The counter offensive launched by the Emperor Herakleios against the Sassanians in the 620s
proved remarkably successful in regaining the Palestinian territories lost in 613/4.393
The intricate details of the campaign are unknown, but the fragmentary reports that survive suggest that Herakleios launched his offensive from the north, taking Damascus before progressing to the Galilee. The campaign culminated in the official restoration of imperial
control in Jerusalem in 630.394 The episode is invisible archaeologically,395 a feature that
reflects the relatively rapid nature of the re-conquest and the lack of prolonged resistance to the imperial army from the local population or from the Persian garrisons in the major urban
centres.396 The role of the Chalcedonian church in this period is elusive, although the acting
Patriarch of Jerusalem, Modestos, is reported to have travelled with Herakleios to Tiberias following the re-capture of Jerusalem – an endeavour which may reflect the more politicised
393See Haldon 1997: 31-51 and Kaegi 2003: 79-80, 205-210 for overviews of the main developments.
394 This event is described in Michael the Syrian: 11.III: 410 (ed. Chabot 1899-1910) Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq, Naẓm al- Jawhar: 30 (ed. and tr. Breydy 1985: 127-130, 107-109); al-Ṭabarī, Tarīkh: 1561 (ed. de Goeje 1879-1901, tr.
Juynboll 1989: 100) and Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6120 (ed. de Boor 1883-85: 328-330, tr. Mango and Scott 1997: 458-460).
395 The evidence from Nessana and Shivta, which record a series of burials dated to the period 628-640, reflect
stable patterns of daily life in areas removed from the major urban centres. For Nessana see Kirk and Wells 1962: inscription 14 and for Shivta and Avdat/Oboda see Negev 1981: 37-39. From Shivta the burial inscriptions are as follows: Abbramios, monk and priest, (630), Stephen son of Boethos (639) Zacharias (641), Sabina, daughter of George (641), a son of Abbot Themos (643), Stephen son of George (643), Stephen son of Abrammios (643), Stephen son of John the vikarios (646) and Salamas son of Themos (679).
396 Our understanding of the Sassanian defence of Palestine in 628 is unclear. Theophanes, Chronographia AM
6119 (ed. de Boor 1883-85: 327-328, tr. Mango and Scott 1997: 457-458) reports that Persian soldiers were allowed to peacefully depart from Palestine. For possible evidence for a Sassanian garrison in Caesarea see Flusin 1992: 233-234. The source material provides no indication of the military confrontations between Herakleios’ army and the Sassanians, although Michael the Syrian: 11: III. 410 (ed. Chabot 1988-1910) suggests that the cities were already evacuated prior to the Herakleion re-conquest due to internal conflict in the Sassanian empire.
149
role of the Patriarch which had emerged during the Sassanian interim.397
The restoration of the city was accompanied by the official investiture of Modestos as Patriarch of Jerusalem in 630/631 following the fifteen-year period in which he had
performed the role during the exile of the Patriarch Zachariah.398 We know little about the
intricacies of these developments, but their significance to contemporaries may be charted in several works which convey the general triumphalist sentiments of the period and the relatively rapid rate in which liturgical feasts dedicated to the event emerged in Palestinian
synaxaria.399 Less can be said of the impact of the Byzantine re-conquest on the physical
landscape of churches and monasteries. As was discussed earlier,400 there are few credible
examples of church or monastic site destruction initiated by the Sassanians in the period 614- 628. The majority of sites which had existed by 610 still appear to have functioned by 630
even if we are unable to make more detailed assessments (Fig. 3.1).401 The need for
restorative programmes by 630 appears then, to have been minimal and may have already been addressed by the resources acquired from the networks of urban elites and clergy from
within Palestine itself under the authority of Modestos in the 620s.402
There is some confusion in the surviving reports concerning the involvement of Herakleios in the restoration of several of the major churches in Jerusalem, including the Church of the Anastasis. Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq credits Herakleios with financing Modestos’
397 Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq, Naẓm al-Jawhar: 30 (ed. and tr. Breydy 1985: 127-130, 107-109) reports that Herakleios
handed over the taxation revenues of Damascus to Modestos.
