Skip to main content

Full text of "A Martyrological Fragment from Jerusalem"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


In describing the library of the Greek Convent of the Holy 
(properly the Most Holy) Sepulchre at Jerusalem, in 1889, 
Professor J. Rendel Harris mentioned a fragment of a Greek 
Martyrology, probably of the ninth century, and published nine 
lines of it. 1 While working in the same library, in the winter of 
1900, I saw the manuscript and made a transcription of the better 
preserved side of it. Since my return my notes have been 
supplemented by some readings sent me by the accomplished 
librarian, Kleophas, the discoverer of the mosaic map at Madaba, 
and by photographs taken for me through the kindness of Profes- 
sor C. W. Votaw of the University of Chicago. 

The manuscript is a double leaf now measuring 32 by 25.5 cm. 
but doubtless larger originally, for at least one line and probably 
more are missing at the tops of the columns. The mutilated 
condition of the leaf is due to its having been used in the binding 
of a book, and the glue spread over one side of it in this process 
has left that side practically illegible. The leaf is inscribed in 
neat slightly decorated uncials of the later type, in single columns 
now of 32 lines each, but originally longer. In the library cata- 
logue, the leaf appears under Marsaba 704, and is assigned to the 
eighth century, but Professor Harris favors the ninth. The 
parchment is lined in the usual indented way, the letters stand- 
ing on the line, not depending from it. There are the usual 
abbreviations, x v av ^ v o-rpov 6v, an imperfect punctuation, (high 
point, comma) breathings in the rectangular form, a few accents, 
— grave, acute, circumflex — and a single mutilated marginal 
capital at the top of the first recto. The diaeresis is used, though 
not uniformly, over initial v, and over 1 and v in diphthongs. 

The manuscript came into the library of the Greek Convent of 
the Holy Sepulchre from the library of the Convent of Marsaba 
a few years ago, when Nicodemus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, united 
in the buildings of the Greek Convent of the Sepulchre the 

1 Haverford College Studies I (1SS9) p. 13. 


libraries of the neighboring convents of Marsaba and the Holy 
Cross. The library further possesses a unique distinction in 
containing the famous Codex Constantinopoliianus in which 
Bryennius discovered the Didache, which was sent from the 
Convent of the Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople to the Convent 
of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, as being the seat of the 
Jerusalem Patriarchate to which the Constantinople Convent 

It is not quite certain what the order of the pages is, but the 
character of its contents and the lower half of a large marginal 
capital at the top of it make it probable that the page beginning 
(cat rji navla ktc comes first. At any rate, this capital and the 
contents of the first column make it very probable that it began a 
new martyrdom. The double leaf may easily have been the 
outer one of a quire of four, but the upper and lower margins 
having disappeared, no trace of a quire number can be found. 
If it was the outer leaf of the quire, at least 448 lines and 
probably more must have intervened between the end of recto 1 
and the beginning of verso 2. Viewed thus the illegible side 
constitutes the first verso and the second recto of the fragment, 
while the lines here printed are chiefly from the first recto and 
the second verso. 

I Recto. 

K . . . . 

Kal ti) fiavia ruv eld<b?MV 
eKpanxzvuv Kal Xvfie- 
vofisno; rdf tov X(pioro)v ex/c/l)/- 
5 alas, doyfta enrifferac eig Tza- 
cav Tijv o'lKov/ievqv Kara 


ev elpijvrj ovv etc t[[o]]wv ekkXtj- 

ffiuv dtayovo&v Kal tow tVe- 
10 Gfiow Gvvrfios kiriTsXovfik- 

vo)V t apxv v "hafifiavei 6 61- 

ay/n6g. ypa/ifi&Tuv yap ov[v 

Kal izpoaTayjxaTuv /car' av- 

tuv KaTatyvTijcavTcw eiQ 
1 5 Trp> o'lKovfievrfv dappfov 

rijv ro)V KparovvTcyv apxov- 

rov 6ecvoT7fTa airkoTeihev 

Kal Kara Trji; 'W^iaiav 71-cUecjf 

3 I. Xvtlaivotltvoi. 8 o> written over 14 /. KaTa^>VT€V(rdvTiitv. 

18 There is an'EAeia mentioned in C. 1, G. III. addl. 2561 b, 1. 77; but that is a Cretan 


to 66y/na ireptex^v ttjv Kk- 
20 Xevgiv Tavrrjv fiaoihevg fxe~ 
yag AvTOKparvp AcokXiti- 
avbg Tzavrbg Xaov Kal idvovg 

