Edited version of a paper first published in Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 15 (1985): 5-10

The Martyrdom of Azqir

My topic is a brief document extant only in a Geez version, though perhaps (to judge by the spelling of some oi the proper names) translated trom a lost Arabic original. The ueez text was edited with an Italian translation by C. Conti-Rossini (1910), but a German translation by H. Winckler (1894) had appeared pre- viously. The basic narrative is straightforward and unencumbered by more than a minimum of miraculous elements; in general, it gives a strong impression of historical authenticity.

The basic narrative runs as follows. A priest named Azqir preached Christianity in Najran, which gained him the hostility of some influential groups there. These had him placed under arrest while a mes- sage was sent to the Himyarite king in Zafar, accusing him of preaching "a new religion". In due course a royal summons came for him to be sent to Zafar for trial, and he was sent there in the custody of a party of traders going that way. The king was unimpressed by Azqir's claim that the religion he preached was not new; and some räbbanat among the king's councillors advised that he should be sent back to Najran to be publicly executed there. This was accordingly done.

Miraculous elements are limited to the following. While Azqir was under arrest pending the arrival of the king's instructions, some Najranite sympathisers gained access to him and were baptised by him; this is presented in terms of a "miraculous" flying open of the prison doors (in the manner of St Peter's escape from prison), but what to a hagiographer presents itself as miraculous is not necessarily so from the point of view of a modern. He had at this point not yet been condemned, and was most probably only under house arrest, so that the admission of visitors (by favour or bribery) would have been perfectly possible without any infringement of the laws of nature, though the pious would certainly view it as miraculous. The same applies to two "miracles" during the journey from Najran to Zafar, consisting in the provision of water when the party ran short of it. On one occasion this is presented as a Mosaic-style "smiting of the rock" by the saint, which need imply nothing more than the opportune discovery of a water-hole; on the other, there is a providential appearance of a rain cloud, in which there is nothing miraculous except the narrator's comment that it resulted from the saint's prayers. Finally, his execution presented problems: he was to be stoned, but the thrower of the first stone missed and himself fell down dead, and the coup-de- grace could only be given when Azqir himself asked a friend to lend a sword for the purpose. All these features are common topoi, such as no hagiographie writer could avoid.

There are two peripheral points. The notice of Azqir's death is followed by a short coda stating that 38 other persons, including bishops [sic], priests, monks and layfolk, also won the crown of martyrdom; and that they are commemorated in the Ethiopian church on 24 Hedar (which is two days before the com- memoration of St [61 Arethas and his companions). Secondly, interwoven into the basic Azqir narrative are two references to an individual who, having come from Zafar, was the first to inform Azqir that he was to be sent for trial by the king, and added that he would certainly be put to death; to which the saint's reply was, "You have brought me good news, for which you deserve a reward". Later, on the journey from Na- jran to Zafar, this individual claimed his reward; the saint said "I have no gold or silver to give you", but the man's reply was, "I do not wish for gold or silver, but I desire the reward of baptism", and so was bap- tised on the spot. It is only in the second of these two passages that we are given his name as Kiriakos. Conti-Rossini finds a difficulty here: he claims that the name could only have been borne by a Byzantine subject, and therefore already a Christian, and that this is contradicted by his request for baptism. Neither observation is valid. During the fourth-fifth centuries it was quite common for Christians to do as the em- peror Constantine had done, and remain catechumens for most of their lives, only receiving baptism when

113

114 A.F.L. Beeston

near death; the reason for this was that while it is well-known that baptism wipes out all pre-baptismal sin, it was in those centuries still regarded as theologically doubtful whether there could be any absolution for post-baptismal sin. Nor are we obliged to assume that Kiriakos was a Byzantine by birth; he could have been, and I suspect was, a native Himyarite catechumen who received the name Kiriakos at baptism, which could explain why he is not given that name when he makes his first appearance on the scene. It does not appear in the narrative that Kiriakos (or any of those who were baptised in Najran) was exposed to any danger to his life: Azqir's condemnation was not for being a Christian, but because of his proselytis- ing activities. The reason, therefore, why all these persons sought baptism from Azqir was probably not because of imminent danger to their own lives, but because the anticipated death of the saint made the oc- casion something of a "last chance" for them.1

