OUTLINE:
I. Ancient history
II. The patriarchate of J
III. The Council of J
IV. Hagiography and liturgy —V. Archaeology
VI. Art.I. ANCIENT HISTORY
OUTLINE: I. From the origins to the conquest by David (3000–1000 B.C.). — II. From the conquest by David to the destruction (1000–587 B.C.). — III. From the rebuilding by Nehemiah to the destruction of 70 A.D.
I. FROM THE ORIGINS TO THE CONQUEST BY DAVID (3000–1000 B.C.). — The view, common until half a century ago, that placed the origins of J. on the western hill, traditionally known as Mount Zion, no longer finds supporters. It is now an uncontested fact, established by historical and archaeological science, that the earliest J. stood on the eastern hill, specifically on the southern spur conventionally called Ophel. To the natural defenses offered by this hill—steep slopes sharply delimited by the deep valleys of the Kidron to the east and the Tyropoeon to the west, an impassable escarpment to the south at the confluence of the two valleys, and a natural depression to the north easily fortified—was added the vital advantage of proximity to the only spring in J., the biblical Gihon (v. today called ‘Ayin Sitti Maryam, the “Spring of the Lady Mary,” or Umm ed-Dejā’ “Mother of the Steps”).
For centuries, from the Lower Paleolithic period into historical times, the indigenous inhabitants took refuge in the caves adjacent to this spring, until they were supplanted or absorbed by a population of superior culture, skilled in metalworking, which invaded Palestine during the 4th millennium B.C. and which the Old Testament later refers to, in a term more geographical than technical, as Canaanite. The abundant series of flint tools and pottery collected from the burial caves of Ophel, dating from the end of the Chalcolithic period through the early and entire Early Bronze Age, provides concrete evidence of the original urban nucleus on the hill during the 3rd millennium. The so-called execration texts composed in Egypt around 1900 B.C. reveal that the Canaanite city already bore the name Urusalim (“foundation of the god Shalem”). The great ethnic movements of the 2nd millennium also impacted J., and the changes observed in pottery and construction techniques attest to the settlement of a new ethnic element.
The Amorite clan of the Jebusites, recognizing the strategic importance of the Gihon spring, established themselves on the hill above, extending further north. In addition to the natural defenses, they constructed a powerful wall, reinforced with towers along its weakest section, the northern side, just south of the present-day walls of the Haram and al-Sarif. At the center of the hill, on the acropolis known by its indigenous name Zion, they built the royal palace and the sanctuary, and ensured a water supply in case of siege by constructing a secret passage (the Tunnel of Ophel), which allowed water from the Gihon spring to be channeled into the city.
It was here that Melchizedek, priest of the Most High, exercised his sovereignty, according to a Jewish tradition (Flavius Josephus, *Antiquitates Judaicae*, I, 10, 2), at the time when Abraham wandered as a nomad through Palestine (Gen. 14:17).
Having fallen under Egyptian influence following the victory of Thutmose III, the Jebusite Urusalim (as it was called in the Amarna letters, c. 1400 B.C.) had a mixed population (Ezek. 16:3: “your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite”) and was governed by princes who were vassals of the Pharaoh. The Hittite prince ‘Abd-Hiba, from his fortress, appealed to the Pharaoh for aid in defending Bit-Shulman, the capital, from raiders. At the time of the Israelite invasion, King Adonizedek, leading a confederation of Amorite kings, attempted to resist the enemy advance. Though defeated and executed by Joshua (Josh. 10:26), he left the capital so well fortified that it continued to resist (Josh. 15:8, 63) and kept the conquerors at a respectful distance (Judg. 19:12) until the year 1000 B.C.
(Au K. Galling, *Bibliotheca Reallexikon*, Tübingen 1937, p. 367) Jerusalem. — Archaeological plan of J. In the German caption, the first hatching indicates the city wall in the Bronze Age (c. 1500–1200 B.C.); the second, the period of Solomon (c. 965–926 B.C.); the third, the period of
II. FROM THE CONQUEST BY DAVID TO THE DESTRUCTION (1000–587 B.C.). — DAVIDE (v.) resolved to unite the various factions of the people, the independence of Urusalim—isolated between the neighboring tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:8; 18:16)—was compromised by its advantageous position as the most suitable site to become the political and religious center of the kingdom. The city, well fortified, might have long resisted David’s siege had not the secret passage (sîmor), connecting the spring with the city, provided a way for his forces to penetrate and capture it by surprise (2 Sam. 5:8; 1 Chron. 11:5). The first act of the conqueror was to repair the walls around the hill (a tower and a section of wall above the Gihon spring are shown as Davidic work), and with materials and workers sent by King Hiram of Tyre, he built a royal palace at the center of the Acropolis of Zion, which, as his personal property, became “the City of David” (2 Sam. 5:9). Yet what truly elevated J. to capital status was the transfer of the Ark of the Covenant from Kiriath-arba to Zion and the erection of an altar on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan, where the angel had appeared during the plague (2 Sam. 24:16).
However, the Davidic city, still confined within the Canaanite perimeter, could not satisfy Solomon’s ambitions. He shifted the city center northward to Moriah by creating the vast platform of the present-day Haram al-Sharif, on which Hiram’s Tyrian craftsmen built the magnificent Temple (1 Kings 5–8). Almost at the center of this area, the “Dome of the Rock” (the Mosque of ‘Umar) now covers the bare rock where “the altar of burnt offerings” was placed; slightly to the west stood “the house of Yahweh,” surrounded by extensive courtyards (1 Kings 6:36; Jer. 36:10). To the south of the esplanade, where the al-Aqsa Mosque now stands, were the royal palace, the palace for Solomon’s daughter, the government quarter with administrative offices, and the court of justice (1 Kings 7:12).
