Sonderdruck aus

Orientalia Christiana
Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag

Herausgegeben von
Peter Bruns und Heinz Otto Luthe

2013
Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden
Inhalt

Vorwort .................................................................................................................. IX
Lebenslauf .............................................................................................................. XI
Schriftenverzeichnis .............................................................................................. XIII
Tabula gratulatoria ................................................................................................ XXIX
Anton Baumstark
Der bärtige Christustypus und die altchristliche Ausschmückung
der Kreuzigungsstelle auf Golgotha ..................................................................... 1
Reinhold Baumstark
Ein Blick zurück auf Forschungen Anton Baumstarks zur Kunst
des Christlichen Orients........................................................................................ 13
Alessandro Bausi
Liste etiopiche di vescovi niceni ........................................................................... 33
Azat Bozoyan
La réception du droit dans l’Arménie Cilicienne ................................................ 75
Heinzgerd Brakmann – Tinatin Chronz
Eine Blume der Levante. Zu den Anfängen der modernen Jakobosliturgie .... 85
Sebastian Brock
Manuscripts copied in Edessa .............................................................................. 109
Peter Bruns
Die Gedichte des Bischofs Rabbula von Edessa ................................................. 129
Alain Desreumaux
Profession de foi et apocryphes : la lumière comme concept chrétien .............. 145
Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan
Die armenische Version des Polykarp-Martyriums ............................................ 155
Rifaat Ebied
The Syriac Encyclical Letter of Athanasius II, Patriarch of Antioch,
which forbids the Partaking of the Sacrifices of the Muslims............................. 169
Sidney Griffith
˓Īsā ibn Zur˓ah on the Abrogation of Mosaic Law and the Redundancy
of the Islamic Sharī˓ah ........................................................................................... 175
Theresia Hainthaler
Christus im Fleisch, der Gott über alles ist (Röm 9,5) – Katholikos Timotheus I.
(780–823) und sein Brief an die Mönche von Mar Maron .................................. 195
Andreas Juckel
Bemerkungen zur Peschitta-Ausgabe der British and Foreign Bible Society ... 207
George A. Kiraz
Canons Prepared by Afram Barsoum in 1927 and Other Legal Documents ..... 225
Thomas Koonammakkal
Syro-Malabar History and Traditions ................................................................... 259
Manfred Kropp
Zwei Dokumente aus dem Archiv des äthiopischen Hofrichters
liq Aṭqu (erste Hälfte des 19. Jh. in Gondar) ....................................................... 279
Heinz Otto Luthe
Diaspora als Chance?............................................................................................. 309
Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala
Gharshunitica – Abgar and Jesus’ Letters in the Arabic version
of Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle (Brit. Mus. Or. 4402 ff. 55v–56r) ................... 329
Franz-Christoph Muth
Der Hiobprolog des Johannes Chrysostomus nach der Syro-Hexapla .............. 347
Peter Nagel
Eine manichäische Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte ............................... 361
Angelika Neuwirth
Reclaiming a Paradise Lost – The Qur˒an in Conversation
with Jewish, Christian and Pagan Traditions ....................................................... 377
Andrew Palmer
The West-Syrian Monastic Founder Barṣawmo:
A historical review of the scholarly literature ...................................................... 399
István Perczel
Some New Documents on the Struggle of the Saint Thomas Christians
to Maintain the Chaldaean Rite and Jurisdiction ................................................ 415
Ute Possekel
Julianism in Syriac Christianity ............................................................................. 437
Piotr O. Scholz
Mani und die christliche Ikonizität – Eine Skizze ................................................ 459
Adel Sidarus
Alexandre le Grand chez les Coptes (recherches récentes et
perspectives nouvelles) ......................................................................................... 477
Harald Suermann
Heilsgeschichte und spirituelle Solidarität .......................................................... 497
Shabo Talay
Aus dem polemischen Genre des Syrischen: Die luqbal -Schriften von
Bar Ṣalībī und Bar Šūšan....................................................................................... 511
Martin Tamcke
Auf der Suche nach einer verlorenen Literatur. Erkundungen zum
ostsyrischen Schrifttum der „lutherischen Nestorianer“ .................................... 523
Tamar Tchumburidze
Hubert Kaufhold als Georgienforscher ............................................................... 533
Herman Teule
Gregory Bar ˓Ebrōyō and ˓Abdisho˓ Bar Brikhā: similar but different ............ 543
Jacob Thekeparampil
“May Your Name be Sanctified as it is Truly Holy”. From the Comments
on Abûn d-ba- šmayô by Jacob of Sarug ............................................................. 553
Carsten Walbiner
Die Bibliothek des Dair Mār Yūḥannā aš-Šuwair / Libanon ............................. 569
Dorothea Weltecke
Zum syrisch-orthodoxen Leben in der mittelalterlichen Stadt und zu den
Hūddōyē (dem Nomokanon) des Bar ˓Ebrōyō ................................................... 585
Dietmar W. Winkler
Zur Rezeption „Ökumenischer Konzilien“ am Beispiel der persischen
und armenischen Kirche ....................................................................................... 615
Gabriele Winkler
Neues über die Jakobus-Liturgie mit dem Schwerpunkt auf den jüngsten
Editionen und Kommentaren ............................................................................... 637
Youhanna Nessim Youssef
Relics in the Church of Theodore at Babylon al-Darag ..................................... 651
Bildanhang ............................................................................................................. 659
Karten ..................................................................................................................... 677
Autorenverzeichnis ............................................................................................... 682
 Ute Possekel

Julianism in Syriac Christianity

Introduction
Bishop Julian of Halicarnassus was exiled from his see by Emperor Justin in 518,
like many anti-Chalcedonian bishops. He took refuge in Alexandria. Julian’s theo-
logical conviction that the body’s corruptibility is a result not of nature, but of sin,
led him to maintain that Christ’s body, as being free of sin, could not possibly be
corruptible, even before the resurrection. His emphasis on the incorruptibility
(aphtharsia) of Christ’s body challenged widely held soteriological assumptions and
resulted in a fierce dispute with Patriarch Severus of Antioch, who was likewise an
exile in Egypt. The fact that Julian claimed to have found support for his teaching in
the writings of Severus himself did not help the matter,1 and a long and polemical
debate ensued: Severus composed several anti-Julianist treatises, to which Julian
vehemently responded.2

1 On this claim by Julian, see Aloys Grillmeier and Theresia Hainthaler (eds.), Christ in Chris-
tian Tradition, vol. 2/2: The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1995; first published as Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/2
[1989]), 80.
2 The theological writings of Julian are preserved only in fragments contained in the writings of
his opponents. Julian’s treatises include the Tomus; a second, expanded version of the Tomus;
the Apology; the Adversus blasphemias Severi; and the Disputatio adversus Achillem et Vic-
torem Nestorianos. The fragments are edited by René Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa con-
troverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ. Étude d’histoire litté-
raire et doctrinale suivie des fragments dogmatiques de Julien (texte syriaque et traduction
grecque) (Louvain: Smeesters, 1924). Fragments of a Sermo contra Manichaeos are edited with
Latin transl. by Rudolf Riedinger, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum (ser. 2), 1 (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1984), 332f. Only three letters by Julian are preserved intact, these are edited with
French transl. by Robert Hespel, Sévère d’Antioche, La polémique antijulianiste, CSCO 444–
445 / Syr. 104–105 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1964), 206–209 (text), 159–162 (transl).
For overviews on Julian and his theology, see Michael Penn, “Julian of Halicarnassus,” Gor-
gias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (2011), 236; Charles Kannengiesser and
Markus Stein, “Iulianus VI (Julianos von Halikarnassos),” RAC 19 (2001), 505–508; S. Müller-
Abels, “Julian von Halikarnaß,” Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, 3rd edition (1998),
407; Hans-Udo Rosenbaum, “Julianus von Halikarnassus,” Biographisch-bibliographisches
Kirchenlexikon 3 (1992), 792–794. A thorough discussion of Julian’s christology can be found in
Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse; Grillmeier and Hainthaler (eds.), Christ in Christian Tradition
2/2, 79–111. See also Robert P. Casey, “Julian of Halicarnassus,” Harvard Theological Review 19
(1926), 206–213. On Severus, see the recent study by Pauline Allen and C. T. R. Hayward, Severus
of Antioch, The Early Church Fathers (London: Routledge, 2004) (with further literature). On
the christology of the miaphysites, see Joseph Lebon, “La christologie du monophysisme syrien,”
in: Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 1: Der Glaube von Chalkedon, ed.
Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1951), 425–580.
438 Ute Possekel

One might assume that Severus’ lengthy refutations, coupled with the patriarch’s
high standing in the miaphysite community, would have soon put an end to the
Julianist movement. However, there is evidence to suggest that Julian’s followers,
known to their opponents as the “Aphthartodocetists” or “Phantasiasts,” spread
throughout the Near East, established their own hierarchy, and constituted for
centuries a rival miaphysite church community. Julianists could be found in Asia
Minor, Armenia, Syria, and Egypt (where the Julianist Gaianus even temporarily
occupied the patriarchal see). My focus here, however, will be on Julianism in the
Syriac-speaking regions.

