Patriarchs of Alexandria
43 - 68: Mark I "The Evangelist" (Libya - Early Christian)
68 - 79: Cornelius (Egyptian - Early Christian)
79 - 94: Erastus (Palestine - Early Christian)
94 - 107: Luke I (Syrian - Early Christian)
107 - 122: Simon I (Egyptian - Early Christian)
122 - 134: Mark II (Egyptian - Early Christian)
134 - 166: Solomon (Greek - Early Christian) [1]
166 - 189: Reuben (Egyptian - Early Christian) [2]
189 - 201: Prudentius (Egyptian - Early Christian) [3]
201 - 208: Severus (Syrian - Gnostic/Basilidean) [4]
208 - 221: Rhodo (Syrian - Early Christian/Pre-Arian) [5]
221 - 238: Donatus I (Egyptian - Early Christian/Novatian) [6]
238 - 252: Luke II (Egyptian - Early Christian/Arian) [7]
252 - 255: Philip (Greek - Early Christian/Arian)
255 - 263: Auxentius (Egyptian - Arian) [8]
263 - 279: Ananias (Libyan - Arian) [9]
279 - 293: Mark III (Libyan - Arian) [10]
293 - 311: John I (Libyan - Arian) [11]
311 - 322: Donatus II (Egyptian - Arian) [12]
322 - 328: Terence (Egyptian - Arian) [13]
328 - 334: John II (Greek - Arian) [14]
334 - 346: Simon II (Palestine - Arian) [15]
346 - 361: John III (Palestine - Arian)
361 - 375: Martin (Nubia - Arian) [16]
380 - 401: Mark IV (Egyptian - Arian) [17]
401 - 414: Matthew (Egyptian - Arian) [18]
414 - 416: John IV (Palestine - Arian) [19]
416 - 423: Paul I (Nubia - Arian) [20]
424 - 433: Gaius (Syrian - Arian) [21]
433 - 441: Andrew (Egyptian - Arian) [22]
441 - 460: Paul II (Egyptian - Arian) [23]
460 - 479: Theophilus I (Egyptian - Arian) [24]
479 - 488: Paul III (Libyan - Arian) [25]
488 - 509: Mark V (Greek - Arian) [26]
509 - 516: Donatus III (Egyptian - Arian) [27]
516 - 527: Mark VI (Egyptian - Arian) [28]
527 - 535: Theophilus II (Egyptian - Arian) [29]
535 - 543: Paul IV (Egyptian - Arian) [30]
543 - 555: Paul V (Greek - Arian) [31]
[1] It was in the reign of Solomon that several controversies regarding dogma and the nature of God and Jesus began to stir and divide the Christian community.
[2] Reuben's reign saw the beginnings of a controversy surrounding the nature of conversion. Several members of the community feel that a person who renounces Christ cannot be brought back into the flock. Others feel that they can be redeemed and repent of that lapse. The rifts in dogma continue to grow as well.
[3] Prudentius was accused of being a secret Gnostic, a label that he reject vigorously, however his writings were of such an esoteric nature that they were considered questionable by the Bishop of Rome. The divisions in Christendom in general continued to grow, even as Prudentius supported the elevation of several controversial bishops.
[4] Severus was one of the bishops promoted by Prudentius. Rather than his predecessor's leaning towards Gnostic elements, Severus was outed as a Gnostic three years into his reign. In particular, he was a Basilidean, a group who believed in the three sonships of creation (aether, material, and purification), and the concept of an inborn evil that is purged by punishment. While not as radical as Sethian and Messalian Gnosticism, it really rankled the Bishops of Rome and Antioch, who saw it as semi-pagan as it was. It also really bothered a lot of believers in the See, who eventually managed to replace him with Rhodo.
[5] Rhodo of Syria was elevated due visions in Christendom in general continued to grow, even as Prudentius supported to being one of the few bishops not selected by Prudentius and was viewed as acceptable. While his reign was quiet, his writings would inspire a number of priests to develop radical ideas, most notably the man history would know as Arius.
[6] Donatus was a member of the Novatians, a branch of Christianity that was founded in the early 3rd Century by Novatus of Ravenna. Recognized to some degree by Bishop of Antioch and Jerusalem, it still is controversial in many communities. In particular, the Bishop of Rome was opposed to the group due to their opposition towards accepting Relapsi back into the fold. Donatus would introduce the concept of Iconoclasm to the church, destroying many of the more opulent pieces of art and donating the mineral wealth back into the community. This would in some way affect the future Arius' stance on religious artwork and wealth.
[7] Luke II continued the Iconoclasm of Donatus despite the condemnations from Rome, Luke and the Bishop of Rome exchanged a series of furious letters in which Luke accused the latter of being a secret Pagan. Even as the Roman Empire fell into the chaos that was the 'Crisis of the Third Century' Luke II kept his people (mostly) out of the fray. Late in his reign when local presbyter Arian published a number of texts that defined Jesus, the Son of God as subordinate and distinct from God the Father, Luke II refused to remove Arian from office. While accused of heresy, Luke supported Arian and in the last year of his life, Luke II and the Bishop of Rome excommunicated each other.
[8] Auxentius explicitly embraced Arian's doctrine and elevated him as a bishop and worked to bring the Christian churches in line. Arianism spread like wildfire through the African Christian community which began to see the Patriarchy of Alexandria as it's leader.
[9] Ananias, leading an energized and passionate church, encourages missionary activity through Africa and even the fringes of Europe, preaching Arianism.
[10] Mark III has also begun missionary efforts to as far as Britannia and Hispania, to even the Persians of the Sassanid Empire. Arianism proves to be a more palatable choice with the Gallic peoples and Germannic Foederati, and is a major competitor for the Bishop of Rome. The main fight in the west is between the Latin Rite and the Alexandrian Rite.
[11] The reign of John I would witness the conversion of the Roman Emperor Diocletian to Arianism, he then proceeded to launch a campaign to promote his new faith among the people of the Empire. Working with the Emperor, John I organized the First Council of Alexandria in order to form a consensus that represented true Christendom. Needless to say that the Arian formula was adopted and those who rejected it would be considered heretics. It was also during John's reign that the first Arian Bishop of Rome was installed and paid homage to the Patriarch of Alexandria.
[12] Donatus II's reign was spent communing with the Patriarch of Rome and the Bishop of Jerusalem over handling the Nicene Heresy. Nicenism, also known as Trinitarianism, were those who followed the Antipope of Rome, Paul of Thessaloniki's creed. It believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were of the same substance and formed together to form God. It remained fairly rampant throughout the Eastern reaches of the Empire, particularly Anatolia and Greece. It was around this time, the gospels and books of the new Testament were beginning to be codified.
[13] Many great signs and healing miracles are attributed to Terence which is seen as confirmation of God's favor. The New Testament canon has not yet been fully established.
[14] John II was the first Patriarch to take a new name upon assuming office, since his birth name of 'Heraclius' was deemed too pagan. John II is also notable for presenting his life's work, a 'complete' version of the Bible that kept most of the Old Testament and for the new relied on the Gospel of John. While he kept most of Apostle Paul's writings he rejected the Book of Revelations as heretical. The John II version of the Bible wasn't fully accepted and it's merits and accuracy of it's translation work was being debated by the time he died.
[15] Simon, more versed in Aramaic as well as Greek and Latin, compared John II's translations of each book. He found that John was relatively accurate, but tended to take liberties with the accepted Gospels. The most significant example was the Gospel of Thomas, which John II edited to remove most of the dualistic thinking that was seen as Gnosticism. Rereading this gospel made him decide to restore the Gospel in full, feeling that the original text as it was was not Gnostic in nature. Other changes include removing the Gospel of Bartholemew from the text, which was seen as too Docetic in nature, and putting in the Gospel of James, which was neglected at first by his predecessor. Simon's New Testament was seen with more success, but issues remained on what other books should be put into the Bible and which needed to be removed.
