Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
SEPULCHRE, THE HOLY
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: SCY-SHA
del.icio.us it!
|
See also:SEPULCHRE, THE See also:HOLY , the See also:tomb in which, after His crucifixion, the See also:body of Jesus See also:Christ was laid. Although the facts of the crucifixion and of the interment of the body of Christ in the tomb of See also:Joseph of Arimathea are related in the New Testament with considerable detail, sufficient indcations are not supplied to locate the actual position of the tomb with reference to the See also:city of See also:Jerusalem. It would appear that Golgotha, the See also:place of crucifixion, was outside the city, near a public thoroughfare leading to one of the See also:gates, and visible from some distance. There is, however, no See also:reason for supposing that it was a See also: On the other See also:hand, going See also:south from Herod's palace, it encircled the city on the west and south, and then turning at Siloam it followed the direction of the Kidron Valley and ended at the See also:east wall of the Temple enclosure. The second wall, which was built at some See also:period between the return of the See also:Jews from See also:Babylon and the reign of Herod the Great, was on the See also:north, and in front of the old wall. According to Josephus, it started " from the See also:Gate Genath in the first wall, and, enclosing only the See also:northern See also:quarter of the city, went up to the fortress of Antonia." The site of the Antonia, which was situated on the rising ground north of the Temple, is known with tolerable certainty, but the position of the Gate Genath has not been fixed, and, as no certain traces of the second wall have hitherto been found, the See also:line it followed is purely a See also:matter of conjecture. Various theories on the subject are maintained by different authorities. Some of these are indicated on the See also:plan. One See also:suggestion is that the second wall started from a point in the first wall near the palace of Herod, and that some remains of an old wall, situated at the point A, formed See also:part of it. The wall is then supposed to have been carried in a direction slightly west of north, up to the line of the existing city wall, to have followed this line to the See also:Damascus gate, and then turned south-east to the Antonia. If this theory were correct, it is clear that the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre would be impossible, as it would be some way within the city wall. The arguments against the proposal are, that, according to the See also:account of the See also:siege of Jerusalem given by Josephus, it is improbable that the second wall started from a point so near to Herod's palace, that the line of the See also:present city wall is more likely to be that of the third wall, and that Josephus states that the second wall went " up to " and not " down to " the fortress of Antonia. Another theory is that the Gate Genath was at a point marked B on plan, and that some See also:ancient See also:masonry which lies east of the so-called See also:Pool of See also:Hezekiah, and over which the houses on the west See also:side of See also:Christian See also:Street are built, represents a portion of the second wall. The wall is then supposed to have been carried north to the point C, and either to have turned east to D, and again north to F, and from this to the Antonia; or to have continued north to E, and thence east to the Antonia. The first supposition excludes the site of the Holy Sepulchre, while the second includes it within the wall. A third theory is that the Gate Genath was at the point G, and that the second wall ran north to F, and thence to the Antonia. This proposal places the site of the Holy Sepulchre outside the wall, but it makes the part of the city protected by the latter smaller than is probable. Speaking generally, it may be stated that there is no certain See also:evidence as to the line followed by the second wall, and it is impossible to say whether the traditional site lies inside or outside this wall. From the description in the Gospels of the See also:burial of Jesus, it is not clear whether the tomb of Joseph was intended to be the final resting-place, or whether the body was only placed in it temporarily because the feast of the See also:Passover was at hand and the disciples intended to remove it to some other place after the Passover. But whatever may have been proposed, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on the first See also:day of the See also:week, leaving the tomb empty, turned the See also:attention of the disciples from the sepulchre to the living presence of their See also:Master. After He had risen from the dead, the place of His burial does not appear to have had any attraction for His followers, and there is nothing in the writings of the first three centuries to See also:lead us to suppose that the actual rock-cut tomb was regarded with any See also:special feelings of veneration. Whether even a recollection of the site was preserved traditionally is doubtful. There have been many who consider that the See also:early Christians could not have forgotten the exact locality of so important a place; on the contrary, others maintain that to the followers of Jesus Christ it was the fact of the Resurrection that was important and not the empty tomb; and that knowledge of the latter was lost during the vicissitudes from which Jerusalem suffered in the years succeeding the crucifixion. About See also:forty years after the crucifixion, the great revolt of the Jewish See also:people against the See also:Romans took place, and ended with the siege and See also:capture of Jerusalem by See also:Titus. See also:Prior to the siege, the Christians, following the orders of their Master, Plan of Jerusalem to illustrate the question of the site of the Holy Sepulchre Jer 's +*+*~ • lah 400 0 00. Grotto Damascus Gate‘. T See also:ea' ' ,:. IV • .