The beginnings of the cult of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste

Before analysis of the Testament itself, the beginnings of the cult of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste will be presented on the basis of the extant sources, as this is a prerequisite to answering the question of the authenticity of the Testament. The earliest sources are the Homily on the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste by Basil of Caesarea;Footnote ¹² the Homily on the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste II by Gregory of Nyssa;Footnote ¹³ the Greek Passio;Footnote ¹⁴ a Sermon by Gaudentius of Brescia;Footnote ¹⁵ and Sozomenus’ Historia ecclesiastica. Footnote ¹⁶

The earliest of these sources, Basil’s homily, was delivered in 373 ce within a martyrium of the Forty Martyrs in Cappadocian Caesarea.Footnote ¹⁷ The entire content of this homily will not be recounted here, since our focus is the Testament. None the less, it is important to note that the existence of a martyrium, where the sermon was delivered, indicates that their relics must have been placed there.Footnote ¹⁸ This homily also confirms that the relics had already been separated, as Basil claims that they have the same power everywhere, even when divided.Footnote ¹⁹

The next source is Gregory of Nyssa’s homily, delivered in Cappadocian Caesarea in 379,Footnote ²⁰ which is particularly valuable because he recounts the earlier events related to the relics of the Forty Martyrs. He tells the story of a lame soldier who spent a night in the sanctuary of the Forty Martyrs near Ibora in the vicinity of Nyssa.Footnote ²¹ Thereafter he was healed. Although Gregory does not specify when this happened, he does so in the second story related to the relics of the Forty Martys. Gregory describes an event which took place when he was still a young man – he calls himself νέος, meaning that he was less than thirty years old.Footnote ²² He says that it was the first feast with the relics of the Forty, when their ashes were placed in the shrine. The date of this event is important. Since Gregory of Nyssa was born between 335 and 340 ce,Footnote ²³ this celebration would have taken place in 370 at the latest. Moreover, it can be assumed that it was later than about 350, since there is no mention here that Gregory was a child. It is therefore the earliest information on the existence of the cult of the relics as it refers only to the second half of the fourth century; it is consistent with other sources on the development of the cult of relics.

It is also important that Gregory relates that ‘ashes and remains from the furnace were distributed among us, and these holy relics blessed the surrounding earth’.Footnote ²⁴ Additionally, he himself claims to possess some of the relics and had buried his family beside them.Footnote ²⁵ Therefore, it is clear that the relics had been separated.

The next source is the Greek Passio. Footnote ²⁶ According to this text the bodies of the martyrs were burned after death and the ashes were thrown into the river. The relics miraculously survived and were later found by Peter, bishop of Sebaste,Footnote ²⁷ who was the brother of Gregory of Nyssa and Basil. The problem with the Passio, however, is that the text is heavily interpolated and contains many legendary threads. Moreover, it is peculiar in that it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the geography of Sebaste.Footnote ²⁸ For this reason, the value of this text as a historical source is doubtful. Thus, while the Passio proves that the relics of the Forty Martyrs were known in the form of ashes, it does not indicate when the cult was active.

Gaudentius of Brescia also mentions the relics of the Forty Martyrs in sermo xvii, De diversis capitulis septimus. Footnote ²⁹ The sermon relates that the bishop of Brescia accepted the precious relics from nuns of Cappadocian Caesarea who themselves had received them from Basil of Caesarea. Gaudentius then placed them in the cathedral of Brescia, where he was bishop from around 396.Footnote ³⁰

Sozomen, in his Historia ecclesiastica, also tells the story of the relics.Footnote ³¹ We learn that Eusebia, a woman of the Macedonian sect, hid the remains of the martyrs in her house near Constantinople. Ultimately she was buried with them, and later they were miraculously found by Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius ii.Footnote ³² However, the information preserved in Sozomen is of little relevance to the discussion on the authenticity of the Testament, and it is difficult to verify its reliability. Moreover, it is not known how Eusebia obtained the relics.

