Early Christianity in Arabia/Section 3

by Thomas Wright

SECTION III.

At what period Christianity was first introduced into Arabia Felix it is now impossible to determine. Many causes, however, combine to make us believe that it was long after it had been spread over the neighbouring nations.

The mountains and deserts which defended the southern Arabians from the arms of the Persian kings, presented an insurmountable obstacle to every Asiatic or European invader, and even hindered any permanent connection with the rest of the world. Before the expedition of Ælius Gallus, the peninsula had never suffered from foreign invasion.^[1] Alexander is indeed said to have contemplated the reduction of Arabia Felix; the fleet of Nearchus was preparing to assist the expedition by sea,^[2] and the Macedonian army would perhaps have marched along the rich plains of the Euphrates, which opened to the odoriferous regions of Yaman;^[3] but these designs were terminated by the death of their projector. The Roman army under Ælius Gallus seems to have landed in the country of the Thamudites, near the Elanitic Gulf,^[4] and to have proceeded in the direction of Yatreb and Mecca to Nadjean,^[5] which he appears to have destroyed, as well as Asca, Athrulla, Marsuaba, and several other cities;^[6] amongst which was Mariaba itself, which he found to be six miles in circuit.^[7] But what the Arabian arms could not do, was effected by the climate and the country; and the Roman army was obliged to retire, with the honour only of having experienced no successful opposition from a people who had been hitherto unconquered.^[8]

The religion and theology of the Arabians of Yaman bore doubtless a great resemblance to that of the surrounding nations. They professed the doctrines of the Sabians, and in common with them, acknowledged Abraham as their ancestor. Attached therefore to a superstition made reverend by its antiquity, and in which their great progenitor Abraham was reported to have been educated,^[9] the idolatrous inhabitants of the happy Arabia must be supposed to have received slowly and reluctantly the severe doctrines of Christianity. From the little connection too which existed between them and the rest of the world, the old worship would be more identical, less mixed with foreign creeds, and consequently more opposed to their admission. At the time of the introduction of the Christian faith, the Jews appear to have penetrated into the peninsula in considerable numbers, and to have formed also a great impediment to its progress.

Before the followers of Christianity became public objects of persecution, their proceedings were so private and little known, particularly in the more distant parts of the empire, as to have escaped entirely the page of history. The first rudiments of the Christian faith are believed to have been planted among the Hamyarites, who were known, in common with the people of Hindustan and Ethiopia, under the general name of Indians, by the apostle Bartholomæus.^[10] Till the age of Constantine, however, the existence of Christians in Arabia seems not even to have been known. During the reign of that emperor, an unexpected circumstance favoured their cause. The details of this event are given by the historian Nicephorus.^[11] A Tyrian philosopher, named Meropius, emulating the travels of Plato and the ancient sages, and instigated by the example of Metrodorus, who had recently travelled in search of knowledge among the distant people of India^[12], determined to visit the Hamyarites of Arabia Felix. He was accompanied by two young men who were both his kinsmen and his disciples in philosophy. On their return in an Egyptian ship, they were compelled to put into one of the Hamyaritic ports for a fresh supply of provisions. It happened at that time that the peninsula was in a state of warfare; and on landing they were treated by the natives as enemies, and either slain or made slaves. Amongst those who perished, were the philosopher and most of his attendants. Of his two companions, who were carried to the king, one, named Ædesius, was made the royal cup-bearer; to the other, whose name was Frumentius, and in whom he perceived more than ordinary abilities and learning, the king entrusted the care of his books and treasures. Having both served him faithfully for some years, on the death of the monarch they were rewarded by his queen with their liberty, and received permission to go wherever they wished. Availing themselves of her liberality, they were preparing to return to their native city of Tyre, when the queen earnestly requested them to stay, and undertake the guardianship of her infant son, and of the kingdom, until he should arrive at a proper age to assume the administration. They obeyed, and the first use Frumentius made of his power, was to cause strict search to be made for the few Christians who might live under his jurisdiction. Those whom he found he treated with great kindness; he built them a place of worship, and soon by his favour and encouragement increased the number of converts to the Christian faith. As soon as the young king was capable of ascending the throne, Frumentius and Ædesius returned to Tyre, where the latter was raised to the dignity of a presbyter. From Phœnicia Frumentius repaired to Alexandria, where he related his adventures to Athanasius, then lately elevated to the head of the church, representing to him that many people in Hamyar were well inclined towards the true faith, and begging that he would immediately send them a bishop and priests. The primate, having consulted the bishops who were then at Alexandria, judged that no one could be better fitted to govern the Christian church in Arabia than the person who had first introduced it there, and Frumentius returned as bishop to Hamyar, where he built many churches, and greatly conduced by the example of his own piety to the propagation of the Christian faith.^[13]