398The fate of Zachariah is uncertain, although the sources indicate that he died in captivity. Compare: Saʿīd ibn
Baṭrīq, Naẓm al-Jawhar: 30 (ed. and tr. Breydy 1985: 127-130, 107-109), Strategios, Capture of Jerusalem: 24.1-15 (Version A) (ed. and tr. Garitte 1973) and Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6120 (ed. de Boor 1883-85: 328-329, tr. Mango and Scott 1997: 458-460, esp. n.3). See also the discussion in Baines 1912.
399 George of Pisidia, On the Restoration of the Holy Cross (ed. Petursi 1959: 225-230). For a discussion of
George of Pisidia see Howard Johnston 2010: 16-25. The feast is listed in the Sinai Georgian Menaion (Sinai
Georgian 34) (ed. and tr. Garitte 1958: 90) on 14 September. Modestos was also commemorated on the 17 May,
coinciding with the feast of the Burning of Jerusalem, Ibid: 67.
400 Pages 117-127. 401 Pages 129-133.
402 Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq, Naẓm al-Jawhar: 28, 30 (ed. and tr. Breydy 1985: 119-121, 99-101, 127-130, 107-109), Life of John the Almsgiver: 20 (ed. Festugière 1974-77, tr. Dawes 1948: 229) both of which attribute restoration
efforts to Modestos. All of the traditions link Modestos to renovations to the Church of the Anastasis and Calvary both of which were extensively rebuilt in the eleventh century. On the eleventh-century restorations see Pringle 2007: 5-72.
150
renovations to the church which may have been the only site substantially affected by
Sassanian occupation.403 This tradition is not replicated by Sebeos or any of the dependants
of Theophilos of Edessa and this raises some difficulties with attributing the entire restorative
programme to imperial intervention.404 In an earlier entry of his chronicle, Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq
credits these restorations to both Herakleios and Modestos which suggests that Herakleios’ interventions are perhaps better understood as contributions to an existing effort mounted by
the indigenous Palestinian church.405 Either way, the complex settlement history of the
Church of the Anastasis offers no further clarification on this issue.406 Almost all of the
sources agree that the restoration was accompanied by donations in gold and, in this sense, the Herakleion endowments were probably directed at restoring the existing financial
resources of the church which had been confiscated under the Sassanian general Shabaraz.407
Cyril Mango has presented a case that the major Herakleion interventions in the city were largely directed at the development of the Temple Mount area as part of a broader ideological
programme directed against the Jewish population.408 Although plausible, major
redevelopment at the site in the 690s (with the construction of the Dome of the Rock) has destroyed all possible opportunities of determining the existence or scale of any such
403 Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq, Naẓm al-Jawhar: 30 (ed. and tr. Breydy 1985: 127-130, 107-109).
404 Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6120 (ed. De Boor 1883-85: 328-328, tr. Mango and Scott 1997: 458-460,
esp. n.3) attributes the restorations of the Anastasis to Modestos and does not mention Herakleios. Similarly, the
Sinai Georgian Menaion (Sinai Georgian 34): 17 December (ed. and tr. Garitte 1958: 110-111) attributes the
restorations at the Anastasis (and Holy Sion) to Modestos and does not refer to Herakleios. Ps. Sebeos: 35 (tr. Thomson 1999: 70-82) is similarly ignorant of Herakleios’ interventions. Instead, Ps. Sebeos: 34 (tr. Thomson 1999: 70) records that Modestos was placed in charge of the city following the Sassanian siege. It is unknown if this role continued into the 620s although Modestos’ negotiations with Herakleios would appear to support this suggestion.
405 Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq, Naẓm al-Jawhar: 28 (ed. and tr. Breydy 1985: 119-121, 99-101), Ps. Sebeos: 41 (tr.
Thompson 1999: 90) reports that Herakleios’ restoration of Jerusalem was accompanied by donations and the restoration of church property rather than rebuilding.
406 Pringle 2007: 5-72 for a useful summary.
407 Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq, Naẓm al-Jawhar : 30 (ed. and tr. Breydy 1985: 127-130, 107-109) reports that this may
have been part of a tax exemption extended to church properties. There is no way of verifying this. Such revenue may not have been required if the recent assessment of Avni 2010 and Magness 2011 are accepted. Modestos’ role, however, alludes to the increasing role of church authorities in fiscal revenue by the late 620s which may be reflected in the later developments seen in the Nessana papyri: P. Colt 59 and P. Colt 60-67.
