The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

THE IMAGE OF EDESSA 325
Procopius on Abgar’s letter, he states: ‘But I will tell you what happened’
(p. 174:19), a formula which can indicate a change of source. 6
(4) The miraculous icon is not mentioned by Procopius, nor the
Syriac hymn for the inauguration of S. Sophia at Edessa, nor the Syriac
Chronicle of Edessa. The silence of Procopius is no problem, especially
if the contribution of the icon was added to the story of the heroic resistance
some time after the event. The Chronicle of Edessa, also known as
the Chronicon ad an. 540 was compiled shortly after the Persian attack
of 540 but before the siege of 544, which it naturally does not mention.
If the icon was not well known, or perhaps did not even exist, before the
siege of 544, this silence is of no relevance. The Syriac inaugural hymn is
not decisive, since the precise date of the text is uncertain and its reference
to a picture not made by human hands refers to natural patterns in
the marble on the church walls. 7
(5) Neither of the lists of chapter headings at the start of Book iv
mentions the icon. This again is not a problem since the briefer set of
headings (list 2) covers all the events of iv.24^8 with the entry
‘Concerning the capture of Antioch and what Khusro did to Edessa and
the other cities’ (iv.23): it fails to mention the miraculous events at
Apamea and Sergiopolis as well as the icon at Edessa. The other set of
headings contains four separate entries for Khusro’s campaign of 540
(including the capture of Antioch), the miracle of the Cross at Apamea,
the attack on Edessa and the miracle at Sergiopolis (iv.25^8); we do not
know the date of composition for either set of headings, although I
regard the briefer set as earlier. 8 No ¢rm hypotheses can be built on
these headings. Thus, even if the omission of any mention of the Edessa
miracle from the longer list is regarded as signi¢cant, it could be postulated
that this list was drawn up to re£ect the text of Evagrius as doctored
by the iconoclasts in the eighth century.
There is insu⁄cient substance to uphold Chrysostomides’ attack on
the integrity of Evagrius’ narrative. Consideration of the broader shape
of Evagrius’ exploitation of Procopius in this part of Book iv also
supports the conclusion that Evagrius composed this chapter around
6 Cf. iii.18 for an analogous phrase that marks a more explicit departure from his source,
Zachariah; also iv.26, p. 172:29^30; iv.28, p. 176:7; iv.29, p. 177:3.
7 See Chrysostomides, ‘Investigation’ xxvii; Cameron, ‘Iconoclasm’ 38; Palmer and
Rodley, ‘Hymn’ 128^32.
8 See the note to the Book i headings.