The Quiet Contemporary: Thomas the Presbyter's Chronicle of 640 and the First Unadorned Account of the Arab Conquests
The Quiet Contemporary: Thomas the Presbyter's Chronicle of 640 and the First Unadorned Account of the Arab Conquests
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
In the British Library, catalogued as Additional 14,643, there exists a manuscript that has driven scholars to the brink of descriptive hyperbole. Its author jumps from Adam to earthquakes, from ecclesiastical councils to military campaigns, from lists of bishops to the topography of Mesopotamia—all without the slightest concern for chronological order. He will mention a specific indiction year, then leap backward centuries, then forward again, leaving readers dizzy and editors despairing. One prominent scholar, after struggling to make sense of its structure, famously suggested its author might have been "completely insane."
But insanity, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. And what some see as madness, others have begun to recognize as method—a method so subtle, so layered, that it has taken modern scholarship over a century to unravel. The text is the Chronicle ad 640, a sprawling Miaphysite composition that begins with the birth of Adam and ends, abruptly, in the opening years of the Islamic conquests. Its last dated entry falls around 635/636 CE. Its only allusion to a later time is a brief note that the emperor Heraclius had reigned for thirty years—placing the work's composition firmly in 640 CE, while Heraclius still drew breath and the dust of Yarmūk had barely settled.
This is the Chronicle of Thomas the Presbyter—if that is indeed its author, as many scholars believe. And for all its structural eccentricities, for all its maddening digressions and dizzying temporal leaps, it contains something of incalculable value: a handful of sentences about the Arabs and their conquests, written by a contemporary who lived through the events he describes.
Unlike the Account ad 637—that bleeding parchment we examined in our previous installment, with its precise dates and eyewitness testimony—the Chronicle of 640 offers something almost more precious: ordinariness. Where the scribe of BL Add. 14,461 scratched his observations onto a Bible page with the urgency of a man watching his world end, Thomas the Presbyter treats the Arab conquests as just another entry in his vast catalogue of human events. He records a battle near Gaza—almost certainly the Battle of Dāthin, the first major clash between Arab and Roman forces in 634 CE. He notes that "many villages were destroyed" and that people were killed. And then he moves on, to the next earthquake, the next bishop, the next council.
There is no theological framing here. No apocalyptic dread. No "scourge of God" or "punishment for Christian sin." The conquests are not yet the world-changing cataclysm that later chroniclers would see in them. To Thomas, writing in 640 CE, they are simply events—significant, yes, worth recording, certainly, but not yet understood as the end of an age or the dawn of a new one.
This, perhaps, is the most valuable testimony of all.
The Chronicle ad 640 has been studied by generations of scholars—William Wright, who dated its sole surviving manuscript to the mid-eighth century on paleographic grounds; Ernest Walter Brooks, who published the first critical edition in 1904; and most recently James Howard-Johnston, who has argued for a more complex transmission history, suggesting that the eighth-century scribe compiled the work from five distinct sources, only one of which dates to 640. But on one point, all agree: the brief references to the Arab conquests belong to that earliest stratum, the contemporary voice of a Miaphysite Christian who watched the armies of Islam sweep through Palestine and recorded what he saw with an almost unsettling calm.
In this installment of our series, we will:
Navigate the labyrinth of the Chronicle ad 640's structure, separating the contemporary wheat from the later chaff.
Identify the Battle of Dāthin—the obscure engagement near Gaza that marked the first Muslim victory over Roman forces, and the only military event Thomas bothers to record.
Analyze the author's perspective—a Miaphysite Christian who had no love for the Chalcedonian empire, watching its armies crumble with what might be described as quiet satisfaction.
Contrast his unadorned account with the later, theologically charged narratives, showing how the absence of interpretation can be as revealing as its presence.
Synchronize this witness with the broader chorus—Sebeos, Fredegar, the Chinese annals, Movsēs Daskhurantsi, and the bleeding parchment of 637—that together form an unassailable body of external corroboration for early Islamic history.
The Chronicle of 640 is not dramatic. It offers no "we saw," no precise dates for Yarmūk, no named Roman commanders. But in its very mundanity, in its refusal to recognize the world-changing significance of the events it records, it may be the most honest witness of them all. For in 640 CE, no one knew that the Arab conquests would reshape the world. They only knew that battles had been fought, villages destroyed, and people killed. Thomas the Presbyter wrote it down and moved on.
Let us follow his lead—and listen to what his quiet voice still has to tell us.
"In the year 945, the seventh indiction, on Friday, February the fourth, at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine, twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled. They abandoned the patrician Bryrdn, and the Arabs killed him. About four thousand poor villagers from Palestine—Christians, Jews, and Samaritans—were killed, and the Arabs destroyed the whole region."
This single entry—tucked within the sprawling, chaotic pages of the Chronicle ad 640—represents one of the most precious documents in all of early Islamic historiography. It is the earliest securely datable non-Muslim account of a military engagement between the Roman Empire and the forces of the nascent Islamic state. Written within six years of the events it describes, likely by Thomas the Presbyter himself, this brief notice preserves details that align remarkably with the Islamic historical tradition while offering a perspective uniquely its own.
Let us break down every element with the meticulous attention it deserves.
🏛️ PART 1: THE DATE — "In the year 945, the seventh indiction, on Friday, February the fourth, at the ninth hour"
📅 The Seleucid Year: 945 SE
| Element | Value | Calculation |
|---|---|---|
| Seleucid year | 945 SE | Syro-Macedonian reckoning |
| Epoch | 309 BCE | Death of Alexander IV |
| Julian equivalent | 634 CE | 945 - 311 = 634 |
As established in our analysis of the Account ad 637, the Syriac Christian chroniclers of the 7th century used the Seleucid Era as their primary chronological framework. The Seleucid year began in October (the month of Dios in the Macedonian calendar). Therefore, February 634 CE falls within the Seleucid year 945, which ran from October 633 to October 634 CE.
The subtraction of 311 from the Seleucid year yields the correct Julian equivalent for dates in the 7th century. This places the battle firmly in February 634 CE.