•.'Ortress •F~~..r••' ::FS Antonia 0 +~. Church of the rS ~y 1 W Holy Sepullcchre +,t `•.ti x CI..~..~..ID nB LC' JarcacaceFie rst Wail •.0...r. i , ;Palace :.of Herod See also:Sion The Place of the last Suppet "• CO .~1 G' •e Seale of js mile Smarr WSW: w 1 F P ± ? 4 Purlongs Tomb* Tombs had retired to the city of See also:Pella, east of See also:Jordan, and the date of their return to Jerusalem is uncertain. Whether any of the disciples returned after the See also:triumph of the Romans and recognized the tomb of Christ is matter of conjecture. Among the temples built by See also:Hadrian about A.D. 135 was one dedicated to See also:Aphrodite or See also:Venus; it was erected at that place where the church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands, but it is impossible to say whether it was purposely so placed because it was the site of the tomb of the See also:Lord, or whether the selection of this position was accidental. The extent of the walls of Aelia Capitolina is not known with any accuracy, but it is probable that the northern wall followed the same line as the present north wall of Jerusalem, and therefore that the site of the temple of Aphrodite was then within the walls. Although it is doubtful whether the Christians returned to Jerusalem immediately after the destruction of the city by Titus, they were certainly there when Hadrian built Aelia Capitolina; according to See also:Epiphanius, they had a small place of See also:worship on Sion at the place where Jesus Christ See also:ate the Last Supper. See also:Eusebius also states that the Christians worshipped at the Mount of See also:Olives where Jesus instructed His disciples, but no writer up to the time of See also:Constantine speaks of the tomb, or of worship being performed there. Constantine the Great became See also:emperor of See also:Rome in A.D. 306, and was converted to See also:Christianity six years afterwards. Embracing his new See also:religion with See also:enthusiasm he attributed his victories to the See also:power of the Divine See also:Cross, which was placed on the ensigns of the See also:army. After the great See also:council of the Church had been held at See also:Nicaea in A.D. 325, the emperor decided to find the sites of the crucifixion and resurrection at Jerusalem, and to build a church at this place. Full descriptions of the See also:discovery of the Holy Sepulchre and of the churches that were built are given by Eusebius in his See also:Life of Constantine, but it is difficult to say from his account if the See also:main See also:object of Constantine was to find the sepulchre of the Lord or the cross upon which He suffered. Eusebius does not mention the cross directly and See also:lays more stress on the recovery of the sepulchre; whereas later writers imply that the great wish of the emperor and of his See also:mother See also:Helena, who visited Jerusalem for the purpose, was to find the Holy Cross. The task of searching for the tomb and the cross was entrusted to See also:Bishop Macarius. Whether the bishop was guided in his selection of the site by tradition or not is difficult to say, but he decided that the desired place was under Hadrian's temple of Aphrodite. By imperial See also:order the temple, was removed, and a rock-cut Jewish tomb, which See also:lay below, was identified as the sepulchre of the Lord. In another cavity in the rock, 28o ft. to the east, three crosses were discovered, which were assumed to be the crosses upon which Jesus Christ and the two thieves were crucified, the cross of Jesus being identified by its power of healing the sick. Immediately on the See also:receipt of the intelligence of this remarkable discovery, the emperor wrote to Macarius, ordering the erection of magnificent buildings on the site. Two churches were built, one over the tomb, and the second, which was larger and grander, over the place where the crosses had been found. Between the two churches was a small hill, which was ideptified as Mount Golgotha. The ground surrounding the two churches was levelled and surrounded with porticoes or colonnades. The description of the buildings as detailed by Eusebius is rather obscure, but fortunately there still exists, in the church of See also:Santa Pudenziana at Rome, a See also:mosaic, supposed to have been originally executed in the 4th or 5th See also:century, which shows the buildings clearly. The church of the Anastasis or Holy Sepulchre is herein delineated as a See also:round church with a domed roof; the church of the Martyrion or Holy Cross, as a polygonal See also:building, also with a domed roof; while between the-two churches is Mount Golgotha, with the cross erected upon it. In another ancient mosaic, which still exists in a church of Madeba, east of the Jordan, a See also:map of See also:Palestine is represented which contains a rough plan of the walls and gates of Jerusalem. In this plan, also, it is possible to recognize the churches built by Constantine. The See also:Bordeaux See also:pilgrim who visited Jerusalem about A.D. 333, when the church of the Holy Sepulchre was in course of construction, describesthe place, which was evidently the same as that on which the existing church of the Holy Sepulchre stands. There can, there-fore, be no reasonable doubt that the present site is that which was fixed upon by Bishop Macarius in the time of Constantine. The churches were completed about A.D. 336, and were doubtless visited by See also:numbers of pilgrims. Among these a See also:lady from the west of See also:Europe, who is supposed to have been St Sylvia of Aquitania and who came to Jerusalem about A.D. 385, fortunately kept a See also:diary of her travels, and she identifies very distinctly the great church of the Cross, the church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Mount