{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022151898734177215, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010759493670886076, 'mean_word_length': 4.943609022556391, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity (review)

The Letter itself is a response by Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem (in office between 314 and late 335 or early 336), to a series of specific questions contained in a letter sent by Vrt‘anēs, the “Chief-bishop” of Armenia (327–42) and brought to Jerusalem by a delegation of Armenian priests on the occasion of the Encaenia, the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem in September 335. The Letter seeks to correct irregularities in the initiation rites of baptism and the Eucharist currently in use in the Armenian church by articulating present practices in Jerusalem. In so doing, it reveals the divergent forms being practiced in Armenia, which have strong echoes of old East Syrian rites. As Terian judiciously observes, orthopraxy was conceived by Vrt‘anēs and his Armenian colleagues in terms of liturgical performance in Jerusalem. Yet even this barely begins to do justice to the remarkable value of the Letter. To give one example, it refers briefly to a disobedient cleric, Torg bishop of Basean and Bagrewand, “who for a little time was united with the Arians.” Clearly there were jurisdictional and confessional tensions within the Armenian church from the outset. This is an outstanding work. It should be required reading not just for those with Armenian interests but for all who are interested in the history of early Christianity. It leaves one wondering what other Armenian texts may be languishing in the shadows awaiting reassessment and rehabilitation. Tim Greenwood, University of St Andrews