Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 125

ISBN: 88 7961 135 6

 CHRISTIANITY IN EGYPT:
LITERARY PRODUCTION AND INTELLECTUAL TRENDS
STUDIES IN HONOR OF TITO ORLANDI

Edited by Paola Buzi and Alberto Camplani

Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum

Via Paolo VI, 25 - 00193 Roma
2011
Pubblicato con il contributo del Dipartimento di
Storia, culture, religioni, Sapienza Università di
Roma, fondi del PRIN Forme e strutture
comunitarie del cristianesimo (I-IX secolo) fino alle
soglie della formazione dell’Europa (2008-2010)

Cura redazionale: Paola Buzi – Alberto Camplani

@ Augustinianum 2011
 INDEX OF THE VOLUME

P. Buzi – A. Camplani, Introduction V

Tito Orlandi: Publications on Christian Egypt and Coptic Literature XI
Th. Baumeister, Charisma und Beichte im frühen ägyptischen
Mönchtum 1-17
A. Bausi, La nuova versione etiopica della Traditio apostolica:
edizione e traduzione preliminare 19-69
H. Behlmer, Female Figures in Coptic Hagiographical Texts – Update
and Preliminary Results 71-86
Ph. Blaudeau, Un archevêque d’Alexandrie assassin ? Retour sur une
incrimination lancée à l’encontre de Dioscore 1er 87-100
A. Bo Hor , L’ Allocutio ad Monachos d’Athanase d’Alexandrie
(CPG 2186) : nouveaux fragments coptes 101-158
E. Bresciani, Una scultura lignea copta. Rivisitando Medinet Madi 159-163
D. Bumazhnov, Kann man Gott festhalten? Eine frühchristliche
Diskussion und deren Hintergründe 165-176
P. Buzi, Miscellanee e florilegi. Osservazioni preliminari per uno studio
dei codici copti pluritestuali: il caso delle raccolte di excerpta 177-203
A. Camplani, A Syriac fragment from the Liber historiarum by
Timothy Aelurus (CPG 5486), the Coptic Church History, and
the archives of the bishopric of Alexandria 205-226
J. den Heijer – P. Pilette, Murqus Simaika (1864 – 1944) et
l’historiographie copto-arabe : à propos du manuscrit Musée Copte,
Hist. 1 227-250
S. Donadoni, Una homologia del presbitero Severo 251-255
S. Emmel, On Using «Proportional Extension of Text» as a Criterion
for Placing Fragments in a Dismembered Codex 257-278
C. Gianotto, L’interpretazione del mito delle origini di Gen. 1-3 nel
Vangelo secondo Tommaso e negli Atti di Tommaso 279-288
 INDEX OF THE VOLUME 639

J. E. Goehring, The Ship of the Pachomian Federation: Metaphor and

Meaning in a Late Account of Pachomian Monasticism 289-303
D. Johnson, Monastic Propaganda: The Coptic Hilaria Legend 305-324
B. Layton, Punishing the Nuns: A Reading of Shenoute’s Letters to the
Nuns in Canons Book Four 325-345
G. Lettieri, Il frutto valentiniano 347-367
E. Lucchesi, Regards nouveaux sur la littérature copte 369-414
S. Pernigotti, Tra gli abitanti di Bakchias: culture a confronto 415-425
E. Prinzivalli, Origene e lo strano caso dell’omelia 39 su Luca 427-442
M. Sheridan, The Encomium in the Coptic Literature of the Late Sixth
Century 443-464
M. Simonetti, Tra Atanasio e Melezio 465-476
A. Suciu – E. Thomassen, An Unknown «Apocryphal» Text from the
White Monastery 477-499
J. Timbie, The Interpretation of the Solomonic Books in Coptic
Monastic Texts: «Reading» Community 501-512
S. Torallas-Tovar, A Coptic Exegetical Text on Daniel 8,5-18: A
Parchment Codex Page From Montserrat 513-521
J.D. Turner, Coptic Renditions of Greek Metaphysics: The Platonizing
Sethian Treatises Zostrianos and Allogenes 523-554
J. van der Vliet, Literature, liturgy, magic: a dynamic continuum 555-574
S.J. Voicu, Per una lista delle opere trasmesse in copto sotto il nome di
Giovanni Crisostomo 575-610
E. Wipszycka, Le lettere di Sinesio come fonte per la storia del
patriarcato alessandrino 611-620

INDEX OF ANCIENT AUTHORS AND WORKS 621

INDEX OF MODERN NAMES 629
INDEX OF THE VOLUME 638
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY
TIMOTHY AELURUS (CPG 5486), THE COPTIC CHURCH HISTORY,
AND THE ARCHIVES OF THE BISHOPRIC OF ALEXANDRIA∗

After a decade spent as one of Tito Orlandi’s students, I had the oppor-
tunity to work side by side with him for nearly twenty years. Like any good
teacher, however, Tito Orlandi cultivated in me independence of mind
and a critical spirit, stimulating my search for new paths to explore even if
they led me far from the direction that his own research was taking. Some
ten years ago, our paths unexpectedly crossed while we were wandering in
the maze of Coptic historiography. In 2000, Alessandro Bausi invited me to
collaborate upon the edition and commentary of a history of the
Alexandrian Church preserved in an Ethiopic manuscript, part of which
he had discovered to be parallel to the famous Melitian documents
preserved in the Latin Codex Veronensis LX(58). Thus began a new phase in
my studies, in which I had to measure myself against the living legacy of
Tito Orlandi’s studies on works of Church history.

1. Tito Orlandi and the Coptic History of the Church

Although a considerable portion of Tito Orlandi’s research and edi-

torial activity in the field of Egyptian historiography has been focused on
the Church History preserved in Coptic (= CHC), which he has recovered
from fragmentary manuscripts and other witnesses and studied from the
point of view of both its sources (official documents, homilies, hagiogra-
phical legends) and historical significance1, other literary works have also

∗
The following abbreviations will be used in this contribution: CHC = Coptic
History of the Church; HP = History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, HEpA = History of the
Episcopate of Alexandria. I want to express my gratitude to Dr. Richard Westall and
Dr. Emanuel Fiano for improving the English and the style of my paper.
1
Edited in Storia della Chiesa di Alessandria, ed. by T. Orlandi, 2 volumes, Mila-
no-Varese 1968-1970. New fragments: D.W. Johnson, Further Fragments of a Coptic His-
tory of the Church. Cambridge Or.1699R, in Enchoria 6 (1976), 7-18; T. Orlandi, Nuovi
frammenti della Historia Ecclesiastica copta, in Studi in onore di Edda Bresciani, ed. by
S.F. Bondì, Pisa 1985, 363-84. The text, in its complete form, including the section
parallel to Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, is published on the web site of the Corpus
dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari: http://rmcisadu.let.uniroma1.it. See also the fol-
lowing studies about the text: J. Gribomont, L’historiographie du trône d’Alexandrie a-
206 A. CAMPLANI

attracted his critical attention. His studies led him to explore what went
before and what came after this particular document. In the wake of the
CHC, there came an extremely important history of the Coptic Church,
the well-known History of Patriarchs (= HP) in Arabic, which, if analyzed
properly, may be used also to recover the lost sections of the CHC2. Before

