Early Christianity in Arabia/Section 10

by Thomas Wright

SECTION X.

Jacobus Baradæus, or Zanzalus, was a Syrian monk, had been educated in the doctrines of Severus,^[1] and they both rose to fame under the favour of Anastasius.^[2] After the death of that emperor he was created bishop of Edessa by the Monophysite bishops who were confined at Constantinople.^[3] and his unceasing labours in their cause made him worthy to be looked on as the head of the Monophysite sect.^[4] By Baradæus and his partisans, who were spread over every part of the Syrian frontiers, and by the numerous bishops and presbyters whom he created there,^[5] the Monophysite faith appears to have been first firmly established among the Arab tribes.^[6] Hareth, the king of the western Arabs, and his son after him, ardently supported their cause amongst the tribes of Ghassan, and received under his protection Paul the patriarch of Antioch, and other bishops who fled from the persecution of Justinian;^[7] a Christian king of Hirah resolutely withstood the pressing importunities of the Chalcedonian bishops;^[8] and the Jacobite faith was established at the two widely separated towns of Nadjran and Hormus, and amongst all the Scenite tribes.^[9] The designs of Baradæus were seconded by the chiefs of the desert, and he was carried from place to place on the swiftest dromedaries of an Arab king.^[10] By his zeal the anti-Chalcedonian doctrines were supported also in the southern peninsula, and amongst the distant Christians of Ethiopia.

The Abyssinian Christians have always acknowledged as their head the primate of Alexandria.^[11] They seem to have received at an early period the heresy of Eutyches, and steadily refused to acknowledge the councils that were held against it.^[12] On the death of the chief of the Ethiopian bishops, another had been immediately appointed in his place by the Melchites, or those who professed the same faith as the emperor; but by the united interest of Theodora, of the Coptic Jacobites of Egypt, and of Baradæus, the bishop who had been appointed by the Chalcedonians was detained at the court of one of the independent chiefs,^[13] through whose dominions he had to pass, whilst another bishop, probably created by Baradæus, hastened to Abyssinia, was received by the Auxumites, and the Melchite bishop, when he arrived, found his see already occupied, and the Christians of Ethiopia not inclined to change their opinions in his favour.^[14]

The bishops whom Baradæus had created were in the mean time carrying his doctrines towards the east and north. Achumedes, one of the most celebrated, converted many of the Persian Magi at Tacrit.^[15] Baradæus is recorded to have traversed in person the regions of Armenia and Mesopotamia, and in a general massacre of the Christians of Tacrit, by orders of Khosroës Parvis, he escaped only by assuming the costume of a Persian sage.^[16] His death in 578, after having been bishop of Edessa seven and thirty years,^[17] was no less a subject of exultation to his enemies than the miserable end of the empress Theodora.^[18] Whilst Baradæus was supporting by his zeal the Monophysites of Nubia and Ethiopia, the persecution of the Jacobite bishops in the less remote districts was raging with redoubled vigour. Eight hundred bishops and archbishops, who had refused to conform to the synod of Chalcedon, filled the imperial prisons,^[19] and Maras of Amida, Isidore of Causarum, and other Syrian prelates, were only recalled from Petra, their place of exile, at the earnest intercessions of Theodora.^[20]

The unsubmitting and irritable character and predatory habits of the Saracen Arabs, always made them suspected and distrusted by the Romans, and, to use the words of the historian, neither to be desired as friends or enemies.^[21] It is one of their own proverbs, that "There is no authority where there is no obedience," the truth of which was experienced equally by the court of Byzantium and the house of the Khosroës. Although Noman ibn Mondar, the king of Hirah, governed the Arabs only as the lieutenant and tributary of Noushirwan, and although the distance between Hirah and Modaïne, the capital of Persia, was but a few farsangs, yet he was continually in open rebellion against his master; when he appeared at the imperial court he assumed an offensive degree of familiarity and boldness, and when the Khosroës attempted to force him to obedience, he always found a secure shelter in the solitude of the desert.^[22] The Romans had frequent causes of complaint against their Saracen allies. During the reign of Anastasius they more than once invaded the districts of Euphratesia, Palestine, and Syria, but were defeated by the promptitude of the governors of the provinces;^[23] and Amru'l-Keis ben Naukal had obtained by force several districts to the south of Palestine, and the island of Iotabe, and had been confirmed in his conquest and made a governor of the Arab tribes by the emperor, on his submission.^[24]