The Spread of Julianism in the First Decade after the Death of Julian
The literary controversy between Julian and Severus can be dated fairly precisely to
the time from about 520 to the death of Julian in 527,3 and already in the following
year, 528, some of Julian’s letters as well as Severus’ refutations were available in a
Syriac version, produced by Bishop Paul of Kallinikos.4 Paul was elected to the epis-
copate no later than 509,5 and together with many other miaphysite leaders he was
exiled from his see in 519 by Justin. Paul must have realized the devastating poten-
tial of the theological dispute between Severus and Julian, and he might well have
been aware already in the 520s of a Julianist presence in the vicinity of Kallinikos
(the modern-day Raqqa), so that he immediately applied himself to the task of
translating into Syriac Severus’ anti-Julianist treatises and some relevant writings by
the detested opponent, Julian.6 The speed with which both Julian’s and Severus’
writings were translated testifies to the rapid spread of the movement.
Concrete evidence for the presence of Julianists in the diocese of Kallinikos
comes from a Syriac inscription that has been uncovered at Bir el-Gantari, a village
between Raqqa and Resh˓aina. This inscription, carved on two large, rectangular
stone stele, each with a decorative cross pattern at its apex, explicitly anathematizes
“all the Phantasiasts,” repudiating “anyone who does not confess that the Word,
which is from God, suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and arose

3 See Müller-Abels, “Julian von Halikarnaß,” 407.

4 Paul’s translation is dated in the colophon of ms. Vat. Syr. 140, fol. 145v. See Giuseppe Simone
Assemani, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus, vol. 3
(Rome: Ex Typographia Linguarum Orientalium, 1759), 223–232, esp. 232. This manuscript con-
tains a Syriac version of three letters by Julian, addressed to Severus; see Assemani, Catalogus,
223–225. See also Lucas van Rompay, “Pawlos of Kallinikos,” Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of
the Syriac Heritage (2011), 323–324. On Paul’s translation technique, see the study by Daniel
King, “Paul of Callinicum and his Place in Syriac Literature,” Muséon 120 (2007), 327–349.
5 Paul of Kallinikos was bishop in 509, according to a mosaic inscription found in Tall Bi˓a near
Raqqa / Kallinikos; he was exiled from his see in 519 by Justin. See van Rompay, “Pawlos of
Kallinikos,” 323.
6 What works exactly, besides Severus’ anti-Julianist writings, Paul translated, has been a matter
of scholarly discussion. See King, “Paul of Callinicum” and van Rompay, “Pawlos of Kallini-
kos,” 323f.
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 439

from the dead.”7 This inscription is not dated, but has been assigned to the sixth
century.8
Another early center of Julianism was the monastery of Mar Isaac in Gabbula, a
town located to the south-east of Aleppo in the Roman province Syria I.9 This was
an important monastic community that carried on an extensive correspondence: it is
the addressee of a lengthy letter from Jacob of Sarug (d. 521), and Simeon of Bet
Arsham sent his famous account of the martyrs of Nagran to Simeon abbot of Gab-
bula.10 In his Church History, Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor notes that the community
of Mar Isaac and its abbot, Simeon, while still “zealous for the faith” in the late 520s,
soon became “defiled with the heresy of Julian the Phantasiast.”11 It is perhaps this
Simeon who later was ordained as bishop for the Julianists. As will be seen, this
monastery of Mar Isaac in Gabbula constituted not only one of the earliest centers

7 Syriac text of the inscription with French transl. and description of the stelae in Paul Mouterde,
“Une inscription syriaque récemment trouvée en Haute-Djéziré,” Les Annales archéologiques
de Syrie 10 (1960), 87–92. The larger stele measures 103 cm by 30 cm. A color plate of this in-
scription can be found in Sebastian P. Brock and David G. K. Taylor (eds.), The Hidden Pearl:
The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage, vol. 2 (Rome: Trans World
Film Italia, 2001), 24, with a discussion of it on p. 33. See also Françoise Briquel Chatonnet and
Alain Desreumaux, “Les inscriptions syriaques de Turquie et de Syrie,” in: Les inscriptions sy-
riaques, ed. F. Briquel Chatonnet, M. Debié, and A. Desreumaux, Études syriaques 1 (Paris:
Geuthner, 2004), 15–27, here: 23. The stele is depicted on the title page of this volume.
8 Brock and Taylor (eds.), Hidden Pearl, vol. 2, 24, 33.
9 For the location of Gabbula, see Richard J. A. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and
Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), map p. 67 F4; see also map 6 in
Geoffrey Greatrex, Robert R. Phenix, Cornelia B. Horn et al. (eds.), The Chronicle of Pseudo-
Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity, Translated Texts for Historians 55
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011), 472.
10 Jacob of Sarug, Letter 19, ed. G. Olinder, Iacobi Sarugensis epistulae quotquot supersunt,
CSCO 110 / Syr. 57 (Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1952), 102–129. The letter by Simeon of Bet Arsham
is contained in Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, Church History 8.3, edited with Latin transl. E. W.
Brooks, Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori vulgo adscripta, 4 vols., CSCO 83–84, 87–88 /
Syr. 38–39, 41–42 (Paris: L. Durbecq, 1919–1924), here: CSCO 84 / Syr. 39, 64–74; English
transl. Greatrex, Phenix, Horn et al. (eds.), Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah, 285–293.
11 Ps.-Zachariah Rhetor, Church History 8.5d, ed. Brooks, CSCO 84 / Syr. 39, 81,14–17; English
transl. Greatrex, Phenix, Horn et al. (eds.), Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah, 306. Ps.-Zachariah
does not say when exactly these monks turned to Julianism. On the exile of miaphysite monastic
communities more generally, see Volker L. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Or-
thodox Church, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 125–
134. Patriarch Michael the Great also records this development, but states that only Simeon
adopted Julianist teachings after having been exiled. ‫ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܝܣܚܩ ܕܓܐܒܘܐܠ ܕܒܬܪܟܢ‬... ‫ܘܫܡܥܘܢ‬
‫ ܐܫܬܟܚ ܒܐܪܣܝܣ ܕܝܘܠܝܢܐ‬, Michael the Syrian, Chronicle IX 14, ed. Gregorios Yuhanna Ibrahim,
The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great (= vol. 1 of George A.
Kiraz [general ed.], Texts and Translations of the Chronicle of Michael the Great) (Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009), 270a, 1–3; also edited with French transl. J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de
Michel le Syrien, 4 vols. (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1899–1910; reprint: Brussels: Culture et Civilisa-
tion, 1963), vol. 2, 172 (transl.), vol. 4, 267 (text).
440 Ute Possekel

for the Julianist movement, but also one of its most long-lasting and vibrant ones,
flourishing still at the end of the eighth century.
An important source for the early spread of the Julianist movement is the Life of
John of Tella (482–538), composed by a certain Eliya.12 John grew up and was edu-
cated in Kallinikos and in 507 joined the nearby monastery of Mar Zakkai.13 He was
ordained as bishop of Tella (also known as Constantina) in 519,14 but deposed from
his see less than two years later in 521.15 Subsequently, John remained in hiding,
traveled secretly from place to place in upper Mesopotamia and Persia, distributed
the Eucharist,16 and ordained numerous priests and deacons to minister to the non-
Chalcedonians.17 The Julianists recur repeatedly in John’s Vita, although Eliya de-
liberately chooses to marginalize the subject, asserting emphatically: “I have little
time to mention those struggles which he [John] had on account of the schism which
occurred from those who held on to the fantastical doctrine of that Julian, who was
formerly bishop of Halicarnassus.”18 Eliya’s choice of the word “schism” (‫ )ܣܕܩܐ‬and
his reference to John’s ongoing struggles with the Julianists indicates that the fester-
ing conflict between the parties of Severus and of Julian had deeply divided the mia-
physite communities. By means of letters, John and his colleagues created a network
of non-Chalcedonian hierarchs and communities; and by letters to “all places,” as
the hagiographer put it, John tried to stem the tide of Julianism. In 532/533, John of
Tella took part in a delegation of miaphysite bishops to negotiate with Emperor
Justinian in Constantinople.19 John even wrote to the court of the Lakhmid ruler
Mundir III (d. 554), warning him of Julian’s teachings. According to Eliya, John’s re-