av6(pG)7TG)v) (j>vXc)V KCU yXoGGtiv 

SsGirdT^g ttclglv Tolg evvoi[Kci>lg 
25 StaKEtfiivocg irept Tovg aqr- 

TtfTovg dsovg • x ai P uv * Ttapey- 

yvo) vfilv Sid -Kavrbg ndcy gttov- 

6y xpfo a G® at £ ig T V V T ^ v ® s ~ 

6)v Bepaireiav koX elg evepye- 
30 Gtav tov efiov KpaTovg * dvt- 

yeipetv re Tovg tg>v de&v 

Oepaireiav ml elg evepysGiav 

tqv e/xov Kpdrovg dveyelpecv 

End of column ? 

I Verso. 

darrevd . . . fiov . . . Xevu tov 
(,yv Tovg anEtdofievovg t<j 
vevfiart tov KpaTovg \kfio\v 
5 ig [ivpiddag dpyvpiov etc tov 

kfxov Xap- 


Traces of 25 lines. 

II Recto. 

Kal irpOTf/ T-fjq ir6Xe6g egtlv av- 
TTj, qptJTa 6e avTovg 1 Tig 6 dvfjp 
avTJjg Kal iroiag dpycKeiag Tvy- 
5 XavovGtv j ol 6e Xeyovciv avTy 

Traces of 27 lines. 

II Verso. 

ttov Kal i]Wov h iroXet Av[p- 
pax'tff) ' ncu EtGeWdvTEg ti)v 
■jtvXt^v Tfjg 7z6Xeog y eldov tov 
5 dytov 'AgteIov tov ETricKowov 
Tfjg avryg ir6?i£0)g Kptfidfie- 
vov ettI GT{av)pov fieXtTt #pf<r//e- 

■7T0 G(f>lKG)V Kai [IVLCJV did T7JV 

19 /. TreptE'xOf. 21 /. A(.ojcAi}Ttard$t 

32-33 Oepaireiav — aveyeipeiv by an error of the eye— homoioteleuton — are repeated from 

29-31 above ; hence the impossible tovs . . . Oepaireiav. Probably 32 should begin with vaov* 

or some such word. 

II recto 2 The reference may be to the Church as the Bride of Christ. 


10 nlorqv rov X{piaro)v km. Sol-aoav- 

te$ rov 8{eo)v kpanaptoav rov 

dycov -Kaca ds i] •ko'Xix; eiduXuiijv 

ioprrjv rov piapov Aiovvaov e- 

TzirkXu • kpwTqdevref 6e wa- 
15 pd rivog Tai;[£\6)Tov ol ayioi 

i>pok6yrjcav eavrovg Xpwri- 

avovq elvac nal Kparyoavreg 

avrovg f/yayov irpb(; rov dvOv- 

narov 'AypmoAaov • nai dvay- 
20 Kao6evre<; irpocKwf/Gai r^j 

Atovvou, ufiokoyrioav rft X[pcar)^> 

Tctareveiv. Kal rovruv fiaaa- 

vwdivruv ivifialov elf rrhu- 

ov nai ev ru . aaa . . . rov . . . 
25 perd rob ■k'ao'iov j3vdiC,ovoiv 

at/robe, iyv ij da/.aaoa rd ri/ua 

Xeiipava apa rov irfoiov knpi- 

ipaaa etc rowov leyopevov aXho- 

va rot> Kepapiuc lv8a ol (ca/cotip- 
30 yot avrfKiGKovro, narexevaev 

rfi ijidppu. eruv Si h>ev%[KO~\v- 

ra irapeWovruv, eptpavl^ov- 

rac ol ayioi ru ogiut&tu dpxi- 

End of column? 