🔢 The Indiction: Seventh Indiction
The indiction was a 15-year cycle introduced by the Roman emperor Constantine in 312 CE as a system for tax assessment and dating documents. By the 7th century, it had become a standard element of Roman dating formulas throughout the Mediterranean.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Origin | Introduced by Constantine in 312 CE |
| Purpose | Tax assessment cycle |
| Length | 15 years |
| Roman start | September 1 (from 462 CE onward) |
| Justinian's decree | 537 CE: All official dates must include indiction |
The indiction cycle does not have a fixed epoch in the sense of a year zero. Instead, years are numbered 1 through 15 within each cycle. To determine which Julian year corresponds to a given indiction, we must know the starting point of the cycle.
The seventh indiction in February 634 CE would have begun on 1 September 633 CE (the start of the Roman indictional year) and would continue until 31 August 634 CE. February 634 falls squarely within this indictional year.
The Convergence:
| System | Date |
|---|---|
| Seleucid | 945 SE (Oct 633 - Oct 634) |
| Indiction | 7th (Sep 633 - Aug 634) |
| Julian | February 634 CE |
| Hijri | Ramadan 12 AH |
The multiple dating systems—Seleucid, indiction, and day of the week—all converge on February 634 CE with perfect internal consistency. This is not a vague or legendary date; it is a precise chronological anchor.
📆 The Day: Friday, February the Fourth
The specification of the day of the week—Friday—adds another layer of chronological precision. Modern calculations confirm that 4 February 634 CE was indeed a Friday. This level of detail is characteristic of contemporary documentation, not later legendary reconstruction.
⏰ The Hour: The Ninth Hour
In Roman timekeeping, the day was divided into 12 equal hours from sunrise to sunset, regardless of the season. The "ninth hour" (Latin: hora nona) corresponded to approximately 3:00 PM in modern reckoning.
| Hour | Roman Time | Modern Equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| First hour | Sunrise | ~6:00 AM |
| Third hour | Mid-morning | ~9:00 AM |
| Sixth hour | Noon | ~12:00 PM |
| Ninth hour | Mid-afternoon | ~3:00 PM |
| Twelfth hour | Sunset | ~6:00 PM |
The specification of the ninth hour suggests that the battle occurred in the mid-afternoon, perhaps after the armies had maneuvered through the morning and early afternoon. This level of temporal precision—year, indiction, day of week, and hour—is extraordinary for a 7th-century source and speaks to the contemporary nature of the account.
⚔️ PART 2: THE BATTLE — "there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine, twelve miles east of Gaza"
🏛️ The Combatants: "the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad"
The chronicler identifies the two sides with remarkable clarity:
| Side | Designation | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Roman | "the Romans" | The Roman Empire, still the dominant power in the eastern Mediterranean |
| Arab | "the Arabs of Muhammad" | The followers of the Prophet, identified by their leader's name |
This is one of the earliest—if not the earliest—surviving non-Muslim references to the followers of Islam as "the Arabs of Muhammad." The phrasing is significant: it acknowledges both the ethnic identity (Arabs) and the religious/political leadership (of Muhammad) of the invading force.
The term "Arabs of Muhammad" appears in only one other roughly contemporary source: the Account ad 637 (BL Add. 14,461), which we examined in the previous installment. The convergence between these two independent Syriac sources—both using the same distinctive phrasing—is powerful evidence for the contemporary nature of both texts.
🗺️ The Location: "twelve miles east of Gaza"
Gaza was one of the most important cities of southern Palestine in the 7th century. A ancient port city with a mixed population of Christians, Jews, and Samaritans, it lay on the coastal route between Syria and Egypt and controlled access to the Negev desert and the Sinai peninsula.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| City | Gaza (Greek: Γάζα; Arabic: غزة) |
| Province | Palaestina Prima |
| Significance | Major commercial center, key to routes to Egypt and Arabia |
| Population | Mixed: Christians (Chalcedonian and Miaphysite), Jews, Samaritans |
The specification "twelve miles east of Gaza" places the battle in the interior, away from the coast, in the region where the coastal plain gives way to the foothills of the Judean mountains. This location is consistent with the Islamic sources' identification of the battle site as Dāthin (or al-Dāthina).
Al-Balādhurī's Account:
"The first battle between the Muslims and their enemies was in a village of Gaza called Dāthin. It was between them and the patrician of Gaza and they fought a fierce fight until God most high gave victory to His supporters and put his enemies to flight and scattered them."
🏃 PART 3: THE ROMAN DEFEAT — "The Romans fled. They abandoned the patrician Bryrdn, and the Arabs killed him."
🏛️ The Roman Commander: "the patrician Bryrdn"
The name as it appears in the Syriac text—Bryrdn—has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate. The most widely accepted identification is with the Roman commander Sergios, who held the rank of candidatus (a personal bodyguard of the emperor, by the 7th century an honorific title). However, the name Bryrdn has also been read as Wardan, suggesting an Armenian origin.
Walter Kaegi's Analysis:
"The Sergios of the Greek sources is probably identical with the Byzantine commander B[R]YRDN, which is 'Vardan' or 'Wardan,' from Damascus mentioned in an early Syriac source. He fell in the battle of Dathin near (12 miles distant from) Gaza, on 4 February 634. It is this commander whose name has inspired al-Azdī to report a Wardan as Byzantine commander, formerly of Hims, at the battle of Ajnadayn."
The Candidates:
| Name | Source | Identification |
|---|---|---|
| Sergios | Doctrina Jacobi, Theophanes | Candidatus, commander at Dathin |
| Vardan/Wardan | Syriac tradition, al-Azdī | Armenian name, possibly same as Sergios |
| Bryrdn | Chronicle of 640 | Syriac rendering of the name |
The most plausible explanation is that the Roman commander had an Armenian name (Vardan) that was rendered in Syriac as Bryrdn, while Greek sources refer to him by his title or a different name (Sergios). The Doctrina Jacobi, written within months of the battle, confirms that "the candidatus was slain" — a clear reference to this same commander.
The Doctrina Jacobi (c. 634 CE):
"When the candidatus was killed... we said, 'Woe to us, what has happened?' And they said to us, 'A battle has taken place between the Romans and the Arabs, and the Romans fled, and the candidatus was killed.'"
This passage, written even earlier than the Chronicle of 640, confirms the core elements: a battle, a Roman flight, and the death of a high-ranking commander (the candidatus).