12 Edited with Latin transl. by E. W. Brooks, Vitae virorum apud monophysitas celeberrimorum,
CSCO 7–8 / Syr. 7–8 (Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1907). Information on John’s biography is pre-
served also in John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, edited with English transl. E. W.
Brooks, John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints: Syriac Text Edited and Translated,
3 vols., PO 17.1, 18.4, 19.2 (Paris: 1923–1925), here: PO 18.4, 513–526. For a short overview on
John of Tella, see Volker Menze, “Yuḥanon of Tella,” Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the
Syriac Heritage (2011), 447f.
13 The precise location of the Mar Zakkai monastery is not known, but some scholars believe it may
be identical with the monastery excavated at Tall Bi˓a. See for example M. Krebernik, “Schrift-
funde aus Tall Bi˓a 1990,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 123 (1991), 41–70.
14 Eliya, Life of John of Tella, ed. Brooks, 54,12–17.
15 Eliya, Life of John of Tella, ed. Brooks, 56,22–57,1.
16 See the discussion in Menze, Justinian, 158–165.
17 On John ordaining clergy, see Eliya, Life of John of Tella, ed. Brooks, 58,25–59,7. Eliya empha-
sizes that John proceeded to ordain non-Chalcedonian clergy only after permission had been
granted by the metropolitan and bishops in exile.
18 Eliya, Life of John of Tella, ed. Brooks, 62,13–16.
19 Eliya, Life of John of Tella, ed. Brooks, 59,8–60,11; 62,16–21. The debate is described in a doc-
ument edited with French transl. by F. Nau, Textes monophysites, PO 13.2 (Paris: Firmin-
Didot, 1919), 192–196. See also Jakob Speigl, “Das Religionsgespräch mit den severianischen
Bischöfen in Konstantinopel im Jahre 532,” AHC 16 (1984), 264–285.
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 441

lentless efforts brought many Julianists back into the Severan fold,20 but it remains
impossible to evaluate to what degree this claim may have been shaped by the hagio-
grapher’s wishful thinking.21
In the end, it was a Julianist monk (‫ )ܓܒܪܐ ܕܝܪܝܐ‬who caused the demise of the
former bishop of Tella: after being bribed, the hermit consented to betray the loca-
tion of John’s cell to his enemies.22 John had chosen his final hiding place at an un-
specified location on Persian territory, most likely in the northern region. Based on
the concern with Julianism that his Vita shows, it may be safe to assume that this
hermit was far from being the only one who had embraced the doctrines of the
“Phantasiast.” Indeed, the Julianist ˓Abdisho˓ – about whom more below – came
from the very same northern Mesopotamian region.
Evidently, within a decade of Julian’s death, his followers could be found
throughout the Syriac-speaking Near East and even deep into Sassanid Persia, in the
region of al-Ḥira, for which a Julianist bishop was ordained in the middle of the sixth
century. Regarding the region of al-Ḥira (also known as Ḥirta23), we can note that
Julianism persisted there well into the eight century, for Patriarch Timothy I (d. 823)
in a letter notes that “until now” Christians in the city Nagran near Ḥirta had “been
drawing the yoke of the wickedness of Julian.”24
It is noteworthy that the sources predominantly speak of Julianist monks or
hermits. We do not know to what extent lay Christians embraced Julian’s teachings,
but it may be safe to assume that if the local monastery, often the spiritual center of
Christian life, endorsed Julian’s teachings, so would at least some Christians in the
world. In addition, the concern with baptism exhibited in the ecclesiastical canons
indicates that Julianism impacted the larger Christian community beyond the mon-
astery walls.
John of Tella’s own writings reflect his concern with Julian’s theology. His Con-
fession of Faith, composed probably shortly before his death in 538, does not explic-
itly mention Julianism, but it refutes typically Julianist teachings, for example when
John writes that “not by phantasia or in appearance, and not by hallucination took

20 Eliya, Life of John of Tella, ed. Brooks, 62,20–21.

21 Eliya, Life of John of Tella, ed. Brooks, 62,16–63,4. From Eliya’s text it is clear that he speaks here
specifically of letters that address the problem of Julianism. It has been discussed by scholars
whether the Lakhmid king Mundir could have been a Christian, but this appears unlikely; see for
ex-ample Theresia Hainthaler, Christliche Araber vor dem Islam, Eastern Christian Studies 7
(Louvain: Peeters, 2007), 88–90. However, since Eliya states that John wrote to the court of
Mundir, it is possible that he wrote not to the king himself, but to a Christian leader at the
Lakhmid court. On Christianity under the Lakhmid rulers, see Hainthaler, Christliche Araber, 83–
93.
22 Eliya, Life of John of Tella, ed. Brooks, 67,6–15.
23 A. F. L. Beeston and Irfan Shahîd, “al-Ḥīra,” The Encyclopedia of Islam 3 (1971), 462f.
24 Timothy I, Letter 27, edited with Latin transl. Oscar Braun, Timothei patriarchae I epistulae,
CSCO 74–75 / Syr. 30–31 (Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1953), 151, 3–7 (text), 102 (transl.).
442 Ute Possekel

place the union of the Son, who became incarnate.”25 Direct evidence for John’s op-
position to Julianism, however, has come down to us in a letter, co-authored by
John, of which previously only a fragment was known.26 Fortunately, the full version
of the letter has been preserved in a manuscript owned by Harvard University (Har-
vard Syriac 91), somewhat surprisingly tucked in among the polemical treatises of
Dionysius bar Ṣalibi, the twelfth-century bishop of Amida.27 This letter was com-
posed in about 530 by John of Tella in conjunction with four other bishops: Sergius
of Cyrus, Marion of Sura, Nonnos of Circesium, and Thomas of Dara; it was signed
by three additional hierarchs, who presumably were not present at the time of com-
position but wished to endorse the letter’s message: Peter of Resh˓aina, Philoxenus
of Doliche, and Thomas of Germanikeia. All the signatories were part of the net-
work around Severus of Antioch. In fact, it had been Severus himself who had writ-
ten to John of Tella, Philoxenus of Doliche, and Thomas of Dara – all at the time
hiding near Mardin28 – urging them to write such a pastoral letter to the exiled ab-
bots and monks, in order to prevent their joining the Julianist party.29 The bishops,
more familiar with the local situation than their patriarch, addressed their letter
specifically to the abbots and monks in the diocese of Amida, laying out scriptural
and theological arguments against Julian’s doctrine of the incorruptibility of Christ’s
body. The bishops supported their claims with citations of passages from Severus
and Isaac of Antioch, thereby anticipating the form of anti-Julianist treatises in the
next century, when florilegia dominated the debate. Space does not here permit a
detailed presentation of this letter, an edition of which is currently being prepared

25 John of Tella, Confession of Faith, edited with English transl. Volker Menze and Kutlu Akalin,
John of Tella’s Profession of Faith: The Legacy of a Sixth-Century Syrian Orthodox Bishop
(Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009), 79 (fol. 223a). On the date of the Confession of Faith,
see ibid., 17. John discusses the nature of Christʼs suffering in Confession, fol. 223a–b (ed. Men-
ze and Akalin, 81–83).
26 A fragment of this epistle, co-authored by John (BL Add. 14,663), is edited in René Draguet,
“Une pastorale antijulianiste des environs de l’année 530,” Muséon 40 (1926), 75–92.
27 Further manuscript copies of this letter have survived in other collections of Dionysius’ polemi-
cal treatises, see Arthur Vööbus, “Entdeckung neuer Handschriften des antijulianischen Pasto-
ralschreibens,” OrChr 66 (1982), 114–117. Vööbus was not aware of Harvard Syriac 91. A short
section of this letter (containing only the introductory paragraph and the list of signatories at
the letter’s conclusion) was edited by Ignatius Ephraem II Rahmani, Studia syriaca seu collec-
tio documentorum hactenus ineditorum ex codibus syriacis. Primo publicavit, latine vertit notis-
que illustravit, vol. 1 (In Monte Libano: Typis Patriarchalibus in Seminario Scharfensi, 1904),
25f. (text), 24f. (transl.). It is unclear which manuscript Rahmani used.
28 Severus, Letter V. 14, edited with English transl. E. W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select
Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis, 2 vols.
(London: Williams & Norgate, 1902–1904), vol. 2, 389–394 (text), 345–350 (transl.). See also
Letter V. 15, ed. ibid., 395,16–23 (text), 352 (transl.). Severus speaks of these bishops as the
“confessors on the mountain of Marde.” Certainly, Severus must refer here to the region
around Mardin, with the topography of which he probably was not really familiar.
29 The request of a pastoral letter concludes Severus’ epistle to these bishops (Severus, Letter V.
14, ed. Brooks, 393–394 [text], 349–350 [transl.]).
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 443

by this author. With respect to the Julianist movement, the letter reveals that by 530
the region around Amida had become one of its centers. Moreover, it confirms the
impression gained already, namely that Julianism spread particularly within monas-
tic circles, perhaps resonating especially well with monastic devotion and spirituali-
ty. Hermits, abbots, and entire monastic communities had embraced Julianism.

