Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:32:54.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Representing” Mission from Below: Historians as Interpreters and Agents of Christianization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2010

Andrea Sterk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discussion of mission in east Roman or Byzantine history has typically focused on imperial ambitions, royal conversions, and a “top-down” approach to Christianization. The Christian emperor, the earthly image of the heavenly king, had been called by God to propagate the faith and civilize the barbarians. Toward this end he sent out emissaries to foreign potentates, and the conversion of the ruler was soon followed by the Christianization of his people. Such narratives largely ignore missionaries “from below,” deemed “accidental” evangelists, and focus instead on imperially sponsored or “professional missionaries.” Several recent studies have added nuance to the traditional picture by devoting increased attention to mission from below or presenting Christianization as a process comprising multiple stages that spanned several centuries. Building on my own previous article on this theme, the present essay will reexamine narratives of unofficial mission on the eastern frontiers, in particular accounts of captive women credited with converting whole kingdoms to the Christian faith. In each case a female ascetic has either been taken prisoner or has lived for some time as a captive in a foreign land just beyond east Roman borders. The woman's steadfast adherence to her pious way of life, performance of apostolic signs, and verbal testimony to faith in Christ move the ruler and his people to accept the Christian God.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 271 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For an example, see the entry by Gregory, Timothy E. and Ševčenko, Ihor, “Missions,” in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2, ed. Kazhdan, Alexander P., et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 1380–81Google Scholar.

2 This approach is evident in Ivanov, Sergey A., Vizantiiskoe missionerstvo. Mozhno li sdelat iz “varvara” khristianina? [Byzantine Missionary Activity: Is It Possible to Make a Christian out of a “Barbarian”?] (Moscow: Iazyki Slavianskoi Kul`tury, 2003)Google Scholar, the only full-fledged study of Byzantine mission in almost forty years. Ivanov places Christian captives, hostages, and merchants of the late Roman era in the category of “accidental” or “unintentional” missionaries (31–61).

3 Most relevant on mission “from below” in the east are Sterk, “Mission from Below”; Horn, Cornelia, “The Lives and Literary Roles of Children in Advancing Conversion to Christianity: Hagiography from the Caucasus in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages,” Church History 76, no. 2 (June 2007): 262–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Price, Richard M., “The Holy Man and Christianization from the Apocryphal Apostles to St. Stephen of Perm,” in The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Howard-Johnston, James and Hayward, Paul Antony (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 215–38Google Scholar. For stages or layers of Christianization, see Thomson, Robert W., “Mission, Conversion, and Christianization: The Armenian Example,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12/13 (1988/1989), 28–45Google Scholar; and Haas, Christopher, “Mountain Constantines: The Christianization of Aksum and Iberia,” Journal of Late Antiquity 1, no. 1 (2008): 101–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For the development of these arguments, see Sterk, “Mission from Below,” especially, 11–29.

5 For biblical references and discussion of this motif in patristic literature, see Clark, Elizabeth A., “Asceticism, Class, and Gender,” in A People's History of Christianity, vol. 2, Late Ancient Christianity, ed. Burrus, Virginia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 28–29Google Scholar.

6 Regarding new approaches to the history of Christianity—from below and from the margins—see Virginia Burrus and Rebecca Lyman, “Shifting the Focus of History,” in A People's History 2, ed. Burrus, 1–23. In addition to this introduction, see the two essays in part 1, “Hierarchy and Subversion,” 27–92. I have deliberately chosen the word inversion over subversion because of the intentionality of the latter term which was not necessarily implied by either the protagonists or the authors of these mission narratives.

7 Wood, Ian, The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe 400–1050 (London: Longman, 2001)Google Scholar.

8 Just as classical historians focused on the character and deeds of emperors, it is (perhaps surprisingly) emperors and not bishops, monks, and holy men, who are most prominent in the works of Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoret. The books of their histories corresponded roughly to the reign of emperors, and only John Chrysostom's episcopate received comparable attention in terms of space, “just as if he were an emperor.” See Urbainczyk, Theresa, “Vice and Advice in Socrates and Sozomen,” in Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. Whitby, Mary (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 299–319Google Scholar; here 310. Similarly, Trompf, G. W., Early Christian Historiography. Narratives of Retributive Justice (London: Continuum, 2000), 213–52Google Scholar, divides his chapter on this triumvirate of historians under imperial reigns noting that all three “begin with an uncriticized Constantine and end with an extolled Theodosius the Younger” (216). Trompf's argument about Christian historians' focus on good or bad monarchs (depending on their stance toward the church) extends beyond Byzantine borders to include the Armenian, Agathangelos (331), who will also be examined below. For other comparative studies of the Greek church historians, see note 66 below.

9 Brown, Peter, “Conversion and Christianization in Late Antiquity: The Case of Augustine,” in The Past Before Us: The Challenge of Historiographies of Late Antiquity, ed. Straw, Carole and Lim, Richard (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2004), 107Google Scholar. Generally on “representations,” see Chartier, Roger, Cultural History: Between Practices and Representations, trans. Cochrane, Lydia G. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988)Google Scholar. Especially pertinent is his discussion of oversimplified dichotomies between literary and documentary texts, reality and representation in the first essay (37–45).

10 Cameron, Averil, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 53–56Google Scholar, 61–64, 140, 144; Smith, Christine, “Christian Rhetoric in Eusebius' Panegyric at Tyre,” Vigiliae Christianae 43, no. 3 (1989): 226–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cameron, Averil and Cameron, Alan, “Christianity and Tradition in the Historiography of the Late Empire,” The Classical Quarterly n.s. 14 (1964): 316–28Google Scholar; Jill Harries, “Patristic Historiography,” in Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to a.d. 600. In Honour of W. H. C. Frend, ed. Ian Hazlett (London: SPCK, 1991), 269–79; Elizabeth Clark, “Rewriting the History of Early Christianity,” in The Past Before Us, ed. Straw and Lim, 61–68; and Johnson, Aaron, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

11 Regarding Eusebius's “clutch of imitators” in the early fifth century, Cameron affirms, “they found it increasingly hard to reconcile a Christian approach with the rigid secular form,” whereas Lives “provided a more congenial and flexible genre.” Rhetoric of Empire, 140–41.

12 For example, this phase or layer of Christianization is missing from Christopher Haas's nine-point schema of the process. See Haas, “Mountain Constantines,” 125.

