Jerusalem (A.D. 71-1099)
I. TO THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE (71-312)
When Titus took Jerusalem (April-September, A.D. 70) he ordered
his soldiers to destroy the city (Josephus, "De bello Jud.", VI,
ix). They spared only the three great towers at the north of
Herod's palace (Hippicus, Phasael, Mariamne) and the western wall.
Few Jews remained. The Roman Tenth Legion held the upper town and
Herod's castle as a fortress; Josephus says that Titus handed the
fields around to his soldiers ("Vita", 76). The presence of these
heathens would naturally repel Jews, though in this period there
was no law against their presence in Jerusalem. The Jewish Rabbis
gathered together at Jabne (or Jamnia, now Jebna) in the plain,
northwest of the city, two hours from Ramleh. Meanwhile the
Christian community had fled to Pella in Paraea, east of the
Jordan (southeast of Jenin), before the beginning of the siege.
The Christians were still almost entirely converts from Judaism
(Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, v). After the destruction they came
back and congregated in the house of John Mark and his mother
Mary, where they had met before (Acts, xii, 12 sq.). It was
apparently in this house that was the Upper Room, the scene of the
Last Supper and of the assembly on Pentecost. Epiphanius (d. 403)
says that when the Emperor Hadrian came to Jerusalem in 130 he
found the Temple and the whole city destroyed save for a few
houses, among them the one where the Apostles had received the
Holy Ghost. This house, says Epiphanius, is "in that part of Sion
which was spared when the city was destroyed" -- therefore in the
"upper part ("De mens. et pond.", cap. xiv). From the time of
Cyril of Jerusalem, who speaks of "the upper Church of the
Apostles, where the Holy Ghost came down upon them" (Catech., ii,
6; P. G., XXXIII), there are abundant witnesses of the place. A
great basilica was built over the spot in the fourth century; the
crusaders built another church when the older one had been
destroyed by Hakim in 1010. It is the famous Coenaculum or Cenacle
-- now a Moslem shrine -- near the Gate of David, and supposed to
be David's tomb (Nebi Daud).
During the first Christian centuries the church at this place was
the centre of Christianity in Jerusalem, "Holy and glorious Sion,
mother of all churches" (Intercession in "St. James' Liturgy", ed.
Brightman, p. 54). Certainly no spot in Christendom can be more
venerable than the place of the Last Supper, which became the
first Christian church. The constant use of the name Sion for the
Coenaculum has led to considerable discussion as to the topography
of Jerusalem. Many writers conclude that it is on Mount Sion,
which would therefore be the southwest hill of the city
(Meistermann, "Nouveau Guide de Terre Sainte", Paris, 1907, p.
121, plan). Others (Baedeker, "Palaestina u. Syrien", 6th ed.,
1904, p. 27) oppose this tradition on the strength of the passages
in the Old Testament that clearly distinguish Sion from Jerusalem
and state that the Lord dwells in Sion and that the king's palace
is there (Is., x, 12; viii, 18; Joel, iii, 21; etc.). So Sion
would be the hill on the west, the place of the Temple and David's
palace. It was that later the name Sion began to be used for all
Jerusalem. Josephus never uses it at all; already in the Old
Testament the way was prepared for this extended use. Jerusalem is
the "daughter of Sion" (Jer., vi, 2, etc.). All its inhabitants
without distinction are "Sion" (Zach, ii, 7, etc.). In early
Christian times Sion seems to have lost its spell, meaning as one
definite hill, and to have become merely another name for
Jerusalem. Naturally then they called their centre there by the
name of the city, although it did not stand on the original Mount
Sion. The pilgrim Etheria (Silvia) at the turn of the fourth
century, always speaks of the Coenaculum as Sion, just as the Holy
Sepulchre is always Anastasis.
From this Coenaculum the first Christian bishops ruled the Church
of Jerusalem. They were all converts from Judaism, as were their
flocks. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., IV, v) gives the list of these
bishops. According to a universal tradition the first was the
Apostle St. James the Less, the "brother of the Lord". His
predominant place and residence in the city are implied by Gal.,
i, 19. Eusebius says he was appointed bishop by Peter, James (the
Greater), and John (II, i). Naturally the other Apostles when they
were at Jerusalem shared the government with him (Acts, xv, 6,
etc.; Eus., "Hist. Eccl.,", II, xxiii). He was thrown from a rock,
then stoned to death by the Jews about the year 63 (Eus., ib.;
Josephus, "Antiq. Jud.", XX, ix, 1; ed. cit., p. 786). After his
death the surviving Apostles and other disciples who were at
Jerusalem chose Simeon, son of Cleophas (also called Our Lord's
brother, Matt.. xiii. 55), to succeed him. He was bishop at the
time of the destruction (70) and probably then went to Pella with
the others. About the year 106 or 107 he was crucified under
Trajan (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", III, xxxii). The line of bishops of
Jerusalem was then continued as follows:
� Judas (Justus), 107-113;
� Zachaeus or Zacharias;
� Tobias;
� Benjamin;
� John;
� Matthias (d. 120);
� Philip (died c. 124);
� Seneca;
� Justus;
� Levi;
� Ephraim;
� Joseph;
� Judas Quiriacus (d. between 134-148).
