Tabari 412f.Google Scholar
51 Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Oriental Inst. Univ. Chicago, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24; Chicago 1942). The correctness of the reconstruction even down to 224 A.D. is proven by the synchronism, infra at n. 62. For another example of the accuracy of the Table, cf. Johnson, Jotham, Dura Studies (Thesis, Univ. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 1932) 1f. (for 176 A.D.). The last date for the beginning of a new cycle is 33 A.D.; therefore, 240 A.D. was Year XVIII with Nisannu 1 around Apr. 12 or 13. In 240 the conjunction occurred about 10 p.m. at Babylon on Apr. 9 (lunar Apr. 10), and the earliest possible date for Nisannu 1 was (lunar) Apr. 11. Of course, since the calendar was fixed by observation of the new moon, Nisannu 1 might actually have been a day or so later, as is true in the instance cited infra at n. 62. For Addaru 1, 273, the conjunction took place on Mar. 6, 7:20 p.m. or thereabout at Babylon with (lunar) Mar. 8 as the earliest Addaru 1; so Addaru 4 had to fall later in the week than Monday, Mar. 10. To calculate the conjunction, I use the Tables in Schram, R., Kalendariographische und chronologische Tafeln (Leipzig 1908) xxxiiif., 356ff., which may be a half-hour off.Google Scholar
52 Manichaean Psalm-Book II, tr. Allberry, C. R. C. (Manichaean MSS in Chester Beatty Coll. 2; Stuttgart 1938) 17. In Manichäische Homilien, tr. Polotsky, H. J. (Manichäische Hdschr. d. Sammlung Chester Beatty 1; Stuttgart 1934) 60, the date 8 Emshir is given for Mani's arrest 26 days before his death. As the epagomenae preceded Shahrevar, his imprisonment actually occurred on Amurdhat 13, so 8 Emshir is not original but a calculation, and it is significant that it is found in none of the other sources; cf. Puech (supra n. 49), who quotes all.Google Scholar
53 Persian War 9.Google Scholar
54 Tabari 402–7.Google Scholar
55 Higgins, M. J., ‘Chronology of the Fourth-Century Metropolitans of Seleucia-Ctesiphon,’ Traditio 9 (1953) 86f., 98.Google Scholar
56 McDowell, R. H., Coins from Seleucia on the Tigris (Univ. Michigan Studies, Humanistic Ser. 37; Ann Arbor 1935) 147–53; Johnson, , op. cit. (supra n. 51) 8-11; Parker-Dubberstein, , Babylonian Chronology 2f.Google Scholar
57 Tabari 411, who knew of only one instance of Era Sass., that found in Simeon (infra at n. 67). Subsequent publication, however, has brought to light two more, Pethion (supra at n. 28) and Saba (BHO 1029) (78 Hoffmann). Of the three, Simeon alone provides a true synchronism, the others being ‘conflations’ (cf. infra at nn. 76ff.).Google Scholar
58 Supra at nn. 19ff.Google Scholar
59 ‘Dates manichéennes dans les chroniques syriaques,’ Mélanges syriens offerts à M. René Dussaud II (Paris 1939) 596–601; on pp. 596f. he cites the Syriac chronicles. Cf. Chronicon Edessenum , tr. Guidi, I. (Chr. min. 1 CSCO 2; Paris 1903) 4.Google Scholar
60 Ghirshman, R., ‘Inscription du monument de Chapour Ier à Chapour,’ Revue des arts asiatiques (Annales du Musée Guimet) 10 (1936) 126, to which Christensen adds a note. Cf. CAH 12 (Cambridge 1939) 109, and make the necessary corrections; cf. infra at nn. 67, 6 8 Google Scholar
61 Albiruni, , Chronology of Ancient Nations, tr. Sachau, E. (London 1879) 121.11–3, 190. 