By means of a large embankment or *millo’* (1 Kings 11:27), the City of David was connected to the new city, and a new wall (called “the first wall” by Flavius Josephus, *Bellum Judaicum*, V, 4, 2) enclosed the newly built houses on the slopes of the western hill. The “first wall,” of which foundations are still visible, particularly on the eastern side, ran north of the present-day Jaffa Gate as far as the entrance to the Haram al-Sharif called Bab es-Silsileh, encircling the entire city (known in Hebrew phonetics as *Yerushalayim*) along the ridge of the hills overlooking the Kidron and Hinnom valleys.
At Solomon’s death, the urban momentum inevitably stalled with the division of the ten tribes, and J. remained the capital of the smaller kingdom of Judah and Benjamin, increasingly weakened by raids, invasions, and internal strife. In the fifth year of King Rehoboam (929 B.C.), Shishak, king of Egypt, sacked the Temple and the royal palace (1 Kings 14:25); later, King Asa (910 B.C.) spent much of the city’s wealth to secure the alliance of Ben-hadad, king of Syria, against Baasha, king of Israel (1 Kings 15:18; 2 Chron. 16:2–3).
In 842 B.C., the impious Athaliah usurped the throne and massacred the Davidic line (2 Kings 11:4); Joash, who escaped her, lapsed into idolatry, while Hazael, king of Syria, invaded the city and did not withdraw until he had stripped the Temple and royal treasury of their abundant wealth (2 Kings 12:17–18).
At the beginning of the 8th century B.C., under Amaziah, the king of Israel, Joash breached a 400-cubit section
Between the "Gate of Ephraim" and the "Corner Gate," it transfers to Samaria the gold, silver, and precious vessels of the Temple (2 Kings 14:13-14). King Azariah (782) oversees the restoration of the walls, fortifying with towers "the Corner Gate and the Valley Gate" (2 Chronicles 26:9), but an earthquake again devastates J. (Amos 1:1; Zechariah 1:15), and desolation would have been complete had not Jotham (738) strengthened the fortifications, already begun by his father, especially in the Ophel district (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chronicles 27:2-3).
King Ahaz (736) further impoverishes the city by sending lavish gifts to the king of Assyria to secure his aid against the kings of Damascus and Israel, who had conspired against Judah (2 Kings 16:5). On this occasion, the prophet Isaiah met the king "at the end of the conduit of the upper pool," delivering the famous prophecy of the 'almah' (Isaiah 7:3, 14).
After the fall of Samaria in 721, the capital welcomed many refugees who increased the population of the mi-niho quarter or "new city" (ir mi-niho) (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22; Nehemiah 11:14), which had formed outside the city walls. Hezekiah (716), anticipating the invasion of Sennacherib, protected it by constructing a new wall ("the second wall"), extending from the Gennan Gate, near the Jaffa Gate, to the Antonia fortress (q.v.), excluding the hill of Golgotha (2 Chronicles 32:2-5). But the principal work of this king was the construction of an aqueduct of about 550 meters through solid rock to convey the waters of the upper Gihon to the Pool of Siloam, thus depriving the Assyrian invaders of their water supply. The tunnel, truly remarkable for the 7th century, is still in use today. An inscription discovered in 1889 at the outlet of the aqueduct describes this hydraulic work.
His successor Manasseh (687) also repaired the city's fortifications (2 Chronicles 33:14-16), especially in the Ophel region and on the northeast side of the Temple "as far as the Fish Gate." Yet all these precautions proved useless when, in 587, the troops of Nebuchadnezzar attacked, burned the city, and deported the king and most of the inhabitants to Babylon.
III. FROM THE REBUILDING BY NEHEMIAH TO THE DESTRUCTION OF 70 A.D. — After Cyrus' decree of liberation (538), the Jews who returned to their homeland rebuilt the altar of burnt offerings and, on the foundations of Solomon's Temple, erected "the house of the Lord" as the Second Temple (Ezra 3:1-13). In 444, under Nehemiah's leadership, the city walls were rebuilt (Nehemiah 3:1-32). Under the authority of the high priests and Persian satraps, though the city retained the dimensions of ancient Jerusalem, it was sparsely populated and of little political importance. In 331, Alexander the Great conquered J.; at his death, the city passed under the protection of the Ptolemies and later came under the Seleucids.
In 168, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (q.v.) plundered the city, profaned the Temple, suspended its sacrifices, and stationed his garrison in the citadel, the Acra (q.v.), probably to the northwest of the Temple (1 Maccabees 1:20-28). The Hellenization of the city would have been complete had it not been for the Maccabean revolt. After three years of fierce struggle, Judas Maccabeus (165) regained control of the Temple, which the style of the time honored with the title of Mount Zion (1 Maccabees 10:1-8), and built the fortress of Baris to the northwest to defend the Temple area. His successor Jonathan (160), taking advantage of internal strife in Syria, recovered part of the city and repaired the quarters plundered by Antiochus (1 Maccabees 6:18-62), while Simon completed the fortifications and in 142 silenced the Syrian fortress, the Acra (1 Maccabees 13:49).
During the Hasmonean reign, "holy J.," as inscribed on the shekel of Israel, enjoyed a period of prosperity, later disrupted by the intense struggles between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, which provoked Roman intervention. Pompey in 63 made J. tributary to Rome, and in 37 Herod the Great (q.v.), with Augustus' favor, took possession of the kingdom. Of the many transformations the city had undergone, none was more profound than those carried out by this monarch. The general plan reflected that of Nehemiah, but the buildings were conceived in Greco-Roman style: an agora, a theater, an amphitheater, and a hippodrome were constructed.