Based on these sources, it can be concluded that there is actually little information about the origins of the cult of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. The earliest source is Basil’s Homily dating as late as 373 ce. However, Gregory of Nyssa’s Homily II, though written several years later, recounts events surrounding the relics of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste that took place decades earlier – at the beginning of the second half of the fourth century. There is therefore no record of these martyrs being venerated in the period before 350 ce.

Content of the Testament

The Testament is a letter written from the perspective of individuals anticipating an early execution for their faith. It is addressed to representatives of the local church, friends and families of the potential martyrs. The text mentions the authors as Meletios, Aetios and Eutychios, but the other martyrs have signed their names in the final part of the document. The letter is divided into three chapters, with the first two chapters offering substantive content and the third consisting of greetings and a list of the martyrs’ names.

The text opens with a greeting from Meletios, Aetios and Eutychios, addressed to the church authorities, clergy, believersFootnote ³³ and all church members. At the beginning of chapter i, the martyrs use metaphors from the New Testament Epistles to express their awareness of their impending martyrdom. They speak about the end awaiting them: ‘we accomplish the contest set before us’,Footnote ³⁴ and they ‘hasten to the prize of our heavenly calling’.Footnote ³⁵

Next, the Forty Martyrs express their desires regarding the disposal of their remains after death – they are to be entrusted to a specific group of individuals and should be placed ‘in the vicinity of the city of Zelon in the village of Sareim’.Footnote ³⁶ They stress their desire to be buried together even though they ‘come from different lands’,Footnote ³⁷ as they are undergoing martyrdom together. This decision is supported by invoking the will of the Holy Spirit: ‘Thus the Holy Spirit has decided, and so it pleased us.’Footnote ³⁸ They ask for their will to be respected, reinforcing it with the promise of God’s reward for obedience.Footnote ³⁹

They make an additional request: ‘we beg you all that no one should take for himself one particle of our remains removed from the furnace’.Footnote ⁴⁰ Their plea contains two important aspects: the martyrs knew that their bodies would be cremated after deathFootnote ⁴¹ and they feared relic appropriation and division, and they sought to prevent it, even invoking the directive of the Holy Spirit. To ensure appropriate execution of the Testament, the martyrs warn of God’s punishment for disobedience.Footnote ⁴²

The martyrs then raise the issue of a certain Eunoikos’ fate.Footnote ⁴³ He was one of the Forty. The authors of the Testament do not know whether Eunoikos would also face martyrdom or be spared. In the event of his perishing, the martyrs desire that he too be buried with them. If he should survive, he is to take care of their martyrion.Footnote ⁴⁴

The martyrs’ ignorance of Eunoikos’s fate raises questions about this person and why he might have survived, especially considering that the other martyrs had already been sentenced. F. de’Cavalieri offers the most convincing explanation: the Greek word παῖς should be translated as ‘servant’ or ‘attendant’.Footnote ⁴⁵ Therefore, Eunoikos would have been a slave entrusted with taking care of the martyrs’ martyrion ‘after being freed’Footnote ⁴⁶ rather than, ‘with all freedom’, as translated by Musurillo.Footnote ⁴⁷

The final sentence of chapter i of the Testament is sapiential, and is supported by a quotation from the Psalms: ‘He who loves injustice hates his own soul.’Footnote ⁴⁸ This passage does not fit well with the content of chapter i, particularly as it follows the discussion about Eunoikos. I agree with H. Musurillo’s observation that this sentence is inauthentic.Footnote ⁴⁹ The purpose of inserting it into the text is to reinforce the command expressed in chapter i, not to divide the relics of the martyrs and to bury them together. Then the sentence introduces the next chapter, which has a completely different content. It serves as an instruction for Christians on life and faith. This sentence shows that the Testament is an interpolated text which had at least two editors.

