Jerusalem (A.D. 71-1099)

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

To the time of Constantine (71-312)

When Titus tookJerusalem (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 ofHerod's palace (Hippicus, Phasael, Mariamne) and the western wall. FewJews remained. The Roman Tenth Legion held the upper town andHerod's castle as a fortress;Josephus says that Titus handed the fields around to his soldiers ("Vita", 76). The presence of theseheathens would naturally repelJews, though in this period there was no law against their presence inJerusalem. The Jewish Rabbis gathered together at Jabne (or Jamnia, now Jebna) in the plain, northwest of the city, two hours from Ramleh.

Meanwhile theChristian community had fled to Pella in Paraea, east of theJordan (southeast of Jenin), before the beginning of the siege. TheChristians were still almost entirely converts fromJudaism (Eusebius,Church History IV.5). After the destruction they came back and congregated in the house of John Mark and his motherMary, where they had met before (Acts 12:12 sq.). It was apparently in this house that was the Upper Room, the scene of theLast Supper and of the assembly on Pentecost. Epiphanius (d. 403) says that when theEmperor 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 ofCyril 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; thecrusaders built another church when the older one had been destroyed by Hakim in 1010. It is the famous Coenaculum or Cenacle — now aMoslem shrine — near the Gate of David, and supposed to be David'stomb (Nebi Daud).

During the firstChristian centuries the church at this place was the centre ofChristianity inJerusalem, "Holy and glorious Sion, mother of all churches" (Intercession in "St. James' Liturgy", ed. Brightman, p. 54). Certainly no spot inChristendom can be more venerable than the place of theLast Supper, which became the firstChristian church. The constant use of the name Sion for the Coenaculum has led to considerable discussion as to the topography ofJerusalem. 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 theOld Testament that clearly distinguish Sion fromJerusalem and state that the Lord dwells inSion and that the king's palace is there (Isaiah 10:12;8:18;Joel 3:21; 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 allJerusalem.Josephus never uses it at all; already in theOld Testament the way was prepared for this extended use.Jerusalem is the "daughter of Sion" (Jeremiah 6:2, etc.). All its inhabitants without distinction are "Sion" (Zechariah 2:7, etc.). In earlyChristian times Sion seems to have lost its spell, meaning as one definite hill, and to have become merely another name forJerusalem. 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 firstChristian bishops ruled theChurch ofJerusalem. They were all converts fromJudaism, as were their flocks.Eusebius (Church History IV.5) gives the list of thesebishops. 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 byGalatians 1:19.Eusebius says he was appointedbishop by Peter, James (the Greater), and John (II, i). Naturally the other Apostles when they were atJerusalem shared the government with him (Acts 15:6, etc.; Eus., "Hist. Ecclesiastes", II, 23). He was thrown from a rock, then stoned to death by theJews about the year 63 (Eusebius, ib.;Josephus, "Antiq. Jud.", XX, ix, 1; ed. cit., p. 786). After his death the surviving Apostles and other disciples who were atJerusalem chose Simeon, son of Cleophas (also calledOur Lord's brother,Matthew 13:55), to succeed him. He wasbishop 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 underTrajan (Eusebius,Church History III.32). The line ofbishops ofJerusalem was then continued as follows:

All these wereJews (Eusebius, "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 ofJerusalem as a Roman colony and the establishment of an altar to Jupiter on the site of the Temple, theJews broke out into a hopeless rebellion under the famousfalseMessias Bar-Kochba about the year 132. During his rebellion hepersecuted the JewishChristians, who naturally refused to acknowledge him (Eusebius, "Chron.", for the seventeenth year ofHadrian). TheEmperor Hadrian put down this rebellion, after a siege that lasted a year, in 135. As a result of this lastwar the whole neighbourhood of the city became adesert. On the ruins ofJerusalem a new Roman city was built, called Ælia Capitolina (Ælia was Hadrian'sfamilynomen), and a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built on Mount Moria. NoJew (therefore no JewishChristian) was allowed under pain of death inside the town. This brought about a complete change in the circumstances of theChurch ofJerusalem. The old JewishChristian community came to an end. In its place a Church ofGentileChristians, withGentilebishops, was formed, who depended much less on the sacred memories of the city. Hence theChurch ofJerusalem did not for some centuries take the place in thehierarchy of sees that we should expect. Ælia was a town of no importance in the empire; the governor of the province resided at Caesarea in Palestine. The use of the name Ælia amongChristians of this time marks the insignificance of the littleGentile church, as the restoration of the old nameJerusalem later marks the revival of its dignity.