💀 The Fate of the Commander: "the Arabs killed him"
The Syriac chronicler records the death of the Roman commander with stark simplicity. He does not elaborate on the manner of death, but other sources provide gruesome details. Samuel of Ani, the 12th-century Armenian chronicler, reports that the enraged Arabs slew Sergios by suffocating him in a dried camel stomach—a detail that, while possibly legendary, reflects the intensity of Arab anger toward this particular Roman official.
Theophanes' Account (AM 6123):
"There were some nearby Arabs who received small payments from the emperor to guard the entrance of the desert. But in that time some eunuch came to pay the soldiers, and the Arabs, according to custom, came to receive their pay, but the eunuch drove them out, saying that 'the ruler scarcely pays the soldiers, how much less these dogs.' Aggrieved, the Arabs departed for their fellow tribesmen, they led them to the countryside of Gaza, the entrance being by the side of Mount Sinai."
This passage provides context for the battle: the Romans had cancelled payments to allied Arab tribes who guarded the desert frontier, provoking their anger and leading them to join the invading forces. The "eunuch" mentioned by Theophanes may be the same official who was later killed at Dāthin.
💀 PART 4: THE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES — "About four thousand poor villagers from Palestine—Christians, Jews, and Samaritans—were killed"
📊 The Scale: "about four thousand"
The figure of approximately 4,000 civilian casualties is specific and plausible. Unlike the rounded figures often found in later chronicles (10,000, 50,000, 100,000), this number has the ring of a genuine estimate, perhaps based on reports from survivors or local officials.
The chronicler takes care to specify the religious composition of the civilian victims:
| Community | Significance in 7th-Century Palestine |
|---|---|
| Christians | Majority population, divided between Chalcedonian (imperial) and Miaphysite (anti-Chalcedonian) communities |
| Jews | Significant minority, concentrated in Galilee and coastal cities, with a history of tension with the Roman authorities |
| Samaritans | Distinct religious community centered around Mount Gerizim, often in conflict with the Roman Authorities. |
The mention of all three communities is significant. It suggests that the chronicler—likely a Miaphysite Christian himself—was aware of the diversity of Palestine's population and took care to note that the victims included not only his coreligionists but also Jews and Samaritans. This inclusivity is striking in a text that elsewhere defends Miaphysite Christology; it suggests a certain objectivity, or at least a desire for completeness, in the author's reporting.
The phrase "poor villagers" emphasizes the socioeconomic status of the victims. These were not soldiers or aristocrats, but ordinary peasants caught in the path of war. Their deaths, the chronicler implies, were all the more tragic for their innocence.
🏜️ PART 5: THE DESTRUCTION — "and the Arabs destroyed the whole region"
🔥 The Aftermath: Devastation of the Countryside
The chronicler concludes his entry with a note of total devastation: "the Arabs destroyed the whole region." This phrase, though brief, evokes the reality of warfare in the 7th century: villages burned, crops destroyed, populations displaced.
Al-Azdī's Account of the Aftermath:
"They mustered [more fighters] against us at al-Dāthina. So we marched to them. Then Yazīd sent me and my companion[s] ahead of the number [of the remaining fighters] and we defeated them. Thereupon, they fled, regrouped and received reinforcements from their Emperor."
Al-Balādhurī's Account:
"Abū Umāma al-Ṣudayy b. ʿAjlān al-Bāhilī attacked them and he fell upon them, killing a large number of them before returning."
The Islamic sources confirm that the battle at Dāthin was a significant Muslim victory, though they place it within a series of engagements rather than treating it as an isolated event. The Syriac chronicler's note that "the Arabs destroyed the whole region" suggests that the Muslim forces, having defeated the Roman army, proceeded to ravage the countryside, either as punishment for resistance or as a standard practice of warfare.
📊 PART 6: SYNCHRONIZATION WITH THE ISLAMIC SOURCES
📜 Al-Ṭabarī's Account:
"[The same authorities]: The first warfare that occurred in Syria after the expedition of Usamah was in al-ʿArabah; then they went to al-Dathinah — it is also said al-Dathin. Abu Umamah al-Bahili defeated the enemy, killing a patrikios among them."
📜 Al-Azdī's Account:
"He [=the narrator, Abū Umāma al-Bāhilī] said: The first battle[s] were [fought] on the battle-day(s) (yawm) of al-ʿAraba and al-Dāthina, which were not among the great battle-days (ayyām). Six Roman commanders marched out to us. There were 500 men with each commander, so they were 3,000 men [in total]. They advanced until they reached al-ʿAraba. Then Yazīd b. Abī Sufyān sent a messenger to inform Abū ʿUbayda about that. He [=Abū ʿUbayda] then sent me, in command of 500 men, to him [=Yazīd b. Abī Sufyān]. When I went to him, he [=Yazīd] dispatched a man in command of 500 men to [join] me. Yazīd b. Abī Sufyān advanced in our tracks in a line. When we saw the Romans, we assaulted and defeated them, killing one of their commanders. Then they retreated and we pursued them."
📜 Al-Balādhurī's Account:
"They said: The first battle between the Muslims and their enemies was in a village of Gaza called Dāthin. It was between them and the patrician of Gaza and they fought a fierce fight until God most high gave victory to His supporters and put his enemies to flight and scattered them. This was before the arrival of Khālid b. al-Walīd in Syria. Yazīd b. Abī Sufyān set off in pursuit of the patrician and news came to him that there was a group of Romans in the ʿAraba of the land of Palestine, so he sent Abū Umāma al-Ṣudayy b. ʿAjlān al-Bāhilī against them and he fell upon them, killing a large number of them before returning."
📊 The Convergence:
| Element | Chronicle of 640 | Islamic Sources | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 4 February 634 CE | Early 634 CE | ✅ Perfect |
| Location | 12 miles east of Gaza | Village of Gaza called Dāthin | ✅ Perfect |
| Roman commander | Patrician Bryrdn (Vardan/Sergios) | Patrician (baṭrīq) killed | ✅ Perfect |
| Roman defeat | Romans fled, commander killed | Enemy defeated, commander killed | ✅ Perfect |
| Muslim force | "Arabs of Muhammad" | Forces of Yazīd b. Abī Sufyān | ✅ Consistent |
| Civilian casualties | ~4,000 villagers killed | Implied by "destroyed the whole region" | ✅ Consistent |
🧠 PART 7: THE DEEPER SIGNIFICANCE — What This Entry Proves
1. The Earliest Dated Battle of the Islamic Conquests
The Chronicle of 640 provides the earliest securely dated account of a military engagement between the Roman Empire and the forces of the nascent Islamic state. The date—4 February 634 CE—is fixed by multiple chronological systems (Seleucid, indiction, day of week) and confirmed by the internal consistency of the text. This is not a later legend or a vague memory; it is a contemporary record.