The Ordinations of the Julianists

It is well known that the miaphysites in alliance with Severus quickly set up an eccle-
siastical hierarchy, ordaining hundreds of priests and deacons, and, from the 540s
onward, establishing a miaphysite episcopate.30 By and large the same process can
be documented for the Julianists, although they were confronted with unique prob-
lems. Unlike the Severan miaphysites, who could count numerous bishops among
them, the Julianists – after their founder’s death – seem to have lacked a bishop.
Therefore, some Julianists sought ordination from Severan bishops without disclos-
ing their doctrinal preference. The case of Julianists who traveled to Alexandria for
ordinations – presumably to the priesthood – is addressed by miaphysite bishops in
the so-called Chapters Written from the Orient, a collection of ecclesiastical canons
compiled in the early 530s.31 These canons stipulate that, should such Julianist clergy
convert and wish to join the Severan miaphysites, “it shall suffice (to apply) the can-
ons about those who return from that heresy.”32 The penance can be waived if the
Julianist clergy can make plausible that already at the time of their ordination they
had abjured Julianist teachings.
John of Ephesus (ca. 507–589), the miaphysite leader and church historian, re-
lates an episode that was later incorporated into the Chronicle of Zuqnin about the
bizarre means to which the Julianists allegedly resorted in their desperate need for a
bishop. When Bishop Procopius of Ephesus, a Julianist sympathizer who had con-
verted and anathematized Julian before once again joining the Julianist sect, was
nearing the end of his life in 548/9, his adherents urged him to appoint a successor.33

30 This process has most recently been studied by Menze, Justinian. See also Ernest Honigmann,
Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle, CSCO 127 / Sub. 2 (Louvain:
L. Durbecq, 1951); W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the
History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1972).
31 On this collection of canons, see Arthur Vööbus, Syrische Kanonessammlungen: Ein Beitrag
zur Quellenkunde, CSCO 307 / Syr. 35 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1970), 167–175,
who dates the Chapters to AD 532–534 (ibid., 175). Edition with English transl. in Arthur
Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition I, CSCO 367–368 / Syr. 161–162 (Lou-
vain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1976), 163–176 (text), 157–168 (transl.). French transl.
F. Nau, “Littérature canonique syriaque inédite,” ROC 14 (1909), 1–49, 113–130.
32 Chapters Written from the Orient, can. 33, ed. Vööbus, Synodicon I, 174,3–13; transl. Vööbus, 166.
33 In Asia Minor, the city of Ephesus was a center of Julianism according to John of Ephesus,
apud the Chronicle of Zuqnin, ed. J.-B. Chabot, Chronicon anonymum pseudo-Dionysianum
vulgo dictum, CSCO 91, 104 / Syr. 43, 53 (Paris: Durbecq, 1927–1933), here: CSCO 104 / Syr.
444 Ute Possekel

Procopius refused this demand as uncanonical, and after his death, his adherents
took recourse to a ruse: they gathered around the corpse, lifted up the dead man’s
hand and with it ordained the monk Eutropius to the Julianist episcopate. Eutropius
in turn ordained ten further bishops whom he sent to various destinations, including
Constantinople, Alexandria, Armenia, Syria and the region of Ḥirta of Bet-Nu˓man
in Persia (this refers to the region of al-Ḥira)34 to minister to the Julianist believ-
ers.35 For John of Ephesus, this outrageous story serves to discredit the Julianist
hierarchy in a twofold way: Eutropius, ordained by a dead man’s hand, could only be
a pseudo-bishop. And his ordinations, in turn, conducted by him alone, could again
only produce pseudo-bishops. John of Ephesus, not a personal witness to the events
described, must have realized that this story has the ring more of anti-Julianist po-
lemics than of faithfully recounting the origin of the Julianist hierarchy. He there-
fore took pains to reveal his source of information: priests in Ephesus had con-
firmed to him the accuracy of these events.36 John’s account includes a further
relevant detail about the Julianist hierarchy, namely that the Julianist bishop named
Sergius (bishop of al-Ḥira) traveled to minister to the Himyarites on the Arab pen-
insula for four years until his untimely death, prior to which he had ordained Moses
as his successor.37
Modern scholars might still be doubtful of the story’s historicity, in particular
since similar versions about ordinations by the hand of a dead person circulated
about other sects.38 In Armenian and Georgian literature, accounts survive which
claim that only two Julianist bishops remained after the death of Julian, and that – in
order to have the canonically required number of three bishops present at the ordi-
nation – the two bishops laid their own hands and Julian’s dead hand onto the can-
didate.39 The essential elements contained in John of Ephesus’ narrative are con-
firmed by a dossier of documents pertaining to the ordination of Julianists,
preserved today in the British Library (BL add. 14,629; cf. BL add. 12,155), which

53, 121,21–26; transl. Amir Harrak, The Chronicle of Zuqnīn. Parts III and IV, A.D. 488–775.
Translated from Syriac with Notes and Introduction, Mediaeval Sources in Translation 36
(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999), 121. John of Ephesus maintains that
Julianism spread from Ephesus by means of four native advocates, who in Alexandria had
agreed with Julian’s position.
34 Honigmann, Évêques et évêchés, 129.
35 Chronicle of Zuqnin, ed. Chabot, CSCO 104 / Syr. 53, 121,26–125,11; tr. Harrak, 121–123. This
story is also told by Michael the Syrian, Chronicle IX 31, ed. Ibrahim, 322a–323c [Chabot, 319–
320], transl. Chabot, vol. 2, 263–264.
36 Chronicle of Zuqnin, ed. Chabot, CSCO 104 / Syr. 53, 125,3–8.
37 Chronicle of Zuqnin, ed. Chabot, CSCO 104 / Syr. 53, 124,6–16. On this story, see also the dis-
cussion by Honigmann, Évêques et évêchés, 128f. In Armenian sources, it is claimed that the
Julianists venerated Julian’s dead hand as a relic (ibid., 129–130).
38 Gérard Garitte, La Narratio de rebus Armeniae. Édition critique et commentaire, CSCO 132 /
Sub. 4 (Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1952), 127f., notes that such a story was told about the Isaianites.
39 Garitte, Narratio, 126–128.
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 445

ultimately goes back to accounts compiled by the Julianists themselves.40 This dos-
sier is included in the third part of the Plerophoria of the Orthodox and Apostolic
Faith, a pastoral letter to the faithful composed by John, Patriarch of Antioch.41 The
author, Patriarch John, has been identified by William Wright as John I, the Syrian
Orthodox patriarch from 630/1 to 648.42 The first two parts of John’s Plerophoria
are dogmatic in nature, whereas the third part focuses on the ordinations of the
Julianists. John begins by a brief introduction, asserting in general terms the invalid-
ity of the Julianist hierarchy and, consequently, their sacraments.43 He next quotes
canons four and six of the Council of Nicaea in 325, as well as canon 19 of the Synod
of Antioch in 341, which stipulate that the presence of at least three bishops is re-
quired for an episcopal ordination and that election must be by a majority of bish-
ops.44 John then produces four documents that all must have originated in Julianist
circles.45 The first of these recounts the same events as does John of Ephesus, but in
a much more pared down and less embellished version. It is worth quoting the short
text in full:
Account of the false ordination (‫ )ܟܝܪܘܛܘܢܝܐ‬of the Julianist Phantasiasts, as was
accurately related by certain of their people. Procopius was a bishop, and for a
short time he was with the Severans, but afterwards joined the Julianists, and
he alone was found to be the last [bishop] among them. And when he was
about to die, he made Eutropius [bishop]. Those who were with him are saying
that after he had died, his partisans took his dead hand and laid it onto Eu-
tropius. Eutropius made Romanus [bishop], of the monastery Bet Mar Moses,
which is in Kaphra d-Birta (‫ ;)ܒܟܦܪܐ ܕܒܐܪܬܐ‬and Sergius of Ḥirta; and Theodore,
onto whom a house fell, that buried him in an earthquake in Arabia. And
Romanus made Moses [bishop] in the monastery Bet Mar Isaac; and Simeon in
the monastery Bet Mar Cyriacus of Tur˓ai; and in the place of Theodore, who
died in the earthquake in Arabia, he made Stephen [bishop].46