The next Christian mission to Hamyar occurred in the reign of Constantius. Amongst the hostages who had been delivered to the Romans by the people of Adiabene, was a man named Theophilus, afterwards known by the surname of Indus, or the Indian.^[14] His native country appears to have been the island of Dibu; or Divu, at the mouth of the river Indus.^[15] He soon displayed extraordinary abilities, conformed easily to the manners of the Romans, embraced a monastic life, and was made a deacon by Eusebius of Nicomedia. His reputation became so great that he was chosen by the emperor to conduct a magnificent embassy, accompanied with two hundred horses of the pure breed of Cappadocia, and other rich presents, to the court of Hamyar. The eloquence of Theophilus, seconded by the magnificence of his presents, and by the value at which the Roman alliance was estimated, are said to have prevailed upon the Arabian king to embrace the religion of Christ. He built three churches in different parts of his dominions, one in his capital, which is called by Nicephorus Taphar; another in the port of Adane, or Aden, where the Roman merchants were accustomed to resort; and a third in a Persian port on the Arabian Sea, which is supposed to have been Hormus. After having consecrated these churches, and having settled the affairs of Arabia, Theophilus continued his route with success to several countries of the east, and on his return was held in great honour and esteem by his Roman brethren.^[16]

Asseman considers that Theophilus merely converted the Christians, who were already spread over the southern part of the peninsula, to the Arian heresy, of which he was a zealous adherent. The number of Christians in Arabia at this time must certainly have been considerable. No less than four bishoprics were established in the kingdom of Hamyar.^[17] The Christians of Yaman were still, however, few in comparison with those amongst the Arabs of Syria and the north, who were generally understood by the name of Arabian Christians. Of the tribes mentioned by Arabian authors as having embraced the worship of Christ, few are included within the limits of Arabia Felix. But it is not improbable that Christians and Jews are often confounded. One writer tells us that Christianity flourished in the tribes of Rabiah, Ghassan, and Kodaah, and Judaism in Hamyar.^[18] We know, however, that in Hamyar there were many Christians. Ibn Khalican enumerates, as Christian tribes, those of Bahrah, Tanouch, and Taglab.^[19] To these may be added, on the authority of Abulfeda and Safio'ddin, many tribes in the neighbourhood of Nadjran, or Nedjeraun, who had a church and bishop in common.^[20] The inhabitants of Yatreb too, according to Shahristan,^[21] were a mixture of Jews and Christians.

The troubles which followed the death of the tobbaa Amrou, the predecessor of Abd Celâl, were favourable to the extension of Christianity over the peninsula. According to the historian Nuweir, when Amrou had weakened the power of Hamyar, by the destruction of the chiefs who had instigated him to the murder of his brother, the opportunity was seized by Rabya Ibn Modhar, a descendant of Cahlan, who with a considerable army invaded the kingdom, defeated and slew the tobbaa, and assumed the sceptre. The kingdom of Hirah is said to have been given by the Persian monarch to his son.^[22] After his death the crown again reverted to the race of Hamyar, probably in the person of Abd Celâl, who was succeeded by a son of Hassan, only known by the appellation of tobbaa,^[23] which he was the last who rendered celebrated by his actions. It is recorded of him that he placed his sister's son, Amrou, as king over the Maadites, and that Mecca and Yatreb, and even Hirah, were subject to him. He adorned anew the temple of Mecca, embraced Judaism, and brought with him to Hamyar some Jewish doctors. It was in his time that the league was made between the people of Yaman and the tribe of Rabyah.^[24]