Historically, the most significant element in the whole document is the name given to the Himyarite king, Sräräbhel Dänqef, recognisable as an easy corruption (in Ethiopie script) of the Sharahbil Yankuf who appears in Arabic tradition. This king occupies a relatively inconspicuous place in the traditions, and is thus not likely to have gathered round his name inauthentic or legendary matter, as has been the case with the famous Abukarib Ascad; this provides another pointer to the authenticity of our material. This king is also attested in Sabaic epigraphic sources, in the form S2rhbDl Ykf, mentioned as coregent with two sons Lhyct Ynf and Mcdkrb Yncm in the Himyarite year 582,2 exactly 51 years before the Arethan martyr- doms for which king Yusuf (Dhu Nuwas) was responsible. Azqir's death has therefore to be placed some- where in the third quarter of the 5th century CE.3 Our document is a precious pointer to conditions in the Himyarite realm at that period.

As for the coda concerning the other 38 martyrs, the manner in which this is introduced makes it clear that the writer had no intention of suggesting that their martyrdoms were synchronous with that of Azqir. The mention of bishops in the plural shows that they must have been spread over a period of time. Nor are they in any way connected with the companions of St Arethas, who were commemorated on a different day. The most natural inference is that they were a series of incidents spread over the half century between the period of Azqir and that of the Arethan affair. There is evidently no question of any systematic perse- cution of Christians, but rather of a set of isolated executions (averaging less than one a year), in which the crime was most likely that of which Azqir was convicted, namely proselytising and not simple adherence to Christianity.

One might have expected a missionary priest to have come from a Syriac-speaking ambience, and his name could just possibly be regarded as representing Syriac zaqir "(well) formed (of body)",4 based on the verb zdqar meaning literally "weave" but metaphorically "form, shape (a human body)". However, it seems more plausible to see the name as an Arabic one, ad-dakïr "the far-famed", since Ethiopie script has only one letter to represent both z and d. [7]

The royal councillors who advised that the execution should take place publicly on the scene of the crime are described as räbbanat, a term which commonly refers to a Jewish rabbi; but it is not so exclu- sively applicable to a Jew as the English word is - a few instances occur of its application to a "leading personality" irrespective of religion. Yet there is no problem about understanding the persons here men- tioned as Jews, since the inscriptions attest the presence in South Arabia, in the fourth and fifth centuries, of a Jewish community which was influential although probably (in my view) restricted in numbers. At all events, the phraseology of the document shows that there were other members of the council who were not räbbanat, and there is no hint of the king himself being a Jew; this is in complete contrast to the docu- ments of the Arethan persecution, which all stress that Yusuf had converted to Judaism.

As remarked above, there is no hint in our document of any persecution of Christians merely for their faith; what was objected to was the spread of Christianity by propaganda. The motive for the objection seems to me to be principally political rather than religious. Any extension of Christianity in the area must have necessarily led to an extension of Byzantine political influence, a thing bound to be objectionable

The Martyrdom ofAzqir 115

both to those Himyarites with Persian sympathies and to those anxious to preserve Himyarite independ- ence of both the great powers. This view has a bearing on the situation half a century later. I am increasingly inclined to see the conflicts of the early 6th century in Yemen not as religious wars between Christians and anti-Christians, but as in the main occasioned by the antagonisms between pro- and anti-Byzantine parties. This is in line with what J. Harmatta has written (1974: 103), that the policy of Yusuf/Dhu Nuwas "was in a considerable degree built upon the contrast between Jews and Christians and this circumstance, specially in Christian sources, gave to events the appearance [sic] of a religious war". However, I would not agree with his feeling that an anti-Byzantine policy was necessarily a pro-Persian one, at least in intent (no doubt it might have been so in effect); the anti-Byzantine party is more likely in my view to have aimed at keeping clear of influences from both great powers. However fanatical Yusuf himself may have been for the religion to which he was a convert, the policies carried out in his name could not have been executed without the support of the great Himyarite lords, specially the Yazanids who were his chief supporters; and these I believe were pri- marily Yemenite nationalists of anti-Byzantine sympathy, just as at the end of the 6th century it was a Ya- zanid, Sayf, who stood out as a champion of Yemenite independence against the Sasanians.