With a people of this character, it may be supposed that the violent measures of Justinian against the Monophysites would be the least likely to produce submission. Hareth, the king of the Christian Arabs of Ghassan, persisted obstinately in his faith;^[25] he opposed force to force, and the persecution of their bishops was the signal of revolt to the Arab tribes, who harassed the Syrian borders with their incursions.^[26] The people of Hamyar and southern Arabia presented yearly petitions to the emperor for bishops to occupy their vacant sees, such as might be agreeable to the doctrines which they all professed, and who had not subscribed to the council of Chalcedon. But their ambassadors only returned with a refusal, and an earnest admonition that they should receive the bishop whom he had appointed for them, and who was then at Alexandria. But the Hamyarites chose rather to create bishops for themselves than submit to the arbitrary commands of those who, by the rules of the church, were alone capable of ordaining them. The assembled priests and clergy selected men out of their own order, constituted them bishops by the operation of cheirotony, or placing their hands on their heads, and agreed to pay them the same respect and obedience as though they had been created by the Alexandrian primate. But many were unwilling to admit the authority and legitimacy of bishops thus created, and the Christian power in Arabia Felix was weakened by its own divisions and dissensions. The defect of discipline was the cause of the introduction of innumerable schisms and heresies, amongst which, not the least was that of the Phantasianists or Julianists.^[27] This sect originated in Syria,^[28] and received its name from Julian of Halicarnassus, who was a great opposer of the synod of Chalcedon. His doctrines are characterised as a mixture of those of Eutyches, Apollinaris, Manes, and Eudoxius; they met with a favourable reception amongst some of the monks of Egypt, but were opposed by the Jacobites, and Julian himself was denounced by Severus as a most destructive dragon.^[29] On the death of Procopius bishop of Ephesus, who had embraced the Phantasiast doctrines, seven priests of the same persuasion met together to choose another, who should take his place; and as there was no bishop of that sect to ordain him, having chosen one Eutropius, they consecrated him by placing on his head the hand of the dead bishop, and at the same time reciting the formula of cheirotony. Eutropius being thus consecrated, ordained ten others, who were deputed to various parts of the east, to spread their doctrines. The first Phantasiast bishop of the Hamyarites was Sergius, who was succeeded on his death, four years afterwards, by a bishop of the name of Moses.^[30]

The difference between the Romans and Arabs was further widened by an accidental circumstance. The Saracen chiefs were seldom included in the treaties of peace between Rome and Persia, and being at continual variance with each other, were often the cause of misunderstanding, and even of open war, between the two rival empires. At the time of the Persian embassy under Mebodes to the court of Justinian, Amrus, the Persian phylarch, made a demand on the emperor for a sum of money, which he alleged to be due to him for some service he had done for the empire.^[31] On the refusal of Justinian to listen to his demands, the Arabian chief ordered his brother Kabus to invade the domains of the king of Ghassan,^[32] which he immediately did, carrying away the camels and flocks of the Roman Arabs. In revenge, the king of Ghassan, Mondar the son of Hareth, as he is named, collected his forces, invaded Hirah, defeated Kabus, recovered his camels, and took also a rich booty. The king of Hirah again invaded the dominions of the Roman phylarch, but being defeated, he fled to the king of Persia. In expectation of an invasion by the united forces of Hirah and Persia, Mondar sent to the emperor, and represented to him his danger, requesting from his more powerful ally assistance to oppose the threatened attack. But Justinian wished to preserve the peace which then existed, and determined to get rid of his Saracen phylarch, as the only obstacle to the continued friendship between the courts of Byzantium and Persia. He wrote accordingly to Marcianus, his general, who was then encamped near Nisibis, directing him to invite the king of Ghassan to his camp, where he was to detain and put him to death. The emperor is reported to have dictated two letters, one to Marcianus, the other to Mondar, desiring him to go to Marcianus, who would communicate to him something of consequence, which could not be communicated by a letter. The scribe, when he had written and sealed the letters, inscribed, by mistake, that which was intended for Marcianus with the name of Mondar, and that which should have gone to the king of Ghassan was directed to Marcianus. When, therefore, the Arabian chief read the orders of the emperor to his general, inflamed with rage, he made peace with the Persian Arabs, and joined them in the invasion of Syria, where they laid waste with fire and sword the whole country up to the walls of Antioch.^[33]