40 The manuscript BL Add. 14,629 is dated by Wright to the eighth or ninth century. This frag-
mentary manuscript consists of 24 leaves, with lacunae after many of these. See William Wright,
Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838, 3 vols.
(London, 1870–1872), here: vol. 2, 754–756. The relevant passage is also contained in BL Add.
12,155, dated to the eighth century by Wright, Catalogue, vol. 2, 921, 954–955.
41 To my knowledge, John’s Plerophoria remains unedited. The anti-Julianist dossier has been ed-
ited with French transl. by René Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse des Julianistes,” Muséon
54 (1941), 59–89, here: 72–89.
42 Wright, Catalogue, vol. 2, 754f. This identification was accepted by Draguet, “L’ordination
frauduleuse,” 59.
43 Ed. Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 72f.
44 Ed. Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 73f. The Syriac version of these canons is edited with
English transl. by Vööbus, Synodicon I, 86–88, 112 (text), 96–97, 116 (transl.).
45 Ed. Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 74–82.
46 Ed. Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 74.
446 Ute Possekel

Regarding the ordination of Eutropius, this account states that Procopius was on the
verge of death when the ordination took place, and whether his hand at the time of
the ceremony was only lifeless or already that of a dead man remains open to inter-
pretation. As to the bishops ordained by Eutropius, we can note that the Romanus
mentioned here ought to be distinguished from the Romanus referred to in Severus’
letters, who most likely is the bishop of Rhosus in Cilicia.47 The Romanus ordained
by Eutropius was a monk in the convent of Mar Moses in the village Kaphra d-Birta,
north-west of Apamea.48 We may assume that the entire monastery of Mar Moses
had joined the Julianist movement, whereas another convent in the same village, the
Mar Eusebius monastery, remained staunchly loyal to Severus.49 Moreover, when
the text states that a certain Moses of the monastery of Mar Isaac was ordained to
succeed the deceased Theodore, we may safely assume that he was from the com-
munity of Mar Isaac in Gabbula.
John of Antioch in the seventh century states explicitly that he excerpts from a
document of Julianist provenance. Evidently, this document was composed already
in the middle of the sixth century – presumably soon after the ordination of Stephen,
and perhaps in the context of controversial ordinations conducted by Stephen that
will be addressed below – for it is cited also by Sergius, the first Syrian Orthodox pa-
triarch of Antioch, who ruled from 557 to 561. Sergius penned a letter to the bishops
in Persian territory, advising them inter alia about how to proceed with renegade
Julianists who desired to return to the Severan fold. To discredit the rival move-
ment, Sergius recounts here the same story about the origins of the Julianist hier-
archy as would John of Antioch a hundred years later, and in large passages their
narratives even agree word for word. Patriarch Sergius’ account, however, unlike
that by Patriarch John of Antioch, does not reflect the original Julianist authorship
of the text: the Julianists here repeatedly are plainly called heretics whereas the
Severans are referred to as “the orthodox.”50 It is thus plausible that this story about

47 See for example Severus, Letter V.15, ed. Brooks, 401,15 (text), 356 (transl.). On the Julianist
Bishop Romanus of Rhosus, see Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch, 48.
48 On the location of this monastery, see David G. K. Taylor, “The Psalm Commentary of Daniel
of Salah and the Formation of Sixth-Century Syrian Orthodox Identity,” in: Church History and
Religious Culture, vol. 89 (2009), 65–92. Taylor notes that this is the modern twin villages of
Kefr and Bara (ibid., 71).
49 Monastic communities elsewhere divided over the issue of Julianism as well. One can note that
the Monastery of the Syrians in the Wadi Natrun in Egypt was founded by Syriac-speaking
monks loyal to Severus, who left their own (Julianist) communities. This theory was first articu-
lated by Hugh G. Evelyn White, The Monasteries of the Wâdi ˒n Natrûn, vol. 2: The History of
the Monasteries of Nitria and of Scetis (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1932), 315–
318, and has been followed by others, see Karel Innemée and Lucas van Rompay, “La présence
des Syriens dans le Wadi al-Natrun (Égypte): À propos des déscouvertes récentes de peintures
et textes muraux dans l’Église de la Vierge du Couvent des Syriens,” ParOr 23 (1998), 167–202,
esp. 180–182; Florence Jullien, Le monachisme en Perse: la réforme d’Abraham le Grand, père
des moines de l’Orient, CSCO 622 / Sub. 121 (Louvain: Peeters, 2008), 74f.
50 Edition of this letter with Latin transl. by A. van Roey, “Une lettre du patriarche jacobite
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 447

the origins of the Julianist episcopate circulated among Julian’s later followers al-
ready in the 550s, soon after the events recorded. John of Antioch’s Plerophoria still
preserves the original Julianist character of the documents, while sixth-century au-
thors such as Patriarch Sergius of Antioch or John of Ephesus shift the terminology
and label the Julianists as heretics.
The anti-Julianist dossier included in John of Antioch’s Plerophoria contains
another highly relevant document pertaining to the ordinations conducted by Bish-
op Stephen.51 This document, it must be noted, originated in the monastery of Mar
Isaac in Gabbula, it is thus also a text composed by the Julianists themselves. This
account relates that the above-mentioned Stephen, about whose monastic prove-
nance or episcopal see we unfortunately are not informed, had made a contract with
a certain Armenian bishop named Abraham (likely a Julianist partisan) that neither
of them would ordain bishops alone, but only in conjunction with the other. Never-
theless, Stephen by himself ordained Barlaha to the episcopate, and subsequently
both Stephen and Barlaha ordained Cassianus. It is highly likely that both Barlaha
and Cassianus were monks, but the text, attempting to paint a negative picture of
these two Julianist leaders, omits any details pertaining to their monastic home or
diocese.
The monks of the Mar Isaac monastery apparently wished to have one of their
own members elected as bishop by Stephen, and chose a certain Zachariah as their
episcopal candidate. Later on, the text clarifies that Zachariah wished to become
bishop of Armenia. Stephen, alas, refused to ordain him – out of jealousy and per-
sonal dislike, our source claims. A fierce dispute erupted, in the course of which Ab-
bot Thomas of the Mar Isaac monastery composed a letter to the Julianists “in the
East,” discrediting Stephen’s ordination as invalid since it was conducted by only
one bishop. This letter is included in the dossier as well, but unfortunately it breaks
off after about two pages, so that we can not fully grasp Thomas’ theological argu-
ments.52 It appears, however, that Abbot Thomas considered ordinations by a single
bishop as valid as long as no other bishop was available. He seems to have argued
that this did not apply to Stephen’s ordination, which he hence regards as invalid.53
Having had a fall-out with Bishop Stephen, the community of Mar Isaac presumably
now wished to become ecclesiastically independent of Stephen. The monks called
for the other two Julianist bishops of the area, Cassianus and Barlaha, requesting
them to ordain local monks to the episcopate. The situation became tumultuous,
and the monastic community divided into two camps. Barlaha and Cassianus then in
the autumn of 585 ordained two monks of the Mar Isaac monastery (Daniel

Serge I (557–561),” ParOr 6–7 (1975/76), 213–227. The relevant passage appears on p. 219.
51 Ed. Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 75–77.
52 Fragment ed. Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 80–82. The text of this letter, as well as the
deposition (discussed below), were apparently known to the author of the account regarding
Stephen’s ordinations and the subsequent schism within the monastery of Mar Isaac.
53 See the discussion by Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 71.
448 Ute Possekel

Qapuḥia and George bar ˓Abshai), but only days later deposed them and consecrat-
ed two other men from the same community to the episcopate (Zachariah and
Thomas).54 The resulting schism within the monastery lasted for five years, at which
point the four episcopal contestants reconciled with each other and recognized each
other’s spiritual authority.
The anti-Julianist dossier, cited by Patriarch John in his Plerophoria, includes
the text of the deposition of Daniel Qapuḥia and George bar ˓Abshai, which was
signed by bishops Barlaha and Cassianus (without reference to their monasteries or
episcopal sees) and several abbots, who presumably presided over other Julianist
monasteries. This list allows us further to trace the spread of the movement in the
late sixth century. While some of the locations listed can not easily be identified, one
can observe that there was another Julianist monastery in Gabbula, namely that of
Mar Cassianus. The signatories to this deposition, dated 585, were the following
persons:55
- Cassianus
- Barlaha
- Thomas, priest and abbot of the monastery of Mar Isaac of Gabbula, by the
hand of the priest Thomas
- Sergius, priest of the monastery of Mar Isaac, by the hand of the deacon John
- George, priest of the monastery of Mar Cyriacus of Tur‛ai (‫)ܬܘܪܥܝ‬, on behalf
of the abbot Theodore
- John, abbot of the monastery of Mar Cassianus of Gabbula, by the hand of the
deacon Thomas
- Thomas, priest of the monastery of Mar ˓Abda, on behalf of abbot Berenicianus
- David, abbot of the monastery of Mar Zebina
- Barhadbeshabba of Karuran (‫)ܟܪܘܪܢ‬
- John, deacon of the monastery of the Laura (‫)ܕܝܪܐ ܕܣܝܓܬܐ‬, on behalf of abbot
George
- Sergius, priest and abbot of Neqirta (‫ )ܢܩܝܪܬܐ‬in the district of Apamea
- Jacob, priest of the monastery of Ḥaliṣ (‫)ܚܠܝܨ‬, on behalf of the abbot
- Sergius, abbot of the monastery of Pesi (‫ )ܦܣܝ‬at Ḥaniṣarta (‫)ܚܢܝܨܪܬܐ‬.
Based on the sources surveyed so far, the Julianist hierarchy can be represented in
the following diagram.