One may further ask, what exactly was "new" about the creed preached by Azqir? If we can place any confidence in Byzantine sources unsupported by indigenous evidence, a Byzantine mission in the mid-4th century had had some success in winning adherents to Christianity in Himyar. Had this been so evanescent that all memory of it had disappeared not much more than a century later? However, it must be recalled that the emperor Constantius who despatched the mission had Arian sympathies; and if such native Chris- tians as may have still existed in Yemen a century later were accustomed to an Arian version of Christian- ity, they would surely have regarded both Monophysitism and orthodox Chalcedonian dyophysitism as innovatory heresies, as well as presenting the danger of an extension of Byzantine influence. Nestorians too would find both Chalcedonian and Monophysite doctrines repugnant; and here it is pertinent to recall the Arabic tradition which attributes the introduction of Christianity in Najran to a mission based on Hira, which had strong Nestorian tendencies.

It might be that the novelty of Azqir's doctrine lay either in the fact that by his time native Christianity had dwindled virtually to nothing, or that such Christianity as there was had an Arian or Nestorian com- plexion, while Azqir was preaching up-to-date Byzantine doctrine, whether Monophysite or Chalcedonian. At all events, the indications seem to be that for the half-century or so before the Yusufine period there was a powerful Himyarite party (probably supported by the Yemenite Jewish [81 community) anxious to contain any extension of Byzantine influence in South Arabia, such as they anticipated would result from an extension of Christianity in the realm. One minor point of some interest is that Yusuf s first action after the capitulation of Najran was to seize and burn the relics of Bishop Paul of Najran, who had been put to death more than a twelvemonth previ- ously,5 not in Najran but in Zafar. No explanation is given of what he was doing in Zafar, but one could reasonably suppose that he had been conducting Christian propaganda there, and was executed on the same principle as Azqir, of suffering on the scene of the crime.

* * * * *

I must now turn to an extremely difficult, and perhaps ultimately insoluble, problem: what relationship - if any - is there between the Azqir incident and the Sabaic inscription Istanbul 7608bis (G. Ryckmans 1946), almost certainly from the vicinity of Zafar. Originally very long, this is preserved only in a number of dis- jointed fragments and lacks a date. The most important extant phrases are:

116 A.F.L. Beeston

... Holy Spirit, Simyafac king of Saba their lords the negäst of Aksum king Ella A§<bě>fra6 king of the Habashites kings for Himyar and viceroys (cqbt) for the negasi of Aksum doing service for the kings of Aksum for control7 of the sea(-coast?) and the peace (slh) of Himyar in the name of Rabmanan and His Son Christ victorious ....

The Wellcome fragment (Beeston 1980) which probably belongs to the same text has further,

... the Habashites from Sanaa, when there was war and the military forces of their town Aksum and he submitted to them so as to be subject to them ....

It will be seen how little certainty can be gained from so mutilated a text, but for some time it was gener- ally concluded that it depicts the situation shortly after the death of Yusuf/Dhu Nuwas, and that its author (or one of its authors) Simyafac Ashwac could be identified with the Esimiphaios who according to Pro- copius was a Christian installed by the Aksumites as a vassal king over Himyar on the defeat and death of Yusuf.

However, J.Pirenne (1974: 122, 124, 128) has contested this, primarily on palaeographic grounds, holding that the script style of the Istanbul monument is incompatible with a post-Yusufine date, but must belong to the latter part of the 5th century CE, and that the situation it describes is one consequential on Azqir's martyrdom; also that the "first coming of the Ethiopians into Yemen" mentioned in the Book of the Himyarites, cap.V (Moberg 1924: ci) belongs here, while Procopius has confused this much earlier inva- sion with the one resulting in Yusuf s defeat and death.