All these were Jews (Eus., "Hist., Eccl.", IV, v). It was during
the episcopate of Judas Quiriacus that the second great calamity,
the revolt of Bar-Kochba and final destruction of the city, took
place. Goaded by the tyranny of the Romans, by the re-erection of
Jerusalem as a Roman colony and the establishment of an altar to
Jupiter on the site of the Temple, the Jews broke out into a
hopeless rebellion under the famous false Messias Bar-Kochba about
the year 132. During his rebellion he persecuted the Jewish
Christians, who naturally refused to acknowledge him (Eus.,
"Chron.", for the seventeenth year of Hadrian). The Emperor
Hadrian put down this rebellion, after a siege that lasted a year,
in 135. As a result of this last war the whole neighbourhood of
the city became a desert. On the ruins of Jerusalem a new Roman
city was built, called �lia Capitolina (AElia was Hadrian's family
nomen), and a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built on Mount
Moria. No Jew (therefore no Jewish Christian) was allowed under
pain of death inside the town. This brought about a complete
change in the circumstances of the Church of Jerusalem. The old
Jewish Christian community came to an end. In its place a Church
of Gentile Christians, with Gentile bishops, was formed, who
depended much less on the sacred memories of the city. Hence the
Church of Jerusalem did not for some centuries take the place in
the hierarchy of sees that we should expect. �lia was a town of no
importance in the empire; the governor of the province resided at
Caesarea in Palestine. The use of the name �lia among Christians
of this time marks the insignificance of the little Gentile
church, as the restoration of the old name Jerusalem later marks
the revival of its dignity.
Even as late as 325 (Nicaea I, can. vii) the city is still called
only �lia. The name lasted on among the Arabs in the form Iliya
till late in the Middle Ages. As the rank of the various sees
among themselves was gradually arranged according to the divisions
of the empire, Caesarea became the metropolitan see; the Bishop of
�lia was merely one of its suffragans.
The bishops from the siege under Hadrian (135) to Constantine
(312) were:
� Mark (the first Gentile bishop, d. 156);
� Cassian;
� Publius;
� Maximus;
� Julian;
� Caius;
� Symmachus;
� Caius II;
� Julian II (ordained 168);
� Capito (d. 185);
� Maximus II;
� Antonius;
� Valens;
� Dolichianus (d. 185);
� Narcissus (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", V, xii). Narcissus was a man
famous for his virtues and miracles, but hated by certain vicious
people in the city who feared his severity. They accused him of
various crimes and he, for the sake of peace, retired to an
unknown solitude (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, ix). The neighbouring
bishops, hearing nothing more of him, proceeded to elect and
consecrate Dios as his successor. Dios was succeeded by Germanion
and Gordios. Then suddenly Narcissus reappeared, an old man of 110
years. The other bishops persuaded him to resume his place as
bishop. Too old to do anything but pray for his flock, he made a
Cappadocian bishop, Alexander, who came on a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem, his coadjutor.
� Alexander thus became a practically diocesan bishop even before
the death of Narcissus in 212. Alexander was a friend of Origen
and founded a library that Eusebius used for his "History" (VI,
x). He died in prison in the Decian persecution (25O). Then
followed
� Mazabanes or Megabezes (d. 266);
� Hymenaeus (d. 298);
� Zabdas;
� Hermon (d. 311);
� Macarius (d. 333).
II. CONSTANTINE AND THE HOLY PLACES (312-337)
During the episcopate of Macarius a great change came to the whole
empire that incidentally affected the See of Jerusalem profoundly.
The Christian Faith was acknowledged as a religio licita and the
Church became a recognized society (Edict of Milan, Jan., 313). At
Constantine's death (337) Christianity had become the religion of
the Court and Government. As a natural result the Faith spread
very rapidly everywhere. The same generation that had seen
Diocletian's persecution now saw Christianity the dominant
religion and the old paganism gradually reduced to country
villages and out-of-the-way towns. There was then a great movement
of organization among Christians; churches were built everywhere.
A further result of the freedom and the dominance of Christianity
was a revival of enthusiasm for the holy places where the new
religion had been born, where the events that everyone now read
about or heard of in sermons had taken place. Already in the
fourth century, there began those great waves of pilgrimage to the
Holy Land that have gone on ever since. It was in the fourth
century that the Bordeaux pilgrim and Etheria made their famous
journey thither (Peregrinatio Silviae). St. Jerome (d. 420) says
that in his time pilgrims came there from every part of the world,
even from distant Britain (Ep. xliv ad Paulam; lxxxiv, ad
Oceanum). A great number of monks from Egypt and Libya also came
and established themselves in the desert by the Jordan. This led
to an increased respect for the bishop who ruled over the very
places where Christ had lived and died. These pilgrims on their
arrival found themselves under his jurisdiction; they took part in
the sacrifices of his church and eagerly watched the rites that
were carried out at the Mount of Olives, the Coenaculum, and the
Holy Sepulchre. Etheria's careful account of all she saw in the
churches of Jerusalem at Eastertide is typical of this interest.
When the pilgrims returned home they remembered and told their
friends about the services they had seen in the most sacred places
of Christendom; and they began to imitate them in their own
churches. Thus a great number of our well-known ceremonies (the
Palm Sunday procession, later the Stations of the Cross, etc.)
were originally imitations of local rites of Jerusalem. All this
could not fail to bring about an advancement of rank for the local
bishop. From the freedom of the Church the development was
inevitable that changed the Bishop of �lia, mere suffragan of
Caesarea, into the great "Patriarch of the Holy City Jerusalem and
of the whole Land of Promise".
Meanwhile another result of these pilgrimages was the discovery of
the Holy Places. Naturally the pilgrims when they arrived wanted
to see the actual spots where the events they had read of in the
Gospels had happened. Naturally too, each such place when it was
known or conjectured became a shrine with a church built over it.