2. Independent Confirmation of the Islamic Tradition
The Islamic sources—al-Ṭabarī, al-Azdī, al-Balādhurī—all describe the battle of Dāthin as the first significant clash in Syria, occurring before the arrival of Khālid b. al-Walīd. They agree that a Roman commander (a patrician) was killed and that the Muslims were victorious. The Chronicle of 640 confirms every element of this account from an independent, non-Muslim perspective.
3. The Human Cost of Conquest
The chronicler's mention of "about four thousand poor villagers" killed—Christians, Jews, and Samaritans—reminds us that the Islamic conquests, like all conquests in history, came with a terrible human cost. These were not soldiers or political leaders, but ordinary people caught in the path of war. Their deaths, recorded by a contemporary witness, are a sobering counterpoint to the grand narratives of empire and expansion.
4. The Absence of Theological Framing
Perhaps most striking is what the chronicler does not say. He does not describe the Arabs as a "scourge of God" or a "punishment for Christian sin." He does not interpret the battle as an apocalyptic event or a sign of the end times. He simply records what happened: a battle, a defeat, a death, a destruction. This absence of theological framing is itself a form of evidence. It suggests that in 640 CE, even after several years of Muslim victories, contemporaries did not yet see the conquests as the world-changing cataclysm they would later become. They were simply events—significant, yes, but not yet cosmic.
5. The Diversity of Palestine's Population
The chronicler's careful distinction among Christians, Jews, and Samaritans reveals the religious diversity of 7th-century Palestine. This was not a monolithically Christian region; it was a complex mosaic of communities with different loyalties, different histories, and different fates under the new Muslim rulers.
6. The Value of "Mundane" Sources
The Chronicle of 640 is not a polished history. It is a chaotic compilation, full of digressions and discontinuities. But its very roughness is evidence of its authenticity. This is not a text that has been smoothed and shaped by later editors; it is a text that preserves the raw voice of a 7th-century Christian, struggling to make sense of the events unfolding around him.
🏁 CONCLUSION: The Presbyter's Quiet Witness
The entry in the Chronicle of 640 is deceptively simple. It occupies only a few lines in a sprawling manuscript, sandwiched between lists of bishops and notices of earthquakes. But within those few lines lies a world of historical evidence:
A precise date, anchored by multiple chronological systems
A specific location, confirmed by both Syriac and Arabic sources
A named Roman commander, whose death is recorded in multiple independent traditions
A casualty figure that carries the weight of contemporary estimation
A recognition of religious diversity that reveals the complexity of 7th-century Palestine
An absence of theological interpretation that tells us as much as any sermon could
And in that quiet, unadorned act of recording, he gave us something priceless: a contemporary witness to the dawn of the Islamic conquests, a voice from the very moment when the old world began to give way to the new.
📜 SECTION II: THE SECOND ENTRY — The Conquest of Syria, Persia, and the Martyrs of Mardin
"In the year 947, the ninth indiction, the Arabs invaded all Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it. They ascended the mountain of Mardin, and the Arabs killed many monks in Qedar and Bnātā. The blessed Simon, the doorkeeper of Qedar, the brother of Thomas the priest, died there."
This second entry in the Chronicle of 640 is even more remarkable than the first. Where the previous notice focused on a single battle—precise, localized, and dated to the day—this entry sweeps across the entire Near East in a single sentence, compressing world-changing events into a handful of clauses. It mentions the conquest of "all Syria," the invasion of Persia, and a localized attack on monasteries near Mardin, all under the same year. And then, almost as an afterthought, it records the death of the chronicler's own brother.
This is not history as later chroniclers would write it—polished, organized, thematically coherent. This is history as it was experienced: chaotic, simultaneous, and personal. The year 947 of the Seleucid era (635-636 CE) saw the two most decisive battles of the early Islamic conquests—Yarmūk in the west and Qādisiyyah in the east—within months of each other. The chronicler records them together because they happened together, even if modern historians must disentangle them.
Let us break down every element with the meticulous attention it deserves.
🏛️ PART 1: THE DATE — "In the year 947, the ninth indiction"
📅 The Seleucid Year: 947 SE
| Element | Value | Calculation |
|---|---|---|
| Seleucid year | 947 SE | Syro-Macedonian reckoning |
| Epoch | 309 BCE | Death of Alexander IV |
| Julian equivalent | 636 CE | 947 - 311 = 636 |
The Seleucid year 947 began in October 635 CE (Syro-Macedonian calendar) and ended in October 636 CE. This single year encompassed two of the most momentous battles in world history:
Battle of Yarmūk: August 636 CE — The annihilation of the Roman field army in Syria
Battle of al-Qādisiyyah: November 636 CE — The destruction of the Sasanian field army in Mesopotamia
The chronicler, writing around 640 CE, places both conquests in the same year—947 SE—because that is when they occurred. The compression is not an error; it is chronological accuracy.
🔢 The Indiction: Ninth Indiction
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Indiction year | 9th |
| Roman start | September 1 |
| Covered period | 1 September 635 — 31 August 636 CE |
The ninth indiction, running from September 635 to August 636 CE, aligns perfectly with the Seleucid year 947 (October 635 — October 636). The two dating systems overlap almost exactly, providing mutual confirmation.
The Convergence:
| System | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Seleucid 947 | October 635 — October 636 CE |
| Indiction 9 | September 635 — August 636 CE |
| Overlap | September 635 — August 636 CE |
This overlapping window contains both Yarmūk (August 636) and Qādisiyyah (November 636). The chronicler's single entry, therefore, covers events that span the entire year—from the Roman front in the west to the Persian front in the east.
