Bitton-Ashkelony, Territory, Anti-Intellectual Attitude, And Identity Formation in Late Antique Palestinie

8/13/2019 Bitton-Ashkelony, Territory, Anti-Intellectual Attitude, And Identity Formation in Late Antique Palestinie

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bitton-ashkelony-territory-anti-intellectual-attitude-and-identity-formation 1/24

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157430110X597845

Religion & Teology 17 (2010) 244–267 brill.nl/rt

& Religion Theology

erritory, Anti-Intellectual Attitude, and IdentityFormation in Late Antique Palestinian

Monastic Communities

Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony Department of Comparative Religion, Faculty of Humanities,

Te Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, [email protected]

Abstract Identity both religious and secular is influenced by external factors. Tis article is an attempt toshow how this is the case in connection with two Palestinian ascetic communities and how thesetwo communities though both influenced by the Chalcedonian controversies, as well as thesecond Origenist controversy developed very differing identities.

Keywords

identity formation, Palestine, ascetic centres, Chalcedonian controversies, Origenist controversy

1. Introductory Remarks

It is widely acknowledged that Christianity in Late Antique Palestine was farfrom being a religious or cultural monolith; rather, its cosmopolitan naturewas one of its distinctive marks. Palestinian monasticism, which arose in thesecond half of the fourth century, was likewise, an international movement.

Most of the monks and virgins came from abroad, and they conducted theirliturgy in a variety of languages, including Greek, Georgian, and Armenian,1

1 V. Sabae 20, 32, ed. E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis (exte und Untersuchungen zurGeschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 49; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939). Eng. trans. Cyril of Scy-thopolis, Lives of the Monks of Palestine (Cistercian Studies; intr. J. Binns; trans. R. M. Price;Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990); Teodorus Petraeus, Vita sancti Teodosii 18, 45, ed.H. Usener, Der heilige Teodosios (Leipzig: Deichert, 1890). On the monastic liturgy in the

Judean desert, see J. Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: A Comparative Study inEastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks ResearchLibrary and Collection, 1995), 229–253.



B. Bitton-Ashkelony / Religion & Teology 17 (2010) 244–267 245

yet they adopted Palestine as their new homeland.2 Given the Palestinianinternational amalgam, the issue of communal and religious identity forma-

tion is a particularly intricate and intriguing one. Far from being a static entity,communal and religious identity is a social construct and the outcome of adiscourse.3 Tus many factors were at work in shaping the identity of thoseascetics that streamed to Palestine in Late Antiquity; traditions from theirvarious homelands, along with local and invented traditions, myths, symbols,and collective memories4 – all played a role in molding such groups, develop-ing their self-perception, and ensuring their continuity and their social andpolitical power. Moreover, communities and individuals invariably have arange of identities to choose from, consciously or unconsciously, and the

2 Since the publication of D. J. Chitty’s classic study on the historical development of Pales-tinian monasticism (D. J. Chitty, Te Desert a City : An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian andPalestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire [Oxford: Blackwell, 1966]), much has beendone in this field. For comprehensive studies on late antique Palestinian monasticism, see J.Binns, Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ: Te Monasteries of Palestine, 314–631 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1994); L. Perrone, “Monasticism in the Holy Land: From the Beginnings tothe Crusaders,” Proche-Orient Chrétien 45 (1995): 31–63; P. Rousseau, “Monasticism,” in TeCambridge Ancient History 14 (eds. A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, and M. Whitby; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2000), 745–780; B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky, “Monasti-cism in the Holy Land,” in Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land . From the Origins to the

Latin Kingdoms (Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 5; eds. O. Limorand G. Stroumsa; urnhout: Brepols, 2006), 257–291. Several aspects of the heterogeneity ofPalestinian monasticism are noted in Y. Hirschfeld, “Te Monasteries of Palestine in the Byzan-tine Period,” in Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land . From the Origins to the Latin King-doms (Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 5; ed. O. Limor andG. Stroumsa; urnhout: Brepols, 2006), 401–419.

3 I was much inspired by the collective volume edited by Richard Miles, Constructing Identi-ties in Late Antiquity , (London: Routledge, 1999), especially his introduction, 1–15, as well as bythe Leiden project on identity as presented by Bas ter Haar Romeny, “From Religious Associa-tion to Ethnic Community: A Research Project on Identity Formation among the Syrian Ortho-dox under Muslim Rule,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 16, no. 4 (2005): 377–399. See

now the presentation of the results of the Leiden project in a special volume Religious Origins ofNations? Te Christian Communities of the Middle East (Church History and Religious Culture89; ed. Bas ter Haar Romeny; Leiden: Brill, 2009), especially 1–52.

For identity as an essentially social entity, see the illuminating introduction to the collectivevolume, Identities, Race, Class, Gender, and Nationality (eds. L. Martin Alcoff and E. Mendieta;Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 1–8.

4 On the role of collective memories in constructing early Christian identity, see M. Halbwa-chs, La topographie légendaire des évangiles en terre saints: Étude de mémoire collective (Paris: Pressesuniversitaires de France, 1941). See also the critical assessment of Halbwachs’s theory in relationto the question of identity formation in E. A. Castelli, Martyrdom and Memory: Early ChristianCulture Making (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 10–32. On Halbwachs’s theory

regarding the origin of the holy places in Palestine, see my Encountering the Sacred: Te Debateon Christian Pilgrimage in Late Antiquity (Te ransformation of the Classical Heritage 38;Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 28–29.



246 B. Bitton-Ashkelony / Religion & Teology 17 (2010) 244–267

choice varies according to the context and the circumstances. It thereforeseems profitable to approach the notion of communal identity as a highly

elastic one; to adopt a strict definition of it would certainly be arbitrary.5 oglimpse the dynamic behind the convoluted process of identity constructionin the ascetic communities in Late Antique Palestine, then, the data need tobe approached in terms of a provisional and flexible identity.

It is worth bearing in mind the Christological controversy that followedfrom the councils of Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 451, and the politicalstruggles relating to it in the Roman Empire. Tey brought about a decisivechange in the religious atmosphere, and hence new possibilities for construct-ing religious and communal identity. Tis change continued to affect the East-

ern Christian Empire as a whole, including the Palestinian ascetic andecclesiastical milieu, during the second half of the fifth century and through-out the sixth century. Given the religious atmosphere ensuing from the Chris-tological controversies of Chalcedon, any attempt to grasp the precise processof communal and cultural identity formation in Palestine should pay consid-erable attention to local views on the burning theological issues of the period,to regional prestige and tensions,6 and to the various models of authorityadopted by local leaders.7 Tese were people who knew how to impose theirparticular theological and spiritual stance, and articulated their ideas through

carefully chosen images, symbols, and biblical interpretation.8

All of these fac-tors play a role in the process of identity formation. Since I agree with RichardMiles’s statement that “the construction of identity is, at its heart, a matterof an imaginaire rather than a fixed reality ,”9 my main interest here will bethose texts that point clearly to the social forces that the dynamic of such an

5 S. Mitchell and G. Greatrex, Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity (London: Te ClassicalPress of Wales 2000), xi.

6 See, for example, the different approaches to the holy places, already in the fourth century,

between Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, discussed mainly in theologicalterms by P. W. L. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the HolyLand in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

7 On models of authority, see A. Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: Te Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004); C. Rapp,Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: Te Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of ransition (Teransformation of the Classical Heritage 37; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). Fora comparative study regarding models of leadership in Palestinian monasticism, see B. Bitton- Ashkelony, “Monastic Leadership and Municipal ensions in Fifth–Sixth Century Palestine: TeCases of the Judean Desert and Gaza,” Annali de Storia dell’esegesi 23, no. 2 (2006): 415–431.

8 On the factor of biblical exegesis in shaping identity, see Bas ter Haar Romeny, “Te Iden-

tity Formation of Syrian Orthodox Christians as Reflected in wo Exegetical Collections: FirstSounding,” Parole de l’Orient 29 (2004): 103–121.9 Miles, Constructing Identities , 4.




imaginaire created, such as the hagiographical compositions that emergedfrom sixth-century Palestine.