151
intervention.409 If such a project were initiated, the endowment to the Church of the Anastasis
and the construction on the Temple Mount represent the last major structural programme
commissioned by a Byzantine emperor in Palestine until the eleventh century.410
These developments, although accompanied by significant ideological optimism among both Palestinian and Constantinopolitan imperial and clerical circles, proved
transient.411 By the mid-630s, Byzantine control of the Palestinian region was again
destabilised and eventually dismantled by the rapid military successes of the nascent Islamo- Arab armies which had successfully exploited the instabilities following the breakdown of Sassanian control over central Mesopotamia and the fragile Byzantine control of Syro-
Palestine.412 Various explanations have been proposed to determine why the Byzantine
defensive strategies were unsuccessful in maintaining imperial control over the region – a composite explanation of weakened resources and local indifference to Byzantine rule appears plausible – but, regardless of their explanation, the Arab military successes were
achieved with considerable rapidity.413 A series of decisive battles, one in 634 near Gaza,
another near Pella/Tabaqat Fahl (December 634?) and one near Yarmuk (636), appear to have
been decisive in consolidating Arab control in the region.414 With the exception of Caesarea,
409 On the Dome of the Rock see Cresswell 1958: 17-42 and Grabar 2006.
410 Ousterhout 1989 discusses the resurgence of investment under Constantine IX Monomachos. I am not aware
of another Byzantine imperial donation to the Jerusalem churches between the seventh and mid-eleventh centuries which resulted in structural foundation. For the possible interventions of Charlemagne in constructions on the Mount of Olives and the Church of the Anastasis see the discussion, and accompanying notes, on pages 216-216. One possible case of monetary donations emerges in Letter of Niketas to Constantine Porphyrogenitos
on the Holy Fire (ed. Riant 1881, 375-382).
411 George of Pisidia, On the Restoration of the Holy Cross (ed. Petursi 1959: 225-230). To Sophronios, later
Patriarch of Jerusalem, is also attributed poems on the restoration of the Cross, see Sophronios, On the Holy
Cross: 1-2 (ed. Gigante 1957: 114-117), Sophronios, On the Exaltation of the Cross, PG 87.3: 3301-3309. 412 The best overview of the conquests and qualifications about the Arabic material appears in Kennedy 2004:
57-69. See also Crone and Cook 1977, Donner 1981, Donner 1998, Donner 1995: 337-360, Kaegi 1992: 88-129 and Mayerson 1964: 155-199.
413Sophronios, Synodical Letter to Sergios PG 87: 3197 D provides some impression that the Arab incursion further south in Palestine had not been anticipated and, therefore, took the local population by surprise. On reactions to the Arab conquest see Griffith 2008: 23-32, Kaegi 1969 and Moorhead 1981. Moorhead 1981 has criticised the view that the Arab conquest was encouraged by the Monophysite population of the region and has drawn attention to the complexity of Byzantine forces that opposed the Arab armies.
414 On the battle of Yarmuk: Agapios of Manbij, Kitab al-ʿUnwan 453-454, 470 (ed. and tr. Vasiliev 1912: 453-
152
the majority of cities appear to have capitulated to Arab control by 640.415
There is very little evidence to propose the existence of a uniform strategy among the
earliest Arab conquerors towards urban centres and their resident Christian communities. 416
Reappraisals of the literary material have repeatedly stressed the complexities with viewing the Arab conquest as an ideologically and socially homogenous movement, drawing attention to the Arab army’s diverse composition – comprised of Arabs, Monophysite Christians and
Chalcedonians – and the complexity of the earliest concepts of the ummah community.417
Consistent with the progressive nature of the conquest, terms appear to have been predominantly negotiated on an individual level – either through local administrators, as in Damascus under the leadership of Manṣūr ibn Sarjūn, or through the interventions of church authorities as with the Patriarch Sophronios in Jerusalem – and do not propose a pre-existing
legal framework for Christian status in this period.418 A tendency among recent evaluations of
470).