37-41; Kephalaia, ed. and tr. Ibscher, H. (Manichäische Hdschr. der Staatlichen Museen Berlin 1; Stuttgart 1940) 15.27ff.; the Fihrist is quoted in Puech op. cit. (supra n. 59) 598, 599, and Nöldeke, , Tabari 412; cf. supra n. 49 and infra at n. 69. Taqizadeh, S. H., ‘The Early Sasanians: Some Chronological Points which Possibly Call for Revision,’ Bull. School Oriental and African Studies Univ. London 11 (1943) 14f., contends that Mani had not completed his 24th year by Nisan 1, 240. In the first place, we don't know how he reckoned his age. In those days people may, for instance, have made their years concurrent with the calendar. The only modern analogy that I can think of is that a registered thoroughbred is regarded as a year old on the Jan. 1 succeeding its birth no matter how late in the year it is foaled. Certainly, it was on this principle that regnal years were counted, and how can anybody be sure that Mani didn't follow the same principle? In the second place, he was born on Nisannu 8; cf. Puech, , Le manichéisme 33. Presumably, he would regard religious Nisan-Fravartin 8 as his birthday, just as we transfer anniversaries from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar without reducing them, e.g., Washington's birthday, Febr. 22 O.S. In that event, he lacked only a week of completing his 24th yr. on Nisan 1, 240, and to reject the testimony of Fihrist for such a trifle would seem to me unjustified.Google Scholar
62 ChrArb 61 Sachau, 167 Zorell; cf. supra at nn. 48, 51. The conjunction took place on Apr. 6, 224 approximately at noon at Babylon; however, as the synchronism shows, the new moon was not caught sight of until after sunset of Apr. 8 (lunar Apr. 9).Google Scholar
63 Zu den Kriegen des Sassaniden Schapur I (Sb. Akad. Munich, 1947 No. 5; 1949) 5–13; Zos. 1.17.2 is quoted on pp. 11f.Google Scholar
64 Agathias 4.24 p. 259 Bonn; Edessenus, Jacobus, Chronicon, tr. Brooks, E. W. (Chr. min. 3 CSCO 6; Paris 1905) 212; Agapius of Menbidj, Kitab al- Unvan , tr. Vasiliev, A. A. (PO 7; Paris 1911) 524f.; Nisibenus, Elias, Opus chronologicum I, tr. Brooks, E. W. (CSCO 63; Paris 1910) 45; Syrus, Michael, Chronique , tr. Chabot, J.-B. I (Paris 1899) 188; cf. Gregory Abu'l Faraj Bar-Hebraeus, Chronography, tr. Wallis Budge, E. A. (Oxford 1932) 55; Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, tr. Chabot, J.-B. (CSCO 109; Paris 1937) 108. Cf. Ensslin, CAH 12.127.Google Scholar
65 Albiruni, , op. cit. (supra n. 61); on the state of the text, p. xiv. For the Fihrist, cf. Puech, , op. cit. (supra n. 59) 599. For Era Sel. in the quotations from Mani, , supra n. 56.Google Scholar
66 Cf. supra at nn. 60, 63. Debevoise, N. C., Political History of Parthia (Chicago 1938) 262–9; von Gutschmid, A., Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer (Tübingen 1888) 160-3, cf. 154 at n. 3 and 156 at n. 3; McDowell, , op. cit. (supra n. 56) 200; Ensslin, CAH 12.126.Google Scholar
67 Cf. supra n. 60; Nöldeke, , Tabari 410f.Google Scholar
68 Ibid. 403, 413, 414f.; Sprengling, M., Third Century Iran: Sapor and Kartir (Chicago 1953) 49f. (Make the necessary correction in Persian War 17 n. 64.) Google Scholar
69 Tabari 409, 412; cf. supra at nn. 50f., 60, 62-64, 66. Taqizadeh, , loc. cit. (supra n. 61); Honigmann, E. - Maricq, A., Recherches sur les Res Gestae Divi Saporis (Mémoires Acad. de Belgique 47.4; Brussels 1953) 30f., 37. On p. 36, n. 1, he rejects my Persian War on the basis of Peeter's review. As to the review, caveat emptor. Google Scholar
70 Lewy, H., loc. cit. (supra n. 15) 25 n. 2, 27, 29 n. 5, 35, 38, 41, 48; Nöldeke, , Tabari 407 n. 2, Cf. supra at nn. 49, 62.Google Scholar
71 Supra at nn. 5, 45.Google Scholar
72 Vosté, J. M., ‘L'ère de l'Ascension de Notre-Seigneur dans les manuscrits nestoriens,’ Orientalia Christiana 7 (1941) 233–50, gives a good account of this era in the Syriac MSS, as also a good bibliography for its use by the Greek chronicles.Google Scholar
73 As a matter of fact, the Persian Ab (Amurdhat) 16 fell on Friday, Jan. 10, 363, and thus synchronizes with Sel. 674, but this is a mere coincidence. The narrative may be pure legend, but the figure, 12 yrs. 8 mos., whether a fiction or a reality, is conclusive evidence that the author associated Saba's martyrdom with a year long after the campaign against Bezabde and the death of Jovian; this excludes 363 and will agree only with 373 among the eras mentioned in the text.Google Scholar