The martyrology, at least in this part of it, evidently dealt with 
the persecution of Diocletian as experienced in the city of Elia 
(Aelia? tiJk 'EXtmW n-oXm); though later the scene shifts to 
Dyrrhachium. The fragment derives a good deal of interest 
from the fact that it purports to give the opening lines of Dio- 
cletian's famous First Edict against the Christians. Our knowl- 
edge of this edict, (the one of February 23, A. D. 303, as Lactantius 
fixes the date) has been confined to notices in Eusebius (H. E. 
8:2:4) and Lactantius, neither of whom undertakes to give the 
text of the decree. Eusebius, who puts the date of its promul- 
gation a few weeks later than Lactantius (March, H. E. 8:2:4; 
April, Mart. Pal. init.'), gives the substance of the edict as follows : 

ras p*v (KK.\r)o-ias els c$a<f>or (pcpeiv, ras 8c ypacpas a<pavcis nvpl ytvtadai 
irpoo-raTrovra, Kal Toils fiev Tifiijs cirttKqpfitvovt drluovs, tovs 8e iv oiKCTt'aif, 
el imptvoicv Ttj rov xp l o~riavio-p.ov npoOco-ci, e'Xevdepias cmpclcrdai itpoayop- 

7 i. KExpifrjUcVop. 9 I. <t$t\kvsv. io /. iriariv. 12 ri suppl. Corr. 28 I. aKava. 

1 Eusebius H. E. (Ed. Heinichen, 1868) 8:2:4. 


Now it seems probable, however many leaves intervened be- 
tween verso I and recto II in the quire, that the same work is 
being continued ; at least that must be the presumption. But 
on verso II capital punishment is being inflicted upon mere pro- 
fession of Christianity; a condition not explicitly contemplated 
until the Fourth Edict of A. D. 304, which made Christianity a 
religio illicita} The martyrdom of Asteius, the bishop, would 
of course be intelligible enough on the basis of the Second Edict, 
which prescribed that bishops be thrown into prison and subjected 
to every possible inducement to offer sacrifice. But the prompt 
arrest and execution of the band of Christians related in verso II, 
clearly presupposes the Fourth Edict. It seems probable, then, 
that the author of this martyrology followed the text of the First 
Edict with the text or purport of the three succeeding ones, 
before entering upon the martyrdoms themselves. 

Upon the assumption that the two leaves belong to the same 
work, the closing lines of verso II afford a terminus a quo for 
the determination of its date. The writer seems about to say 
that the relics of the martyrs were found ninety years after. The 
martyrdom was then written not earlier than A. D. 394. How 
much later it is impossible to determine. 

But the important problem here is not the date of the work 
but the authenticity of the edict. To have even the opening 
lines of Diocletian's missing First Edict against the Christians 
would be a matter of some importance, and to have the whole 
text of that edict would almost certainly clear up some obscure 
matters in Eusebius's report of it. The few lines preserved 
contain little more than the opening formula and the beginning 

of the preamble. The formula jSacriAeif peyas AvTOKpdrap AiokXitlciiios 
iravTos \aov Kai edvovs dv6pa>Tra>v cpvXcov Kai yKanjtratv dea , 7r6rrjs Will afford 

the safest and most obvious ground for testing the authenticity 
of the decree. The decrees preserved in Eusebius, H. E. 8 : 17 : 
3 — the Revocation Edict of A. D. 311 — and 9: 10: 7 — the Tol- 
eration Edict of Maximin — fairly illustrate the imperial titles 
employed in such formal documents. The original Latin of the 
Revocation Edict is preserved in Lactantius, De Mori. Pers., ch. 
34. In the Greek of Eusebius it begins thus : AiroKparop Kaiaap 

FaXfpios OvaXepws Ma£tptvos, dpiKtjTos, (refiaaTos, dp^npevs peyitrros, 
TtppaviKos peyioros, AlyvnTiaKos pcyitJTos, ©ijSai'xor pcyioroe, SappariKOS 