Chapter ii of the Testament is moralising. The martyrs appeal to their loved ones to live a pious life devoted to God. They address ‘brother Crispin’,Footnote ⁵⁰ yet throughout this chapter, they use the plural form, implying that Crispin is not the only recipient. Drawing on references to various biblical passages and quotations, the martyrs speak of the vanity and transience of earthly life. They also emphasise that greater significance lies in the kinship arising from faith, rather than from blood.Footnote ⁵¹

Chapter iii contains greetings addressed to loved ones and a list of the names of the Forty Martyrs. The martyrs greet members of local churches in various places, as well as their acquaintances, loved ones and families.Footnote ⁵² Names of some places are also mentioned, but none have been definitively identified so far.Footnote ⁵³ Musurillo ventures to identify only the place named Ksimara.Footnote ⁵⁴ This is followed by a list of the martyrs, introduced by the words: ‘Thus all of us send our greetings, we the forty brothers and fellow prisoners.’Footnote ⁵⁵ The martyrs also inform the readers that they sign the document by the hand of Meletios and approve of what has been written.Footnote ⁵⁶ Although the style of chapter iii seems similar to that of chapter i, the content is quite different, as it focuses on greetings and names and does not mention the issue of the burial of the martyrs.

Various parts of the Testament are written in completely different styles. Chapter i focuses pointedly on the burial of the martyrs’ remains, with their request to be buried together and for their relics not to be separated after death. This chapter contains several biblical references but lacks a moralising character except for the threats to ensure the execution of their will. Only the final sentence (i.6) does not fit.

It is important to note that only chapter i contains a request from the martyrs concerning their relics. There is no mention of this in the following chapters. The style of chapter ii is completely different from that of chapter i and focuses on matters of wisdom and moral teachings, almost entirely constructed from biblical quotations and references. Its content does not address the issue of the authors’ martyrdom at all. Chapter iii is also different from the previous two, containing only the list of greetings and names. It is clear from both the style and content of the chapters that the Testament is incoherent as a whole and could not have been written by one person.

At least three different individuals were probably involved. It is likely that only chapter i existed originally, without sentence i.6 but with the content of chapter iii, while a later editor added sentence i.6 and the entire chapter ii to the existing text.Footnote ⁵⁷ Certainly, in its extant form the Testament as a whole is not authentic. Yet it is impossible to determine whether its chapter i is also inauthentic: this question can be answered only by comparing the Testament with other sources.

The Testament and the cult of relics

In the first part of the Testament, the main concern is the martyrs’ request to have their remains interred in a single location, preferably in a martyrion (τὸ μαρτύριον) which they entrusted to the care of Eunoikos.Footnote ⁵⁸ Such a request indicates that at the time of the creation of the Testament martyrs’ graves must have been places of devotional interest which Christians visited frequently. This is the martyrs’ first request. The next request is even more significant: their explicit request to be buried together is meant to emphasise the unity of their deaths. However, certain instructions were added to prevent the appropriation and separation of the remains. They address two issues: first, there must have been a real risk of their relics being divided – thus, relic division must have been an existing practice. Second, this request reflects the belief that the bodies would be cremated.

Regarding cremation, there had been incidents of martyrs’ bodies being destroyed after death to prevent their graves from being revered, sometimes through cremation, as in the case of Polycarp of Smyrna in 167 ce.Footnote ⁵⁹ Ammianus Marcellinus describes the burning of the bodies of Bishop George of Alexandria and his companion in 362 ce by a crowd, who threw their ashes into the sea specifically to prevent Christians from venerating their relics.Footnote ⁶⁰ One can cite other examplesFootnote ⁶¹ of the cremation of martyrs’ bodies; however, it cannot be concluded that it was a standard procedure. It is known from the Passio of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste that their bodies were crematedFootnote ⁶² and their ashes venerated as relics.Footnote ⁶³ Therefore, if the Testament purports to be an authentic letter written by the martyrs, we must question how they knew their bodies would be cremated. The Testament does indeed specify that the bodies would be cremated in a furnace, which makes the authenticity of the text quite suspect. More plausibly, a later author may have added a passage to the document referring to the relics in the form of ashes in order to give it more authenticity. But this was not the case. Even though it was then known that this was the form of their relics, the reference is suspect, especially since chapter i specifies that the relics should not be separated. Simply stated, the text portrays the martyrs as knowing too much about their fate and having time to arrange their own relic dispersion and veneration. It seems to demonstrate the unlikely scenario that they were not victims of great persecution. Rather unbelievably it shows that they knew their fate and had the leisure to ‘get their affairs in order’, so to speak.