⚔️ PART 2: THE CONQUEST OF SYRIA — "the Arabs invaded all Syria"
🏛️ The Battle of Yarmūk: August 636 CE
The phrase "invaded all Syria" (ܟܠܗ ܣܘܪܝܐ) is the chronicler's shorthand for the campaign that culminated in the Battle of Yarmūk. This engagement, fought in August 636 CE, destroyed the Roman field army and opened Syria, Palestine, and ultimately Egypt to permanent Muslim rule.
The Account ad 637 (BL Add. 14,461):
"On the twentieth of August in the year nine hundred and forty-seven [636 CE] there assembled in Gabitha . . . the Romans and many people were killed, from the Romans about fifty thousand . . ."
The Account ad 637, written within months of the battle, provides the precise date and location. The Chronicle of 640, written around the same time, uses the broader phrase "invaded all Syria" to capture the strategic outcome.
What "Invaded All Syria" Means:
| Region | Status After Yarmūk |
|---|---|
| Syria Prima (Antioch region) | Open to Muslim advance |
| Syria Secunda (Apamea region) | Open to Muslim advance |
| Phoenice (Lebanon coast) | Open to Muslim advance |
| Palaestina Prima (Jerusalem, Gaza) | Already raided; full conquest imminent |
| Palaestina Secunda (Galilee) | Already raided; full conquest imminent |
The chronicler's phrase, while general, accurately captures the strategic reality after Yarmūk: there was no longer any organized Roman resistance in Syria.
🏛️ PART 3: THE CONQUEST OF PERSIA — "and went down to Persia and conquered it"
⚔️ The Battle of al-Qādisiyyah: November 636 CE
The phrase "went down to Persia and conquered it" refers to the campaign that culminated in the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah, fought in November 636 CE. This engagement destroyed the Sasanian field army and opened Mesopotamia to permanent Muslim rule.
What "Conquered Persia" Means in 636 CE:
| Territory | Status After Qādisiyyah |
|---|---|
| Asorestan (Mesopotamia) | Under Muslim control |
| Ctesiphon (Sasanian capital) | Evacuated by Persian court; falls early 637 |
| Khuzistan | Not yet conquered, but isolated |
| Persian plateau | Open to Muslim advance |
The chronicler's phrase is again a strategic summary, not a tactical report. The battle of Qādisiyyah did not immediately result in the conquest of the entire Persian Empire—that would take another fifteen years, culminating in the death of Yazdgird III in 651 CE. But it did result in the conquest of Mesopotamia, the economic and administrative heartland of the Sasanian state. From the perspective of a Syriac Christian in Mesopotamia, this was the effective end of Persian rule.
📊 The Synchronization of Yarmūk and Qādisiyyah
| Battle | Date | Seleucid Year | Indiction | Chronicle of 640 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yarmūk | August 636 | 947 SE | 9th | "invaded all Syria" |
| Qādisiyyah | November 636 | 947 SE | 9th | "went down to Persia and conquered it" |
Both battles occurred within the same Seleucid year and the same indictional year. The chronicler's single entry covering both is not confusion—it is chronological precision.
⛰️ PART 4: THE MARDIN ATTACK — "They ascended the mountain of Mardin, and the Arabs killed many monks in Qedar and Bnātā"
🏔️ The Mountain of Mardin
Mardin is a city and region in southeastern Anatolia (modern Turkey), located on a rocky mountain overlooking the Mesopotamian plain. In the 7th century, it was part of the Roman province of Mesopotamia, with a mixed population of Syriac Christians (both Chalcedonian and Miaphysite) and others.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Location | Southeastern Anatolia, overlooking Mesopotamian plain |
| 7th-century province | Roman Mesopotamia |
| Population | Predominantly Syriac Christian |
| Significance | Strategic high ground, monastic center |
The phrase "ascended the mountain of Mardin" suggests a military operation in the highlands, distinct from the conquest of the lowland plains. This was likely a mopping-up operation, targeting remaining Roman garrisons and, tragically, the monastic communities that had sought refuge there.
Here we encounter the chronicler's famous "messiness." The events at Mardin—specifically the killing of monks at Qedar and Bnātā—did not occur in 636 CE, but in 640 CE. The chronicler, in his characteristically chaotic organization, has placed them under the same year as Yarmūk and Qādisiyyah.
Michael the Syrian's Account (12th century, preserving earlier sources):
"In this time, the Tayoye (Arabs) entered Persia and reached the Mountain of Mardin near Rish 'Ayna. They were told that the monks of the Qadir (Qidr, Qidar) Monastery and the Bayd (Eggs) Monastery were spies. Therefore, they killed a great number of them. The rest of the monks from the western region came to the neighborhood of the River Baliha (Kaliha), where they found a water fountain. They built near it a monastery called the Beth Rishir, meaning the monastery of the abbot of the Bayd (Eggs). The reason they called it by this name was due to the eggs of a bird which Jacob, its founder, had discovered. The remainder of the monks of the Monastery of Qadir arrived near Callinicus (al-Raqqa) at the temple that contained the pillar the Empress Theodora had built. They enlarged it, dwelt in it and called it the Pillar Monastery."
Michael the Syrian explicitly places these events after the conquest of Persia—which, in his chronology, means after 636 CE. The attack on the monasteries occurred during a later campaign n 640 CE, as the Muslims consolidated control over the Mesopotamian frontier.
The chronicler's placement of the Mardin attack under the same year as Yarmūk and Qādisiyyah is not an error but a reflection of his organizational method. The Chronicle of 640 is not a strictly chronological history; it is a thematic compilation, grouping events by significance or geography rather than by precise date. The author:
Begins with the year 947 SE as his chronological anchor
Lists the major conquests of that year—Syria and Persia
Adds a related event—the attack on Mardin—that occurred in the same region (Mesopotamia) even if in a later year
This is the "madness" that scholars have noted—but it is a madness with method. The chronicler is not writing a year-by-year annal; he is writing a compendium of the conquests, organized around the pivotal year 947 SE.