I am obliged to say that I do not think palaeography can furnish any positive proof of such dating. The Istanbul inscription is a finely engraved relief, one executed by professional engravers in the heartland of Himyarite culture; but we possess no dated inscriptions of this character, such as would provide a secure basis for palaeographic comparison, anywhere near the death of Yusuf circa 635 Himyarite. Between Gar NIS 4 of 617 or 619 Him., and CIH 541 of 658 Him., the only dated inscriptions we have are rock inscrip- tions (not formal relief ones) either in central Arabia written by members of Himyarite military expedi- tions (631-633 Him.) or at Hisn al-Ghurãb far to the east (640 Him.). To aver, therefore, that the Istanbul inscription on purely palaeographic grounds cannot belong to the years immediately after 635 Him., is very hazardous. Pirenne herself declares that this script is "the same as the one of Ry 520 [dated 574 Him.] or even better [my italics] Gar NIS 4". She thus thinks that the two scripts of Ry 520 and Gar NIS 4, sepa- rated by an interval of at least 45 years, are so similar as to give rise to doubt about which furnishes the closer comparison; while the best comparison is provided, in her view, by Gar NIS 4. Can one really on these grounds declare positively that the script of the Istanbul inscription cannot possibly be a mere 20 years or less posterior to Gar NIS 4? [91

So far from palaeography providing conclusive evidence of dating, it seems to me that one must look to non-palaeographic evidence in order to assess the palaeographic data. Unfortunately, such evidence is woefully confused. In the first place, those who hold that the date of the Arethan martyrdoms was 523 CE (as stated in the Greek Martyrium S. Arethae' must conclude that the invasion preparations which Cosmas witnessed "in the beginning of the reign of Justin"8 were those for the "first coming of the Ethiopians" of the Book of the Himy antes. To assume yet another Aksumite conquest of Yemen half a century earlier, for which there is no evidence, is not a satisfactory ground for rejecting the actual evidence of Procopius.

On the other hand, those who, like I. Shahid, assign the Arethan martyrdoms to 5 1 8 CE, must infer that what Cosmas saw was the preparation for the invasion in which Yusuf was defeated and killed; and that the "first coming of the Ethiopians" is dated an unspecified time earlier. Yet to hold that this unspecified time could have been as much as half a century presents a grave difficulty.

Greek sources name the Aksumite king who defeated and killed Yusuf as Elletzbas or (in Procopius) Ellestheaios, both representing (with a slight scribal corruption in the latter case) the regnal style Ella

The Martyrdom ofAzqir 117

Asběha; Syriac sources use his personal name Kaleb. Now we have a Geez inscription from Aksum in which Kaleb writes, "I sent my general Hyn (Hěyona) to make war on Himyar and to establish the church there", and A.J. Drewes (1978) has convincingly equated this general's name with the HywnD who in the Book of the Himyarites commanded the "first coming". Elletzbas, however, was still reigning when Justin- ian sent his embassy under the patrician Julianos in 532 CE, as vividly described in John Malalas. Thus, to date the "first coming" back to the third quarter of the 5th century CE involves a reign of nearly 70 years for Elletzbas/Kaleb, which would require fairly strong supporting evidence (such as is not available) for acceptance.

There is one last possibility: that the Aksumite king named in the Istanbul inscription is not Ella Asběha but a different person. The objection to this is that the form °shh does not look recognisably Geez, and cannot easily be identified with any otherwise attested Aksumite king.

It must not be overlooked that the Arabic traditions recorded in Tabari present two mutually incom- patible versions of the events following the death of Yusuf/Dhu Nuwas. In one of these, Yusuf s immedi- ate successor was Abraha, thus leaving no room for Esimiphaios. The other makes his immediate succes- sor a Christian king who was dethroned after a time by dissident Ethiopian troops who placed Abraha on the throne, very much as in Procopius. When two sources agree against a third, it is surely prudent to fol- low the version of the two that agree; and I think there is a possible explanation of the divergent Arabic tradition. After the death of Ellestheaios, we hear, Abraha (who had overcome two abortive attempts by the negus to displace him) made his peace with Aksum, at which point it would have been in his interest to set on foot propaganda representing himself as having been legitimately appointed in the first place, in- stead of having gained the throne by an insurrectionary movement.

