Chapter 2 contextualises the mēchanē within the broader picture of rich visual theologies that existed both on the tragic stage and within the context of the Great Dionysia. The mēchanē should be interpreted alongside actors playing gods, statues depicting gods, and altars denoting sacred places. The plurality of visual theologies in the theatre and in the festival context parallels broader cultural norms in ancient Greece. This is important, on the one hand, to understand how the machine existed within broader religious and cultural expectations. On the other hand, putting the mēchanē and mechanical epiphany among other, contemporary strategies also helps to demonstrate the deus ex machina’s unique material, theatrical and theological characteristics.

A tenth-century Christian Arabic history preserves a letter of John Chrysostom to Acacius of Melitene, offering a summary of Eusebius’ chronology. The text probably goes back to an original core and shows that in some circles the chronology of Eusebius still enjoyed authority at the end of the fourth century.

Timothy of Apamea is only attested in John Malalas. His chronography was probably composed in the fifth century and in Apamea. The fragments demonstrate an interest in reconciling biblical stories and Greco-Roman traditions, such as Orphism. He proposed a Christian era starting close to AM 6000.

Andreas composed an Easter table and 200-year list of Easter dates that started in 352. It was based on the work of Anatolius of Laodicea and Hippolytus. To this a chronography was added, which is attested in Syriac but mostly in Armenian. Indeed, at the end of the sixth century, the work of Andreas travelled to Armenia, where it became the basis for the Armenian calendar. Andreas is the first known author to combine computus and chronography. He is also the earliest author to defend 6 January as the date for Christmas, and he is unique in proposing AM 5600 as the start of the Christian era.

This chapter offers in-depth case studies to display how playwrights both used and innovated with mechanical epiphany. Six ancient tragedies are discussed, grouped in thematic pairs. Euripides’ Helen and Bacchae, are taken together as plays that use the deus ex machina to comment on divine form. While the mēchanē in the Helen confirms divine form in a play otherwise full of illusion; the mēchanē in the Bacchae is presented as yet another epiphanic mode of the mimetically inclined patron god of theatre, Dionysus. Sophocles’ Philoctetes and Euripides’ Heracles use the mēchanē to explore issues of space, movement, and the connectedness of divine and mortal. Finally, Euripides’ Orestes and Medea both make use of the mēchanē to question divine epiphany by bringing to the fore issues of ontological boundaries between human and divine.

Metrodorus composed a chronography that also contained an Easter list of 532 years. His date is uncertain. If dated to the fourth century, he may be a precursor to Annianus, who is usually credited with the invention of the 532-year cycle. If dated to the sixth, he is one of many authors drawing up such an Easter list.

The chronography of Heron dates from the sixth century (before AD 555) and defended an adapted version of the chronology and computus of Annianus. In the debate about Christmas of the 560s, it supported Justinian’s position in favour of 25 December. Armenian sources offer most information on this work, although their information is very unreliable. Heron may have been responsible for recirculating Annianus and thus for the latter’s enduring popularity.

The mechanical miracle was always man-made, but manufacturing the marvellous always exceeded epistemological boundaries and thus attested to divine interference and presence. The delicate balance between these elements was not always easy to maintain, and the relation between technology and the gods came under critical examination, especially in the intense religious choice and competition of the Imperial period. The issue of religious forgery through technological means is central to Lucian’s Alexander and forms the focus of Chapter 7. The Alexander demonstrates the various ways that technical knowledge is integral to the act of miracle-making. turning the text, in spite of its satiric self, into a manual for these very same purposes. A comparison with Hippolytus’ Refutation of All Heresies not only attests to the broader use of technological miracles in ancient contexts, but also exemplifies how technology could be configured differently within a religion’s theological truths.

The chronological history of Eustathius of Epiphania (in Syria) covered events from Adam until AD 503. It consists of two parts, probably a part with sacred history from Creation until the Sack of Jerusalem and a second part with secular history from Aeneas until Eustathius’ own time. Eustathius is the only known Greek chronographer who preferred the chronology of the Hebrew Bible to that of the Septuagint. As a consequence, he defends a very early start of the Christian era in AM 4350. Eustathius relied on earlier histories and summarised these: a summary of the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus is preserved. Scholars have argued that Eustathius was a major source for a range of later authors (including John Malalas and Theophanes the Confessor), but we argue for a more cautious view.

Pyrrho is a further unknown chronographer from the sixth or seventh century, whose only remaining fragment discusses the chronology of Adam.

Chapter 8 explores how technologies can be used to imitate and challenge the gods. Lucian’s Icaromenippus is analysed first in terms of how the text reimagines divine and human realms as mechanically bridgeable, and then for the possible theomachic implications of the protagonist’s flight. Lucian’s Icaromenippus demonstrates that technologies are integral to navigating the junction between human and divine, but there are also hints that this can be manipulated in ways that pose threats to the existing divine order. The suggestion that Menippus’ actions mark him out as a pseudo or fake god provides a useful entry point for discussion of the issue of technology as a tool for theomachy more generally in the Greek cultural imagination including in figures like Salmoneus.

Two of the three references to a source called Irenaeus cannot be traced to the second-century theologian Irenaeus of Lyons. We argue that in this case John Malalas most likely added the name of Irenaeus, which he had found in Eusebius, to two unrelated pieces of information in order to generate the impression of great learning for his chronicle.