Holy Hieromartyrs Anastasios I and II, Patriarchs of Antioch

Saint Anastasios I of Antioch
القدّيس أنسطاسيوس الأول الأنطاكي

Today is Bright Monday in the Holy Orthodox Church. It is also the feast-day of two holy patriarchs of Antioch, Anastasios I and Anastasios II, whose hagiographies are similar enough that they are often confused or conflated into the same person. Further complicating matters is the fact that both Patriarchs Anastasios I and II of Antioch were also called ‘Sinaïtēs’, or ‘the Sinaite’, leading to a confusion dating back to the Middle Ages between the sixth-century Patriarch and the seventh-century abbot of Saint Catherine’s in Ægypt. So deep runs the confusion that all three saints are commemorated on the same day, being the twentieth or twenty-first of April.

Patriarch Saint Anastasios I of Antioch [Gk. Αναστάσιος Α΄, Ar. ’Anasṭâsiyyûs أنسطاسيوس] was a Greco-Syrian of Palestine, but became a monk on Mount Sinai in his youth. He was valued highly in his Ægyptian monastery, and was sent as a representative of the Church of Alexandria to her sister-Church in Antioch, and was subsequently elevated to the patriarchate of that church in the year 559. The Antiochene church historian Evagrius writes about him thus in his Ecclesiastical History:

ANASTASIUS was a man most accomplished in divine learning, and so strict in his manners and mode of life, as to insist upon very minute matters, and on no occasion to deviate from a staid and settled frame, much less in things of moment and having relation to the Deity himself. So well tempered was his character, that neither, by being accessible and affable, was he exposed to the intrusion of things unsuitable; nor by being austere and unindulgent, did he become difficult of approach for proper purposes. Accordingly, in serious concerns he was ready in ear and fluent in tongue, promptly resolving the questions proposed to him; but in trifling matters, his ears were altogether closed, and a bridle restrained his tongue, so that speech was enthralled by thought, and silence resulted, more valuable than speech. Justinian assaults him, like some impregnable tower, with every kind of device, considering that if he could only succeed in shaking this bulwark, all difficulty would be removed in capturing the city, enslaving the right doctrine, and taking captive the sheep of Christ. In such a manner was Anastasius raised above the assailing force by heavenly greatness of mind, for he stood upon the immoveable rock of faith, that he unreservedly contradicted Justinian by a formal declaration, in which he showed very clearly and forcibly that the body of the Lord was corruptible in respect of the natural and blameless passions, and that the divine apostles and the inspired fathers both held and delivered this opinion. In the same terms he replied to a question of the monastic body of Syria Prima and Secunda, confirming the minds of all, preparing them for the struggle, and daily reading in the Church those words of the ‘chosen vessel’: ‘If any one is preaching to you a gospel different from that which ye have received, even though it be an angel from heaven, let him be accursed.’ To this all, with few exceptions, paid a steady regard and zealous adherence. He also addressed to the Antiochenes a valedictory discourse, on hearing that Justinian intended to banish him; a discourse deserving admiration for its elegance, its flow of thought, the abundance of sacred texts, and the appropriateness of its historical matters.

From the account of Evagrius we can deduce several things. The elder Anastasios seems to have been a cautious, risk-averse, studious and well-mannered person. In addition, he seems to have been quite adept at listening to people’s problems and offering them advice and comfort. Thus he seems to have been found quite suitable to the demands of church diplomacy for which use the Church of Alexandria chose him as their spokesmonk to Antioch. However, his diplomatic skill and penchant for problem-solving did not prevent either Emperor Justinian I, or his nephew Emperor Justin II, from taking a fervent dislike to him. Indeed, he was deposed by the latter emperor in the year 570. As Evagrius explains in Book V of his Ecclesiastical History:

JUSTIN also ejected Anastasius from the episcopate of Theopolis, on the charge of a profuse and improper expenditure of the funds of the see, and also for scandalous language against himself; inasmuch as Anastasius, on being asked why he was so lavishly squandering the property of the see, frankly replied, that it was done to prevent its being carried off by that universal pest, Justin. He is also said to have entertained a grudge against Anastasius, because he had refused to pay a sum of money, when demanded of him in consideration of his appointment to the bishopric. Other charges were also brought against him by persons, who, as I suppose, wished to second the emperor's bent.

