The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret

J. Reidy, Joseph

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_5

Joseph J. Reidy²

14 Accesses

Abstract

Probably scholars would never know of either Socrates or Sozomen had it not been for their histories. Theodoret of Cyrrhus was, in contrast, a prominent figure in his day. Like Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodoret was both a bishop and a prolific writer. The theological controversies regarding Christ’s humanity formed a backdrop to Theodoret’s many polemical, exegetical, and biographical works, including his Religious History, a collection of hagiographies of Syrian monks, and his Ecclesiastical History.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
For two recent, detailed studies on Theodoret, see Theresa Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus: Bishop and Holy Man (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002) and Adam M. Schor, Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011).
2.
For a more detailed narrative of this era and description of the theologies involved, see Davis, Ecumenical Councils, 134–206.
3.
Treadgold, Early Historians, 158.
4.
Parmentier and Hansen, Theodoret, xcviii–cvi and Treadgold, Early Historians, 162–3. Lenski, “The Gothic Conversion,” 73 states bluntly: “Theodoret, always recognized as the most unreliable of the canonical fourth-century ecclesiastical historians, takes great liberties with his sources that result in serious distortions.” See also Luise Marion Frenkel, “Mustering Sources and Vindication: Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ Sources and the Models of Greek Ecclesiastical Historiography,” in O. Devillers and B.B. Sebastiani, eds., Sources et modèles des historiens anciens (Bordeaux: Ausonius, 2018): 349–358.
5.
Treadgold, Early Historians, 163; Frenkel, “Mustering Sources,” 352–3.
6.
Parmentier and Hansen, Theodoret, lxxxiii. See also Frenkel, “Mustering Sources,” 354–358.
7.
Ibid., lxxxiiii.
8.
Ibid. lxxxiv.
9.
Ibid., lxxiii–lxxx.
10.
Ibid., lxxxiv: “Im allgemeinen ist mein Eindruck der, daß sich die Ubereinstimmungen zwischen Theodoret und den andern Kirchenhistorikern weit besser durch die Benutzung gemeinsamer Quellen als durch directe Entlehnung erklären.”
11.
See n. 150 in Chap. 4 for parallels between Theodoret and Sozomen.
12.
Parmentier and Hansen, Theodoret, lxxxviii–lxxxix.
13.
Theodoret, Histoire des Moines de Syrie, ed. and trans. Pierre Canivet and Alice Leroy-Molinghen, in Sources Chrétiennes, vol. 234 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1977), 1.1–14, especially §11–12. See also Mango and Scott, Theophanes, 57, n. 8. One intriguing aspect to Theodoret’s account is its discrepancies with that provided in his Religious History; the Ecclesiastical History describes the river running through the city (ὅς μέσην διατέμνει τὴν πόλιν); his Religious History states that the river Mygdonius flows past (του̑ παραρρέοντος ποταμου̑) the city. Christopher S. Lightfoot believes that this confusion is due to a suburb outside the city that had spread over both banks. Regardless of the reason behind the two contrary descriptions, the difference may indicate that Theodoret used another source for his Ecclesiastical History; see Christopher S. Lightfoot, “Facts and Fiction: The Third Siege of Nisibis (A.D. 350),” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 37 (1988): 110–11.
14.
εἰ̑δε γὰρ ἐϕεστω̑τα τῳ̑ περιβόλῳ τινὰ τὸ βασιλικὸν περικείμενον σχη̑μα καὶ τη̑ς τε ἁλουργίδος του̑ τε δια δήματος αἴγλην ἐκπεμπομένην.
15.
For a detailed study of the third siege of Nisibis, see Lightfoot, “Third Siege” cited above.
16.
Richard W. Burgess, “The Dates of the First Siege of Nisibis and the Death of James of Nisibis,” Byzantion 69 (1999), 7–17 and Burgess, Studies, 232–238.
17.
Philostorgius, EH, 3.23.
18.
Burgess, Studies, 233.
19.
Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, 1.266. Since this is attributed to Ignatius of Melitene, it does not seem likely to have derived from the Lost Arian History and hence Bidez did not include it among the fragments. See Burgess, Studies, 272.
20.
Jerome, Chronicon, 234f; Chron. misc., 1130.14–18; Chron. 1234, 155.5–9.
21.
Paschal Chronicle, 533B (AD 337) and Theophanes, Chronicle, AM 5829, fragments (13) and (13f) respectively.
22.
Mango and Scott, 57, n. 8 trace out the various sources that seem to share a common source regarding Jacob and this siege. They conclude that Theophanes’ Chronicle here represents an introduction of Syrian material into Greek historiography. This is not surprising given George Syncellus’ background and research, but it is probably more accurate to speak of a reintroduction into Greek historiography. Burgess’ findings regarding the Continuatio make it more likely that the original source was indeed Greek before it entered the Syrian historiographical tradition. See Chapter 7.1.
23.
For more on Burgess’ argument and a reinterpretation of his evidence, see Chapter 7.1.
24.
Burgess, Studies, 234.
25.
Lightfoot, “Third Siege,” 124 notes that Ephraim’s Carmina Nisibena (13.19–21) speaks of Jacob’s spiritual assistance from beyond the grave, but that is another matter altogether.
26.
ὁ ϕαινόμενος τῳ̑ εἵδει Κωνστάντιος ὁ Αὔγουστος.
27.
Mango and Scott, Theophanes, 66, n. 2.
28.
For information on Vologeses, see Jean-Maurice Fiey, Nisibe: métropole syriaque orientale et ses suffragants des origines à nos jours, Vol. 54 (Louvain: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 1977), 29–33.
29.
Fiey, Nisibe, 32. For a brief biography of Ephrem and his close relationship with Basil of Caesarea, see Smith and Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, 137–44.
30.
For the significance of Nisibis to the Roman border and the influential role of its episcopate, see Lightfoot, “Third Siege,” 107–8; 124.
31.
M. Marôth, “Le siège de Nisibe en 350 après J.-Ch. d’après des sources syriennes,” Acta Antiqua Scientiarum Hungaricae 27 (1979), 240–41 suggests that Theodoret’s narrative drew on the carmina of Ephraem. This is, at first, a tempting solution to why the narratives of Theodoret and Theophanes (or rather, that of George Syncellus through Theophanes) have parallels; however, it would not explain the parallels seen between these two and the Paschal Chronicle. For this reason, it seems more likely that there is a source other than Ephraem that underlies all three and which was probably written in Greek. Chapter 7.2 suggests that this source is a lost martyrology that has its ties to the “Arian” material collected by Bidez though it is independent of the chronicle tradition apparently employed by, for example, the Chron. misc.
32.
That Theodoret was not utterly hostile to Constantius can be seen from the sections discussed below. Why then the minimization of his figure in this episode? For Theodoret, unlike Theophanes and the Paschal Chronicle, the siege account is more about the bishop Jacob than Constantius, and he probably minimizes the role played by the apparition in order to highlight the importance of episcopal leadership and intercession.
33.
For example, Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 209: Theodoret “transformed the raw material of his Ecclesiastical History to suit his own purposes more thoroughly than either Socrates or Sozomen.”
34.
Philostorgius, EH, 3.23.
35.
It is possible that Philostorgius added Jacob for reasons of his own and that Theodoret followed him. However, Parmentier’s belief that Theodoret did not rely heavily on the other ecclesiastical histories for his content would seem to minimize this possibility.
36.
However, see n. 35.
37.
Theophylact, Martyrion, PG 126, 160C; Parmentier, Theodoret, 179.
38.
Theophylact’s Martyrion was one of the sources that Bidez identified in his reconstruction; see Chapter 2.3.
39.