[16] Martin's reign began to see more controversies pop up during this time. The status of the Son by this point is relatively understood by all churches in communion, even the distant churches of St. Thomas. Jesus was a seperate entity from God, a savior born from divine and human stock. However, the nature of Jesus began to become an issue. In particular, how these natures were expressed were an issue. Some people think that these two different natures were separately dwelling in Christ's body, a doctrine posited by Nestorius and the Antioch See. This was opposed by two other concepts: the Apollinarian stance, where Jesus was of one quasi-divine nature with a human soul but a divine mind; and the Miaphysite stance, which proposed that Christ's twin heritages were bound together seamlessly into one new nature, which clearly showed elements of both. During this time, the Simonist Bible is finally codified to an acceptable specification.
[17] The controversy over the nature of Christ continued to rage during the reign of Mark IV, while Mark himself leaned towards the Nestorian view he felt that it had enough problems that he couldn't justify making it official doctrine. He is also notable for a series of letters and written dialogues with Neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia, whom he ultimately was able to convert to Christianity.
[18] The controversy between the three schools continued to occur during this time. Matthew himself tended to lean towards a Miaphysite stance himself, but was willing to hear out the Apollinarian and Nestorian stances as well. He was the first Patriarch to call for a second council to figure this out. He also began talks with the Patriarchs of Rome and Antioch on the nature of promoting other Sees as Patriarchies, as the three were among the most important sites of Christianity, as well as the most influential positions at the time. The three eventually came to an understanding, and would promote the See of Malabar into a Patriarchy by 411.
[19] John continued the idea of organizing a second council. However he died shortly before it took place.
[20] It was under Paul I that the Second Council of Alexandria was finally convened, and it proved to be a highly contentious debate. Especially with the injection of a fourth view, that of Eutyches of Byzantium (OOC I've assumed that the Empire hasn't been split up) who stated that Christ had a human nature, but it was unlike the rest of humanities due to being blended with God's Divine nature, but was still subordinate to God the Father due to his Human nature. In the end the Second Council embraced the Eutychesian view, and the council concluded.
[21] Gaius petitions the Emperor to launch campaigns to erase the remnants of Paganism and Trinitarianism throughout the empire. The Emperor agrees, though not very enthusiastically.
[22] Andrew during this time particularly spent efforts in converting the Trinitarians, since they were proselytizing the Germannic people near the borders of the Empire. A few tribes, such as the Alans and Franks, have taken this particular heresy. Many kept their native Germannic pantheon, but the Vandals took the Arian stance fairly early on.
[23] Paul II was forced to deal with Roman politics from afar, not realizing that the united Roman Empire as had been known for centuries was about to begin it's final act. While the Vandals and the Goths had converted to Arianism, many Germanic tribes were either Pagan or Trinitarian. Not to mention that the Imperial dynasty in Italy was crippled by infighting and a decline in everything from military strength to wealth, as a result they were heavily dependent upon Germanic mercenaries to carry the load. However reports reached Paul as he was dying in 460 that the Emperor had reneged on a contract, causing his Frankish and Alan allies to turn on him, they were pouring into northern Italy, being egged on by the Trinitarian claimant to the See of Rome as Paul II died.
[24] During Theophilus's long reign, much of Italy fell to the Germanic tribes, and the Emperor and rightful Bishop of Rome fled to Alexandria. Despite the setbacks from these heretical barbarians, Gregory accurately sees the opportunities opened from being now the most powerful man in the Empire.
[25] Paul III was more aware of the situation than his previous namesake. In this respect, he exploited the fact that for all their power, the Germannic tribes were a minority in much of the land. He encouraged passive resistance from the Arian community, which made up most of the Christian communities in Europe. During this time, the Suebi, lords of Northwestern Hispania, converted to Arianism. He also attempted to reconcile with the Patriarch of Antioch, who was deemed a Heretic due to his Nestorian leanings back in 420; Trinitarianism being far worse than Nestorianism in his mind.
[26] Mark V continued many of Paul III's political policies that bore some fruit when an alliance of Vandals and Goths managed to seize northern Italy, trapping the Frankish puppet emperor in southern Italy, however the Alans who had settled in parts of central Europe proceeded to harass the Vandal-Goths, draining their forces. During this there was a fierce competition between the Arians and Trinitarians over the conversion of the Germanic tribes, and the first recorded missionaries traveled to Arabia. In Alexandria, Julius Nepos died without naming an heir, however Mark V presented a document called the Donation of Julius Nepos stating that the Patriarch was granted authority over the Imperial succession when there was a vacancy. He personally crowned the next Roman Emperor, unknowingly marking the birth of what historians would called the Alexandrian Empire. A more immediate effect of this was to display the Patriarch's growing temporal power, which upon Mark's death left many people uneasy.
[27] Donatus strengthened the iconoclastic policies first exhibited by his namesake in 3rd century, as the Germannic tribes often would have icons or idols. This Second Iconoclasm ended up being much more successful, mainly due to much weaker opposition from the west. However many opponents blamed this new policy for the major successes of Trinitarian heresy, which began to outdo the efforts of the church in converting the Germannic peoples.
[28] The reign of Mark VI saw mixed success and failure in stamping out Trinitarianism. The good news is that Italy and most of Gaul was finally safe from the threat of Heresy, the Vandals and Goths managing to destroy the Frankish state in Italia, and the Burgundians forced to be vassals of King Alaric of the Goths. In fact, Mark VI would grant the two tribes many lands in Southern Gaul and Italy respectively for these tasks, as well as crowns. But the Alans continued to have a strong state in Pannonia and Raetia, their realm being the most stable and powerful of the Trinitarian states of Europe. In Britannia, the Arian communities there faced invasions by the Saxons, Angles and Jutes, who were a mix of Germannic and Trinitarian faiths.
[29] Theophilus II continued the mix of success and failure in dealing with Trinitarianism. While the Germanic and Trinitarian tribes in Britannia began fighting each other and gave the Arians there breathing space, the Alans were weakened by the death of their King, leaving the throne in the hands of a five year old boy and an unpopular regent. The bad news was that the Frankish tribes that were driven out of Italia joined their brothers in northern Gaul and reinforced them, solidifying their hold on the region. It was also during Theophilus's reign that several changes were made to the election of the Alexandrian Patriarch. While previously the Patriarch had been elected by the Laity and Clergy in the city of Alexandria itself, in time the nobility began selecting or vetoing candidates prior to the voting, the candidates themselves tended to come from what was called 'Priestly families', i.e. families that had made dioceses defacto fiefs. This also tied into the discussion of celibacy, while considered a 'holy' discipline, was not mandatory in the Alexandrian Church, as a result the high ranking priests and bishops tended to have families and pass their holdings down to their sons. With the Emperor's support, Theophilus restricted the voting of the new Patriarch to the Bishops, though the Emperor had the right to veto candidates prior to the voting. He also tried to make celibacy mandatory for the Bishops and high ranking clergy but found the opposition was simply too strong. While this was occurring, the Alexandrian Emperor was expanding the Empire outward, Nubia and the Holy Land were both seized and several Arab tribes became sworn vassals. It was also in Theophilus's reign that the term 'Alexandrian Catholic Church' was first written to describe the church.
[30] Paul seeing a need for a place of worship that would be worthy of imperial capital, sanctioned(with Emeror's financial backing) the construction of the Church of Christ the Only-Begotten.
[31] The first non-Egyptian Patriarch of Alexandria since Mark V, fifty years before, Paul V got on famously with the Emperor of Alexandria and went on several campaigns with him. The end of his reign of Patriarch came after he was struck down by a arrow as he rode with the Emperor to war.