This tobbaa was succeeded, according to Abulfeda, by Hareth, a son of Amrou,^[25] or, according to others, by Morthed, the son of Abd Celâl.^[26] On the death of Morthed the kingdom of Hamyar was divided amongst his four sons, who reigned together, each with a separate diadem. On their way to Mecca these kings were attacked by the tribe of Chenan, three of them slain, and the fourth thrown into chains.^[27] The throne of Hamyar is said to have been next occupied by their sister, who was deposed and put to death by the people.^[28] After her reigned in succession Wakiah, the son of Morthed,^[29] and Abrahah Ibn Sabak, who is celebrated only for his learning and liberality.^[30] The next king was Sahban, the son of Morthed,^[31] whom many of the Arab tribes, not included in the kingdom of Hamyar, acknowledged as their sovereign. He placed Hareth, the son of Amrou, over the Saadites, who divided his kingdom between his three sons, placing Hogr over the tribe of Asad and Kenan, Sjerhabîl over that of Keis and Temeem, and Salus over Rabyah. On the death of Hareth, the people of Asad, Keis, and Temeem rose against Hogr and Sjerhabîl, and drove them away. On the news of this insurrection, Sahban raised an army and led it against the tribe of Modhar, which was joined by that of Rabyah. The result of this war was that Sahban was defeated and slain. Alsabah, the son of Abrahah, succeeded to the throne, and proceeded to take vengeance on the Maadites for the death of his predecessor. In the battle of Cilab, which followed, the forces of Hamyar were entirely defeated by the Maadites, under their former leader Colaib, and the tribe of Maad was released from its subjection to Hamyar during the life of its chieftain.^[32] The crown of Hamyar was next usurped by Lachnya Dzu Shanathir, who was famed only for his tyranny and for his profligacy. He was slain by Yusef Dzu Nowass, who succeeded him and became a convert to Judaism.^[33]

The tolerant spirit of the Arabian idolatry afforded equally a safe asylum to the persecuted disciples of Zoroaster, numbers of whom settled in Bahhrein, to the Jew, and to the fugitive Christian. As long as the kings of Hamyar adhered to their ancient superstition, each of these sects was allowed the free exercise of its religious ceremonies, and the public profession of its faith. But no sooner did the followers of Judaism gain power, than the disciples of Jesus, whom they considered as their bitterest enemies, began to experience their resentment. The causes which drew upon the Christians of Arabia Felix the enmity of Dzu Nowass, are variously reported by the Arabian historians, but the most credible are agreed that he was excited to their persecution by his Jewish advisers and subjects.^[34]

1. "Indi quin, Auguste, tuo dat colla triumpho,
   Et domus intactæ te tremit Arabiæ."

   Propertius, lib. ii. 10. v. 15.

   See Horace, lib. i. od. xxix. 2; and lib. iii. od. xxiv. 1.

2. Dio Cassius. Arrian.
3. Curtius, lib. v. c. 1.
4. Vincent, Peripl. p. 302, &c.
5. Egran, Plin. πολις Αγρανων, Strabo.
6. Strabo, lib. xvi. c. 4. p. 407.
7. Et supra dictam Mariabam, circuitu vi mil. passuum. Plin. lib. vi. c. 28.
8. Τους δε αλλους απεβαλεν, ουχ ὑπο πολεμιων, αλλα νοσων, και κοπων, και λιμου, και μοχθηριας των οδων, κ. τ. λ. Strabo, p. 408.
9. ידו‬ע‬ שא‬ב‬רהם אב‬י‬נ‬ו‬ עליו השלום‬ גד‬ל בא‬מוגת הצאבה ודע‬תם שא‬ין‬ אל‬יה‬ רק הכ‬כ‬בי‬ם

   Notum est Abrahamum patrem nostrum educatum esse in fide Zabæorum, qui statuerunt nullum esse deum præter stellas. Maimonides, More Nevochim, pars iii. c. 29.