In this essay I shall limit myself to examining two factors that seemed toplay a key role in the construction of the communal and religious identity oftwo Palestinian monastic centres, that of the Judaean desert and that of theregion of Gaza 10 – in particular, sacred territory and the anti-intellectualapproach to learning and theology adopted by the spiritual leaders of the lat-ter.11 I shall attempt to argue that although the two monastic centres of leader-ship were geographically very close – the distance between Gaza and the GreatLaura of Sabas (439–532) in the Kidron Valley and the coenobium of Teo-dosius (423–529) east of Bethlehem, is less than 70 km – and although their

historical growth occurred during the same period and under the same his-torical circumstances in the Roman Empire, each developed its own uniquepattern of settlement and models of piety and leadership, espousing a diversepolitical and theological stance vis-à-vis the holy places in Jerusalem and thetheological controversies, and eventually gaining a variant intellectual profile.

2. “Te Inhabitants of Tis Holy Land”: erritory and theSelf-perception of Judaean Desert Monasticism

As is well known, ascetic settlement in the Judean desert and in the JordanValley owed its development to the appeal of the holy places and to the prac-tice of pilgrimage. But since pilgrimage in late Antiquity was not simply areligious fashion – in the words of Cyril Mango “had become the thing todo”12 – the realisation of ascetic ideals, in particular, alienation and tranquility( xeniteia and hesychia ), precisely in the holy places, was more than a mere

10 On the various key factors relating to identity formation, see W. Pohl and H. Reinitz, eds.,Strategies of Distinction: Te Construction of Ethnic Communities 300–600 (Leiden: Brill, 1998).11 Of course, I will not be able in this limited framework to describe the cultural identity of

these monastic communities. On this topic, a few marks of distinction have gained scholarlyattention. See, for instance, Barsanuphe et Jean de Gaza: Correspondance (trans. Lucien Regnault,Philippe Lemaire, and Bernard Outtier; 2 ed; Sable-fur-Sarthe: Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Solesmes,1993), 22–34. L. Perrone’s various articles illuminating the unique features of this community,such as his “Te Necessity of Advice: Spiritual Direction as a School of Christianity in theCorrespondence of Barsanuphius and John of Gaza,” in Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity . 2nded. (eds. B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 131–149; and B. Bitton- Ashkelony and A. Kofsky, Te Monastic School of Gaza (Leiden: Brill, 2006).

12

C. Mango, “Te Pilgrim’s Motivation,” in Akten des XII. internationalen Kongresses fürChristliche Archäologie, Bonn, 22.–28. September 1991 [= JbAC Ergänzungsband 20, no. 1] (eds.Ernst Dassmann and Josef Engemann; Münster: Aschendorff, 1995), 9.




pious act.13 In some cases, the journey of monks to Palestine was a journeytoward the formation of their religious identity, and later on it turned out to

be a crucial stage in forming their communal identity and in constructing theauthority of their leaders.14 Tus when Chariton, a native of Iconium in AsiaMinor (Konya) – who was among the first monks to settle in the Judaeandesert in the early fourth century – came as a pilgrim and desired to worshipin the holy places in Jerusalem, he was in fact inaugurating in Palestine a rela-tively new model of piety and initiating the affinity between the holy placesand the Judaean desert (V. Char . 12).15 He also developed a new pattern ofsettlement – namely, the laura – a pattern later adopted by many generationsof Palestinian monks, especially famous among them being the laura at Pha-

ran, located six miles from Jerusalem; Cyril of Scythopolis mentioned monas-tic foundations being constructed “on the model of Pharan” (V. Euth. 9, 16).16 Euthymius (377–473), an Armenian monk who came to Jerusalem in 405,marking the commencement of the formative stage of Judaean desert monasti-cism, launched his career in a laura . Cyril wrote: “After he [Euthymius] hadvenerated the holy Cross, the Holy Anastasis and the other reverence places . . .”he visited the Fathers in the desert, studying their virtue, and then “came tothe laura of Pharan, lying six miles from the Holy City” (V. Euth. 6). Tis newbeginning was also the start of a long process of shaping ascetic communal

identity, and Euthymius later became one of the founders of a monastic com-munity in the Judaean desert. Many came to visit him as well as the holyplaces, and they eventually settled in the desert, creating diverse patterns ofsettlement and adopting the unique monastic way of life in the laura of Chari-ton and the laura of Euthymius.17

Te process of integration of the Judaean desert monks with the Church of Jerusalem, which is well documented in Palestinian sources and accounts forthe construction of their communal identity, was no doubt facilitated by the

13 On this aspect of pilgrimage, see my Encountering the Sacred , 146–160.14 B. Bitton-Ashkelony, “From Sacred ravel to Monastic Career: Te Evidence of Late Antique Syriac Hagiography,” Adamantius 16 (2010): 353–370.

15 G. Garitte, ed., “Vita Charitonis , La vie prémetaphrastique de S. Chariton,” Bulletin del’Institut historique Belge de Rome 21 (1941) : 16–46. Eng. trans., L. Di Segni, “Te Life of Chari-ton,” in Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook (ed. V. L. Wimbush; Minne-apolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 393–421. On Chariton monastic establishments of the laura type,see Yizhar Hirschfeld, Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period (New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Press (1992), 10–11, 21–24.

16 On the rather limited impact of the model of Pharan, see J. Patrich, “Palestinian DesertMonasticism: Te Monastic Systems of Chariton, Gerasimus and Sabas,” Cristianesimo nella

storia 16 (1995): 1–9.17 A new typology of monastic settlements was suggested by Hirschfeld in “Monasteries,”401–419. See also, Hirschfeld, Judean Desert Monasteries ; Patrich, Sabas.




ascendance of patriarchs from among the desert monks such as Martyrius(478–86) and Elias (494–516), former disciples of Euthymius. Sabas, follow-

ing in the footsteps of his teacher Euthymius, strengthened the patronage ofthe patriarchate of Jerusalem over his community. With his growing prestigeand power as a monastic leader, Sabas became virtually integrated into theleadership of the Palestinian Church and was sent as a church ambassador onvarious missions to the imperial court, where he met Anastasius and Justinian(V. Sabae 50–52, 54, 71–73).18 oward the end of the fifth century, in the daysof Sabas and Teodosius, both natives of Cappadocia who were later appointedas archimandrites – Sabas as head of the anchorites and the laurae monks, andTeodosius as leader of the dwellers of the coenobia 19 – when monastic settle-

ment reach its peak in terms of the number of monks and monasteries,20

astring of monasteries functioned as a federation,21 with their own rules, prob-ably written by Sabas himself.22

Te social process of identity formation in the monastic community of the Judaean desert is relatively clear to us, thanks in particular to the regionalhagiographical composition written in 557 by Cyril of Scythopolis, himself aPalestinian native who dwelled about six years in the monastery of Euthymius,moving later, in the year 555, to the New Laura.23 Tis composition containsthe stories of seven monks who came from abroad to colonise the Judaean

desert, among them Euthymius, Sabas, and Teodosius, the leaders of this

18 On this aspect of Judaean desert monasticism, see L. Perrone, La chiesa di Palestine e lecontroversie christologiche : Dal concilio di Efeso (431) al secondo concilio di Costantinopoli (553) (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1980); Patrich, Sabas, 311–319; Binns, Ascetics and Ambassadors ,80–81, 178–179; Bitton-Ashkelony and Kofsky, “Monasticism,” 271–277.

19 On the history of the office of archimandrite in the Palestinian context, see Patrich, Sabas ,287–299.

20 Y. Hirschfeld, “List of the Byzantine Monasteries in the Judean Desert,” in Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries” : Essays in honour of V. Corbo (eds. G. C. Bottini,

L. Di Segni and E. Alliata; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1990), 1–90; Hirschfeld, JudeanDesert Monasteries ; idem, “Monasteries,” 401–419; Binns, Ascetics and Ambassadors ; R. Solzba-cher, Mönche, Pilger und Sarazenen – Studien zum Frühchristentum auf der südlichen Sinaihalbin-sel – Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn islamischer Herrschaft (Altenberge: Münsteraner theologishe Abhandlungen, 1989).

21 More than sixty monasteries in the Judean desert are known from the literary and archaeo-logical evidence dating from the fourth to the seventh centuries.