Bishops of Malabar (Patriarchs of Kerala: 411 onward)
52 - 72: Thomas I "The Apostle" (Palestine - Early Christian)
72 - 100: John I (Kerala - Early Christian)
100 - 111: Nathan (Kerala - Early Christian)
111 - 134: David (Kerala - Early Christian)
134 - 146: Tobias (Tamil Nadu - Early Christian)
146 - 170: Thomas II (Tamil Nadu - Early Christian)
170 - 185: Luke I (Tamil Nadu - Early Christian)
185 - 194: Samuel (Kerala - Early Christian)
194 - 195: Luke II (Tamil Nadu - Early Christian)
195 - 211: David II (Sri Lanka - Early Christian) [1]
211 - 219: Thomas III (Tami Nadu - Early Christian/Marcionism) [2]
219 - 232: John II (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [3]
232 - 240: Timothy I (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [4]
240 - 247: Barnabas (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [5]
247 - 249: Timothy II (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [6]
249 - 260: John III (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [7]
260 - 278: David III (Kerala - Docetism/Pre-Monophysite) [8]
278 - 283: John IV (Kerala - Docetism/Pre-Monophysite) [9]
283 - 317: Samuel II (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [10]
317 - 324: Issachar (Kerala - Apollinarianism/Arianism?) [11]
324 - 329: Samuel III (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [12]
329 - 341: Benjamin I (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [13]
341 - 350: David IV (Kerala - Apollinarianism)
350 - 372: Luke II (Bisnegar - Apollinarianism) [14]
372 - 389: Thomas IV (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [15]
389 - 407: Daniel I (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [16]
407 - 410: Samuel IV (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [17]
410 - 420: Benjamin II (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [18]
420 - 431: Joshua (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [19]
431 - 439: Jacob (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [20]
439 - 442: Alexander I (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [21]
442 - 460: David Alexander (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [22]
460 - 477: Daniel II (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [23]
477 - 491: Alexander II (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [24]
491 - 494: Thomas V (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [25]
494 - 512: Noah (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [26]
512 (38 Days): John V (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [27]
512 - 523: Daniel III (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [28]
523 - 524 (201 days): Alexander III (Bisengar - Appolinariainism) [29]
[1] The first Bishop of Malabar to return west and see the Levant. He got dragged into several discussions by the Patriarch of Antioch and Bishop of Jerusalem over the Nasrani flock he presided over. He also gave the occasional opinion on some of the controversies of the time, particularly the Gnostic Controversy.
[2] Thomas III was a controversial figure, he promoted ideas that were influenced by Marcionism, and considered radical.
[3] John II on the other hand was more opposed to Marcionism. He was tolerant of that doctrine, but disagreed with the dualistic concept that Marcion envisioned. It is of note that he was a Docetist, believing that Christ had no human nature.
[4] Timothy I was a student of John II and thus was an even more enthusiastic supporter of Docetism than his predecessor.
[5] Barnabas is also Docetist but is most interested in worldly political affairs; this gets him beheaded when interfering with a local succession crisis. The church now begins a period of subordination and its moral authority is diminished.
[6] The brief reign of Timothy II saw major instability and defection in the Kerala Christian community.
[7] The flock continues to dwindle under John III, with many independent congregations and cults forming and Marcionists establish their own unofficial diocese in Madurai. However, he is able to keep the church's finances and properties well-managed.
[8] David, using the finances and stability secured by John III, begins to proselytize outside of the traditional borders of the See. in particular, he preached in Guajarat and on the Deccan plateau. These efforts would be of some success, particularly on the Deccan. The position of this church by now is firmly Docetist, and his writings begin to take on a monophysitic tone.
[9] The short reign of John IV would not have been noteworthy except for a number of books written by John that would serve as a blueprint for the theological evolution of the St. Thomas See.
[10] Samuel II would take the books written by John and expanded upon it. He finished the process as well, finally determining what Christ was. It was decided by the St. Thomas See that Christ was of divine stock; that was apparent. It was also apparent that he had elements of humanity, he being sent to "die" for humanity's sins. He codified the idea that Jesus was of a unique nature; he had the flesh and soul of a mortal man, but the mind of a divine. This explained how he lacked a human nature, but why his death "accounted" for humanity's sins. He would, along with his rival, the Bishop of Madurai, would also attend the Council of Ravenna, which would condemn Trinitarianism as a heresy. His decision to agree with the council was one of the few times he agreed with his rival in Madurai.
[11] Issachar visits the Holy Land, and aims to continue dialogue with the Arian churches. While he dies at sea on his way back, there are writings attributed to him that circulate through Palestine that seem to indicate full agreement with Arianism. These take several years to make it to India. Authenticity of these documents is never verified.
[12] A former student of Samuel II, his namesake Samuel III rejected Arianism as heresy and pushed for the continued embrace of Apollinarianism.
[13] Benjamin looked back on a lot of what Arianism preached, and found it to remain compatible with the Apollinarian doctrine. They agreed that Jesus was a different being to God, and some Arian branches did have elements of Docetism in their thinking. He undid the proclamation as a result of these grounds.
[14] Luke II was the first Bishop of Malabar to not hail from Kerala in over 100 years. During his reign, he came to represent the See of St. Thomas in the 1st Council of Tarsus, as the bishops began to fully hammer this issue out. He did a great job in both promoting the Apollinarian creed on Christ's nature and defending its policies. As it stood, Apollinarianism became an accepted creed among many westerners.
[15] Thomas IV was the first bishop to request that his See be elevated to the status of Patriarch due to the growth of the overall Indian Christian community.
[16] Daniel sent missionary expeditions to Southeast Asia during this time, partially to spread the word, and to some degree to prove that the See of St. Thomas was indeed worthy enough to be the seat of a Patriarch. These activities were somewhat successful, as a decent community of Christians would exist on Sumatra by the time of his death.
[17] Samuel's short pontificate saw the rise of new Gnostic sects that exhibited strong Hinduist and Jainist influences.
[18] Benjamin II was a strong opponent of the 'Indian Gnostics' that had emerged, granted he was forced to work along side the Chera dynasty (who were still Hindu along with the majority of Kerala) to do this. Meanwhile word reached Kerala of the Second Council of Alexandria and it's decision regarding the nature of Christ, debate raged among the St. Thomas Christians regarding the merits of Eutychesism but Benjamin died before he could issue a ruling.
[19] Joshua made clear his opinion against Eutychesism but didn't go so far as to declare the teaching heretical because he didn't want to cause a rift in the church. But this pleased nobody.
[20] Jacob was similar in mind on Eutychesism, mainly because of how this concept made the assumption that throughout all of Christ, it assumed that his human and divine stock was completely blended together. In fact, his dialectics actually seemed somewhat closer to the Nestorian view that was deemed heretical at the Second Council of 420, which differed from predecessors like Luke II, who often found more cause with the Arian view. For now though, he focused more on the Gnostics than religious dogma. During this time, one particular Gnostic sect, the Satyavists, became the main group that the See and Kerala had to deal with. Based on the Jaina faith, it's a strange blend of Christianity, Jaina Dharma, and even elements of Manichaeism.
[21] Alexander in his brief reign had to contend with the strange heretical Christian hybrid faiths taking hold not just among the 'heathens' but among the Christians in the Kerala community. He had made preparations to speak to the Chera Emperor about the matter but died, some say of poison.
[22] In defiance of the Chera Emperor and others who are harassing the church, the next Patriarch takes the double-barreled conqueror name of David Alexander. When the Chera Emperor dies soon after David Alexander confronts him, many return to the fold and the church prospers.
[23] It is during the time of Daniel II that Chera's Christian population becomes the plurality. Some of the Chera dynasty even become members, although the Emperor continued to be Hindu in faith.
[24] It was Alexander II who converted the heir of the Chera Dynasty and witnessed the coronation of the first Christian Emperor of the dynasty and proclaimed Christianity the state religion of his Empire, effectively all of southern India was now Christian rule. However the Christian community of the Empire was heavily divided, and while the Emperor supported Alexander II, he couldn't enforce conformity to Apollinarianism without setting off a civil war, so the definition of what was 'Christian' was deliberately left vague and could mean virtually anything. Something that annoyed Alexander II to no end.