13 Boyarin, Daniel, “Archives in the Fiction: Rabbinic Historiography and Church History,” in The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient Studies, ed. Martin, Dale B. and Miller, Patricia Cox (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2005), 175–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; here 184.

14 Ihor Ševčenko, “Religious Missions Seen from Byzantium,” Harvard Ukranian Studies 12/13, Proceedings of the International Congress Commemorating the Millennium of Christianity in Rus'-Ukraine (1988/1989): 7–27; on the value of “hybrid mission reports,” 20–27.

15 Boyarin, “Archives in the Fiction,” 184. Drawing from Dominick LaCapra, Boyarin recommends “shifting from a research to a reading paradigm of historiography.” Although the genre in which our accounts of captive women appear is quite different from the “ubiquitous rabbinic legends” about the founding of Judaism at Yavneh (175), which are Boyarin's focus in this essay, his suggestions for reading anecdotal accounts have wider application.

16 Wood, “The Missionary Life,” in Cult of Saints, ed. Howard-Johnston and Hayward, 182. Wood's book by the same title (see note 7) develops these ideas more fully with multiple examples.

17 Though excluding any discussion of holy women as evangelists, Price, “The Holy Man and Christianization,” identifies common themes and a “continuous tradition” of evangelization in diverse hagiographical texts; yet he too concludes that there is no “template to define the ‘typical’ missionary of antique or medieval times” (237).

18 Most helpful in the past three decades have been translations, with commentaries and introductions, of the Armenian histories of this period by Robert Thomson and Nina Garsoïan. See also the two collections of Garsoïan's, essays, Armenia between Byzantium and the Sassanians (London: Variorum, 1985)Google Scholar and Church and Culture in Early Medieval Armenia (Aldershot: Variorum, 1999), and Thomson, Robert W., Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994)Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Thomson, Studies. For a recent reflection on the challenges facing Armenian historical studies, see Garsoïan, “Armenian Historiography in Crisis,” in The Past Before Us, ed. Straw and Lim, 49–60.

19 For the Armenian text and English translation, see Thomson, Robert W., ed. and trans., Agathangelos: History of the Armenians (Albany: State University of New York, 1976)Google Scholar.

20 For the account of Rhipsime's flight, capture, and martyrdom, see Agathangelos, History, §§137–210. Rhipsime's evangelistic role is discussed in Sterk, “Mission from Below,” 13–17.

21 Eusebius, Historiae ecclesiasticae 6.46.2 and 9.8.2 (hereafter cited as HE). See also Eusebius, De demonstratio evangelica I.6.20d for another reference to early fourth-century Armenian Christians. On these earliest references to Christianity in Armenia, see Thomson, “Mission, Conversion, and Christianization,” 29–33.

22 Sozomen, HE 2.8.1. Sozomène. Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres I–II, ed. J. Bidez, trans. André-Jean Festugière, SC 306 (Paris: Éditions du cerf, 1983); English translation by Hartranft, Chester D., Ecclesiastical History, NPNF, Second Series, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957)Google Scholar. Neither Sozomen nor the other Greek historians mention Gregory the Illuminator, Rhipsime, or the other captive virgins who were martyred for their faith.

23 Sozomen, HE 2.8.2.

24 Most recently on this topic, see Thomson, Robert W., “Syrian Christianity and the Conversion of Armenia,” in Die Christianiserung des Kaukasus. The Christianizaion of Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Albania), ed. Siebt, Werner (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 159–69Google Scholar.

25 Koriwn, Life of Mashtots, Classical Armenian Texts (Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan, 1985), 6. On the role of this Syrian bishop, Daniel, in the conversion of Armenia, see especially The Epic Histories Attributed to P‛awstos Buzand, trans. and comm. Nina G. Garsoïan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), 3.14.

26 Koriwn, Life of Mashtots, 19. Koriwn mentions not only translations of the Bible but “many commentaries” and other works of the church fathers and the canons of Nicaea and Ephesus. Moreover, the scholar-monks sent out by Mashtots to be trained in Greek and Syriac returned with manuscripts and engaged in “comparison of the former random, hurriedly done translations from then available copies with the authentic copies,” presumably in order to correct the earlier poor translations. On Mashtots, see also Thomson, Robert W., “The Formation of the Armenian Literary Tradition,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, ed. Garsoïan, Nina, Mathews, Thomas, and Robert Thomson, (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1980), 139–41Google Scholar; also in Thomson, Studies, IV.

27 For an overview of this period, see Redgate, A. E., The Armenians (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 140–49Google Scholar; regarding the relation of this setting to Agathangelos's presentation, see also Thomson, introduction to Agathangelos: History of the Armenians, xc–xciii.

28 Moreover, like many other Armenians even after the contentious Council of Chalcedon drove a theological wedge between the neighboring Christian lands, he was inspired by Greek learning and culture. Robert W. Thomson, “The Fathers in Early Armenian Literature,” in Studies, XII, 457–70, here 458 and 468. See also Thomson, “Formation of the Armenian Literary Tradition,” reprinted in Thomson, Studies, IV.

29 Agathangelos, History, §12, introduces himself in the prologue as “one Agathangelos from the great city of Rome, trained in the arts of the ancients, proficient in Latin and Greek.” For further discussion of his pro-Roman political stance and his use of biblical as well as Greek and Syriac hagiographic models, see Thomson, introduction to Agathangelos: History, especially xxiv–xxvi and lxxx–xciii.

30 Nina Garsoïan, “The Iranian Substratum of the ‘Agathangelos’ Cycle,” in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sassanians XII, 151–89; here 152–56. In notes 26 and 39, Garsoïan explains that the only text to omit the king's metamorphosis into a pig is a fragmentary treatment of the episode in the Letter of George, Bishop of the Arabs. However, translators of Agathangelos dropped the eating of grass which was part of the biblical account (perhaps due to the anomaly it posed since wild boar were primarily carnivorous) rather than correct the identification of the animal to accord with the biblical model. This supports Garsoïan's contention that Agathangelos's choice of a wild pig or boar to replace the biblical ox was quite deliberate.

31 Ibid., 156. That Agathangelos had the king spend six days in mourning prior to this scene also suggests observance of the tradition that the Persian King of Kings absented himself from the hunt in times of mourning.