22 On Sabas as a monastic legislator, see Patrich, Sabas , 255–275.23 Te classic study on Cyril’s composition is B. Flusin, Miracle et histoire dans l’oeuvre de

Cyrille de Scythopolis (Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1983). On Cyril’s wanderings in the Judeandesert, see Flusin, Miracle et histoire , 29–32; L. Di Segni, Cyril of Scythopolis: Lives of Monks of the

Judaean Desert (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2005), 3–30 (in Hebrew). On Cyril’s concept ofwriting as a pious act, see D. Krueger, Writing and Holiness: Te Practice of Authorship in the EarlyChristian East (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 75–79.




movement. Cyril was writing the history of this international movement in aspecific territory that he termed: “the desert of Jerusalem” or “the desert east of

the holy city” or “the desert of the holy city,” attesting to the close affinity ofthis community to the holy city of Jerusalem.24 Te life of those monks whonever returned to their homeland he linked to a territory of grace – that is, theholy places in Jerusalem, and to the centres of ecclesiastical power in Jerusalemand Constantinople.

Te bond between ecclesiastical and monastic authority was powerfullydemonstrated in the assembly of monks in Jerusalem in 516/517 organised bySabas and Teodosius in support of the doctrine of Chalcedon and John thePatriarch of Jerusalem (V. Sabae 56:148–152).25 According to Cyril, that

assembly, in the church of the proto-martyr Stephen, attracted a vast numberof monks: “Tose who counted the multitude announced that the total cameto ten thousand monks,” and they shouted out for many hours: “Anathematizethe heretics, confirm the council!” (V. Sabae 56:151). Of course, historiansshould be suspicious about the recurrent exaggerative tendencies evident insuch texts. Tus Cyril’s indication of the number of monks that gathered inthis well-orchestrated pro-Chalcedonian manifestation might well beconsidered unreliable. Nor should Cyril’s deliberate endeavour to explain tohis readers the reason for choosing the church of the proto-martyr Stephen as

a suitable place for this demonstration be overlooked or naively regarded asguileless. According to Cyril, the reason for choosing this church as the venuewas because of its size, it being large enough to contain the huge number ofparticipants (V. Sabae 56, 151). But there may have been more than that inchoosing such a “champ de bataille” against the theological stance of theemperor and his court. After all, in the collective memory of the inhabitantsof Jerusalem and its desert, this church, a well-known pilgrimage site insixth-century Jerusalem, was a locus where myth, symbol, and imperial powerwere fully embedded. It is worth recalling that the church was founded by

Eudocia, who had hastened to consecrate it in 460, although unfinished,because of her impending death, which had been announced to her by

24 See, for example, Cyril’s title for the Life of Sabas : “Te Second Monastic History of theDesert of Jerusalem,” and ibid., 30, 115; Robert L. Wilken, Te Land Called Holy. Palestine inChristian History and Tought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 158.

25 Wilken, Land Called Holy , 166–72; idem, “Loving the Jerusalem Below. Te Monks ofPalestine,” in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (ed. Lee I.Levine; New York: Continuum, 1999), 240–250; P. . R. Gray, “Te Sabaite Monasteries andthe Christological Controversies (478–533),” in Te Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church

from the Fifth Century to the Present (ed. J. Patrich; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 237–243; Jacob Ashkenazi, Te “Mother of All Churches”: Te Church of Palestine from its Foundation to the ArabConquest (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2009 (in Hebrew).




Euthymius (V. Euth. 35). She also assigned to it a large income, takingGabriel – Euthymius’s disciple – “under her wing” and putting him in charge

of the entire administration of the church (V. Euth. 16, 30). Moreover, thenarrative of the proto-martyr Stephen had had close ties to Jerusalem since itsbeginnings (Acts 6:8–7:60), and his tomb was discovered in Caphar-Gamala(in 415), which fell within the territory of Jerusalem.26 A few years later, inmid fifth-century Jerusalem, Hesychius, the presbyter of Jerusalem, promotedStephen’s image and cult by honoring him as “the citizen of the Cross” (πολίτης

ἐστὶν τοῦ Σταυροῦ). On account of Stephen’s martyrdom in Jerusalem – apartfrom his cosmopolitan image as a distinguished martyr all over the Christianworld, such that Christian authors from North Africa to Cappadocia wrote

eloquent homilies in his memory – Hesychius fostered his local image,repeatedly emphasising his link to Jerusalem and to its holy places. He stressedthat Stephen dwells “among us” and implanted his tent “among us” (παρ’

ἡμῖν); “here” (ἐνταῦθα), in this place he has “the field of his teaching, thetheater of his eloquence” and from here he was elevated to heaven.27 Tere wasnothing new in such claims; already in the fourth century Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, promoted Jerusalem precisely in the same terms.28 Nonetheless, therivals for the true faith in early sixth century Jerusalem could not have chosen,then, a better symbolic arena for expressing their identity and claims to the

true faith against those of their opponents than the church of the proto-martyrStephen.Consequent events were even more spectacular: When the news about what

had happened in Jerusalem reached the emperor Anastasius, who supportedthe non-Chalcedonian party, he prepared to exile by force the archbishop Johnas well as Teodosius and Sabas. Te desert’s leaders, for their part, again ral-lied the monks, resulting in a petition to the emperor Anastasius that success-fully prevented his scheme to appoint an anti-Chalcedonian patriarch in Jerusalem (V. Sabae 57). Now if by “identity” we mean to answer the straight-

forward question: “Who am I?” then this petition clearly represented the ulti-mate stage of a long process of constructing the social, political, and religiousidentity of the Judean desert monks. For Cyril wrote:

26 E. D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, AD 312–460 , (Oxford:Clarendon, 1982), 212–220, 242.

27 Hesychius, Homily 9.2, in Les Homélies Festales d’Hésychius de Jérusalem (Subsidia Hagio-graphica 59; ed. M. Aubineau; Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1978), text: 328–329.

28 Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? 330–340. For the political dimension of Cyril’s promotionof Jerusalem, J.W. Drijvers, “Promoting Jerusalem: Cyril and the rue Cross,” in Portraits of

Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient (eds. Jan W. Drijvers and John W. Watt; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 79–95; Bitton-Ashkelony, Encounteringthe Sacred , 57–61.




o the God beloved and very pious emperor, Augustus and Imperator byGod’s grace, Flavius Anastasius the lover of Christ, a petition and supplica-tion from the archimandrites Teodosius and Sabas, other superiors, and allthe monks inhabiting the holy city of God, and the whole desert around itand the Jordan. Te king of all . . . has entrusted to your authority, beloved ofGod, the scepter of rule over all things after him, to arrange, through yourpiety, the bond of peace for all the holy churches, but especially for themother of the churches, Sion, where was revealed and accomplished for thesalvation of the world, the great mystery of piety, which beginning with Jeru-salem (Luke 24:47) has caused the light of truth to shine, through the divineand evangelical preaching, in all the regions of the world. From that venera-ble and supernatural mystery of Christ, through the victorious and preciousCross and life-giving Anastasis, indeed all the holy and revered places, receiv-

ing by tradition from above and from the beginning through the blessed andholy apostles, the true confession, a confession without illusion, and faith, wethe inhabitants of this Holy Land (οἱ τῆς ἁγίας γῆς ταύτης οἰκήτορες) havekept it invulnerable and inviolable in Christ. By the Grace of God we main-tain it [this faith] always without being intimidated in any way by our adver-saries, according to the council of the apostle without allowing ourselves tobe driven about by every wind of doctrine . . . If it is on behalf of the faith thatall this trouble has been stirred up against the holy city of God, Jerusalem,the eye and light of the whole world, the recipient of the logos of the gospel,if indeed, according to the prophetic saying: out of Sion shall go forth the lawand the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Is. 2:3), and if her inhabitants

touch as it were, with their own hands each day the truth through these ven-erable places in which the mystery of the incarnation of our great God andSavior took place, how then, more than five hundred years since the comingof Christ, can we Jerusalemites learn the faith anew? . . . We the inhabitants ofthis Holy Land all share with God’s help one mind and one faith . . . sincethrough these four holy councils we the inhabitants of this Holy Land haveall received, as we have repeatedly said, the unique, apostolic faith and withGod’s help are firmly rooted in it, no one will be able in whatever way tounite us to any one who is of a different mind and does not obey these coun-cils, even if countless deaths are impending (V. Sabae 57:152–157).29