415 Bostra appears to have been captured by 632: Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6125 (ed. de Boor 1883-85:
337, tr. Mango and Scott 1997: 468-469). On the capture of Damascus: Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6126 (ed. de Boor 1883-5: 337-338, tr. Mango and Scott 1997: 469-470). The capture of Palestine, including Jerusalem and Caesarea, is reported in al-Balādhurī, Kitāb Futūh al-Buldan: 213-214 (ed. de Goeje 1870, tr. Khuri Hitti 2002: 138-139) and Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6127 and AM 6133 (ed. de Boor 1883-85: 339-340, 341-342, tr. Mango 1997: 471-472, 474-475). On the archaeological evidence for Caesarea, which may have been disproportionately affected by Arab hostility, see Holum 2011 and Patrich 2011b: 141-176. The capture of Caesarea is reported in Agapios of Manbij, Kitāb al-ʿUnwan 454 (ed. and tr. Vasiliev 1912: 454),
Chronicle 1234 (ed. Chabot 1916-1920, tr. Hoyland 2011:124), Michael the Syrian, 11. VIII: 422-423/ 430-431
(ed. Chabot 1899-1910.) Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6133 (ed. de Boor 1883-85: 341, tr. Mango and Scott 1997: 475).
416 The sources suggest that in many cases terms were agreed on a more individualised basis: Sophronios’
encounter with ʿUmar, which subsequently became of intense interest to debates about the status of Christian communities in the Caliphate, is reported to have guaranteed the conditions for Palestine: Theophanes,
Chronographia AM 6127 (ed. de Boor 1883-85: 339, tr. Mango and Scott 1997: 471-472), Agapios of Manbij, Kitab al-ʿUnwan 453-454, 470 (ed. and tr. Vasiliev 1912: 453-454, 470). Theophanes also reports of similar
negotiations undertaken by Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril: Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6126 (ed. de Boor 1883-85: 338-339, tr. Mango and Scott 1997: 470-471).
417Sijpesteijn 2007 and Papaconstantinou 2008. Autliffe 2007 offers the most systematic study of attitudes to
Christians in the Qurʼān and presents some important qualifications regarding its use for understanding attitudes Muslim towards Christian communities in the early Islamic period.
418 The actual negotiations between Sophronios and Umar are extremely difficult to disentangle from the later
polemical themes that were woven into the story. The most comprehensive discussion regarding the meeting is offered in Busse 1984: 73-119. On the so-called Pact of Umar see the comprehensive study in Levy Rubin 2011b. Levy Rubin has stressed the earlier Byzantine and Sassanian origins of many legislative measures against non-Muslims. Additional discussion of the theme of Sophronios and Umar’s meeting in Christian apologetics is reviewed in Sahas 2006: 33-44. The chronicle entries all agree, however, that Sophronios negotiated terms with the Caliph: Agapios of Manbij, Kitāb al-ʿUnwan: 454, 475 (ed. and tr. Vasiliev 1912: 454, 475), Chronicle 1234: 246-248 (ed. Chabot 1916-1920), Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6127 (ed. de
153
Palestinian Christians in the early Islamic period to retroject later classical legal definitions of
the dhimmah,419 as expressed through later recensions of texts such as the Ordinances of
Umar,420 has resulted in an assessment of the period as one of immediate socio-political
disenfranchisement for monastic communities.421 This view is highly problematic, and has
emerged from studies focussed on Syro-Palestinian Christian groups that are overwhelmingly theological in character and concerned with outlining the main features of doctrinal debate
between Christian and Muslim groups.422 As we have already seen, such emphasis on
‘theological’ and confessional uniformity projected through Christian apologetics has proved formative in framing contemporary debates about initial phases of Islamic rule and its impact
upon monastic groups.423 It is, however, reductive and simplistic. For one, it assumes a static
theological and legislative attitude to established Christian groups among the Arab conquerors which has been questioned repeatedly by a number of scholars working on
broader issues of the early Islamic conquest.424 It also leads to an understanding of
monasticism in the early seventh century viewed from the perspective of a rigid Muslim-
Boor 1883-85: 339, tr. Mango and Scott 1997).
419 Papaconstatinou 2008: 129 introduces the relative problems with this term in studies such as Griffith 2008:
16 and the more polemical work of Ye’or 1996. Levy-Rubin 2003 displays a similar acceptance of this concept as a codified ideal by the seventh century. The later studies of Levy-Rubin 2005: 170-206 and Levy-Rubin 2011b:56-87 stresses the more progressive formulations of these ideas. Earlier discussions appear in Bosworth 1979 and Bosworth 1981. A discussion of the term ahl al-dhimmah, a term which does not appear in widespread use until the tenth century, appears in Ayoud 1983. See also the discussion in Fridemann 2003: 54-86.
