Primeval chronicle of Edessa

The hypothesis that the various dependants of the Chronicle of Edessa had access to a different version of the text than the one we have was first suggested by D'yakonov (1908). His reconstruction has been confirmed and redefined by Witakowski (1984-1986), who, after further investigation, argued that the differences among the various dependants of the Chronicle of Edessa are best explained by assuming two previous stages in the evolution of the text: an 'Original Chronicle of Edessa', out of which the Chronicle of Edessa as we have it developed, and from which the Chronicle of 819, the Chronicle of 846, the Chronicle of Zuqnin and Jacob of Edessa drew; and an earlier Edessan source, incorporated in the 'Original Chronicle of Edessa' and attested in John of Ephesus, Michael the Syrian and the Chronicle of 1234, called by Witakowski the 'Primeval Chronicle of Edessa'.

According to Debié (1999-2000) the similarities and differences in the Edessan material presented by all these texts can simply be explained by their reliance on extracts of the city archives, used and reworked by each chronicler and historian in his own way.