vec quelques remarques sur S. Mercure, S. Basile et S. Eusèbe de Samosate, in Rivista di Sto-
ria e Letteratura Religiosa 7 (1971), 478-490; H. Brakmann, Eine oder zwei koptische Kir-
chengeschichte?, in Le Muséon 87 (1974), 129-142; P. Devos, Note sur l’Histoire ecclesiasti-
que copte, in Analecta Bollandiana 95 (1977), 144-151; J. den Heijer, À propos de la tra-
duction copte de l’Histoire ecclésiastique d’Eusèbe de Césarée: nouvelle remarques sur les par-
ties perdues, in Actes du IVe Congrès international d’études coptes, ed. by M. Rassart-
Debergh and J. Ries, Louvain 1992, vol. 2, 185-193; T. Orlandi: La traduzione copta di
Eusebio di Cesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, in Atti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Ren-
diconti della Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, serie 9, vol. V, Roma 1994, 399-
456 (on the character of the translation of the Eusebian section); Id., Claudio
Martire e Anatolio di Laodicea. Un problema letterario fra III e VI secolo, in Divitiae Aegypti.
Koptologische und verwandte Studien zu Ehren von Martin Krause, ed. C. Fluck et alii,
Wiesbaden 1995, 237-245 (its use by Constantine of Asyut); Id., The Coptic Ecclesiasti-
cal History: A Survey, in The World of Early Egyptian Christianity. Language, Literature,
and Social Context. Essays in Honor of David W. Johnson, ed. by J.E. Goehring and
J.A. Timbie, Washington 2007, 3-24.
2
HP is characterized by a variety of layers of composition. One of the main
questions is that of its nature of homogeneous historiographical project. This is a
work which had more editorial additions over time, in a manner not dissimilar
from the Roman Liber pontificalis. Editions of the version qualified as “vulgata”: His-
tory of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, ed. trad. B. Evetts, Paris 1904-
1915: PO 1,2: 99-214; PO: 1,4 381-619; PO 5,1: 1-215; PO 10,5: 357-551; Severus Ben al-
Muqaffa‘. Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, ed. C.F. Seybold [CSCO, Scriptores
arabici, Series tertia, 9], Beryti-Parisiis 1904-1910. The ms. of Hamburg, which
testifies to a more archaic state of the text, is edited in Severus ibn al-Muqaffa‘.
Alexandrinische Patriarchatgeschichte von S. Marcus bis Michael (61-767), nach dem
ältesten 1266 geschriebenen Hamburger Handschrift im arabischen Urtext heraugegeben, ed.
C.F. Seybold, Hamburg 1912. On the relationship between HP and CHC, see T.
Orlandi, Studi Copti. 1. Un encomio di Marco Evangelista, 2. Le fonti copte della Storia dei
Patriarchi di Alessandria, 3. La leggenda di S. Mercurio, Milano-Varese 1968, 53-86; D.W.
Johnson, Coptic Sources of the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria (Unpublished Dis-
sertation), Catholic University of America, Washington 1973; D.W. Johnson, Further
Remarks on the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, in Oriens Christianus 61
(1977), 103-116. The reference work for this history now is J. den Heijer, Mawhūb
ibn Mansur ibn Mufarriğ et l’historiographie copto-arabe. Étude sur la composition de
l’Histoire des Patriarches d’Alexandrie [CSCO 513, Subsidia 53], Louvain 1989; see
also the same scholar’s Wadi al-Natrun and the History of the Patriarchs, in Coptica 2
(2003), 24-42; Coptic Historiography in the Fātimid, Ayyūbid and Early Mamlūk Periods, in
Medieval Encounters 2 (1996), 67-98.
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS 207

the CHC, on the other hand, there existed a large compilation consisting
of official Church documents and narratives, the most famous piece of
which is the so-called Historia acephala (or better: Historia Athanasii). I have
proposed to title this compilation as the History of the Episcopate of Alexan-
dria (HEpA)3. Tito Orlandi has studied the relationship between the HP,
CHC, and HEpA, highlighting the traces of reworking, the common
sources, and the history of their use in later hagiography and homiletic4.
Consequently, when one reviews the history of modern studies dealing
with Egyptian Church historiography, the name of Tito Orlandi is omni-
present and his studies must be taken seriously into account as a necessary
step in the achievement of a broader understanding of the self-
representation of Coptic Christianity.
In this introduction to my study, against this extensive backdrop I
would like to emphasize two elements that will prove useful for the devel-

3
For the official history of the Alexandrian patriarchate, we have four main
witnesses: some passages of the Ecclesiastical History by Sozomen, the prologue of
the Latin translation of the Martyrium Petri made by Guarimpotus (see below), the
Latin Codex Veronensis LX (edited by C.H. Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta
Iuris Antiquissima. Canonum et conciliorum graecorum interpretationes latinae. Tomi
prioris fasciculi alterius pars quarta: Supplementum Nicaeno-alexandrinum sive
Conciliorum Nicaeni et Serdicensis Sylloge a Theodosio Diacono [Carthaginensi] adservata
secundum codicem unicum veronensem bibliothecae capitularis LX (58) saec. VII-VIII, Opus
postumum, Oxonii 1939; it contains inter alia the Historia acephala, which has also
been edited separately: Histoire «acéphale» et Index syriaque des Lettres Festales
d’Athanase d’Alexandrie, ed. by A. Martin and M. Albert [SCh 317], Paris 1985, and
documentation concerning the Synod of Serdica: Athanasius Werke. Dritter Band,
Erster Teil: Dokumente zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites, 3. Lieferung: Bis zur
Ekthesis makrostichos, herausgegeben im Auftrag der Berlin-Brandenburgischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften von H.C. Brennecke, U. Heil, A. von Stockhausen,
A. Wintjes, Berlin–New York 2007), and the unedited texts identified by A. Bausi in
an Ethiopic manuscript: New Egyptian Texts in Ethiopia, in Adamantius 8 (2002), 146-
51; Id., La collezione aksumita canonico-liturgica, in Adamantius 12 (2006), 43-70. A.
Bausi and I are currently concluding the work of editing these texts and providing
a commentary. Portions of my commentary can be found in A. Camplani,
L’autorappresentazione dell’episcopato di Alessandria tra IV e V secolo: questioni di metodo,
in Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 21/1 (2004), 147-185; Id., Lettere episcopali, storiografia pa-
triarcale e letteratura canonica: a proposito del Codex veronensis LX (58), in Rivista di
storia del cristianesimo 3 (2006), 117-164; Id., L’identità del patriarcato di Alessandria tra
storia e rappresentazione storiografica, in Adamantius 12 (2006), 8-42; Idem, Pietro di Ales-
sandria tra documentazione d’archivio e agiografia popolare, in Volksglaube im antiken
Christentum, ed. by H. Greiser and A. Merkt, Darmstadt 2009, 138-156.
4
T. Orlandi, Studi Copti. 1, 53-86.
208 A. CAMPLANI

opment of my argument: on the one hand, Tito Orlandi’s contribution to

the reconstruction of the HEpA; on the other, the question of authorship
of the CHC and its connections with the figure of Timothy Aelurus. In
fact, the new fragment I am going to edit and discuss finds its most natural
location at the crossroads between the formation and growth of the official
history of the Alexandrian episcopate and the question of Timothy’s
historiographical production.