54 Ed. Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 77–80. The the ordination of Daniel and George is
dated in this text to 29 Elul (September) 896. Since the Seleucid year began with Teshri I, the
year under consideration here would be 585 AD. The deposition is dated 2 Teshri I (October)
896. The year here would correspond to 584 AD, which, however, is chronologically impossible,
since the ordination must have preceded the deposition. Presumably both these events took
place in 585 AD. Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 62, dates the events to 584 AD. Wright,
Catalogue, vol. 2, 954 dates it to 585 AD.
55 Ed. Draguet, “L’ordination frauduleuse,” 79–80.
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 449

Procopius of
Ephesus
(d. 548/9)

Eutropius

Romanus Sergius Theodore seven other

(Monast. of Mar (of Ḥirta / (d. in Arabia) bishops
Moses in Kaphra al-Ḥira)
d-Birta)

Moses

Moses Simeon Stephen

(Monst. of (Monast. of (successor to
Mar Isaac in Mar Cyriacus Theodore)
Gabbula) of Tur˓ai)

Barlaha

Cassianus

George bar Daniel Qapuḥia Zachariah Thomas

˓Abshai (Monst. of Mar (Monast. of (Monast. of
(Monast. of Mar Isaac in Gabbula; Mar Isaac in Mar Isaac in
Isaac in Gabbula; deposed 585) Gabbula) Gabbula)
deposed 585)
450 Ute Possekel

The Julianist texts discussed above refer in passing to the close relationship be-
tween Bishop Stephen and the Armenian bishop Abraham. Although their contrac-
tual agreement (‫ )ܩܝܡܐ‬only jointly to ordain further bishops – clearly intended to
avoid the charge of conducting uncanonical ordinations – did not materialize, the
text points us into another direction whence, indeed, Syriac Julianists received ordi-
nations.
A number of Armenian sources confirm that a Julianist monk named ˓Abdisho˓
received episcopal ordination at the Second Synod of Dvin (555), convened by the
Armenian catholicos Nerses.56 Although Syriac authors do not seem to mention
˓Abdisho˓, his activities and ordination are well documented in the Armenian
sources, and several texts by his pen are preserved in Armenian.57 ˓Abdisho˓’s Julian-
ist conviction emerges from some of his own writings, such as a list of anathemata
which condemn those who believe in the corruptibility of Christ’s flesh.58 His affilia-
tion with the Syriac miaphysites is well documented as well: the Armenian list of ca-
tholicoi refers to him as “˓Abdisho˓, the Syriac Jacobite,” and he himself signed let-
ters as “Bishop of the Orthodox Syrians.”59 ˓Abdisho˓ was a monk in the monastery
of Sareba, situated not far from Sason. The exact location of Sareba has been dis-
cussed repeatedly in the scholarly literature; in any case it was on Persian territory
near the Armenian frontier.60
The preceding survey shows that in the middle of the sixth century, Julianists,
just like the Severans, established their own hierarchy. From Procopius of Ephesus
(via Eutropius and Stephen), Syriac monks living under Roman rule received ordi-
nation: we know of bishops who came from the monasteries of Mar Moses in
Kaphra d-Birta (north-west of Apamea), Mar Cyriacus of Tur˓ai, and Mar Isaac in
Gabbula (south-east of Aleppo). Julianist bishops are also documented for the re-
gions of Arabia and al-Ḥira. A second line of Julianist bishops emerged at just the
same time within the Persian territories of northern Mesopotamia: ˓Abdisho˓ from
the monastery Sareba received ordination from the Armenian catholicos in 555, and
we may assume that he, in turn, ordained other monks to the episcopate. The Julian-

56 The Armenian sources on ˓Abdisho˓ are discussed in detail by Theresia Hainthaler, “Wer ist
Abdisho? Einige Bemerkungen zum Einfluss syrischer Theologen in Armenien im 6. Jahrhun-
dert,” in: Syriaca III. Beiträge zum 7. Deutschen Syrologen-Symposium in Göttingen, Dezem-
ber 2011, ed. Martin Tamcke and Sven Grebenstein, Göttinger Orientforschungen I: Syriaca
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, forthcoming). This essay will be cited here by the manuscript page
numbers. See also Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 314.
57 Details in Hainthaler, “Wer ist Abdisho?”
58 See Hainthaler, “Wer ist Abdisho?” 4–8.
59 Hainthaler, “Wer ist Abdisho?” 3.
60 According to Garitte, the monastery of Sareba must be the monastery of Sarbaṭ, located north
of Arzan and about 50 km east of Martyropolis / Mayperqat (Garitte, Narratio, 149). Nina Gar-
soïan, L’église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient, CSCO 574 / Sub. 100 (Louvain:
Peeters, 1999), 457, n. 4, locates it in the region of Sasun, perhaps in the vicinity of Miafarqin.
See also Hainthaler, “Wer ist Abdisho?” 3–4.
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 451

ist hierarchy thus seems to have originated along two different paths: one going back
to Procopius of Ephesus, the other to ˓Abdisho˓ and the Armenians. A Julianist
presence and the existence of a Julianist episcopate within both the Roman and Per-
sian territories are thus well documented. We can observe that all Julianist bishops
encountered so far were either associated with a monastery or were appointed to a
region; no Julianist bishop was ordained for an urban see. Necessity demanded that
often only one bishop would be present at an episcopal ordination, an uncanonical
procedure much criticized by their miaphysite opponents.

Julianists and Severans: Fluid Borders and Pastoral Considerations

Julianists and Severans lived side by side, and sometimes even within the same mo-
nastic community. The borders between Julianists and Severans were fluid, as we
have already had occasion to observe: Bishop Procopius of Ephesus wavered
between Julianism and the Severan miaphysite church, and evidently there were
clergy who changed their alliance as well. These renegade Julianists were treated
with leniency in the ecclesiastical canons, which give pastoral considerations a prio-
rity. One such canon, found in the Chapters Written from the Orient, addresses the
concerns of monks whose priests are Julianists, but who do not themselves follow
Julian’s teachings. Having Julianists and Severans within one convent naturally
caused pastoral and spiritual problems, and the bishops ruled that while Severan
monks should not receive communion from their Julianist priest, they are permitted
to recite with them the Office of the Psalms and to share meals, although eating or-
dinary food with heretics is expressly prohibited to priests and deacons elsewhere in
the same collection.61 The canons justify the leniency of this rule by expressing the
hope that the Julianist priests may convert, or that at least the Severan monks “inca-
pable of perfection, might not return to the pit of the heresies.”62 Pastoral consider-
ations also guide the ordinance about religious sisters who go to study in Julianist
churches: they are permitted to do so, but ought not to receive communion there.63
The question of how to deal with those who were baptized by priests not in
communion with the miaphysite Severans, be they Chalcedonians or Julianists,
looms large in these canonical collections from the mid-sixth century. One such
document discusses the case of a certain Julianist priest belonging to the party of

61 Chapters Written from the Orient, can. 40, ed. Vööbus, Synodicon I, 175,24–176,4. The prohi-
bition for priests and deacons to eat food with heretics is found ibid., can. 34, ed. Vööbus, Sy-
nodicon I, 174,14–17.
62 Chapters Written from the Orient, can. 40, ed. Vööbus, Synodicon I, 176,1–2 (text), 167 (transl.).
63 Chapters Written from the Orient, can. 41, ed. Vööbus, Synodicon I, 176,5–9 (text), 168
(trans.). Can. 42 (ed. Vööbus, Synodicon I, 176,10–20) discusses a group of monks called by the
Romans “Lampetians,” among whom men and women live together. Should these wish to join
the “orthodox” they first must separate by gender, then it should be determined if their priest-
hood derives from a Chalcedonian or Julianist bishop, in which case they must repudiate in
writing the heretics and do penitence.
452 Ute Possekel

Ishaq (who is not further identified), whose sacraments have been called into ques-
tion. The canons stipulate that since this Julianist was ordained by an orthodox bis-
hop, his baptism is to be regarded as valid. The same rule is applied to the sacra-
ments offered by priests ordained by Procopius, most likely referring to the Julianist
sympathizer Procopius of Ephesus.64 On the other hand, persons baptized by a
priest who was ordained by a “heretic,” such as a certain Zebad, must be rebaptized,
since this is what the patriarch (i. e., Severus) ordered.65 The question of how to deal
with baptism by priests perceived as heterodox is addressed also by Sergius, the
Syrian Orthodox patriarch of Antioch (557–561), in his letter to bishops in Persia.
Sergius refers to the ruling by Severus of Antioch that those priests who had been
ordained by Zebad ought to receive another imposition of the hands, since the
previous rite conducted by Zebad was invalid. This, Sergius stipulates, ought to rule
the reception of Julianist monks as well.66 The hierarchy’s concern with baptism
illus-trates that, while Julianism certainly was very much a monastic phenomenon,
Julianist priests were also ministering among the lay people in the villages and rural
districts.