See also:Calvary between them. In A.D. 614 Jerusalem was captured by the Persians under See also:Chosroes II., who did considerable damage to the churches, but they were repaired by Modestus after the defeat of the Persians by the emperor See also:Heraclius. The See also:caliph See also:Omar, who captured the city in 636, behaved with leniency to the Christians, and See also:left them in undisputed See also:possession of the church of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1010 the third Fatimite caliph Hakim practically destroyed it. It is remarkable that from the beginning of the 8th century, while the church of the Holy Sepulchre is always mentioned in the accounts written by visitors to Jerusalem, the church of the Cross seems to have ceased to exist, although the place where the crosses were found was shown to pilgrims, and a church was built on Mount Calvary. After the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in A.D. 1099, the church of the Holy Sepulchre was repaired and enlarged by the addition of a See also:nave and See also:chancel, and other churches were erected, so that the Holy Sepulchre became the centre of a See also:group of ecclesiastical buildings and has so remained up to the present time. The Authenticity of the Traditional Site.—From early times doubts have arisen as to whether the tomb discovered by Bishop Macarius was the veritable sepulchre. As early as 754, when the pilgrim Wildebald visited Jerusalem, he remarked, in describing the Holy Places, that " Calvary was formerly outside the city, but that the Empress arranged that place so that it should be within the city Jerusalem." Saewulf in 11o2, Wilbrand of See also:Oldenburg in 1211, Jacques de Vitry in 1226, and Burchard of Mount Sion in 1283, had evidently some doubts about the site, and explained the difficulty by suggesting that Hadrian 'had enclosed it within the walls but that it was outside before he rebuilt the city. Jacques le Saige in 1518, Gretzer in 1598, and F. Quaresmius in 1639, also alluded to the difficulty See also:felt by some in believing in the traditional site. Monconys in 1647 stated that Calvary was formerly outside Jerusalem, but that it was now in the centre of the city, which was smaller than at the time of the crucifixion. In 1738 See also:Jonas Korte of See also:Altona visited Jerusalem and published a See also:book on. his travels, in which he expressed the view that the Calvary shown to visitors could not be the true Calvary because it was in the See also:middle of the See also:town. He placed the true site to the west of Jerusalem, near the Birket Mamilla which lies m. west of the Jaffa gate. This view was supported by J. F. Plessing in 1789. Dr E. See also: See also:Colonel C. R. See also:Conder, R.E., who carried out the survey of Palestine under the Palestine Exploration Fund, also adopted the same hill as the probable See also:scene of the crucifixion, but considered that the tomb of Christ was an ancient rock-cut tomb, about 200 yds. west of Jeremiah's Grotto. Since General Gordon gave his See also:opinion in favour of the site, it has been adopted by many, and the tomb in the See also:face of the hill is sometimes called " Gordon's Tomb of Christ " or " The Garden Tomb." A careful examination of the question, however, leads to the conclusion
that the sites are not probable either for Calvary or the tomb. The hill in question, though not far outside the present north wall of the city, is at too great a distance from the probable line of the second wall, which was the outside line of fortification at the time of the crucifixion. The quarry, known as Jeremiah's Grotto, is likely to be of later date than the third wall, which was built some years after the crucifixion, and the tomb identified as that of Christ has with See also:good reason been attributed to the Christian rather than to the Jewish period. On the whole, therefore, the See also:balance of See also:argument is against the See also:identification proposed by Thenius.
An entirely different theory regarding the site of the tomb of Christ was proposed by See also: W. Unger in See also:Die Bauten Constantins See also:des Grossen am Heiligen Grab zu Jerusalem, published at See also:Gottingen in 1863, but the objections to them on See also:historical and topographical grounds are so considerable that they can hardly now be maintained. The theory involves placing the Temple of the Jews at the S. W. part of the Haram enclosure, and the explorations made by General See also:Sir C. See also:Warren showed conclusively that if the Temple had been in this position, it would have stood over the deepest part of the Tyropoeon Valley, and the See also:foundations must have been of a most unnecessarily gigantic character. Sir C. Warren, in The Temple and the Tomb, 188o, replied seriatim to Fergusson's proposals. The historical evidence also is entirely against the latter, and the discovery of the Madeba mosaic, which, as has been already explained, shows the church of the Holy Sepulchre in the same position as at present, is another See also:proof that the latter was not placed by Constantine on Mount See also:Moriah. The final conclusion that may be arrived at with regard to the authenticity of the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre is as follows. It may be taken as certain that the present site is that which was adopted by Macarius as the correct one early in the 4th century, but there is not sufficient evidence to prove that this tomb was the one in which the body of Christ was laid, or that remembrance of the latter had been preserved during the three centuries that had elapsed between the time of the crucifixion and the See also:conversion of Constantine. No other suggested site, however, has more claim to be the true one than that over which the church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] SEPULCHRE, EASTER |
[next] SEQUANI |