1.1 The HEpA

In 1974, T. Orlandi dedicated to HEpA an article that is one of the

most significant contributions to the modern understanding of this
difficult text. To explain the progress of our knowledge of this work,
suffice it to say that it exists only in fragments and partial paraphrases. The
scattered remnants of this official history of the Alexandrian see concern-
ing the period corresponding to the 3rd and 4th centuries have been only
progressively identified by modern scholarship. The first source of the
HEpA was found within a group of textual pieces preserved in an ancient
Latin manuscript, the 8th century Codex Veronensis LX(58); other para-
phrases were recognized in later historiographical and hagiographical
sources. This compilation was most likely composed in the last quarter of
the 4th century, during the episcopate of Theophilus (385-412), and cer-
tainly before the activity of the historian Sozomen, who quotes some pas-
sages from it5. That section of this work which is known as the Historia
Acephala, or Historia Athanasii, is preserved in the Codex Veronensis LX(58)
and is a detailed narrative of Athanasius’ episcopate6. Other sections of the
same codex that can be ascribed to the HEpA deal with the birth and ini-
tial development of the Melitian schism under the episcopate of Peter I7,
the Nicaean acts, the Council of Serdica, and the life of Athanasius. As can
be seen from what survives, this historical compilation seems to have been
a mixture of three elements: ecclesiastical and civil documents that were
preserved in the archives of the Alexandrian see; short polemical narra-
tives written by redactors who were members of the Alexandrian clergy;
and historical and chronological data such as lists of bishops and informa-
tion concerning buildings and natural events.
The Alexandrian documents preserved by the Codex Veronensis LX were
published by Scipione Maffei in 1742 with the title Frammento insigne di

5
Histoire «acéphale», ed. A. Martin – M. Albert, 25-27.
6
Histoire «acéphale», ed. A. Martin – M. Albert, 138-213.
7
F.H. Kettler, Der melitianische Streit in Ägypten, in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentli-
che Wissenschaft 35 (1936), 155-192.
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS 209

storia ecclesiastica del quarto secolo8, but only gradually have they come to be
perceived as part of a larger historical compilation. In order to have an
idea of the progress of the studies, we can read the lines that P. Battifol
devoted to this history in 19019. His starting point is the mention of a
Synodicon attributed to Athanasius in Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica I 13.
Battifol accepts one of the features which according to M. Geppert are
proper to this Synodikon:

Le Synodikon est un dossier. - L’Historia acephala Arianorum ne serait-elle

pas un dossier tout pareil? (p. 130) (…) Ce dossier historique devrait être
caractérisé exactement comme M. Geppert a caractérisé le Synodikon. S’il en
est ainsi, on voit combien regrettable est l’erreur de Mai et de Sievers, qui
ont mis le fragment que constitue l’Acephala à part des morceaux qui dans
le ms. de Vérone le précèdent immédiatament, et que Maffei, mieux inspi-
ré avait réunis à l’Acephala sous le titre unique de Frammento insigne di Storia
ecclesiastica. Le premier de ces morceaux est la lettre à Mélèce des évêques
égyptiens Hésychios, Pakhôme, Théodore, Philéas (p. 131). (…) En resumé:
L’Acephala, telle que nous la possédons, est le residu d’un dossier qui a été
composé de pièces synodales et de documents analogues. Les plus an-
ciennes en date de ces pièces étaient antérieures à Nicée, et nous en avons
signalé qui étaient contemporaines de l’évêque Pierre en 306. A ce même
dossier ont appartenu les «actes» de l’entrevue de l’empereur Jovien et du
prêtre arien Lucius à Antioche, en 363. Pareillement les lettres de
l’empereur Constance et du pape Jules concernant le retour d’Athanase
après Sardique. Ainsi reconstituée l’Acephala a apparence d’être identique
au Synodikon (…) En incorporant, en effet, l’Acephala dans le Synodikon,
nous faisons du Synodikon une collection canonique qui n’a dû être formée
qu’au début de l’épiscopat de Théophile (pp. 136-137)».

Not everything that Battifol said can now be accepted, such as the
existence of the Synodicon or the amount of documents that he attributed
to this history without any compelling philological reason. Despite these
reservations, his contribution marks a turning-point in research, for the
reason that he gives new arguments in favour of the intuition that all the
material concerning Alexandria in the Codex Veronensis LX could be part of
a complex historical compilation transcending the narrow confines of the
Historia acephala and including other documents, for example those

8
S. Maffei, Istoria Teologica delle dottrine e delle opinioni Corse ne’ cinque primi secoli
della Chiesa in proposito della divina Grazia, del libero arbitrio, e della Predestinazione,
Trento 1742, 254-262.
9
P. Batiffol, Le Synodikon de S. Athanase», in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 10 (1901), 128-
143.
210 A. CAMPLANI

related to the councils of Nicaea and Serdica or to the Melitian schism.

Thus, the situation of the studies was rapidly changing in the first half of
the 20th century thanks to the editorial activity of Turner and the studies of
both Schwartz10 and Telfer11. The latter gives in few words the sense of
progress to be had around 1950:

The eighteenth century saw the discovery, in a thousand-year old codex

belonging to the Chapter Library at Verona, of remnants, in a Latin ver-
sion, of a work or works dealing with the history of the Alexandrine church
in the fourth century. A happy intuition of Professor C. H. Turner connect-
ed these fragments with events in Africa in 419 A.D., and with the «ecclesias-
tical history» which Cyril of Alexandria sent to Carthage to substantiate his
account of the relation of the rights of the see of Rome to those of other
churches, in answer to an enquiry from the African episcopate. Following
this clue, and assuming that all the Alexandrine pieces in our codex derive
from the same work, we can form some idea of the nature of Cyril’s «eccle-
siastical history». It was a topical work, composed in 368 A.D., to celebrate
the forty-years jubilee of Athanasius as bishop. One item in our codex is a
so-called Historia Acephala covering the last half of the life of Athanasius.
Other items concern the Alexandrine church in the persecution and at the
times of Nicaea and Sardica. As Batiffol recognized, all the pieces derive
from the same kind of work, polemical history cast in the form used by Ath-
anasius himself for his historical books – a terse thread of narrative on
which is strung the text of justifying documents. And as the contendings of
Athanasius for the faith arose from causes operating before his episcopate,
the story in this Jubilee Book started with the days of Peter and the out-
break of the great persecution. And so, though the Jubilee Book hardly
merits the name of «ecclesiastical history», it was more than a chronicle of
the life of Athanasius. It remained unknown to the church historians of the
fifth century12.

In the second half of the 20th century other witnesses to this history
have been explored, in particular Sozomen and Guarimpotus, and a new
edition of the Historia Athanasii has been produced, with a long introduc-
tion and commentary, by A. Martin. Contrary to what Telfer believed, this

10
Inter alia see E. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. V, in Nachrichten von der
königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse,
Göttingen 1905, 164-187; Id., Über die Sammlung des Cod. Veronensis LX, in Zeitschrift
für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 35 (1936), 1-23.
11
W. Telfer, The Codex Verona LX (58), in Harvard Theological Review 36 (1943),
169-246.
12
W. Telfer, St. Peter of Alexandria and Arius, in Analecta Bollandiana 67 (1949) (=
Mélanges Paul Peeters vol. I), 117-130, here 117.
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS 211

compilation, which cannot be defined as a «Jubilee Book» compiled «to

celebrate the forty-years jubilee of Athanasius as bishop», was well known
in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Cyril of Alexandria calls it «the his-
tory of the Church» (ecclesiastica historia13), and traces of its presence and
use can be found in Constantinople, Carthage, Naples, and Rome. Today
the following sources are commonly recognized as preserving fragments or
paraphrases of the HEpA: 1) as I have already remarked, some items of the
Codex Veronensis LX (58); 2) Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica I 15, concerning
Melitius and the young Arius, and other passages which are drawn from
the section of the HEpA concerning the Council of Serdica and the life of
Athanasius (IV 9,6-9; IV 10,8-12; V 7,2-3; VI 5,1-4; VI 12,5-6); 3) the introduc-
tion written by the hagiographer Guarimpotus (at Naples in the second
half of the 9th century) to his Latin translation of the Martyrdom of Peter of
Alexandria14; 4) an ecletic hagiographical text in Ethiopic, which is entitled
The Martyrdom of St. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria15; 5) the historical text that
Alessandro Bausi has identified in the Ethiopic collection, which is the
most important of the surviving fragments. This latter is, in fact, the
Ethiopic translation of the historical source of passages for Sozomen,
Guarimpotus, and later historiographical and hagiographical traditions on
Alexandrian Church affairs. As we have said, the contents of a portion of
the new Ethiopic manuscript were already known from the Codex Veronensis
LX: the letter by Phileas and the other bishop-martyrs to Melitius and the
one by Peter of Alexandria to the Alexandrian Christians, as well as a short
intervening narrative16. However, the greater part of this history is com-
pletely unknown: the first part concerning the patriarchs of Alexandria
and the rules governing their election, and the third part relating Arius’
return amongst the clergy through the intervention of Achillas and Alex-
ander, and containing a final exhortation in favour of the institutional
church and against heresy and schism.
Tito Orlandi has revised the insights of scholars of the past, Battifol,
Schwartz, and particularly Telfer, so as to build upon them the ideological