Evagrius does not pass comment on the validity of this Imperial charge of corruption and theft of Church funds. Saint Nikolai Velimirović in the Prologue from Ohrid, however, does: he says that Justin ‘succeeded in banishing Anastasius on the basis of some spurious calumnies’, and intimates further that this banishment was on account of Saint Anastasios’s fervent opposition, alongside Saint Eutychios of Constantinople, to the Gnostic hæresy of Docetism, which was then in the ascendant on account of Emperor Justinian’s sympathies to said hæresy. Justinian had Eutychios seized by the soldiery in his own Church, stripped of his ecclesiastical garments and sent into exile – but he could not find any pretext for doing the same to Anastasios. The Emperor repented of his sin and his hæresy, however, and restored Eutychios before he died. Justin II, as we have seen, was less scrupulous.

Anastasios remained in exile for twenty-three years. He was reinstated as Patriarch of Antioch in 593 or 594 by the Emperor Maurice. Saint Anastasios had Pope Saint Gregory Dialogos to thank for this favourable turn of events. The Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Antioch were good friends and they corresponded in writing for many years. Saint Anastasios governed the Church in Antioch for four or five more years, and ended his sojourn on this earth in the year 599. Some sources say that he reposed in peace, and others that he was martyred.

After Patriarch Saint Anastasios I reposed, he was most likely succeeded by another Anastasios of Sinai [Gk. Αναστάσιος Β΄]. Again, this is assuming the likely possibility that Anastasios I and II of Antioch are not the same person. Anastasios II is not mentioned by Evagrius, who lists Gregorios II as the successor to Anastasios I, but he is mentioned by the later Church historians Theophanēs and Nikēphoros. This younger Saint Anastasios had his fortunes wrapped up with those of Emperor Phōkas.

Patriarch Saint Anastasios II was known particularly for his efforts to stamp out the practice of simony – the selling of the Holy Sacraments for money – in the Church. One of the homilies that has survived under his name to the present day deals with the treatment of the Holy Eucharist, on the evils of Donatism, and on the importance of coming to the Chalice with a spirit ready to forgive others. He was known also for his support of Phōkas’ repressions of the Monophysites and the Syrian Jews. The Church history of Saint Theophanēs the Chronicler, written at some point in the 800s, recounts that the Jews of Antioch staged a revolt against the repressions of Phōkas. According to Theophanēs, this Jewish mob involved in this revolt lay hands on Patriarch Anastasios II, brutally castrated him, paraded him up the Mese, lynched him and burned his body. Unfortunately it appears he was a bit fuzzy on the date: this may have happened as early as 608 or as late as 611.

Recent scholarship seems to have called at least a few points of this narrative into question, with the aid of some intertextual comparisons between the account of Saint Theophanēs and Saint Nikēphoros I of Constantinople, who were writing about the same event at roughly the same time. In Saint Nikēphoros’s account, it was Emperor Phōkas who was mutilated after his death in a political coup, and paraded up the Mese in Byzantium; whereas the hieromartyr of Antioch was killed by Roman soldiers supporting the Monophysite party. In either event, Saint Anastasios II was martyred specifically for holding to the Orthodox faith, being opposed by both the rebelling parties.

Holy Fathers of the Antiochian Church, Anastasios I of Sinai and Anastasios II of Sinai, confessors and fellow-sufferers for the true faith, pray unto Christ our God that our souls may be saved!

Troparion for Bright Week, Tone 5:

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down Death by death,
And upon those in the tombs
bestowing life!