Of these shrines the most famous are those built by Constantine
and his mother St. Helena. St. Helena in her eightieth year (326-
327) came on a pilgrimage and caused churches to be built at
Bethlehem, and on the Mount of Olives. Constantine built the
famous church of the Holy Sepulchre (Anastasis). Eusebius (Vita
Constantine, III, xxvi) says that the place of Calvary in about
326 was covered with dirt and rubbish; over it was a temple of
Venus. Emperor Hadrian had built a great terrace round the place
enclosed in a wall, on this he had planted a grove to Jupiter and
Venus (St. Jerome. Ep. 58). When St. Helena came and was shown the
place she determined to restore it as a Christian shrine. By order
of the emperor all the soldiers of the garrison were employed to
clear away the temple, grove, and terrace. Underneath they found
Golgotha and the tomb of our Lord. Constantine wrote to Bishop
Macarius saying: "I have nothing more at heart than to adorn with
due splendour that sacred place", etc. (Vita Const., III, xxx).
Two great buildings were erected near each other on this spot. To
the west the rock containing the tomb was carved away, leaving it
as a little shrine or chapel standing above ground. Over it was
built a round church covered by a dome. This is the Anastasis,
which still has the form of a rotunda with a dome, containing the
Holy Sepulchre in the middle. Quite near, to the east, was a great
basilica with an apse towards the Anastasis, a long nave, and four
aisles separated by rows of columns. Above the aisles were
galleries; the whole was covered by a gable roof. Around the apse
were twelve columns crowned with silver, at the east were a
narthex, three doors, and a colonnade in front of the entrance.
This basilica was the Martyrium; it covered the ground now
occupied by part of the Katholikon and St. Helena's chapel.
Etheria speaks of it as "the great church which is called the
Martyrium" (Per. Silv., ed. cit., p. 38). Underneath it was the
crypt of the Invention of the Cross. The Mount of Calvary was not
enclosed in the basilica. It stood just at the southeast side of
the apse. Etheria always distinguishes three shrines, Anastasis,
Crux, Martyrium. The place of the Cross (Calvary) was in her time
open to the sky and surrounded by a silver balustrade (op. cit.,
p. 43). People went up to it by steps (Eus., "Vita Const.", III,
xxi-xl). Later in the fifth century St. Melania the younger (439),
a Roman lady who came with her husband Pinianus to Jerusalem where
they both entered religious houses, built a small chapel over the
place of the Crucifixion. These buildings were destroyed by the
Persians in 614.
It is not possible to enter here upon the endless discussion that
still takes place as to the authenticity of this shrine. The first
question that occurs is as to the place of the wall of Jerusalem
in Christ's time. It is certain that He was crucified outside the
city wall. No executions took place within the city (Matt., xxvii,
33; John xix, 17; Hebr. xiii, 12, etc.). If then it could be shown
that the traditional site was within the wall (the second wall
built by Nehemias) it would be proved to be false. It is, however,
quite certain that all attempts to prove this have failed. On the
contrary, Conder found other contemporary tombs near the
traditional Holy Sepulchre, which show that it was without the
city, since Jews never buried within their towns. Supposing then
its possibility, we have this chain of evidence: if Hadrian really
built his temple of Venus purposely on the site, the authenticity
is proved. Constantine's basilica stood where that temple was;
that the present church stands on the place of Constantine's
basilica is not doubted by any one. A number of writers (as
Eusebius, op. cit.) of the fourth century describe the temple as
built on the site of Calvary in order to put a stop to its
veneration by Christians, just as the temple of Jupiter was built
purposely where the Jewish Temple had been. We have seen that an
unchanging Christian community lived at Jerusalem down to
Hadrian's time (Bar-Kochba's revolt). It would be strange if they
had not remembered the site of the Crucifixion and had not
reverenced it. The analogy of Hadrian's profanation of the Temple
leaves no difficulty as to a similar deliberate profanation of the
Christian sanctuary. The theory of Fergusson who thought that the
cave under the Qubbet-es-Sachra, on the site of the Temple, was
the Holy Sepulchre of Constantine's time, and Conder and Gordon's
site outside the Damascus gate (Conder, "The City of Jerusalem",
London, 1909, pp. 151-158) hardly deserve mention. With the
finding of the Holy Sepulchre and the building of the Anastasis
and Martyrion is connected the story of the Invention of the Holy
Cross. It is told by Rufinus (Hist. Eccl. X, viii, P. L. XXI, 477-
-about the year 402), Paulinus of Nola (Ep. xxi, v; P. L. LXI,
329; A.D. 403) and others. When the soldiers were removing the old
balustrade and digging out the Holy Sepulchre they found to the
east of the tomb three crosses with the inscription separated from
them. Bishop Macarius discovered which was our Lord's Cross by
applying each in turn to a sick woman. The third Cross healed her
miraculously (see the lessons of the second nocturn for the feast,
3 May). Paulinus (op. cit.) adds that a dead man was raised to
life by the Cross of Christ.
The fame of the great shrines, Anastasis and Martyrion, then began
to eclipse that of the Coenaculum. From this time the Bishop of
Jerusalem celebrated the more solemn functions in the Martyrion.
But Constantine had a new "Church of the Apostles" built over the
Coenaculum. Other shrines that go back at least to his time are
the place of the Ascension on the top of the Mount of Olives,
where he built a church, and the still extant magnificent basilica
at Bethlehem.
III. THE PATRIARCHATE (325-451)
From the time of Constantine then begins the advancement of the
See of Jerusalem. The first General Council (Nicaea I, 325) meant
to recognize the unique dignity of the Holy City without
disturbing its canonical dependence on the metropolis, Caesarea.
