PATRIARCH
549
PATRIARCH
was at the respective ages of 230, 205, 190, 170, 165,
and 165, as against 130, 105, 90, 70, 65, and 65 as
stated in the Hebrew, and the same systematic dif-
ference of 100 years in the period before the birth
of the first-born appears likewise in the hves of
the postdiluvian patriarchs, Arphaxad, Sale, Heber,
Phaleg, Reu, and Sarug. For this list, however, the
Samaritan agrees with the Septuagint as against the
Massoretio Text.
As regards the list of the antediluvians, the Hebrew and Septuagint agree as to the sum total of each patriarch's life, since the Greek version reduces reg- ularly by a hundred years the period between the birth of the first-born and the patriarch's death. These accumulated differences result in a wide diver- gence when the duration of the entire patriarchal period is considered. Thus the number of years which, elapsed from the beginning down to the death of Lamech is, according to the Hebrew, 1651, while the Samaritan gives 1307, and the Septuagint 2227. These are but a few of the peculiarities exhibited by the comparison of these perplexing genealogical lists. That the divergences are for the most part inten- tional seems to be a necessary inference from their systematic regularity, and the implied manipulation of the figures by the early translators goes far to make probable the more or less artificial character of these primitive chronologies as a whole.
Von Hummelaueh, Comment, in Genesim (Paris. 1895) ; Gigot, Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, I (New York, 1901), 184 sq.; Vigouroux, Livres Saints et Critique RatioTialiste, IV (Paris, 1891), 224 sq.; Idem, Manuel Bibligue. II (Paris, 1880), n. 333; Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon, 8. v.; see also Chhonologt, Biblical. James F. DriscOLL.
Patriarch and Patriarchate, names of the high- est ecclcsiasticiil dignitaries after the pope, and of the territory they rule.
I. Origin OF THE Title. — Patriarch (Gr.xaTpiipx'?'; Lat. patriarcha) means the father or chief of a race {iraTpid, a clan or family). The word occurs in the Septuagint for the chiefs of the tribes (e. g. I Par., xxiv, 31; xxvii, 22, narpiipxai tGiv (pvXQi'; cf. II Par., xxiii, 20 etc.); in the New Testament (Heb., vii, 4) it is applied to Abraham as a version of his title "father of many nations" (Gen., xvii, 4), to David (Acts, ii, 29), and to the twelve sons of Jacob (Acts, vii, 8-9). This last became the special mean- ing of the word when used of Scriptural characters. The heads of the tribes were the "Twelve Patriarchs", though the word is used also in a more general sense for the fathers of the Old Law in general, e. g. the in- vocation in the litany, "All ye holy Patriarchs and Prophets".
Names of Christian dignitaries were in early days taken sometimes from civil life (iirlcKOTro^, SlAkovos), sometimes bcirrowcd from the Jews (Trpecrpirepo!). The name pat riarih is one of the latter class. Bishops of special dignity wrre called patriarchs just as deacons were called levites, because their place corresponded by analogy to those in the Old Law. All such titles became technical terms, official titles, only gradually. At first they were used loosely as names of honour without any strict connotation; but in all such cases the reality existed before any special name was used. There were ecclesiastical dignitaries with all the rights and prerogatives of patriarchs in the first three cen- turies; but the official title does not occur till later. As a Christian title of honour the word patriarch appears first as applied to Pope Leo I in a letter of Theodosius II (408-50; Man.si, VI, 68). The bish- ops of the Byzantine jurisdiction apply it to their chief, Acacius (471-89; Evagrius, "H. E.", Ill, 9). But it was still merely an honourable epithet that might be given to any venerable bishop. St. Greg- ory of Nazianzus says: "the elder bishops, or more rightly, the patriarchs" (Orat., xlii, 23). Socrates says that the Fathers of Constantinople I (381) "set
up patriarchs", meaning apparently metropolitans
of provinces (H. E., V, viii). As late as the fifth and
sixth centuries Celidonius of Besan5on and Nicetius
of Lyons are still called patriarchs (Acta SS., Feb.,
Ill, 742; Gregory of Tours, "Hist. Francorum", V,
xx).
Gradually then — certainly from the eighth and ninth centuries — the word becomes an official title, used henceforth only as connoting a definite rank in the hierarchy, that of the chief bLshops who ruled over metropolitans as metropolitans over their suffragan bishops, being themselves subject only to the first patriarch at Rome. During these earlier centuries the name appears generally in conjunction with "archbishop", "archbishop and patriarch", as in the Code of Justinian (Gelzer, "Der Streit iiber den Titel des okumen. Patriarchen" in "Jahrbuch fUr protest. Theol.", 1887). The dispute about the title (Ecumenical Patriarch in the sixth century (see John the Faster) shows that even then the name was receiving a technical sense. Later medieval and modern developments, schisms, and the creation of titular and so-called "minor" patriarchates have pro- duced the result that a great number of persons now claim the title ; but in all cases it connotes the idea of a special rank — the highest, except among Catholics who admit the still higher papacy.
Patriarchate (Gr. TraTpiapx^a; Lat. patriarchatus) is the derived word meaning a patriarch's office, see, reign, or, most often, the territory he governs. It corre- sponds to episcopacy, episcopate, and diocese in rela- tion to a bishop.
II. The Three Patriarchs. — The oldest canon law admitted only three bishops as having what later ages called patriarchal rights — the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The successor of St. Peter as a matter of course held the highest place and combined in his own person all dignities. He was not only bishop, but metropolitan, primate, and patriarch; Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Pri- mate of Italy, and first of the patriarchs. As soon as a hierarchy was organized among bishops, the chief authority and dignity were retained by the Bishop of Rome. The pope combines the above positions and each of them gives him a special relation to the faith- ful and the bishops in the territory corresponding. As pope he is visible head of the whole Church; no Christian is outside his papal jurisdiction. As Bishop of Rome he is the diocesan bishop of that dio- cese only; as metropolitan he governs the Roman Province; as primate he governs the Italian bishops; as patriarch he rules only the West. As patriarch the Roman pontiff has from the beginning ruled all the Western lands where Latin was once the civilized, and is still the liturgical language, where the Roman Rite is now used almost exclusively and the Roman canon law (e. g. celibacy, our rules of fasting and abstinence, etc.) obtains. To Christians in the East he is supreme pontiff, not patriarch. Hence there has always been a closer relation between Western bishops and the pope than between him and their Eastern brethren, just as there is a still closer relation between him and the suburban bishops of the Roman Province of which he is metropolitan. Many laws that we obey are not universal Catholic laws, but those of the Western patriarchate. Before the Coun- cil of Nica!a (325) two bishops in the East had the same patriarchal authority over large territories, those of Alexandria and Antioch. It is diflicult to say exactly how they obtained this position. The organization of provinces tmder metropolitans fol- lowed, as a matter of obvious convenience, the or- ganization of the empire arranged by Diocletian (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 21-23). In this arrangement the most imi)ortant cities in the East were Alexandria of Egypt and Antioch of Syria. So the Bishop of Alexandria became the chief of all