Tis is without doubt one of the most striking manifestations of Christianidentity in Late Antique Palestine. As Richard Miles has observed in anothercontext, the formation and contestation of identity are fundamentallyabout power, the power to represent.30 From this perspective, the periphery –that is, the monastic community of the Judean desert and the Church in Jerusalem – defined themselves against the centre of power in Constantinople,claiming to represent the truth of Christianity. It becomes clear that the directpressure of the emperor Anastasius on the Church in Jerusalem, which at thatperiod was entirely governed by the Judaean desert monks, strengthened their

29 Te English translation is from Wilken, Land Called Holy , 168–169.30 Miles, Constructing , 5.




self-definition. Robert Wilken has precisely discerned in his book, Te LandCalled Holy that “the language of this petition is without precedent in Chris-

tian history,” drawing our attention to the importance of the term “HolyLand” in this context; this is the first time in Christian history that the term“Holy Land” is used as a mark of identity – linking people, territory, theo-logical stance, political interests, and glorious past – and not merely in a bibli-cal exegetical context.31 Behind Cyril’s well-crafted text of this petition is along history of the monks’ relationship with the holy places and social fabric,which scholars have been able to trace from various angles.32 Te petition wasa product of the way in which the monks represented themselves and talkedabout themselves, as opposed to other groups from which they distinguished

themselves, such as the anti-Chalcedonians, Nestorians, and Eutychians,whose doctrines they explicitly anathematised (V. Sabae 57:156–157). FromCyril’s account it appears that the monks, who came from all parts of theempire, were conscious of their self-definition, and for the first time they iden-tified themselves as the “inhabitants of this Holy Land.” Four times the authorof the petition repeated the phrase “We the inhabitants of this Holy Land”, aformulation that referred to the monks as well as the Church of Jerusalem. Itwas the territory that set them apart as a community and ensured their power.Tey claimed exclusively for themselves the sharing of historical memories and

symbols in a specific territory. Undoubtedly, their self-perception, as disclosedin Cyril’s hagiographical composition, was also the outcome of a discourseinfused with rhetorical and propagandist elements in favour of the doctrine ofChalcedon. Yet there is no plausible reason to doubt Cyril’s articulating theidentity of the monks and their leaders as the inhabitants of this Holy Land , northe crucial claim they made in this petition – namely, the primordial acquisi-tion of the true faith – that their territory had always held the truth and haddirect contact with the truth, leading to the question: “More than five hun-dred years after the Savior’s presence among us, can we Jerusalemites learn the

faith anew?”33

31 Wilken, Land Called Holy , 169.32 See, for instance, Hunt, Pilgrimage ; L. Perrone, “Christian Holy Places and Pilgrimage in

an Age of Dogmatic Conflicts: Popular Religion and Confessional Affiliation in Byzantine Pal-estine (Fifth to Seventh Centuries),” Proche-Orient Chrétien 48 (1998): 5–37; idem, “Monasti-cism in the Holy Land: From the beginning to the Crusaders,” Proche-Orient Chrétien 45 (1995):31–63; idem, “Rejoice Sion, Mother of all Churches: Christianity in the Holy Land During theByzantine Era,” in Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land (Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 5; eds. O. Limor and G. Stroumsa; urnhout: Brepols, 2006),141–173.

33 On the primordial element in the discourse intended to strengthen the sense of identity, seethe approach adopted by the Leiden group, Romeny, “From Religious Association to EthnicCommunity,” 381–382.




Wilken’s insightful study, however, depicts only part of the picture of Chris-tian identity in fifth–sixth century Palestine. By focusing on the Church of

Jerusalem and its desert, and primarily on their relationship with the imperialcourt, disregarding the region of Gaza where an important monastic commu-nity had arisen, much of the local complexity and tensions that arose aroundthe sacred territory in Palestine, and the appropriation of it as a factor of iden-tity, as well as the new symbols and discourse relating to it, were ignored.34 Itgoes without saying that the monastic communities in Late Antique Palestinecannot be viewed monolithically, nor does it seem to me profitable to use sucha category as “Christianity in the Holy Land,” which assumes that the forma-tion and articulation of communal identity was similar for all monastic com-

munities in Late Antique Palestine.35

Tere were various Christiancommunities in Palestine that were diverse, inter alia , in their self-perceptionand affinity to the sacred geography and in their openness toward and interac-tion with the ecclesiastical authorities that controlled the network of holyplaces in Jerusalem and its vicinity. In light of the increasing scholarly interestin Gaza monasticism in the last decade, resulting in an abundance of publica-tions – critical editions of texts relating to this monastic community, transla-tions of the sources, archaeological studies and monographs dealing withdiverse aspects of the religious thought and behavior of this community dur-

ing various stages of its growth – the view which assumed that the concept of“Holy Land” was a mark of distinction and cherished by all the ascetic com-munities in Late Antique Palestine can now be nuanced.36

3. Hiérosolymites in Exile: A Provisional Identity

As noted earlier, communal identity is an elastic category; it might be adjusted,deliberately or unconsciously, according to the social and political circum-

stances, and it would search for new images and symbols to articulate it. Tis34 On the geographical boundaries of late antique Gaza, see L. Di Segni, “Te erritory of

Gaza: Notes of Historical Geography,” in Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity (eds. B. Bitton- Ashkelony and A. Kofsky; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 41–59.

35 See, for example the collective volume Christians and Christianity , in which the regionalaspect emerged in many articles.

36 For recent studies on Gaza that include earlier bibliography, see J.-E. Steppa, John Rufusand the World Vision of Anti-Chalcedonian Culture (Gorgias Dissertations in Early ChristianStudies GD 4, ECS 1; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002); J. L. Hevelone-Harper, Disciples of theDesert: Monks, Laity, and Spiritual Authority in Sixth-Century Gaza (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 2005); C. Saliou, ed., Gaza dans l’Antiquité tardive: Archeologie, rhetoriqueet histoire (Saleron: Helios, 2005); Bitton-Ashkelony and Kofsky, eds., Gaza; idem, Monastic ;C. Horn, Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine: Te Career of Peterthe Iberian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).




is certainly the case with Late Antique Gaza monasticism, in which two stagescan be discerned with regard to the sacred territory as a factor shaping com-

munal identity. Te first stage was marked by the leadership of Peter theIberian (d. 491) – a Georgian prince who was a political hostage in the courtof Teodosius II and later an influential monk-bishop in fifth-centuryPalestinian monasticism – during which time the holy places played a majorrole in shaping his identity and that of his circle. At the second stage of thiscommunity – under the leadership of Barsanuphius, John, and Dorotheus –the sources are silent regarding the sacred territory in Palestine.

During the last decade, Peter’s career and the ecclesiastical dynamic thatevolved around his followers have received a great deal of scholarly attention,

through which the historical setting and the images and symbols of this com-munity were fully exposed. I shall therefore limit myself here only to informa-tion that is essential to our topic.37 First, it is worth recalling that Peterlaunched his monastic career in Jerusalem. Te voluntary exile he imposed onhimself (probably in 439), escaping from Constantinople and setting out forthe holy city of Jerusalem, marked the first steps of a journey toward his newidentity. He began his career on the Mount of Olives, where he was admittedby Melania the Younger, and later founded a monastery in Jerusalem near theower of David that served in part as a pilgrim’s hostel. o escape from a plan

of Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, to have Peter ordained to the priesthood,Peter left Jerusalem and joined a small monastery near Maiuma (444), a movethat marked a new phase in his leadership as an anti-Chalcedonian leader inthe East.38 Tis stage was also characterised by the tensions pertaining to theholy places in Jerusalem as a direct consequence of the drama of the Councilof Chalcedon.

As I have argued elsewhere, Te Life of Peter the Iberian, written by his dis-ciple John Rufus at the end of the fifth century or beginning of the sixth,39

37 On various aspects of Peter the Iberian’s portrayal, see A. Kofsky, “Peter the Iberian: Pil-grimage, Monasticism and Ecclesiastical Politics in Byzantine Palestine,” Liber Annuus 47 (1997):209–222; idem, “Peter the Iberian and the Question of the Holy Places,” Cathedra 91 (1999):79–96 (in Hebrew); B. Bitton-Ashkelony, “Imitatio Mosis and Pilgrimage in the Life of Peter theIberian,” Le Muséon 118 (2005): 51–70. A revised version of these articles is published in Bitton- Ashkelony and Kofsky, eds., Gaza , 47–81; Horn, Controversy ; L. Perrone, “Pierre L’Ibère ouL’Exil comme pèlerinage et combat pour la foi,” in Man Near a Roman Arch: Studies Presented toProf. Yoram safrir (eds. L. Di Segni, Y. Hirschfeld, J. Patrich and R. algam; Jerusalem: Brepols,2009), 190–204.