🏛️ PART 5: THE MONASTERIES — "Qedar and Bnātā"
🏛️ The Monastery of Qedar (Qadir/Qidr)
The monastery of Qedar is identified by Michael the Syrian as "Qadir" or "Qidr." It was located near Mardin, on or near the mountain itself. The name may derive from the Arabic tribe of Qedar (descendants of Ishmael), though the connection is uncertain.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Name | Qedar (Syriac: ܩܕܪ), Qadir/Qidr in Arabic sources |
| Location | Near Mardin, on the mountain |
| Community | Syriac Miaphysite monks |
| Fate | Many monks killed; survivors fled to Callinicus (al-Raqqa) |
🏛️ The Monastery of Bnātā (Bayd/Eggs)
The monastery of Bnātā is identified by Michael the Syrian as "Bayd" (ܒܝܕ), meaning "Eggs." The name may derive from a legend about eggs found by its founder Jacob, or from the shape of the surrounding hills.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Name | Bnātā (Syriac: ܒܢܬܐ); Bayd in Arabic sources |
| Location | Near Mardin, on or near the mountain |
| Community | Syriac Miaphysite monks |
| Fate | Many monks killed; survivors fled to the River Baliha, where they founded Beth Rishir |
Michael the Syrian reports that the monks were killed because the Arabs believed they were spies for the Romans. This detail is plausible and tragic. In the chaos of conquest, local populations—especially monastic communities with ties to the Roman authorities—were often suspected of collaboration. The monks of Qedar and Bnātā paid for this suspicion with their lives.
👤 PART 6: THE PERSONAL NOTE — "The blessed Simon, the doorkeeper of Qedar, the brother of Thomas the priest, died there"
🕯️ Simon, the Doorkeeper of Qedar
Among the monks killed at Qedar was Simon, identified by his office as "doorkeeper". In monastic tradition, the doorkeeper was responsible for controlling access to the monastery, greeting visitors, and maintaining the boundary between the monastic community and the outside world. It was a humble but important office, requiring both vigilance and hospitality.
| Office | Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Doorkeeper (ostiarion) | Controlled access to monastery; greeted visitors; maintained boundary |
👥 The Relationship: "the brother of Thomas the priest"
This brief phrase transforms the entire entry from an impersonal chronicle into a personal lament. Thomas the priest—almost certainly the author of the Chronicle of 640 himself—has just recorded the death of his own brother.
The Scholarly Consensus:
"Because Simon plays no other role in the narrative, many suggest that the Chronicle's author is none other than this Thomas. As a result, the Chronicle is sometimes called the Chronicle of Thomas the Presbyter."
The identification is compelling. The author mentions Simon only here, in the context of his death, and identifies him specifically as "the brother of Thomas the priest." This is not a detail a later copyist would invent or preserve; it is the personal testimony of a grieving brother.
💔 The Understatement of Grief
The chronicler's language is remarkably restrained. He does not dwell on his grief, does not eulogize his brother, does not curse the killers. He simply records: "The blessed Simon... died there." The word "blessed" is the only hint of emotion—a recognition that Simon died in faith as a martyr.
This restraint is characteristic of the entire Chronicle of 640. The author records catastrophe after catastrophe—battles, conquests, massacres—with the same flat, factual tone. He does not theologize, does not moralize, does not despair. He simply writes what happened and moves on. But here, for one brief moment, the mask slips. Simon was his brother. And Simon is dead.
📊 PART 7: SYNCHRONIZATION WITH OTHER SOURCES
📜 Michael the Syrian's Account (12th century):
"In this time, the Tayoye (Arabs) entered Persia and reached the Mountain of Mardin near Rish 'Ayna. They were told that the monks of the Qadir (Qidr, Qidar) Monastery and the Bayd (Eggs) Monastery were spies. Therefore, they killed a great number of them. The rest of the monks from the western region came to the neighborhood of the River Baliha (Kaliha), where they found a water fountain. They built near it a monastery called the Beth Rishir, meaning the monastery of the abbot of the Bayd (Eggs). The reason they called it by this name was due to the eggs of a bird which Jacob, its founder, had discovered. The remainder of the monks of the Monastery of Qadir arrived near Callinicus (al-Raqqa) at the temple that contained the pillar the Empress Theodora had built. They enlarged it, dwelt in it and called it the Pillar Monastery."
📜 The Chronicle of 640:
"They ascended the mountain of Mardin, and the Arabs killed many monks in Qedar and Bnātā. The blessed Simon, the doorkeeper of Qedar, the brother of Thomas the priest, died there."
📊 The Convergence:
| Element | Chronicle of 640 | Michael the Syrian | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Mountain of Mardin | Mountain of Mardin near Rish 'Ayna | ✅ Perfect |
| Monastery 1 | Qedar | Qadir/Qidr | ✅ Perfect |
| Monastery 2 | Bnātā | Bayd (Eggs) | ✅ Perfect |
| Event | Arabs killed many monks | Arabs killed many monks | ✅ Perfect |
| Accusation | (Implied) | Monks accused of being spies | ✅ Consistent |
| Survivors | Not mentioned | Fled to Baliha and Callinicus | ✅ Consistent |
| Personal note | Simon, brother of Thomas, died | — | ✅ Unique to Chronicle |
🧠 PART 8: THE DEEPER SIGNIFICANCE — What This Entry Proves
1. The Chronological Framework of the Conquests
The chronicler's placement of the conquest of Syria and Persia in the same year—947 SE—confirms the Islamic tradition that the two decisive battles (Yarmūk and Qādisiyyah) occurred within months of each other. The Seleucid and indictional dating systems provide independent confirmation of the chronology preserved in Islamic sources.
2. The Simultaneity of East and West
The conquests did not occur in isolation. While the Roman army was being destroyed at Yarmūk in August 636, the Sasanian army was preparing for its own destruction at Qādisiyyah in November. The chronicler's single entry, covering both fronts, captures the reality of a world-changing year.
3. The Human Cost of Conquest
The attack on the monasteries of Qedar and Bnātā reminds us that the conquests were not abstract geopolitical events but concrete tragedies for the people who lived through them. Monks—presumably innocent of any political involvement—were killed on suspicion of being spies. Among them was Simon, the doorkeeper, whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
4. The Personal Dimension of History
The mention of Simon, "the brother of Thomas the priest," transforms the Chronicle of 640 from a detached record into a personal testimony. The author is not writing about anonymous victims; he is writing about his own brother. His grief, however restrained, is real. And his decision to record that grief—even in the midst of cataloging world-changing events—reminds us that history is always personal.
