Theophilus against his own chronicle

In his 2014 article on Islamic astrologic-chronography, Antoine Borrut footnoted a promise to review Hoyland's Theophilus, "forthcoming" in The Medieval Review. For the review Borrut offered a URL: scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/3631. It is not a good URL and I do not find Borrut in the good URL. Well anyway; at least we still have Maria Conterno. Meanwhile, as per my usual practice, I'll run here the argument I'd make, toward someone else's conclusion, here Borrut's.

Theophilus Edessene was an astrologer by trade. Hoyland as he has exposited the "Syriac Common Source" synopsis further assumes EW Brooks, that the synopsis lifts from an earlier Syriac source shared with other chronicles, up to AG 1037; "ad AD 730", per Brooks. If Hoyland is right that the later synopsis presents Theophilus' chronicle, where the synopsis is not tracking ad-AG-1037, should come the astrology. You'd further think that Theophilus would be drawing from James Edessene: who had much interest in the heavens, spoke all Theophilus' languages, and came from the same town. Hoyland (at least) cannot invoke confessional boundaries; Dionysius Telmahrensis the Jacobite will be using the synopsis which Hoyland assumes was Melkite at most, possibly Monothelete-Maronite.

Maybe Theophilus did write an "Edessenus Continuatus". But the Christian chronographers seem not to have used this. Instead they used... what they used, basically a fleshed-out mostly-saecular Syrian chronology up to the AG 1080s "AD 767". Several of its comments on comets and eclipses (and windstorms) survive but not, say, conjunctions of Saturn. Eclipses are, yes, subject to astrological prediction; but, by the science of the day, comets were not so predictable. Such are portents. Only the Lord Of The Highest Heaven could reveal these. An astrologer would have to deal with these, retroactively.

Same goes double for aurorae. Miyake's aurora was discussed, I believe, in apocalyptic that is, among the plebs. Personally I'd love to read what the astrologers had made of that. According to the records we got, Theophilus himself would have been in his late 80s by then, if even alive.

There now exists a translation and commentary on Ḥamza ibn al-Ḥasan's section on the Romans. Edward Zychowicz-Coghill, "The Byzantinist of Isfahan: Ḥamza ibn al-Ḥasan on Greek and Roman history" ed. Booth and Whitby, Travaux et Mémoires 26 (2022), 759-75. Ḥamza read his sources as "Roman" and EZC confirms them independent of Islamic lore or, I must assume, Nestorian. Is Ḥamza independent of Theophanes' lore? Agapius'?