Summary

Lebanese Orthodox historian and commentator Alexander Hour challenges a common narrative in Eastern Christian and Byzantine studies. He argues that the idea—often promoted in certain Orthodox contexts—that Greeks (or the inhabitants of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire) were officially or primarily called “Romans” or “New Romans” specifically by the Patriarchate of Constantinople lacks solid historical foundation. He references 18th-century correspondence involving the Eastern Patriarchs to support his view that such claims are erroneous.

Debunking the “New Romans” Greek Narrative – A Lebanese Orthodox Perspective

In ongoing discussions about Byzantine identity, the self-perception of Greek-speaking Christians in the Eastern Roman Empire, and the legacy of Constantinople, one voice stands out for its critical stance: that of Alexander Hour (Ἀλέξανδρος Αὐρανίτης), a Lebanese Orthodox historian, linguist, and ethnologist.

In recent social media posts, Hour directly addresses what he sees as a historical misconception. He states that the notion the Greeks were called “New Romans” originating from New Rome (Constantinople) by the Patriarchate is “devoid of any historical foundation.” He further points to the “origin of the errors of the 3 Patriarchs in their letter to the nonjuring bishops of England in 1718” as a key source of such misunderstandings.

This claim touches on a deeply contested topic in historiography. The Eastern Roman Empire (commonly called “Byzantine” by modern historians) was indeed the direct continuation of the Roman state. Its Greek-speaking Christian population referred to themselves as Rhōmaîoi (Ῥωμαῖοι, Romans) for centuries, especially after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Constantinople was frequently styled as Nea Rōmē (New Rome). However, Hour argues that linking this identity specifically and authoritatively to pronouncements by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in a way that retroactively defines Greek ethnicity as “Roman” is an overreach or later invention without primary evidence.

Context

Hour cites The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century (edited by George Williams, B.D.), which compiles correspondence between the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and the Nonjuring bishops of the Church of England around 1718–1725. In his view, errors or imprecise statements in these patriarchal letters have contributed to modern misconceptions about nomenclature and identity.

This period was one of attempted ecumenical dialogue. The Nonjurors (Anglican clergy who refused to swear allegiance to William and Mary after the Glorious Revolution) sought union or recognition from the Eastern Orthodox churches. The patriarchal responses, while theologically significant, are critiqued by Hour for introducing or perpetuating inaccuracies regarding how the Greeks were identified in official ecclesiastical language.

Implication

Hour’s intervention is notable because he writes from a Levantine Orthodox perspective—part of the historic Antiochian tradition—rather than a Greek one. This brings a different lens to debates often dominated by Hellenic or Russian narratives. It highlights how identity labels (“Greek,” “Roman,” “Byzantine,” “Rum”) were fluid, politically charged, and context-dependent across the Ottoman millet system and earlier imperial history.

Critics of Hour’s position might point to abundant primary sources—imperial decrees, chronicles (e.g., by Procopius, Anna Komnene), ecclesiastical documents, and the continued use of “Roman” self-identification by Greeks into the Ottoman era (as Rum or Romioi)—as evidence that the Roman identity was not fabricated but central. Nevertheless, his call for rigorous sourcing and skepticism toward anachronistic or romanticized interpretations resonates with scholarly caution against nationalist historiography.

Reference

Williams, George, ed. The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century: Being the Correspondence between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjuring Bishops of the Church of England. London: Rivingtons, 1868.