Bp. of [
Seleucia-Ctesiphon
](https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Seleucia-Ctesiphon) and
Cath
Cath.
, also known as ‘Dadishoʿ the
Aramean’. Our main source for Dadishoʿ’s life and work is the report of the
Synod of the Ch. of E. held in 424, which is included in the [Synodicon Orientale](https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Synodicon-Orientale). In spite of the inauguration of a policy of
toleration and freedom for the Church in the Persian Empire under Yazdgard I
(r. 399–420), reflected most clearly in the Synod of [
Iṣḥaq
Isḥaq
](https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Ishaq) (410), the situation of the Christians again
deteriorated towards the end of Yazdgard’s rule, when warfare between the
Roman and Persian Empires resumed. After some difficult years, Dadishoʿ was
elected
Cath.
cath.
in 421 or 422. From the beginning he was confronted with
opposition and accusations within the Church. Imprisoned by the Persian
authorities, he was released only after the intervention of a ‘believing
envoy’ (apparently from the Roman Empire). This is the background to the
Synod of 424, held not in the capital but in ‘Markabta of the Arabs’.
Dadishoʿ is quoted at length in the account of the Synod: he reports about
his painful experience and is reluctant to resume leadership. The gathered
bishops, with
bp.
Bp.
Agapetos of [
Beth Lapaṭ
](https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Beth-Lapat) and
Hoshaʿ of [
Nisibis
](https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Nisibis) as their main spokesmen, supplicate Dadishoʿ to come back
and promise him their full support. He finally consents. His tenure is said
to have lasted for 35 years, until his death, but following the Synod of 424
no further information on him is preserved.
A remarkable moment in the Synod is the participating bishops’ decision to
abolish what they see as the right of Eastern Christians to lodge complaints
against the bp. of Seleucia-Ctesiphon with Western bishops (
i.e.
i.e.,
bishops
within the Roman Empire). Although no such right is recorded in any
preserved text, its abolition is presented as a step toward Dadishoʿ’s full
rehabilitation. In recent scholarship, this abolition has sometimes been
interpreted as a declaration of independence of the Ch. of E. Such an
interpretation, however, is based on the assumption that in the earliest
period the Ch. of E. was subjected to the authority of the Church within the
Roman Empire (or of the bp. of [
Antioch
](https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Antioch)), whereas
such dependence in all likelihood never existed. It remains uncertain,
therefore, whether the Synod of 424 and Dadishoʿ’s tenure in fact
contributed to the process of alienation between the Syriac Christian
communities in the two Empires, which took place in the course of the 5th
cent.