So the seventh canon declares: "Since custom and ancient tradition
have obtained that the bishop in �lia be honored, let him have the
succession of honour (echeto ten akolouthian tes times) saving
however the domestic right of the metropolis (te metropolei
sozomenou tou oikeiou axiomatos)." The canon is in the "Decretum"
of Gratian, dist. 65, vii. The "succession of honour" means a
special place of honour, an honorary precedence immediately after
the Patriarchs (of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch); but this is not to
interfere with the metropolitan rights of Caesarea in Palestine.
The situation of a suffragan bishop who had Precedence over his
metropolitan was an anomalous one that obviously could not last.
The successors of Macarius were: Maximus II (333-349); St. Cyril
of Jerusalem (350-386); Eutychius intruded 357-359; Irenaeus
intruded 360-361; Hilarion intruded 367-378); John II (386-417);
Praylios (4l7-421); Juvenal (421-458). Already in the time of St.
Cyril difficulties arose about his relation to his metropolitan.
While he was defending the Faith against the Arians, Acacius of
Caesarea, an extreme Arian, summoned a Synod (358) to try Cyril
for various offences, of which the first was that he had disobeyed
or behaved with insubordination towards Acacius, his superior. It
is difficult to be sure exactly what the accusation was. Sozomen
(IV, xxv) says it was that he had disobeyed and had refused to
acknowledge Caesarea as his metropolis; Theodoret says it was only
about his quite lawful claim to precedence. The case shows how
difficult the position was. Cyril refused to attend the synod and
was deposed in his absence. His refusal again opens a question as
to his position. Did he refuse merely because he knew what Acacius
was a determined Arian and would certainly condemn him, or was it
because he thought that his exceptional "succession of honour"
exempted him from the jurisdiction of any but a patriarchal synod?
The three usurpers, Eutychius, Irenaeus, Hilarion, were Arians
intruded into his see by their party during his three exiles.
It was Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-458) who at last succeeded in
changing the anomalous position of his see into a real
patriarchate. From the beginning of his reign he assumed an
attitude that was quite ncompatible with his canonical position as
suffragan of Caesarea. About the year 425 a certain tribe of Arabs
was converted to Christianity. These people set up their camp in
the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Juvenal then proceeded to found a
bishopric for them. He ordained one Peter as "Bishop of the Camp"
(episkopos parembolon). This Peter (apparently the sheikh of the
tribe) signed at Ephesus in 425 with that title. Juvenal's action
may perhaps be explained as merely the ordination of an Arabic-
speaking coadjutor for these people whose language he himself did
not know; but Peter's title and presence at Ephesus certainly
suggest that he considered himself a diocesan bishop. Juvenal had
no sort of right to set up a new diocese nor to ordain a suffragan
to his own see. The "See of the Parembolai" disappeared again in
the sixth century. From the Acts of Ephesus it appears that
Juvenal had ordained other bishops in Palestine and Arabia. A
number of bishops of the Antiochene patriarchate wrote a letter to
the Emperor Theodosius II in which they appear to have some doubts
as to the regularity of their position since, as they say, they
have "been ordained formerly by the most pious Juvenal" (Mansi,
IV, 1402). Now the right of ordaining a bishop always meant in the
East jurisdiction over him. We see an instance of this in the Acts
of the Council. Saidas, Bishop of Phaino in Palestine, describes
Juvenal as "our bishop" (ho episkopos meon = "our metropolitan",
apparently). Clearly then even before the council Juvenal had been
making tentative efforts to assume at least metropolitical rights.
At the council he made a stroke whose boldness is amazing. He
tried to get his see recognized not merely as independent of and
equal to Caesarea, but superior to the great Patriarchate of
Antioch. Antioch, he pretended, must submit to the see that
canonically (in spite of its honorary position) was the suffragan
of Antioch. His attempt failed altogether. He might perhaps have
shaken off the authority of Caesarea; but this was too startling.
Nevertheless the opportunity was a splendid one for him. We see
Juvenal's cleverness in seizing it. At Ephesus he was the second
bishop present. Celestine of Rome was represented by his legates;
Cyril of Alexandria was resident, but was already having trouble
with Candidian the Imperial Commissioner; John of Antioch arrived
late and then set up a rival council in favour of the heretics,
Nestorius of Constantinople was the accused. Juvenal's own
metropolitan (of Caesarea) was not present. The schismatical
attitude of John of Antioch especially gave Juvenal his chance.
Surely Cyril's council would not support John. Juvenal then, under
colour of supporting Cyril and the pope, tried to get the council
to acknowledge no less than his own jurisdiction over Antioch. In
a speech he explained to the Fathers that John of Antioch ought to
have appeared at the council to give the oecumenical synod an
explanation of what had happened (his late arrival and the anti-
council he was setting up) and to show obedience and reverence to
the Apostolic See of Rome and the Holy Church of God at Jerusalem.
"For it was especially the custom according to Apostolic order and
tradition that the See of Antioch be corrected and judged by that
of Jerusalem. Instead of that John with his usual insolence had
despised the council" (Mansi, IV, 1312). To mix up his own
impudent claim with the just grievance of the other Fathers was a
master-stroke. But Cyril would have none of him. The pretence was
too wildly absurd. Leo the Great, writing afterwards to Maximus of
Antioch, says that Juvenal had tried to confirm his insolent
attempt by forged documents; but Cyril had warned him not to urge
such law-less claims (Ep. 119, ad Max.). So this first attempt did
not succeed. For the next twenty years matters remained as they
had been. Juvenal still went on acting on his claim and behaving
as the chief authority of Palestine. After the Counsel he ordained
a Bishop of Jamnia ("Vita S. Euthymii", P. G., CXIV, c. 57).