38 A detailed account of the journeys of Peter and his disciples in Palestine and Egypt, and thekey role of his community in the political-ecclesiastical life of the fifth century is provided in Te

Monastic School of Gaza , 24–36.39 Vita Petri Iberi , Syriac text and German trans., R. Raabe, Petrus der Iberer: Ein Chrarakter-bild zur Kirchen- und Sittengeschichte des fünften Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1895). A draftof the unpublished English translation of the Syriac Life of Peter the Iberian prepared by Derwas




created a literary space in which the author promoted the anti-Chalcedonianfaith and depicted it in its full historical setting during one of its chaotic

phases. In addition to the theological controversies embedded in the Life ofPeter , its idiosyncrasy resides in two particular features: the interpretation ofPeter’s activities in terms of those of the biblical Moses and the relativelydetailed accounts of the hero’s pilgrimages.40 John Rufus – probably one of theearliest anti-Chalcedonian hagiographic authors – was in fact embracing twostrategies of representation – namely, the imitatio Mosis , and the liminaldimension of pilgrimage. From the outset of the narrative Rufus named Peterthe Second Moses, evoking the image of Moses as the leader of the Exodus anddepicting Peter’s departure from Constantinople and his pilgrimage to Jerusa-

lem as paralleling the Exodus from Egypt. By drawing a parallel betweenMoses and Peter, and at times even merging the two, Rufus established theauthority and credibility needed to underpin the hero’s anti-Chalcedonianidentity. Te centrality of the motifs of pilgrimage, Exodus, and exile to theLife of Peter is widely acknowledged by scholars, and their juxtaposition tothe monastic ideal of xeniteia – that is, voluntary exile and pilgrimage – nearthe holy places in Palestine is wholly evident.41 Moreover, as recently arguedby Lorenzo Perrone, the motive of xeniteia dominates the entire course ofPeter’s life, to the point of being the mark of his new identity. oward the end

of his life he was not only “the monk, the bishop, the confessor of the faith,but he is all these while being a ‘pilgrim’ and a ‘stranger’.” 42

Te tension surrounding the holy places and the desire to appropriate thisterritory of grace, all the while fostering the image of Peter as exile/pilgrim, isrecounted in the Life of Peter by a “simple monk,” who tells his friends hisdream of Peter the Iberian’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Tis tale is recountedagainst the backdrop of the disciples’ amazement that Peter had not visited Jerusalem’s holy sites during his long stay near the city.

After this, when the autumn had arrived, the blessed man [Peter] returned to

his brethren in the plain. When he left, people were indignant and said:“How, when he [Peter] stayed all these days near Jerusalem, did the blessednot desire to enter the holy city, even by night, and worship at places of

J. Chitty (the library of St. Gregory’s House, Oxford) was kindly put at my disposal by SebastianBrock. A new English translation edited by C. B. Horn and R. R. Phenix, Jr. is now available, John Rufus: Te Lives of Peter the Iberian, Teodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus (Writ-ings from the Greco-Roman World; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature , 2008).

40 Tese aspects of the Life of Peter are the main focus of my “Imitatio Mosis .”41 On the affinity of xeniteia and pilgrimage, see Bitton-Ashkelony, Encountering the Sacred ,

146–160; Perrone, “Pierre L’Ibère ou L’Exil comme pèlerinage et combat pour la foi.” 42 Perrone, “Pierre L’Ibère ou L’Exil comme pèlerinage et combat pour la foi,” especially hisconclusion, 202.




worship and especially at holy Golgotha and the life-giving Sepulchre?” Oneday after his departure, one of the brothers who was a perfect and very simpleman said to them: “Tis night I saw a fearful vision. For it seemed to me thatI was seeing Abba Peter the bishop, who said to me, ‘Brother, can you giveme a hand?’ and in this vision he alone took me to the holy city, on the samenight during which he was about to depart. He entered first to the Martyr-ium of St. Stephen, whom he had met before. Afterward, he went down tothe cave and worshiped there his sarcophagus. Coming out of there he has-tened to the holy Golgotha and the Holy Sepulcher. From there he wentdown to the church named after Pilate (Matt. 27:11–14), and from there tothat of the Paralytic (John 5:2–15), and then to Gethsemane. Having madethe circuit also of the holy places around it, he then went up to the UpperRoom of the disciples (Mark 14:14–16; Luke 22:11–13), and after that to

the holy Ascension (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:9), and from there to the houseof Lazarus. He then went on the road leading from there until he arrived atholy Bethlehem. After praying there he turned to the tomb of Rachel (Gen.35:19) and, having prayed there and in the rest of the shrines and oratorieson the way, he descended to Siloam (John 9:7); from there, going up to holyZion and completing a holy course and worshipped the Lord in every place,he finally returned to the village Beit afsha. And I, in every place was sup-porting him. And the very next day after I had seen the vision, the fatherwent on his way. All this occurred in order to persuade those who were indig-nant that the blessed one was in every holy place every day, or perhaps everyhour, offering in spirit worship to the Lord. For it is written: ‘Tose who are

spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’sscrutiny’ (1 Cor. 2:15).43

Tis imaginary journey maps with great exactitude the actual network ofholy sites – a journey that every Christian pilgrim might undertake at the endof the fifth century.44 Te author was here drawing the boundaries of thesacred space of Jerusalem and at the same time proclaiming the appropriationof this sacred territory – namely, that this network of holy places belonged tohim too and not only to the Chalcedonians currently in possession of them. Itseems that since Peter, faithful to the anti-Chalcedonian cause, was unable to

enter the holy places at that time – a situation akin to that of Moses preventedfrom entering the Promised Land – Rufus resorted to this strategy as a solu-tion to the shameful situation in which anti-Chalcedonians were avoidingvisiting the holy places. By representing Peter and his entourage as “Hiéro-solymites in exile,”45 Rufus was in fact stressing the unbreakable link of the

43 Vita Petri Ib. 98–100.44 J. Wilkinson Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1977), 56,

has provided a map of this dream pilgrimage.45

As coined by B. Flusin, “L’hagiographie palestinienne et la réception du concile de Chalcé-doine,” in ΛΕΙΜΩΝ : Studies Presented to Lennart Rydén on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. J. O.Rosenqvist; Uppsala: Almqvist & (cf. previous publisher) Wiksell, 1996), 25–47, esp. 38.




anti-Chalcedonians to the holy places, a persistent claim in the Life of Peter .Rufus’s attempt to circumvent the difficulties through use of the dream mode

served to demonstrate the importance of the holy sites for the author and hisidea that those able to see those sites, albeit in a vision, were the ones in pos-session of the true faith.

We know nothing about Peter’s self-perception or about that of his monas-tic community. All we can say is that even when inventing a provisional reli-gious identity – in this case that of Moses who did not reach the PromisedLand – and embracing the image of the “Hiérosolymites in exile,” the sacredgeography fulfilled a vital function in shaping communal identity. Te multi-faceted liminal course of action of Peter and his followers – that is, their Exo-

dus, exile, and pilgrimages – reflects in a sense a provisional identity, one thatfitted the religious and political tensions of the time. It is important to notethat Rufus’s mode of representation is distinctive in the Palestinian hagiogra-phy. No other hagiographic text depicts in so sophisticated manner the sym-bols of identity of its hero and his circle, nor am I aware of any sort ofmaintenance or renewal of these images created by Rufus in the Palestineascetic context in later periods.