5. The "Messiness" as Evidence
The chronicler's placement of the Mardin attack under the year 947 SE, even though it likely occurred in 640 CE, is not a sign of incompetence but of a different organizational principle. The Chronicle of 640 is not a year-by-year annal; it is a thematic compilation, grouping events by geography and significance. The "madness" that scholars have noted is actually a method—just not the method of modern historiography.
6. The Miaphysite Perspective
The chronicler's focus on the monasteries of Mardin—centers of Miaphysite Christianity—reveals his theological affiliation. He is not writing from the perspective of the imperial (Chalcedonian) church, but from the perspective of a community that had long been marginalized by the Roman establishment. His grief for the monks of Qedar and Bnātā is genuine, but his silence about the fate of Chalcedonian institutions is equally telling.
🏁 CONCLUSION: The Presbyter's Personal Lament
The second entry in the Chronicle of 640 is deceptively complex. On its surface, it is a simple notice:
Year 947, ninth indiction
Arabs conquer Syria
Arabs conquer Persia
Arabs attack Mardin, kill monks at Qedar and Bnātā
Simon, the doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas, dies
Beneath this surface lies a world of meaning:
A precise chronological framework that confirms the Islamic tradition's dating of Yarmūk and Qādisiyyah
A recognition of simultaneity that captures the two-front nature of the early conquests
A tragic local episode that reveals the human cost of conquest
A personal note of grief that transforms the chronicle from an impersonal record into a human testimony
Thomas the Presbyter—for that is almost certainly who he was—did not set out to write a great history. He set out to record what he knew, what he had seen, and what he had lost. His brother died at Qedar, killed by the Arabs of Muhammad. And Thomas, in his grief, wrote it down.
📜 CONCLUSION: Two Entries, One World-Changing Truth
The Chronicle of 640 survives in a single manuscript—British Library Additional 14,643—a codex that has lost its first eleven folios and now rests in the care of curators who handle its fragile pages with the reverence they deserve. Its author, almost certainly Thomas the Presbyter, has been called many things by the scholars who have struggled with his work: chaotic, disorganized, perhaps even "completely insane." His text jumps from Adam to earthquakes, from ecclesiastical councils to military campaigns, from lists of bishops to the topography of Mesopotamia, with a disregard for chronological order that has driven generations of readers to distraction.
But Thomas was not insane. He was simply writing history as it was experienced—not as a tidy narrative with clear beginnings and endings, but as a flood of events, a cascade of catastrophes, a world coming apart at the seams. And in the midst of this chaos, he recorded two entries about the Arab conquests. Just two. Together, they occupy barely a dozen lines in a manuscript of nearly sixty folios. But those dozen lines are enough.
📊 WHAT THE TWO ENTRIES CONFIRM
Entry One: The Battle of Dāthin (4 February 634 CE)
| Element | Chronicle of 640 | Islamic Tradition | Convergence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 4 February 634 CE (945 SE, 7th indiction, Friday, 9th hour) | Early 634 CE | ✅ Perfect — Multiple dating systems converge |
| Location | 12 miles east of Gaza | Village of Gaza called Dāthin | ✅ Perfect — Yāqūt confirms location |
| Roman commander | Patrician Bryrdn (Wardan/Sergios) | Patrician (baṭrīq) killed | ✅ Perfect — Al-Ṭabarī, al-Azdī, al-Balādhurī all confirm |
| Roman defeat | "The Romans fled" | Enemy defeated, put to flight | ✅ Perfect — All sources agree |
| Civilian casualties | ~4,000 villagers killed | Implied by "destroyed the whole region" | ✅ Consistent |
| Communities affected | Christians, Jews, Samaritans | — | ✅ Unique detail confirming religious diversity |
Entry Two: The Conquest of Syria and Persia (636 CE)
| Element | Chronicle of 640 | Islamic Tradition | Convergence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 947 SE, 9th indiction (October 635 — October 636 CE) | 636 CE | ✅ Perfect — Yarmūk (Aug 636), Qādisiyyah (Nov 636) |
| Syria | "The Arabs invaded all Syria" | Battle of Yarmūk, conquest of Syria | ✅ Perfect — Confirmed by Account ad 637, Sebeos |
| Persia | "Went down to Persia and conquered it" | Battle of Qādisiyyah, fall of Mesopotamia | ✅ Perfect — Confirmed by Sebeos, Movsēs |
| Mardin | Attack on monasteries at Qedar and Bnātā | — | ✅ Confirmed by Michael the Syrian |
| Personal loss | Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas, died | — | ✅ Unique, authenticating detail |
🧠 WHAT THESE ENTRIES PROVE ABOUT THE ISLAMIC TRADITION
1. The Chronological Framework Is Confirmed
The Chronicle of 640 provides independent, contemporary confirmation of the Islamic tradition's chronology for the early conquests. The battle of Dāthin in early 634 CE, the conquest of Syria in the summer of 636, the conquest of Mesopotamia in the autumn of the same year—all align perfectly with the dates preserved in al-Ṭabarī, al-Balādhurī, and other Islamic sources.
The use of multiple dating systems—Seleucid, indiction, day of week, hour—eliminates any possibility of later tampering. These are the precise observations of a contemporary witness, not the vague memories of later chroniclers.
2. The Strategic Narrative Is Confirmed
The Islamic sources describe a coordinated, two-front campaign: pressure on the Roman frontier in Syria while simultaneously engaging the Sasanian Empire in Mesopotamia. The Chronicle of 640, in its single sweeping sentence about the conquest of "all Syria" and Persia in the same year, confirms this strategic reality. The two fronts were not separate wars; they were two halves of a single, world-changing campaign.
3. The Human Cost Is Confirmed
The figure of 4,000 civilian casualties at Dāthin—specifically identified as "poor villagers"—reminds us that the conquests were not abstract geopolitical events. They were wars, with all the suffering that wars entail. The Islamic sources record battles and treaties; the Chronicle of 640 records the deaths of peasants. Both are true.
4. The Diversity of the Conquered Peoples Is Confirmed
The chronicler's careful distinction among Christians, Jews, and Samaritans reveals the religious complexity of 7th-century Palestine. This was not a monolithically Christian region waiting to be converted; it was a mosaic of communities with different loyalties, different histories, and different fates under Muslim rule. The Islamic sources, focused on the conquerors, rarely capture this diversity. The Chronicle of 640 preserves it.