32 Agathangelos, History, §212.

33 Strabo, XI 14.16; trans. Jones, Horace Leonard, The Geography of Strabo, vol. 6, Loeb Classical Library no. 223 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929), 274Google Scholar. On the role of Anahit and other adopted Zoroastrian deities in Armenian religion, see Redgate, Armenians, 107–12 and 122–26. See also Thomson, “Armenian Image in Classical Texts,” in Studies II, 16–17, and his comments in the introduction to Agathangelos: History, xxxviii–xxxix. For a much fuller treatment of the Armenian deities, see Russell, J. R., Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987)Google Scholar, especially 235–60 on Anahit.

34 Agathangelos, History, §53. See also §68, where he describes her as “the great Anahit, who gives life and fertility to our land of Armenia.”

35 For the confrontation between Trdat and Gregory over the worship of Anahit, see Agathangelos, History, §§48–49, 53 and 59; on the converted king's initiative in destroying her shrines, §778 and §§786–87. Not only was the property of the goddess Anahit transferred to the new Armenian church, but also between 468 and 471 the feast of the Annunciation came to replace a festival of the pagan goddess. See Redgate, Armenians, 123–25.

36 Agathangelos, History, §767: “. . . in compensation as it were for the thoughtless struggle which he had waged with the saint in his own chamber, where conquering by the Savior's grace she had done such marvels.” Thomson, introduction to Agathangelos: History, lxxxiv, suggests that this passage “reflects the whole stones used by Judas to rebuild the altar of the defiled sanctuary” in 1 Macc. 4:47.

37 Thomson, “Mission, Conversion, and Christianization,” 43–44, and Nina Garsoïan, “Armenia in the Fourth Century: An Attempt to Re-Define the Concepts ‘Armenia’ and ‘Loyalty,’” in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sassanians III, 341–52.

38 Thomson, “Mission, Conversion, and Christianization,” argues that “the development of Armenian literature may be seen as a stage in the Christianization of that people” (28).

39 See Agathangelos, History, §12, where he identifies himself as “Agathangelos,” who has been commissioned by the king to compose this narrative.

40 Agathangelos, History, §6, §§8–10, and §§15–16. See also Thomson's introduction, lxxxii, for other examples of biblical imagery applied to the task of the historian.

41 Agathangelos, History, §899. For comparisons of his work with that of Moses, §893; the prophets, §894; David, §895 and §899; Luke, §898. In §896, citing Christ's command to “Go to all races” (Matt. 28:19), he writes, “So this blessed one freely, with hopeful concern and profitably, demonstrated his own efforts according to the gospel.”

42 See Sterk, “Mission from Below,” especially 15–17 and 32–33.

43 Agathangelos, History, §§137–40; see also §137, n. 1, 468–69 regarding the parallel in Esther 2. On imperial bride-shows in Byzantine history and literature, see Treadgold, Warren, “The Bride-shows of the Byzantine Emperors,” Byzantion 49 (1979): 395–413Google Scholar, who also mentions Esther 2 as the inspiration behind Byzantine bride shows (398); Rydén, Lennart, “The Bride-shows at the Byzantine Court—History or Fiction?” Eranos 83 (1985): 175–91Google Scholar; and Treadgold, Warren, “The Historicity of Imperial Bride-Shows,” Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik 54 (2004): 39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which reviews the debate over their historicity set off by his 1979 article. For examples and further discussion, see Herrin, Judith, Women in Purple. Rulers of Medieval Byzantium (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001), 132–38Google Scholar, 170–72, 190–91, and 222–25; Herrin also points to Esther as one of the models for this Byzantine practice (134).

44 Agathangelos, History, §180 and §187; cf. Judg. 4 and 1 Kings 17:50. Gregory's responses and prayers during the course of his tortures, §§69–122, are similarly filled with biblical citations and allusions. See also Robert Thomson's index of biblical quotations and allusions at the end of his edition of the text, 516–23.

45 For Rhipsime offering her tongue, see Agathangelos, History, §197; cf. 2 Macc. 7:10. The editor notes (§197, n. 2, 473–74) that the wording is identical. For Gaiane and her companions, see §205 and §208. On the function of the Maccabean martyrs, see also Robert Thomson, “The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography,” in Thomson, Studies VII, 329–41.

46 For evidence of Agathangelos's familiarity with and borrowings from such themes in patristic literature, see Thomson, introduction to Agathangelos: History, lxxxiv–lxxxvii.

47 Agathangelos, History, §189. See also 473, §189, n. 1 on the scarce use of the term Latin in Armenian. More literally, the Armenian phrase designates the dialect of the Romans.

48 Agathangelos, History, §§189–90. See also §184 for striking the mouth and knocking out the teeth of Gaiane, apparently to no avail. Indeed, the persistence as well as the faithfulness of her speech is emphasized throughout this section.

49 The Teaching of Saint Gregory, trans., comm., and intro. Robert W. Thomson, rev. ed. (New Rochelle, N.Y.: St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, 2001). On the manuscript tradition and its connection with various recensions of Agathangelos's History, see Thomson's introduction to the Teaching, especially 3–5 and 50–61. While the Teaching went through various stages of development reaching its present form by the beginning of the seventh century, already by the end of the fifth century Agathangelos's History included a substantial exposition of the faith which came to be known as the “teaching” of Saint Gregory (53).

50 In Agathangelos, History, §§252–58, Gregory refers to the narration of the faith that he is about to relate to the king and his court and summarizes its themes; after a brief recapitulation, in §721 he says “it is now evening” and bids them sleep before beginning to build the martyrs' sanctuaries the next day. In its present form, the Teaching comprises §§259–715 of the History.

51 Thomson, introduction to Teaching of Gregory, 8. Thomson, 13–15, categorizes the Teaching as a catechism most closely resembling Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Orations, which had been translated into Armenian.

52 For example, Teaching of Gregory §507. The long section calling for repentance repeatedly returns to this metaphor; see especially §§508–16, 538–42, and 544–51. Drawing on various strands of patristic exegesis, Thomson, 157, n. 327, notes the Teaching's combination of the two cups metaphor with the more common contrast between the two ways.

53 Teaching of Gregory, §514. Thomson, 159, n. 335, notes that as in Greek, the Armenian words for “witness” and “martyr” are the same.