The martyrs in the Testament request that no one should take any remains from the furnace. Thus, it may be understood that there was a practice of people carrying away parts of martyrs’ remains. This further indicates a demand for relics. To determine the authenticity of the Testament, it is important to consider here the emergence of interest in relics and the practice of dividing them, and how the development of the cult of relics fits with the possible dates of deaths of the Forty Martyrs.

There is evidence that early Christians respected the bodies of martyrs. An example is the veneration of the body of Polycarp of Smyrna.Footnote ⁶⁴ However, respect for the body of a saint does not necessarily equate to the cult of relics. According to Robert Wiśniewski, the cult of relics refers to a phenomenon where people show a keen interest in the graves of martyrs and believe in the miraculous power of their remains. This belief allows Christians to seek divine assistance and receive various blessings.Footnote ⁶⁵ Information about belief in the special power of martyrs’ remains dates back to around the middle of the fourth century.Footnote ⁶⁶ Generally, disturbing graves was contrary to ancient customs and laws. In the Greco-Roman world, the inviolability of graves was upheld, and failure to observe this exposed the offender to serious penalties.Footnote ⁶⁷

Wiśniewski analyses two early sources for references to saints’ graves: Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical history, written before 325 ce, and the Itinerarium of the anonymous Pilgrim from Bordeaux, dated to 333 ce.Footnote ⁶⁸ In these sources, there is no mention of attributing special power to the graves of saints. Such a belief begins to appear only in the 350s.Footnote ⁶⁹ One of the earliest events indicating this involves the translation of relics during this period. First, there was the transfer of the remains of Babylas from Antioch to Daphne between 352 and 354 ce.Footnote ⁷⁰ John Wortley argues that it is natural that Constantine did not possess relics because when he died in 337 ce, the custom of seeking relics did not exist. According to him, only in Egypt did the cult of relics possibly begin earlier,Footnote ⁷¹ but sources on this matter date back to the second half of the fourth century.

Another issue is the matter of disseminating the relics. This phenomenon is secondary to the cult of the relics themselves, but it is worth quoting the earliest information available on this subject. Drawing on the writings of Athanasius the Great, Wortley demonstrates that these texts must have been written in the context of an existing practice in Egypt with regard to both the cult of relics and the dismembering of bodies for relics. This concerns two texts: Festal letter 41 Footnote ⁷² of Easter in 369 ce Footnote ⁷³ and the Life of Anthony,Footnote ⁷⁴ who died in 356 ce. In the Life of Anthony, Athanasius, speaking through the hermit he writes about, opposes the practice of keeping mummies in homes, which was said to exist in Egypt.Footnote ⁷⁵ In the Festal letter, Athanasius accuses the Melitians of separating body parts of martyrs for relics and trading them.Footnote ⁷⁶ Based on these texts, Wortley concludes that the beginning of the cult of relics and the use of body parts as relics originated in Egypt and Syro-Palestine.Footnote ⁷⁷ However, the cult of relics in the form of body parts is not synonymous with dismembering martyrs’ bodies. In reality, there are no sources from the fourth or fifth centuries that speak directly of dismembering the bodies; we only find examples of the veneration of relics of specific saints in various places or the veneration of body fragments.Footnote ⁷⁸ The situation where relics of a specific saint were venerated in different places could have occurred in ways other than through the separation of a body fragment. These relics could have been contact relics or ashes, the division of which is not synonymous with dismembering the body.Footnote ⁷⁹ Further, Roman law severely punished those disturbing graves.Footnote ⁸⁰