On the accession of Tiberius, Mondar repaired to Constantinople, excused himself for his past conduct, shewed the emperor the letters of Justinian, and was again received with favour. The Arab chief, however, fell once more under suspicion, and a Syrian governor, named Magnes, under pretence of friendly converse, sent for him, threw him into chains, and carried him to Constantinople. Noman, his son, collected the Arabs of Ghassan, and invaded Syria, in revenue for the treacherous behaviour of the Byzantine court; but he narrowly escaped falling a victim to the same fraud which had twice been made use of towards his father, and afterwards was pardoned by Maurice, who liberated Mondar, on his swearing eternal friendship to the Romans, and enmity to the Persians. When it was proposed to him to subscribe to the council of Chalcedon, he positively refused, alleging that all the Arab tribes professed the orthodox faith, and that if he departed from it he should draw upon himself their enmity.^[34]

1. Renaudot, Hist. Patr. Al. p. 133.
2. Asseman, Bibl. Orient, tom. iii. p. 384.
3. Barhebræus, in Asseman. tom. ii. p. 327.
4. In an Arabic MS. cited by Asseman. tom. ii. p. 64, Baradæus is termed primate of the Jacobites, Syrians, Copts, and Æthiopians—مار يعقوب البرادعي راس اساققة اليعاقبة السريان والوبط والحبشر٭‎
5. He made above a hundred thousand bishops, priests, and deacons, if we believe Barhebræus. Assem. tom. ii. p. 332.
6. Barhebræus, Hist. Dynast, p. 93.
7. Asseman. tom. ii. p. 326, 331. tom. iii. p. dcvi. Paul was made patriarch of Antioch by Baradæus. Tom. ii. p. 63.
8. Theodoras Lector, Excerpt. p. 564.
9. Asseman. tom. ii. p. dcv.
10. It was الملك الحرث البدوي‎ king Hareth the Beduite, according to Amrus, ap. Assem. tom. ii. p. 63.
11. Abudacnus, Hist. Copt. c. 2. p. 3. The Abyssinians were under the same rule and discipline as the Copts. Rogatus Tecla Maria, Abyssinus presbyter, an a Coptis Abyssini discreparent, respondet, nullam esse differentiam inter eos et in omnibus rebus concordare. Esse etiam sub ejusdem patriarchæ imperio. Hottinger, Hist. Eccl. Sec. 16. part i. p. 44.
12. In the modern Ethiopian liturgy, they offer up their prayers in the name of Christ, of the virgin, of the apostles, of the saints, et patrum nostrorum principum episcoporum trecentorum decem et octo qui fuerunt Niceæ, et centum quinquaginta qui fuerunt Constantinopoli, et ducentorum qui fuerunt Ephesi. (Missa Æthiopum, in Bibl. Magn. Patrum. Par. 1654, tom. vi. col. 54.); thus acknowledging the synod at Ephesus, and discarding that of Chalcedon and those which followed. Again at p. 45: Et per os trecentorum et decem et octo episcoporum qui pro recta fide in synodo Nicena congregati fuerunt, et centum quinquaginta in Constantinopolitana, et ducentorum in synodo Ephesina, et per os pontificis nostri Saviros, Joannis Chrysostomi oris aurei, Cyrilli, Basilii, Theophili, Athanasii, Gregorii, &c.
13. Barhebræus calls him governor of the Thebaid. The Arabian writer de fide Syr. Jacobitarum says he was king of the Suachini. Philostratus says that Apollonius came to a district on the borders between Egypt and Ethiopia, which was called Sycaminum, which may be the same. επι τα Αιθιοπων τε και Αιγυπτιων ορια, Συκαμινον δε αυτα ονομαζουσι. Vit. Apol. Tyan. lib. vi. c. 2. On which Olearius observes, Ἱεραν Συκαμινον post Thebarum νομον et Elethyiam in Ægypto memorat Ptolemæus.
