Byzantium, Crusades and Native Eastern Christian Churches: Case of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch

Abstract

95 Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Vol. 41, No.3, Spring 2018 Byzantium, Crusades and Native Eastern Christian Churches: Case of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch Georges Masse* Being part of Byzantium, and starting with the era of the Roman Emperor Justinian the Great, the regions of Syria and Egypt were considered as heretical. Despite all attempts of Byzantium to merge the churches of the region in Orthodoxy, the “Monophysites” native churches, which believed that Christ had only one nature (monophosus), resisted in Syria, Egypt and Armenia. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the forgotten current Christian native churches of the East. In specific, this paper explores how the Syriac church, known today as the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, an example of the aforementioned “Monophysites” churches, faced the events that took place in this eastern region of Byzantium and preserved its existence, independence and relations with other communities. The outcomes of this research will help unravel current dramatic consequences which may impact the selected church’s survival in a region described today as unstable. The early history of the Native Eastern churches hinged on three big events that played a crucial role in its eventual weakness and decline. The first was the emergence of Byzantium, secondly, the start of Christian Western adventures known as the crusades and thirdly, the dawn of the Islamic Conquest. By the beginning of the fourth century, the world witnessed the emergence and development of the Byzantine Empire accompanied by big internal changes in both the Roman and the Byzantine Empires. The newly *Georges Masse is a professor at the American University of Science and Technology (Beirut-Lebanon) 96 emerging empire, which inherited vast territories and a significant variety of populations from different origins, languages and traditions, began a process of Byzantinization1 that led to internal misunderstanding and conflicts. The conflict culminated when the church and the state attempted to unify “and by force” all native churches under the umbrella of the Byzantium Greek rite. During that era, debates over the understanding of the nature of the Christ had occupied theologians for a long time. To put an end to internal ecclesiastical tension and discussions, the new Byzantine Emperor Marcian called for a new council in Chalcedon in 451. In this council, the largest church council gathering then, a decree was adopted declaring that Christ was to be “acknowledged in two natures, without being mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated.” The direct results of Chalcedon led to a major schism. Several churches rejected the Chalcedon resolution and broke off from the rest of the church; the most significant among the churches, that will be later termed the Monophysites, were The Coptic church of Alexandria, The Armenian Church and The Syriac church of Antioch. The Christological position referred to as Monophysites asserted that in the person of Jesus Christ there was only one divine nature rather than two natures, divine and human. These churches believed that they were preserving and defending the belief in Christ. The reaction of the imperial government, whose main goal was to unify the whole empire under the true faith, was to employ force, oppression and persecution to put down the Monophysites.2 This can be clearly seen by the Emperor’s declaration stating that “no one shall dare speak about the birth of our Lord and Savior except as handed down by the council.” Such statement transformed the council’s decision into an imperial law, and the punishment for those who refused to obey became legal.3 As a result of these policies, Byzantine emperors treated the Syriac and the other churches as well, as heretics from the fifth century onward.4 One must note that the Church of Antioch was not an accidental church; the Holy See of Antioch was established by Saint Peter the Apostle in 37 AD. Therefore, he is considered the first Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox 1 Pirenne Henry, Mohammad and Charlemagne, New York, Meridian books, 1960.p164. 2 Allen P. & Cawte J, Christ in Christian Tradition 2 (London, Oxford, 1987), 94. 3 Moosa Matte, “The Crusades: An Eastern Perspective with Emphasis on Syriac Sources”, Muslim World Journal.vol.93...