To summarise, relics could take one of three forms: whole body, body parts or ashes. The attitude of the church authorities to the division of relics varied according to the form of the relics – taking some of the ashes was not considered a division of relics. So this has implications for the bodies of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, which were burned and reduced to ashes. The few sources tell us that in the second half of the fourth century, these relics were venerated in various places and were separated. It may be asked whether the question of the division of relics applies at all to the relics of the Forty Martyrs, since they were in the form of ashes. However, since the Testament contains an explicit request that no one should take anything from their remains, the author of the document saw a difference between leaving the relics as ashes all together or dividing them. The discussion of dividing relics is relevant to the case of the Forty Martyrs.

The final aspect of the martyrs’ request is the matter of their being buried together. Generally, ecclesiastical authorities did not see theological obstacles to separating relics – they believed that a fragment of a relic possessed the same power as a whole, as explained by Basil in his homily.Footnote ⁸¹ However, during the development of the martyrs’ cult, the idea emerged that the remains of martyrs who were united in death should not be separated.Footnote ⁸² A reference to this idea can be found in the Testament, where the martyrs argue that they should be buried together since they face death together. However, this argues against the authenticity of the Testament, since the discussion of the dividing and distribution of the relics took place several decades after the death of the Forty Martyrs.

Authenticity of the Testament

This article has thus far addressed four issues related to the request expressed by the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste in the Testament: interest in relics, division of relics, burning of bodies and the idea of a common death. In the case of each of these elements, the document has been analysed in the context of the wider historical background. But, in the light of other sources, can the Testament be considered authentic?

The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste can have died no later than 324 ce. However, no sources speak to any interest in relics earlier than the 350s. Perhaps only in Egypt did the cult of relics begin earlier; exactly when cannot be determined. Moreover, the cult of the Forty Martyrs emerged and initially developed in Asia Minor. This alone suggests that the Testament could not have been written at the time of the Forty Martyrs’ death; rather, the document must have been created later. It is evident from the Testament that the author composed it in the context of a developed cult of relics.

This chronological inconsistency becomes even more pronounced when we move to the next aspect of the martyrs’ request: not to separate their relics. The issue of dividing relics is secondary to the interest in relics per se. Until at least the fifth century, intentionally dismembering bodies was not approved, even though relics of specific saints, in the form of ashes, were venerated in different places. But the martyrs’ request not to divide their relics suggests the existence of such a practice. Such a request could not have been made at the time of the death of the Forty Martyrs since at that time there was no particular interest in relics, much less in the practice of dividing.

Gregory of Nyssa speaks in his Homily of ‘disseminating the ashes from the furnace’.Footnote ⁸³ The way he speaks is similar to, yet directly the reverse of, the martyrs’ request in the Testament. In both texts, the phrase ‘remains from the furnace’ is used, and the same Greek nouns appear: ἡ καμίνη (the furnace) and τὰ λείψανα (the remains). It is therefore likely that one text was dependent on the other. Which text is earlier is the issue.

According to other sources, the bodies were actually burned (Passio, Gregory of Nyssa) and the relics were in the form of ashes (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa). This point is another argument against the authenticity of the Testament, since it is unlikely that the martyrs would have known that their remains would be burned. It is much more likely that the author of the Testament, knowing the sources, based his reference to the burning of the bodies on a cult that was already in their existence.

The final issue – the idea of unity in the martyrs’ deaths – is in direct opposition to what Basil says in his homily and to Gregory of Nyssa’s statement that the separation of a portion of the relics of the Forty Martyrs does not diminish their power in any way. Nevertheless, there is clearly a link between the Testament and the homilies of Gregory of Nyssa and of Basil. Was the author of the Testament influenced by the homilies of Cappadocian Fathers or, on the contrary, were Basil and Gregory aware of the Testament and decided to keep silent about it?