[25] During Thomas's pontificate the great Hindu Uprising broke out. The Patriarch himself was captured and executed by the rebels.
[26] The Uprising subsided by 503, and Chera, while weakened during this generation, remained Christian ruled. It is around this time that Hinduism began to decline in Southern India due to the loss of leadership for the faith. Many would convert to the two Christian creeds, or Ashtamaarga Dharma.
[27] John V would only reign for 38 days before dying of a heart attack.
[28] Daniel's pontificate was marked with Chera Emperor's increased influence over the matters of the Church. Daniel himself was seen by many as nothing more than an imperial proxy.
[29] Alexander III was the first Patriarch of Kerala, not to hail from the city itself and as a result his patriarchy lasts 201 days before he is murdered in his sleep.
Bishops of Madurai (Patriarchs of Madurai: 424 onward)
258 - 262: Thomas IV (Tami Nadu - Marcionism) [1]
262 - 283: Tobias II (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [2]
283 - 301: Paul I (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [3]
301 - 319: Ezekiel (Sri Lanka - Marcionism) [4]
319 - 334: Tobias III (Sri Lanka - Marcionism) [5]
334 - 335: Peter (Sri Lanka - Marcionism) [6]
335 - 349: Paul II (Andhra - Marcionism) [7]
349 - 361: Thomas V (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism)
361 - 377: Paul III (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [8]
377 - 391: Gabriel I (Sri Lanka - Marcionism) [9]
391 - 404: Zachary I (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [10]
404 - 405: Tobias IV (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [11]
405 - 417: Thomas VI (Kerala - Marcionism) [12]
417 - 438: John Mark (Andhra - Marcionism) [13]
438 - 442: James I (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [14]
442 - 451: Gabriel II (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism/Ashtamaarga Dharma?) [15]
451 - 467: Zachary II (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [16]
467 - 473: Enoch (Andhra - Marcionism) [17]
478 - 490: John III (Andhra - Marcionism) [18]
490 - 500: James II (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [19]
500 - 517: Tobias V (Andhra - Marcionism) [20]
517 - 526: Thomas VII (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [21]
526 - 528: John IV (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism)
528 - 544: Thomas VIII (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism)
[1] The Tamil Christians had leaned more towards Marcionism for decades and make it official with their own church.
[2] Tobias II was quite successful in having the faithful on Sri Lanka, who tended to be split, join the unofficial Diocese of Madurai. He also sent expeditions to states as far as China.
[3] It was in Paul's reign that the title 'Patriarch of Madurai' first emerged in writing, though it was not official at the time.
[4] Ezekiel, along with the Bishop of Malabar, went back west on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The two Bishops were terse for much of the time, and disagreed on doctrine often. The two members of the eastern most Churches in this time were brought in to the Council of Ravenna to help hammer out the final nature between Jesus and God. Despite the occasional whispers of "Gnostic" by several priests, and regular disagreements with the nature of how God works, Ezekiel found common ground with the rest and rejected the concept of Jesus being one with the True God.
[5] Tobias III oversaw the growth of the church in Sri Lanka, though its position among Tamils remains steady.
[6] Peter was barely Bishop for ten months before he died of old age, making his reign fairly short.
[7] Paul II spent his time collecting religious texts that were deemed apocryphal by the Arians of the West to design a Marcionite Bible, finding the Arian one missing things and having texts that should not be there.
[8] The first version of the Marcionite Bible is fully finished, although much like the Arian version, teething is an issue that needs to be fixed.
[9] Gabriel I had to finish resolving the issues relating to the Marcionite Bible, specifically what to do about the Old Testament. While the Marcionites viewed the Old Testament as useless in a religious context due to being superseded by the New Testament (specifically the Gospel of Luke and select writings of St. Paul), many felt that the Old Testament had value in a historical context and should be included to give the Marcionite Bible context. The Context debate raged with Gabriel being against including it, but the issue wasn't resolved by the time of his death.
[10] Zachary continued to work on the Marcionite Bible, which by this point had a generally accepted New Testament in it. Issues continued to be made on the matter of the Old Testament. Zachary argued for including it, since it needed to be in there for context. It needed to be in there primarily because it explained too much to not be included, such as the flawed world, the nature of the Demiurge, and the setting for which the Monad came to provide a means to escape that flawed world.
[11] Tobias died of disease 4 months after the election. Since he was a staunch supporter of including the Old Testament into the Bible, many saw it as sign that his position was wrong. Others however claimed that his death might not have been quite natural.
[12] Thomas VI was the first Kerala born Bishop of Madurai and supported the inclusion of the Old Testament, as a result the first completed Marcionite Bible came to be called the Thomas VI Bible. It was in Thomas V's reign that the church found itself coming under pressure from the Buddhist authorities due to the growth and increasing visibility of the Sri Lankan Church.
[13] John Mark arose out of obscurity to become a dynamic leader, and claimed the "Patriarch" title. He also clarified the use of the Old Testament in the Thomas VI Bible, banning its use liturgically (except for a few select passages) but otherwise respecting it as part of the Word of God. He found a point of agreement with the Sri Lankan authorities by clamping down on some rogue priests who were blending Buddhist teaching and practices in their missionary activity. He is also more disposed to expansion in his native Andhra, anyway.
[14] James was noted to continue efforts in Andhra, which lacked the strong central authority that Sri Lanka had. However, John Mark's efforts in dismantling the syncretists were not fully successful. The most radical of the bunch formed the Ashtamaarga Dharma, "Eight Way Path", a heterodox faith based on Buddhism and Christianity.
[15] Gabriel II was rumored to be a secret follower of the 'Eight Way Path', though it was never proven he was obviously sympathetic to some of their ideas due to his incorporating of several 'Semi-Buddhist' rituals and Christianized Buddhist prayers into the liturgy to great controversy.
[16] Zachary II is famous for his declaration that while Buddhists (or even Hindus) may be seeing a glimpse of the One True God, only the Gospel is complete, and lays out a policy for incorporating some Buddhist concepts into prayer and liturgy. Nevertheless he strictly categorizes the "Eight Way Path" as heretical.
[17] Ashtamaarga Dharma remains a major thorn in the side of the Marcionite Church, beginning to spread to the mainland as well.
[18] While the church had grown strong in both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, John III witnessed the rise of the first Christian Chera Emperor to the throne, but under the guidance of the Apollinarian Patriarch Alexander II. It is known that John III engaged in a series of complex political maneuvers at court, but what these were are unknown. But the end results were an unofficial toleration for his faith.
[19] While Malabar was engulfed in a bloody civil war Madurai enjoyed a peaceful period during James's pontificate. However during the later years of his rule concerning news started to come from the missionaries in the east. Apparently Ashtamaarga Dharma also started a missionary activity in the region and actually managed to gather quite a lot of followers.
[20] Tobias, working together with the Patriarch of Kerala, began to contain and force the heterodox Ashtamaarga Dharma northward and out of the See, into the other states of India. This was modestly successful, in that the mainland would see a stable or even shrinking amount of the faith in the region, but the Eight Way Path remained stubbornly intact in Sri Lanka. On top of that, the evicted preachers and faithful would simply settle down in northern India and spread the words of the Twin Prophets (As Buddha and Jesus were known by in the faith), particularly in OTL Rajasthan.