1 McGiffert, Eusebius, pp. 325, 344. 


fieyMTTOs irtvraKis, HepaSiv ftcytoros Sir, Kaptraw pJyt&Tos <f£aiets, 'Appeviaov 
fifyiaroe, MjjoW ptytoTOS, ' Adtaj3r)i>£>i> peytOTos, dr/pap^tK^s i^ovaias to 
cIkoo-tov, avTOKparap to ivveaKatdeKaTov, vrraTOS to oydoov, ivaTT)p TraTpidos, 
dvdviraros ' km airoKpaTaop Kaioap <&\avtos OvaXtptos KaworavTWor , €vo(§rjs, 
cvTv)(r)S, av'iKrjTos, <re|3aoTor, apxifpeiis piytoTot, Sijpap^tK^s (£ovotas, avro- 
KpaTap to irfpiTTov, v7TaTos, TTaTrjp narpldos, avdvnaTos ' teal avroKparaop 
Kaioap OvaXfptos AlKtvviavbs , elo-eftr)!, e{iTV)(rjs, di/iKijTos, oefiao-Tos, ap- 
Xiepcvs peytoTOS, Sijpap^tKrjs €^ovotas to TeTapTOV, avTOKpaTtop to Tp'iTov r 
vnaTos, iraTrjp naTpiSos, avdinaTos, iirap^twTats Idiots \atpetv. The Second 
begins more simply : AiiTOKpaTap Kdioap Taios OvaXeptos Magtplvos, 
TepfiavtKos, SappaTlicos, ev&eftrjs, evTv^rji, dvtKrjTOs, o"«/3ao"TO?. 

It is quite intelligible that in quoting a decree in a literary 
work, considerable liberties should be taken in the matter of long 
titulary formulas, which, if given in exlenso, would weary the 
reader without serving any immediately useful purpose. While 
it is not impossible that our martyrologist may have given a 
faithful representation of the substance of the decree while re- 
ducing and distorting its opening formula till little of the 
original but the name of Diocletian remained, the evidence of 
the decree quoted and in general the whole feeling of the formula 
in the fragment are against the authenticity of the decree as here 
given, which rather recalls the oriental decrees quoted in the Old 
Testament 3 than the more reserved and dignified formulas of 
Roman state papers. But the most convincing comparison is with 
the preamble of an edict of Diocletian himself, the famous De 
Pretiis Rerum Venalium. Of the numerous fragmentary copies 
of this monument, only one preserves the names and titles of 
the emperors and Caesars who issued it. This is the inscription 
brought from Egypt to Aix in Provence in 1807. Its opening 
lines, with the restorations of the editors of the Corpus, are as 
follows : 

Imp. Caesar C. Aurel. Val. Diocletianus p. f. inv. Aug. po\\n\.. 
max. Germ. max. VI Sarm. max. IIII Persic, max. II Britt. max. 
Carpic. max. Armen. max. Medic, max. Adiabenic. max. trib. p. 
XVIII coss. VII imp. XVIII p. p. procoss. et imp. 

Caesar M. Aurel. Val. Maximianus p. f. inv. Aug. pont. max. Germ, 
max. V Sarm. || max. IIII Persic, max. II Britt. max. Carpic. 

1 Eusebius, H. E. (Ed. Heinichen, 1868) 8:17: 3-5. 
8 Eusebius, H. E. (Ed. Heinichen, 1868) 9:10:7. 
3 E.g., Daniel 4:1. 


max. Medic, max. Adiabenic. max. tri\\h. p. XVII coss. VI 
imp. XVII p. p. procoss. et Fla. Val. Constantius 

Germ. max. II Sarm. max. II Persic, max. II Britt. max. Carpic. 
max. Armenic. max. Medic, max. Adiaben. max. trib. p. Villi 
coss. Ill nobil. Caes. et G. Val. Maximianus 

Germ. max. II Sarm. || max. II Persic, max. II Britt. max. 
Carpic. max. Armenic. max. Medic, max. Adia \\ b. max. trib. 
p. Villi coss. Ill nobil. Caes. dicunt. 1 

The suspicion thus thrown upon the historical character of the 
decree is increased by the representation in the closing lines, of 
the saints revealing to some arch[bishop?] the hiding place of 
the martyrs' relics. Its claims to being considered historical are 
thus probably no greater than those of the mass of works of that 
golden age of martyrologists, the fifth to the eighth centuries, 
and it is among these that the Jerusalem fragment must claim 
a place. 

The University of Chicago. EDGAR J. GOODSPEED. 

1 C. I. L. Ill, 802, 824.