Even as late as 325 (Nicaea I, can. vii) the city is still called only Ælia. The name lasted on among theArabs in the form Iliya till late in theMiddle Ages. As the rank of the various sees among themselves was gradually arranged according to the divisions of the empire, Caesarea became themetropolitansee; theBishop of Ælia was merely one of its suffragans.

Thebishops from the siege underHadrian (135) to Constantine (312) were:

Constantine and the holy places (312-337)

During the episcopate of Macarius a great change came to the whole empire that incidentally affected theSee of Jerusalem profoundly. TheChristian Faith was acknowledged as areligio licita and theChurch became a recognizedsociety (Edict ofMilan, 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 seenDiocletian'spersecution now sawChristianity the dominant religion and the oldpaganism gradually reduced to country villages and out-of-the-way towns. There was then a great movement of organization amongChristians; churches were built everywhere. A further result of the freedom and the dominance ofChristianity 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 ofpilgrimage 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 timepilgrims came there from every part of the world, even from distant Britain (Ep. xliv ad Paulam; lxxxiv, ad Oceanum). A great number ofmonks fromEgypt and Libya also came and established themselves in thedesert by theJordan. This led to an increased respect for thebishop who ruled over the very places where Christ had lived and died. Thesepilgrims on their arrival found themselves under hisjurisdiction; they took part in thesacrifices 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 ofJerusalem at Eastertide is typical of this interest. When thepilgrims returned home they remembered and told their friends about the services they had seen in the most sacred places ofChristendom; and they began to imitate them in their own churches. Thus a great number of our well-known ceremonies (thePalm Sunday procession, later the Stations of the Cross, etc.) were originally imitations of local rites ofJerusalem. All this could not fail to bring about an advancement of rank for the localbishop. From the freedom of theChurch the development was inevitable that changed theBishop of Ælia, mere suffragan of Caesarea, into the great "Patriarch of the Holy CityJerusalem and of the whole Land of Promise".

Meanwhile another result of thesepilgrimages was the discovery of the Holy Places. Naturally thepilgrims 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 apilgrimage and caused churches to be built atBethlehem, 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 atemple 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 aChristian 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 thetomb 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. (Life of Constantine III.30). Two great buildings were erected near each other on this spot. To the west the rock containing thetomb was carved away, leaving it as a little shrine orchapel standing above ground. Over it was built a round church covered by adome. This is the Anastasis, which still has the form of a rotunda with adome, containing the Holy Sepulchre in the middle. Quite near, to the east, was a great basilica with anapse towards the Anastasis, a longnave, and fouraisles separated by rows of columns. Above theaisles were galleries; the whole was covered by a gable roof. Around theapse were twelve columnscrowned with silver, at the east were anarthex, three doors, and acolonnade in front of the entrance. This basilica was the Martyrium; it covered the ground now occupied by part of the Katholikon and St. Helena'schapel. Etheria speaks of it as "the great church which is called the Martyrium" (Per. Silv., ed. cit., p. 38). Underneath it was thecrypt of the Invention of the Cross. The Mount of Calvary was not enclosed in the basilica. It stood just at the southeast side of theapse. 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 (Eusebius,Life of Constantine III.21-40). Later in the fifth century St. Melania the younger (439), a Roman lady who came with her husband Pinianus to Jerusalem where they both enteredreligious houses, built a smallchapel over the place of the Crucifixion. These buildings were destroyed by thePersians 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 ofJerusalem inChrist's time. It iscertain that He was crucified outside the city wall. No executions took place within the city (Matthew 27:33;John 19:17;Hebrews 13:12, 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 befalse. It is, however, quite certain that all attempts to prove this have failed. On the contrary, Conder found other contemporarytombs near the traditional Holy Sepulchre, which show that it was without the city, sinceJews never buried within their towns. Supposing then its possibility, we have this chain of evidence: ifHadrian really built his temple of Venus purposely on the site, the authenticity isproved. Constantine's basilica stood where that temple was; that the present church stands on the place ofConstantine's basilica is notdoubted by any one. A number of writers (asEusebius, 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 byChristians, just as the temple of Jupiter was built purposely where the Jewish Temple had been. We have seen that an unchangingChristian community lived atJerusalem 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 theChristian 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 ofConstantine'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 thetomb three crosses with the inscription separated from them. Bishop Macarius discovered which was our Lord's Cross by applying each in turn to a sickwoman. The third Cross healed hermiraculously (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 theBishop ofJerusalem 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 theAscension on the top of the Mount of Olives, where he built achurch, and the still extant magnificent basilica at Bethlehem.