54 Teaching of Gregory, §541.

55 Teaching of Gregory, §562 and §564.

56 Teaching of Gregory, §572.

57 Peeters, P., “S. Grégoire l'Illuminateur dan le calendrier lapidaire de Naples,” Analecta Bollandiana 60 (1942), 91–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 104–6. See Eusebius, HE 9.8.2–4 for the account of Maximinus Daia's persecution, though the location of Armenia in this passage remains unclear. In agreement with Peeters, see Michel van Esbroeck, “Die Stellung der Märtyrerin Rhipsime in der Geschichte der Bekehrung des Kaukasus,” in Christianisierung des Kaukasus, ed. Siebt, 172. However, van Esbroeck's affirmation that in the years just after 303 there are “gute Gründe, sich vorzustellen, dass . . . eine Gruppe junger Nonnen vor der Unterdrückung des Diokletian nach Armenien geflohen ist” seems strained given the lack of evidence of organized communities of nuns in Rome or anywhere else during the reign of Diocletian. Redgate, The Armenians, 116, suggests that the Christian Armenians against whom Daia mobilized troops in 311–312 “may even have been Tiridates' subjects, rather than Christians in Lesser Armenia or in the ceded principalities,” though she cites no supporting evidence for this conjecture.

58 For mention of the cult of Rhipsime, see P‛awtos Buzand, Epic Histories 3.14, composed just after Agathangelos's History, most likely in the 470s. The seventh-century bishop Sebeos refers to the martyrion of Rhipsime built by the Armenian catholicos Sahak (d. 439) and its destruction by Catholicos Komitas in 616 in order to build a larger church in its place. In the process of taking down the original chapel walls, “unexpectedly there was revealed a luminous and incomparable royal pearl, that is, the virginal body of the holy lady Hripsime.” The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos, trans. R. W. Thomson, Translated Texts for Historians, 31 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), chap. 37, pp. 67–68; n. 480 for other references to the shrine and church in early Armenian texts.

59 The Epic Histories of P‛awtos Buzand, 3.1 claims to continue the work of Agathangelos and others who have compared the initial stage of Armenia's conversion to “a brick . . . set in the wall of a structure for the completion of the whole”; hence it is understandable that the apostolic role of Rhipsime is minimal in a text that focuses on the missionary work of itinerant preachers later in the fourth century. The silence about Rhipsime in the histories of Lazar Parpetsi, Elishe, and especially Moses Xhorenatsi, who has been dubbed an Armenian Eusebius, is striking. Studies of Rhipsime tend to focus on her appearance in the synaxarion or later Armenian tradition. See for example, the chapter on her in Synek, Eva Maria, “Die heilige Hripsime,” chap. 3 in Heilige Frauen der frühen Christenheit. Zu den Frauenbildern in hagiographischen Texten des christlichen Ostens (Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1994), 139–49Google Scholar; also Van Esbroeck, “Die Stellung der Märtyrerin Rhipsime.” Thomson's study, “Mission, Conversion, and Christianization,” emphasizes the importance of the martyrdom and lists it among the foundational elements of the received tradition of Armenia's conversion, but he does not treat the function of Rhipsime in any depth or discuss the discrepancies in attention to her role in the early Armenian histories.

60 Unlike the Rhipsimian virgins in Agathangelos, the martyrs in the histories of Elishe and Moses Khorenatsi, “die for their national traditions” and “are striving to preserve an individuality as Armenians.” Thomson, “Jerusalem and Armenia,” in Studies, V, 87. Both here and elsewhere Thomson has examined both the focus on martyrdom and the influence of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History in early Armenian literature. Yet the connection between these emphases and Rhipsime's portrayal as a missionary martyr has not been explored in any depth.

61 For the significant roles of women and especially children in the Christianization of the Caucasus, see Horn, “Lives and Literary Roles of Children.”

62 The Teaching of Gregory, §544.

63 On Georgia in the ancient world, see Braund, David, Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC–AD 562 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994)Google Scholar, and Toumanoff, Cyril, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1963)Google Scholar. Particularly relevant on Georgia's conversion, especially on later Georgian accounts of St. Nino, are: von Lilienfeld, Fairy, “Amt und geistliche Vollmacht der heiligen Nino, ‘Apostel und Evangelist’ von Ostgeorgien, nach den ältesten georgischen Quellen,” in Horizonte der Christenheit. Festschrift für Friedrich Heyer zu seinem 85. Geburtstag, Oikonomia 34, ed. Kohlbacher, Michael and Lesinski, Markus (Erlangen: Lehrstuhl für Geschichte und Theologie des christlichen Ostens, 1994), 224–49Google Scholar; and Horn, Cornelia, “St. Nino and the Christianization of Pagan Georgia,” Medieval Encounters 4, no. 3 (1998): 243–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 See Rufinus, HE 10.11, in Schwartz, Eduard and Mommsen, Theodore, eds., Eusebius Werke. GCS 2, n.f. 6, 2 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999), 973–76Google Scholar; English translation in Amidon, Philip R., S.J., trans., The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia, Books 10 and 11 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 20–23Google Scholar. Citations of the Greek historians are from the Sources Chrétiennes editions: Socrates, HE 1.20 in Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire Ecclésiastique. Livre I, trans. Pierre Périchon and Pierre Maraval, SC 477 (Paris: Éditions du cerf, 2004), 194–200; Sozomen, HE 2.7 in Sozomène. Histoire ecclésiastique, Livres I–II, SC 306, pp. 258–64; Theodoret, HE 1.24 in Theodoret de Cyr. Histoire Ecclésiastique, ed. L. Parmentier, G. C. Hansen, J. Bouffartigue, Annick Martin, and Pierre Canivet, SC 501 (Paris: Éditions du cerf, 2006), 292–98. For English translations of Socrates and Sozomen, see respectively A. C. Zenos and Chester D. Hartranft, trans., Ecclesiastical History, NPNF, Second Series, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957). For Theodoret, see Jackson, Blomfield, trans., The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, NPNF, Second Series, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989), 417–18Google Scholar. Unless otherwise noted, English translations are my own.

65 The most thorough analysis of Rufinus's account of Iberia's conversion is that of Thelamon, Françoise, Païens et chrétiens au IVe siècle. L'apport de ‘l'Histoire ecclésiastique’ de Rufin d'Aquilée (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1981), 85–122Google Scholar.