After the chaotic years of the Christological campaigns under the charis-matic leadership of Peter and his heirs, notably Severus of Antioch, the monas-

tic center of Gaza seems to have entered a new, more quietist phase and tohave withdrawn into monastic piety.46 Te religious atmosphere seems to haveundergone an important transformation. Unlike during the period of Peter,the struggle over orthodoxy was not at the heart of this community in thesixth century, at least not externally. Tis phase was marked by the peculiarstyle of spiritual leadership that had been initiated by Abba Isaiah and culmi-nated in the dominance of the holy men Barsanuphius and John. Cyril ofScythopolis’s notable account of the shouting assembly of the Judaean desertmonks in the church of the proto-martyr Stephen and their extraordinary

petition to the emperor, as well as John Rufus’s dreamt pilgrimage in the sacredterritory of Jerusalem, are unimaginable among the monks of Gaza in thesixth century.

4. Anti-intellectual Attitude in the Ascetic Community ofSixth-Century Gaza

In the rich and varied corpus of Questions and Answers produced in this learned

community, the holy places and pilgrimage are not issues that gain any46 See, for example, Letter 52 (SC 426), 268–269.




attention. Tis is not to say that visits to holy places by monks from the com-munity of Gaza in this period did not take place, yet they are not a component

of its religious identity and its ascetic discourse as testified in the Cyril of Scy-thopolis’s composition and in the Life of Peter the Iberian.47 Nor do the monas-tic community of the Judaean desert and its leaders receive any mention.However, the Patriarch of Jerusalem did address questions to the Old Men inGaza, which attests to his recognition of their spiritual authority.48 Far removedfrom any direct contact with the ascetic communities of the desert of Jerusa-lem and the imperial court in Constantinople,49 the monastic community insixth-century Gaza developed its own marks of distinction.

Paradoxically, the learned and sophisticated leaders of this community in

the fifth and sixth centuries – Zeno, Abba Isaiah, Barsanuphius, and John –maintained a negative attitude to theological discussions and promoted thisas a distinctive feature of their community. Te guiding principle of Zeno and Abba Isaiah was that dabbling in theology can only confuse the believer andintroduce heretical thoughts into his mind; the study of theological issuesshould therefore be exclusively reserved to the experienced and perfect ascetic.Tis anti-intellectual stance was further adopted by Barsanuphius and John,who essentially objected to the study not only of non-Christian literature butalso of theological literature, with the exception of the Apophthegmata and

the Scriptures. Even independent study of the Scriptures was considered liableto implant heresy in the hearts of believers unfamiliar with its spiritualinterpretation.50

One monk wrote to Barsanuphius that upon reading theological books hehad felt his soul elevated beyond passionate thoughts toward contemplation ofthe truths revealed by these books. But as it happened his soul had rebukedhim, saying: “You do not benefit from reading such things, you who arewretched and impure!” Barsanuphius retorted: “I did not find satisfaction inthese books which exalt the soul, but rather in the Sayings of the Elders, that

is, the Apophthegmata , because they lead the soul to humility” (Letter 547).Describing meetings between fathers and laymen where theological discussions

47 See Letter 356 (SC 450), 378–379. Tere is a rare example in the Correspondence of a monkwho was sent out to “the Holy City [of Jerusalem] on a mandate” and went down to the Jordanin order to pray. See also the visit of Dositheus to the holy places before he joined the monasteryof Dorotheus, Vita Dosithei , text and Fr. trans., by L. Regnault and J. de Préville, Dorothée deGaza , Oeuvres spirituelles (SC 92; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1963), 122–145.

48 See, for instance, letters 813–830 (SC 468), 280–307.49 Abba Isaiah, for example, refused the call of the emperor Zeno (488) to come to Constan-

tinople. See Zacharias the Rhetor, Vita Isaiae Monachi , Syriac text and Latin trans., E. W. Brooks(CSCO, Scriptores Syri, ser. 3, xxv; Leuven: Peeters Press, 1907), 14–15.

50 Bitton-Ashkelony and Kofsky, Monastic School of Gaza , 99–106.




took place, a layman asked Barsanuphius whether he should participate insuch discussions or remain silent, and whether his silence was not in fact a

betrayal of the faith. Te Old Man emphatically instructed him never to dis-cuss matters concerning faith, “For God will not demand this of you, but onlywhether you believe correctly . . .and whether you keep his commandments . . .it is not necessary to talk about doctrines, because this is beyond you” (Letter 694).51 He should instead concentrate on praying for his sins. A hypotheticaldilemma is invoked in the next question: “If the heretic happens to be arguingbetter than the orthodox brother during this discussion, is it then good per-haps for me to support the latter as much as I can, lest he be harmed in theorthodox faith by losing the debate?” Te response is not surprising: “If . . . you

truly want to be of assistance, then, speak within your heart to God . . .” (Letter 695). When the questioner asks further whether he should at least ask to learnwhat they are discussing, Barsanuphius commands: “Ask for nothing that Godwill not demand of you”; one should be satisfied with the confession of theright faith (Letter 696). Tus the clear policy of Barsanuphius and John, atleast regarding laymen and ordinary monks, was that of perpetuating blissfulignorance. Aelianos, the abbot of the monastery, voiced the following dilemma:“Is it always a good thing or not to tell others about good stories found inScripture and in the Lives of the Fathers ?” Tey reply in a very prudent manner,

saying: “We cannot put all people on an equal footing; indeed, one person canspeak without bringing any harm, while another cannot do this. Silence, how-ever, is always good and admirable above all else . . . Nevertheless, since wehave not reached the point of walking the way of the perfect . . . let us speakabout those things which contribute to edification, namely, from the Sayingsof the Fathers , rather than risking our souls by using accounts from Scripture.For this matter contains a risk for someone who does not understand” (Letter 469). Barsanuphius and John’s basic assumption here is that a “fleshly person”will not be able to discern the spiritual dimension of the Scripture. Terefore

they advise to take refuge in the words of the fathers, and to keep briefness asa rule in such conversations. However, this attitude regarding discussions onScripture – in itself not an original approach developed in the Gaza monasticmilieu but one adopted by the desert fathers52 – may indicate not merely acautious approach motivated by fear of doubt and heresy but also by a quietistmonastic tendency. When the issue is raised from a different angle: “If, how-ever, the discussion concerns the Scriptures, should I still keep silent, or may I

51 Te English translation is from Barsanuphius and John: Letters (Te Fathers of the Church

113, 2 volumes; trans. J. Chryssavgis; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press,2006).52 As mentioned by the editors of the Correspondence (SC 451), 571, notes 4–5.




then speak?” the Old Man firmly answers: “Silence (σιωπή) is always better”(Letter 697). Tis stance is further reflected in the answer to the same layman’s

question as to whether he should anathematise Nestorius and the heretics withhim when asked to do so: One should never hasten to condemn – even thoughNestorius and his followers were under anathema – because one should regardhimself as a sinner and must therefore focus on repentance without mixing itwith other matters (Letter 699). “Indeed, even if I anathematize Satan whiledoing his works,” proclaimed John, “I am in fact anathematizing myself!” If,however, his interlocutor still persists, he may be permitted to anathematisethe heretic in order to satisfy those exerting pressure on him (Letter 700). TeOld Men were fully aware of the complexity of social interaction for someone

who has a close friend that has proved to be a heretic, stressing: “Do not, how-ever, argue with him, nor seek to learn what he believes . . . instead, if he wantsto benefit entirely and to hear the truth about faith in God, take him to theholy fathers . . .” (Letter 733). Despite the overall anti-intellectual trenddescribed here, Barsanuphius and John did maintain certain relations withintellectual circles, as reflected in their correspondence with anonymous teach-ers of philosophy – though not on philosophical issues – and in the arrival atthe monastery of educated monks such as Dorotheus.53

From consultations of monks with Barsanuphius and John regarding the

Origenist controversy of the sixth century we can glean something of theirposition on the matter and their essential attitude to theology. Te polemicsagainst Origen’s theological views, which had begun not long after his death,resumed at the end of the fourth century.54 In the first half of the sixth centurythe Church was beset by yet another bitter polemic over Origen. In Palestine, Jerusalem clergy and monks from the Judean desert were especially involved,and the controversy sometimes escalated to violence between the parties.55 Tis time, criticism was directed not only against Origen’s writing but perhapseven more against those of his followers in later generations, especially Evagrius

53 See, for instance, Letters 664–666, 778.54 E. Clark, Te Origenist Controversy: Te Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).55 For the sixth-century Origenist controversy in Palestine, see Perrone, La chiesa di Palestina

e le controversie cristologiche , 203–222; idem, “Palestinian Monasticism, the Bible, and Teologyin the Wake of the Second Origenist Controversy,” in Te Sabaite Heritage in the OrthodoxChurch from the Fifth Century to the Present (ed. J. Patrich; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 245–259;D. Hombergen, Te Second Origenist Controversy: A New Perspective on Cyril of Scythopolis’ Monastic Biographies as Historical Sources for Sixth-Century Origenism (Studia Anselmiana 132;

Rome: Sant’ Anselmo, 2001); Idem, “Barsanuphius and John of Gaza and the Origenist Contro-versy,” in Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity (eds. B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky; Leiden:Brill, 2004), 173–181.