When the Monophysite heresy began Juvenal was at first on the side
of the heretics. He was present at the Robber synod of 449, on the
side of Dioscurus, and joined in the deposition of Flavian of
Constantinople. That fact should have ruined his chance of getting
any advantage from Chalcedon (451). Yet he was clever enough to
turn even this position to his advantage. Chalcedon at last gave
him a great part of what he wanted. At first he appeared at the
council with the other Monophysites as an accused. But he saw at
once which way the tide had turned, threw off his former friends,
turned completely round and signed Pope Leo's dogmatic letter to
Flavian. The orthodox fathers were delighted. In a general council
the titular rank given to Jerusalem by Nicaea would naturally make
itself felt. The adherence of so venerable a see was received with
delight, the illustrious convert deserved some reward. Juvenal
then explained that he had at first come to a friendly
understanding with Maximus of Antioch, by which the long dispute
between their sees should be ended. Antioch was of course to keep
her precedence over Jerusalem and the greater part of her
patriarchate. But she would sacrifice a small territory, Palestine
in the strict sense (the three Roman provinces so called), and
apparently Arabia, to make up a little patriarchate for Jerusalem.
The emperor (Theodosius II) had already interfered in the quarrel
and had pretended to cut a much larger territory away from Antioch
for the benefit of Jerusalem. So this arrangement appeared as a
sort of compromise. The council in the seventh and eighth sessions
accepted Juvenal's proposal (Maximus's correspondence with Leo the
Great shows that he was still not quite satisfied) and made
Jerusalem a patriarchate with this small territory. From this time
then Jerusalem becomes a patriarchal see, the last (fifth) in
order and the smallest. So was the number, afterwards so sacred,
of five patriarchates established. The Quinisext Council (692)
admits this order. It enumerates the patriarchs of Rome,
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and adds: "After these he of
the city of Jerusalem" (can. xxxvi). Such too is the order
proclaimed by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) in Canon
xxi and incorporated in our canon law (C.I.C., dist. 22, c. 7).
Since Chalcedon no one has disputed the place of Jerusalem in the
hierarchy of patriarchates. But it will be noticed how late its
rank was given, how unedifying the conduct of the bishop who
obtained it. Like the other comparatively modern Patriarchate of
Constantinople (made finally by the same council, can. xxviii) it
represents a later concession that upset the much older, more
venerable ideal of three patriarchates only -- Rome, Alexandria,
Antioch. Jerusalem owes its place not to St. James, the brother of
the Lord, but to the astute and unscrupulous Juvenal. Nothing,
then, could show a greater ignorance of the whole situation than
the naive proposal of Anglicans at various times (e.g. the Non-
Jurors in their letter to the patriarchs, 1720) that everyone
should admit Jerusalem "mother of all Churches" as the first see
of all.
The frontiers of this new patriarchate, as established by
Chalcedon, are to the north the Lebanon, to the west the
Mediterranean, to the south Sinai (Mount Sinai was certainly
originally included in its boundaries), to the east Arabia and the
desert. Under the patriarch were these metropolitans:
� Caesarea in Palestine (who now had to obey her former subject),
Metropolis of Palaestina I, with twenty-nine suffragans;
� Scythopolis (in the Vulgate Bethsan, Jos. xvii, 11; Judges i,
27; now Besan, seven hours south of Tiberias), Metropolis of
Palaestina II (Samaria), with fourteen suffragans;
� Petra (Sela' in the Hebrew, II Kings, xvi, 7, Is. xvi, 1 in the
Wadi Musa, half-way between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea),
Metropolis of Palaestina III with thirteen suffragans.
IV. FROM JUVENAL TO THE SARACEN CONQUEST (458-636)
The patriarchs of this time were: Theodosius (Monophysite usurper,
452); Anastasius (458-478); Martyrius (479-486); Salustius (486-
494); Elias (494-513): see ELIAS OF JERUSALEM); John III (513-
524); Peter (524-544) ; Macarius (544-574) ; (Eustachius,
Origenist, intruded -563); John IV (574-593); Neamus (593-601);
Isaac (601-609); Zacharius (609-631); Moderatus (631-634);
Sophronius (634-638 or 644). An important event for the city was
the residence there of the Empress Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II.
She arrived first in 438 and then settled at Jerusalem from 444 to
her death about the year 460 (see EUDOCIA). She spent this last
part of her life in ardent devotion at the Holy Places, in
beautifying the city and building churches. She rebuilt the walls
along the south so as to include the Coenaculum within the city.
On the north she built the church of St. Stephen at the
traditional place of his martyrdom (now the famous Dominican
convent and Ecole biblique). Justinian I (527-565) also added to
the beauty of the city by many splendid buildings. Of these the
most famous was a great basilica dedicated to the Blessed Virgin
with a house for pilgrims attached. It stood in the middle of the
city, but has now completely disappeared. He also built another
great church of the Blessed Virgin at the southern end of the old
Temple area (now the Al-aqsa Mosque). The famous mosaic map of
Jerusalem discovered at Madaba (Guthe and Palmer, "Die Mosaikkarte
von Madeba", 1906) gives an idea of the state of the city in
Justinian's time. During this period the See of Jerusalem, like
those of Alexandria and Antioch, was troubled continually by the
Monophysite schism. Under Juvenal the great crowd of monks who had
settled in Palestine broke out into a regular revolution against
the government and against the patriarch, whose change of front at
Chalcedon they bitterly resented. They set up one of their own
number, Theodosius as anti-patriarch. For a short time (in 452)
Juvenal had to give way to this person. So also in the other sees
of the patriarchate orthodox bishops were expelled and
Monophysites (such as Peter the Iberian at Majuma-Gaza) were set
up in their place. The Empress Eudocia was at first an avowed
Monophysite and helped that party nearly all the time she was in
the city. Juvenal fled to Constantinople and implored the help of
the emperor (Marcian, 450-457). He returned with a body of
soldiers who reinstated him, killed a great number of the monks,
and finally took Theodosius, who had fled, prisoner. Theodosius
was then kept in prison at Constantinople almost till his death.