66 For helpful comparative treatments of the fifth-century Greek church historians, see Chesnut, Glenn F., The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius, 2nd ed. (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1986)Google Scholar, especially 175–230; Trompf, Early Christian Historiography, 213–52; Rohrbacher, David, The Historians of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chaps. 9–11, 108–34; Van Nuffelen, Peter, Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 142 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004)Google Scholar; and Treadgold, Warren, The Early Byzantine Historians (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007)Google Scholar, chap. 5, 121–75.

67 For example, see the section on Georgia in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 2: Constantine to c.600, ed. Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 138–39. The synopsis begins with the affirmation that Rufinus ascribed Georgia's conversion “to the efforts of a Christian Cappadocian slave woman, Nino,” who was instrumental in saving Queen Nana and King Mirian—despite the fact that Rufinus mentions neither Cappadocia, nor a slave woman “Nino,” nor either member of the Iberian royal couple by name. Horn, “St. Nino and Christianization,” notes that his account is “reworked” by the Greek church historians as well as certain Armenian sources, but that all essentially “agree with Georgian tradition” (252); hence she offers no analysis of the early variations.

68 For background on Socrates, about whom very little is known, and the problems of dating his work see, Urbainczyk, Theresa, Socrates of Constantinople: Historian of Church and State (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997), 13–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Van Nuffelen, Héritage de paix, 1–46. On the historical importance of Socrates' account of the conversion, see Bäbler, Balbina, “Die Blick über die Reichsgrenzen: Sokrates und die Bekehrung Georgiens,” in Die Welt des Sokrates von Konstantinopel, ed. Bäbler, Balbina and Nesselrath, Heinz Günther (Munich: Saur, 2001), 159–81Google Scholar. In contrast to recent studies that find “georgischen Züge” in the ancient church histories, Bäbler argues that the Greek versions, based on Rufinus, were constitutive for the later Georgian tradition.

69 Socrates, HE 1.20.3. Neither Rufinus nor Sozomen or Theodoret mentions the king's son but rather an anonymous sick child. Maraval, Socrate: Histoire ecclésiastique, 195, n. 4, notes that such an identification was a well-known topos that Socrates also used elsewhere in his Church History. Cf. Socrates, HE 1.22.10, 4.26.20, and 7.8.18.

70 Socrates, HE 1.20.12.

71 Socrates, HE 1.20.14: ἀμϕότϵροι κήρυκϵς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ μν βασιλϵὺς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἡ δ γυνὴ ταῖς γυναιξίν. Cf. Rufinus, HE 10.11: Schwartz and Mommsen, 975, lines 20–21: credunt viri per regem, feminae per reginam.

72 While Socrates emphasizes the king's role in his nation's conversion, he does not ascribe to him the title of apostle. Among the fifth-century historians, only Rufinus affirms that the Iberian king “fit suae gentis apostolus.” Rufinus, HE 10.11: Schwartz and Mommsen, 975, line 20.

73 Sozomen, HE 2.7.4.

74 Sozomen, HE 2.7.6–7.

75 Sozomen, HE 2.7.10: βϵβαιοτρους καὶ πϵρὶ τὸ θϵῖον πιήσϵιν τοὺς ῎Ιβηρασ

76 Socrates, HE 1.20.63: ῎Ιβηρϵς . . . χριστιάνισαν and 1.20.66: ’Ιβηρία . . . τῷ χριστιανισμῷ προσϵλήλυθϵν.

77 Sozomen, HE 2.7.6.

78 Sozomen, HE 2.7.8: αὐτὸς μν τοὺς ἄνδρα ἡ δ βασὶλισσα ἅμα τῄ αἰχμαλώτῳ τὰς γυναῖκας.

79 Rufinus writes that the men believed “because of the king” and the women “because of the queen” while Socrates makes the Iberian king and queen “preachers of Christ” to the men and the women respectively. For the parallel passages, omitting mention of the captive, see Rufinus, HE 10.11: Schwartz and Mommsen, 975, lines 20–21: Amidon, 22; and Socrates, HE 1.20.14.

80 Since the observations of Photius, it has become customary to compare the style of these two historians affirming the higher literary quality of Sozomen's work: “His style is better than that of Socrates. . . .” Photius, Bibliotheca, 30, trans. John Henry Freese (London: SPCK, 1920). Regarding modern comparisons of the two based on Photius's remark, see Urbainczyk, Theresa, “Observations on the Differences between the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen,” Historia 46 (1997): 355–73Google Scholar; here 356.

81 See for example Socrates, HE 4.33, regarding the conversion of the Goths: τοῦ Χριστιανοὺς γϵνσθαι τῶν βαρβάρων πολλούς. Similarly in his account of the Christianization of Axum (1.19) three general phrases are used: Christianity spread (ὁ Χριστιανισμὸς πλατύνϵτο), the nation was enlightened by the idea of Christianity (ὁ τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ λόγος ϕώτιζϵν), and the people were Christianized (χριστιανίσαι).

82 Sozomen, HE 6.37. Unlike Socrates, Sozomen distinguishes the Goths' initial conversion from their later acceptance of Arianism. Cf. Socrates, 4.33. See also Sozomen, 2.6, for a more nuanced account of the reasons for and stages in the conversion of the barbarian tribes.

83 Sozomen, HE 2.7.6. Though he does not discuss Iberia's conversion, on Sozomen's interest in ethnography and its relation to evangelism, see Stevenson, Walter, “Sozomen, Barbarians, and Early Byzantine Historiography,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 43 (2002/2003): 51–75Google Scholar.

84 Sozomen, HE 2.7.1: λγϵται τοὺς ῎Ιβϵρας τὸν Χριστὸν πιγνῶναι; 2.7.12: :Ιβηρϵς τὸν Χριστὸν πγνωσαν καὶ ϵὶστι νῦν πιμϵλῶς σβουσιν.

85 Sozomen, HE 6.38.

86 Rufinus, HE 11.6, and Socrates, HE 4.36.

87 Sozomen, HE 6.38. For observations on Sozomen's preference for the term μϵταβάλλω, I am indebted to the master's thesis of Kevin Harris, “Fifth-Century Views of Conversion: A Comparison of Conversion Narratives in the Church Histories of Sozomen and Socrates Scholasticus” (master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1998), 97–99.

88 Sozomen, HE 6.20; cf. Socrates 4.24: ϵὶς πίστιν τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ ἤγαγον.

89 Urbainczyk, “Observations on Differences,” particularly highlights three areas on which the historians differed: church-state relations personified by the interaction between bishops and emperors, the importance of monasticism, and the threat of Judaism. See also Urbainczyk, “Vice and Advice in Socrates and Sozomen,” for her comparison of praise and blame in their histories.

90 Based on the foregoing analysis, on the subject of conversion David Rohrbacher's inclusion of Sozomen with the other Greek church historians in contradistinction to Rufinus is problematic. Unlike Rufinus, he argues, they all “continue to be influenced by the Eusebian model of the triumphant Christian king who will protect his state and flock from foreign powers. . . . The emperor's traditional power to destroy barbarians remained more important to these historians than the church's ability to convert them.” Rohrbacher, Historians of Late Antiquity, 234–45.

91 Sozomen, HE 1.1.9. In this opening chapter he also describes the transformation from pagan cults to Christian faith as a “great conversion in the world” (παραδόξου μϵταβολῆς τῇ οἰκουμνῃ) (1.1.11) and announces his intention to describe the progress of the Christian faith not only in the Roman Empire but among the Persians and barbarians as well (1.1.18).

92 On the relation between Theodoret's and Socrates' church histories, see Canivet, Théodoret de Cyr. Histoire ecclésiastique, SC 501, 82–87. Socrates, who refers explicitly to Rufinus's text, never mentions a translation, and Theodoret almost certainly did not know Latin.

93 Theodoret, HE 1.24.7. In the preceding chapter Theodoret, HE 1.23.9, uses the same verb to describe the missionary work of Frumentius in Axum where, by his apostolic deeds and words, he captured (θήρϵυϵ) many people each day and led them to the knowledge of God.

94 Theodoret, HE 1.24.9: παρϵκάλϵι δϵῖξαι τῆς οἰκοδομίας τὸ σχῆμα. Theodoret, HE 1.24.9.

95 Theodoret, HE 1.24.10: ἠξίωσϵ χάριτος ὥστϵ τὸν θϵῖον διαγράψαι νϵών; cf. Socrates, HE 1.20.14: τὸ σχῆμα τῶν παρὰ ῾Ρωμαίοις κκλησιῶν.

96 On Theodoret's use of biblical typologies in the Historia religiosa, see Krueger, Derek, “Typological Figuration in Theodoret of Cyrrhus's Religious History and the Art of Postbiblical Narrative,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5, no. 3 (Fall 1997): 393–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar; repr. as “Typology and Hagiography: Theodoret of Cyrrhus's Religious History,” chap. 2 in Krueger, , Writing as Holiness: The Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Krueger rightly distinguishes Theodoret's emphasis on the “typological mode” of saints' lives in the Religious History, a work of “sacred biography,” from his accounts of holy men in the Ecclesiastical History (22). Yet the Ecclesiastical History also contains semi-hagiographical accounts like this one in which Theodoret clearly reverts to typological descriptions.

97 Theodoret HE, 1.6–7 on the teaching and exhortation of the captive woman and the queen.

98 Theodoret, HE, 1.24.1: Οὗτος ὁ πόνοσ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν αὐτῇ μϵταδδωκϵ χαρισμάτων.

99 The three lives of holy women in Theodoret's Religious History appear in the last two chapters (29 and 30). On his presentation of women in the Historia religiosa, see Urbainczyk, Theresa, Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and the Holy Man (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2002), 103–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hourani, Guita, “Domnina: A Female Disciple of Saint Maron,” Journal of Maronite Studies 1, no. 4 (1997)Google Scholar: http://maroniteinstitute.org/MARI/JMS/april97/Domnina_A_Female_Disciple.html. Neither author discusses his portrayal of the female captive or other women in his Ecclesiastical History.

100 Theodoret, HE 1.24.59–61. The notion that ascetic qualities uniquely qualify men for ecclesiastical leadership, and even the phrase, ἀρχιϵρωσύνης ήξιωμϵνόν, used in this passage, occur frequently in Theodoret's Historia religiosa as well.

101 See Rapp, Claudia, “Storytelling as Spiritual Communication in Early Greek Hagiography: The Use of Diegesis,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6, no. 3 (Fall 1998): 431–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Theodoret's use of diegesis in the prologue and epilogue of Historia religiosa, 434 and 439–41. See also Krueger, “Typological Figuration;” and Krueger, , “Writing as Devotion: Hagiograpical Composition and the Cult of the Saints in Theodroet of Cyrrhus and Cyril of Scythopolis,” Church History 66, no. 4 (December 1997): 707–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Krueger's articles now appear as chapters 2 and 4 of his book, Writing and Holiness.

102 Krueger, “Typological Figuration,” 418; repr. in Krueger, Writing as Holiness, 32. Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 137–38, n. 19, describes Krueger's observation as a “startling conclusion” and is hesitant to “accuse Theodoret of such hubris.” There is no reason to see extreme hubris in Theodoret's representation of himself or Krueger's description of his self-representation. In the same paragraph, discussing Theodoret's use of parallels between his work and narratives in the Gospels, Urbainczyk herself is “reminded of the birth of Jesus” (138) in a description of events surrounding his own birth. His use of biblical typologies throughout his works is purposeful.

103 Theodoret, HE 1.1.3. Rapp, “Storytelling as Spiritual Communication,” 444, cites Plutarch's similar use of this comparison in De Gloria Atheniensium 3477A: “the most effective historian is he who, by a vivid representation of emotions and characters, makes his narration (diegesin) like a painting.” On Theodoret's prologue, see also the comments of Ruggini, Lellia Cracco, “Universalità e campanilismo, centro e periferia, città e deserto nelle Storie ecclesiastiche,” in La storiografica ecclesiastica nella tarda antichità. Atti del Convegno tenuto in Erice (3–8 XII 1978) (Messina: Centro di studi umanistici, 1980), 159–94Google Scholar; here 166–67. For a comparative analysis of the church historians' prologues see in the same volume, Mario Mazza, “Sulla teoria della storiografia cristiana: osservazioni sui proemi degli storici ecclesiastici,” 335–89.

