One of the periods in late antiquity most fraught with religious conflict is that between the death of Emperor Justinian in 565 CE and the first three decades of the seventh century. This was an era that witnessed the separation of the anti-Chalcedonian churches and the creation of their own clergy and hierarchy (Volker L. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, OECS), with concomitant conflict with the Chalcedonian church.

Introducing the first two decades of conflict and a key source

For evidence of religious conflict between anti-Chalcedonian groups in the East between the years 564 and 581, particularly the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, we have a remarkable dossier of forty-five letters, written mostly by bishops,which encompasses at least five letter-types (Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410–590 CE). A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters, Supplements to VC). In this collection, published by Jean-Baptiste Chabot (Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas, CSCO 17, Scr. Syr. 17; CSCO 103, Scr. Syr. 52; Albert Van Roey and Pauline Allen, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, OLA 56, 265–303), we find five synodical letters (that is, letters written by new bishops or patriarchs in which they publish their confession of faith to other bishops) (Pauline Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy. The Synodical Letter and Other Documents. Introduction, Texts, Translations, and Commentary, OECT, 47–51), one widely-disseminated encyclical letter which accom panied a theological discourse, one canonical letter (so called, obviously, be cause it had canons appended to it), two entolika or mandata of a hortatory nature in letter-form, and four letters designated as syndoktika or edicta,which en compass agreed statements of a theological or disciplinary nature. The first was the doctrine of tritheism, which in its sixth-century form (Basil Studer, “Tritheism,” in Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, Eng. trans. Adrian Walford, vol. 2, 853) arose in the 550s among anti-Chalcedonians and was an at tempt to solve christological differences by positing that, just as we distinguish three hypostases in the Trinity, so too must we distinguish three natures, sub stances, and godheads.

1. On sixth-century tritheism see: Giuseppe Furlani, Sei scritti antitriteistici in lingua siriaca,PO 14/4(Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1920; repr. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006); Henri Martin, “La Controverse trithéite dans l’empire byzantine au VIe siècle,” diss. Louvain, 1960; on the history of sources treating it, see Van Roey in:Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Documents,122–24; further, Albert Van Roey, “La Controverse trithéite depuis la condemnation de Conon et Eugène jusqu’à la conversion de l’évêque Elie,” in: Von Kanaan bis Kerala. Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979. Überreicht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schüler, Alter Orient und Altes Testament, eds.Wilhelm C. Delsman et al., Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments 211 (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 487–97; Albert Van Roey, “La Controverse trithéite jusqu’àl’excommunication de Conon et d’Eugène (557–569),” OLP 16 (1985): 141–65; Rifaat Y. Ebied, Lionel R. Wickham, and Albert Van Roey, Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier, OLA 10 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters and Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1981);Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 105–263; Alois Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/3. Die Kirche von Jerusalem und Antiochien, ed. Theresia Hainthaler (Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 279 91.

This doctrinal conflict prompted Bishop Theodosius, agreed leader of the anti-Chalcedonian party after the death of Severus of Antioch in 538, to write his Theological Discourse against tritheism, which he perceived as heresy, a work that is considered the touchstone of orthodoxy in the DM. The conflict over tritheism was complicated by a rift between its leaders, Bishops Conon of Tarsus and Eugenius of Seleucia, on the one hand, and the tritheist Aristotelian philosopher from Alexandria, John Philoponus (d. c. 565), on the other, particularly with regard to the doctrine of the resurrection. For the remains of John’s writing in favour of tritheism, see:

Albert Van Roey, “Les Fragments trithéites de Jean Philopon,” OLP 11 (1980): 135–63. On John’s activities more generally see Theresia Hainthaler in: Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2, From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604); part 4, The Church of Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after 451 (London–Louisville, KY: Mowbray and Westminster John Knox Press, 1996 = English trans. by O.C. Dean of Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Band 2/4 [Freiburg i. Breisgau: Herder, 1990]), 107–46 (131–35 on tritheism); Uwe M. Lang, John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century: A Study and Translation of the Arbiter (Leuven: Peeters, 2001).

1. A second point of doctrinal conflict was the popularity of the Agnoetai, who were found initially among anti-Chalcedonians but later also among Chalcedonians. In yet another attempt to achieve christological bal ance during this time, the Agnoetai upheld the existence of human ignorance in Christ, a position that probably grew out of the argument that Patristic testimonia regarding Christ’s ignorance and knowledge were contradictory (Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts,3–15). The third con flict was related to the tritheist controversy and concerned the succession of anti Chalcedonian patriarchs in Antioch.This had been waiting in the wings for some time, but took centre-stage in 564 when the anti-tritheist Paul, nicknamed “the Black,” was ordained to that office.We shall have to look at Paul’s career briefly to understand the depth and width of this conflict.

1. On Paul see: Theodor Hermann, “Patriarch Paul von Antiochia und das Alexandrinische Schisma von Jahre 575,” ZNW 27 (1928): 263–304, corrected by Ernest W. Brooks, “The Patriarch Paul of Antioch and the Alexandrine Schism of 575,” BZ 30 (1930): 468–76; Ernest Honigmann, Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle, CSCO 127, Subsidia 2 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1951), 195–205;William H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 291–93, 318–28. Cf. Lucas Van Rompay, “Pawlos of Beth Ukome,” in: Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, eds. Sebastian Brock, Aaron Butler, Ge orge Kiraz, and Lucas Van Rompay (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011), 322–23. The main sources for Paul’s biography, apart from the evidence in the DM, are the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus and the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (which for the most part follows John). See the chronological table by Adrian Fortescue in: Jean Maspero, Histoire des patriarches d’Alexandrie depuis la mort de l’empereur Anastase jusqu’à la reconciliation des églises jacobites (518–646) (Paris: Librarie ancienne Édouard Champion, 1923), 352–53.

