John Malalas as a source for John of Antioch’s Historia Chronike 275
Malalas' Chronology and John of Antioch
Amongst the most significant fragments that confirm the dependence of John of An-
tioch upon John Malalas, there is Excerptum de Virtutibus 2 = fr. 18 Roberto. This text is
very important, because it carries two dates in the Historia Chronike (11. 8-9):
Eioiv ούν άπό του κατακλυσμού έως Αβραάμ έτη ,αυγ', άπό δέ τού
Αδάμ έως τού Αβραάμ έτη ,γψμε'.
“Therefore from the Flood up to Abraham there are 1403 years; from Adam up to
Abraham 3745.”
These dates derive from John Malalas’ chronology. There is no reason to accept Sotir-
oudis’ opinion that this excerptum de virtutibus should be removed from the “real John
of Antioch” because of its style and language. I believe that the excerptores Constantin-
iani were not wrong in thinking that this text came from the Historia Chronike. On
the other hand, this chronological material shows that in this section John of Antioch
created his chronology by following Malalas’ chronology.13
Ehe Fall of Troy and Roman History
The strong relationship between John of Antioch and John Malalas is also confirmed
by the structure of the Historia Chronike after the section on the archaiologia. Fol-
lowing the events of the Jewish monarchy, in the Excerpta Constantiniana there are
two texts on the events related to the Trojan War. Again because of style and language
Sotiroudis declares that these texts are not by the “real” John of Antioch, and again this
is an arbitrary decision. But in this case Sotiroudis’ mistake not only lies in the removal
of genuine texts from the corpus of John of Antioch, but also involves a misunderstan-
ding of the whole structure of the Historia Chronike.
It is not a coincidence that both the Excerpta de virtutibus (7) as well as the Ex-
cerpta de insidiis (3) carry fragments related to the Trojan War after the Jewish monar-
chy and before the founding of Rome. John Malalas is the author of the first Christian
universal chronicle in which there appears an important alternative to the pattern of
synchronism characteristic of Africanus and Eusebius.14 In the first part of the Chro-
13 Observe that these dates are not the same as those given by Julius Africanus: see Julius Africanus, ed.
Wallraff, Roberto, pp. XXIII-XXIX (and the table on the chronological system). Among the arguments
which separate my edition from that of S. Mariev, there is a different interpretation of the Excerpta
Salmasiana. C. Müller already distinguished between a first section of the Excerpta Salmasiana - this is
fragm. 1 Müller - and the remaining group of Salmasiana. Müller already ascribed these excerpts of the
first section to the Chronographiae of Julius Africanus. His opinion was later confirmed by other schol-
ars: see Julius Africanus, ed. Wallraff, Roberto, pp. XL-XLII. If really the archaiologia by John of An-
tioch depends on Julius Africanus, why, later, those datings were adjusted with the chronology which
we find in Malalas? For criticism of Malalas’chronology see Jeffreys, “Chronological Structures”.
14 See Julius Africanus, T80. See Jeffreys, “The Beginning”.