[21] Thomas VII tried to counteract the spread of the Eight Way Path by sending his own missionaries throughout India with partial success. Unfortunately for him the Sri Lankan authorities preferred dealing with the blended Buddhist Christians over the actual ones and a wave of persecutions began in Sri Lanka to make the orthodox Marcionites embrace either Buddhism or the Eight Way Path version of Christianity.[/QUOTE]
43 - 68: Mark I "The Evangelist" (Libya - Early Christian)
68 - 79: Cornelius (Egyptian - Early Christian)
79 - 94: Erastus (Palestine - Early Christian)
94 - 107: Luke I (Syrian - Early Christian)
107 - 122: Simon I (Egyptian - Early Christian)
122 - 134: Mark II (Egyptian - Early Christian)
134 - 166: Solomon (Greek - Early Christian) [1]
166 - 189: Reuben (Egyptian - Early Christian) [2]
189 - 201: Prudentius (Egyptian - Early Christian) [3]
201 - 208: Severus (Syrian - Gnostic/Basilidean) [4]
208 - 221: Rhodo (Syrian - Early Christian/Pre-Arian) [5]
221 - 238: Donatus I (Egyptian - Early Christian/Novatian) [6]
238 - 252: Luke II (Egyptian - Early Christian/Arian) [7]
252 - 255: Philip (Greek - Early Christian/Arian)
255 - 263: Auxentius (Egyptian - Arian) [8]
263 - 279: Ananias (Libyan - Arian) [9]
279 - 293: Mark III (Libyan - Arian) [10]
293 - 311: John I (Libyan - Arian) [11]
311 - 322: Donatus II (Egyptian - Arian) [12]
322 - 328: Terence (Egyptian - Arian) [13]
328 - 334: John II (Greek - Arian) [14]
334 - 346: Simon II (Palestine - Arian) [15]
346 - 361: John III (Palestine - Arian)
361 - 375: Martin (Nubia - Arian) [16]
380 - 401: Mark IV (Egyptian - Arian) [17]
401 - 414: Matthew (Egyptian - Arian) [18]
414 - 416: John IV (Palestine - Arian) [19]
416 - 423: Paul I (Nubia - Arian) [20]
424 - 433: Gaius (Syrian - Arian) [21]
433 - 441: Andrew (Egyptian - Arian) [22]
441 - 460: Paul II (Egyptian - Arian) [23]
460 - 479: Theophilus I (Egyptian - Arian) [24]
479 - 488: Paul III (Libyan - Arian) [25]
488 - 509: Mark V (Greek - Arian) [26]
509 - 516: Donatus III (Egyptian - Arian) [27]
516 - 527: Mark VI (Egyptian - Arian) [28]
527 - 535: Theophilus II (Egyptian - Arian) [29]
535 - 543: Paul IV (Egyptian - Arian) [30]
543 - 555: Paul V (Greek - Arian) [31]
[1] It was in the reign of Solomon that several controversies regarding dogma and the nature of God and Jesus began to stir and divide the Christian community.
[2] Reuben's reign saw the beginnings of a controversy surrounding the nature of conversion. Several members of the community feel that a person who renounces Christ cannot be brought back into the flock. Others feel that they can be redeemed and repent of that lapse. The rifts in dogma continue to grow as well.
[3] Prudentius was accused of being a secret Gnostic, a label that he reject vigorously, however his writings were of such an esoteric nature that they were considered questionable by the Bishop of Rome. The divisions in Christendom in general continued to grow, even as Prudentius supported the elevation of several controversial bishops.
[4] Severus was one of the bishops promoted by Prudentius. Rather than his predecessor's leaning towards Gnostic elements, Severus was outed as a Gnostic three years into his reign. In particular, he was a Basilidean, a group who believed in the three sonships of creation (aether, material, and purification), and the concept of an inborn evil that is purged by punishment. While not as radical as Sethian and Messalian Gnosticism, it really rankled the Bishops of Rome and Antioch, who saw it as semi-pagan as it was. It also really bothered a lot of believers in the See, who eventually managed to replace him with Rhodo.
[5] Rhodo of Syria was elevated due visions in Christendom in general continued to grow, even as Prudentius supported to being one of the few bishops not selected by Prudentius and was viewed as acceptable. While his reign was quiet, his writings would inspire a number of priests to develop radical ideas, most notably the man history would know as Arius.
[6] Donatus was a member of the Novatians, a branch of Christianity that was founded in the early 3rd Century by Novatus of Ravenna. Recognized to some degree by Bishop of Antioch and Jerusalem, it still is controversial in many communities. In particular, the Bishop of Rome was opposed to the group due to their opposition towards accepting Relapsi back into the fold. Donatus would introduce the concept of Iconoclasm to the church, destroying many of the more opulent pieces of art and donating the mineral wealth back into the community. This would in some way affect the future Arius' stance on religious artwork and wealth.
[7] Luke II continued the Iconoclasm of Donatus despite the condemnations from Rome, Luke and the Bishop of Rome exchanged a series of furious letters in which Luke accused the latter of being a secret Pagan. Even as the Roman Empire fell into the chaos that was the 'Crisis of the Third Century' Luke II kept his people (mostly) out of the fray. Late in his reign when local presbyter Arian published a number of texts that defined Jesus, the Son of God as subordinate and distinct from God the Father, Luke II refused to remove Arian from office. While accused of heresy, Luke supported Arian and in the last year of his life, Luke II and the Bishop of Rome excommunicated each other.
[8] Auxentius explicitly embraced Arian's doctrine and elevated him as a bishop and worked to bring the Christian churches in line. Arianism spread like wildfire through the African Christian community which began to see the Patriarchy of Alexandria as it's leader.
[9] Ananias, leading an energized and passionate church, encourages missionary activity through Africa and even the fringes of Europe, preaching Arianism.
[10] Mark III has also begun missionary efforts to as far as Britannia and Hispania, to even the Persians of the Sassanid Empire. Arianism proves to be a more palatable choice with the Gallic peoples and Germannic Foederati, and is a major competitor for the Bishop of Rome. The main fight in the west is between the Latin Rite and the Alexandrian Rite.
[11] The reign of John I would witness the conversion of the Roman Emperor Diocletian to Arianism, he then proceeded to launch a campaign to promote his new faith among the people of the Empire. Working with the Emperor, John I organized the First Council of Alexandria in order to form a consensus that represented true Christendom. Needless to say that the Arian formula was adopted and those who rejected it would be considered heretics. It was also during John's reign that the first Arian Bishop of Rome was installed and paid homage to the Patriarch of Alexandria.
[12] Donatus II's reign was spent communing with the Patriarch of Rome and the Bishop of Jerusalem over handling the Nicene Heresy. Nicenism, also known as Trinitarianism, were those who followed the Antipope of Rome, Paul of Thessaloniki's creed. It believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were of the same substance and formed together to form God. It remained fairly rampant throughout the Eastern reaches of the Empire, particularly Anatolia and Greece. It was around this time, the gospels and books of the new Testament were beginning to be codified.
[13] Many great signs and healing miracles are attributed to Terence which is seen as confirmation of God's favor. The New Testament canon has not yet been fully established.
[14] John II was the first Patriarch to take a new name upon assuming office, since his birth name of 'Heraclius' was deemed too pagan. John II is also notable for presenting his life's work, a 'complete' version of the Bible that kept most of the Old Testament and for the new relied on the Gospel of John. While he kept most of Apostle Paul's writings he rejected the Book of Revelations as heretical. The John II version of the Bible wasn't fully accepted and it's merits and accuracy of it's translation work was being debated by the time he died.
[15] Simon, more versed in Aramaic as well as Greek and Latin, compared John II's translations of each book. He found that John was relatively accurate, but tended to take liberties with the accepted Gospels. The most significant example was the Gospel of Thomas, which John II edited to remove most of the dualistic thinking that was seen as Gnosticism. Rereading this gospel made him decide to restore the Gospel in full, feeling that the original text as it was was not Gnostic in nature. Other changes include removing the Gospel of Bartholemew from the text, which was seen as too Docetic in nature, and putting in the Gospel of James, which was neglected at first by his predecessor. Simon's New Testament was seen with more success, but issues remained on what other books should be put into the Bible and which needed to be removed.