420See Noth 1987 and Levy Rubin 2011b.
421 Thus in the major studies of monasticism, Binns 1994, Hirschfield 1992, Hirschfield 1993a: 149 the year 638
is framed as one which automatically instigated monastic decline. This interpretation also appears in the more recent assessments of Perrone 1995 and Patrich 2011.
422 For an overview of scholarship see Griffith 2008. The collected bibliography of Christian and Muslim
relations, Thomas and Roggema 2009 (eds.) survey all contributions that have appeared in the past few decades.
423 Thus Ye’or 1996 surveys Christian status in Palestine purely from this perspective. Similar cases occur more
casually in archaeological studies such as Schick 1995: 159-179 where examples of confrontation are often framed in terms of Christian-Muslim interaction rather than as outcomes of more complex political scenes.
424 On the apparent fluidity of attitudes in this early period, see Papaconstantinou 2008. On the continued use of
monasteries as fiscal collectives into the early eighth century, see Silpesteijn and Clackson 2009. This is more difficult to trace in Palestine but at least one example, Nessana, shows a similar replication of this interaction in Palestine: P. Colt 59, 60-67. Whether or not this represents the existence of a centralised administrative apparatus in the 670s remains subject to debate, Foss 2002 argues for the existence of a more sophisticated bureaucratic system under Muʿāwiyah. Johns 2003: 421-424, rejects this hypothesis and notes a distinct change in the later papyri dating to the reign of Abd al-Malik. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence from Egypt for the continued use of monasteries as centres for localised governance and collection into the early eighth century: Papaconstantinou 2010.
154
Christian confrontation without regard for more complex socio-political dynamics or
progressive change425 Consequently, it has reduced interpretations of the initial encounters
between Palestinian monastic communities and Arab political institutions to a situation of immediate antagonism and one of swift decline to the established socio-economic positions
of monastic foundations.426
In this respect, it is common to encounter assessments of Chalcedonian communities as a social group where the impact of Arab rule resulted in socio-political
disenfranchisement.427 Chalcedonian responses to Arab rule were, however, varied. Although
Patriarch Sophronios’ morose Christmas sermon of 634 points to a concern with security in
the Jerusalem church,428 it evident from the actions of Manṣūr ibn Sarjūn in Damascus that in
other contexts Chalcedonian communities openly negotiated with the Arab conquerors.429
Sophronios’ more negative response to Arab control may, in one respect, reflect anxieties for the threat that the Arab military successes posed to his own social position. At least from the period of Sassanian control, the pre-eminence of the Patriarchs’ involvement in administrative affairs appears to have progressively reinforced patriarchal associations with
political as well as religious prestige.430 The paucity of evidence does not permit fuller
clarification of these developments but the emerging role of church networks as fiscal
425 See note above. This is exacerbated by the source material for Palestine comprised mostly of hagiography
and other theological works. The lack of a papyrylogical dossier to mirror that of Egypt often makes the tension between theological construct and mundane practice less overt for discussions of Palestine than in Egypt where papyri presents a more flexible view at a localised level.
426 Thus Hirschfeld 1992: 16-17 and Patrich 2011.
427 Conversely the period is often seen as one of relative liberation for the Monophysite church. Criticism of this
approach has been levied in Griffith 2008: 27-28 and Moorhead 1981. As both note, this is to de-contextualise statements in favour of Islam from their more central anti-Chalcedonian sentiments. As Griffith notes, in other contexts the Arab conquests are presented as equally negative. A broader overview appears in Hoyland 1997a: 17-26. Al-Ṭabarī reports that in many cases the Byzantine army was actively supported by the local population: al-Ṭabarī, Tārʿīkh: 2500 (ed. de Goeje 1879-1901, tr. Juynboll 1989: 81).
428 Sophronios, On the Nativity (ed. H. Usener 1886: 500-516). On the dating see Hoyland 1997a: 69-70. 429 On Mansūr: see Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq, Naẓm al-Jawhar: 30 (ed. and tr. Breydy 1985: 127-130, 107-109. For a
discussion of John of Damascus, an apparent descendent of Mansūr, see Louth 2002: 5-6. The most comprehensive biography of John appears in Conticello 2000. This reflects a pattern also known in other regions and contexts. Thus al-Balādhurī reports that the Christian al-Baṭrīq ibn an-Naḥa was employed to oversee the