Page 94 - Edessa, 'The Blessed City'-01, by J. B. Segal (Oxford, 1970). Chapters 1-3

LOCAL TRADITIONS ON THE EVANGELIZATION OF EDESSA 81

The account of the evangelization of Edessa in the Doctrine of Addai
compresses into the space of one or two generations events that extended,
we may assume, over several. The writer himself, indeed, does not claim that
heathenism was uprooted at Edessa. The great pagan altar in the centre
of the town was permitted to stand; pagan priests were honoured, though
they had to share their privileges with Christians. But most important is the
summary in the Doctrine of the internal development within the Church of
Edessa. In a brief sequel to the death of Aggai, we read that
because he died suddenly and quickly at the breaking of his legs, he was not able to lay
his hands upon Palut. And Palut himself went to Antioch, and received the hand of
priesthood from Serapion, bishop of Antioch, the same Serapion who also received the
hand from Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome,1 (who was himself) of the succession
of (those who had received) the hand of priesthood of Simon Peter, who had received it
from our Lord. . . .

It is probable that here we have the echo of a change of direction in the
government of the Church of Edessa. The legendary Addai and his successor
Aggai may represent the early period in which it was largely autonomous but
still looked eastward for its strength. Bardaisan, like St. Ephraim 150 years
later, came to Edessa from Parthia. But Palut (the name is probably Greek)
evidently represents a strain more acceptable to the dominant Greek-
speaking church. He admitted the ecclesiastical authority of Antioch.
Zephyrinus was Pope from about 198, and the submission of Edessa to
Antioch may therefore belong to the early third century. There was a ten-
dency to omit Aggai from the list of the leaders of the Edessan church, and
to consider Palut the direct successor of the Apostle Addai.2 Christians of
Edessa even came to be called Talutians', perhaps to emphasize their
opposition to other groups like the Arians. Ephraim condemns the practice
with characteristic scorn:
Their hands have let go [pit] of everything. There are no handles to grasp. They even
called us Palutians, but we have spewed [pit] them out and cast away [the name]. May
there be a curse on those who are called by the name of Palut, and not by the name of
Christ. . . . Palut too did not want men to be called by his name. If he were alive he
would curse with all curses, for he was the disciple of the Apostle [Paul] who suffered
pain and bitterness over the Corinthians when they abandoned the name of the Messiah
and were called by the names of men.

There was no question, by the time of Ephraim, of the independence of the
church of Edessa from the general body of Christendom.3

1 An incorrect version reads here, 'Antioch'. Jacob of Edessa in his twelfth letter to John
2 So in the late martyrology of Sharbil. the Stylite, citing the passage from S. Ephraim.
3 It must not, however, be assumed that the On the contrary, declares Jacob, Palut was au
Palutians were heretics; this is pointed out by orthodox and righteous man.
8215452 G

www.knanayology.org