14. MS. de Fide Jac. Syr. ap. Asseman. p. 384. tom. i. — Barhebræus, ap. eundem, tom. ii. p. 330.
15. Barhebræus, ap. Assem. tom. ii. p. 414. Ibn Batric, ap. Hotting. Topog. Eccles. p. 20.
16. MS. Arab. ap. Assem. tom. ii. p. 63. Amrus, ap. eund. tom. iii. p. 384. The history is adopted by Renaudot, but discarded by Asseman.
17. Asseman. tom. ii. p. 65. The name of Jacobus occurs in a Greek writer among the Eutychian heretics, in Cotelier, tom. ii. p. 396.
18. The Melchites boasted that — Theodora Augusta, Chalcedonensis synodi inimica, canceris plaga corpore toto perfusa, vitam prodigiose finivit. Victor, Chron. p. 332. ed. Canisii.
19. MS. Arab. de Laud. Jacobit. ap. Asseman. tom. ii. pp. 63, 4.
20. Joan. As. Episc. ap. Assem. tom. ii. p. 51.
21. Saraceni tamen nec amici nobis unquam nec hostes optandi, ultro citroque discursantes, quidquid inveniri poterat momento temporis parvi vastabant, milvorum rapacium similes; qui si prædam dispexerint celsius, volatu rapiunt celeri, aut nisi impetraverint, non immorantur. Ammianus Marcellinus, lib. xiv. c. 4.
22. Fakhr-eddin Razi, Hist. Chron. Dynast. ap. De Sacy, Chrestomathie Arab., tom. i. p. 62.
23. Theophanes, Chronograph. pp. 121–123.
24. This occurrence is placed by Theophanes (p. 121) in the reign of Anastasius. The historian Malchus (Eclogæ Legat. ed. Hoeschelio, p. 73), has given a particular relation of it, and says it was under Leo; he calls Amru'l-Keis ὁ Αμορκεσος του Νοκαλιου, and says that he had left the service of the Persians, had invaded western Arabia, and had made war on the Saracens, but not on the Romans. He had afterwards turned Christian, and sent a priest to Byzantium to solicit an alliance with the emperor.
25. Asseman, tom. ii. pp. 326–331.
26. The account of this invasion is given in Pococke, Spec. Hist. Arab. The cause of it is given by an Arabian writer in Asseman, tom. ii. p. 494. سبب الشقاق بين العرب والروم هة اضطهاد الملك يوسطينوس الابا القاتلين بالطبيعو الواحدة لان نصاري العرب يومتذ انما كانوا يعتقدون اعتقاد اليعقوبية لا غير٭‎ "The cause of the dissension between the Arabs and the Romans was that the emperor Justin (Justinian) persecuted the Monophysite fathers; for the Christian Arabs at that time professed solely the Jacobite faith."
27. Jo. As. Episc. p. 44. (in the Syrische Chrestomathie of Michaelis).
28. Takri-eddini Makrizii Hist. Copt. p. 75.
29. Renaudot, Hist. Patr. Alex. pp. 132, 133.
30. Jo. As. Episc. ap. Asseman. tom. ii. The monks of Sinai appear at this time to have been Melchites, and perhaps this was the cause of their being exposed to the depredations of the Arabs, on which account Justinian built them a monastery. — Cum autem audiissent monachi montis Sinæ de bona imp. Justiniani intentione, quamque condendis ecclesiis et monasteriis struendis delectaretur, ad ipsum profecti, conquesti sunt Arabes Ismaelitas ipsis damnum inferre, penum ipsorum devorando, locaque diruendo, cellasque ingredientes, quiequid ibi esset diripere, et in ecclesias irruentes eucharistiam deglutire. Eutychius, tom. ii. p. 161. ex versione Pocock.
31. Menander, excerp. Legat. p. 82, et seq.
32. Id. p. 85.
33. Barhebræi Chronicon Syr. p. 90.
34. Barhebræus, pp. 92, 93. Evagrius says that both Mondar and his son Noman were in confinement in the time of Maurice, lib. vi. c. 2.