Obviously the requests of the Testament were not fulfilled. Thus, if Gregory of Nyssa knew of this document, he would not have said so openly that the remains of the martyrs taken from the furnace were disseminated. In this situation, he would probably keep silent or try to justify it. The lexical similarity between the phrase, in which Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the division of relics, and the request of the martyrs in the Testament shows a link between these texts.

But what sense would it make for Gregory to refer to the Testament, even if not openly, when its requests were not fulfilled? It is therefore impossible to defend the thesis that Gregory of Nyssa knew the Testament, and it is even less probable that Basil, whose homily is even earlier than Gregory’s, would have known of this document. It is much more likely that the Testament was written later than the homilies of the Cappadocian Fathers. The Testament’s author was familiar with their homilies which had inspired the ongoing and vigorous popularity of the cult of the Forty Martyrs in Cappadocia. The request of the martyrs not to divide their relics, so prominent in the Testament, clearly contradicts what Gregory of Nyssa says, i.e. that the remains were divided. The notion of unity in death in the Testament was also so strong because the relics had actually been disseminated. In this way, the author of the Testament sought to make his text seem more authentic. But clearly the requests and the reasons for them came too late.

Given these arguments, the Testament could have been composed after 379 ce, when Gregory of Nyssa delivered his Homily. Determining the latest possible date for the Testament’s composition is difficult. However, since the homilies of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, dated to 373 and 379 ce respectively, mention the veneration of the relics of these saints in various places, it seems unlikely that the Testament was composed significantly later. It can therefore be concluded that the Testament was written after 379 ce but before the end of the fourth century.

So the Testament was probably written at least fifty years after the death of the martyrs. The list of the names in it was probably based on extant narratives or perhaps taken from the Passio. The place-names and names of the martyrs’ relatives were added to make the document seem even more authentic and may also have been linked to some other narratives. The provision that the remains from the furnace be kept together refers to Gregory of Nyssa’s Homily, while at the same time contradicting it. This raises the question: why was the authority of the Cappadocian Fathers being contradicted?

Why was the Testament written? Two objectives can be identified. The martyrs asked to be buried in the vicinity of Zelon, near the village of Sareim. Though the location of these villages is uncertain, the attempt to identify them has led to the assumption that Zelon was Zela (see n. 36 above), modern-day Zile, located about 150 km north-west of Sebaste (Sivas). Sareim could be the village of Sarein east of Zela. If it is assumed that these are the places mentioned in the Testament, they are in the same region in Asia Minor as the region as Sebaste, i.e. on the border of Armenia and Pontus. But clearly this is outside Cappadocia, where the cult of the Forty Martyrs was already well-established.

Returning the relics of the Forty Martyrs to Sareim could be seen as returning them to the region where they died, bringing honour and esteem to these villages. Although it is not certain that this was their place of origin, since they tell us in the Testament that they came from different countries, the place of their death is of the greatest importance. According to Gregory of Nyssa, the relics of the Forty Martyrs were kept in the shrine near Ibora in the vicinity of Nyssa, modern-day Nevşehir, approximately 75 km west of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Another town where their sanctuary may have been located was, according to Basil, Caesarea itself. So the relics of the Forty Martyrs were in a region completely unconnected with the place of their death. It is possible that in Sareim there was also a sanctuary dedicated to the Forty Martyrs and the local clergy sought to enhance the significance of their town.Footnote ⁸⁴ Clergy from Sareim could have endeavoured to acquire the relics of the Forty Martyrs from another location, with the Testament meant to serve as the authoritative document, legitimising the transfer of the relics back to the villages. However, such an action would have made sense only at a time when the cult of the Forty Martyrs had not yet been established elsewhere and not yet supported by the authority of the Cappadocian Fathers. But this was not the case. The Testament was too late. The homilies of Gregory of Nyssa and Basil testify that the relics of the Forty Martyrs had already been separated and sent to different places. Does this mean that the Testament was written before the relics of the Forty Martyrs were disseminated? This could not be the case, because interest in relics did not appear until the second half of the fourth century. If the Testament was written later, when the relics had already been disseminated, was it possible that its author intended them all to be collected together and returned to one place, Sareim or Zela? This would have been almost impossible. Conversely, the purpose of the Testament’s author may rather have been rather to distinguish Sareim from other sanctuaries. There was undoubtedly a rivalry between the various Christian centres that sought to acquire relics, and the Testament attests to this. An example of such an action could be Basil’s ep. xlix to Arcadius, in which he promises to send relics to the new church if he finds any.Footnote ⁸⁵ The unexpected appearance in Asia Minor of the Testament, allegedly written by the Forty Martyrs, despite their veneration in various other places, does not seem unusual if other hagiographical sources on the sudden discovery of martyrs’ relics are considered: the Passio of the Forty Martyrs or the passage in Sozomen on the discovery of their relics. The turn of the fourth/fifth century is a period of ever-growing demand for miraculous events involving saints.Footnote ⁸⁶ Whichever shrine or town possessed the relics of a popular saint had great prestige.