13
Concilia Africae A. 345 – A. 525, ed. C. Munier (CCL 149), Turnhout 1974, 162.
14
See Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina nos. 6692-6693 = Patrologia Graeca 18, c.
453-460, and Bibliotheca Casinensis seu Codicum manuscriptorum qui in tabulario Casi-
nensi asservantur, vol. III, Ex Typographia Cassinensi, Montecassino 1887, «Florile-
gium cassinense», 187-191; P. Devos, L’oeuvre de Guarimpotus, hagiographe napolitain,
in Analecta Bollandiana 76 (1958), 151-187.
15
Getatchew Haile, The Martyrdom of St. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria (EMML
1763, ff. 79r-80v), in Analecta Bollandiana 98 (1980), 85-92.
16
F.H. Kettler, Der melitianische Streit in Ägypten, 159-163; C.H. Turner, Ecclesiae
Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima, 625-626.
212 A. CAMPLANI

profile of the HEpA and to offer some proposals for its recovery. In
particular, he has given great emphasis to the testimonies of Sozomen and
Guarimpotus17, to which we will return after the edition of the Syriac frag-
ment. As regards Sozomen, Orlandi has correctly denied his dependence
on Sabinus of Heraclea and stressed his direct knowledge of the
Alexandrian archives18. His analysis of Guarimpotus’ introduction to the
Latin translation of the Martyrium Petri is the most important contribution
about the significance of this source for the reconstruction of the HEpA. I
can anticipate that most of Guarimpotus’ passages considered by Orlandi
as part of the HEpA do in fact occur in the Ethiopic manuscript. That is
something that will be shown by Bausi’s edition, which is nearing
completion.

1.2 The authorship of the CHC

Another issue that I wish to touch upon briefly is the authorship of

CHC, a text which seems to be without an author. It is matter of deciding
whether the mention in HP of a person, Menas, who composed a history
of the times of Cyril and Dioscorus19 may concern the CHC. It is to be kept
in mind, however, that the CHC narrates not only the history of Dioscorus,
but also that of Timothy Aelurus, who, in the preserved fragments, is the
last Egyptian Church authority to be quoted – to whom, on the contrary,
HP devotes only a few lines20.
Here I would like to show some proposals about this issue in the history
of the study. The first major treatment was that of W.E. Crum:

There is – or was – an ecclesiastical history, the author of which might

sufficiently answer our requirements. The Plerophorias of John of Maiûma
twice quote the Ecclesiastical History of Timothy Aelurus; it is also given
among the sources of the Chronicle of Michael the Great. Our present work
was composed – assuming its author to have brought the narrative down to
his own day – after Timothy’s return from exile, 475, and presumably before
his death, 477, since there is no reference to that event. It will be noticed
too that, in the list here given of works composed by Timothy during exile,

17
T. Orlandi, Ricerche, 271-287.
18
Ibid., 270.
19
PO 1, 144.
20
T. Orlandi, The Coptic Ecclesiastical History: A Survey, 22: «The redactor of the
HPA does not seem to have known the parts of the HsC on Dioscorus and Timothy
Aelurus. This may point to the fact that he used an incomplete copy of the HsC, or,
less likely, that he used a first edition of the HsC that ended with Cyril and later en-
larged it to include the lives of Dioscorus and Timothy».
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS 213

his Ecclesiastical History does not figure, presumably because not yet com-
posed. That the writer of such a work should thus describe his own career
does not seem a final argument against Timothy’s authorship, though the
doings of this patriarch might indeed be narrated in a favourable light by
any monophysite writer. A pertinent objection to the Timothean author-
ship would be that Severus, who used the earlier parts of our Coptic work,
does not draw upon it for his account of Timothy himself, of whom indeed
he has hardly a word to tell us. And it may be further objected that Timothy
would have talked of himself with less restraint than is here the case; that he
would not call himself hagios and that he returned from exile too aged and
lived too short a time for the composition of so long a work21.

It is clear from this quotation that Crum is here proposing a hypothesis

that offers more the ideological outline of a milieu than the real profile of
a single concrete author. Such caution is likewise found in T. Orlandi’s
studies:

Il brano di Severo [di Ashmunein] citato or ora fornirebbe anche la so-

luzione del grave problema dell’autore di questa S.C.A. Esso sarebbe dun-
que un certo Menna, per altro ignoto, che scrisse all’epoca del vescovo Dio-
scoro (444-454); ed in effetti preferiremmo l’ipotesi di un autore di scarso
rilievo, che si avvale delle precedenti ‘compilazioni ufficiali’ del patriarcato
alessandrino, a quella di una personalità di grande importanza, che avrebbe
composto un’opera così scialba e priva di una sua intrinseca unità concet-
tuale. Poiché tale bisognerà alla fine definire, al di là della sua importanza
documentaria per i nostri scopi di studiosi moderni, questa ‘Storia’ che sta
a metà fra la cronaca e la agiografia, e non lascia trapelare alcun lampo di
quella cultura ‘ellenica’ che ci si può attendere in qualunque opera scritta
sino al V secolo. Tuttavia la paternità di questo Menna non potrà intendersi
se non come una semplice alternativa all’altra ipotesi emessa dal Crum, che
la nostra Storia corrisponda con l’analoga opera di Timoteo Eluro, a cui fa
allusione un testo del V secolo, le Pleroforie di Giovanni Rufo. Anche questa
ipotesi è del resto sostenuta solo dalle considerazioni: a) che la S.C.A. si
concludeva probabilmente con Timoteo; b) che di nessun’altra opera stori-
ca appartenente a quel periodo, e che possa coincidere con S.C.A., abbia-
mo notizia.22

In a more recent survey, Tito Orlandi avoids the question of authorship

and speaks of a “commission”, a word that conveys both the idea of an in-

21
W.E. Crum, Eusebius and Coptic Church Histories, in Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology 24 (1902), 71-72.
22
Storia della Chiesa di Alessandria, ed. T. Orlandi, vol. II, 129-130.
214 A. CAMPLANI

tentional project made by an author and its implementation by a different

person:

In the tormented times of the Chalcedonian controversy, when various

elements among the Egyptian clerics and people opposed one another, the
patriarch Timothy Aelurus (457-477) commissioned a history of the Church
based on the historical records preserved in the archive.23

Ph. Blaudeau’s investigation of the Church of Alexandria’s self-

representation of its history in the Mediterranean world during the 5th and
6th century has led him to trace the literary heritage of Timothy Aelurus,
especially that of his historiographical writings24. According to this scholar,
Timothy’s history, Historia Nestorianorum ad episcopos et monachos, was in-
spired by both the model of Athanasius’ Historia arianorum and that of the
HEpA. In particular Blaudeau offers a new hypothesis about the relation-
ship obtaining between the CHC and Timothy:

(Orlandi) plaide en faveur d’un original grec à visée populaire qui au-
rait été rédigé dans la métropole égyptienne, peu avant ou peu après la
mort d’Aelure. Selon lui, la traduction copte n’aurait tardé. Nous propo-
sons de reconnaître dans le récit grec correspondant à cette deuxième par-
tie de l’Histoire de l’Église copte une épitomisation narrative du recueil histo-
25
rique constitué par Timothée .