74 IV 258.Google Scholar
75 E.g., Nöldeke, , Tabari 411 n. 1; Peeters, , Anal. Boll 56.124.Google Scholar
76 695-705, where he tries to find some event to correspond to every era.Google Scholar
77 134 Ass.; 110 Braun; compare Hoffmann 24 and n. 177.Google Scholar
78 163, 169 Braun; 39, 42f. Hoffmann.Google Scholar
79 Tabari, 422.Google Scholar
80 Supra at n. 34.Google Scholar
81 Supra at nn. 5, 45, 71. 82 In the Short Recension; cf. supra at n. 4.Google Scholar
83 This translation I owe to the kindness of Rev. A. Vaschalde, since deceased. Father Skehan has been good enough to furnish me with the following transcription of the Syriac: ‘men ‘erubtā gēr d'arba‘sere bešett sa‘in danefag paigdānā hānā ‘edammā lehadb ešabba'hrenā dešabbetā detartēn dePenteqostā, dehāwēn yawmātā ‘esrā.’ The Syriac words for Nisan and lunar are ‘Nisan’ and ‘badesahrā.’ The reader can see for himself that, as Father Vaschalde said to me: ‘There's nothing about Nisan and nothing about lunar in the Syriac.' Google Scholar
84 Assemani 50 n. 2 explains Pentecost as the season from Easter to Pentecost. But this contains only one week of Sundays (seven Sundays). How then could the text speak of a second Sunday of a second week? Google Scholar
85 Supra at n. 5.Google Scholar
86 Eusebii Pamphili Chronici Canones latine vertit, adauxit, ad sua tempora produxit S. Eusebius Hieronymus, ed. Fotheringham, J. K. (London 1923) 318. For Aphraates, supra, n. 7.Google Scholar
87 Modern scholars take this for granted anyhow; cf. Peeters (supra n. 6) 136 n. 1.Google Scholar
88 Supra at nn. 34ff.Google Scholar
89 E.g., the Long Recension adds the touches that Simeon was beheaded at the ninth hour and that the sun was darkened (957 Kmosko; 56 Braun); similar details are invented in the acts of Grighor (84, 86 Hoffmann).Google Scholar
90 Hist. eccl. 2.9-11; the Great Slaughter takes place a year after Simeon's death (ibid. 11) — a trait distinctive of the Short Recension; cf. supra at nn. 2-4.Google Scholar
91 Wright, , Brit. Mus. Cat. (supra n. 19) I 185–8: 13th Fri., Feast of the Congregation; 13th Sat., Simeon; 14th Fri., Qardag. Simeon has here been transferred to Sat. because of the local feast. (Written at Mosul, 1014-84 A.D., ibid. 187f.) Ibid. 192f.: 13th Fri., Simeon; 14th Fri., Qardag. (Written 1206/7 according to the practice of Beth Abe, the famous monastery founded in the seventh century near Mosul and connected so closely with Ishoyabh III.) Idem, Cambr. Cat. I 178f.: 13th Fri., Simeon; 14th Fri., Qardag. (Written in 1607 and contains the calender of the monastery of Mar Abraham and Mar Gabriel at Mosul, ibid. 163.) Ibid. II 956: 13th Fri., Simeon; Qardag omitted. (Written in 1696-97 at Mosul, p. 958.) Sachau, E., Verzeichnis d. syr. Hdschr. d. k. Bibl. Berlin I (Berlin 1899) 172f.: 13th Fri., Simeon. (Colophon lost; s. xvii.). Forshall, J., Cat. MSS or. Mus. Brit. I (London 1838) 31: 13th Fri., Simeon. (S. xiii, ibid. 29.) Assemani, E. S. and J. S., Bibl. Vat. Cat. (supra n. 3) II 194: 13th Fri., Simeon. (S. xii, ibid. 195.) Ibid. 464: 13th Fri., Simeon; 14th Fri., Qardag. (Written 1537 A.D. and contains calendar of monastery of Abraham, Mar and Gabriel, Mar, ibid. 466.) Ibid. 475: 14th Fri., Qardag; Simeon omitted. (Same monastery, 1562, p. 476.) Ibid. III 529: 13th Fri. (‘fer. iv’ is an obvious misprint for ‘fer. vi’), Simeon. (Written near Mosul in 1682, ibid. 530.) Assemani, J. S., Bibl or. III 2 (Rome 1728) 380-6, prints the whole of the second Vat. MS cited above and says (380) that it was made official for the Persian Church by Ishoyabh III (about 650 A.D.).Google Scholar
92 The legend makes Qardag governor from the Diyala River to Nisibis, the region including both Beth-Garmai and Adiabene (15, 16, 17 Abbeloos; 34 Feige). For the fair: 102 Abbeloos; 53f., 54f. Feige. Qardag and Simeon died on the same day of the ecclesiastical year, i.e., 14th Fri., but not, of course, of the civil calendar.Google Scholar