The patriarchate (325-451)

From the time of Constantine then begins the advancement of theSee 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 themetropolis, Caesarea. So the seventh canon declares: "Since custom and ancient tradition have obtained that thebishop in Ælia be honored, let him have the succession ofhonour (echeto ten akolouthian tes times) saving however the domestic right of themetropolis (te metropolei sozomenou tou oikeiou axiomatos)." The canon is in the "Decretum" of Gratian, dist. 65, vii. The "succession ofhonour" means a special place ofhonour, an honorary precedence immediately after the Patriarchs (ofRome, Alexandria, Antioch); but this is not to interfere with themetropolitanrights of Caesarea in Palestine. The situation of a suffraganbishop who had Precedence over hismetropolitan 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 (417-421); Juvenal (421-458). Already in the time of St. Cyril difficulties arose about his relation to hismetropolitan. While he was defending the Faith against theArians,Acacius of Caesarea, an extremeArian, 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 hismetropolis; 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 heknew what Acacius was a determinedArian and would certainly condemn him, or was it because he thought that his exceptional "succession ofhonour" exempted him from thejurisdiction of any but a patriarchal synod? The three usurpers, Eutychius,Irenaeus, Hilarion, wereArians intruded into hissee by their party during his three exiles.

It was Juvenal ofJerusalem (420-458) who at last succeeded in changing the anomalous position of hissee into a realpatriarchate. From the beginning of his reign he assumed an attitude that was quite incompatible with his canonical position as suffragan of Caesarea. About the year 425 a certain tribe ofArabs wasconverted toChristianity. These people set up their camp in the neighbourhood ofJerusalem. Juvenal then proceeded to found abishopric for them. Heordained 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 theordination of an Arabic-speaking coadjutor for these people whose language he himself did notknow; but Peter's title and presence at Ephesus certainly suggest that he considered himself adiocesanbishop. 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 hadordained otherbishops in Palestine and Arabia. A number ofbishops of the Antiochenepatriarchate wrote a letter to the Emperor Theodosius II in which they appear to have somedoubts as to the regularity of their position since, as they say, they have "beenordained formerly by the mostpious Juvenal" (Mansi, IV, 1402). Now the right of ordaining abishop always meant in the Eastjurisdiction over him. We see an instance of this in the Acts of the Council. Saidas,Bishop of Phaino in Palestine, describes Juvenal as "ourbishop" (ho episkopos meon = "our metropolitan", apparently). Clearly then even before the council Juvenal had been making tentative efforts to assume at least metropoliticalrights. At the council he made a stroke whose boldness is amazing. He tried to get hissee recognized not merely as independent of and equal toCaesarea, but superior to the great Patriarchate of Antioch. Antioch, he pretended, must submit to thesee 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 secondbishop present. Celestine ofRome was represented by hislegates;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 theheretics, Nestorius of Constantinople was the accused. Juvenal's ownmetropolitan (of Caesarea) was not present. Theschismatical attitude ofJohn of Antioch especially gave Juvenal his chance. Surely Cyril's council would not support John. Juvenal then, under colour of supporting Cyril and thepope, tried to get the council to acknowledge no less than his ownjurisdiction over Antioch. In a speech he explained to the Fathers thatJohn 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 theApostolic See ofRome and theHoly Church of God atJerusalem. "For it was especially the custom according to Apostolic order and tradition that the See of Antioch be corrected and judged by that ofJerusalem. 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 heordained aBishop of Jamnia ("Vita S. Euthymii", P.G., CXIV, c. 57).