10. Eusebius. Hist. Eccl. iii. 1. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient, tom. iii. p. dxcii. See the next note.
11. The history of Frumentius maybe collected from Nicephorus, ix. 18; Ruffinus, x. 9; Theodoret, i. 23, &c. Some of the modern ecclesiastical historians, among whom we may reckon Pagi, and particularly the writers on the Ethiopian or Abyssinian history, as Ludolf and Bruce, have asserted that the scene of the history of Frumentius was Ethiopia. Besides the positive testimony of Nicephorus, it will not be difficult to show that the account of the other ecclesiastical writers will not authorise such a supposition. This transaction took place, they say, in India; that is, according to Pagi and Ludolf, Abyssinia or Auxume. Apud Indos, (says the Eoman Martyrology for the 27th Oct.) S. Frumentii Episcopi, qui ibi primum captivus, deinde episcopus ab Athanasio ordinatus, Evangelium ea provincia prædicavit." The name of India was given both to Abyssinia and Arabia Felix. Plerique veterum Indos [Æthiopes] vocaverunt, ut fere omnes zonæ torridæ nationes, quarum speciale nomen ignorarent. Imo, ipsum mare rubrum Indicum a nonnullis veterum appellatur, quo minus mirum accolas illius Indos nominatos fuisse. Ludolf. Hist. Æth. i. 1. And Damianus a Goëz, in his Relatio de legatione Matthæi Abessinorum ad regem Lusitaniæ legati, calls the king of the Abyssinians magnum Indorum imperatorem. But the name was as often, perhaps more frequently, applied to Arabia. In the cosmographies of Æthicus and Julius Honorius, when giving a summary of the countries of the east, Arabia is included under the general appellation of India (Æthici Cosm. p. 28. Excerpt. Jul. Honor. p. 7), whilst neither apply the name of India to any part of Africa, and both mention Ethiopia by its proper name. (Æthic. p. 48. Honor. p. 18.) Arrhian calls the Arabians an Indian nation,—προσοικει δε ταυτῃ εθνος Ινδικον, οἱ Αραβιες καλεομενοι. Peripl. Nearch. p. 4. All the ecclesiastical historians call the southern Arabians, Indians—τοδε των Ινδων εθνος τουτο Σαβα μεν παλαι, απο της Σαβα μετροπολεως, τα νυν δε Ὁμηριτας καλεισθαι. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 6. et iii. 4. Σαβατ, say the Chronica of Eusebius and Cedrenus, αφ' ου Αραβες Ινδων. The point in question is, therefore—which of these Indians, the Arabians or the Ethiopians, did Frumentius convert? In the first place, we have the positive testimony of Nicephorus that they were the Hamyarites. Among the authorities adduced by Pagi to support his contrary opinion is that of Socrates, who says it was Indiam illam Æthiopæ finitimam, which, he seems to think, denotes the region of Auxume, as neighbouring on the interior Ethiopia. Pagi, Critica, tom. iv. p. 198. Now we find this India mentioned by Ruffinus (Hist. Eccl. lib. i.)—in ea divisione orbis terræ quæ ad prædicandum verbum Dei sorte per apostolos celebrata est, cum aliæ aliis provinciæ obvenissent, Thomæ Parthia, et Matthæo Æthiopia, eique adhærens citerior India Bartholomæo dicitur sorte decreta. Socrates, from whom he has taken the passage, says, (lib. i. c. 19) ἡνικα οῖ Αποστολοι κληρῳ την εις τα εθνη πορειαν εποιουντο, Θωμας μεν την Παρθων αποστολην ὑπεδεχετο, Ματθαιος δε την Αιθιοπιαν, Βαρθολομαιος δε εκληρουτο την συνημμενην ταυτῃ Ινδιαν. Chrysostom, indeed, makes Thomas the apostle of Ethiopia, Θωμας δια βαπτισματος λευκαινει τους Αιθιοπας. (Homil. in xii. Apost. tom. viii. Append. p. 11.) Now, who the Indians were that Bartholomæus visited, we may learn from Sophronius (c. 7.)