Out of all this confusion, it does not appear to me that anything has emerged of sufficient weight to jus- tify our discrediting the evidence of Procopius (esteemed by Byzantinists a careful writer, at least in his Histories of the Wars) on an event which had taken place in his own lifetime. The martyrdoms ofAzqir and the other 38 were, I submit, isolated incidents, no one of which was enough to provoke massive Ak- sumite reaction. They posed no threat to Aksumite trade (the motive for the "first coming"), nor did they involve massacres of Ethiopians such as Yusuf indulged in. [101

Notes 1 Later baptismal practice, by which the sacrament can be administered in case of emergency by anyone,

was not current in early times. 2 The dated inscription is CIH 537 + RES 4919 (J. Ryckmans 195 1 : 342-343), where the father's epithet

Ykf is missing; but it can be restored with certainty by comparing this text with RES 2627 and 4969, which cumulatively produce the three names. There is no need here to discuss the question whether the Arethan martyrdoms took place in 523 or 5 1 8 CE, since the difference of only five years is not significant in the present context. As with Latin Formosus from forma. "Two years" in the original, but this is probably between 12 and 24 months, by the usual Near Eastern system of counting, in which e.g. "the third day subsequently" is V après-lendemain. It has been generally believed that the engraver, faced with this foreign name, inadvertently omitted the b; but see further below. Reading ť from root wť. It is useless to imagine that we can gain any closer precision from the words "twenty-five years ago, more or less"; we do not know the precise year in which these words were penned, and the phrase is self-confessedly imprecise.

118 A.F.L. Beeston

Sigla

CIH Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Pars IV. Inscriptiones himyariticas et sabaeas continens. Paris: Reipublicae Typographeo, 1889-1932.

Gar NIS Inscriptions in Garbini 1973. RES Répertoire ďépigraphie sémitique. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1900-1968. Ry 520 Inscription in Ryckmans G 1954.

References

Beeston A.F.L. 1980. The South Arabian Collection of the Wellcome Museum in London. Raydãn 3: 1 1-16.

Conti-Rossini С. 1910. Un documento sul cristianesimo nello lernen ai tempi del re Sarahbïl Yakkuf. Reale Acca-

demia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti della Classe di Scienza morale, storiche e filologické, serie 5, 19: 705-750.

Drewes A.J. 1978. Kaleb and Himyar: another reference to HYWIsP? Raydãn 1: 27-31.

Garbini и. 1973. Nuove iscrizioni sabee. Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli 33 [NS 23]: 31-46.

Harmatta J. 1974. The struggle for possession of South Arabia between Aksüm and the Säsänians. Pages 95-

106 in IV Congresso Internazionale di Studi Etiopici : (Roma, 10-15 aprile 1972). i. (Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura, quaderno, 191). Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.

Moberg A. 1924. The Book of the Himyarites: Fragments of a Hitherto Unknown Syriac Work. Edited with

an Introduction and Translation. (Skrifter Utgivna av Kungl Humanististka Veten- skapssamfundet i Lund, 7). Lund: Gleerup.

Pirenne J . 1974. A palaeographical chronology of the Sabaean-dated inscriptions, with reference to several

eras. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 4: 1 18-130. Ryckmans G.

1946. Une inscription chrétienne sabéenne aux Musées d'Antiquités d'Istanbul. Le Muséon 59: 165-172.

1954. Inscriptions sud-arabes onzième série. Le Muséon 67: 99-119. Kyckmans J .

1951. L'Institution monarchique en Arabie méridionale avant l'Islam (Macîn et Saba). (Biblio- thèque du Muséon, 28). Louvain : Institut Orientaliste.

w incider H. 1894. Zur Geschichte des Judentums in Jemen. Pages 329-336 in Altorientalische Forschungen.

i. Leipzig: Pfeiffer.