The anti-Chalcedonian patriarchate of Antioch was vacant after the death of Sergius in c. 560 until in 564 Paul, an Alexandrian archimandrite and syncellus (patriarchal secretary) living in Constantinople, was elevated to the position. Paul thus started his episcopal career in an invidious position from which he was never to recover, attributable in no small measure to the polarisation between his followers and those of Jacob (Alois Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/3. Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien, ed. Theresia Hainthaler, 199). As we shall see, the repercussions of Paul’s consecration and the conflict it caused between the sees of Antioch and Alexandria were to continue well into the seventh century. The anti-Chalcedonian bishop John of Ephesus, an eye-witness of many of the events, emphasises the violence and confusion that occurred, not only in Egypt and Syria but also throughout the eastern empire (John of Ephesus, Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia, ed. and trans. Ernest W. Brooks, CSCO 105 [text], Scr. Syr. 54; CSCO 106 [trans.], Scr. Syr. 55, 4.10, 12, 16, 19, 20). On Theodosius’ death on 22 June 566, Paul was left as the heir of the decea sed’s property, which he used to try to buy his way into the position of patriarch of Alexandria against his rival, the tritheist monk Athanasius, a grandson of the late Empress Theodora. Paul retired first to Syria, then to the Arabian camp of his protector, the anti-Chalcedonian Arab sheik al-Harith. On the role of these Ghassanid Arabs in the ecclesio-political life of early Byzantium see (Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, vol. 2, pt. 1, Toponymy, Monuments, Historical Geography and Frontier Studies).

In 570 we find him debating against tritheists in Constantino ple, where in the next year he subsequently accepted the edict of union designed by Emperor Justin II and communicated with Chalcedonians (Evagrius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5.4, in The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, ed. Joseph Bidez and Leon Parmentier, 197–201; Michael the Syrian, Chronicon 10.4–5, ed. and trans. Jean-Baptiste Chabot, vol. 2, 295–300).

Relations between Alexandria and Antioch after 581 CE

The tritheist schism continued to dog the patriarchates of Damian of Alexandria (578–606) and Peter of Antioch (formerly of Callinicum; 581–591) (Rifaat Y. Ebied, “Peter of Callinicum and Damian of Alexandria: The End of a Friendship,” in A Tribute to Arthus Vööbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and its Environment, ed. Robert H. Fisher, 277–82; Ebied, Wickham, and Van Roey, Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier; Rifaat Y. Ebied, Lionel R. Wickham, and Albert Van Roey, eds. and trans., Petrus Callinicensis: Tractatus contra Damianum, CCSG 29, 32, 35, and 54), although, as stated at the outset of this chapter, our sources are patchier and more disparate than those concerned with the conflict that broke out specifically over Paul the Black. It is a telling fact that the synodical letter which Damian wrote in 578 on his ordination to the patriarchate, preserved by Michael the Syrian, stresses his opposition to tritheism, and after his signature ends with the prayer that the unity of the Trinity be preserved indissolubly (Michael the Syrian, Chronicon 10.14, ed. and trans. Jean-Baptiste Chabot, vol. 2, 325–332; Herbert E. Winlock, Walter E. Crum, and Hugh G. Evelyn-White, The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes, pt. 2, plate XV and 331–37). Originally friends– indeed one source claims that Damian ordained Peter to the patriarchate– the two patri archs fell out over Damian’s rebuttal of tritheist doctrine,which Peter considered had gone too far in the opposite direction, namely Sabellianism (Anon., Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, ed. Jean-Baptiste Chabot, CSCO 82, Scr. Syr. 3, 15, 256 [text]; trans. Albert Abouna, CSCO 354, Scr. Syr. 154, 193; Ebied, Wickham, and Van Roey, Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier, 5).

1. It was but a small step for Peter himself to be considered a tritheist and to feel compelled to write in his own defence.The conflict between the two sees was characterised by futile and tempestuous meetings between Damian and Peter until the latter’s death on 22 April 591 (Ebied, Wickham, and Van Roey, Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier, 8 n. 33; ibid., 34–43). About Peter’s successor, Julian (591–595), we know only the little relayed to us by Michael the Syrian (Michael the Syrian, Chronicon 9.27, ed. and trans. Jean-Baptiste Chabot, vol. 2, 234, 373, 375; Allen, “Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century,” 34): Julian was a monk of a monastery in Qennesrin (Chal cis) and had been Peter’s syncellus. Perhaps he was also anti-tritheist, like Peter. The same doctrinal leanings may hold true for Julian’s successor, the Syrian Athanasius Gammal or Camel-driver (595–634), who was a monk in the same monastery in Qennesrin (Allen, “Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century,” 35), perhaps an indication that the conflict around trithe ism had become part-and-parcel of the abysmal relations between the patriarch ates of Antioch and Alexandria.
2. After c. 619 the fifty-year old conflict, with its subtext of tritheism, no longer dominated ecclesiastical politics in the East. Rather it was wider issues that commanded attention: the occupation and re pulse of the Persians (Clive Foss, “The Persians in the Roman Near East (602–630 AD),” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland 13 (2003): 149–70; Kaegi, Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium), the rise and demise of the doctrines of monoenergism and monotheletism which went hand in hand with the rapid advances of the Muslims (Wolfram Brandes, “‘Juristische’ Krisenbewältigung im 7. Jahrhundert? Die Prozesse gegen Martin I. und Maximos Homologetes,” Fontes Minores 10 (1998): 141–212), and a new dynamic in church relations between Constantinople and Rome, illustrated most fully by the activities of Maximus the Confessor.