Βαρθολομαιος ὁ Αποστολος, Ινδοις τοις καλουμενοις Ευδαιμοσιν, εκηρυξε το ευαγγελιον του Χριστου,—and from the Menæa (part ii. p. 197.) Bartholomæus in Indiam Felicem profectus, ibique cruci affixus, decessit,—they were the people of Arabia Felix. It is very evident from what Ruffinus says, that the India visited by Frumentius was the same as that in which Bartholomæus preached the gospel, and he distinguishes Ethiopia from India in the same chapter. (x. 9.) In this history of the Abyssinian invasion, the Hamyarites and Ethiopians are distinguished as the Homerite Indians and the Auxumite Indians. Malala, p. 163. Nicephorus, xvii. 22. Theophanes, p. 188. And Johannes Asiæ Episcop. (ap. Asseman. tom. i. p. 359), calls the Ethiopian king who conquered Hamyar, king ܓܘܝܬܐ ܕܗܢܕܘܝܐ‎ of the interior or further Indians, whereas Ruffinus declares that the India visited by Bartholomæus was India citerior. Another argument of Pagi's is that mention is made of Frumentius, a bishop of Auxume, being deposed for Arianism in 356 by the successor of Athanasius, (Athanas. Apol. ad Constant. Baron. p. 563.) but if he had been the same as the other, it would certainly have been a circumstance of sufficient importance to be mentioned.
12. Metrodorus visited the Brachmans in India, according to Cedrenus, ad an. xxi. Constant. Magn.
13. Tantopere vero eum laudatum esse ferunt, ut parem cum Apostolis laudem et honorem tulerit. . . . Et locupletem nactus gratiam, plurima Deo constituit templa. Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. Eccl. lib. viii. c. 35. Perhaps we may still recognize some traditions of the history of Frumentius among the Arabian histories. By two authors, cited by Sir W. Ouseley, (Travels, vol. i. p. 369—71), we are informed that the Arabs of Nadjran were first converted by a Syrian Christian, who was taken by robbers and carried among them. Jews in the earlier times might naturally be confounded with Christians; it often happens so in Roman historians. The tobbaa Hassan, with his brothers Amrou and Zerraah, were said to have been left infants on the death of their father Assaad, and during their minority "the sovereign power was exercised by an Arab Jew of the Benni Lakhem. As soon as Hassan had attained the age of discretion, Rebbeiah (the name of the Jew), who was probably his tutor or guardian, retired with his children to Heirah." (Modern Traveller, Arabia, p. 37.) It was about this time, which must have been nearly contemporary with Constantine, that Abd Celâl reigned, who was reputed to be a Christian.
14. Nicephorus, ix. 18.
15. Philostorgius, lib. iii. num. 4. Pagi, p. 329. Gothofredus, Comment, leg. 2. Theod. de Legat. Concerning the isle of Dib or Divu, see Hyde, annotat. in Peritsol, Itin. Mund. p. 26.
16. Nicephorus, lib. ix. c. 18. Suidas bas given a very high character of Theophilus. Θεοφιλος. ουτος απο Ινδων επανελθων, εν Αντιοχειᾳ διηγεν. Εκκλησιαν μεν αφωρισμενως ουδεμιαν εχων αυτος, κοινος δε τις ων, ως πασαις αυτον μετ’ αδειας επιφοιτᾳν ως ιδιαις. εξον, βασιλεως αυτον ες τα μαλιστα διατιμης τε πασης, και αιδους αγοντος. και των αλλων απαντων, οποσοις επισταιη, μετα πασης προθυμιας αυτον υποδεχομενων, και το της αρετης αυτου μεγεθος καταπληττομενων. ην γαρ ὁ ανηρ κρεισσον η ως αν τις δηλωσει λογῳ, ως αν της των αποστολων εικων κ. τ. λ.
17. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. tom. iii.
18. Auctor Libri المستطرز‎ ap. Pocock. Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 141.
19. Ibn Khalican, ap. Pocock. ib.
20. Abulfed. and Safio’dd. ap. Pocock. ib.
21. Shahristan, ap. Pocock. ib.
22. Nuweir, p. 68.
23. Abulfed. p. 10. Hamza, p. 34. Nuweir, p. 62.
24. Hamza, p. 54.
25. Abulfeda, p. 10.
26. Hamza, p. 34. Nuweir, p. 62. Abulfeda makes Morthed the successor of Hareth.
27. Hamza, p. 34. Nuweir, p. 62.
28. Nuweir, ibid.
29. Abulfed. p. 10. Hamza, p. 34.
30. Abulfeda and Hamza, ib. Nuweir, p. 74.
31. Idem, ibid.
32. Nuweir, p. 76.
33. Abulfed. p. 10. Hamza, p. 16. Nuweir, p. 76. Taberita, p. 102. Mesoud, p. 110.
34. See the authorities cited in the last note, and the ecclesiastical writers of contemporary history. I have inserted a different account in the Appendix B. from D'Herbelot. It will show how little faith can be placed in the stories which the commentators on the Koran have fabricated.