On the western hill, or "upper city," the royal palace was built, defended to the north by a high wall and flanked by three very tall towers that Herod named Hippicus, after a friend of his, Phasael, in memory of his elder brother, and Mariamne, in remembrance of his ill-fated wife whom he had loved so dearly. The splendor of these constructions can still be admired in the foundations of the so-called "Tower of David" or citadel, brought to light in excavations from 1934-39.
On the eastern hill or "lower city," at the northwest corner of the Temple, on the foundations of the Hasmonean Baris, the fortress known as Antonia (q.v.) was built in honor of the Roman triumvir Mark Antony. Encircled by a formidable moat, it was a vast palace with porticoes and gardens, the plan of which recent excavations have allowed us to recognize, particularly the large paved floor, believed to be the Lithostratos (John 19:13) where Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus.
The great marvel of J. in this period was the reconstruction of the Temple ("Third Temple"), preceded by vast courtyards, among which rose to the south the basilica, on the site of the present al-Aqsa. This was the Temple that Jesus visited at the age of twelve (Luke 2:42), where He taught in "Solomon's Porch" (John 10:23) and entered triumphantly through the gate near the present Golden Gate, a few days before His Passion. Of the "beautiful stones" adorning the sacred edifice, He foretold its complete destruction, which occurred in 70 A.D.
After Herod's death, his son Archelaus ruled for a few years with the title of ethnarch, but due to the bloody suppression of a Jewish revolt that cost more than 3,000 lives, he was recalled to Gaul. Roman procurators resumed control, and J. lost even its status as capital, which passed to Caesarea (q.v.) in Palestine. In 25 A.D., Emperor Tiberius appointed Pontius Pilate (q.v.) as procurator, who condemned Jesus to please the Jews, yet incurred their hatred by daring to display Roman ensigns and diverting funds from the Temple treasury to build an aqueduct that brought water from the springs of Ethan to J. Among the places mentioned in the Gospel, the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7) and that of Bethesda (q.v.; John 5:2) are certainly known; the Garden of Gethsemane and the Cenacle are assured by ancient tradition, but the location of Jesus' religious trial at the house of Caiaphas and the civil trial at the praetorium remain uncertain.
The rocky hill of Golgotha, outside the walls near one of the city gates, where Jesus was crucified and buried nearby, now lies within the city because in 44 A.D., under King Herod Agrippa, the city expanded into the Gareb and Bethesda regions and was enclosed in its northern part by the "Third Wall," which roughly followed the line of the present wall.
In 1925–27 some archaeologists thought they had found the “third wall” much farther north than the present one, but, as H. Vincent has observed, the wretched construction technique, with reused material, seems to point to hasty work and does not match the description given by Flavius Josephus.
At the death of Herod Agrippa, J. was again governed by Roman procurators, but the rapacity of Gessius Florus (64–66) kindled the terrible conflagration by which it was to be destroyed.
To quell the revolt, Nero sent Vespasian, who, upon becoming emperor, entrusted the continuation of the operation to his son Titus. The first assaults (31 March 70) were directed against the third wall on the western hill, defended by Simon of Gerasa; then the second wall was attacked, defended by John of Gischala, where after five days of siege a breach was opened. The population, with the enemy at the gates and civil war within, suffered the horrors of famine, but the army continued to resist stoutly; finally, after a few weeks, the fortress of Antonia was stormed, the Romans seized the Temple hill, and subsequently the upper and lower city. Against the will of Titus, the Temple was set on fire, and all the rest of J., except for the towers of Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne, was destroyed (Aug. 70).
In memory of that triumph, commemorated in Rome by the Arch of Titus, a coin was struck with the inscription Iudaea capta.
On 15 May 1948 the Jews proclaimed once more the State of Israel in Palestine, with J. as its capital.
Donato Baldi
II. THE PATRIARCHATE OF J.
OUTLINE:
I. From the beginnings to the Arab invasion (638)
II. From the Arab invasion to the Ottoman Turkish conquest (638–1516)
III. From the Turkish conquest to the present
IV. The Greek-Catholic or Melkite patriarchate
V. The Latin patriarchate
VI. The other Christian communities.I. FROM THE BEGINNINGS TO THE ARAB INVASION (638)
Although J. was the cradle of Christianity, nonetheless the patriarchate of J. did not attain the importance of the other eastern patriarchates. It arose last and remained in the last place among them.The first bishop of J. was St James the Less, “brother” of the Lord. His successor Simeon witnessed the destruction of the city by Titus (70). Up to the second destruction, at the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt, there are still counted thirteen Jewish-Christian bishops. In the pagan city of Aelia Capitolina, founded in 135, Christians from paganism seem already to have settled early on. That Church was subject to Caesarea in Palestine as its metropolitan see. Bishop Narcissus, at the Council of J. held in 190 on the question of Easter, took second place immediately after the metropolitan of Caesarea. In the long period of peace of the third century, pilgrimages to the Holy Land had already begun. J. acquired greater importance after the peace granted to the Church by Constantine. Canon 7 of the Council of Nicaea acknowledged for J. a primacy of honour, while insisting on the rights of the metropolitan of Caesarea. The emperor Constantine had the basilica of the Resurrection built. The Holy Places attracted many pilgrims and monks, and J. became a centre of monasticism. The liturgy of the Holy City exercised a vast influence. In the fourth century J. was drawn into the Arian disputes. The most eminent bishop of that time was St Cyril (351–76). The Origenist disputes and the controversy over Pelagianism reached J. in the time of Bishop John II (387–417). The struggle over Origen divided at that time St Jerome and Rufinus, who were then settled near the city.
Bishop Juvenal (422–58) obtained at the Council of Chalcedon (451) that J. be separated from Antioch and declared an independent patriarchate; to it was subjected Palestine, but not Phoenicia or Arabia. Rome protested in vain against this decision of the Council. The Monophysite disputes also affected Palestine, but did not cause a lasting division as at Antioch and Alexandria. It is largely owing to St Sabas that orthodoxy was maintained in Palestine. J. relied against its powerful neighbours (Antioch and Alexandria) on Constantinople, following the faith of that city. This drew it into the Acacian schism of 482–518. The monks of the monasteries of J. and its neighbourhood took a lively part in the Origenist disputes, which led to the condemnation issued by the Third Council of Constantinople (553).
The end of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh were an age of splendour for the patriarchate of J.; but the Persian invasion of 614 brought ruin. Thousands of Christians were killed; many churches were destroyed; Patriarch Zacharias was deported to Persia and the True Cross was carried off as war booty. The victory of the emperor Heraclius restored the True Cross, but stirred up the disputes over Monothelitism, whose bitter opponent was the patriarch of J., St Sophronius (634–38).
II. FROM THE ARAB INVASION TO THE OTTOMAN TURKISH CONQUEST (638–1516)
St Sophronius had to negotiate with the Arab conqueror ‘Umar, who granted J. a relatively favourable treaty. The conquerors’ distrust of the Orthodox, adhering to the faith of the Byzantine emperor, prevented for sixty-eight years the election of a patriarch. The Church was then administered by vicars, who maintained relations with Rome or Constantinople. At that time Rome worked strenuously to secure the continuity of the hierarchy of J. and to protect it against Monothelitism. In the controversy over Iconoclasm J. remained faithful to Rome and to the true faith. The most stalwart champion of the veneration of sacred images, St John Damascene, lived as a monk in the monastery of St Sabas near J. Patriarch Theodore I condemned Iconoclasm in the synod of 763, together with the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. Charlemagne seems to have acquired a right of protectorate over the Holy Places of J. In his time a Latin monastery was founded on the Mount of Olives, whose inmates disputed the Filioque with the Greek monks of the monastery of St Sabas. At the ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 869 the delegate of the patriarch of J., Theodosius (862–78), declared that he would never acknowledge God. The Byzantine victories in the second half of the tenth century worsened the situation of the Christians of J. In 966 the Arabs sacked the church of the Resurrection and killed Patriarch John VII. The plan of the emperor John Tzimisces to conquer J. failed. Persecution reached its height under the Fatimid al-Hakim (1005–20). The church of the Resurrection was destroyed in 1010. The Byzantine emperors obtained by negotiation permission to rebuild it, and the reconstruction was completed in 1048.In the period of the schism of Michael Cerularius, relations between Constantinople and Jerusalem were excellent, since the Christians of the Holy City relied on the aid they were to receive from the Byzantines against the Muslims. It is difficult to determine exactly what attitude the patriarch of Jerusalem took toward the schism of Constantinople. The capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuks (1071) worsened the situation of the Christians. The Crusaders, who conquered Jerusalem in 1099, behaved toward the Greeks in a less prudent manner, although much of what is said against them is exaggerated. The election of a Latin patriarch while the Greek Simeon was still alive and the extensive Latinization of the patriarchate must have embittered the Greeks. During the period of Latin rule in Jerusalem, the Greek patriarchs generally resided in Constantinople and were appointed by the emperor; this proves that at that time they were schismatic. In the patriarchate, however, the clergy and people were officially considered Catholic.
After the Muslims under Saladin recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, the Greek patriarchs returned there, and from that time the patriarchate was undoubtedly schismatic. Even at the time of the Council of Lyons (1274), the patriarch of Jerusalem, Gregory, showed himself opposed to the Union. Under the rule of the Mamluk sultans, the situation of the Christians in Palestine was very harsh. At the Council of Florence (1439), the patriarch of Jerusalem, Joachim, was represented by Dositeus of Monembasia, who signed the act of Union. But, as it seems, the patriarch already repudiated this Union at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1443.
He showed himself ready to make concessions, was deposed by the Holy Synod, but in the end remained in office. After the First World War, the patriarchate of Jerusalem, because of the failure of Russian subsidies, found itself in a very precarious situation. The British Mandatory Government had to settle the dispute between the Arabs and the Church leadership by issuing in 1938 a Church Constitution, which was to replace the fundamental law of 1875. Although the Constitution takes into account the aspirations of the Arabs, it is nevertheless rejected by them as insufficient. The present patriarch, the Greek Timothy Themelis, elected in 1935, was recognized by the Mandatory Government only in 1939 and still meets with opposition among the Arab faithful.
The patriarchate of Jerusalem comprises six metropolitan sees and eight archbishoprics, today largely titular. It includes the territory of Palestine and Transjordan; it has 40,000 faithful in Palestine and 20,000 in Transjordan. The lower clergy is poorly educated, and the care of souls is much neglected.
IV. THE GREEK-CATHOLIC (MELKITE) PATRIARCHATE
The Byzantine-rite Catholics in Palestine have been subject to the Melkite patriarch of Antioch since 1763. Pope Gregory XVI in 1838 conferred on Patriarch Maximos III Mazloum the title of patriarch of Jerusalem as a personal distinction. In fact, the present patriarch also uses such a title. He is represented in Jerusalem by a vicar. Outside the patriarchal diocese there still exists one with the title of St. John of Aeri, Caipha being the episcopal residence. In 1932 a diocese was erected in Transjordan with the title of Philadelphia, with its see at Amman. For the training of the clergy in Jerusalem there is the Seminary of St. Anne, run by the White Fathers. The number of faithful is about 20,000 in Palestine and 4,500 in Transjordan.V. THE LATIN PATRIARCHATE
It was founded after the conquest of the Holy City by the Crusaders (1099). Since the Latins were the masters of the country, it is understandable that they wanted to have a Latin patriarch, although this measure was not well suited to win the sympathy of the Greeks. When in 1187 Jerusalem was conquered by Saladin, the Latin patriarch had to leave his see. From 1191 until 1291 Acre (St. John of Aeri) was the seat of the Latin patriarchate, except for the period between 1229 and 1244, when the patriarchate was able to reside in Jerusalem, recovered by Frederick II. In 1262 the see of Acre became the patriarch’s own diocese. But after the fall of the city the patriarch took refuge in Cyprus. From the 14th century the patriarchate became purely titular.
In 1847 Pius IX, with the apostolic letter *Nulla celebrior* of 23 July, reestablished the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem. To better understand this decision, it should be noted that the Melkite Catholics were not able to work effectively for the conversion of schismatics in Palestine, and that it was desired to give a suitable title to the head of the Latin Church in Jerusalem.
The Latin patriarchate has a well-trained and zealous clergy, largely indigenous. It has 21,000 faithful in Palestine and 6,000 in Transjordan. It also has a veritable army of religious, about 1,770 in number. The island of Cyprus also belongs to the Latin patriarchate. The total number of faithful throughout the patriarchate is about 40,000. The patriarchate is today subject to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches.
Various Catholic centers of biblical and archaeological studies should be mentioned: the French Biblical and Archaeological School of the Dominicans at the Convent of St. Stephen, which publishes the *Revue biblique*; the Pontifical Biblical Institute of the Jesuits; the Biblical Institute of the Franciscans and that of the Spanish Benedictines of Montserrat; the Oriental Institute of the “Göresgesellschaft.”
Alongside these, others should be mentioned, though of different religion, for their excellent work and expenditure: the German Evangelical Institute for Ancient Studies of the Holy Land; the American School of Oriental Research, the British School of Archaeology, the Palestine Jewish Exploration Society, the Palestine Oriental Society.
VI. THE OTHER CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES
The Holy Places attract all Christians alike. The Monophysite Jacobites have had a bishop in the city since the end of the 6th century; they later acquired the Convent of St. Mark, with a famous library rich in manuscripts and a printing press.The Syrian Catholics, the Chaldeans, the Armenian Catholics, and the Maronites have in Jerusalem their own patriarchal vicars. A Coptic bishop has resided in the city since the 11th century. He is today the superior of the Coptic convent near the Holy Sepulchre, where there is also an Ethiopian monastery. The dissident Armenians have had a resident archbishop in the Convent of St. James on Mount Zion since 1175. This archbishop took the title of patriarch in 1311. The Russians possess several convents in Jerusalem and, outside the city gates, a cathedral, as well as a hospice for pilgrims (recently the Russian properties located in the Jewish quarter have passed into the hands of the Soviet government). The Anglicans have a bishop who governs the entire “diocese of Jerusalem” which they have established (cf. C. Crivelli, *La «diocesi» anglicana di Gerusalemme*, in *Civ. Catt.*, 1943, IV, pp. 159–65; 235–41).
VII. THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM
Around 49–50, the Apostles and presbyters gathered in Jerusalem to resolve a controversy stirred up by the Judaizers (v.). These insisted that Gentile converts made during Paul’s first missionary journey should be subjected to circumcision and bound to observe the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:1).
Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem to address the matter. Their mission, recounted with great joy by the assembled, did not silence the advocates of circumcision. At the public session, Peter, appealing to the conversion of the centurion Cornelius, declared that Gentile Christians were exempt from the yoke of the Mosaic Law. James confirmed this view and proposed a compromise later formalized in a decree: Gentile converts were to abstain only from food sacrificed to idols (“idolothyta”), from strangled animals (“suffocated”), and from fornication—though some exegetes interpret this last term as referring to certain prohibited marriages within the Mosaic Law.
In the “Western” recension of the text (v. ATTI DEGLI APOSTOLI, 5) of Acts (ms. D, etc.), where the obligation to abstain from strangled meat is omitted (Acts 15:20, 29), the decree takes on an anachronistic sense that no longer reflects the Judaizing controversy. In this recension, abstinence from blood appears to concern murder, and the Golden Rule of charity is added.
In Galatians 2:1–10, a parallel passage to Acts 15, Paul adds further details: he went up to Jerusalem by revelation (not excluding the mission of the Church), took Titus with him, and secured his uncircumcision; there was a private meeting between him and the pillars of the Church (James, Cephas, John), concluded by an agreement on the division of apostolic labor.
VIII. HAGIOGRAPHY AND LITURGY.
The Apostle and Martyr James, first bishop of Jerusalem, was buried near the Temple, and Hegesippus notes that in his time his tombstone was still visible (Eusebius, Hist. ecc., II, 18). Eusebius also reports that in the 4th century his episcopal chair was shown (ibid., VII, 19), later transferred to the church of Sion (Itinera Hierosolymitana, ed. B. Geyer, in CSEL, 38, p. 108). The discovery of the relics of St Stephen occurred at Caphargamala following a dream had by the presbyter Lucian. The bishop of Jerusalem, John, solemnly deposited the relics of the Protomartyr in the church of Sion (BHL, 7850–56; Epistula Luciani, 2–9; PL 41, 809–15). Martyrius, bishop of Jerusalem, deposited on 7 May 483 beneath the altar of the monastery of St Euthymius relics of the martyrs Tarachus, Probus, and Andronicus (Vita s. Euthymii: BHG, 647).
In Jerusalem as late as the 6th century, on 25 December not the Nativity of Christ but the commemoration of King David and the Apostle James, first bishop of the city, was celebrated; thus the presbyter Hesychius of Jerusalem calls James the brother of the Lord (Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 275; PG 104, 241). When the Jerusalem calendar was reformed, their commemoration was moved to 26 December, that of St Stephen to 27 December, and those of the Apostles Peter and Paul to 28 December; according to Sophronius (BHG, 1496), on the 29th came the commemoration of the Apostles John and James (H. Goussen, Über georgische Drucke und Handschriften..., München-Gladbach 1923, pp. 5–6). In the Martyrologium Hieronymianum James is commemorated at Jerusalem on 5 January as the deposition of the patriarch Simeon, which in some manuscripts also appears on 2 February; on 25 March the martyrdom of the Apostle and Bishop James is recorded—on the same day the Martyrologium marks the death of the Redeemer; on 1 May the Nativity of the Bishop Judas, called Cyriacus (BHL, 7023–25), which recurs in the history of the Invention of the Holy Cross celebrated the following day (ibid., 4169–75); on 3 August the finding of the body of St Stephen; and on 30 September, in the territory of Jerusalem, at the castle of Bethlehem, St Jerome.
Although liturgically it belongs to the Syrian type, the Jerusalem liturgy exhibits certain distinctive features. In Jerusalem originated some ceremonies later adopted by all churches, such as the Palm Sunday procession. The most important source for reconstructing the liturgy of the Jerusalem church is undoubtedly the Peregrinatio Egeriae. In Rome the stational liturgy was solemnly celebrated, as at Easter. For the ceremonies of Holy Week, V. this entry.
At Jerusalem, however, the stations were held at the very places sanctified by the presence of the Redeemer; they thus had a markedly topographical character, with every event in the earthly life of the Lord that had taken place in Jerusalem being liturgically re-enacted—almost lived anew—even through the reading of those Gospel passages that narrate them. Cassian, St Cyril of Jerusalem, and Egeria inform us about the singing of the Psalms: the cantor would recite or chant a psalm solo, and the choir of the faithful would take up one of the verses or a part of II. The antiphons consisted in the alternate singing of psalm verses by two choirs.
The psalms were all carefully chosen, appropriate to the season and the place, so as to recall the different mysteries of the Lord’s Life, Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension.
In the basilica of the Anastasis, the daily evening services that were held almost every day of the year were obligatory for monks and consecrated virgins. Wednesdays and Fridays were days of synaxis, station, and fasting even for catechumens; the Office of None was celebrated in the church of Sion, while all others took place at the Anastasis.
On Sundays there were no Offices of Sext or None. Other modifications occurred on the Sundays of Lent and at Pentecost.
The bishop, clergy, and people of Jerusalem went to celebrate Christmas on 6 January in the church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, six miles from Jerusalem. After the singing of the vigils they returned to Jerusalem, the monks on foot and chanting the Benedictus qui venit. At dawn they entered the church of the Resurrection.
The feast of the Purification was solemnly celebrated at the Anastasis, as was Easter. For the ceremonies of Holy Week, V. this entry.
The “cenae,” as the feast of the Dedication of the Anastasis, celebrated on 13 September, was called, was a most solemn festival attended in pilgrimage by bishops and faithful from Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia.
Enrico Josi
V. Archaeology.
Christian Monuments. — The systematic destruction of Jerusalem’s inhabited areas by Titus’s troops in AD 70, and later by the Romans to suppress the revolt of Simeon bar Kokhba in 132, led to the disappearance not only of grand and celebrated monuments but also of humbler buildings, such as those in which the first Christian community of the city would have gathered for worship. Indeed, apart from the house later transformed into a church—recounted in the sources as the site of the Last Supper and the gathering of the Apostles after Christ’s Ascension until Pentecost—no others are known.
According to St. Epiphanius, it still existed in 135, since the Zion quarter where it stood had not been reached by the destruction that had struck the rest of Jerusalem. It is unclear, however, what became of it in the following period, after Hadrian had decreed that the colony of "Aelia Capitolina" should rise over the area of the ancient city and pagan shrines be erected not only on the sites sacred to Israel but also on those hallowed by the birth and sacrifice of Christ (R. Bartoccini, *La roccia sacra degli Ammoniti*, in *Atti IV Congr. naz. studi romani*, Rome 1938). News of this church resurfaces again in the 5th century, thanks to the Armenian Pilgrim, in a precise description of the basilica that, in the previous century, had replaced the original sanctuary, enclosed by a perimeter wall, "100 cubits long and 70 wide, with eighty columns joined by arches, and a wooden ceiling."
But even before this, triumphant Christianity had turned its attention once more to the places where the Redeemer was born and died, which had always remained vivid in the devout memory of the Church of Jerusalem.
