Malalas and the Chronographic Tradition

265

the additions from the Slavonic, the text seems to say that Clement, Theophilus and
Timothy agree on the year 6497 f°r t^LC second consulship of Justinian (AD 528/529).
This does not necessarily mean that they wrote until that date but that their chronicles
generate such a date. In the edition of Thurn, however, the text suggests that each of
the three authors is responsible for the use of one of the three eras in the intercalated
sentence. This finds support in the fact that Malalas does not frequently use the Se-
leucid era, nor the Diocletian one, although for obvious reasons the Antiochean era is
fairly common in his work.13 The first two are thus not normally part of his chrono-
logical apparatus and he is therefore unlikely to have added these eras himself. This
suggests, in turn, that each of the eras is used by one of the authorities he cites. This
would mean that Clement is an Antiochean chronicler, Theophilus an Egyptian one
and Timothy a Syrian or, more specifically, Apamean one.
The citations for Timothy are too unspecific to verify or falsify this hypothesis, but
it works well for the first two authors. The quotations of Clement indicate a particular
interest in Syria. It starts with Clement showing a particular interest in Syros, the
founding father of Syria (Malalas, Chronographia II 9): he is said to have developed an
“arithmetical” philosophy regarding the transmigration of souls. Clement also men-
tions the succession in Judaea (Malalas, Chronographia X 2) and the death of Herod
(Malalas, Chronographia X13). He is also cited for the conflict between Peter and Paul
in Antioch (Malalas, Chronographia X 15). The reference to Marcion in Chronographia
XI19, by contrast, is less precise. These fragments bear out a clear interest in Syro-Pal-
estine history: in particular the interest in Syros and Paul and Peter is telling.
Evidence for Theophilus is more copious and often there is an Egyptian con-
nection, as in the case of the story of Io (Malalas, Chronographia II 7), the death of
Cleopatra (Malalas, Chronographia IX 10), and Annianus as first successor of Mark
on the see of Alexandria (Malalas, Chronographia X 32). Strikingly, Theophilus intro-
duced an unknown pharaoh, Naracho, a son of Noah, thus connecting the Egyptians
in an original way to the table of nations inherited from Hippolytus of Rome. Malalas
also states {Chronographia III 6) that Theophilus wrote about the Egyptian dynasties.
Theophilus clearly included more material too and did not write a simple Egyptian
chronicle (cf. Chronographia V 68, VI10), but Malalas seems to have been particularly
interested in his Egyptian material, which Theophilus probably was unique among his
sources in offering.
For Clement and Theophilus, then, we see emerge the profile of locally focused
chroniclers, Clement on Antioch and Theophilus on Alexandria, willing to integrate
local interest, Greek philosophy and chronography. Thus, at the heart of Malalas’ list
of authorities we find types of work that seem to be rather close to what he himself
produced. This is, I would suggest, not accidental: Malalas consciously inserts himself
into a particular tradition of locally focused chronicles.
This leaves only two names from the preface to be elucidated. Diodorus probably
is Diodorus of Sicily, who, in terms of citations, plays a minor role in Malalas. Yet

13 Jeffreys (1990), pp. 153-154.