Daniel of Ṣalaḥ and the Theological Response in the Mid-Sixth Century

Julianism had taken deep roots in the monastic landscape of northern Meso-
potamia, and it should therefore not come as a surprise that the theological refuta-
tion of Julian’s teachings in the mid-sixth century targeted the heart of monastic life:
the psalms. All 150 psalms were prayed daily in the monasteries, and in parish
churches they were recited over the course of a week. The psalms had a central func-
tion in catechesis and schooling as well, and their knowledge by heart was required
of those being ordained to ecclesiastical office.67 As David Taylor has shown, Abbot
John of the Mar Eusebius monastery – located in direct vicinity of the Julianist con-
vent of Mar Moses at Kaphra d-Birta near Apamea – recognized the importance of
controlling the interpretation of the psalms, and to that purpose requested a com-
mentary from Daniel of Ṣalaḥ.68 In his Commentary on the Psalms, written in the
540s and influential in later Syriac exegesis, Daniel criticized “the beliefs of the
Julianists at every available opportunity.”69 Daniel in his theological refutation drew

64 From a Letter which one of the Venerable Bishops Wrote to his Friend Concerning Certain
Transgressions, can. 7, ed. Vööbus, Synodicon I, 182,6–9 (text), 173 (transl.). For a survey of the
canonical literature on this subject, see Wilhelm de Vries, Sakramententheologie bei den
syrischen Monophysiten, OCA 125 (Rome: PIOS, 1940), 80–85.
65 From a Letter which one of the Venerable Bishops Wrote to his Friend Concerning Certain
Transgressions, can. 7, ed. Vööbus, Synodicon I, 182,10–13 (text), 173 (transl.). Who this Zebad
was is not known.
66 Ed. van Roey, “Lettre du patriarche jabobite Serge,” 218–219.
67 For documentation on the centrality of the psalms in liturgy and worship, see Taylor, “Psalm
Commentary,” 68f.
68 Taylor, “Psalm Commentary,” 70–71.
69 Taylor, “Psalm Commentary,” 75. In his commentary on Psalm 83, Daniel gives the current
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 453

both on his native Syriac heritage, for example in his extensive use of clothing meta-
phors, and on the Greek theological tradition, especially the treatises of Severus of
Antioch.70 Daniel also authored a letter to the monks of the Mar Bassus monastery,
in which he challenged the doctrines of Julian and the “Phantasiasts.”71
Toward the end of the sixth century, not only the monastic leadership, but also
the Syrian Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch continued to be concerned about Julia-
nism. Patriarch Paul of Bet Ukame (d. 581) addressed a synodal letter to Theodore
(a Syrian monk who had been elected as patriarch of Alexandria, but was not ac-
cepted by the community and soon had to vacate his see), in which he outlines
Syrian Orthodox beliefs and at great length refutes Julianist theological tenets.72

Seventh-Century Anti-Julianist Writings

Throughout the seventh century, Julianism apparently still constituted a significant
challenge to the majority miaphysite church, for anti-Julianist works continued to be
produced. As mentioned already, John, patriarch of Antioch in the mid-seventh cen-
tury (d. 648), authored the Plerophoria, in which he emphasized the reality of
Christ’s suffering and refuted Julian’s doctrines. John attached a florilegium to give
support to his exposition, and, as we have seen, he criticized the Julianist episcopate
as invalid, for it derived from a dead man’s hand.73 The London manuscript (BL
add. 12,155) that contains a short excerpt of John’s treatise has preserved the Chap-
ters against the Julianists, a refutation in question-and-answer format probably also
from the seventh century.74 Moreover, several lengthy florilegia against the Julian-
ists, compiled in the first half of the seventh century, survive in the manuscript col-
lection of the British Library.75 The manuscripts themselves, dating from the eighth

date as 541/2 AD, see David G. K. Taylor, “The Christology of the Syriac Psalm Commentary
(AD 541/2) of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ and the ‘Phantasiast’ controversy,” in: Studia Patristica XXXV.
Papers presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Ox-
ford 1999 (Louvain: Peeters, 2001), 508–515, here: 509.
70 See Taylor, “Christology,” 510–513.
71 Michael the Syrian, Chronicle IX 34, ed. Ibrahim, 329b,8–12 [Chabot 326], transl. Chabot, vol. 2, 273.
72 The synodal letter is edited with Latin transl. by Jean Baptiste Chabot, Documenta ad origines
monophysitarum illustrandas, CSCO 17, 103 / Syr. 17, 52 (Louvain: Durbecq, 1952), 308–334,
esp. 328–334 (text), 215–233 (transl.). On Paul of Bet Ukame, see Lucas van Rompay, “Pawlos
of Beth Ukome,” Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (2011), 322f.
73 The Plerophoria is preserved in BL Add. 14,629, fol. 5v–24r. See Wright, Catalogue, vol. 2,
754–756, and the discussion by Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse, 82f. An excerpt is found also in
BL Add. 12,155, fol. 133r–134r; see Wright, Catalogue, vol. 2, 942.
74 See Wright, Catalogue, vol. 2, 947f.; Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse, 85–86. The dialogue has
been edited with Latin transl. by René Draguet, “Pièces de polémique antijulianiste,” Muséon
44 (1931), 255–317, here: 271–292, 303–317.
75 Cf. Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse, 83–85. A florilegium survives in four copies in the British
Library. The most complete copy is BL in Add. 14,532; the others are in Add. 14,538; Add.
14,533, and Add. 12,155. See also BL Add. 14,529; Wright, Catalogue, vol. 2, 918. Discussion of
these in Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse, 83–88.
454 Ute Possekel

or ninth century, reflect the miaphysites’ ongoing concern about this subject. In the
ninth century, Bishop John of Dara refuted Julianist doctrines at length in his Trea-
tise Against the Heretics, which illustrates how deep-seated and widespread Julian’s
teachings had become in northern Mesopotamia.76

A Failed Attempt at Reconciliation in the Eighth Century

Despite the continuous theological critique of their teachings, the Julianist church
persisted. The Syrian Orthodox patriarch of the late eighth century, Cyriacus of
Tagrit (793–817), zealously desired to implement liturgical reforms – attempting to
limit the usage of the phrase “we are breaking the heavenly bread” in the Eucharis-
tic liturgy77 – and he eagerly strove to overcome the Julianist schism that for so long
had divided the non-Chalcedonians.78 The issue became pressing and was addressed
repeatedly in the canonical legislation by Patriarch Cyriacus. In a synod convened by
Cyriacus in 794 to Bet Batin, a village in the vicinity of Harran, priests and deacons
are warned not to give baptism to “Nestorians or Chalcedonians or Julianist.”79
Moreover, priests, deacons, laymen and laywomen are urged neither to visit Julian-
ist (or Nestorian or Chalcedonian) churches or monasteries, nor to give them gifts,
nor to receive the Eucharist in one of their churches.80 Apparently, the boundaries