For a study of how fifth-century ecclesiastical historians portrayed Julian’s actions against Christians, see Penella, “Julian the Persecutor,” 31–43, especially 42–43 where he concludes that Theodoret emphasized Julian’s acts of violence against Christians more than the other ecclesiastical historians did.
40.
Chapter 7.2 suggests that this source may be a Lost Arian Martyrology and not the original lost chronicle envisioned by Josephn Bidez.
41.
Cf. Sozomen, EH, 3.17.3.
42.
Socrates, EH, 3.12–13.
43.
Rufinus, EH, 11.28.
44.
Cf., Gregory of Nazianzus, Or., 4.89; Theodoret, EH, 3.7; and Sozomen, EH, 5.10. Sozomen, 5.10.11 has the reference to Mark’s ears.
45.
Theodoret, EH, 3.7.10.
46.
For possible evidence that Theodoret, like Sozomen, used Gelasius, see Chap. 4, n. 132.
47.
μάρτυρος Βαβυλα̑ καὶ τω̑ν συναθλησάντων αὐτῳ μειρακίων.
48.
This discrepancy is also found in the Paschal Chronicle. See the discussion on fragment (1) in Appendix 1.
49.
For more on the Artemii Passio see the discussion on Theodoret 3.18.1 below.
50.
Artemii Passio §55 gives the additional detail that the martyr’s coffin was miraculously light and easy to transport.
51.
Sozomen does not mention Babylas’ young companions or any narrative of the martyrdom.
52.
See Michael Hanaghan, “Christian Visions and Sozomen’s Julian,” 177–8 for the moralistic significance of Gallus’ act of devotion within Sozomen’s narrative.
53.
Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 487; cf. John Chrysostom, De S. Babyla contra Julianum et gentiles, 12–15 (§67–86 in the Source Chrétiennes edition).
54.
Chrysostom, De S. Babyla, 15 (§80–81). It should also be noted that Sozomen mirrors the observations and sentiments expressed in the sermon’s description of the grove of Daphne in the previous sections.
55.
Parmentier, Theodoret, lxxxvii–lxxxix.
56.
Ibid., lxxxviii.
57.
Ibid., lxxxviii–lxxxix.
58.
See the discussion on fragment (35) in Appendix 1.
59.
Philostorgius, 7.10 notes that Elpidius, though he survives the events in Antioch, was known until his death as “the sacrificer.”
60.
Theodoret may have invented this scenario as a didactic trope regarding the influence of women; cf., Theodoret, EH, 2.3 (the fall of Constantius into “Arianism” because of the influence of his sister), and 4.12 (the perfidy of Valens’ wife leads him astray).
61.
Sozomen, EH, 5.8.1: ἐν ται̑ς ὑπερ του̑ δόγματος ὁμολογίαις ευδοκιμηκότα.
62.
Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 485.
63.
It is possible that John Chrysostom and Sozomen’s parallels regarding the grove at Daphne and the events surrounding Babylas’ relics also derived from Gelasius, but this would entail John’s knowledge of and access to a history that presumably saw only limited circulation. Such a scenario is not impossible, though it appears less likely.
64.
Lieu and Montserrat, From Constantine to Julian, 217–18. We need not here be concerned about the question of John the Monk’s identity, which is sometimes linked with John Damascene; see Bonifaz Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 5 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988), 185–87.
65.
Lieu and Montserrat, From Constantine to Julian, 217–18.
66.
For studies on Artemius, see Jürgen Drummer, “Fl. Artemius Dux Aegypti,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 21 (1971): 121–44 and Samuel N. C. Lieu, “From Villain to Saint and Martyr: The Life and After-life of Flavius Artemius, Dux Aegypti,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 20 (1996): 56–76.
67.
Paschal Chronicle, 549B (AD 363) and Theophanes, Chronicle, AM 5855 (AD 362/63). See Chapter 6.1 for more on Ammianus.
68.
See the study and translation of Virgil S. Crisafulli, John W. Nesbitt, and John F. Haldon, The Miracles of St. Artemios: A Collection of Miracle Stories by an Anonymous Author of Seventh-century Byzantium (New York: Brill, 1997).
69.
Cyril Mango, “On the History of the Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at Constantinople,” Zograf 10 (1979), 41.
70.
Chapter 6.1 considers the narrative proposed by Ammianus Marcellinus.
71.
See Theresa Urbainczyk, “Observations on the Differences between the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen,” Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 46 (1997), 364–72, especially 366–69.
72.
Philostorgius, EH, 7.14 presents an account of the discovery of St. John’s Gospel in the excavated foundations of the Jewish Temple. Though an interesting story, it does not have any parallel among the other ecclesiastical historians and has an unknown origin.
73.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration Contra Julian, 5.3–4. Gregory speaks of a “temple” (ἱερόν) when he refers to the synagogue involved in this episode. See Sebastian P. Brock, “The Rebuilding of the Temple Under Julian: A New Source,” Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 108 (1976), 107.
74.
Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration, 5.4 and Sozomen, HE, 5.22.5.
75.
John Chrysostom, De S. Babyla, XXII (§119).
76.
Sebastian P. Brock, “A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of the Temple,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40 (1977), 267–86 and “A New Source,” 103–7.
77.
Brock, “A New Source,” 104. It would seem that the letter incorporates elements from a number of sources, including a letter from 419 which described another earthquake in the Palestinian region; see Levenson, “The Palestinian Earthquake,” 76–77.
78.
See Levenson, “The Ancient and Medieval Sources,” 427–434 and “The Palestinian Earthquake,” 73–78.
79.
Levenson, “The Palestinian Earthquake,” 67–73.
80.
Ibid., 74–75.
81.
ὑπερόριος γὰρ θείᾳ δίκᾳ ἀνῃρεθη; Mango and Scott, Theophanes, 83, n. k attribute this section to the “Hypothetical Arian.”
82.
Levenson, “The Ancient and Medieval Sources,” 435, n. 109.
83.
Levenson, “The Palestinian Earthquake,” 79–81.
84.
Cf., fragment (38a) and the Letter of St. Cyril §11; see also Levenson, “The Ancient and Medieval Sources,” 455, n. 209.
85.
For Ephrem and Gregory, see Levenson, “The Palestinian Earthquake,” 62–63.
86.
See Rufinus, EH, 10.39. Rufinus spent some time living in Jerusalem around 380, a period prior to the composition of both his history and that of Gelasius; it seems quite possible that his account of the rebuilding derives from the traditions that he encountered there. The theory that Gelasius would include the (inaccurate) earthquake tradition may seem implausible; perhaps those upon whose testimony Gelasius relied may have emphasized traditions that had arisen in order to help the fame of their city and see.
87.
For his travels, see Treadgold, Early Historians, 126–27.
88.
Levenson, “The Ancient and Medieval Sources,” 424. He believes Sozomen used Philostorgius or the Lost Arian History, but it is also possible that he used Gelasius.
89.
Ibid., 422, n. 51.
90.
Ibid., 423, n. 55.
91.
Rivkah Fishman-Duker, “Anti-Jewish Arguments in the Chronicon Paschale,” in Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics, ed. Ora Limor and Guy Stroumsa (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996), 114, suggests that the chronicler’s failure to report the attempt to rebuild the Temple “may be related to his sources for this period.”
92.
Levenson, “Ancient and Medieval Sources,” 439–40.
93.
Treadgold, Middle Historians, 41–42.
94.
Cf., Philostrogius, EH, 2.17 and Theodoret, EH, 1. 33. Unlike Rufinus, Socrates, and Sozomen, Theodoret and Philostorgius both reference a statue of Constantine in Constantinople. Such details may reflect their mutual direct use of the Lost History.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA
Joseph J. Reidy

Authors

Joseph J. Reidy
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

J. Reidy, J. (2024). The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret. In: The ‘Lost Arian History’ in Late Antique and Medieval Historiography. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_5
Published: 11 May 2024
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-55443-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-55444-5
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics