Search Results

This chapter discusses the major stages in Peter the Iberian’s life and career, highlighting the impact of different geographical, cultural, and political influences, namely those of Georgia, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Palestine, Alexandria, and Egypt, and the contributions of individuals from different social roles, such as imperial nobility, patriarchs, monks, pilgrims, and women. Central to this examination is Peter’s multifaceted role of prince, monk, and bishop. He played a central role in the history of the anti-Chalcedonian community in Palestine, both as a figure who decisively influenced events as well as a model and hero that inspired people to adhere to an ideal even after his death.

This chapter shows that Abba Isaiah and Philoxenus of Mabbugh were influential contributors to anti-Chalcedonian theological and ascetico-spiritual perspectives in Palestine. They provided an immediate context for the theology and spirituality of Peter the Iberian, John Rufus, and their anti-Chalcedonian ascetic followers in the Gaza area. The importance of the Cross in the spiritual theology of these two teachers and leaders is discussed.

This chapter examines the role of the Holy Land as a singular setting for the Christological controversies in the 5th century. In the context of pilgrimage to the numerous holy places, Peter’s own role as a pilgrim to the Holy Land comes into focus. The spiritual and political implications of his personal pilgrimage as well as the sensitivities of anti-Chalcedonians concerning the fact that the holy places were in the hands of ‘heretical’ Chalcedonians are crucial to understand both Peter’s role as well as the model held out for future generations by Rufus.

Two main texts are available on the life and career of Peter the Iberian in the anti-Chalcedonian milieu of 5th-century AD Palestine. The first text, the Vita Petri Iberi, is the hagiographical biography of Peter. The second text, the Plerophoriae, is a collection of apophthegmata-like anecdotes, which focus on the controversy over the acceptance of the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt. John Rufus most likely wrote or was the final redactor of both works, but his work has received little scholarly attention until recently. This chapter discusses significant aspects of the work and person of John Rufus. It also introduces two other main sources of information concerning Peter: the works of Zachariah Rhetor and the Georgian ‘Life of Peter the Iberian’.

This introductory chapter begins with a description of the main focus of this study, namely the career of Peter the Iberian, drawing on the extant historical, literary, and hagiographical sources. Peter the Iberian is introduced as a key figure in the Christological controversies and as one of the most influential ascetic leaders of the anti-Chalcedonian movement in 5th-century Palestine. An overview of the chapters included in this volume is presented.

This chapter examines the ecclesiological foundations of the theological debate between Severus of Antioch and the separatist elements within the anti-Chalcedonian camp over the incorruptibility of the social body of Christ. It reveals the correlation between christology and ecclesiology in the debate over the validity of Chalcedonian baptism, chrismation, and ordination. After considering the divisions within the anti-Chalcedonian movement about the proper attitude to the imperial church, along with their roots and their significance, the chapter argues that Severus was and remained a staunch supporter of imperial ecclesiology, and that he retained his ecumenicism even in the face of popular currents that consistently advocated secession from the imperial church. To show that Severus did not change his ideology, the chapter analyzes his stances on three questions relating to charismatic authority, persecution, and the reception of heretics. It also discusses the arguments of John Rufus and John of Tella and concludes with an assessment of Severus's case against rechrismation.

This book explores the main theological question within the anti-Chalcedonian party that occupied Severus of Antioch in the last fifteen years of his life: the incorruptibility of the body of Christ. It considers whether Christ's body became incorruptible only after the crucifixion and resurrection, as Severus believed, or whether it was incorruptible already from the incarnation, as claimed by Severus's fellow anti-Chalcedonian Julian of Halicarnassus and his followers. The book discusses the ecclesiological foundations of the theological dispute between Severus and Julian as well as its liturgical and textual-cultural aspects. It investigates Severus's theological, political, liturgical, and cultural contestations with those within anti-Chalcedonian society who promoted separatism. This introduction explains the two main methodological challenges involved in the study of what is called the “dissension among the dissenters,” or the series of theological, political and liturgical controversies that rocked the anti-Chalcedonian movement during Severus's lifetime.

This concluding chapter summarizes the issues discussed in the book and looks ahead to the aftermath of the incorruptibility controversy as it played out in the second half of the sixth century. Invoking what it called “the stereoscopic approach,” the book has argued that Severus of Antioch's position concerning the social body of Christ was both reflected in and informed by his position concerning the physical body of Christ. According to Severus, Jesus's body before the resurrection was corruptible and attained incorruptibility only after its death and resurrection. Julian, on the other hand, claimed that the body of Christ was incorruptible from the moment of the incarnation. Severus's eucharistic outlook, like his christology and ecclesiology, recognized both corrupt and incorrupt aspects in the liturgical body, whereas Julian viewed the Eucharist as purely incorrupt. This chapter ends by offering three examples of the ways in which Severus's followers perpetuated Julian's legacy under the former's name, and in the process transformed both the memory of Severus and the identity of the anti-Chalcedonian movement itself.