The disturbance was not finally put down till 453. Eventually the
orthodox Abbot Euthymius converted Eudocia, who died in the
communion of the Church (c. 460).
The further Monophysite disturbances affected Jerusalem, of
course, too. Martyrius accepted the Henoticon (see his letter to
Peter Monogus of Alexandria in Zacharias Scholasticus: "Syriac
Chronicle", ed. Ahrens and Krueger, Leipzig, 1899, VI, i, pp. 86,
18-20) with the bishops of his patriarchate. Elias of Jerusalem
supported Flavian of Antioch in resisting the Emperor Anastasius'
(491-518) condemnation of Chalcedon. He was then banished and
John, Bishop of Sebaste, intruded in his place (513) (see ELIAS OF
JERUSALEM). But John became orthodox, too, and broke his
engagement with the Monophysite emperor as soon as he had
possession of the see (Theophanes Confessor, "Chronographia", ed.
de Boors, Leipzig, 1883-1885, I, 156). Meanwhile St. Sabas (d.
531) from his monastery by the Dead Sea was a mighty support to
the orthodox. John III of Jerusalem accepted the decrees of the
orthodox Synod of Constantinople in 518 and the formula of Pope
Hormisdas (514-523). John III's successor, Peter, held a synod in
September, 536, in which he proclaimed his adherence to Chalcedon
and Orthodoxy by agreeing to the deposition of the Monophysite
Anthimus of Constantinople (deposed in that year; the Acts of this
synod are in Mansi, VIII, 1163-1176). From this time the
patriarchs seem to have been all orthodox; though the Monophysites
had a strong party in Palestine and eventually set up Monophysite
bishops in communion with the (Jacobite) patriarchs of Antioch of
the line of Sergius of Tella (since 539) even at Jerusalem itself.
The first of these Jacobite bishops (they did not take the title
patriarch) of Jerusalem was Severus in 597. From him descends the
present Jacobite line. In the year 614 a great calamity befell the
city; it was taken by the Persians. In 602 the Roman Emperor
Maurice had been barbarously murdered by order of Phocas (602-
610), who usurped his place. Chosroes (Khusru) II, King of Persia,
had found protection from his enemies at home with Maurice, who
had even sent an army to restore him (591). The Persian king,
furious at the murder of his friend and benefactor, then declared
war against Phocas and invaded Syria (604). The war with Persia
continued under Phocas's successor, Heraclius (610-642). In 611
the Persians took Antioch, then Caesarea in Cappadocia and
Damascus. In 614 they stormed Jerusalem. Chosroes's son-in-law
Shaharbarz besieged the city; in his camp were 26,000 Jews eager
to destroy Christian sovereignty in their holy city. It is said
that no less than 90,000 Christians perished when Jerusalem fell.
The Patriarch Zacharius was taken captive to Persia. The
Anastasis, Martyrion and other Christian sanctuaries were burned
or razed to the ground. St. Helena's great relic of the Holy Cross
was taken off to Persia in triumph. The Jews as a reward for their
help were allowed to do as they liked in the city. But their
triumph did not last long. In 622 Heraclius marched across Asia
Minor, driving back the Persians. In 627 he invaded Persia;
Chosroes fled, was deposed, and murdered in 628 by his son Siroes.
In the same year the Persians had to submit to a peace which
deprived them of all their conquests. The Persian soldiers
evacuated the cities of Syria and Egypt which they had conquered,
the relic of the True Cross was given back. In 629 Heraclius
himself came to Jerusalem to venerate the Cross. This is the
origin of the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14
September: see the lessons of the second nocturn on that day). The
emperor as a punishment for the treason of the Jews renewed the
old law of Hadrian forbidding them to enter the city.
After the Persian assault on the town, even before the Romans
reconquered it, Modestus, Abbot of the monastery of St. Theodosius
in the desert to the south, acting apparently as vicar for the
captured patriarch, had already begun to restore the shrines. It
was impossible under Persian rule to restore the splendour of
Constantine's great Martyrion. Modestus therefore had to be
content with a more modest group of buildings at the Holy
Sepulchre. He restored the round Anastasis, much as it had been
before, except that a conical roof replaced the old cupola. The
custom of orientating churches had now become universal; so a new
apse was made at the east (where the entrance had been) for the
altar. Doors were pierced in the round wall north and south of
this apse. The Anastasis, formerly a shrine subsidiary to the
great basilica, now became the chief building. Modestus restored
the little chapel of the Crucifixion, originally built by Melania,
but did not attempt to rebuild any part of the basilica
(Martyrion) except the crypt of the Invention of the Holy Cross.