[16] Martin's reign began to see more controversies pop up during this time. The status of the Son by this point is relatively understood by all churches in communion, even the distant churches of St. Thomas. Jesus was a seperate entity from God, a savior born from divine and human stock. However, the nature of Jesus began to become an issue. In particular, how these natures were expressed were an issue. Some people think that these two different natures were separately dwelling in Christ's body, a doctrine posited by Nestorius and the Antioch See. This was opposed by two other concepts: the Apollinarian stance, where Jesus was of one quasi-divine nature with a human soul but a divine mind; and the Miaphysite stance, which proposed that Christ's twin heritages were bound together seamlessly into one new nature, which clearly showed elements of both. During this time, the Simonist Bible is finally codified to an acceptable specification.
[17] The controversy over the nature of Christ continued to rage during the reign of Mark IV, while Mark himself leaned towards the Nestorian view he felt that it had enough problems that he couldn't justify making it official doctrine. He is also notable for a series of letters and written dialogues with Neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia, whom he ultimately was able to convert to Christianity.
[18] The controversy between the three schools continued to occur during this time. Matthew himself tended to lean towards a Miaphysite stance himself, but was willing to hear out the Apollinarian and Nestorian stances as well. He was the first Patriarch to call for a second council to figure this out. He also began talks with the Patriarchs of Rome and Antioch on the nature of promoting other Sees as Patriarchies, as the three were among the most important sites of Christianity, as well as the most influential positions at the time. The three eventually came to an understanding, and would promote the See of Malabar into a Patriarchy by 411.
[19] John continued the idea of organizing a second council. However he died shortly before it took place.
[20] It was under Paul I that the Second Council of Alexandria was finally convened, and it proved to be a highly contentious debate. Especially with the injection of a fourth view, that of Eutyches of Byzantium (OOC I've assumed that the Empire hasn't been split up) who stated that Christ had a human nature, but it was unlike the rest of humanities due to being blended with God's Divine nature, but was still subordinate to God the Father due to his Human nature. In the end the Second Council embraced the Eutychesian view, and the council concluded.
[21] Gaius petitions the Emperor to launch campaigns to erase the remnants of Paganism and Trinitarianism throughout the empire. The Emperor agrees, though not very enthusiastically.
[22] Andrew during this time particularly spent efforts in converting the Trinitarians, since they were proselytizing the Germannic people near the borders of the Empire. A few tribes, such as the Alans and Franks, have taken this particular heresy. Many kept their native Germannic pantheon, but the Vandals took the Arian stance fairly early on.
[23] Paul II was forced to deal with Roman politics from afar, not realizing that the united Roman Empire as had been known for centuries was about to begin it's final act. While the Vandals and the Goths had converted to Arianism, many Germanic tribes were either Pagan or Trinitarian. Not to mention that the Imperial dynasty in Italy was crippled by infighting and a decline in everything from military strength to wealth, as a result they were heavily dependent upon Germanic mercenaries to carry the load. However reports reached Paul as he was dying in 460 that the Emperor had reneged on a contract, causing his Frankish and Alan allies to turn on him, they were pouring into northern Italy, being egged on by the Trinitarian claimant to the See of Rome as Paul II died.
[24] During Theophilus's long reign, much of Italy fell to the Germanic tribes, and the Emperor and rightful Bishop of Rome fled to Alexandria. Despite the setbacks from these heretical barbarians, Gregory accurately sees the opportunities opened from being now the most powerful man in the Empire.
[25] Paul III was more aware of the situation than his previous namesake. In this respect, he exploited the fact that for all their power, the Germannic tribes were a minority in much of the land. He encouraged passive resistance from the Arian community, which made up most of the Christian communities in Europe. During this time, the Suebi, lords of Northwestern Hispania, converted to Arianism. He also attempted to reconcile with the Patriarch of Antioch, who was deemed a Heretic due to his Nestorian leanings back in 420; Trinitarianism being far worse than Nestorianism in his mind.
[26] Mark V continued many of Paul III's political policies that bore some fruit when an alliance of Vandals and Goths managed to seize northern Italy, trapping the Frankish puppet emperor in southern Italy, however the Alans who had settled in parts of central Europe proceeded to harass the Vandal-Goths, draining their forces. During this there was a fierce competition between the Arians and Trinitarians over the conversion of the Germanic tribes, and the first recorded missionaries traveled to Arabia. In Alexandria, Julius Nepos died without naming an heir, however Mark V presented a document called the Donation of Julius Nepos stating that the Patriarch was granted authority over the Imperial succession when there was a vacancy. He personally crowned the next Roman Emperor, unknowingly marking the birth of what historians would called the Alexandrian Empire. A more immediate effect of this was to display the Patriarch's growing temporal power, which upon Mark's death left many people uneasy.
[27] Donatus strengthened the iconoclastic policies first exhibited by his namesake in 3rd century, as the Germannic tribes often would have icons or idols. This Second Iconoclasm ended up being much more successful, mainly due to much weaker opposition from the west. However many opponents blamed this new policy for the major successes of Trinitarian heresy, which began to outdo the efforts of the church in converting the Germannic peoples.
[28] The reign of Mark VI saw mixed success and failure in stamping out Trinitarianism. The good news is that Italy and most of Gaul was finally safe from the threat of Heresy, the Vandals and Goths managing to destroy the Frankish state in Italia, and the Burgundians forced to be vassals of King Alaric of the Goths. In fact, Mark VI would grant the two tribes many lands in Southern Gaul and Italy respectively for these tasks, as well as crowns. But the Alans continued to have a strong state in Pannonia and Raetia, their realm being the most stable and powerful of the Trinitarian states of Europe. In Britannia, the Arian communities there faced invasions by the Saxons, Angles and Jutes, who were a mix of Germannic and Trinitarian faiths.
[29] Theophilus II continued the mix of success and failure in dealing with Trinitarianism. While the Germanic and Trinitarian tribes in Britannia began fighting each other and gave the Arians there breathing space, the Alans were weakened by the death of their King, leaving the throne in the hands of a five year old boy and an unpopular regent. The bad news was that the Frankish tribes that were driven out of Italia joined their brothers in northern Gaul and reinforced them, solidifying their hold on the region. It was also during Theophilus's reign that several changes were made to the election of the Alexandrian Patriarch. While previously the Patriarch had been elected by the Laity and Clergy in the city of Alexandria itself, in time the nobility began selecting or vetoing candidates prior to the voting, the candidates themselves tended to come from what was called 'Priestly families', i.e. families that had made dioceses defacto fiefs. This also tied into the discussion of celibacy, while considered a 'holy' discipline, was not mandatory in the Alexandrian Church, as a result the high ranking priests and bishops tended to have families and pass their holdings down to their sons. With the Emperor's support, Theophilus restricted the voting of the new Patriarch to the Bishops, though the Emperor had the right to veto candidates prior to the voting. He also tried to make celibacy mandatory for the Bishops and high ranking clergy but found the opposition was simply too strong. While this was occurring, the Alexandrian Emperor was expanding the Empire outward, Nubia and the Holy Land were both seized and several Arab tribes became sworn vassals. It was also in Theophilus's reign that the term 'Alexandrian Catholic Church' was first written to describe the church.
[30] Paul seeing a need for a place of worship that would be worthy of imperial capital, sanctioned(with Emeror's financial backing) the construction of the Church of Christ the Only-Begotten.
[31] The first non-Egyptian Patriarch of Alexandria since Mark V, fifty years before, Paul V got on famously with the Emperor of Alexandria and went on several campaigns with him. The end of his reign of Patriarch came after he was struck down by a arrow as he rode with the Emperor to war.