104 Philip Rousseau, “Knowing Theodoret: Text and Self,” in Cultural Turn, ed. Martin and Miller, 278–97; here 288. Despite the epistemological complexities involved in writing and reading letters, Rousseau affirms “the singleness of the human person as both thinker and agent” (288) in Theodoret's self-presentation and concludes with cautious optimism that in Theodoret's correspondence, “he is not entirely hidden” (292).

105 On Theodoret's motives and approach in the Ecclesiastical History, see Annick Martin's introduction to Books I and II in Théodoret de Cyr. Histoire Ecclésiastique, SC 501, especially 39–92. While pointing out the apologetic, polemical, and homilectic characteristics of the text (55), Martin concludes: “En plus du théologien, le pasteur l'emporte toujours sur l'historien,” and she describes the work as “cette histoire sainte qui est aussi une histoire des saints” (91).

106 Theodoret, HE I.24.1: ῎Ιβηρας . . . τὴν ἀλήθϵιαν ξϵνάγησϵν.

107 The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, trans. R. H. Charles (London: Williams & Norgate, 1916), chap. LXXVII.106–7, p.69. The Ethiopic text is edited with a French translation by Zotenberg, H., Chronique de Jean, Évêque de Nikiou (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1883)Google Scholar. On John of Nikiu and his Chronicle, see Carile, Antonio, “Giovanni di Nikius, cronista bizantino-copto del VII secolo,” Felix Ravenna 121–22 (1981): 103–55Google Scholar; repr. in Byzantium. Tribute to Andreas N. Stratos, vol. 2, ed. Zia Stratos (Athens: N. A. Stratos, 1986), 353–98. For the account of Theognosta in the Copto-Arabic Synaxarion, see Le Synaxaire arabe jacobite (rédaction copte), ed. and trans. Rene Basset (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1905) PO I, 277–79. This text is based on three fragmentary and conflicting Coptic texts discussed by van Esbroeck, Michel, “Theognosta, Saint” in The Coptic Encylopedia, vol. 7, ed. Atiya, Aziz S. (New York: Macmillan, 1991), 2243–44Google Scholar.

108 Van Esbroeck, “Theognosta, Saint,” Coptic Encyclopedia, 7:2244. The French editor and translator of the Ethiopic text also assumes an error on the part of the author or an editor. He notes, however, that John of Nikiu is not borrowing directly from Rufinus, Socrates, or Sozomen, but rather from another unknown source which was also the basis of the Jacobite synaxarion. See Zotenberg, Chronique de Jean, Évêque de Nikiou, 309–10, n. 1.

109 See, for example, Shapira, Dan D. Y., “Stray Notes on Aksum and Himyar,” Scrinium 2. Revue de patrologie d'hagiographie critique et d'histoire ecclésiastique (2006): 433–43Google Scholar; here 440, n. 19. For generally negative assessments of John's reliability on subjects outside Egypt, see also Stratos, A. N., Byzantium in the Seventh Century II, trans. Ogilvie-Grant, Marc (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1972), 219–20Google Scholar, and Hoyland, Robert G., Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin, 1997), 152–56Google Scholar.

110 For example, Papathanassiou, Athanassios N., “Christian Missions in Pre-Islamic Arabia,” Θϵολογία 65 (1994), 135–36Google Scholar; Shapira, “Stray Notes on Aksum and Himyar,” 439–40; and Ivanov, Vizantiiskoe missionerstvo, 40–41. It has also been noted that John of Nikiu's account “gives us a terminus post quem for the circulation of stories about Christians from the Roman Near East evangelizing Najran.” George E. Hatke, “Africans in Arabia Felix: Aksumite Relations with the Arabian Peninsula, 200–800 CE” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, forthcoming), chap. 3. My thanks to George Hatke for sending an early draft of this chapter.

111 John of Nikiu, Chronicle, LXXVII.107. Drawing especially from the Copto-Arabic accounts, Synek, Heiligen Frauen, 135–38, even suggests that Theognosta was from the upper classes and notes other ways in which she differed from the captive evangelist of Iberia. That she came from a convent in the Roman Empire recalls the background of Rhipsime, and certainly links between Ethiopia and Armenia are possible. See Shapira, “Stray Notes on Aksum and Himyar.”

112 Ibid. In the Copto-Arabic Synaxarion, the king experiences a crisis parallel to that of the Iberian monarch, but it occurs while he is at war rather than on the hunt. For the variations in this later account of Theognosta, see Sterk, “Mission from Below,” 27–28.

113 Regarding these deportations, including excerpts from some of the relevant texts, see Dignas, Beate and Winter, Engelbert, Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 254–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Lieu, Samuel N. C., “Captives, Refugees and Exiles: A Study of Cross-Frontier Civilian Movements and Contacts between Rome and Persia from Valerian to Jovian,” in The Defense of the Roman and Byzantine East, part 2, ed. Freeman, Philip and Kennedy, David (Oxford: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1986), 475–505Google Scholar. Lieu is particularly helpful in outlining the religious impact of the deportations and other movements of people across the frontiers.

114 The History of Al-Tabari, vol. 5: The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakmids, and Yemen, trans. Clifford Edmund Bosworth (Albany: SUNY Press, 1999), 195–99. A similar hagiographical account of Faymiyūn appears in the reconstruction of Ibn Ishaq's lost biography of Muhammad. See Ishaq, Ibn, The Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, A. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955), 14–16Google Scholar; also discussion of the historicity and literary nature of this account in Newby, Gordon D., “An Example of Coptic Literary Influence on Ibn Ishaq's Sīrah,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31, no. 1 (January 1972): 22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Syriac literary motifs in the background to this story see Tubach, J., “Die Anfänge des Christentums in Südarabien,” Parole de I'Orient 18 (1993), 108–11Google Scholar; also Sizgorich, Thomas, Violence and Belief in Late Antiquity: Militant Devotion in Christianity and Islam (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2009), 158–59Google Scholar.

115 Trimingham, J. Spencer, Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times (London: Longman, 1979), 294Google Scholar.

116 Hatke, “Africans in Arabia Felix,” chap. 3.

117 Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum, I, CSCO 91, Scriptores Syri 43, ed. I.-B. Chabot (Louvain, 1927), 161, lines 17–19. His main sources were the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea and the church histories of Socrates and John of Ephesus, though he also drew from other sources. On his distinctive style and approach, see Witakowski, Witold, The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Maḥre: A Study in the History of Historiography, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 9 (Uppsala, 1987), especially 103–38Google Scholar; on his sources for this section of the chronicle, Witakowski, , “The Sources of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre for the Second Part of His Chronicle,” in Leimon. Studies Presented to Lennart Rydén on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Rosenqvist, Jan Olof (Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1996), 181–210Google Scholar.

