33 Anti-Jewish Polemic and Conversion of Jews to Anti
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ARAM, 18-19 (2006-2007) 33-48. doi:C.B. 10.2143/ARAM.18.0.2020721 HORN 33 ANTI-JEWISH POLEMIC AND CONVERSION OF JEWS TO ANTI-CHALCEDONIAN ASCETICISM IN THE HOLY LAND: THE CASE OF EUGENIA OF TYRE1 Dr. CORNELIA B. HORN (Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO) Eugenia was a well-off Jewish girl, living in Tyre, Phoenicia, in the second half of the fifth century AD. John Rufus was the leading historian and biogra- pher of the anti-Chalcedonian movement in the Holy Land in the fifth- and sixth centuries.2 The account of Eugenia's conversion to Christianity and to an ascetic lifestyle served Rufus's polemical agenda against the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) very well. Rufus skillfully used the account of the girl’s conversion in pursuit of two of his goals: to motivate Chalcedonian Christians to turn away from their seemingly “Jewish” beliefs; and to present with Eugenia yet another ideal model for promoting anti-Chalcedonian self-identity as that of a martyr suffering for a just cause. Taking an interdisciplinary ap- proach, the present study explores Eugenia’s case in order to reveal the roots of Rufus’s seemingly anti-Jewish polemic.3 ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS IN PALESTINE Rufus wrote about Eugenia in his Life of Peter the Iberian.4 Yet before she can come into focus, some background information about the main agents of 1 Copyright December 2006 by Cornelia B. Horn. Unless stated otherwise, the responsibility for the English translation of sources lies with the present author. I have discussed aspects of Eugenia’s life previously at the Regional Meeting of the American Academy of Religion / Soci- ety of Biblical Literature, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, April 2002. For helpful critical comments I am especially indebted to Michael Hollerich and members of the Department of Theology at the University of St. Thomas. 2 For a study that focuses exclusively on the figure of John Rufus see Eduard Schwartz, “Johannes Rufus, ein monophysitischer Schriftsteller,” Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 16. Abteilung (1912), 1-28. More recently, Jan-Eric Steppa, John Rufus and the World Vision of Anti-Chalcedonian Cul- ture, Gorgias Dissertations: Ancient Christian Studies, vol. 1 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002), enlightened the figure of Rufus as creator of a cultural paradigm. See also my review of Steppa’s work in Hugoye: Journal for Syriac Studies [http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/ HV6N1PRHorn.html] 6.1 (2003). A revised edition of Steppa’s monograph is forthcoming. 3 For a recent study of the wider field of interaction between Jews and Christians in the Holy Land during the time relevant for this discussion, see also Günter Stemberger, “Jewish-Christian Contacts in Galilee (Fifth to Seventh Centuries),” in Arieh Kofsky and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Sharing the Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land; First-Fifteenth Centu- ries CE (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi: Jerusalem, 1998), 131-146. 4 For an edition and German translation of the Syriac text see Richard Raabe, ed. and trans., Petrus der Iberer: ein Charakterbild zur Kirchen- und Sittengeschichte des 5. Jahrhunderts; 06-8819_Aram 18-19_03_Horn 33 06-26-2007, 16:29 34 ANTI-JEWISH POLEMIC AND CONVERSION: EUGENIA the anti-Chalcedonian movement in Palestine is necessary.5 The Life of Peter the Iberian is Rufus's hagiographical biography of the young Georgian prince Peter, who was raised at the court of the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius II in the early fifth century AD and who became both a “one-way pilgrim” and later on a monk in the Holy Land.6 Eventually, Peter was appointed bishop of Maiuma, Gaza. From Rufus's literary portrait of Peter presented in the Life and in several anecdotes, published in a second major work, the Plerophories,7 Peter emerges as one of the key-players in the revolt of the monks of the Holy Land against the Council of Chalcedon and against Bishop Juvenal of Jerusa- lem.8 Although Juvenal had signed the council's decrees, the monks were con- vinced that Chalcedon represented a dangerous revival of the teachings of Nestorius, the former bishop of Constantinople, whose denial of the appropri- ateness of the title Theotokos, i.e., Mother of God, for Mary had been con- demned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.9 To the monks it seemed that Chalcedon introduced theological formulations that could not keep the divinity and humanity of Christ united in a single person.10 Consequently they feared syrische Übersetzung einer um das Jahr 500 verfassten griechischen Biographie (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1895). When reference is made in the following to Raabe's intro- duction or German translation, the abbreviation “Raabe, Petrus der Iberer” is used. Reference to the Syriac text will appear as “Vita Petri Iberi” followed by page number. For a revised edition of the Life of Peter the Iberian, accompanied by an annotated English translation and introduction see Cornelia Horn and Robert R. Phenix Jr., Controversial Historiography in Late Antique Pales- tine, The Works of John Rufus, vol. 1: The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus, Writings from the Greco-Roman World series (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature and E.J. Brill Publisherss, forthcoming). For the most up-to-date study of the life and career of Peter the Iberian see Cornelia Horn, Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine: The Career of Peter the Iberian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). 5 For a study of the wider context of the anti-Chalcedonian controversy within the history of the Christian Church in the Holy Land, one may also consult Lorenzo Perrone, La chiesa Palestina e le controversie cristologiche – Dal concilio di Efeso (431) al secondo concilio di Costantinopoli (553) (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1980). 6 Aryeh Kofsky, “Peter the Iberian: Pilgrimage, Monasticism and Ecclesiastical Politics in Byzantine Palestine,” Liber Annuus 47 (1997), 209-222, here 209, coined the phrase “one-way pilgrims.” 7 For the standard edition of the Syriac text of this work accompanied by a French translation see Jean Rufus, Évêque de Maïouma, Plérophories, c.-à-d. témoignages et révélations, edited by F. Nau, translated by M. Brière, Patrologia Orientalis (= PO) 8.1 (Paris, 1911). When reference is made to Nau's introduction, the abbreviation “Nau, Plérophories” is used. Reference to the Syriac text will appear as “Plerophoriae” followed by the number of the episode. The English translation supplied here is by the present author. An annotated English translation of and intro- duction to the Plerophories by Cornelia Horn and Robert Phenix will be forthcoming in due course. 8 On Juvenal of Jerusalem, still authoritative is the study by Ernest Honigmann, “Juvenal of Jerusalem,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950), 211-279. 9 The literature on Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius of Constantinople, and the Council of Ephesus abounds. For a useful discussion see John Anthony McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 23 (Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1994; republished: Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2004) 10 See, e.g., the dialogue between the anti-Chalcedonian John the komjtianóv and a comes identified as a Syrian Nestorian in Plerophoriae 62: “And [John] was saying to him, ‘Are you 06-8819_Aram 18-19_03_Horn 34 06-26-2007, 16:29 C.B. HORN 35 that their efforts at imitating Christ's self-denial and suffering would not guar- antee their salvation.11 Therefore they joined forces and revolted against their bishop, Juvenal, on his return from the council. After an interim of a year and a half of anti-Chalcedonian rule in Jerusalem, Juvenal put down the monks' uprising and achieved his reinstitution through the help of imperial troops. Anti-Chalcedonian monastic sources remember the bloody military actions, which cost the life of many monks in and around the Holy City.12 Imperial policy of subsequent years in the form of Zeno’s Henotikon and Basiliscus’s Encyclical and anti-Encyclical tried to gain the support of the monks in the Holy Land for Chalcedon by more peaceful means.13 Yet both in Egypt and in Palestine those efforts had only limited success. While Egypt ultimately re- mained a staunch opponent of Chalcedon, two opposing monastic camps shared the Palestinian provinces for several decades. Support for Chalcedon started from the Judaean Desert with the monk Euthymius and extended among growing numbers of monks mostly in the Holy City.14 However, a re- confessing that the holy Virgin is the mother of God?’ Thereupon, when that one was saying, ‘I am confessing that she is the mother of God and the mother of Christ,’ he [i.e., John] answered him, ‘What then! Has she born two or one?’ And when that one was compelled, he shut his mouth so that these who were present and were listening, would be amazed. And they would praise God about the wisdom which was given to his servant on behalf of the truth.” 11 As this attitude was shared by monks in other parts of the Eastern Roman Empire, one still reads with great benefit three studies, one by Heinrich Bacht, “Die Rolle des orientalischen Mönchtums in den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen um Chalkedon (431-519),” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. by Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht, vol. 2 (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1953), 193-314; one by Derwas J. Chitty, The Desert a City: An Introductioin to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism Under the Christian Em- pire (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1966); and one by W.H.C.