Bishops of Malabar (Patriarchs of Kerala: 411 onward)
52 - 72: Thomas I "The Apostle" (Palestine - Early Christian)
72 - 100: John I (Kerala - Early Christian)
100 - 111: Nathan (Kerala - Early Christian)
111 - 134: David (Kerala - Early Christian)
134 - 146: Tobias (Tamil Nadu - Early Christian)
146 - 170: Thomas II (Tamil Nadu - Early Christian)
170 - 185: Luke I (Tamil Nadu - Early Christian)
185 - 194: Samuel (Kerala - Early Christian)
194 - 195: Luke II (Tamil Nadu - Early Christian)
195 - 211: David II (Sri Lanka - Early Christian) [1]
211 - 219: Thomas III (Tami Nadu - Early Christian/Marcionism) [2]
219 - 232: John II (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [3]
232 - 240: Timothy I (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [4]
240 - 247: Barnabas (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [5]
247 - 249: Timothy II (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [6]
249 - 260: John III (Kerala - Early Christian/Docetism) [7]
260 - 278: David III (Kerala - Docetism/Pre-Monophysite) [8]
278 - 283: John IV (Kerala - Docetism/Pre-Monophysite) [9]
283 - 317: Samuel II (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [10]
317 - 324: Issachar (Kerala - Apollinarianism/Arianism?) [11]
324 - 329: Samuel III (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [12]
329 - 341: Benjamin I (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [13]
341 - 350: David IV (Kerala - Apollinarianism)
350 - 372: Luke II (Bisnegar - Apollinarianism) [14]
372 - 389: Thomas IV (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [15]
389 - 407: Daniel I (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [16]
407 - 410: Samuel IV (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [17]
410 - 420: Benjamin II (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [18]
420 - 431: Joshua (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [19]
431 - 439: Jacob (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [20]
439 - 442: Alexander I (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [21]
442 - 460: David Alexander (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [22]
460 - 477: Daniel II (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [23]
477 - 491: Alexander II (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [24]
491 - 494: Thomas V (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [25]
494 - 512: Noah (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [26]
512 (38 Days): John V (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [27]
512 - 523: Daniel III (Kerala - Apollinarianism) [28]
523 - 524 (201 days): Alexander III (Bisengar - Appolinariainism) [29]
[1] The first Bishop of Malabar to return west and see the Levant. He got dragged into several discussions by the Patriarch of Antioch and Bishop of Jerusalem over the Nasrani flock he presided over. He also gave the occasional opinion on some of the controversies of the time, particularly the Gnostic Controversy.
[2] Thomas III was a controversial figure, he promoted ideas that were influenced by Marcionism, and considered radical.
[3] John II on the other hand was more opposed to Marcionism. He was tolerant of that doctrine, but disagreed with the dualistic concept that Marcion envisioned. It is of note that he was a Docetist, believing that Christ had no human nature.
[4] Timothy I was a student of John II and thus was an even more enthusiastic supporter of Docetism than his predecessor.
[5] Barnabas is also Docetist but is most interested in worldly political affairs; this gets him beheaded when interfering with a local succession crisis. The church now begins a period of subordination and its moral authority is diminished.
[6] The brief reign of Timothy II saw major instability and defection in the Kerala Christian community.
[7] The flock continues to dwindle under John III, with many independent congregations and cults forming and Marcionists establish their own unofficial diocese in Madurai. However, he is able to keep the church's finances and properties well-managed.
[8] David, using the finances and stability secured by John III, begins to proselytize outside of the traditional borders of the See. in particular, he preached in Guajarat and on the Deccan plateau. These efforts would be of some success, particularly on the Deccan. The position of this church by now is firmly Docetist, and his writings begin to take on a monophysitic tone.
[9] The short reign of John IV would not have been noteworthy except for a number of books written by John that would serve as a blueprint for the theological evolution of the St. Thomas See.
[10] Samuel II would take the books written by John and expanded upon it. He finished the process as well, finally determining what Christ was. It was decided by the St. Thomas See that Christ was of divine stock; that was apparent. It was also apparent that he had elements of humanity, he being sent to "die" for humanity's sins. He codified the idea that Jesus was of a unique nature; he had the flesh and soul of a mortal man, but the mind of a divine. This explained how he lacked a human nature, but why his death "accounted" for humanity's sins. He would, along with his rival, the Bishop of Madurai, would also attend the Council of Ravenna, which would condemn Trinitarianism as a heresy. His decision to agree with the council was one of the few times he agreed with his rival in Madurai.
[11] Issachar visits the Holy Land, and aims to continue dialogue with the Arian churches. While he dies at sea on his way back, there are writings attributed to him that circulate through Palestine that seem to indicate full agreement with Arianism. These take several years to make it to India. Authenticity of these documents is never verified.
[12] A former student of Samuel II, his namesake Samuel III rejected Arianism as heresy and pushed for the continued embrace of Apollinarianism.
[13] Benjamin looked back on a lot of what Arianism preached, and found it to remain compatible with the Apollinarian doctrine. They agreed that Jesus was a different being to God, and some Arian branches did have elements of Docetism in their thinking. He undid the proclamation as a result of these grounds.
[14] Luke II was the first Bishop of Malabar to not hail from Kerala in over 100 years. During his reign, he came to represent the See of St. Thomas in the 1st Council of Tarsus, as the bishops began to fully hammer this issue out. He did a great job in both promoting the Apollinarian creed on Christ's nature and defending its policies. As it stood, Apollinarianism became an accepted creed among many westerners.
[15] Thomas IV was the first bishop to request that his See be elevated to the status of Patriarch due to the growth of the overall Indian Christian community.
[16] Daniel sent missionary expeditions to Southeast Asia during this time, partially to spread the word, and to some degree to prove that the See of St. Thomas was indeed worthy enough to be the seat of a Patriarch. These activities were somewhat successful, as a decent community of Christians would exist on Sumatra by the time of his death.
[17] Samuel's short pontificate saw the rise of new Gnostic sects that exhibited strong Hinduist and Jainist influences.
[18] Benjamin II was a strong opponent of the 'Indian Gnostics' that had emerged, granted he was forced to work along side the Chera dynasty (who were still Hindu along with the majority of Kerala) to do this. Meanwhile word reached Kerala of the Second Council of Alexandria and it's decision regarding the nature of Christ, debate raged among the St. Thomas Christians regarding the merits of Eutychesism but Benjamin died before he could issue a ruling.
[19] Joshua made clear his opinion against Eutychesism but didn't go so far as to declare the teaching heretical because he didn't want to cause a rift in the church. But this pleased nobody.
[20] Jacob was similar in mind on Eutychesism, mainly because of how this concept made the assumption that throughout all of Christ, it assumed that his human and divine stock was completely blended together. In fact, his dialectics actually seemed somewhat closer to the Nestorian view that was deemed heretical at the Second Council of 420, which differed from predecessors like Luke II, who often found more cause with the Arian view. For now though, he focused more on the Gnostics than religious dogma. During this time, one particular Gnostic sect, the Satyavists, became the main group that the See and Kerala had to deal with. Based on the Jaina faith, it's a strange blend of Christianity, Jaina Dharma, and even elements of Manichaeism.
[21] Alexander in his brief reign had to contend with the strange heretical Christian hybrid faiths taking hold not just among the 'heathens' but among the Christians in the Kerala community. He had made preparations to speak to the Chera Emperor about the matter but died, some say of poison.
[22] In defiance of the Chera Emperor and others who are harassing the church, the next Patriarch takes the double-barreled conqueror name of David Alexander. When the Chera Emperor dies soon after David Alexander confronts him, many return to the fold and the church prospers.
[23] It is during the time of Daniel II that Chera's Christian population becomes the plurality. Some of the Chera dynasty even become members, although the Emperor continued to be Hindu in faith.
[24] It was Alexander II who converted the heir of the Chera Dynasty and witnessed the coronation of the first Christian Emperor of the dynasty and proclaimed Christianity the state religion of his Empire, effectively all of southern India was now Christian rule. However the Christian community of the Empire was heavily divided, and while the Emperor supported Alexander II, he couldn't enforce conformity to Apollinarianism without setting off a civil war, so the definition of what was 'Christian' was deliberately left vague and could mean virtually anything. Something that annoyed Alexander II to no end.