93 For the acts, 58 Hoffmann; for ChrArb 87 Sachau; 192 Zorell. The chronicle is not so detailed as the Passion, but it gives the date, saying that Peroz died in the same year, 484 A.D. Furthermore, the chronicle calls the metropolitan of Karkha John, but the Passion, Maron; this is an obvious textual variant, either Maron arising from an abbreviation of Mar John, or, vice versa, being mistaken for one.Google Scholar
94 Supra at n. 26.Google Scholar
95 The virgin martyrs under Sapor II were put to death at a locality called Beth Titta (47 Hoffmann), as were many under Yezdegerd II (53, 54, 55). This was the site of the Great Martyrium built later by Maron (58 and n. 411). Exception has been taken to the reliability of the acts of Karkha, but a writer, reporting on the local shrines of his native city, and on the names and religious observances connected with those shrines, constitutes the highest authority in these particulars.Google Scholar
96 Albiruni, , op. cit. (supra n. 61) 307; for the date, cf. Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur Suppl. I (Leiden 1937) 872.Google Scholar
97 MSS give the date in connection with the following explanation for the feast of Simeon on 13th Fri.: ‘Today the Catholicus and Patriarch Mar Simeon, disciple of the Catholicus Papa, and the Fathers who were crowned with him are commemorated. They were crowned on Good Friday 655 Sel. Their commemoration was transferred to Friday of the Confessors (Easter Friday), which is the general feast of all martyrs. This Friday is kept, however, because on it was consecrated an altar to Mar Simeon bar Sabbae in Karkha-de-Ledan.’ This comes from Assemani, , Cat. (supra n. 91) II 464; it is found also in Sachau I 172f., and Wright, Cambr. I 179 (Skehan). Assemani also quotes it several times in Bibl. or. I 3, III 2.383f. The earliest witness to the explanation is the Vat. MS of 1537 A.D. It is, in my opinion, to be rejected as a late conjecture to explain the mysterious feast in the middle of the Pentecost season. As we have seen above, the original anniversary was 14th Fri. There is no evidence that Qardag had any cult in Karkha-de-Ledan, no reason for supposing that the primitive feast would have been transferred there to the preceding week. Obviously, then, if the city in which Simeon was martyred consecrated a church to him, they would certainly have waited until his true anniversary, 14th Fr., and not anticipated the date.Google Scholar
98 Maris Amri et Slibae de Patriarchis Nestorianorum Commentarla, ed. and transl. by Gismondi, H. (Rome 1896-99) 4 (Mari), 11 (Amri).Google Scholar
99 75-7 Sachau; 181-3 Zorell. Peeters (supra n. 34) 268 argues that 35 Sapor was inferred from the acts of John (BHO 500). We need not discuss this difference of opinion here, because it would take too long and the conclusions of the present article wouldn't be affected by its decision.Google Scholar
100 IV 299. ChrS 297 gives the story of how Sapor's repulse from Nisibis by the prayers of James of Nisibis roused him to persecute the Christians. Then follows (297-99) the beginning of an account of Simeon's martyrdom interspersed with pious reflections reminiscent of those introducing Simeon's acts. Finally comes the isolated sentence quoted above with a resumption of the narrative about Simeon this time closely paralleling the Long Recension. The writer reflects the attitude of some contemporary source like Aphraates that regarded the war against Rome as an attack on Christianity. This is why he speaks of the ‘persecution’ in the neighborhood of Nisibis.Google Scholar
101 E.g., the Long Recension; cf. 789 Kmosko; 8 Braun; ChrS loc. cit.; ChrArb 74 Sachau; 179 Zorell.Google Scholar
102 Supra at n. 7.Google Scholar