To its bishop, Macarius, the emperor Constantine entrusted in 321 the delicate task of uncovering Calvary and the tomb of Christ, as well as the grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem. In the so-called *Vita Constantini* of Eusebius (III, 25 ff.), there is an effective account of this work, which was certainly given strong impetus by the presence of the empress Helena. Once the Holy Places had been cleared of all the material that had been heaped upon them and thus restored to the veneration of the Christian world, Constantine commissioned the architects Zenobius and Eustorgius to build a monumental edifice that would encompass and exalt them all. In reality, the solution adopted considerably altered the appearance of the area, since, among other things, the rock containing the Savior’s tomb was isolated from the hillside in which it was carved, and the interior floor was lowered to the level of its threshold. A rotunda was built around it, with an internal ambulatory in two tiers, surmounted by a hemispherical dome 36.52 meters in diameter; at the center stood the isolated tomb, encircled by twelve columns—perhaps connected by a simple entablature—said by some to represent the number of the Apostles. To the east of this structure, known as the *Anastasis* (Resurrection), and thus subsequently, opened a first courtyard surrounded by columns, which on the southern side included the slight elevation of Golgotha, squared off almost into a cube, with a staircase leading to the upper platform enclosed by silver balustrades and paved in opus musivum, from which a very richly adorned, towering cross stood out. From this atrium-like courtyard, one passed into a five-aisled basilica, called the *Martyrium*, through two doors set on either side of the apse, which projected outward. Equipped, according to Constantine’s plan, with all the necessary annexes for the faithful and the clergy, all the functions of worship were celebrated there, so as not to disturb more than necessary the austere solemnity of Christ’s tomb. It is estimated to have measured 45 x 26 meters, the same size as the Basilica of the Nativity before its later transformation; three portals allowed exit onto a further porticoed façade, which in turn, through three doors set in a façade no less monumental than the first (about 25 meters away), led down a staircase flanked by propylaea into the colonnaded street of the *cardo maximus* of Jerusalem, just south of the triple-arched gateway to the city’s forum.
In this form, the sanctuary is depicted in the well-known Madaba mosaic map of the 6th century, and it remained thus until its destruction by the Persian forces of Chosroes in 614, after which, following the sack, they carried off the relic of the Holy Cross.
Father Vincent has taken an interest in illustrating the ancient representations of the Holy Sepulchre (H. Vincent, *Quelques représentations antiques du St-Sépulcre Constantinien*, in *Revue biblique*, new series, 10 [1913], pp. 525-546; 11 [1914], pp. 94-109).
The victory won by the Byzantines over the Persians in the Tigris Valley in 627, and the death of Chosroes, resulted in the evacuation of Palestine and the recovery of the relics and their return to the *Anastasis*; but since it was impossible to restore the *Martyrium* to its former splendor, the monument began from then on to lose its commemorative character and be transformed into a veritable church. Modestus, the hegumen of St. Theodore, undertook the arduous task of repairing the damage wrought by the invader, and on the whole he did not greatly alter the general layout of the Constantinian buildings. Only in the *Anastasis*, by rigorously applying the rules of orientation, did he create, in place of the entrance, a large apse where he placed the altar, and opened entrances on the sides. Moreover, in correspondence with the other cardinal points, he curved the perimeter wall into deep niches. The rest remained almost unchanged. An earthquake in the 9th century, fires and sackings in the 10th, spared nothing of the Holy Sepulchre, until on 18 October 1009 its systematic demolition began—including that of the rock down to the level of the burial bench—by order of the second Fatimid caliph of Egypt, al-Ḥākim bi-amr Allāh, who thus broke with the tradition of religious tolerance hitherto maintained by his predecessors, following Jerusalem’s surrender to the caliph ‘Umar in 637. In 1042, the emperor Monomachus obtained permission to rebuild the sanctuary; in six years of work it was reconsecrated, though it had undergone profound transformations that preserved only the eastern half of the Constantinian rotunda. Thus it was seen by the Crusaders, who, deeming the structure unworthy of the holiness of the memories it contained, conceived the plan to unite all the principal shrines within a single monumental building (begun in 1140, inaugurated in 1149). Once again, it was modified in 1808 by the Greek Orthodox, and for several years it has been the subject of studies aimed at remedying the serious structural damage threatening its stability and restoring it to a more noble appearance (L. Marangoni, *Il S. Sepolcro*, in *Civiltà*, 4 [1940-41], pp. 86-91).
First Rivoria and then Giovannoni highlighted the evident connections between the architecture of the Holy Sepulchre and that of the mausoleum of St. Constance in Rome, also from the Constantinian period (T. Rivoria, *La chiesa del S. Sepolcro in Gerusalemme*, in *Dissertazioni della Pont. Accad. rom. di arch.*, 2nd series, 13 [1918], p. 183; G. Giovannoni, *Basiliche cristiane in Roma*, in *Atti del IV Congr. internazionale di arch. crist.*, I, Vatican City 1940, p. 129). Bywankk drew attention to the analogies with the Holy Sepulchre presented by the structures erected near Nola by St. Paulinus (d. 432) over the tomb of St. Felix (A. W. Bywankk, *Die Grabeskirche in Jerusalem und die Bauten am Grabe des hl. Felix bei Nola in Campanien*, *Byzantinische Zeitschrift*, 30 [1929-30], p. 549). Krautheimer then demonstrated in 1935 that the church of St. Stephen the Round, on the Caelian Hill, built by Pope Simplicius (468-83), also followed the concentric plan of the Holy Sepulchre.
To Helena, mother of Constantine, is attributed the construction of the Eleona basilica (the Mount of Olives: Eusebius, *Vita Constantini*, III, 41), erected over the grotto where Jesus had foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and His Resurrection. Destroyed during the Persian sack, it was abandoned and over time every trace of it vanished. No certain archaeological evidence has yet been able to substantiate the various hypotheses advanced regarding its exact location.
Sanctuary of the Ascension. — On the Mount of Olives, the rock from which Jesus ascended to heaven was enclosed by a circular enclosure and a double concentric portico without a roof; to the west it seems to have been preceded by a kind of very sumptuous atrium. PETER THE IBERIAN (c. 481) attributes its construction to the pilgrim POREMENIA. Fathers VINCENT and ABEL believe it was built before the year 378. The octagonal building, with a central domed hall, was preceded by a vestibule; ARCULF the bishop (Itin. Hieros., p. 259) also describes II. This architectural type was adopted for the Mosque of 'Omar. Even for this monument, no traces remain of the original construction; the present one is due to the Crusaders.