The whole esplanade around these buildings was enclosed by a wall
and so made into a great atrium. During the next centuries a great
number of chapels were built here to contain various relics of the
Passion. Heraclius when he reconquered the city rebuilt the walls
and restored many more of the ruined shrines. From his time to the
Arab conquest Christian Jerusalem enjoyed a short period of peace
and prosperity. St. Sophronius (634-638) or (644), who saw that
conquest, was one of the more famous patriarchs of Jerusalem. In
his time Monothelism had arisen as one more of the many hopeless
attempts to conciliate the Monophysites. Sophronius distinguished
himself as an opponent of this new heresy. He was born in Damascus
and had been a monk of the monastery of St. Theodosius. In defence
of the Faith against the Monothelites he had travelled through
Syria and Egypt and had visited Constantinople. As patriarch in
634 he wrote a synodal letter in defence of the two wills in
Christ that is one of the most important documents of this
controversy (Mansi XI, 461 sq.). In 636 he had to give up his city
to the Moslems.
V. FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST TO THE FIRST CRUSADE (636-1099)
The Moslems in the first zeal of their new faith proceeded to
invade Syria. Caliph Abu-bakr (632-634) gave the command of the
army to Abu-'Ubaidah, one of the original Ashab (companions of
Mohammed in his flight, 622). They first took Bosra. In July, 633,
they defeated Heraclius's army at Ajnadain near Emesa; in 634 they
stormed Damascus and again defeated the Romans at Yarmuk. Emesa
fell in 636. The Moslems then consulted Caliph Omar (634-644) as
to whether they should march on Jerusalem or Caesarea. By 'Ali's
advice they received orders to take the Holy City. First they sent
to Mo'awiya Ibn-Abu-Sufyan with 5000 Arabs to surprise the city;
soon afterwards it was invested by the whole army of Abu-'Ubaidah.
It was defended by a large force composed of refugees from all
parts of Syria, soldiers who had escaped from Yarmuk and a strong
garrison. For four months the siege continued, every day there was
a fierce assault. At last, when all further resistance was
hopeless, the Patriarch Sophronius (who acted throughout as the
head of the Christian defenders) appeared on the walls and
demanded a conference with Abu-'Ubaidah. He then proposed to
capitulate on fair and honourable terms; the Christians were to
keep their churches and sanctuaries, no one was to be forced to
accept Islam. Sophronius further insisted that these terms should
be ratified by the caliph in person. Omar, then at Medina, agreed
to these terms and came with a single camel to the walls of
Jerusalem. He signed the capitulation, then entered the city with
Sophronius "and courteously discoursed with the patriarch
concerning its religious antiquities" (Gibbon, ci, ed. Bury,
London, 1898, V, 436). It is said that when the hour for his
prayer came he was in the Anastasis, but refused to say it there,
lest in future times the Moslems should make that an excuse for
breaking the treaty and confiscating the church. The Mosque of
Omar (Jami 'Saidna 'Omar), opposite the doors of the Anastasis,
with the tall minaret, is shown as the place to which he retired
for his prayer. Under the Moslems the Christian population of
Jerusalem in the first period enjoyed the usual toleration given
to non-Moslem theists. The pilgrimages went on as before. The new
government did not make Jerusalem the political centre of
Palestine. This was fixed at Lydda till the year 716, then at Ar-
Ramla (Ramleh). But in the Moslem view, too, Jerusalem, the city
of David and Christ, to which Mohammed was taken miraculously in
one night (Koran, Sura. XVII), which had been the first Qibla of
their religion, was a very holy place, third only after Mecca and
Medina. They call it Beit al-mukaddas, Beit al-makdis (now
generally Al-Kuds).
<Picture>In the reign of Caliph 'Abd-al-malik (684-705, the fifth
Ommaid caliph, at Damascus) the people of Irak revolted and got
possession of the Hijaz. In order to give his followers a
substitute for the haraman (Mecca and Medina), which they were
prevented from visiting, he resolved to make Jerusalem a centre of
pilgrimage. He, therefore, set about to adorn the place of the
Temple with a splendid mosque. It appears that the Christians had
left the place where the Temple had once stood untouched. Omar
visited it and found it filled up with refuse. In his time a large
square building with no architectural pretension was put up to
shelter the True Believers who went there to pray. In 691 'Abd-al-
malik replaced this by the exquisite "Dome of the Rock" (Qubbet-
es-Sachra), built by Byzantine architects, that still stands in
the middle of the Temple area. This is the building long known as
the Mosque of Omar, falsely attributed to him. It is an eight-
sided building crowned with a dome, covered outside with marble
and most beautiful many-coloured tiles, certainly one of the most
splendid monuments of architecture in the world. It stands over a
great flat rock, probably the place of the old altar of
holocausts. 'Abd-allah al-Iman al-Mamun (Caliph, 813-833) restored
it. The dome fell in an earthquake and was rebuilt in 1022. The
Crusaders (who turned it into a church) thought this was the
original Jewish Temple; hence the many round temple-churches built
in imitation of it. Raphael in his "Espousal of the Blessed
Virgin" has painted it, as well as he could from descriptions, in
the background as the Temple. The whole of the Temple area became
to Moslems the "illustrious Sanctuary" (Haram-ash-sherif) and was
gradually covered with colonnades, minbars (pulpits), and smaller
domes. At the south end Justinian's basilica became the "most
remote Mosque" (Al-Masjid-al-aqsa, Sura XVII, 1). The description
of Arculf, a Frankish bishop who went on a pilgrimage to the Holy
Land in the seventh century, written down from his account by
Adamnan, monk of Iona (d. 704): "De locis terrae sanctae", lib.