This solution may resolve some of the contradictions generated by

Crum’s attribution. Its advantage is to allow the elements of this history at-
tributable to Timothy to coexist with his unproved contribution to its
composition. In this way, the connection between CHC and Timothy
Aelurus remains, but is mediated by a compiler who could also have drawn
his materials from other sources, for instance the hagiographic literature
that, at least in part, seems unlikely to have been used and reworked by the
pen of the patriarch.

2. Timothy: A new fragment from his Liber historiarum

So Timothy is a name and a historical figure invoked to explain the

origin of a historiographical initiative such as the CHC. Neither Crum nor

23
T. Orlandi, The Coptic Ecclesiastical History: A Survey, 4.
24
Ph. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451-491). De l’histoire à la géo-
ecclésiologie [Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athène et de Rome, 327], Rome
2006.
25
Ibid., 368, n. 503.
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS 215

Orlandi has found strong evidence of his authorship, but according to

them it is absolutely clear that there is a connection between the drafting
of this work and the official environment of the patriarchate, in particular
its anti-Chalcedonian trend.
The problem is now to measure the distance or the proximity between
the text of the CHC and the documents preserved in the archives or in the
HEpA: is there a direct connection between the two or, as in Ph.
Blaudeau’s interpretation, only a relationship mediated by unknown
intermediaries? The new textual witness we will discuss, which complicates
the question of authorship, is to be placed exactly in the space between
the CHC and the HEpA.
As we have already said, Timothy wrote about church history, especially
that of his own times26, within his larger polemical project. In fact, as part
of his theological refutation of Leo’s Tome and the Council of Chalcedon
of 451, he wrote a history recounting events from the first Council of
Ephesus in 431 to the death of Marcian in 457 (‫ܐ‬ ‫)ܬ‬27.
2.1 The depositions of Paul of Beth Ukkama and that of Melitius of Lycopolis: a
6th century discussion

But was only that period at the center of Timothy’s attention, or did his
interests invest historical vicissitudes more distant in time and less tied to
contemporary history?
From a document published in Documenta ad origines monophysitarum
illustrandas we learn that the deposition of Paul of Beth Ukkama was a sub-
ject of discussion within miaphysite circles. Sergius, a hermit of Nicaea, at
the request of his master, the priest John Sabas of Reš‘aina, wrote a de-
fence of Paul (CPG 7213) against an attack by Probus, disciple of John the
Lame, a priest of the monastery of Beth Mar Bassus. It is from this defence
that we learn the reasons for Paul’s deposition, i.e. his part in the consecra-
tion of Theodore as patriarch of Alexandria and his communion with the
Chalcedonians at the time of the edict of Justin II28. We can also imagine

26
See now E. Watts, Interpreting Catastrophe: Disasters in the Works of Pseudo-Joshua
the Stylite, Socrates Scholasticus, Philostorgius, and Timothy Aelurus, in Journal of Late An-
tiquity 2 (2009), 79-98.
27
See for example the fragments in PO 8, 83-85 (John Rufus) or those pub-
lished in F. Nau, Documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’église nestorienne [PO 13], Paris
1911, 202–217.
28
A contextualization of this writing is in Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century,
edited, translated and annotated by A. Van Roey and P. Allen [Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta, 56], Leuven 1994, 291-292.
216 A. CAMPLANI

the contents of the attack of Probus, who had tried to prove that the depo-
sition in absentia of Paul was in line with the behaviour of the tradition of
the Church and the Fathers.
It is in this context that the deposition of Melitios of Lycopolis was
mentioned and discussed: «Melitius of Lyco was deposed, though not
summoned, by the Synod of the 318 Fathers, because of his transgression
of the canons, when they upset his ordination, as is shown by the epistle
that the Synod wrote to the Alexandrians. Timothy called “Aelurus”
accurately narrates the story of his transgression of the canons»29. What is
more important for our inquiry is not the argument used by Sergius to
support his opinion that Paul’s and Melitius’ cases are different, but the
fact that Timothy Aelurus is quoted as the author of a narrative about
Melitius. It is not too bold a speculation to argue that the canonical prob-
lems concerning Timothy’s election and that of Dioscorus’ followers af-
fected the elaboration of this narrative, the aim of which was to demon-
strate that their canonical situation differed from that of the schismatic
bishop of the beginning of the 4th century.

2.2 The Contra Felicissimum by Severus of Antioch

Another witness to Timothy’s historiographical activity deserves our at-

tention. J. Lebon mentions the work of an anonymous author (probably
between the second half of the 5th and the first half of the 6th century),
preserved in British Library add. 12,155, which gives further evidence of
this same historical work by Timothy Aelurus about the history of Alexan-
dria in the 4th century30. The source is a polemical writing against Julian of
Halicarnassus and his disciple Felicissimus. From the long passage quoted
in BL add. 12,155, whose text I am going to present to the reader, we learn
that Felicissimus used in favor of his Christological position a passage
drawn from a work attributed to Peter of Alexandria, entitled Against Paul
of Samosata and against the Arians. However, this was not the only point of
discussion: Felicissimus claimed that this passage occurred as a quotation
also in a writing by Timothy Aelurus. According to the anonymous author,
that claim is completely false.

29
Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas, ed. J.-B. Chabot [CSCO,
Scriptores Syri, Series secunda, 37], 228 (textus), 159 (transl.).
30
J. Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien: étude historique, littéraire et théologique sur la
résistance monophysite au Concile de Chalcédoine jusqu’à la constitution de l’Eglise jacobite,
Lovanii 1909, 108-109. For the manuscript and its dating to the 8th century see W.
Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, London 1870, vol. II,
939, 955.
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS 217

Before presenting the Syriac text containing the fragment by Timothy,

I should point out that this anonymous text is not the only evidence for a
dispute between the followers of Severus and those of Julian about the au-
thenticity of some passages attributed to Peter of Alexandria. Severus him-
self had dealt with the question in a work entitled Contra Felicissimum (CPG
7032)31, which appears to be lost except for a number of short fragments
preserved in both the Doctrina patrum32 and the exegetical chain on Gene-
sis33. These Greek fragments have recently been augmented by other quo-
tations thanks to the publication of the large polemical tract by Peter of
Callinicum against Damian of Alexandria34. Other quotations are pre-
served in the above-mentioned BL add. 12,155, which has the form of a se-
ries of miaphysite florilegia35.
Of the passages in which Peter of Callinicum discusses the work by Se-
verus one is particularly useful for our purpose36. In it he quotes the
«words by the same proven father Severus, which are set down in the first
chapter of the fifth book of his treatise Against Felicissimus and are as fol-
lows»:

31
See P. Allen - C.T.R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch [The Early Church Fathers],
London-New York 2004, 49 and notes 17-20.
32
F. Diekamp, Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus
der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts, Münster 1907, 21-24.
33
F. Petit, La chaîne sur la Genèse. Edition intégrale. I, Chapitres 1 à 3, vol. I, 151 n.
217-218, 186 n. 270.
34
Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatus Contra Damianum, ed. R.Y.
Ebied, A. Van Roey, L.R. Wickham [CCG 29, 32, 35], Turnhout-Leuven 1994-1998.
35
BL add. 12,155 f. 69r col. b, f. 75v col. a, f 77r col. b, f. 104r-v; see also other
manuscripts in Wright’s Catalogue: for instance BL Add. 14,532, BL Add. 14,726.
36
A first quotation does not help us, as it is intended to bolster the trinitarian
claims by deriving them from the Christological polemic. See CCG 32, 258-259, IX
ll. 272-277: «About these indications the Patriarch also spoke in Against Felicissimus,
as follows: “For, Felicissimus, (for it is good to reply to you, because you are close),
does calling the same body “corruptible”, “passible”, and “mortal”, signify three
hypostases and three substrates, as, e.g. Paul, Silvanus and Timothy and Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost; for those exist in three separate and unconfused hypostases”?». In
other passages, Peter of Callinicum quotes the correct bibliographical references
instead of those of his adversaries, which are not accurate. For example, at CCG 32,
528-529 = XIX l. 294 (= translation l. 273), we read: «For writing in the sixth chapter
of the third book of the treatise Against Felicissimus he calls “third” the book, which
according to the opinion of this good fellow, he should have called the “fifth” of
wise Gregory’s books Against Eunomius. (…) He says: «Similarly, he says these
things also, expressing them in almost the same words, in the third book Against
Eunomius (…)».
218 A. CAMPLANI

‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܬ ܐ ܐ ܐ܇ ̈ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬

̈
‫ܐ ܕܖ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܕ ܇‬
‫ܐ ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܕܬܘܕ ܗ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ ܐ܇‬
‫ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ̈
‫ܗܖ‬ ‫ܒܓܒ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫܇ ܕ ܐ ܿܨܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܿ ܢ ܕ‬
‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܕ ܒܢ‬ ‫ܕܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܇ ܗ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܘܕ ܐ‬
‫ܒ ܕ ܐ ܐܐ ܕ ܕ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ . ‫ܐ‬
‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܣ ܕ ܇ ܘ‬ ‫ܓܒ ܇‬
ܼ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܣ‬
‫ܒ ܬܗ ܐܬ ܕ ܕܓ ܐ‬ ‫ܼܒ ܇‬ ‫ܐ ܒܓܒ ܐ‬
‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܗܕܐ‬. ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬
‫ܐ ܇‬ ‫ܘ ܙ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܘܬܐ܇ ܘ ܐܒܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ‬
‫̈ ܐ܇‬ ‫̈ܒ ܬܐ܇ ܘ ܐ ܕ ܐ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬
‫ܕܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܓ ܐܢ ܕ‬ ̈ ̈
‫ܘ ̈ ܐ ܙܒ‬
. ‫ܐܬܬ‬

But by usefully repeating these things to you, I have made known the doc-
tor’s words, put to shame the asinine and contentious ears of the impious,
and demonstrated with clarity to the listeners the soundness of his profes-
sion, which takes no delight in the heretical, unsound and implausible fab-
rications which they have wickedly ventured to publish against him. Julian
fabricates the name only (I mean, of Saint Peter the martyr) whereas
Felicissimus has encompassed holy Timothy too, in his fabrication, falsely
quoting his book to make the deception of his pen plausible, and this de-
spite our making known the author of the discourse at every testimony, and
clearly announcing the intentions of the writings and the number of the
books which are devoted to the intentions and the long-standing causes
37
with which each quoted testimony has been concerned .

Turning now our attention to the anonymous author of BL add. 12,155,

it is to be noted that he claims that in the works of Timothy Aelurus there
is no trace of a quotation from a work by Peter of Alexandria against Paul
of Samosata and the Arians. Furthermore, he affirms that it is impossible
to attribute to Peter the martyr a work against Arianism, for the simple
reason that Arianism arose after the death of Peter. His words and argu-
ments are so similar to those which are found in the above mentioned
fragment by Severus that it does not seem too bold to assume that Severus
is also the author of this passage, which could be part of his lost Against
Felicissimus. Here are the text and the translation of the main portion of
the passage, chapter no. 318 of the florilegium:

37
CCG 32, 182-184 = VII ll. 51-69.
 ‫‪A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS‬‬ ‫‪219‬‬

‫)‪ (f. 114v col. b‬ܚ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܣ ܐ‬ ‫ܣ ‪:‬‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܕܒ ܘ‬
‫‪ :‬ܕ ܘܣ‬ ‫ܣ ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ ܘ ܕܐ܀‬ ‫ܕܐ‬
‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ ܘ ܕܐ ‪:‬‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬
‫ܐܖ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬
‫ܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܘܬܐ ܇‬ ‫ܣ ܕܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬
‫ܖܐ ‪ .‬ܓ ܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܐܘܣ ܕܐ ܐ ܪ ܐ ܒܐ‬
‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܓ ܬܗ ܇ ܕܗܕܐ ܘ ܐ ܒ ܘܟ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬
‫ܐ ܿܗܝ‬ ‫ܒܿ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܐܬܐܘܣ‪ .‬ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ ܒ ܬܐ ܕ‬
‫ܘܐܪ ܣ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫܀ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܒ‬
‫ܓܐ ]…[‬

‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ̈ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫]‪(…) [f. 115r col. a‬‬

‫ܐ ܘܗܝ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫̈‬
‫ܐ ܐܼ‬ ‫ܕܬܖ‬
‫ܪ ܐ ܘ ܕܐ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܣ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܿ‬
‫ܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܘ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܕܓ‬ ‫̈‬
‫ܗܖ‬ ‫ܘܬܖ ܘܢ ̈ܖ‬ ‫̈‬
‫ܼ‬
‫ܣ ܕ ܘ‬ ‫ܿ ܕ ܐܪ ܣ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫‪:‬‬
‫‪ :‬ܕ ܘܣ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܪܘ ܐ ܗܘ ܕ ܐ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ‪ .‬ܘ‬
‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܕܐ ܇‬ ‫ܐ‬
‫ܘܣ ܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫̈‬
‫ܕܐܖ‬ ‫ܠ ܕܗܪ‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬
‫ܘ ܒ ܐܖ‬
‫ܣ ‪ .‬ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܖ‬ ‫ܘܣ ܘ ܿ ܒ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ ‪ :‬ܐ ܐ‬
‫ܐܪ ܣ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܪܘܣ ‪:‬‬ ‫ܗ ܐ ‪ .‬ܘܒ ܪܗ ܗܘܐ ܐ‬
‫ܘܣ‬ ‫ܪܘܣ‬ ‫ܪܓ ܗܘܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܬܐ ‪ .‬ܘ‬
‫ܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐ ‪ܼ :‬ܗܘ ܐܪ ܣ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬
‫ܪܘܣ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕ ܒ ܣ ܸ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܬܘܗܝ ܐ ܒ ‪ :‬ܕܒ ̈ܖ‬
‫‪:‬‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫‪ .‬ܘܗ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ܝ ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܐ ܼ‬
‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܓ‬ ‫ܐ ‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܬܐܘܕܪ ܐ ܒܐ‬
‫ܒ ܐܖ̈‬ ‫ܘܣ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܣ ܇ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬
‫ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܘܣ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܪ ܕ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܓ ܐ‬ ‫‪:‬‬
‫ܪܘܣ ܇ ܘܗ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘܐ ܒ ܪܗ ‪ .‬ܘܒ ܪ‬
‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ‪:‬‬ ‫ܕܐܖ ‪ .‬ܘܐܢ ܕ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܗܪ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ̈‬
‫ܘܣ ܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐ ܇ ܕܒ‬ ‫ܕܨܒܐ ܕ ܩ ܪܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬
‫‪ :‬ܕ ܘܣ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫‪ .‬ܐܢ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫̈‬
‫ܕܐܖ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܗܪ‬
220 A. CAMPLANI

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܗܕܐ ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬: ̈

‫ܕܐܖ‬ ‫ܐ ܗܘܐ ܒ ܪ ܙܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬
‫ܪܐ ܇‬ ‫ܕܐ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܣ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܗܘܐ‬ :
‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܿܗ‬ ‫ܣ ܇ ܕܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܿܗܘ ܕ ܡ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬
. ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ‬: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܬܘܒ ܐܢ ܐ‬