Apart from what has been said above, little or nothing remains of so many works; nor have excavations conducted in various areas near the Damascus Gate allowed the precise location to be established with certainty.
In such fervent building activity, the disappearance of the Empress Eudoxia, who had been its driving spirit and patroness, could not fail to have a negative impact; the severe economic crisis that followed led to the suspension of such an ambitious program, even if inspired by ideal motives, and it was only through the intervention of JUSTINIAN that it was resumed and indeed expanded. He, in fact, did not wish to be outdone by Eudoxia, and ordered the erection of a grand basilica (such as it appears also in relation to the others on the mosaic of Madaba), in honor of the Theotokos, with hostels for the poor and pilgrims annexed, and he called it “the New” (?) Nea. It was probably in the form of a cross, with a dome, and, it is believed, stood in the southern part of the Temple area, which was not considered part of the Sanctuary proper. Mentioned again in the 9th century, it must have been radically destroyed following the orders of the Caliph al-Ḥākim, since no trace of it has ever been found. Given the scant remains of the oldest churches and the many suppositions about the sites of those that have disappeared, a fortunate combination allowed the original sanctuary of the Agonia to be brought to light in the garden of Gethsemane. While work was already underway to rebuild the church on the site of the 12th-century Crusader church, the excavation opened for the foundation of a column encountered a mosaic. Immediately enlarging the dig, an edifice from the 4th century was uncovered, with a mosaic floor, three aisled (16.40 m wide and 22.30 to 24.50 m long), with an apse, in front of which, for 8 m by 3.80 m in width and 0.35 m in height, the rock emerged, evidently an object of veneration, since it was entirely marked by the chisel blows with which pilgrims and devotees had detached small flakes from II. It did not take more to recognize here the “elegant church” spoken of by S. Silvia of Aquitaine (there are also traces of wall mosaics), built by Theodosius presumably between 380 and 385 on the spot where the agony of the Savior had begun. Devastated by the Persians, it is doubtful whether it was rebuilt by Modestus: most likely it lay in ruins, and the Crusaders, returning to venerate the place, did not realize that their new church could forever seal that more ancient one.
The Madaba geographical mosaic (v.), to which reference has been made several times, illustrated and commented on by various scholars, has as its central motif a perspective plan of J. (with the western part at the top), as it must have been in the 6th century, at the time of Emperor Justinian. It is crossed by a street flanked by porticoes, which to the left opens onto a square facing the northern part of the city, in the middle of which stands a column that gives it its name (Bab el-Amūd, now also known as the Damascus Gate); almost at the center is the monumental complex of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and scattered throughout are other sacred buildings, with long roofs of double pitch, among which some of those mentioned have been identified. From this plan it is evident that the rise of Christian places of worship had not fundamentally disturbed the urban layout of the Roman-Hellenistic city, as conceived by the architects of Hadrian’s colony “Aelia Capitolina.” Almost all of this work has been dispersed by the fury of men, so that an exact idea of it could not have been had if it had not been for the document due to the patience and devotion of a humble artisan working in a small Arab center on the borders of the Byzantine Empire.
GervasaleMme — Plan of the Church of the Ascension (4th century).
Notable was the building activity carried out in J. by Patriarch JOVENAL (421-58), favored by the fact that the Empress Eudoxia had fixed her residence there, making it almost a capital. The site of Pilate’s praetorium was identified by Fr. H. VINCENT with the “Lithostrotos,” which later became the sanctuary of St. Sophia (Le Lithostrotos d’après des fouilles récentes, Paris-Jerusalem 1933; id., Autour du Prétoire, in Revue biblique, 46 [1937], pp. 563-70). To the south of Calvary, on Mount Sion, EGERIA mentions a church built on the site once occupied by the house of Mark. This was the Church of the Cenacle, where the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles took place; it was also called the “Church of the Apostles”; St. EPHREM makes it anterior to the time of Hadrian (De pondere et mens., 14); St. CYRIL of Jerusalem recalls it at length (PG 33, 924). It preserved the column of the Flagellation, first in the house of Caiphas. Arculf gives a drawing of it in the 7th century.
Among the mosaics that decorated the church of St. Martin in Tours, one represented the church of Mount Sion in J., as the inscription taught: “The most holy church, mother of all others, founded by the Apostles, in which the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues of fire. In this church are placed the chair of the apostle James and the column of the Flagellation” (E. LE BLANT, Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule, Paris 1856, no. 175).
Also dating from this period are various constructions of a religious character, including the basilicas of St. Stephen to the north of the city, where the relics of the Protomartyr were translated (15 May 439) and where the Empress Eudoxia was later buried; of the Paraclete in the Probatic Pool; the church of the pool of Siloam (perhaps domed) and the three-apsed church of St. John the Baptist, explored by the French Archaeological School (in the Muristan quarter, in front of the Holy Sepulchre; the original structures can be seen at the base of the present walls) and finally the round temple in the Valley of Josaphat, dedicated to the Virgin.
The church of St. Peter was studied by E. POWER (The church of St. Peter in Jerusalem. Its relation to the house of Caiphas and Santa Sion, in Biblica, 9 [1928], pp. 167-187). In the Life of St. SABA, a church in honor of SS. Cosmas and Damian is mentioned near J. (BHG, II, 1608, c. 55). Two miles southeast of J., at Bethany, there was a church on the site where Mary, the sister of Lazarus, is said to have met the Lord; a second church was in the center of Bethany, built over the tomb of Lazarus itself.
Jerusalem — Plan of the Church of the Ascension (4th century).