It is also possible that the composition of the Testament was motivated by a desire to oppose the practice of dismembering the bodies of martyrs, a topic of discussion among Christians at the time. One can imagine that the martyrs’ request in their purported letter not to separate their remains could have been a convincing argument for many Christians against the separation of relics in the future. This is especially powerful since the letter also appeals to the authority of the Holy Spirit and God’s punishment and reward to ensure that their Testament is fulfilled.

This article has argued that the Testament of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste is not authentic but rather created at least a few decades after the death of the martyrs. The main argument is chronology, along with the strong request in the Testament that the relics should not be separated after death. The problem lies in the fact that the death of these martyrs took place several decades before the practice of relic veneration began. Though the year of martyrdom lies between 319 and 324 ce, the earliest mention of interest in their relics can be dated only to the 350s. Gregory of Nyssa recounts the events related to the relics of the Forty Martyrs which took place in his youth, but this cannot have taken place before 350 ce. The transfer of the remains of Babylas from Antioch to Daphne took place between 352 and 354 ce. What is more, the writings of Athanasius, indicating the existence of a relic cult in Egypt, refer only to the second half of the fourth century. It is therefore highly unlikely that the request of the martyrs not to divide their relics was written at a time when there was no interest in and no demand for relics. It is also necessary to take into account the location of the sanctuary with the relics of the Forty Martyrs: Ibora and Caesarea, both in Cappadocia. It is impossible to expect that the relics placed there could be brought back to Armenia, to Sareim. Additionally, the author of the Testament was likely familiar with homilies regarding their cult authored by Gregory of Nyssa and Basil, which date back to 373 and 379 ce. It must therefore be assumed that the Testament was probably written after this date.

While de’Cavalieri considers the Testament to be authentic since it contradicts other accounts of the Forty Martyrs and the Passio, the value of the Passio as an historical source is doubtful, as the text is hagiographic and heavily interpolated. Moreover, the author of the Testament seems to be aware of other accounts. Leemans thinks that the Testament may have been written after the cult of the Forty Martyrs was established, although he does not rule out its authenticity. It has been shown that there are strong arguments that the Testament is spurious. Although Musurillo claims that the Testament could be genuine because of the abundance of local names and places, these could indicate that the towns of Sareim and Zela wanted the relics back, or they could simply have been added later to buttress authenticity and authority.

It can therefore be concluded that there are strong arguments for the Testament to be considered spurious. It was probably written in the late fourth century, some time after 379 ce, most probably to enhance the significance of Sareim and Zela, but possibly as an expression of opposition to the division of relics. It would seem that a period after 379 ce would already have been too late for the author of the Testament to act against the separation of the relics. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that even in the second half of the fourth century, it was still not accepted that relics could be separated, so the Testament can be treated as a witness to that discussion.