‫ܘܣ >ܒ<ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ : ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܣ‬
‫ܐܘܣ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕ ܐܠ ܆ ܕ ܐ‬̇ ̇ ‫ܕ ܆ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ‬
‫܆ ܕ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒ ܒܐ ܕܬ‬: ‫ܪܐ‬ ̇
‫ܗܘ ܕܒ ܪ ܕ‬
ܼ ‫ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬: ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܗܪ‬
‫ܒ̈ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܣ ܐ ̇ ܙ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬
‫ܘܣ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܬܐ ܆ ܘ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܢ‬
ܼ
ܿ
‫ܗܘܘ ܒ ܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܣ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܗܘܢ ܆‬
‫ܒ ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܙܒ ܐ ܆ ܐ ܐ‬
‫ܬܐ ܂ ܘܬܘܒ ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕܪܕܘ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬
‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܕܗ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܬ‬
‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܦ‬ ‫ܕܨܒܐ ܗܘܐ ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܕܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬
‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ‫ܘܣ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬
ܼ ‫ܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬
‫ܒ ̈ ܐ܂‬
18. FORGERY THAT WAS FALSELY ATTRIBUTED BY JULIAN AND FELICISSIMUS
TO PETER BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA AND MARTYR – when Felicissimus said: «Peter
bishop of Alexandria and martyr, from the Discourse against Paul of Samosata
and the Arians».
And he claimed that this testimony was placed by Timothy of Alexan-
dria among the words addressed to Cyrus. His falsehood has been openly
proved wrong, because this (testimony) is found nowhere in Timothy’s writ-
ings. However, in that demonstration, which was fabricated, there are these
words: “The Samosatene is not believing and Arius is doubting [… a long
quotation from the forgery is here reported …]”.
This same forgery Julian inserted in his second discourse, without ut-
tering the name of the discourse from which it comes, and attributed it to
Peter bishop of Alexandria and martyr. And these two heresiarchs have
been proved wrong for the reason that they have acted deceitfully and spo-
ken falsely, Julian for the reason of the forgery that has been mentioned
(addressed) to Arius, Felicissimus both for this one and that title of the dis-
course that says: “Peter bishop of Alexandria and martyr, from the Discourse
against Paul of Samosata and the Arians”, for the reason that the heresy of the
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS 221

Arians did not exist in the days of Peter; on the contrary, Peter died and
Achillas received his throne; this one died too and after him there was Al-
exander, when Arius was a priest of the Church. And when Alexander
preached a homily to his clergy about the Holy Trinity, Arius, one of the
priests under him, suspected that Alexander was falling in the heresy of
Sabellius. For that reason he arose against him and gave origin to his here-
sy. These things are made known by Socrates and Theodoret in their eccle-
siastical (histories)38. Consequently Julian and Felicissimus acted deceitfully
when they attributed to Peter a demonstration against the Arians, because it
has become clear that after the death of Peter and that of Achillas who was
after him, then there was Alexander; and it was then, in his days, that the
heresy of the Arians began. If not, let him who wishes to defend Julian
demonstrate that in the days of Peter there was the heresy of the Arians. If
one says that there was another Peter after the time of the Arians and that
this demonstration is his, let him show that there was one Peter bishop and
martyr in Alexandria different from the one before Achillas and that it is
his this (demonstration) that Julian and Felicissimus have attributed (to
him).
And if one out of ignorance insists (and says): «Why was Arius
expelled from the Church when Peter was shut in prison to become
martyr?», let him who asks this question know that the holy Timothy, the
one after Dioscorus, teaches in the Book of histories that it was not for heresy
that he (= Arius) was expelled from the Church, but because he was angry
for the reason that the holy Peter had excommunicated the Melitians from
the Church for the great multitude of their misdeeds and Peter had not
accepted their baptism. On the other hand, Melitius was not charged with
heresy in that time, but for having dared to make impositions of hands in
the dioceses of others, during a period of persecution, without authori-
zation, and again, after this action had been prohibited by the bishops of
these dioceses who were imprisoned to become martyrs, for having dared to
usurp for himself the throne of the blessed Peter when this one was in life,
and for other crimes.

The last paragraph of this text is of capital importance, as it gives an

outline, and also some words, of a historical work by Timothy entitled Book
of the histories. It must be emphasized that the events and the documents al-
luded to in this section of Timothy’s history have a parallel to be found
only in the HEpA. We can say with abosolute certainty that Timothy knew
this official historiographical compilation, as may be shown by way of a
comparison of the Syriac text of the last paragraph, the Latin of Guarim-

38
In particular the author seems to be dependent on Socrates, Historia
ecclesiastica, I 5,2.
222 A. CAMPLANI

potus’s introduction to his translation of the Greek Martyrium Petri, and

the Greek of Sozomen’s history:

I,9: Meletianorum interea ἦ ω ῶ ω Ἄ

detestabile nefas supra modum ῆ ΄ Αἴ
crescebat, pavensque beatissumus
Ἀ . ὃ ἐ ἀ χῆ ῖ
Petrus ne haeretica pestis totum sibi
creditum invaderet gregem ἶ
simulque sciens quia nulla societas ω Μ ῳ ·
est luci cum tenebris nullaque con- ῦ ἐχ
cordia Christo et Belial, Meletianos Π ῦ
ab Ecclesia per litteras segregavit et,
Ἀ ω ἐ ·
quia mala voluntas diu occultari
non valet, ilico nefandissimus ὖ ΄ ὐ ῦ ῆ ἐ ἐ ͵
Arrius, propter quod suos fautores Π Μ
ab Ecclesiae dignitate cerneret ἀ
divisos, tristitiae mancipatus, ὐῶ ῖ
gemebat. ἐ ἠ ῖ ὐ
Quod sanctissimus virum minime
ἠ χ .40
latuit: denudata namque eius
hypocrisi, protinus evangelico utens
ferro […] Arrium ab Ecclesiae
compage, utpote putridum
membrum detruncans, foras expulit
et a fidelium communione
39
extorrem esse mandavit .

Furthermore, two observations are in order: 1) these passages, in par-

ticular the one by Sozomen, are almost completely identical with the nar-
rative of the HEpA as it is attested by the Ethiopic manuscript, which A.
Bausi is publishing; 2) the word-for-word correspondence between Timo-
thy and Sozomen is quite striking:

39
PG 18,455.
40
Sozomenus. Kirchengeschichte , ed. J. Bidez-G.C. Hansen [GCS 50], Berlin 1960,
32-33 (Translation: «Arius gave origin to these disputations, a presbyter of the
church at Alexandria in Egypt. He was at first zealous about doctrine, and upheld
the innovations of Melitius. Eventually, however, he abandoned this latter and was
ordained deacon by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who afterwards cast him out of
the church, because, when Peter anathematized the zealots of Melitius and reject-
ed their baptism, Arius assailed him for these acts and could not be restrained in
quietness)».
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS 223

Π Μ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܐܬ‬

ἀ ̇̈
‫ܘܣ ܐ ܙ‬
ὐῶ ῖ ‫ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ ܬܐ‬
ἐ . ‫ܒ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܓ ܐܬܐ܆ ܘ ܐ‬̈
‫ܕ ܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܣ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬
ܼ
However, against the assumption of Timothy’s dependence on
Sozomen in this point, and in favor of the dependence of both on a com-
mon source, i.e. the HEpA, there is the fact that Timothy appears to be
familiar with a series of documents that are not quoted in Sozomen. The
mention of the resistance of martyr-bishops and their dioceses to the ac-
tions of Melitius, as well as the allusion to Melitius’s attempt to obtain the
throne of Peter are well known to us thanks to the HEpA, through the
double testimony of the Ethiopic text and the Codex Versonensis LX, which
present the following documents:
1) the letter that Phileas and other bishops of the Delta wrote while in
prison;
2) the short narrative in which Melitius’s activity in Alexandria is de-
scribed;
3) the letter that Peter wrote to the Alexandrians so as to temporarily
excommunicate Melitius until such time as a council of the Egyptian
church could judge his actions41.
These documents were certainly available to Timothy when he was
composing his historical work. Their use is a clear sign that his interests
were not limited to contemporary vicissitudes, but extended to cover the
entire history of the Alexandrian Church.
At this point it is necessary to propose a further comment about both
the text of the anonymous author (Severus?) and what he tells us about
Timothy’s historiographical activity. The inner logic of the entire demon-
stration is to show that Peter did not combat Arius’ heresy, but only his in-
subordination when he was a follower of Melitius. The insistence that
Melitius was not condemned for heresy is noteworthy.
When seen under this light, this logic appears to be in contradiction
with that of the Martyrium Petri, the concern of which is to exalt the fore-
sight of Peter, who, through the excommunication of Arius, tries to elimi-

41
This documentation has been analyzed and used to outline the history of the
Melitian schism by A. Martin, Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’Église d’Égypte au IVe siècle
(328-373) [Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 216], Rome 1996, 216-298.
224 A. CAMPLANI

nate the danger posed by Arianism to the future of the Church of Alexan-
dria42. Suffice it to quote a short passage from this text:

(the bishops are imploring who is in prison) «We bring to you this prayer:
that you release Arius from his excommunication from the church». When
the archbishop heard these things from them, he gave a loud cry and said
to them, «You entreat me concerning Arius?» And immediately he
stretched forth his hands and said, «Both in this present age and in the
time to come Arius will be excommunicated from the glory of Jesus Christ
the Son of God». [… Peter speaks about his vision …] «I opened my mouth
and cried out in a loud voice, saying, “Lord: why have you torn your tunic in
two?” He answered and said to me, “Arius has torn me in two. But see to it
that you do not accept him into fellowship. They are going to entreat you
on his behalf, but see that you are not persuaded by them. Appoint the
presbyters Achillas and Alexander to succeed you in shepherding my
church on behalf of which I became like a child and died, although I live
always. Make it their duty that they in no way accept him into communion.
For yours is the lot of martyrdom”»43.

What do we read in the CHC? One sheet of one codex has preserved a
passage concerning Peter and Melitius sufficient to draw some conclusions
about its relationship with the documentation of the episcopate and the
HEpA44:

[…] When Peter was told that Melitius was with Arius as Achitofel with
Abishalom, he excommunicated them both immediately and declared them
foreign to the entire order (literally, the entire canon) of the Church with
those who were with him, because they did not stay within the limit that
Peter had established for them. On the contrary, those who remained and
did not return in communion with Melitius, nor followed him, – they who
had received his ordination (lit.: “hand”; < χ ῖ ) before the

42
On this text and its ideology, see A. Martin, Les relations entre Arius et Melitios
dans la tradition alexandrine: une histoire polémique, in The Journal of Theological Studies
n.s. 40 (1989), 401-413 and A. Camplani, Pietro di Alessandria tra documentazione
d’archivio e agiografia popolare, in Volksglaube im antiken Christentum, hsgg. v. H.
Greiser-A. Merkt, Darmstadt 2009, 138-156.
43
T. Vivian, Saint Peter of Alexandria, Bishop and Martyr, Philadelphia 1988, 72,
translated from one of the Greek recensions of the Martyrium Petri published by P.
Devos, Une passione grecque inédite de S. Pierre d’Alexandrie et sa traduction par Anastase
le Bibliothécaire, in Analecta Bollandiana 83 (1965), 157-187.
44
The fragment K 9650 of the Papyrussammlung of the National Bibliothek in
Wien is part of the codex classified as MONB.FY, pp. 33-34. See Storia della Chiesa di
Alessandria, ed. T. Orlandi, vol. I, 18-20.
 A SYRIAC FRAGMENT FROM THE LIBER HISTORIARUM BY TIMOTHY AELURUS 225

excommunication – the Church received them. However, those who went

with him again, they were not received, nor were accepted in the
communion, but were called heretics so that they were separated (from the
Church) to this day.
So Peter, after he was captured, was imprisoned for the crown of
martyrdom by order of the emperor and saw a vision in which the Saviour
said to him, «Behold I have prepared the crown of martyrdom in addition
to the crown of the archdiocese. Command therefore in my name that
Achillas should receive your throne, and then Alexander, the archpriest,
and command to them … Arius … people for whom I have given my
blood». Peter, as he was commanded, called Alexander and Achillas, and
ordered them everything that the Lord had said. Peter died according to
the words of the Lord and received the crown of eternal life.

How are we to judge this passage from the point of view of our dis-
course? Two remarks are necessary. On the one hand, the author of the
CHC seems to be familiar with some official documents of the Alexandrian
Church. A few years ago I proposed to see in Peter’s decree mentioned in
this narrative the trace of the decisions of the synod convened by Peter to
judge the entire question of Melitius (Athanasius, Apologia secunda contra
arianos 59,1)45. On the other hand, it is evident that the author, at the end,
is quoting the Martyrium Petri, and in particular the words pronounced by
Christ in Peter’s vision, in which it is recommended that Arius be expelled
forever because he is potentially a heretic. The anti-Arian tone of the pas-
sage, as well as the use of the label of heresy to qualify both Melitius and
Arius are unmistakable signs of the author’s tendency to present the
Melitian crisis as a phenomenon anticipating the Arian crisis, in a way simi-
lar to the Martyrium Petri. On the contrary, this attitude seems to be far
from the perspective of both Timothy and the author (Severus ?) who
quotes his Book of histories.

***

The consequence of this analysis for our understanding of the literary

activity of the author of CHC is obvious: the latter has mingled documents
of the archives, or, better, their literary paraphrase, with hagiographic and

45
A. Camplani, L’Historia ecclesiastica en copte et l’historiographie du siège épisco-
pale d’Alexandrie. A propos d’un passage sur Mélitios de Lycopolis, in Actes du huitième
Congrès International d’Étude Coptes. Paris, 28 Juin - 3 Juillet 2004, ed. by N. Bosson
and A. Boud’Hors [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 163], Leuven-Paris-
Dudley/MA 2007, 417-424.
226 A. CAMPLANI

homiletic traditions, at the cost of being self-contradictory. This was al-

ready one of the results of Tito Orlandi’s analysis of CHC. What is to be
stressed here is the fact that the relationship between CHC and Timothy is
not as direct as was presumed by Crum. A process of paraphrase and re-
working of Timothy’s history seems to be more plausible.
If Timothy is not the author of CHC, but rather one of his sources, how
are we to understand the relationship of his Book of histories to the HEpA?
The Syriac fragment has given us the impression of a strong dependence
upon the archives and the HEpA, to the point that Timothy could be qual-
ified, in his capacity of bishop of Alexandria, not only as responsible for
the archives of his bishopric, but also as one of the redactors who had the
possibility to copy, transmit, and edit the HEpA. The fact that the Ethiopic
manuscript studied by Alessandro Bausi contains so much material from
the pen of the great archbishop46 could lead us to explore the traces of his
role in the organization of the archives of Alexandria after the Council of
Chalcedon and in the editorial activity on the official history of the see.
But this is the subject of another, more difficult, inquiry.

ALBERTO CAMPLANI
Dipartimento di Storia, Culture, Religioni
Sapienza Università di Roma

46
See A. Bausi, La collezione, 67-69, nn. 31-35: «Silloge di Timoteo Eluro».