118 Pseudo-Dionysius, Chronicon, 160, line 1. Trimingham, Christianity among the Arabs, 291, mistakenly attributes this passage to John of Ephesus. Though John of Ephesus is a major source for Part III of the Chronicon, in this section the author clearly signals his debt to Socrates.

119 In Socrates as in Rufinus, the account of the Christianization of Axum immediately precedes the narrative of Iberia's conversion. In Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre's chronicle, the brief reference to the conversion of the Himyarites precedes rather than follows the Christianization of Axum; moreover, there is another substantial entry in between, also drawn from Socrates (HE 1.13), regarding Constantine's construction of churches and anti-pagan measures.

120 Witakowski, “Sources of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre,” 186.

121 Histoire Nestorienne, ed. Addaï Scher, French trans. Pierre Dib, PO 4, 5, 7 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1910), 331. Likely derived from the Book of the Himyarites, this passage is discussed by Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fifth Century (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1989), 361–70, but he offers no further explanation for the Jewish captive turned queen.

122 For the suggestion that Christians in Mesopotamia may have been involved in the capture of Masruq's mother, see Shahîd, Irfan, “Byzantino-Arabica: The Conference of Ramla, a.d.524,” in Byzantium and the Semitic Orient before the Rise of Islam (London: Variorum, 1988)Google Scholar VI, 115–31; here 124–25. On Yusuf's role in the Judaization of Himyar, see Robin, Christian, “Le judaisme de Himyar,” Arabia 1 (2003), 145–47Google Scholar. Robin suggests that the reference to Yusuf's captive mother in the Nestorian Chronicle was intended in part to explain the Jewish religion in Himyar in terms of a servile birth.

123 Besides the narrative of the Jewish captive in the Nestorian Chronicle, another account that bears some similarity to the giving of Theognosta as a gift to the king of Yemen is the story of Mariyah the Copt, which appears in several early medieval Arabic sources. In an exchange of letters between the Chalcedonian patriarch Cyrus (al-Muqawqis) and the prophet Muhammad, Cyrus is offered protection of his Egyptian subjects while the Prophet is given a gift of two Coptic Christian sisters. Unlike Theognosta, however, Mariyah converts to her new faith (Islam) and bears Muhammad a son. The lesson of the story seems to be that the Christians of Egypt, following Mariyah's example, should convert to Islam; thus Mariyah is an example of a model female convert rather than a missionary. For accounts of Mariyah, see The History of Al-Tabari, vol. 39, Biographies of the Prophet's Companions and Their Successors, trans. Ella Landau-Tasseron (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998), 193–95; and Ibn Ishḥāq, The Life of Muhammad, 653.

124 John of Nikiu, Chronicle, LXXXIV.3–11 and 15–22. Carile, “Giovanni di Nikius,” 123–33, reviews John's perspective on the Roman emperors up to Heraclius. He attributes his praise for Honorius to an accentuation of the tone of spirituality that reigned from Gratian to Theodosius II.

125 While John describes the chronological scope and content of his work in an introduction, in a preface to chapter 1 he says only that he has composed the work from “many ancient books” and has been “honest (in the work) in order to recount and leave a noble memorial to the lovers of virtue in this present life.” John of Nikiu, Chronicle I: Charles, p.15. Zotenberg does not even translate this paragraph finding it obscure and difficult to comprehend. On John's historical vision see also Carile, “Giovanni di Nikius,” 115–19.

126 Eusebius, HE I. prooem., in Schwartz, Eduard and Mommsen, Theodore, eds., Eusebius Werke. GCS 2, n.f. 6,1 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999), p. 6Google Scholar, lines 1–6; English translation, Williamson, G. A., Eusebius. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, rev. ed. (New York: Penguin, 1989), 1Google Scholar, emphasis mine.

127 Rufinus, Preface, Amidon, 3–4: Schwartz and Mommsen, ed., GCS n.f. 6,2, pp. 951–52.

128 For references to Eusebius and Rufinus and their connection to Origen's theology of textual practice, I am indebted to Catherine Chin, who shared with me her paper, “Eusebius, Rufinus, and the Texts of Church History,” presented at the January 2008 meeting of the American Society of Church History. While Chin's focus is the use of an Origenist paradigm of textual practice, specifically the use of copied texts as the embodiment of apostolic succession, Eusebius's allusion to Christian authors as “ambassadors of the divine word” (HE 1.1), which Chin describes as the “transmission of the logos over time” through the writing of ecclesiastical history, suggests the evangelistic role of church historians as well. Referring to the approach of Socrates and Sozomen, Mario Mazza similarly observes that “L'ordine universale è visto come la realizzazione del Logos divino attraverso la Chiesa.” Mazza, “Osservazioni sui proemi,” in La storiografia ecclesiastica, 388.

129 Krueger, Writing as Holiness, traces the ways in which patristic authors used techniques of writing to represent holiness and by the act of composition engaged in a form of piety.

130 Both Wood, Missionary Life, and Price, “The Holy Man and Christianization,” emphasize diverse models of evangelization in the late ancient and medieval world and rightly question the assumed dominance of a “top-down” approach. However, both studies are based almost exclusively on male saints' lives and do not consider the evangelistic role of women. Eva Synek's Heilige Frauen and Cornelia Horn's recent article on the literary roles of children and conversion, both cited above, move us in this direction; but connections between notions of asceticism, apostolic life, and women's missionary activity deserve further attention.

131 This argument is more fully developed in Sterk, “Mission from Below,” especially 29–39.

132 It seems appropriate to cite a reminder regarding the use of history: “History writing, not just in the ancient world, involves judgment. . . . In ancient historiography there was often an explicit acknowledgement that the recording of history would leave models of behavior for future generations to copy or avoid.” Urbainczyk, “Vice and Advice in Socrates and Sozomen,” 300.

133 Wood, Missionary Life, especially 247–50.

134 Price, “The Holy Man and Christianization,” 236, speaking of continuity in missionary hagiography, specifically on the broader significance of “hagiographical commonplace” in Epifany Premudry's Life of St. Stephen of Perm.