[25] During Thomas's pontificate the great Hindu Uprising broke out. The Patriarch himself was captured and executed by the rebels.
[26] The Uprising subsided by 503, and Chera, while weakened during this generation, remained Christian ruled. It is around this time that Hinduism began to decline in Southern India due to the loss of leadership for the faith. Many would convert to the two Christian creeds, or Ashtamaarga Dharma.
[27] John V would only reign for 38 days before dying of a heart attack.
[28] Daniel's pontificate was marked with Chera Emperor's increased influence over the matters of the Church. Daniel himself was seen by many as nothing more than an imperial proxy.
[29] Alexander III was the first Patriarch of Kerala, not to hail from the city itself and as a result his patriarchy lasts 201 days before he is murdered in his sleep.
Bishops of Madurai (Patriarchs of Madurai: 424 onward)
258 - 262: Thomas IV (Tami Nadu - Marcionism) [1]
262 - 283: Tobias II (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [2]
283 - 301: Paul I (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [3]
301 - 319: Ezekiel (Sri Lanka - Marcionism) [4]
319 - 334: Tobias III (Sri Lanka - Marcionism) [5]
334 - 335: Peter (Sri Lanka - Marcionism) [6]
335 - 349: Paul II (Andhra - Marcionism) [7]
349 - 361: Thomas V (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism)
361 - 377: Paul III (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [8]
377 - 391: Gabriel I (Sri Lanka - Marcionism) [9]
391 - 404: Zachary I (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [10]
404 - 405: Tobias IV (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [11]
405 - 417: Thomas VI (Kerala - Marcionism) [12]
417 - 438: John Mark (Andhra - Marcionism) [13]
438 - 442: James I (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [14]
442 - 451: Gabriel II (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism/Ashtamaarga Dharma?) [15]
451 - 467: Zachary II (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [16]
467 - 473: Enoch (Andhra - Marcionism) [17]
478 - 490: John III (Andhra - Marcionism) [18]
490 - 500: James II (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [19]
500 - 517: Tobias V (Andhra - Marcionism) [20]
517 - 526: Thomas VII (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism) [21]
526 - 528: John IV (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism)
528 - 544: Thomas VIII (Tamil Nadu - Marcionism)
[1] The Tamil Christians had leaned more towards Marcionism for decades and make it official with their own church.
[2] Tobias II was quite successful in having the faithful on Sri Lanka, who tended to be split, join the unofficial Diocese of Madurai. He also sent expeditions to states as far as China.
[3] It was in Paul's reign that the title 'Patriarch of Madurai' first emerged in writing, though it was not official at the time.
[4] Ezekiel, along with the Bishop of Malabar, went back west on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The two Bishops were terse for much of the time, and disagreed on doctrine often. The two members of the eastern most Churches in this time were brought in to the Council of Ravenna to help hammer out the final nature between Jesus and God. Despite the occasional whispers of "Gnostic" by several priests, and regular disagreements with the nature of how God works, Ezekiel found common ground with the rest and rejected the concept of Jesus being one with the True God.
[5] Tobias III oversaw the growth of the church in Sri Lanka, though its position among Tamils remains steady.
[6] Peter was barely Bishop for ten months before he died of old age, making his reign fairly short.
[7] Paul II spent his time collecting religious texts that were deemed apocryphal by the Arians of the West to design a Marcionite Bible, finding the Arian one missing things and having texts that should not be there.
[8] The first version of the Marcionite Bible is fully finished, although much like the Arian version, teething is an issue that needs to be fixed.
[9] Gabriel I had to finish resolving the issues relating to the Marcionite Bible, specifically what to do about the Old Testament. While the Marcionites viewed the Old Testament as useless in a religious context due to being superseded by the New Testament (specifically the Gospel of Luke and select writings of St. Paul), many felt that the Old Testament had value in a historical context and should be included to give the Marcionite Bible context. The Context debate raged with Gabriel being against including it, but the issue wasn't resolved by the time of his death.
[10] Zachary continued to work on the Marcionite Bible, which by this point had a generally accepted New Testament in it. Issues continued to be made on the matter of the Old Testament. Zachary argued for including it, since it needed to be in there for context. It needed to be in there primarily because it explained too much to not be included, such as the flawed world, the nature of the Demiurge, and the setting for which the Monad came to provide a means to escape that flawed world.
[11] Tobias died of disease 4 months after the election. Since he was a staunch supporter of including the Old Testament into the Bible, many saw it as sign that his position was wrong. Others however claimed that his death might not have been quite natural.
[12] Thomas VI was the first Kerala born Bishop of Madurai and supported the inclusion of the Old Testament, as a result the first completed Marcionite Bible came to be called the Thomas VI Bible. It was in Thomas V's reign that the church found itself coming under pressure from the Buddhist authorities due to the growth and increasing visibility of the Sri Lankan Church.
[13] John Mark arose out of obscurity to become a dynamic leader, and claimed the "Patriarch" title. He also clarified the use of the Old Testament in the Thomas VI Bible, banning its use liturgically (except for a few select passages) but otherwise respecting it as part of the Word of God. He found a point of agreement with the Sri Lankan authorities by clamping down on some rogue priests who were blending Buddhist teaching and practices in their missionary activity. He is also more disposed to expansion in his native Andhra, anyway.
[14] James was noted to continue efforts in Andhra, which lacked the strong central authority that Sri Lanka had. However, John Mark's efforts in dismantling the syncretists were not fully successful. The most radical of the bunch formed the Ashtamaarga Dharma, "Eight Way Path", a heterodox faith based on Buddhism and Christianity.
[15] Gabriel II was rumored to be a secret follower of the 'Eight Way Path', though it was never proven he was obviously sympathetic to some of their ideas due to his incorporating of several 'Semi-Buddhist' rituals and Christianized Buddhist prayers into the liturgy to great controversy.
[16] Zachary II is famous for his declaration that while Buddhists (or even Hindus) may be seeing a glimpse of the One True God, only the Gospel is complete, and lays out a policy for incorporating some Buddhist concepts into prayer and liturgy. Nevertheless he strictly categorizes the "Eight Way Path" as heretical.
[17] Ashtamaarga Dharma remains a major thorn in the side of the Marcionite Church, beginning to spread to the mainland as well.
[18] While the church had grown strong in both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, John III witnessed the rise of the first Christian Chera Emperor to the throne, but under the guidance of the Apollinarian Patriarch Alexander II. It is known that John III engaged in a series of complex political maneuvers at court, but what these were are unknown. But the end results were an unofficial toleration for his faith.
[19] While Malabar was engulfed in a bloody civil war Madurai enjoyed a peaceful period during James's pontificate. However during the later years of his rule concerning news started to come from the missionaries in the east. Apparently Ashtamaarga Dharma also started a missionary activity in the region and actually managed to gather quite a lot of followers.
[20] Tobias, working together with the Patriarch of Kerala, began to contain and force the heterodox Ashtamaarga Dharma northward and out of the See, into the other states of India. This was modestly successful, in that the mainland would see a stable or even shrinking amount of the faith in the region, but the Eight Way Path remained stubbornly intact in Sri Lanka. On top of that, the evicted preachers and faithful would simply settle down in northern India and spread the words of the Twin Prophets (As Buddha and Jesus were known by in the faith), particularly in OTL Rajasthan.
[21] Thomas VII tried to counteract the spread of the Eight Way Path by sending his own missionaries throughout India with partial success. Unfortunately for him the Sri Lankan authorities preferred dealing with the blended Buddhist Christians over the actual ones and a wave of persecutions began in Sri Lanka to make the orthodox Marcionites embrace either Buddhism or the Eight Way Path version of Christianity.[/QUOTE]