5. The Miaphysite Perspective Is Confirmed
Thomas the Presbyter was a Miaphysite Christian—a member of a community that had been persecuted by the Roman imperial church for its Christological beliefs. His lack of grief for the Roman military defeat is striking. He records the death of the patrician Bryrdn without lament; he notes the Roman flight without comment. But when his own brother dies—a monk in a Miaphysite monastery—he records it with quiet sorrow.
This perspective is invaluable. It reminds us that the Roman Empire was not universally loved by its subjects. For many Miaphysites in Syria and Mesopotamia, the arrival of the Arabs was not the apocalypse that Chalcedonian sources describe. It was, at least initially, simply a change of rulers—and perhaps not a change for the worse.
6. The Personal Dimension Is Confirmed
The mention of Simon, "the brother of Thomas the priest," is the most powerful detail in the entire chronicle. It transforms the text from an impersonal record into a personal testimony. Thomas was not writing for posterity; he was writing to remember. And what he remembered, above all, was that his brother died at Qedar, killed by the Arabs of Muhammad.
This detail—utterly useless for military history, entirely irrelevant to the grand narrative of conquest—is the surest proof of the text's authenticity. No later forger would invent a grieving brother. No legendary chronicle would pause to mention a doorkeeper named Simon. Only a real man, writing in real grief, would include such a thing.
📜 THE PRESBYTER'S LEGACY
Thomas the Presbyter did not know that he was writing for posterity. He did not know that his chaotic compilation would survive the collapse of the Roman Empire, the rise of the Caliphate, the Crusades, the Mongol invasions, the Ottoman conquest, and the British Mandate. He did not know that fourteen centuries after his brother died at Qedar, scholars would gather around his damaged manuscript in the British Library, struggling to read his words.
He only knew that a battle had been fought near Gaza, that Romans had fled, that a patrician had been killed, that thousands of villagers had died. He only knew that Syria had been conquered, that Persia had fallen, that monks had been slaughtered on the mountain of Mardin. And he only knew that Simon—his brother, the doorkeeper of Qedar—was dead.
He wrote it down and moved on.
But in those two entries—barely a dozen lines in a manuscript of nearly sixty folios—he gave us something priceless: a contemporary witness to the dawn of the Islamic conquests, a voice from the very moment when the old world began to give way to the new.
The revisionist school of Islamic studies, which for decades has questioned the reliability of the Islamic historical tradition, must now contend with Thomas the Presbyter. His two entries, written within six years of the events they describe, confirm every major element of the traditional Islamic account:
| Revisionist Claim | Chronicle of 640 Evidence |
|---|---|
| "The conquest chronology is unreliable" | Precise dates: 4 February 634 CE; 947 SE (636 CE) |
| "The battle of Dāthin is legendary" | Named, dated, located, casualties recorded |
| "The conquest of Syria is exaggerated" | "Invaded all Syria" in 636 CE — confirmed by Yarmūk |
| "The conquest of Persia is exaggerated" | "Went down to Persia and conquered it" in 636 CE — confirmed by Qādisiyyah |
| "No contemporary sources mention Muhammad" | "Arabs of Muhammad" — within six years of his death |
| "The Islamic sources are late inventions" | Every detail confirmed by contemporary witness |
The Chronicle of 640 does not stand alone. It joins a chorus of witnesses—Sebeos in Armenia, Fredegar in Gaul, the Account ad 637 in Syria, the Chinese annals, Movsēs Daskhurantsi in the Caucasus—that together form an unassailable body of external corroboration for early Islamic history.
The Presbyter's parchment has spoken. History has been confirmed.
In the British Library, catalogued as Additional 14,643, there sits a damaged manuscript. Its first eleven folios are lost. Its text is chaotic. Its author has been called insane.
But on folio after folio, in Syriac script that has faded but not yet disappeared, Thomas the Presbyter's voice still speaks, Two entries. Barely a dozen lines. But enough.
Enough to anchor the Islamic conquests in contemporary witness. Enough to silence the skeptics. Enough to prove that the armies of Muhammad swept out of the desert in the 630s, that they defeated the Romans at Dāthin, that they conquered Syria and Persia, that they killed monks on the mountain of Mardin, and that among the dead was a doorkeeper named Simon—brother of Thomas, remembered by Thomas, preserved for all time in Thomas's grieving, chaotic, indispensable chronicle.
The Presbyter's parchment speaks. And its voice, however brief, is true.
Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. Kitāb Futūḥ al-Buldān. Translated by Hugh Kennedy as The History of the Arab Invasions. London: I.B. Tauris, 2022.
Ben-Dor, Yehuda. "A Note on the Two Seleucid Eras." Tel Aviv, n.d.
Guidi, I., ed. Chronica Minora. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Paris, 1903.
Hassanein, Hamada, and Jens Scheiner, translators and annotators. The Early Muslim Conquest of Syria: An English Translation of al-Azdī’s Futūḥ al-Shām. Routledge, 2020.
Howard-Johnston, James. Witnesses to a World Crisis: Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Kaegi, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Al-Kaʿbi, Nasir, ed. and trans. A Short Chronicle on the End of the Sasanian Empire and Early Islam 590-660 A.D. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2016.
Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ. Taʾrīkh Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ. Edited by Akram Ḍiyā' al-ʿUmarī. 2nd ed. Damascus: Dār al-Qalam; Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1397 AH/1977 CE.
Martindale, J.R. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Volume III: AD 527-641. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. By Michael Rabo, Beth Antioch Press, 2014.
Nöldeke, Theodor. "Zur Geschichte der Araber im 1. Jahrh. d. H. aus syrischen Quellen." Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 29 (1875): 76-98.
Palmer, Andrew. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993.
Penn, Michael Philip. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. Oakland: University of California Press, 2015.
Sebeos. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated by R.W. Thomson. Historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston with assistance from Tim Greenwood. 2 vols. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999.
Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr. Taʾrīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk. Translated by various scholars as The History of al-Ṭabarī. 39 vols. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985-2007.
Theophanes the Confessor. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Comments
Post a Comment