Ponticus. Te dispute focused primarily on issues of the pre-existence of thesoul and the nature of body and soul after resurrection.56 Having read the

writings of Origen and Didymus, as well as Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostica , acertain monk addressed to Barsanuphius and John a series of questions regard-ing the Origenist controversy, asking about the belief in the pre-existence ofhuman, angelic, and demonic souls, and about their return with the apokatas-tasis to their pure primordial state. Barsanuphius condemned these doctrinesas the speculation of Greeks; they did not lead to progress according to Godbut rather to progress according to the devil. “Avoid these things, brother . . .do not study them,” said Barsanuphius (Letter 600). It is noteworthy that,while condemning Origenist concepts, Barsanuphius and John hardly

addressed them; they did not elaborate on their objections beyond a totalrejection and the repeated command to concentrate on the study of the Apo- phthegmata . Persisting, the monk asked whether one might at least read thewritings of Evagrius. Te answer was that one might read them, but onlyselectively, that is, only those writings that are “beneficial for the soul” (Letter 602). Te monk pointed out that some of the Fathers had accepted the Ori-genist doctrines through Evagrius, and this was indeed confirmed by Barsan-uphius; yet he was nevertheless inclined to oppose Origenism. But heemphasised that what was important was not the truth or error of these views;

neither the questioner nor Barsanuphius himself should be preoccupied withthem but should concentrate on an examination of their passions, as well asweep and mourn about them (Letter 603). Te questioner and his fellowmonks went on to complain in a long letter to Barsanuphius that other monkswere advocating the Origenist doctrine of the soul’s pre-existence, derivingsupport for it from Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. Te essenceof Barsanuphius’s answer was that preoccupation with these matters causesonly harm and confusion. Even the saints did not have a full understanding ofthe divine mysteries. His general approach to theology was summed up in the

following advice: “Cease from such idle talk and pay attention to your pas-sions, about which you will be asked to give account on the day of judgment.For you will not be asked about these matters, why you do not understandthem or why you have not learned them” (Letter 604).

Te persistent monk followed with theological questions regarding hetero-dox views encountered in the Apophthegmata (Daniel 8). He inquired aboutthe opinion that the holy bread was not the body of Christ but only a symbol,and that Christ was in fact Melchizedek – why did God allow these great mento fall into error? Te answer was that God did not lead them astray but that

56 Questions and Answers 600–605 (SC 451), 804–829.




these wise men did not investigate the matter with the pursuit of truth inmind; sages in various generations, however, complement one another. Bar-

sanuphius’s replies did not succeed in allaying the monk’s concern with thetheological issues of the Origenist controversy (Letter 605). He had, he said,read another theological work that caused great confusion in his soul. He washesitant about addressing Barsanuphius but claimed that his thoughts did notallow him to remain silent. Barsanuphius rebuked him, declaring that thedevil was pushing him to useless preoccupations (Letter 606).

As these fascinating Questions and Answers attest, while Barsanuphius and John were suppressing the monks’ attempts to discuss any speculative issuesrelating to the Origenist controversy, the Judaean desert was, at the same time,

inflamed by these matters; monks and their leaders were deeply involved inthis controversy.57 We witness here a process of deliberate selection of writings,which certainly accounts for the religious and communal identity of themonastic circle of Barsanuphius and John. Tey set themselves apart from theheavy legacy of Origen and Evagrius on theological matters, thus separatingtheir community from the speculative tradition of these writers and cultivat-ing a new spiritual direction, one centred on prayer, weeping and mourning. Yet it should be stressed that the Old Men’s emphatic negative stance regard-ing the speculative dimension of Evagrius’s teaching did not succeed in pre-

venting the infiltration of the Evagrian ascetic legacy into their own spiritualworld.58

From the above discussion, one can easily agree with Miles’s statement that“no identity can exist by itself and without an array of oppositions ornegatives.”59 Te religious and political effects of the Chalcedonian controver-sies, as well as the second Origenist controversy, on the identity formation ofthe monastic communities in Palestine were immense. Here, I have indicatedonly a few of the distinctive factors that appear to have played a role in thisprocess and that attest to the marked difference between the two Palestinian

ascetic centers. Te images by which each monastic community chose to artic-ulate its identity, as well as the distinctive manifestations of their communaland religious identity, confirm the flexibility of such an entity as “identity,” aswell as the force of local incentives.

57 On the doctrinal and political aspects of the conflict in relation to the Judaean desert’sinvolvement and Cyril’s account, see Hombergen, Second Origenist Controversy .

58

Tis is evidenced, for example, with regard to perfect prayer, Bitton-Ashkelony and Kofsky, Monastic School of Gaza , 174–176.59 Miles (ed.) Identities (London: Routledge, 1999), 1–15 (esp. 6).




Bibliography

Alcoff, L. Martin, and E. Mendieta, eds. Identities, Race, Class, Gender, and Nationality . Oxford:Blackwell, 2003.

Aubineau, M. Les Homélies Festales d’Hésychius de Jérusalem. Subsidia Hagiographica 59. Bruxel-les : Société des Bollandistes, 1978.

Ashkenazi, Jacob. Te “Mother of All Churches”: Te Church of Palestine from its Foundation to the Arab Conquest . Jerusalem: Yad Ishak Ben-Zvi, 2009 (in Hebrew).

Barsanuphe et Jean de Gaza: Correspondance. ranslated by Lucien Regnault, Philippe Lemaire,and Bernard Outtier. 2 ed. Sable-fur-Sarthe: Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Solesmes, 1993.

Barsanuphius and John: Letters. Te Fathers of the Church 113, 2 vols. ranslated by J. Chrys-savgis. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2006.

Binns, J. Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ: Te Monasteries of Palestine, 314–631. Oxford: Clar-

endon Press, 1994.Bitton-Ashkelony, B. Encountering the Sacred: Te Debate on Christian Pilgrimage in Late Antiq-

uity . Te ransformation of the Classical Heritage 38. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 2005.

———. “From Sacred ravel to Monastic Career: Te Evidence of Late Antique Syriac Hagi-ography,” Adamantius 16 (2010): 353–370.

———. “Imitatio Mosis and Pilgrimage in the Life of Peter the Iberian.” Le Muséon 118 (2005):51–70.

Bitton-Ashkelony, B. and A. Kofsky. “Monasticism in the Holy Land.” Pages 257–291 in Chris-tians and Christianity in the Holy Land . From the Origins to the Latin Kingdoms . Edited byO. Limor and G. Stroumsa. Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 5.

urnhout: Brepols, 2006.———. Te Monastic School of Gaza . Leiden: Brill, 2006.Bitton-Ashkelony, B. “Monastic Leadership and Municipal ensions in Fifth-Sixth Century Pal-

estine: Te Cases of the Judean Desert and Gaza.” Annali de Storia dell’esegesi 23, no. 2(2006): 415–431.

Castelli, E. A. Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 2004.

Chitty, D. J. Te Desert a City : An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasti-cism under the Christian Empire. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966.

Clark, E. Te Origenist Controversy: Te Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate . Princ-eton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Cyril of Scythopolis. Lives of the Monks of Palestine . Cistercian Studies. Introduced by J. Binns.ranslated by R. M. Price. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990.

———. Vita Sabae . Pages 85–200 in Kyrillos von Skythopolis . Edited by Eduard Schwartz. exteund Untersuchungen 49.2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939.

Di Segni, L. Cyril of Scythopolis: Lives of Monks of the Judaean Desert . Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2005 (in Hebrew).

———. “Te Life of Chariton.” Pages 393–421 in Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: ASourcebook . Edited by V. L. Wimbush. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

———. “Te erritory of Gaza: Notes of Historical Geography.” Pages 41–59 in ChristianGaza in Late Antiquity . Edited by B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky. Leiden: Brill,2004.

Dorotheus. Dorothée de Gaza , Oeuvres spirituelles . SC 92. ranslated and edited by L. Regnault

and J. de Préville. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1963.Drijvers, J. W. “Promoting Jerusalem: Cyril and the rue Cross.” Pages 79–95 in Portraits of

Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the ChristianOrient . Edited by Jan W. Drijvers and John W. Watt. Leiden: Brill, 1999.




Flusin, B. Miracle et histoire dans l’oeuvre de Cyrille de Scythopolis . Paris: Etudes augustiniennes,1983.

———. “L’hagiographie palestinienne et la réception du concile de Chalcédoine.” Pages 25–47in ΛΕΙΜΩΝ : Studies Presented to Lennart Rydén on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday . Edited by J. O.Rosenqvist. Uppsala: Almqvist & (with publisher cf. Wilkenson, J) Wiksell, 1996.

Garitte, G., ed. “Vita Charitonis , La vie prémetaphrastique de S. Chariton.” Bulletin de l’Instituthistorique Belge de Rome 21 (1941): 16–46.

Gray, P. . R. “Te Sabaite Monasteries and the Christological Controversies (478–533).” Pages237–243 in Te Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to thePresent . Edited by J. Patrich. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.

Halbwachs, M. La topographie légendaire des évangiles en terre saints: Étude de mémoire collective .Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1941.

Hesychius. Les Homélies Festales d’Hésychius de Jérusalem. Subsidia Hagiographica 59. Edited byM. Aubineau. Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1978.

Hevelone-Harper, J. L. Disciples of the Desert: Monks, Laity, and Spiritual Authority in Sixth-Century Gaza . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.

Hirschfeld, Y. “List of the Byzantine Monasteries in the Judean Desert.” Pages 1–90 in Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Essays in Honour of V. Corbo. Edited byG. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1990.

———. Te Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period . New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1992.

———. “Te Monasteries of Palestine in the Byzantine Period.” Pages 401–419 in Christiansand Christianity in the Holy Land . From the Origins to the Latin Kingdoms . Cultural Encoun-ters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 5. Edited by O. Limor and G. Stroumsa. urn-hout: Brepols, 2006.

Hombergen, D. “Barsanuphius and John of Gaza and the Origenist Controversy.” Pages 173–181 in Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity . Edited by B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky.Leiden: Brill, 2004.

———. Te Second Origenist Controversy: A New Perspective on Cyril of Scythopolis’ MonasticBiographies as Historical Sources for Sixth-Century Origenism. Studia Anselmiana 132. Rome:Sant’ Anselmo, 2001.

Horn, C. Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine: Te Career of Peterthe Iberian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Hunt, E. D. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, AD 312–460 . Oxford: Clarendon,1982.

John Rufus: Te Lives of Peter the Iberian, Teodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus . Writ-ings from the Greco-Roman World. ranslated and edited by C. B. Horn and R. R. Phenix Jr. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.

Kofsky, A. “Peter the Iberian: Pilgrimage, Monasticism and Ecclesiastical Politics in ByzantinePalestine.” Liber Annuus 47 (1997): 209–222.

———. “Peter the Iberian and the Question of the Holy Places.” Cathedra 91 (1999): 79–96(in Hebrew).

Krueger, D. Writing and Holiness: Te Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East . Philadel-phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

Mango, C. “Te Pilgrim’s Motivation.” Pages 1–9 in Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses fürChristliche Archäologie, Bonn, 22.–28. September 1991 [= JbAC Ergänzungsband 20, no. 1].Edited by Ernst Dassmann and Josef Engemann. Münster: Aschendorff, 1995.

Miles, Richard. Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity . London: Routledge, 1999.

Mitchell, S. and G. Greatrex, Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity . London: Te ClassicalPress of Wales, 2000.

Patrich, J. “Palestinian Desert Monasticism: Te Monastic Systems of Chariton, Gerasimus andSabas.” Cristianesimo nella storia 16 (1995): 1–9.




———. Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism,Fourth to Seventh Centuries . Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library andCollection, 1995.

Perrone, L. “Christian Holy Places and Pilgrimage in an Age of Dogmatic Conflicts: PopularReligion and Confessional Affiliation in Byzantine Palestine (Fifth to Seventh Centuries).”Proche-Orient Chrétien 48 (1998): 5–37.

———. La chiesa di Palestine e le controversie christologiche : Dal concilio di Efeso (431) al secondoconcilio di Costantinopoli (553). Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1980.

———. “Monasticism in the Holy Land: From the Beginnings to the Crusaders.” Proche-Orient Chrétien 45 (1995): 31–63.

———. “Palestinian Monasticism, the Bible, and Teology in the Wake of the Second Ori-genist Controversy.” Pages 245–259 in Te Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from theFifth Century to the Present . Edited by J. Patrich. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.

———. “Pierre L’Ibère ou L’Exil comme pèlerinage et combat pour la foi.” Pages 190–204 in

Man Near A Roman Arch: Studies presented to Prof. Yoram safrir . Edited by L. Di Segni, Y. Hirschfeld, J. Patrich, and R. algam. urnhout: Brepols, 2009.

———. “Rejoice Sion, Mother of all Churches: Christianity in the Holy Land During theByzantine Era.” Pages 141–173 in Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land . CulturalEncounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 5. Edited by O. Limor and G. Stroumsa.urnhout: Brepols, 2006.

———. “Te Necessity of Advice: Spiritual Direction as a School of Christianity in the Cor-respondence of Barsanuphius and John of Gaza.” Pages 131–149 in Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity . Edited by B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Pohl, W. and H. Reinitz, eds. Strategies of Distinction: Te Construction of Ethnic Communities 300–600 . Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Raabe, R. Petrus der Iberer: Ein Charakterbild zur Kirchen- und Sittengeschichte des fünften Jahr-hunderts . Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1895.Rapp, C. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: Te Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of ransi-

tion. Te ransformation of the Classical Heritage 37. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 2005.

Romeny, Bas ter Haar. “From Religious Association to Ethnic Community: A Research Projecton Identity Formation among the Syrian Orthodox under Muslim Rule.” Islam and Chris-tian-Muslim Relations 16, no. 4 (2005): 377–399.

———. ed. Religious Origins of Nations? Te Christian Communities of the Middle East . ChurchHistory and Religious Culture 89. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

———. “Te Identity Formation of Syrian Orthodox Christians as Reflected in wo ExegeticalCollections: First Sounding.” Parole de l’Orient 29 (2004): 103–121.

Rousseau, P. “Monasticism.” Pages 745–780 in Te Cambridge Ancient History 14. Edited by A.Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, and M. Whitby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000.

Saliou, C., ed. Gaza dans l’Antiquité tardive: Archeologie, rhetorique et histoire . Saleron: Helios,2005.

Sterk, A. Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: Te Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity . Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Solzbacher, R. Mönche, Pilger und Sarazenen – Studien zum Frühchristentum auf der südlichenSinaihalbinsel – Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn islamischer Herrschaft. Altenberge: Mün-steraner theologische Abhandlungen, 1989.

Steppa, J. E. John Rufus and the World Vision of Anti-Chalcedonian Culture . Gorgias Dissertations

in Early Christian Studies GD 4, ECS 1. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002.




Usener, H. Der heilige Teodosios . Leipzig: Deichert, 1890. Walker, P. W. L. Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the

Fourth Century . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Wilken, Robert L. “Loving the Jerusalem Below. Te Monks of Palestine.” Pages 240–250 in

Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by Lee I.Levine. New York: Continuum, 1999.

———. Te Land Called Holy. Palestine in Christian History and Tought. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1992.

Wilkinson, J. Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades . Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1977.Zacharias the Rhetor. Vita Isaiae Monachi . CSCO, Scriptores Syri, Ser. 3, xxv. ranslated and

edited by E. W. Brooks. Leuven: Peeters Press, 1907.

Documents

Bitton-Ashkelony, Territory, Anti-Intellectual Attitude, And Identity Formation in Late Antique Palestinie