III (P. L., LXXXVIIl, 725 sq.), gives us a not unpleasant picture
of the conditions of Christians in Palestine in the first period
of Moslem rule. The caliphs of Damascus (661-75O) were enlightened
and tolerant princes, on quite good terms with their Christian
subjects. Many Christians (e.g. St. John Damascene, d. c. 754)
held important offices at their court. The Abbaside caliphs at
Bagdad (753-1242), as long as they ruled Syria, were also just and
tolerant to the Christians. The famous Harun Abu-Ja-'afar (Haroun
al-Raschid, 786-809) sent the keys of the Holy Sepulchre to
Charlemagne who built a hospice for Latin pilgrims near the
shrine. Revolutions and rival dynasties that tore the union of
Islam to pieces then made Syria the battleground of the Moslem
world; the Christians under new masters began to suffer the
oppression that eventually led to the Crusades.
In 891 the sect of the Karamita (Carmathians) under Abu-Said al-
jannabi arose in the neighbourhood of Kufa. They defeated the
troops of the Caliph Al-Mutazid (Ahmed Abu'l Abbas), entered Syria
(903-904) and devastated the province. They seized Mecca and
prevented the pilgrims from going there from 929 to 950, when they
were finally destroyed. During this time Moslems again began to go
in pilgrimage to Jerusalem instead of to the Hijaz. The religious
importance that the city thus gained for them was the beginning of
intolerance towards the Christians there. It is the invariable
result in Islam; the more sacred a place is to Moslems the less
they are disposed to tolerate unbelievers in it. The Fatimide
dynasty now arose in Africa (908). About the year 967 they got
possession of Egypt. Meanwhile a frontier war with the empire went
on always. The Romans took advantage of the dismemberment of the
Moslem world to invade their former provinces. Already in 901, in
the reign of Leo VI (886-911), the Roman armies had advanced into
Syria as far as Aleppo and had carried off a great number of
prisoners. In 962 Nicephorus Phocas with 100,000 men again came as
far as Aleppo and devastated the country. In 968 and 969 the
Romans reconquered Antioch. It was inevitable that the Christians
of Jerusalem should try to help their fellow-countrymen to
reconquer the land that had been Roman and Christian; inevitable,
too, that the Moslems should punish such attempts as high treason.
In 969 the patriarch, John VII, was put to death for treasonable
correspondence with the Romans; many other Christians suffered the
same fate, and a number of churches were destroyed. Meanwhile the
first wave of the great Turkish race (the Seljuks) was pouring
over the caliph's empire. In 934 a Turk, Ikshid, revolted and his
successors held Palestine for a few years. In 969 Mu-'ezz-li-Din-
Allah, the fourth Fatimide Caliph in Egypt, conquered Jerusalem. A
Moslem pilgrim, Al-Muqaddasi, wrote a description of the city,
especially of the Haram ash-sharif, at this time (quoted by Le
Strange, "Palestine under the Moslems," 1890). The infamous Hakim
(Al-Hakim bi-amr-Allah, the sixth Egyptian Caliph, 996-1021, who
became the god of the Druses) determined to destroy the Holy
Sepulchre. This was really only one incident in his persecution of
Christians: his excuse was that the miracle of the holy fire
(already practised in his time) was a scandalous imposture. In
1010 the buildings erected by Modestus were burned to the ground.
The news of their destruction, brought back by pilgrims, caused a
wave of indignation throughout Europe. It was one of the causes of
the feeling that eventually brought about the first Crusade.
Meanwhile funds were collected to rebuild the sanctuary. The
Emperor Constantine IX (1042-1054) persuaded the Caliph Al-
Mustansir-bi-llah (1036-1094) to allow the rebuilding on condition
of releasing 5000 Moslem prisoners and of allowing prayer for Al-
Mustansir in the mosques in the empire. Byzantine arhitects were
sent to Jerusalem. The rebuilding was finished in 1048. The work
of Modestus was restored with a few additions hurriedly and not
well. The Holy Sepulchre remained in this state till the crusaders
replaced it by the present group of buildings (1140-1149).
In 1030 merchants of Amalfi were able to establish themselves
permanently in Jerusalem. They had leave to trade fully with the
people of Palestine, built a church (S. Maria Latina), a
Benedictine monastery, and a hospice for pilgrims. In 1077 the
Seljuk Turks became masters of Palestine. From this time the
condition of the Christians became unbearable. The Turks forbade
Christian services, devastated churches, murdered pilgrims. It was
the news of these outrages that provoked the Council of Clermont
(1095) and brought the crusaders in 1099. The patriarchal
succession after Sophronius was: (The see vacant from Sophronius's
death to 7O5. Meanwhile Stephen of Dora acted as papal vicar for
Palestine); John V (7O5-735); John VI (735-760), possibly the same
person as John V); Theodore (760-c. 770); Eusebius (772); Elias II
(driven out in 784, died c. 800); (meanwhile for a time Theodore
occupied the see); George of Sergius (800-807); Thomas (807-821);
Basil (821-842); Sergius (842- c. 859); Solomon (c. 859-c. 864);
Theodosius (c. 864- c. 879); Elias III (c. 879-907); Sergius II
(907-911 ); Leo or Leontius (911-928; Anastasius or Athanasius;
Nicholas; Christopher of Christodorus (died 937); Agatho; John VII
(murdered 969); Christopher II; Thomas II; Joseph II; Alexander;
Agapius (986-?): Jeremias or Orestes (banished and murdered c.
1012; Theophilus; Arsenius (c. 1024); Jordanus; Nicephorus;
Sophronius II; Mark II; Euthymius II (died 1099).
ADRIAN FORTESCUE
Transcribed by Donald J. Boon
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