When theMonophysiteheresy began Juvenal was at first on the side of theheretics. He was present at the Robber synod of 449, on the side ofDioscurus, and joined in the deposition ofFlavian 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 otherMonophysites 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 toFlavian. Theorthodox fathers were delighted. In ageneral 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 overJerusalem and the greater part of herpatriarchate. 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 littlepatriarchate forJerusalem. 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 ofJerusalem. So this arrangement appeared as a sort of compromise. The council in the seventh and eighth sessions accepted Juvenal's proposal (Maximus's correspondence withLeo the Great shows that he was still not quite satisfied) and madeJerusalem apatriarchate with this small territory. From this time thenJerusalem becomes a patriarchal see, the last (fifth) in order and the smallest. So was the number, afterwards so sacred, of fivepatriarchates established. TheQuinisext Council (692) admits this order. It enumerates thepatriarchs ofRome, Constantinople, Alexandria,Antioch and adds: "After these he of the city ofJerusalem" (can. xxxvi). Such too is the order proclaimed by theFourth 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 ofJerusalem in thehierarchy ofpatriarchates. But it will be noticed how late its rank was given, how unedifying the conduct of thebishop 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 threepatriarchates 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 greaterignorance of the whole situation than the naive proposal ofAnglicans at various times (e.g. theNon-Jurors in their letter to thepatriarchs, 1720) that everyone should admitJerusalem "mother of all Churches" as the first see of all.

The frontiers of this newpatriarchate, 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 thedesert. Under the patriarch were thesemetropolitans:

From Juvenal to the Saracen conquest (458-636)

Thepatriarchs of this time were: Theodosius (Monophysite usurper, 452); Anastasius (458-478); Martyrius (479-486); Salustius (486-494); Elias (494-513): seeELIAS 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 atJerusalem from 444 to her death about the year 460 (seeEUDOCIA). 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 thechurch of St. Stephen at the traditional place of hismartyrdom (now the famousDominicanconvent 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 forpilgrims 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 famousmosaic map ofJerusalem discovered at Madaba (Guthe and Palmer, "Die Mosaikkarte von Madeba", 1906) gives anidea of the state of the city in Justinian's time. During this period theSee of Jerusalem, like those of Alexandria and Antioch, was troubled continually by theMonophysiteschism. Under Juvenal the great crowd ofmonks 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 thisperson. So also in the other sees of thepatriarchateorthodoxbishops were expelled andMonophysites (such as Peter the Iberian at Majuma-Gaza) were set up in their place. The Empress Eudocia was at first an avowedMonophysite 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 themonks, and finally took Theodosius, who had fled,prisoner. Theodosius was then kept inprison at Constantinople almost till his death. The disturbance was not finally put down till 453. Eventually theorthodox Abbot Euthymius converted Eudocia, who died in the communion of theChurch (c. 460).

The furtherMonophysite disturbances affectedJerusalem, of course, too. Martyrius accepted theHenoticon (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 thebishops of hispatriarchate.Elias of Jerusalem supported Flavian of Antioch in resisting the Emperor Anastasius' (491-518) condemnation of Chalcedon. He was then banished and John,Bishop ofSebaste, intruded in his place (513) (seeELIAS OF JERUSALEM). But John becameorthodox, too, and broke his engagement with theMonophysite emperor as soon as he had possession of thesee (Theophanes Confessor, "Chronographia", ed. de Boors, Leipzig, 1883-1885, I, 156). Meanwhile St. Sabas (d. 531) from hismonastery by the Dead Sea was a mighty support to theorthodox. John III ofJerusalem accepted the decrees of theorthodox 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 theMonophysite Anthimus of Constantinople (deposed in that year; the Acts of this synod are inMansi, VIII, 1163-1176). From this time thepatriarchs seem to have been allorthodox; though theMonophysites had a strong party in Palestine and eventually set upMonophysitebishops in communion with the (Jacobite)patriarchs of Antioch of the line of Sergius of Tella (since 539) even atJerusalem itself. The first of these Jacobitebishops (they did not take the title patriarch) ofJerusalem 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 thePersians. In 602 the Roman Emperor Maurice had been barbarouslymurdered by order of Phocas (602-610), who usurped his place. Chosroes (Khusru) II, King ofPersia, 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 themurder of his friend and benefactor, then declaredwar against Phocas and invadedSyria (604). Thewar withPersia continued under Phocas's successor, Heraclius (610-642). In 611 thePersians took Antioch, then Caesarea in Cappadocia andDamascus. In 614 they stormedJerusalem. Chosroes's son-in-law Shaharbarz besieged the city; in his camp were 26,000Jews eager to destroyChristian sovereignty in their holy city. It is said that no less than 90,000Christians perished whenJerusalem fell. The Patriarch Zacharius was taken captive toPersia. The Anastasis, Martyrion and otherChristian sanctuaries were burned or razed to the ground. St. Helena's greatrelic of the Holy Cross was taken off toPersia in triumph. TheJews 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 acrossAsia Minor, driving back thePersians. In 627 he invadedPersia; Chosroes fled, was deposed, andmurdered in 628 by his son Siroes. In the same year thePersians had to submit to a peace which deprived them of all their conquests. The Persian soldiers evacuated the cities ofSyria andEgypt which they had conquered, therelic of theTrue 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 theJews renewed the old law ofHadrian forbidding them to enter the city.

After the Persian assault on the town, even before the Romans reconquered it, Modestus,Abbot of themonastery of St. Theodosius in thedesert 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 ofConstantine'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 oldcupola. The custom of orientating churches had now become universal; so a newapse was made at the east (where the entrance had been) for the altar. Doors were pierced in the round wall north and south of thisapse. The Anastasis, formerly a shrine subsidiary to the great basilica, now became the chief building. Modestus restored the littlechapel of the Crucifixion, originally built by Melania, but did not attempt to rebuild any part of the basilica (Martyrion) except thecrypt 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 ofchapels were built here to contain variousrelics of the Passion. Heraclius when he reconquered the city rebuilt the walls and restored many more of the ruined shrines. From his time to theArab conquestChristianJerusalem enjoyed a short period of peace and prosperity. St. Sophronius (634-638) or (644), who saw that conquest, was one of the more famouspatriarchs ofJerusalem. In his timeMonothelism had arisen as one more of the many hopeless attempts to conciliate theMonophysites. Sophronius distinguished himself as an opponent of this newheresy. He was born inDamascus and had been amonk of themonastery of St. Theodosius. In defence of the Faith against theMonothelites he had travelled throughSyria andEgypt 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 theMoslems.

From the Arab conquest to the First Crusade (636-1099)

TheMoslems in the firstzeal of their newfaith proceeded to invadeSyria. Caliph Abu-bakr (632-634) gave the command of the army to Abu-'Ubaidah, one of the originalAshab (companions ofMohammed 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. TheMoslems then consulted Caliph Omar (634-644) as to whether they should march onJerusalem or Caesarea. By 'Ali's advice they received orders to take the Holy City. First they sent to Mo'awiya Ibn-Abu-Sufyan with 5000Arabs 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 ofSyria, 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 theChristian defenders) appeared on the walls and demanded a conference with Abu-'Ubaidah. He then proposed to capitulate on fair and honourable terms; theChristians were to keep their churches and sanctuaries, no one was to be forced to acceptIslam. 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 ofJerusalem. 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 hisprayer came he was in the Anastasis, but refused to say it there, lest in future times theMoslems 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 hisprayer. Under theMoslems theChristian population ofJerusalem in the first period enjoyed the usual toleration given to non-Moslem theists. Thepilgrimages went on as before. The new government did not makeJerusalem the political centre of Palestine. This was fixed atLydda till the year 716, then at Ar-Ramla (Ramleh). But in theMoslem view, too,Jerusalem, the city of David andChrist, to whichMohammed was takenmiraculously in one night (Koran, Sura. XVII), which had been the firstQibla 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).