76 John of Dara, Treatise Against the Heretics, manuscript Mardin Orth. 356, fol. 45v–48r; cf.
manuscript Birmingham Mingana Syr. 67, fol. 61r–64v. I am grateful to Dr. Aho Shemunkasho
(Universität Salzburg) for a copy of the relevant section of this treatise. On John of Dara and
his works, see Aho Shemunkasho, “John of Dara and his References to Previous Authors,”
Parole de l’Orient 36 (2011), 413–444.
77 On this controversy, see Joseph-Marie Sauget, “Vestiges d’une célébration gréco-syriaque de
l’Anaphore de Saint Jacques,” in: After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History of-
fered to Professor Albert Van Roey for his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Carl Laga, Joseph A.
Munitiz, and Lucas van Rompay, OLA 18 (Louvain: Peeters, 1985), 309–345. Sauget studies
liturgical manuscripts that contain the panem caelestem formula. On Cyriacus’ involvement
with the controversy, see Mikael Oez, Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence,
2 vols. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012), vol. 1, 42–47. The theological objections to the
liturgical formula – which evidently focus less on the expression “heavenly bread” than on the
fact that a Trinitarian invocation accompanies it – are laid out in a letter by Cyriacus’ predeces-
sor, George. See Michael the Syrian, Chronicle XII 2, ed. Ibrahim, 483–485 [Chabot 480–482],
transl. Chabot, vol. 3, 5–8; text and English transl. in Oez, Cyriacus, vol. 2, 478–487. Patriarch
Cyriacus addresses the matter in his Book on Divine Providence 26, ed. Oez, Cyriacus, vol. 2,
376–383.
78 Overview of Cyriacus in Witold Witakowski, “Quryaqos,” Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of
the Syriac Heritage (2011), 347f. Extensive discussion of his life and theology in Oez, Cyriacus,
vol. 1, 3–67. On Cyriacus’ memre, see Arthur Vööbus, “Die Entdeckung der Mēmrē des
Qyriaqos von Antiochien,” Ostkirchliche Studien 25 (1976), 193–195.
79 Synod of Cyriacus, November 794 AD, can. 9, edited with English transl. Arthur Vööbus, The
Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition II, CSCO 375–376 / Syr. 163–164 (Louvain: Secrétariat
du CorpusSCO, 1976), 10,2–5 (text), 12 (transl.).
80 Ibid., can. 14, ed. Vööbus, Synodicon II, 10,23–28 (text), 12 (transl.).
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 455

between the Severans and Julianists were still rather fluid, and Cyriacus in his re-
forming zeal wished to end any inter-confessional contact.
By the end of the eighth century, the Julianists of northern Mesopotamia had
even elected their own patriarch. The Julianist patriarch Gabriel belonged to the
monastery of Mar Isaac at Gabbula, which evidently continued to be a stronghold of
the movement. The miaphysite patriarch of Antioch, Cyriacus, who was affiliated
with the monastery of Estona (“the Pillar”) near Kallinikos, now departed from his
earlier condemnations and desired to achieve a union with the Julianists. To this
purpose, both patriarchs, their bishops, and their “entire flock” convened at the
Monastery of Naphshata (“Monastery of the Souls”), located near Kenneshrin, and
in 798 agreed on a confession of faith, the text of which has been preserved in a
manuscript in the British Library.81 It begins with a confession of the Trinitarian
God and then moves on to articulate the common belief in God the Word, stressing
the reality of the incarnation and that Christ took on voluntarily the “natural suffer-
̈ ̈
ings” (‫)ܚܫܐ ܟܝܢܝܐ‬, such as hunger, thirst, sadness, and suffering on the cross. The
topic of corruptibility is cleverly circumvented, in that the Confession stresses that
Christ freed us from corruptibility.82 God the Word is described as “invisible and
visible, incomprehensible and comprehensible, mortal and immortal, passible and
impassible, corruptible and incorruptible.”83 The Confession concludes with a list of
signatories:84
- Cyriacus, by the grace of God patriarch
- Gabriel, by the grace of God patriarch
- Thomas, metropolitan of Amida
- Theodosius, bishop of the diocese (‫ )ܫܘܠܛܢܐ‬of Kallinikos
- George, bishop of Kenneshrin
- Constantine, bishop of the diocese of Kenneshrin
- Joannes, bishop of Harran
- John, bishop of Aleppo
- Theodosius (‫)ܬܝܕܘܣ‬, bishop of Seleucia
- Joseph, of the diocese of Harran
- Habbib, metropolitan of Apamea.

81 BL add. 17,145, fol. 27v–28v. The precise date of the union is given as 7 Elul (September), 1109.
Since the Seleucid calendar begins on 1 October 312, this date corresponds to 7 September, AD
798. The confession of faith has been edited with French transl. by René Draguet, “Le pacte
d’union de 797 entre les jacobites et les julianistes du patriarcat d’Antioche,” Muséon 54
(1941), 91–106, here: 102–106. It has also been edited with English transl. in Oez, Cyriacus,
vol. 2, 454–459.
82 For a discussion of the Confession, see Draguet, “Le pacte d’union,” 91–101.
83 Ed. Draguet, “Le pacte d’union,” 103,1–3.
84 Ed. Draguet, “Le pacte d’union,” 104.
456 Ute Possekel

The signatures by two bishops from Kenneshrin, and of a bishop and another
representative (presumably also a bishop) from Harran, would suggest that these
regions had both a Julianist and a Severan bishop. However, dioceses were being di-
vided for other reasons as well.85
The Chronicle of 813 as well as the Chronicle of Michael the Great relate that
both patriarchs agreed to remain in office until one of them would pass away, at
which time the other should be recognized by all the anti-Chalcedonian faithful. The
achievement of the union was marked by a joint celebration of the liturgy in Har-
ran.86 Yet despite the good will of the patriarchs, the union ultimately did not come
to pass. Several of the Severan bishops, some of whom already opposed Cyriacus for
other reasons, fiercely attacked their patriarch and even charged him with being a
Julianist himself.87 They pressed for unrealistic demands which the Julianists could
not concede.88 Moreover, the issue of liturgical reform became entangled with this
controversy, and even a second synod convened by Cyriacus and Gabriel could not
save the union.89 The schism within the miaphysite church persisted, and Cyriacus
condemned the doctrines of the “Phantasiast” in 799 in a synodal letter to the patri-
arch of Alexandria.90

Conclusion
The theological quarrel between Severus of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus was
not a mere episode in the history of dogma, but rather led to a deep and long-lasting
schism within the miaphysite church. Individual hermits, abbots, and entire monastic
communities quickly embraced Julian’s doctrines, presumably because these re-
sonated profoundly with their own spirituality and devotion. At about the same time
when the Severans began to ordain a new non-Chalcedonian hierarchy, so did the

85 For example, the Edessans in the late eighth century refused to accept Zachariah as their bish-
op. Patriach Cyriacus worked for a compromise solution and Zachariah was given some outly-
ing districts of the diocese, whereas the Edessans got another bishop whom they liked. See
Andrew Palmer, Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier. The Early History of Ṭur ˓Abdin
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 180f. Draguet considers whether among the
signatories of the Confession one of the bishops from Kenneshrin could be a chorepiscopos, but
in the end thinks it also more likely that they represent a Severan and a Julianist hierarch,
respectively (Draguet, “Le pacte d’union,” 94–96).
86 Chronicle of 813, edited with Latin transl. E. W. Brooks, Chronica minora III, CSCO 5–6 / Syr.
5–6 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1905–1907), 251,20–252,12 (text), 190–191 (transl.).
English transl. of this chronicle in E. W. Brooks, “A Syriac Fragment,” ZDMG 54 (1900), 195–
230. Michael the Syrian, Chronicle XII 4, ed. Ibrahim, 488c,1–30 [Chabot 485], transl. Chabot,
vol. 3, 13–14.
87 Chronicle of 813, ed. Brooks, 252,15–21.
88 Chronicle of 813, ed. Brooks, 252,21–253,22.
89 The second synod is mentioned in Michael the Syrian, Chronicle XII 4, ed. Ibrahim, 488–489
[Chabot 485–486], transl. Chabot, vol. 3, 14f.
90 Arabic text and French transl. in Herman Teule, “La lettre synodale de Cyriaque, patriarche
monophysite d’Antioche (793–817),” OLP 9 (1978), 121–140.
 Julianism in Syriac Christianity 457

Julianists. The Severan miaphysites made many efforts to refute Julian’s theological
tenets and to draw Julianists back into their fold – we recall John of Tella’s letters to
abbots and monks, the ecclesiastical canons, Daniel of Ṣalaḥ’s Commentary on the
Psalms, Patriarch John’s theological refutation, and anonymous florilegia – but their
propaganda ultimately failed to uproot the deep-seated Julianist beliefs. When
reconciliation was within reach during the patriarchate of Cyriacus, personal rival-
ries between bishops and other matters of contention foiled this effort also. Yet
perhaps the divisions were still too deep to be overcome by a mere patriarchal fiat,
and thus the Julianists persisted well into the time of the Syrian Renaissance in the
twelfth century.91

91 Dionysius bar Ṣalibi, bishop of Amida, repeatedly challenged Julianist doctrines, especially in
his Treatise against the Armenians. It is likely that Julianist teachings were still prominent in his
diocese. Dionysius bar Ṣalibi, Against the Armenians, edited with English transl. Alphonse
Mingana, The Work of Dionysius Barṣalībi Against the Armenians, Woodbrooke Studies 4
(Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1931), 8–14, 64 (transl.).
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Theresia Hainthaler (Philosophisch-Theo-
logische Hochschule Sankt Georgen) and Dr. Lucas van Rompay (Duke University) for their
helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay and for valuable bibliographic information.