In the reign of Caliph 'Abd-al-malik (684-705, the fifth Ommaid caliph, atDamascus) the people of Iraq revolted and got possession of the Hijaz. In order to give his followers a substitute for theharaman (Mecca and Medina), which they were prevented from visiting, he resolved to makeJerusalem a centre ofpilgrimage. He, therefore, set about to adorn the place of the Temple with a splendid mosque. It appears that theChristians 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 noarchitectural pretension was put up to shelter the True Believers who went there topray. 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 buildingcrowned with adome, 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 ofholocausts. 'Abd-allah al-Iman al-Mamun (Caliph, 813-833) restored it. Thedome fell in an earthquake and was rebuilt in 1022. TheCrusaders (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" haspainted it, as well as he could from descriptions, in the background as the Temple. The whole of the Temple area became toMoslems the "illustrious Sanctuary" (Haram-ash-sherif) and was gradually covered withcolonnades, 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 ofArculf, aFrankishbishop who went on apilgrimage to the Holy Land in the seventh century, written down from his account byAdamnan,monk ofIona (d. 704): "De locis terrae sanctae", lib. III (P.L., LXXXVIIl, 725 sq.), gives us a not unpleasant picture of the conditions ofChristians in Palestine in the first period ofMoslem rule. The caliphs ofDamascus (661-750) were enlightened and tolerant princes, on quite good terms with theirChristian subjects. ManyChristians (e.g.St. John Damascene, d. c. 754) held important offices at their court. The Abbaside caliphs atBagdad (753-1242), as long as they ruledSyria, were also just and tolerant to theChristians. The famous Harun Abu-Ja-'afar (Haroun al-Raschid, 786-809) sent the keys of the Holy Sepulchre toCharlemagne who built a hospice for Latinpilgrims near the shrine. Revolutions and rival dynasties that tore the union ofIslam to pieces then madeSyria the battleground of theMoslem world; theChristians under new masters began to suffer the oppression that eventually led to theCrusades.

In 891 thesect 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), enteredSyria (903-904) and devastated the province. They seized Mecca and prevented thepilgrims from going there from 929 to 950, when they were finally destroyed. During this timeMoslems again began to go inpilgrimage to Jerusalem instead of to the Hijaz. The religious importance that the city thus gained for them was the beginning of intolerance towards theChristians there. It is the invariable result inIslam; the more sacred a place is toMoslems 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 ofEgypt. Meanwhile a frontierwar with the empire went on always. The Romans took advantage of the dismemberment of theMoslem world to invade their former provinces. Already in 901, in the reign of Leo VI (886-911), the Roman armies had advanced intoSyria as far as Aleppo and had carried off a great number ofprisoners. 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 theChristians ofJerusalem should try to help their fellow-countrymen to reconquer the land that had been Roman andChristian; inevitable, too, that theMoslems should punish such attempts as high treason. In 969 the patriarch, John VII, wasput to death for treasonable correspondence with the Romans; many otherChristians suffered the same fate, and a number of churches were destroyed. Meanwhile the first wave of the greatTurkish 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 inEgypt, conqueredJerusalem. AMoslem 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). Theinfamous Hakim (Al-Hakim bi-amr-Allah, the sixthEgyptian Caliph, 996-1021, who became the god of the Druses) determined to destroy the Holy Sepulchre. This was really only one incident in hispersecution ofChristians: his excuse was that themiracle of the holy fire (already practised in his time) was ascandalous imposture. In 1010 the buildings erected by Modestus were burned to the ground. The news of their destruction, brought back bypilgrims, caused a wave of indignation throughoutEurope. It was one of the causes of the feeling that eventually brought about theFirst 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 5000Moslemprisoners and of allowingprayer for Al-Mustansir in the mosques in the empire. Byzantine architects 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 thecrusaders replaced it by the present group of buildings (1140-1149).

In 1030 merchants ofAmalfi were able to establish themselves permanently inJerusalem. They had leave to trade fully with the people of Palestine, built achurch (S. Maria Latina), aBenedictinemonastery, and a hospice forpilgrims. In 1077 the SeljukTurks became masters of Palestine. From this time the condition of theChristians became unbearable. TheTurks forbadeChristian services, devastated churches,murderedpilgrims. It was the news of these outrages that provoked the Council ofClermont (1095) and brought thecrusaders in 1099. The patriarchal succession after Sophronius was: (The see vacant from Sophronius's death to 705. Meanwhile Stephen ofDora acted aspapal vicar for Palestine); John V (705-735); John VI (735-760), possibly the sameperson as John V); Theodore (760-c. 770); Eusebius (772); Elias II (driven out in 784, died c. 800); (meanwhile for a time Theodore occupied thesee); 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 orAthanasius; Nicholas; Christopher of Christodorus (died 937); Agatho; John VII (murdered 969); Christopher II; Thomas II;Joseph II; Alexander; Agapius (986-?): Jeremias or Orestes (banished andmurdered c. 1012; Theophilus; Arsenius (c. 1024); Jordanus; Nicephorus; Sophronius II; Mark II; Euthymius II (died 1099).

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT