The Christian Topography of Early Islamic Jerusalem: The Evidence of Willibald of Eichstätt (700-787 CE) (Studia Traditionis Theologiae: Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology) [Illustrated] 9782503530130, 2503530133

Citation preview

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page i

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page ii

STUDIA TRADITIONIS THEOLOGIAE Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology 2

Series Editor: Thomas O’Loughlin, Professor of Historical Theology in the University of Nottingham

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page iii

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM THE EVIDENCE OF WILLIBALD OF EICHSTÄTT (700-787 CE) Rodney Aist

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page iv

© 2009, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2009/0095/81 ISBN 978-2-503-53013-0

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page v

To my parents, Gene and Anna Aist And the island community of Papa Westray

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page vi

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page vii

CONTENTS

xiii xv xix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PREFACE ABBREVIATIONS 1. introduction 1.1. The Significance of the Work

i i

1.1.1. Jerusalem Studies, p.2 - 1.1.2. Anglo-Saxon Studies, p.5

1.2. Introduction to the Sources

6

1.2.1. The Vita Willibaldi, p.6 - 1.2.2. The Vita Wynnebaldi, p.15 1.2.3. The Palestine Pilgrim Texts 1.2.3.1. The Byzantine Sources, p.16 - 1.2.3.2. The Post-Byzantine Sources, p.17 - 1.2.3.3. The Crusader Sources, p.20 1.2.4. The Material Sources, p.20

1.3. The Structure and Contents of the Work 1.4.The Limitations of the Work

21 27

2. the contextual background 2.1. The Life of Willibald of Eichstätt

29 29

2.1.1. Willibald’s Childhood, p.29 - 2.1.2. Willibald’s Journey to Rome, p.30 - 2.1.3. The Sojourn in Rome, p.30 - 2.1.4. Willibald’s Journey to Jerusalem, p.31 - 2.1.5. Willibald’s Sojourn in Constantinople, p.33 - 2.1.6. Willibald’s Return to Italy, p.34 - 2.1.7. The Monte Cassino Years, p.35 - 2.1.8. Willibald’s Years in Germany, p.37

2.2.Willibald’s Holy Land Travels

41

2.2.1. Willibald’s Entry into the Holy Land, p.41 - 2.2.2. Willibald’s First Sojourn in Jerusalem, p.45 - 2.2.3. Willibald’s First Circuit of the Holy Land, p.45 - 2.2.4. Willibald’s Second Sojourn in Jerusalem, p.47 - 2.2.5. Willibald’s Second Circuit of

vii

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page viii

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the Holy Land, p.47 - 2.2.6. Willibald’s Third Sojourn in Jerusalem, p.48 - 2.2.7. Willibald’s Third Circuit of the Holy Land, p.48 - 2.2.8. Willibald’s Fourth Sojourn in Jerusalem, p.49 - 2.2.9. Willibald’s Departure from the Holy Land, p.50 - 2.2.10. Conclusion: Willibald’s Holy Land Travels p.52

2.3.The Jerusalem Context

52

2.3.1. Historical Summary, p.52 2.3.1.1. The Pre-Constantinian Period, p.52 - 2.3.1.2. The Byzantine Period, p.53 - 2.3.1.3. The Persian Conquest of 614, p.55 - 2.3.1.4. The Inter-conquest Period, p.56 - 2.3.1.5. The Early Islamic Period, p.57 - 2.3.1.6. The Crusader Period, p.58

2.3.2. Pilgrimage and the Christian Communities of Early Islamic Jerusalem, p.59 2.3.3. Christian-Muslim Relations during the Umayyad Period, p.59 2.3.3.1. The Pact of ‘Umar, p.59 - 2.3.3.2. The Prohibition of Images and Icons, p.60 - 2.3.3.3. The Prohibition of Crosses, p.61

3. willibald and the holy sites of jerusalem 3.1. The Holy Sepulchre I: The locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux Domini

63 63

3.1.1. Helena and the Legend of the Holy Cross, p.64 - 3.1.2. Willibald and the Image of the Holy Cross, p.66 3.1.2.1. Willibald’s Childhood Illness, p.66 - 3.1.2.2. The inclitus crucicolus, p.67 - 3.1.2.3. Willibald’s Description of the locus ubi inventa fuerant sancta crux Domini p.68

3.1.3. The Commemoration of the Finding of the Holy Cross, p.71 3.1.4. The Commemoration of the Miraculous Healing, p.72 3.1.4.1. Epiphanius, p.73 - 3.1.4.2. Daniel the Abbot, p.77 - 3.1.4.3. Willibald, p.79 - 3.1.4.4. Adomnán, p.79 - 3.1.4.5. The Three Wooden Crosses, p.98

3.1.5. Willibald’s Blindness and the Miraculous Healing, p.102 3.1.6. Conclusion, p.106

3.2.The Holy Sepulchre II: The locus que dicitur Calvarie locus 3.2.1. Willibald’s Description of the Calvarie locus, p.108 3.2.1.1. Biblical References to the Calvarie locus, p.108 - 3.2.1.2. Willibald’s Image of the Calvarie locus, p.108 - 3.2.1.3. Willibald’s Church on the Calvarie locus, p.111 - 3.2.1.4 Willibald’s Intramural Dilemma, p.113

3.2.2. The Commemorations of the Calvarie locus, p.114 3.2.2.1. The Place of the Crucifixion, p.115 - 3.2.2.2. The Tomb of Adam, p.116 - 3.2.2.3. Jerusalem: The Centre of the World, p.117

3.2.3. Conclusion: Willibald and the Calvarie locus, p.118

viii

107

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page ix

CONTENTS

3.3. The Holy Sepulchre III: The sepulchrum Salvatoris

119

3.3.1. Background to the sepulchrum Salvatoris, p.119 3.3.1.1. The Gospel Narratives, p.119 - 3.3.1.2. The sepulchrum Salvatoris: An Historical Outline, p.120

3.3.2. Willibald’s Description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris, p.121 3.3.2.1. The Physical Surroundings of the sepulchrum Salvatoris, p.121

3.3.2.1.1. The Tomb’s Garden Setting, p.121 - 3.3.2.1.2. The mirabilis domus, p.122 - 3.3.2.2. The Physical Description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris, p.124 - 3.3.2.2.1. Sepulchrum and monumentum, p.125 3.3.2.2.2. Quadrans in imo et in summon subtilis, p.127 - 3.3.2.2.3. The Tomb’s Exterior, p.129 - 3.3.2.2.4. The Tomb’s Interior, p.130 3.3.2.2.5. The Stone ante ianua sepulchri, p.133

3.3.3. Summary: The sepulchrum Salvatoris, p.134

3.4.The Church que vocatur Sancta Sion

135

3.4.1. In medio Hierusalem, p.139 3.4.1.1. Mount Sion and the Topography of Jerusalem, p.139 3.4.1.2. Sion, Calvary and the Biblical City of Jerusalem, p.140 3.4.1.3. The Walls of Jerusalem, p.141

3.4.2. The Commemorations of Holy Sion, p.144 3.4.2.1. The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus, p.144 - 3.4.2.2. Pentecost, p.144 - 3.4.2.3. The Last Supper, p.145 - 3.4.2.4. The Stones of Stephen, p.146 - 3.4.2.5. The Death of Mary, p.147

3.4.3. Conclusion, p.147

3.5. The Pool of the Paralytic Healing

147

3.5.1. The Two Pools, p.150 3.5.1.1. The Pool of Bethesda, p.150 - 3.5.1.3. The Pool of Israel, p.154

3.5.2. The porticus Salamonis, p.156 3.5.2.1. Biblical References to the porticus Salamonis, p.156 - 3.5.2.2. Pilgrim References to the porticus Salamonis, p.157

3.5.3. Conclusions: The Pool of the Paralytic Healing, p.160

3.6.Willibald and the Marian Topography of Jerusalem 3.6.1. Early Christian Sources on the Death and Dormition of St Mary, p.163 3.6.2. The Dormition Commemorations of Jerusalem, p.165 3.6.2.1. St Mary and the Church of Holy Sion, p.165 - 3.6.2.2. The Funeral Procession of St Mary, p.165 - 3.6.2.2.1. The Jephonias Legend, p.165 - 3.6.2.2.2. Willibald’s magna columna, p.166 - 3.6.2.3. The Church of St Mary, p.174 - 3.6.2.3.1. History of the Church of St Mary, p.174 - 3.6.2.3.2. Willibald and the Tomb of St Mary, p.176

3.6.3. Summary: Willibald and the Marian Topography of Jerusalem, p.178

ix

162

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page x

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

3.7.The Church ubi Dominus ante passionem orabat

178

3.7.1. The Commemorations, p.179 3.7.1.1. Gethsemane, p.179 - 3.7.1.2. The Commemorations of the Betrayal, p.181 - 3.7.1.2.1. The Scriptural Sources, p.181 - 3.7.1.2.2. The Pilgrim Sources, p.181 - 3.7.1.3. The Commemoration of the Agony, p.184 - 3.7.1.3.1. The Scriptural Sources, p.184 - 3.7.1.3.2. The Pilgrim Sources, p.181

3.7.2. The Location of Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat, p.188 3.7.2.1. The Eleona, p.190 - 3.7.2.2. Dominus Flevit, p.194 3.7.2.3. The Byzantine-Crusader Site, p.196

3.7.3. Willibald and the Image of the Agony, p.200 3.7.4. Conclusion: The Church ubi Dominus orabat, p.201

3.8.The Church ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum

202

3.8.1. The Contextual Background to the Church of the Ascension, p.203 3.8.1.1. Scriptural References to the Ascension, p.203 - 3.8.1.2. The Church of the Ascension: An Historical Outline, p.203 - 3.8.1.3. The Return of Christ: The Unfinished Narrative, p.205

3.8.2. Willibald’s Description of the Church of the Ascension, p.206 3.8.2.1. The Perpetually-Burning Lamp, p.206 - 3.8.2.2. The Open Roof, p.209 - 3.8.2.3. The Columns, p.210 - 3.8.2.4. The Round Church, p.211 - 3.8.2.5. The Church of the 318 Bishops, p.212

3.8.3. Conclusion: The Church of the Ascension, p.214

3.9.Willibald and the Circuit of Jerusalem

216

3.9.1. Willibald as a Source for the Jerusalem Circuit, p.216 3.9.1.1. Willibald’s Description of Jerusalem, p.216 - 3.9.1.2. The Jerusalem Circuit of the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Periods, p.219 - 3.9.1.3. The Termination of the Jerusalem Circuit, p.223 - 3.9.1.4. The Nature of the Jerusalem Circuit, p.225 - 3.9.1.5. The Jerusalem Circuit of the Crusader Period, p.226

3.9.2. The Jerusalem Circuit of a Source for Willibald, p.226 3.9.3. Conclusion: Willibald and the Jerusalem Circuit, p.227

3.10. Conclusion: Willibald and the Holy Places

228

4. hardships, perseverance and the christian life 232 4.1.The Influence of Hardships upon Willibald’s Image of Jerusalem 233 4.1.1. The Death of Willibald’s Father, p.235 - 4.1.2. Willibald’s Illness in Rome, p.236 - 4.1.3. Hardships in Asia Minor p.237 4.1.3.1. Hunger in Phygela, p.237 - 4.1.3.2. The Winter in Patara, p.237 - 4.1.3.3. Hunger in Mons Gallinorum, p.237

x

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xi

CONTENTS

4.1.4. The Imprisonment in Emesa, p.238 4.1.5. Willibald’s Illness in Jerusalem, p.238 4.1.6. Willibald’s Holy Land Blindness, p.238 4.1.7. The Illness in Salaminias, p.239 4.1.8. Conclusion: Hardships p.239

4.2.Cultural Influences upon Willibald’s Image of Jerusalem 4.2.1. Willibald’s Image of the Greek World, p.240 Willibald’s Image of the Saracen World, p.242

-

240 4.2.2.

4.2.2.1. Willibald’s Imprisonment in Emesa, p.242 - 4.2.2.2. The Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, p.244 - 4.2.2.3. Willibald’s Image of Islamic Jerusalem, p.245 - 4.2.2.4. Willibald’s Departure from the Holy Land, p.245 - 4.2.2.5. The Ring of Saracen Authority, p.245 - 4.2.2.6. The Conversation with Pope Gregory III, p.246 - 4.2.2.7. The Letter of Boniface p.246

4.2.3. Conclusion: Cultural Influences, p.247

4.3.Willibald and the Virtue of Perseverance

247

4.3.1. Matthew 10:22, p.248 4.3.1.1. The Use of Scripture in the Vita Willibaldi, p.248 - 4.3.1.2. The Use of Matthew 10:22 in the Vita Willibaldi, p.249 - 4.3.1.3. The Use of Matthew 10:22 in the Regula Benedicti, p.250 - 4.3.1.4. The Scriptural Context of Matthew 10:22, p.250 - 4.3.1.5. The Use of Matthew 10 in the Vita Wynnebaldi, p.251

4.3.2. Examples of Perseverance of the Vita Willibaldi, p.252 4.3.2.1. Perseverance and the Hardships of Willibald, p.252 - 4.3.2.2. Perseverance and the Holy Sites of Jerusalem, p.252 - 4.3.2.3. The Lion of Samaria, p.253

4.3.3. Conclusion: Perseverance and the Christian Life, p.255

5. conclusion: willibald and the holy places

256

BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX ILLUSTRATIONS

265 303 323

xi

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xii

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xiii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Table 1: Pilgrim Descriptions of the Miraculous Healing and the Jephonias Monument Table 2: The Miraculous Healing: The Sequence of Epiphanius and Daniel the Abbot Table 3: The Miraculous Healing: The Sequence of Epiphanius, Adomnán and Daniel the Abbot Fig. 1: Willibald’s Mental Map Map 1: Willibald’s Journey from Britain to Jerusalem Map 2: Willibald’s Approach to Jerusalem Map 3: Willibald’s First Circuit of the Holy Land Map 4: Willibald’s Second Circuit of the Holy Land Map 5: Willibald’s Third Circuit of the Holy Land Map 6: Willibald’s Departure from the Holy Land Map 7: Willibald’s Journey from Jerusalem to Eichstätt Map 8: The Jerusalem Circuit: Willibald Map 9: Willibald’s Circuit: North Gate Distortion Map 10: Willibald’s Circuit: South Gate Distortion Map 11: The Jerusalem Circuit: The Breviarius Map 12: The Jerusalem Circuit: The Breviarius A Map 13: The Jerusalem Circuit: The Breviarius B Map 14: The Jerusalem Circuit: Theodosius Map 15: The Jerusalem Circuit: Sophronius Map 16: The Jerusalem Circuit: The Armenian Guide Map 17: The Jerusalem Circuit: The Comparison of Willibald Map 18: The Jerusalem Circuit: Bernard

xiii

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xiv

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xv

PREFACE

More information is known about the life of Willibald of Eichstätt (d. 787) than any other Holy Land pilgrim during the Early Islamic period. While pilgrims, such as Epiphanius, Arculf and Bernard, are essentially anonymous figures, Hugeburc’s Vita Willibaldi provides a rich description of Willibald’s life from his childhood to his ordination as a bishop in the Anglo-Saxon mission in Germany, and the legacy of Willibald’s fifty-year episcopacy in the regio Eihstat still largely shapes the picturesque town on the banks of the Altmühl. As the founding bishop and patron saint of Eichstätt, Willibald’s role in the Christianization of the region has been the subject of numerous short studies, while, on the other hand, his description of the Holy Land, which has been published in a number of anthologies in Latin and in translation, has been frequently proof-texted for its topographical information on the holy places. Despite the Vita’s rich window into the eighth-century world of Willibald, this book is the first fulllength study on the bishop of Eichstätt. In perusing the corpus of Holy Land pilgrim texts, I have been pleased to find a pilgrim subject that has not only captured my imagination but one that has been relatively – though surprisingly – unexplored. I was primarily interested in the religious ideas and images expressed in the Vita; however, as the research progressed, it became clear that the question of topography – the location and identity of the holy sites – had to be addressed. While in some cases there is no ambiguity, approximately half of the sites mentioned by Willibald have either been incorrectly or not fully identified. Moreover, the two primary questions asked of the study – topography and religious imagination – are often

xv

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xvi

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

interconnected. The pilgrim image of the Holy Land was grounded in the real physical topography of the region. On the other hand, the creation of the commemorative landscape was based upon the topographical and narrative details of the biblical text and other authoritative sources. While examining the religious imagination of Willibald and other pilgrims of the post-Byzantine period, The Christian Topography of Early Islamic Jerusalem: The Evidence of Willibald of Eichstätt (700-787 CE) establishes a more accurate map of the commemorative topography of Christian Jerusalem. At one point in his account, Willibald tells us that he was travelling with seven other companions, and while he is less forthcoming regarding the economics of his travels, his pilgrimage was the successful result of the hospitality and generosity of countless persons and institutions. I have likewise been accompanied by numerous friends and colleagues throughout my journey with Willibald, and I am all too aware of the gracious and generous support that I have received along the way. While I beg a pilgrim’s pardon for failing to acknowledge the support of everyone who has assisted me, I proceed, nonetheless. First of all, I acknowledge a great debt to the previous scholarship of Prof. John Wilkinson, both in making the texts more accessible and in his detailed assessments of the topography of Jerusalem. My research has greatly benefited from his critique of my arguments, and though we disagree on some points of interpretation, these are minor compared to the contribution that he has made to this study and to the larger field of Jerusalem studies. My interest in the history of Christian pilgrimage was initially fostered by the lectures of Prof. Bonnie Wheeler and Prof. Jeremy Adams at Southern Methodist University, while the decision to pursue Ph.D. studies was largely inspired by the encouragement and professional role models of my father, Dr. Eugene H. Aist, my brother-in-law, Dr. Daniel McFee, and my friend and mentor, Dr. Robert J. Stahl. Although I came to the University of Wales Lampeter to study the history of Christian pilgrimage under the supervision of Prof. Thomas O’Loughlin, I arrived with no idea of the person(s), time period(s) or location(s) of my ensuing research. I have benefited for Tom’s guidance throughout the course of my studies, and I am most grateful for his counsel to focus on Jerusalem, using the Palestine pilgrim texts as my primary sources. I am also grateful for the constant and vocal support of Dr. Jonathan M. Wooding and Dr. Martin O’Kane and for the friendship of my postgraduate colleagues, especially the Rev. Paul Gadie, Dr. Greg Barker and

xvi

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xvii

PREFACE

Dr. Yanxia Zhao. My residential studies in Lampeter were largely funded by a British Overseas Student Research Award (Universities, UK) and through work with the Centre for the Study of Religion in Celtic Societies and the department of Theology and Religious Studies. Among the highlights of tracing the footsteps of Willibald was a pilgrimage to Eichstätt. In particular, I would like to thank Prof. Harald Dickerhof of the Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, who graciously welcomed me to Eichstätt and spent a day taking me to the monastery of Heidenheim. Prof. Dickerhof kindly pointed out a number of outstanding research questions in the field, particularly noting the need for a comprehensive historical study on Willibald. While the book has largely addressed additional questions than those raised by Prof. Dickerhof, it is my hope that the present study has done justice to the patron saint of Eichstätt and will be a welcomed addition to the history of the diocese. Above all, my research was enabled by a ten-month residency at the W.F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research in Jerusalem as an Educational and Cultural Affairs Junior Research Fellow (2005-6), where I returned for two months in 2007 as an associate fellow and again for five months in 2008 as a George A. Barton Fellow. Resident studies in Jerusalem exacted a new reading of the textual materials, introduced me to the relevant material sources, shaped the limits of the research and raised a result of conversations various questions asked of the texts. The Albright Institute also provided significant opportunities for discourse with other scholars, and my research has been greatly improved as a result of the conversations with my fellow colleagues, including Dr. Carolina Aznar, Dr. Daniel Falk, Dr. Lisa J. Mahoney, Dr. Karen C. Britt, Dr. Dan Machiela, Dr. Kent A. Reynolds and Phil Webster. I am further grateful to the administrative and support staff of the Albright Institute as well as the staff at L’École Biblique, where much of my day-to-day research took place. I am greatly indebted to the Council of Ministries of the Church of Scotland (formerly the Department of National Mission), the Rev. Douglas Nicols and the Rev. John Jackson for allowing me to serve as a resident minister for three summers and one winter, including the final year of my writing, on the island of Papa Westray (Papay), Orkney, an island 4 ⫻ 1 miles with seventy people and one shop. The opportunity to write with one eye on the sea while fully engaged in the community life of the remarkable island has been one of the richest blessings of my life. My strongest gratitude goes to the Rev. Iain MacDonald, the parish

xvii

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xviii

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

minister of Westray and Papa Westray, who graciously shared both his friendship and his ministry with me. My research has been supported by numerous organizations and funding bodies, including the Clan MacBean Foundation, the Women’s Division of the United Methodist Church, the General Board of Higher Education of the United Methodist Church, the Arkansas Eastern Star and the Mortar Board National Foundation. I am also grateful to those who have prepared the supporting illustrations for the book. Maps of the Jerusalem circuit for my Ph.D. thesis were initially formatted by Iain MacDonald and Peter Needham. They have been redrawn by Jay Rosenberg, who created all of the maps for the present publication. All errors of interpretation are my own. Finally, my studies have included meaningful time with family, with three different households offering me lodging for an extended period of time. I am most grateful to my parents, Gene and Anna Aist, my brother and sister-in-law, Kelvin and Ann Aist and nephews, Mitchell, Nathan, Rudy and Jed, my sister and brother-in-law, Rebecca and Daniel McFee and nephews, Giles and Isaac. Rodney Aist Easter 2008

Jerusalem

xviii

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xix

ABBREVIATIONS

Scholars JW

John Wilkinson

Biblical Texts Gen Genesis 2 Sam 2 Samuel 1 Kgs 1 Kings 2 Kgs 2 Kings 1 Chr 1 Chronicles 2 Chr 2 Chronicles Ps Psalms Ecc Ecclesiastes Song Song of Solomon Is Isaiah Ez Ezekiel Mic Micah Zech Zechariah 1 Mac 1 Maccabees Mt Matthew Mk Mark Lk Luke Jn John Act Acts of the Apostles Rom Romans 1 Cor 1 Corinthians Heb Hebrews

xix

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xx

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

1 Pet Apoc

1 Peter

Apocalypse, or Revelation, of John

Primary Sources AG Armenian Guide AL Armenian Lectionary Amph. Amphilochia Anacr. Sophronii Anacreontica Brev. Breviarius de Hierosolyma Cat. Catechesis (Cyril of Jerusalem) Comm. Commemoratorium de casis Dei DSTS De Situ Terrae Sanctae (Theodosius) DLS De locis sanctis (Adomnán and Bede) Ep. Faust. Epistula ad Faustum Presbyterum (Eucherius) GC Georgian Calendar GL Georgian Lectionary Hag. Hagiopolita (Epiphanius the Monk) HE Historia ecclesiastica (Bede, Eusebius, Rufinus, et al.) Itin. Itinerarium (Piacenza Pilgrim) It. Bern. Itinerarium Bernardi It. Burg. Itinerarium Burdigalense It. Eg. Itinerarium Egeriae Libellus Libellus de locis sanctis (Theoderic) Lib. Loc. Liber Locorum (Jerome) Onom. Onomasticon (Eusebius) Proto. Protoevangelium of James Relatio Relatio peregrinatione Saewulfi VC Vita Constantini VW Vita Willibaldi V. Wynn. Vita Wynnebaldi WB Wallfahrtsbericht (Daniel the Abbot) Series and Periodicals AB Analecta Bollandiana AER American Ecclesiastical Review AJ Archaeological Journal AJA American Journal of Archaeology AMK Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte ASE Anglo-Saxon England BA Biblical Archaeologist

xx

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xxi

ABBREVIATIONS

BAR BASOR BF BGA BM BR BS BSOAS BTS BZ CBQ CH CHR CLM CMCS CPG CPL CQ CSCO CSEL CCSL DOP EHR EME EO FL GA GCS GOTR HTR IEJ IQ IR JAAR JAOS JBAC

JC JECA

Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Byzantinische Forschungen Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabum Benediktinische Monatsschrift Bible Review Bavaria Sancta Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Bible et Terre Sainte Byzantinische Zeitschrift Catholic Biblical Quarterly Church History Catholic Historical Review Codex Latinus Monacensis Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies Clavis Patrum graecorum Clavis Patrum Latinorum Classical Quarterly Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina Dumbarton Oaks Papers English Historical Review Early Medieval Europe Èchos d’Orient Fränkische Lebensbilder Graeco-Arabica Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Greek Orthodox Theological Review Harvard Theological Review Israel Exploration Journal Islamic Quarterly Innes Review Journal of American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Oriental Society Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Jerusalem Cathedra Journal of Early Christian Studies

xxi

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xxii

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

JEH JJS JML JPOS JQR JRAS JSLBR JSNT JTS JWCI LA MGH MUSJ NEA NPNF NTS OCA OCP OSIA PEFQSt PEQ PG PJB PL PO POC PPTS QDAP RB RBK SAC SC SCH SH SHVE SMGBZ SP SRG SRM

Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Medieval Latin Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes Liber Annuus Monumenta Germanicae Historiae Mélanges de l’Université St-Joseph Near Eastern Archaeology Nicene and Post-Nicene Christian Fathers New Testament Studies Orientalia Christiana Analecta Orientalia Christiana Periodica Oxford Studies in Islamic Art Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Patrologia Graeca Palästinajahrbuch Patrologia Latina Patrologia Orientalis Proche-Orient Chrétien Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Revue Biblique Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst Studia de Antichità Cristiana Sources Chrétiennes Studies in Church History Subsidia Hagiographica Sammelblatt des Historischer Verein Eichstätt Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benedikinerordens und seiner Zweige Studia Patristica Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum

xxii

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xxiii

ABBREVIATIONS

TRHS TS TU VC ZDPV ZK ZNTW

Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Texts and Studies Texte und Untersuchungen Vigiliae Christianae Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrift fur die Neutestmentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums

xxiii

FM.qxd:FM.qxd

5/15/09

3:05 PM

Page xxiv

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 1

1. introduction Born in 700 CE in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex, Willibald of Eichstätt (700-87 CE) was raised as a child oblate in the monastery of Bishop’s Waltham. At the age of twenty, he embraced the life of a peregrinus ex patria. Permanently leaving his British homeland, Willibald’s first destination was Rome and the tomb of St Peter. Less than two years later, seeking ‘a more remote and less known place’, Willibald departed Rome for the city of Jerusalem. His oriental travels, which included a two-year sojourn in Constantinople, lasted nearly seven years. Upon his return to Italy, Willibald joined the recently re-founded monastic community of Monte Cassino, where he played a significant role in the revitalization of the famous Benedictine monastery. A decade later, Pope Gregory III (731-41) summoned Willibald to join his kinsman Boniface (c. 675-754) in the Anglo-Saxon mission in Germany. Boniface entrusted Willibald with the area of Eichstätt in northern Bavaria, where he served for over forty-five years as the founding bishop of the diocese until his death in 787.

1.1 The Significance of the Work The book is a study of Willibald’s description of Jerusalem, which he visited upon four occasions while touring the Holy Land in 724-6.1 1

Although Willibald does not use the term, terra sancta, or Holy Land, he considers the area associated with the life of Christ to be a distinct region. See section 3.10.

1

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 2

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

The account is contained in Hugeburc’s Vita Willibaldi, a text based upon the dictations of Willibald as recorded in 778.2 The work analyzes Willibald’s description of Jerusalem in two respects. First of all, the study examines Willibald’s descriptions of the topography of Jerusalem, addressing the fundamental questions of identity and location. Secondly, the book analyzes Willibald’s religious imagination as it relates to Jerusalem and the Christian life. The work, which offers the first book-length study on either Willibald or the Vita, is of particular relevance to two fields of study. First of all, the work makes a significant contribution to the area of Jerusalem studies, offering a number of new insights on the Christian topography of Jerusalem in the Early Islamic period (638-1099). Secondly, as a study on Willibald of Eichstätt, the work belongs to the field of Anglo-Saxon studies.3 1.1.1 Jerusalem Studies Regarding the Christian pilgrim sources of Early Islamic Jerusalem, Oleg Grabar states that ‘their value and reliability vary, and each of them deserves, and some have received, a study of its own’.4 Answering Grabar’s appeal, the present work will demonstrate that Willibald’s account of the Holy City, which presents a snapshot of the Christian topography of Jerusalem nearly one century into Islamic rule, is not only deserving of its own study, the text is of more value than previously considered. The Vita, the only pilgrim account of the eighth century, bridges the gap between the seventh- and ninth-centuries texts, significantly enabling the study of Christian pilgrimage for the Early Islamic period. More narrowly, the Vita anchors a select group of post-Byzantine texts that specifically informs the Christian topography of Jerusalem between the Persian conquest of 614 and the end of the Umayyad dynasty in 750.5 Along with its singular value as an eighth-century pilgrim text, the significance of the Vita for the field of Jerusalem studies lies in its value as a source for 1) the commemorative landscape of Jerusalem – providing, 2 The Vita Willibaldi will be referred to as the Vita and abbreviated as VW. References will follow the pagination of Holder-Egger. 3 The work is also relevant to the general field of pilgrimage studies. On references to Willibald in books on pilgrimage, see Sumption (1975), 209, Davies (1988), 38, D. Webb (2002), 10, 23, 45-9, 79, 130 and 175-7 and (1999), 12, 18 and 27 and Birch (1998), 40 and 45. Also see Aist (forthcoming b) and Gluth (1982). 4 Grabar (1996), 10. 5 The term, ‘post-Byzantine period’ (614-1099), will be used as a collective term for the Inter-conquest (614-638) and Early Islamic periods (638-1099).

2

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 3

INTRODUCTION

inter alia, references to the Miraculous Healing, the portico of Solomon, the Jephonias monument and the Church of the Agony, 2) pilgrim practices of the Early Islamic era, including the so-called Jerusalem circuit and 3) the pilgrim imagination of the period – e.g., the importance of the loci of the Resurrection and Ascension and the legends of Mary’s Dormition and Helena’s Finding of the Holy Cross. The text also provides an occasional glimpse into inter-religious relations. Although Willibald had a negative impression of the ‘pagan Saracens’, he provides evidence of the amiable relations between Christians and Muslims during the Umayyad period. On the other hand, the commemorative landscape of post-Byzantine Jerusalem was decidedly nuanced against the image of the Jew. The present study has been greatly assisted by the previous work of other scholars, most notably John Wilkinson, who has published annotated translations of the pilgrim sources of the Byzantine, Early Islamic and Crusader periods.6 Robert Schick’s The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule (1995), which integrates the textual and material sources of the period, is another valuable source,7 while there are a number of important studies on the individual sites of Jerusalem. Even so, in many respects, the pilgrim texts of the post-Byzantine period have not been adequately or comprehensively examined. Four criteria will be used throughout the study to analyze the commemorative topography of the textual sources: 1) commemorative (i.e., the remembered event), 2) location, 3) appearance (e.g., of the object, monument or church) and 4) context (i.e., what is the relationship of the commemoration with the surrounding landscape? Are there contextual parallels in the various sources?). Ideally, a text can be compared to other equally-descriptive sources. However, pilgrim accounts frequently omit desired details, depict the subject in terms that cannot be easily interpreted or contain descriptions that contradict the information of other sources. The task is to either reconcile the texts or to conclude that they represent separate commemorations, locations and/or structures. Two premises underlie the topographical analyses of the study. First of all, emphasis will be placed upon a location’s commemorative 6 See Wilkinson (1971), (1977), (1988), (1999) and (2002). References to Wilkinson will be abbreviated JW. 7 R. Schick (1995). His corpus of churches includes a summary of the primary and secondary sources for each site. Also see R. Schick (1988), (1998), (1999a) and (1999b).

3

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 4

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

credibility. In other words, a location should be compatible with the biblical text (or extra-biblical legend). For example, when pilgrims repeatedly refer to Luke’s comment that Jesus’ Holy Prayer was a ‘stone’s throw’ away from the place of the Betrayal, the two commemorations are presumably located at a commensurable distance.8 When the Miraculous Healing of the True Cross is associated with a passing funeral procession, the location was most likely outdoors and near a major street.9 Since Mary’s funeral proceeded from Holy Sion to her tomb in Gethsemane, a monument commemorating an event that occurred during the procession should stand along a logical route connecting the two sites.10 When commemorations are intrinsically associated with the sites of Jesus’ Passion, one should assume that they are located in the immediate area of the Holy Sepulchre.11 Commemorations admittedly shifted (e.g., temple traditions, such as Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and the tomb of Adam, moved to the Holy Sepulchre, while the trial of Jesus, previously commemorated in the Church of Holy Sophia, moved to the House of Caiaphas on Mount Sion after the Persian destruction of 614), relics were occasionally disassociated from their context (e.g., the crown of thorns was in the Church of Holy Sion) and alternative loci were not unknown. At the same time, Christian pilgrims expected the commemorative landscape of Jerusalem to accurately reflect the topographical descriptions of the biblical text (and historical legends). For instance, pilgrims were constantly concerned that the intramural location of the Holy Sepulchre was incongruent with scripture, compelling them to include explanations of the city’s subsequent expansion in their descriptions of the site. Secondly, when encountering two texts describing the same commemoration, the book’s prima facie position is that they are referring to the same location. Alternative traditions – e.g., the portico of Solomon, the pool of the Paralytic Healing and the Last Supper – certainly existed during the periods in question. The Annunciation was commemorated in both Nazareth and Jerusalem, while multiple sites were associated with the martyrdom of Stephen. Even so, the commemorative sites were largely resistant to change, and there is no evidence for competing Lk 22:41; see section 3.7. See section 3.1.4. 10 See section 3.6. 11 See section 3.1.4. 8 9

4

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 5

INTRODUCTION

landscapes among the various Christian communities.12 Sources should be carefully read before determining that an alternative tradition exists. Along with the topography of Jerusalem, the religious significance of the holy sites will also be analyzed. While Willibald’s account has its own unique features, a number of the images were commonly held by other pilgrims. Although the analysis of thought and image is less formulaic, the argumentation will be supported by references to scripture and other pilgrim texts.13 In short, the significance of this book for the field of Jerusalem studies lies in its critical engagement with the pilgrim sources, its emphasis upon the commemorative histories of the respective sites and its attention to the thought and images attached to the pilgrim landscape. 1.1.2 Anglo-Saxon Studies The second area of relevance is the field of Anglo-Saxon studies, which includes scholarship on the life of Willibald, the Boniface, or AngloSaxon, mission and the early church history of Germany. Previous studies on Willibald are largely historical works focusing upon his years in Germany. Of particular significance is the comprehensive timeline of Willibald’s life published by Franz Heidingsfelder in 193814 and the annotated German translation of the Vita published by Andreas Bauch in 1962.15 The twelfth centennial of Willibald’s death in 1987 produced two important works. The first is Der hl. Willibald, Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgrunder, a collection of essays edited by Dickerhof, Reiter and Weinfurter.16 An impressive glossy catalogue, Hl. Willibald, 787-1987: Künder des Glaubens, Pilger, Mönch, Bischof, filled with photos and short articles covering the life and legacy of Willibald, was published by the diocese of Eichstätt.17 Two questions have been at the forefront of scholarship on the life of Willibald. The first concerns the original remit of his episcopacy, and there is much

12 Even today, Christian communities often recognize the same commemorative locus despite having different liturgical spaces. 13 The New Revised Standard Version will be used for all English translations of the biblical text. 14 Heidingsfelder (1938). 15 Bauch (1962), 13-122; also see Bauch (1967) and (1970b). 16 Dickerhof, Reiter and Weinfurter (1990). 17 Appel, Braun and Hofmann (1987). A number of materials have been produced by the diocese of Eichstätt, including an animated book of Willibald’s life and travels by Baumeister and Nies (1994). For additional studies on Willibald, see Kraus (1990), Appel (1984) and Kreitmeir (1992), 5-8.

5

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 6

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

scholarly support for the idea that he was initially ordained as the bishop of Erfurt before becoming the bishop of Eichstätt.18 The second question concerns the nature of Willibald’s episcopacy – was he originally a monastic or a diocesan bishop?19 A third question has been raised but not fully addressed concerning the political character of the Eichstätt diocese during Willibald’s episcopacy – i.e., was the diocese Frankish or Bavarian in its political orientation?20 A comprehensive historical work on the life of Willibald remains to be written.21 The work makes a significant contribution to the field of AngloSaxon studies, providing a preliminary investigation into the religious thought of Willibald – e.g., his image of Jerusalem, his description of the holy places, his vocation as a peregrinus ex patria and his vision of the Christian life. Although the work does not offer a historical reassessment of Willibald, it includes an annotated outline of his life and travels, correcting a number of errors in the secondary literature.22

1.2 Introduction to the Sources 1.2.1 The Vita Willibaldi Some fifty years after visiting the Holy Land, most probably in 778,23 Willibald dictated the experiences of his life and travels to a younger relative,24 an Anglo-Saxon nun by the name of Hugeburc,25 who See section 2.1.8. See Dickerhof, Reiter and Weinfurter (1990). 20 The evidence favours a Frankish orientation. See Lowe (1955), Schüssler (1985), Weinfurter (1987), Semmler (1998) and Störmer (1985). 21 The point has been emphasized by Prof. Harald Dickerhof in personal communication. 22 See sections 2.1-2. For example, the biographical details between Willibald and Willibald of Mainz, the biographer of Boniface, and between Willibald and his brother, Wynnebald, are frequently confused. 23 On the date and context of Willibald’s dictations, see VW, 87.21-3 and 105.13-7, where Hugeburc indicates that the event took place on Tuesday, June 23 in the presence of other deacons and clergy. Willibald’s dictations occurred sometime between the death of his brother, Wynnebald, in 761 and his own death in 787. Tuesday fell on June 23 in the years 767, 772 and 778. There is a general consensus that the event took place in 778, the same year as the consecration of the new church in Heidenheim and a year after Wynnebald’s translation. 18 19

6

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 7

INTRODUCTION

describes the occasion, which took place on Tuesday, June 23: ista non apocriforum venia erratica dissertione relata esse cognoscamus, sed sicut illo ipso vidente et nobis referente de ori sui dictatione audire et nihilominus scribere destinavimus, duobus diaconibus testibus mecumque audientibus, 9. Kal. Iulii, pridie ante solstitia, Martii die.26 Hugeburc subsequently composed the Vita from her verbatim notes, changing Willibald’s narrative into the third person,27 while adding an introduction and a conclusion to the text.28 Although the date of the final composition is unknown, it was presumably completed around 780 but certainly before Willibald’s death in 787.29 The relationship between the text and its contents are worth underscoring: while Willibald’s account of

On Hugeburc’s relationship to Willibald, see VW, 87.29-30. Although she states: ego indigna Saxonica de gente (VW, 86.27-8), Hugeburc never refers to herself by name. For centuries, the author has been commonly referred to as the ‘Nun of Heidenheim’, while a marginal gloss in the Paris MS gives her name as Roswida (see Brownlow (1895), viii). For a recent use of Roswida, see Matthew (1999), 58. Hugeburc’s name was finally discovered in 1931, when Bernard Bischoff (see Bischoff (1931)) deciphered the following cryptogram, which appears before the Vita in the manuscript, Clm 1086: Secdg quar. quin. npri. sprix quar. nter. cpri. nquar. mter. nsecun. hquin. gsecd bquinrc. qarr. dinando hsecdc. scrter. bsecd. bprim. as Ego una Saxonica nomine Hugeburc ordinando hec scribebam. The key to the cryptogram, which uses an abbreviated spelling of the ordinal number corresponding to the sequence of the five vowels, is as follows: pri ⫽ a, secd ⫽ e, ter ⫽ i, quar ⫽ o and quin ⫽ u. Thus, the sequence – hquin. gsecd bquinrc. – which begins the second line, is rendered H(u)g(e)b(u)rc, or Hugeburc. Despite Hugeburc’s spelling of her own name, various forms still appear in the secondary literature. For Huneberc, see Talbot (1954), 151-3; for Hygeburg, see Wood (2001), 64-5; for Hugeberc, see D. Webb (2002), 45 and 48; for Huneburc, see Yorke (1995), 233, 300-1 and 304. 26 VW, 87.20-3; also see VW, 105.13-7. Arabic numerals are used throughout the Holder-Egger edition. 27 A mistake occurs in VW, 96.10, which states: pastoribus dabant nobis acrum lac bibere. The error highlights the dictational nature of Willibald’s report and indicates that Hugeburc originally made verbatim notes of his account. 28 On the composition of Hugeburc, see Gottschaller (1973), Hauke (1987), 120, Vitrone (1994) and Dronke (1984), 33-5. On Hugeburc’s use of other sources, see Gottschaller (1973), 75-81. On her dependency upon Willibald of Mainz, Vita Bonifatii, which, in any case, is extremely slight, see Bauch (1962), 90, n. 38 and Wood (2001), 75, n. 55. According to Gottschaller (1973), 75, ‘die Entlehnungen sind nicht häufig, sie sind meist kurz und umfassen in der Regel nicht mehr als drei oder vier Wörter’. 29 Brownlow (1985), viii wrongly states that the text was composed after Willibald’s death. 24 25

7

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 8

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Jerusalem reflects the conditions of the city for the years of 724-6, his images of the Holy Land are those which he held in 778. The respective contributions of Willibald and Hugeburc are self-evident due to the divergent styles of their Latin. Hugeburc’s Latin reflects the flamboyant style of Aldhelm of Malmesbury (639-709),30 while the sections based upon Willibald’s dictations are simple constructions that retain the quality of spoken language. Throughout the text, Hugeburc demonstrates a ‘respectful fidelity’ to the original descriptions of the bishop.31 She occasionally expands upon Willibald’s words, usually to insert an alliterative phrase, but she does not contribute additional substance to these sections of the text.32 In short, the Vita encapsulates the authentic voice of Willibald, providing a lens by which to examine the two principal questions of the work. While the distinction between Willibald’s dictations and Hugeburc’s original composition may be ‘self-evident’, the following outline of the text, which follows the analysis of Wilkinson, stipulates how the text will be read.33 Prologue and Chapter 1 (86.20-88.12)34 Characteristic of her florid style, this section is the original composition of Hugeburc. It includes an address to the local religious community and sets out her purpose to describe the life and travels of Willibald. This section is not frequently cited in the present study. Chapters 2-7 (88.13-90.22) Still in the style of Hugeburc, this section describes Willibald’s childhood, which includes his miraculous cure from a life-threatening illness and his education as a child oblate in the monastery of Bishop’s Waltham. It also describes Willibald’s decision to go to Rome. This section is not based upon the dictations of Willibald. Walburga (d. 779), Willibald’s sister, is the most likely source of the information,35 although Hugeburc may have known these stories from family relations in Wessex 30

On the prose style of Aldhelm of Malmesbury, see Lapidge and Herren (1979). JW (1977), 207. 32 This view is shared by Gottschaller (1973), 82, who admits that Hugeburc did not author Willibald’s Reisebericht. 33 JW (1977), 207. 34 The chapter divisions were first given by Tobler and Molinier (1879); the pagination follows that of Holder-Egger (1887). 35 See JW (1977), 207. A longtime companion of Hugeburc, Walburga was the abbess of Heidenheim when the text was composed. She is cited as a source for the V. Wynn. (114.22) (see below). On Walburga, see section 2.1.8. 31

8

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 9

INTRODUCTION

or from Willibald himself. The section contains reliable information on the early life of Willibald. Chapters 8-10A (91.1-92.26) This section describes Willibald’s journey to and sojourn in the city of Rome as well as his decision to go to Jerusalem. Important episodes include the death of his father in Lucca and Willibald’s illness during his first summer in Rome. The section is the most problematic. The information could only have come from Willibald. However, the prose largely retains the florid style of Hugeburc, while Willibald’s words are only detectable in a few instances.36 Wilkinson suggests that Hugeburc deliberately intended to make a transition between the two styles or began to embellish the entire work before abandoning the effort.37 Chapters 10B-32A (92.26-102.18) This section contains Willibald’s dictations of his oriental travels, including his descriptions of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Apart from a few restrained interpolations by Hugeburc, the simpler style of Willibald’s spoken works, though changed into the third person, is maintained. Containing the material of most significance to the present study, the section will be treated as the authentic voice of the elderly bishop of Eichstätt. Chapters 32B-34 (102.19-104.26) Hugeburc’s style reappears in this section, which covers Willibald’s years in Monte Cassino and his audience with Pope Gregory III. Once again, Hugeburc’s basic information must have been supplied by Willibald’s dictations. However, the language is often embellished, particularly his conversation with the pope, which contains its own summary of Willibald’s Holy Land travels.38 Chapters 35-37A (104.26-105.11) This section narrates Willibald’s initial movements in Germany, including his ordination to the priesthood in 740 and to the episcopacy in 741. The section faithfully renders the words of Willibald. 36 According to JW (1977), 207, n. 14, the sentence: ibi fuit mercimonia (VW, 91.12), the succession of place names and the dating by feasts all point to Willibald. 37 JW (1977), 207. The quotation of Mt 10:22 and Willibald’s motive for going to Jerusalem are of particular interest. In both instances, the content befits the known character of Willibald and is consistent with his concerns throughout the text. 38 Worthy of its own study, the summary is ordered by the events of salvation history, whereas his full account follows the sequence of his travels.

9

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 10

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Chapter 37B (105.13-17) Composed by Hugeburc, this short section summarizes Willibald’s travels and provides a second reference to the circumstances of his dictations. Chapters 38-40 (105.18-106.25) The final section of the text is an encomium of Willibald, which contains no substantive details regarding his thirty-five-year episcopacy. Since the Vita was composed while Willibald was still alive, the section lacks the hagiographical features of a conventional vita. Five additional points are worth emphasizing. The first concerns the means by which Willibald recalled the material, a question that is begged by the fifty-year gap between the completion of his travels and his dictations to Hugeburc. The account contains seventy-seven place names, and while mistakes occur, his journeys are generally described in a logical – and presumably accurate – order.39 Willibald may have been assisted by a list of stations or a map. On the other hand, the absence of written notes is suggested by Hugeburc’s explicit reference to Willibald’s dictationes, and if a hypothetical source was used, it was not annotated. Rather, Willibald’s language reflects oral speech, while his account lacks the degree of detail implied by the use of a supplemental text. The work assumes that the descriptions of the holy sites are the original words of Willibald.40 Secondly, the work takes a favourable bias with respect to the text’s reliability.41 When critically evaluated with other pilgrim sources, Willibald’s description of Jerusalem is demonstrably accurate. His association of the ‘portico of Solomon’ with the pool of Bethesda and the sequence of his Jerusalem circuit are cases in point. He also provides a detailed account of the tomb of Christ and the locus of the Ascension. Despite the passage of time, the topographical information of his account is extremely trustworthy. Third, although his dictations show little direct reliance upon the biblical text, scripture significantly impacts the form and content of Maps 1-7 list the sites in the order in which they appear in the text. One can assume that Willibald had communicated these stories, descriptions and ideas upon numerous occasions. They were, for example, the contents of sermons, teachings and conversations, and while his dictations to Hugeburc must have included some new information, the gathered witnesses were presumably listening to familiar stories. See Limor (2002), 261, who states that the story’s ‘verbal formulation, repeated over and over again, kept it lively and fresh’. 41 Prinz (1995), 320 describes Willibald’s pilgrim report as ‘relativ ausführlich und mit wertvollen kurlturhistorischen Details’. See section 5. 39 40

10

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 11

INTRODUCTION

Willibald’s account. While the specific references will be discussed throughout the book, it is worth emphasizing the implicit influence of the biblical text upon his image of Jerusalem. Willibald began memorizing scripture as a child and diligently followed the Daily Office before, during and after his Jerusalem travels; he was never more than a few hours removed from the sacred text. Moreover, the liturgical calendar recalled many of the places and commemorations encountered by Willibald, enabling him to relive important aspects of his Jerusalem experiences on a weekly and annual basis. In other words, his images of Jerusalem were shaped and influenced by fifty years of ongoing encounters with scripture and liturgy. Willibald’s account appeals to a biblical world view and contains a number of implicit assumptions regarding the reader’s knowledge of scripture. Fourth, the work assumes that the raison d’être of the Vita lies in its didactic purpose.42 Willibald’s knowledge of the places of Christ was ‘of incomparable spiritual value’,43 and Hugeburc states that it would be ‘shameful’ not to relate the bishop’s experiences, which were ‘worthy of memory’.44 The didactic value of his account is not limited to his descriptions of the holy places; Willibald also uses the vignettes of his travels to convey his vision of the Christian life.45 Finally, the text conveys the interests and concerns of the Heidenheim-Eichstätt community. In the words of Glenn Bowman, the reports of pilgrims ‘provide a glass through which we can see the transformation of European beliefs and perceptions as clearly, if not more so, than we can see the landscape of Jerusalem and the Holy Land’.46 Particularly with respect to the Christian life – e.g., Willibald as the sublime model of a peregrinus ex patria and his emphasis upon the virtue of perseverance – the text imparts significant insights into the beliefs and values of the Anglo-Saxon mission in Germany in the second half of the eighth century. The Vita has two distinct manuscript traditions.47 The first line of transmission is based upon a Paris manuscript, which was edited by Henry Canisius and printed in 1603 in Lectiones Antique.48 It was See VW, 87.2-23. See D. Webb (2002), 45. 44 See Brownlow (1895), 2-3. 45 On Willibald’s understanding of the Christian life, see section 4.3. 46 Bowman (1992), 164. 47 On the manuscript history of the Vita, see Brownlow (1895), ix-x and Tobler (1874), 282-313. 48 Canisius (1603), vol. 4, 475-513. 42 43

11

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 12

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

reprinted with corrections in Mabillon’s Acts Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicit in 1672 and again by the Bollandists in Acta Sanctorum (AASS), July 7.49 The edition was published by Titus Tobler in 1874 in Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex saeculo VIII, IX, XII et XV and appeared five years later in Tobler and Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana et Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae.50 A partial English translation of the Vita, based upon Mabillion’s corrected version of the Canisius edition and limited to Willibald’s Holy Land travels, was published in 1848 in T. Wright’s Early Travels in Palestine under the title, The Travels of Willibald (AD. 721-727).51 The first full English translation of the Vita, which follows the Tobler edition, was published in 1895 by W.R. Brownlow for the Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society.52 The second – and preferred – manuscript tradition of the Vita has a particularly clear line of transmission. The text is preserved in Clm 1086 in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München.53 The codex originates from the nearby diocese of Freising and dates from the late eighth or early ninth century, or within one or two generations of the text’s composition; it is conceivable that the scribe had access to Hugeburc’s original document. The codex, which contains three Anglo-Saxon lives, begins with the Vita Bonifatii by Willibald of Mainz, is followed by the Vita Wynnebaldi, also penned by Hugeburc,54 and concludes with the Vita.55 The manuscript was edited by Holder-Egger and published in 1887 in Monumenta Germanicae Historiae.56 The Holder-Egger edition was republished in 1962 with annotations and a German translation by Andreas Bauch in Quellen zur Geschichte der Diözese Eichstätt.57 Talbot published an English translation of the Vita in The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany (1954),58 which was republished in 1994 in an See Brownlow (1895), ix-x. On the additional manuscripts used in their edition, see Tobler and Molinier (1879), 242. 51 Wright (1848), 13-22. 52 Brownlow (1895), 1-36. JW (2002), 409 incorrectly states that the Brownlow tradition is based upon the Holder-Egger edition. 53 The codex was on display in August 2005 as part of the library’s exhibit, ‘Anglo-Saxon Heritage in Munich’. 54 See below. 55 Hugeburc’s composed the two texts as a unit with the Vita preceding the V. Wynn. The order of the texts is switched in Clm 1086. 56 Holder-Egger (ed.), MGH, Scriptores, vol. 15.1 (1887), 86-106. 57 Bauch (1962), 11-122. JW (2002), 233, n. 1 incorrectly states that the text appears in Dickerhof, Reiter and Weinfurter (1990). 58 Talbot (1954), 153-80. 49 50

12

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 13

INTRODUCTION

anthology of saints’ lives, Soldiers of Christ: Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, by Noble and Head.59 A second, though partial, translation of the Holder-Egger edition, Life of St. Willibald – Extracts, was made by John Wilkinson and published in his 1977 collection of pilgrim texts, Jerusalem Pilgrimage Before the Crusades. A revised edition, with minor changes to his translation of the Vita, was republished in 2002 under the same title.60 As a rule, the two academic fields consult different Latin editions of the text. Anglo-Saxon studies exclusively refer to the Holder-Egger edition and the manuscript tradition of Clm 1086. On the other hand, Jerusalem scholars use the Latin editions of the Vita that appear in the collections of terra sancta texts by Tobler (1874) and Tobler and Molinier (1879) that are derivative of the Paris manuscript.61 An alternative title to the Vita, the Hodœporicon of S. Willibald, was introduced by Canisius.62 The problem with the title, Vita Willibald, is that the word, vita, implies that the text belongs to the genre of hagiography, whose conventions demand that its subject is deceased and functions as an intercessory saint. While vitae often describe saints’ earthly lives, they focus upon their subjects’ posthumous miracles.63 By contrast, the Vita was composed during the lifetime of Willibald and was never redacted after his death in 787. Consequently, it does not contain the hagiographical conventions associated with the genre.64 On the other hand, Hodœporicon, or ‘Travels’, hardly does justice to the text, which covers over forty years of Willibald’s life, while the Greek title is inappropriate for the Latin text. Although Tobler follows Canisius by using Hodœporicon as the title of the Vita, he articulates the problem of naming the text: ‘Wählt man nur das wort vita, so wird gerade das nicht bezeichnet, was in derselben hervorragt; will man nur hodœporicon, so ist die bezeichnung 59

Noble and Head (1995), 141-64.

JW (1977), 125-35; JW (2002), 233-51. JW (2002), 22 only translates those sections of the Vita ‘which seem to come from Willibald’s own dictation’. JW (2002), 233, n. 1 60

adds: ‘the extracts given here are an attempt to provide the substance of what Willibald dictated to Hugeburc, and wherever possible interpolations and florid phrases have been omitted’. 61 An exception is the work of Wilkinson, who has introduced a translation based upon the Holder-Egger edition into the field of Jerusalem studies. 62 The Vita is commonly referred to as the Hodœporicon in the secondary literature. See Canisius (1603), 478 (cited in Tobler (1874), 304, who states that ‘der name hodœporicon wurde von Canisius aufgebracht’). 63 On the conventions of hagiography, see Delehaye (1998). 64 On the genre of the Vita, see Bershin (1987).

13

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 14

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

nicht umfassend genug’.65 The editions and translations derivative of Canisius all use the title, Hodœporicon. The title also appears in the Talbot translation and is subsequently reused by Noble and Head. Otherwise, the tradition of Clm 1086 – Holder-Egger, Bauch and Wilkinson – refers to the text as the Vita Willibaldi, which, as Canisius admits, is the name that appears in the manuscripts.66 Accompanying the manuscript tradition of Canisius is another vita of Willibald, which appears in the Latin editions of Tobler and Tobler and Molinier and in Brownlow’s translation for the Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society.67 By contrast, the text does not accompany the manuscript tradition of Clm 1086 – i.e., Holder-Egger, Bauch, Talbot and Wilkinson. Once again, there are discrepancies regarding the title of the text. While Hugeburc’s Vita is known as the Hodœporicon S. Willibaldi, the other text is titled, Itinerarium S. Willibaldi and by Brownlow as The Itinerary of Saint Willibald. On the other hand, Willibald scholars, such as Weinfurter, refer to the text as the Vita III.68 The text has also been misdated. The Canisius tradition has considered the text to be a contemporary eighth-century counterpart of the Vita, with Brownlow describing it as an ‘independent witness’ which ‘adds some particulars not mentioned’ by Hugeburc.69 The text has now been dated to the tenth century.70 While largely dependent upon the Vita, its ‘particulars’ are unreliable, if not inaccurate; the text contains pious addendums and integrates additional sources into its account, significantly embellishing Willibald’s descriptions of the holy sites. Consequently, the Vita III should not be used as an historical text on the eighth-century world of Willibald but rather as a source for the Tobler (1874), 304. Canisius (1603), 478. Since her given title is the Vita Willibaldi, Davies (1988), 38 wrongly states that Hugeburc had ‘no hesitation in calling it a Hodoiporicon [sic]’. 67 Tobler (1874), 56-76; Tobler and Molinier (1879), 241-81; Brownlow (1895), 37-54. Tobler and Molinier respectively number the texts as the tenth (X) and eleventh (XI) in their collection of Holy Land sources. A misapplication of their reference to the Vita as the tenth text has led to a curious error in the secondary literature of Jerusalem. The ‘X’ has become appended to Willibald’s name, which appears as ‘Willibaldus X’, taking the form of an additional title! See, for example, Tsafrir (1977), 157, n. 23 and Wightman (1993), 236 and 331. 68 Weinfurter (1987b). According to Weinfurter (1987b), 105, the earliest manuscript of the text is cod. Bibl. 2° 58, fol. 55v-58v in the Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart. Weinfurter also discusses Vita II. 69 Brownlow (1895), 37. 70 Weinfurter (1987b), 105-8. Weinfurter corrects the previous dating of Holder-Egger, who thought the text was no earlier than the eleventh century. 65 66

14

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 15

INTRODUCTION

legacy of his cult. At least two references from the text have entered the secondary literature. The Vita III is the first source to name Willibald’s father as Richard, whom legend has subsequently identified as an Anglo-Saxon king.71 Secondly, the text states that Willibald’s sister, Walburga, accompanied him on his initial journey to Rome.72 However, Hugeburc, who was a lifelong companion of Walburga, only indicates that Willibald, Wynnebald and their father left Wessex at the time. Although Walburga’s early history is uncertain, she only arrived in Heidenheim in 761 after the death of Wynnebald. 1.2.2 The Vita Wynnebaldi Hugeburc also wrote the Vita Wynnebaldi, a conventional life of Willibald’s brother, Wynnebald (d. 761), which contains information on Willibald and his family not found in the Vita.73 According to the Vita Wynnebaldi, when Willibald and Wynnebald departed for Rome with their father, they left their noverca (stepmother) and their fraters and sorores in Wessex.74 The plural references indicate that Willibald had at least four siblings besides Wynnebald. The text also refers to an unnamed brother who accompanied Wynnebald back to Rome c. 730, after Wynnebald briefly returned to Wessex ut si ullum de sua genealogia ad sacro divini servitutis militia exortare atque secum ducere poterat.75 More importantly, the Vita Wynnebaldi contains references to Willibald’s episcopal activities, including his role in the translation of Wynnebald.76 1.2.3 The Palestine Pilgrim Texts Together with the vitae of Hugeburc, the most significant sources of the study belong to the so-called corpus of Palestine pilgrim texts. The corpus is rather loosely defined, and along with the standard pilgrim texts – which consist of formal guides, biographical accounts and eyewitness 71 According to D. Webb (2002), 130-1, Willibald’s father was ‘transmogrified not only into a saint but into a king with the unlikely name (for an Anglo-Saxon) of Richard’. 72 The reference appears in Tuchman (1956), 31. 73 The V. Wynn., which also appears in Clm 1086, was edited by Holder-Egger, MGH, Scriptores, vol. 15.1 (1887), 106-17. An annotated edition of Holder-Egger, along with a German translation, can be found in Bauch (1962), 123-85. 74 V. Wynn., 107.15. 75 V. Wynn., 108.30-42, esp. 41-2. 76 See section 2.1.8.

15

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 16

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

reports – sermons, letters, lectionaries, chronicles and geographical works belong to the corpus. While the sources appear in various publications, many of the Latin texts have been published in collections by Tobler (1874), Tobler and Molinier (1879) and Geyer (1898) and in Itineraria et alia Geographica (CCSL 175) in 1965. A thirteenth-volume anthology of English translations was produced by the Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society of London in the 1890s,77 while, more recently, the texts have been newly translated and annotated by John Wilkinson.78 1.2.3.1 The Byzantine Sources Although the work focuses upon the Early Islamic period, Byzantine sources are used throughout the study, including the texts of Eusebius,79 the Bordeaux Pilgrim,80 Cyril of Jerusalem,81 Egeria,82 Jerome,83 Eucherius,84 John Rufus,85 Theodosius86 and the Piacenza Pilgrim.87 The Armenian Lectionary,88 the Madaba Map89 and the recensions of the Breviarius are equally important.90 Finally, the The thirteen-volume set was reprinted by AMS Press of New York in 1971. See JW (1971), (1977), (1988), (1999) and (2002). 79 On the writings of Eusebius, see the bibliography. On the life and works of Eusebius, see Wallace-Hadrill (1960), Wolf (1964), Groh (1989) and (2006), di Segni (1998), Wilken (1992a), Drake (1985) and (1976), Davies (1957) and Thomsen (1903). 80 Bordeaux Pilgrim, It. Burg. On the Bordeaux Pilgrim, see Douglass (1996), Hamilton (1952), Bowman (1998) and Leyerle (1996). 81 Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. On Cyril of Jerusalem and the Catechesis, see P.W.L. Walker (1989), Doval (1997a) and (1997b) and Drijvers (1999). 82 Egeria, It. Eg. For studies on Egeria, see Hunt (2000) and (2001), Moriarty (2000), Leyerle (1996), 126-32, Weber (1989), Sivan (1988a) and (1988b) and Devos (1987a), (1987b), (1991) and (1994). On women pilgrims of the Byzantine period, including Egeria, see Holloway (1998), Clark (1989) and Elm (1989). 83 On the writings of Jerome (c. 342-420), see the bibliography. On the life and works of Jerome, see J.N.D. Kelly (1975). Also see JW (1974), Aist (2005) and O’Loughlin (2007), esp. 24-5. 84 Eucherius, Ep. Faust. On the use of Eucherius by Adomnán and Bede, see Heisenberg (1908) and O’Loughlin (2007), esp. 214-22. 85 John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi. Also see Lang (1951). 86 Theodosius, DSTS. For a study on Theodosius, see Tsafrir (1986). 87 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin. Also see Itinerarium, Recensio Altera. All references are from the Itinerarium. On the Piacenza Pilgrim, see Leyerle (1996), 132-7. 88 On the AL, see Renoux (1996) and (1997). On the liturgy of Jerusalem, see Baldovin (1987), 45-104, (1989) and (1990), JW (1979) and (1993a) and Bradshaw (1998). 89 On the Madaba Map, see Piccirillo and Alliata (1998) and Avi-Yonah (1940a). 90 Breviarius de Hierosolyma, ed. R. Weber (CCSL 175), 107-12, trans. in JW (2002), 92-3 and 117-21.The original version of the Brev. (end of the fourth century) can be established from the common passages contained in Brev. A and Brev. B (beginning of the sixth century). See JW (2002), 3-4. 77 78

16

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 17

INTRODUCTION

Anacreontica of Sophronius will be treated as a Byzantine rather than post-Byzantine source.91 1.2.3.2 The Post-Byzantine Sources Below is a short overview of the most significant sources used in the work.92 The ‘Armenian Guide’ The Armenian Guide, which describes the holy sites of Jerusalem and Jericho, is dated to the Inter-conquest period (c. 625).93 Wilkinson argues for its pre-Muslim provenance based upon the text’s silence regarding the Temple Mount.94 On the other hand, the Armenian text omits churches destroyed in the Persian conquest of 614, such as the Church of Holy Sophia, while the commemoration of the House of Pilate, previously located at the church, has moved to Mt Sion. The Guide also describes the Jephonias monument, which was most likely built during the Inter-conquest period.95 Epiphanius The Holy City and the Holy Places, or Hagiopolita, is a guidebook attributed to Epiphanius the Monk, which is preserved in four manuscripts – two Jerusalem manuscripts ( J and J2), an Old Slavonic manuscript and one from the Vatican – each expanding upon the original text.96 The Hagiopolita shares similarities with the anonymous, Life of Constantine, and Schneider has convincingly argued that both texts are dependent upon an older source.97 The original source, limited to Jerusalem and the neighboring area of Bethany, was composed sometime after the Arab conquest of the 630s and before the end of the seventh century. 91 Although the Anacreontica were likely written after 614, they reflect the topography of Christian Jerusalem at the end of the Byzantine period. On the dating of the Anacreontica, see JW (2002), 13-4. On Sophronius, see Chadwick (1974). 92 Other Early Islamic sources include three liturgical texts – the Georgian Calendar, the Georgian Lectionary and the tenth-century Typicon of the Anastasis – and the anonymous, Life of Constantine. On the date of the Typicon, see Baldovin (1987), 99. On the Life of Constantine, see Schneider (1941). 93 See JW (2002), 16-7 and Bain (1896). On the Armenian contribution to Holy Land pilgrimage, see Stone (1986), Sanjian (1969), Renoux (1996) and Thomson (1989). 94 JW (2002), 16. 95 See section 3.6.2.2. 96 Epiphanius the Monk, Hag., ed. H. Donner (1971), trans. in JW (2002), 207-15. 97 See Schneider (1940) and (1941).

17

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 18

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

The terminus ad quem is based upon the text’s reference to the Hanging Rock, which presumably describes the location of the Dome of the Rock prior to its construction in 692.98 According to Schneider, ‘demnach müssten wir [Epiphanius] zwischen 750 und 800 und die ihn und [the Life of Constantine] gemeinsame Quellen mindestens um 700 ansetzen . . . Ja man wird kann fehlgehen, wann man diese noch einige Jahrzehnte früher, also etwa gleichzeitig mit Arkulf (um 670) veranschlagt’.99 Indeed, as the study will show, the similarities between Adomnán and Epiphanius are pronounced, and Epiphanius will be considered a seventh-century text.100 Adomnán Adomnán’s De locis sanctis is the most descriptive – and, consequently, the most studied – pilgrim source of the Early Islamic period.101 The text was composed at least by 686, when Adomnán (d. 704), the ninth abbot of Iona (present-day Scotland), presented a copy to Aldfrith (reigned 685-705), the king of Northumbria. Adomnán incorporates two distinct sources into his composition. The text records the eyewitness account of a certain Arculf, bishop from Gaul, whose travels to the Holy Land are dated to 679-82,102 while integrating numerous written sources from the library of Iona, most of which date to the fourth and fifth centuries.103 With respect to the Jerusalem material, Adomnán’s De locis sanctis is 98

On the date of the Dome of the Rock, see Blair (1992). Schneider (1941), 154. 100 Also see Donner (1971) and JW (2002), 19-20. Prior to the work of Schneider, the Hagiopolita has been variously dated from the eighth to the twelfth century and is still occasionally misdated in the secondary sources. See, for example, Garbarino (2005), 268. 101 For discussions of the text, see Meehan (1958), Geyer (1895) and O’Loughlin (see bibliography). References to the text will be cited as DLS. 102 On the date of Arculf ’s travels, see Meehan (1958), 9-11. O. Grabar (1996), 191, n. 24 describes Arculf as the ‘most studied’ of the Christian pilgrims of the Early Islamic period. By contrast, within the field of Irish studies, Meehan (1958), 1 describes Adomnán’s DLS as ‘comparatively little known and little studied’. 103 On the library of Adomnán, see O’Loughlin (1992b), (1994a), (1994b), (1997b) and (1997c). Scholarship on the text, particularly regarding Adomnán’s exegetical interests, has been greatly advanced by the work of O’Loughlin (see bibliography). However, O’Loughlin, who fails to analyze the commemorative topography of Jerusalem in DLS against the other pilgrim texts of the period, is wrongly dismissive of the so-called Arculf material. While Woods (2002), 26-7 rightly questions O’Loughlin’s dismissal of Arculf, his argument that Adomnán received the Arculf material in written form and that the two figures never actually met should be rejected (p. 49). For an article emphasizing both Adomnán’s exegetical concerns and the importance of the Arculf material for Jerusalem studies, see Aist (forthcoming a). 99

18

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 19

INTRODUCTION

largely dependent upon Arculf’s dictations.104 However, one must be careful not to attribute the earlier material to Arculf’s seventh-century descriptions of the Holy Land. Although the present study will refer to De locis sanctis by its author, Adomnán, it is assumed that the content, unless otherwise cited, is derivative of Arculf and, thus, reflects the topography of seventh-century Jerusalem.105 The Manuscript Drawings of Adomnán Adomnán incorporated drawings of four churches – the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of Holy Sion, the Church of the Ascension and the Church of Jacob’s Well – into his composition of De locis sanctis. The drawings were reproduced in a number of manuscripts, and despite their commonalities, each set has its own unique features.106 Moreover, discrepancies exist between the drawings and the text. Regarding the Church of Holy Sion, Adomnán refers to the petra of scourging, which agrees with Epiphanius’ reference to the object as a stone.107 Yet, despite Adomnán’s reference to the petra, the manuscript drawings of Holy Sion are labeled – hic columna marmorea stat, cui dominus adherens flagellatus est – while some depict a full-sized column in the centre of the church.108 In a second example, Adomnán distinctly notes that the Church of Golgotha abutted the east wall of the Basilica of Constantine, while the drawings consistently detach the church from the larger 104 See Meehan (1958), 12-4. Also see Geyer (1895), who concludes that the first and third books of DLS were almost exclusively the experimenta of Arculf, recorded in the words of Adomnán, while the second book is more dependent upon the library of Iona. Although Geyer’s work is in need of revision, the present work accepts his general conclusions. 105 The unlikely possibility that Willibald knew Adomnán’s work has been raised by a few scholars, including Tuchman (1956), 30. During Willibald’s lifetime, Boniface requested that works of Bede (d. 735) be sent to him in Germany (see Boniface, Ep., 60 [Tangl, 76] and Ep., 75 [Tangl, 91] and Whitelock (1960), 3, 6-7 and 13), and it is conceivable that Willibald was aware of Bede’s revision of Adomnán’s work. D. Parsons (1988), 8-9 entertains the more likely possibility that DLS (either Adomnán’s or Bede’s) and the Vita were both in the possession of the monastery of Fulda by the early ninth century. 106 The drawings from four manuscripts of Adomnán’s DLS and from five manuscripts of Bede’s DLS are published in JW (2002), 371-86. 107 Adomnán, DLS, 1.18.2; Epiphanius, Hag., 7. The two seventh-century writers suggest that the column (see below) had been broken, perhaps during the Persian conquest of 614. For Byzantine references to the column, see Jerome, Ep., 108.9.4 and Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 22. 108 See MS Vindobonensis 458 (JW (2002), 375). Also see Bede, DLS, 2.5.

19

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 20

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

basilica.109 The drawings – henceforth referred to as the manuscript drawings of Adomnán – deserve a comprehensive study and should be ‘regarded as being in some ways quite independent of the written text it accompanies’.110 Commemoratorium de casis Dei Compiled by an unknown Latin official, the Commemoratorium de casis Dei is a report on the Christian institutions in Jerusalem and the Holy Land that includes the number of religious persons administering the respective sites. The text testifies to a healthy Christian presence in the Holy Land at the beginning of the ninth century,111 while underscoring the amiable relations that existed in the late eighth and early ninth centuries between Charlemagne (768-814) and the Abbasid dynasty.112 The text is dated c. 808, the year that Charlemagne received the final embassy from the Caliph Harûn (reigned 786-809). A single manuscript, written in the ninth century, is preserved in Basle. Bernard the Monk The last full pilgrim account before the Crusades comes from a Latin traveler known as Bernard the Monk, who visited Jerusalem in 870.113 Along with his descriptions of the holy sites, Bernard provides numerous details about Holy Land travel in the latter years of the Abbasid caliphate. 1.2.3.3 The Crusader Sources The study also incorporates a number of Crusader sources, particularly the early eleventh-century texts, such as Daniel the Abbot and Saewulf, which reflect the commemorative legacy of Early Islamic Jerusalem before the Crusader alterations of the mid-twelfth century. While the Crusader sources appear in various editions, a useful collection of texts have been translated and annotated by Wilkinson.114 1.2.4 The Material Sources Throughout the book, an attempt has been made to incorporate the topographical and archaeological contexts of the respective sites.115 In Compare Adomnán, DLS, 1.6.1 with JW (2002), 380-1. Biddle (1999), 111. 111 See JW (2002), 24-5. 112 On Charlemagne and the Abbasids, see Runciman (1935) and Björkman (1965). 113 Bernard the Monk, It. Bern. See JW (2002), 25. 114 JW (1988). 115 The work has also been enhanced by numerous visits to the sites while living in Jerusalem as a research fellow at the W.F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research. 109 110

20

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 21

INTRODUCTION

many instances, the physical sources have informed the discussion. Equally so, material evidence is often wanting, lacks an interpretive consensus or is unable to inform questions asked of the study. The author also has limited experience in interpreting the material. Thus, while an attempt has been made to accommodate the material sources, the work remains a textual study on Willibald and the Christian topography of Early Islamic Jerusalem.

1.3 The Structure and Contents of the Work Including the introduction (1) and conclusion (5), the work is divided into five sections. The second section discusses the contextual background of the study, with a chapter on Willibald’s life and travels (2.1), followed by a detailed outline of his Holy Land itinerary (2.2). The third chapter (2.3) introduces the historical, topographical and socio-political context relevant to the present work. The analysis of Willibald’s account of the holy sites of Jerusalem forms the third, and most important, section of the work. The chapter on the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux Domini (3.1) begins with an outline of the Holy Cross legend, which consists of two main events – Helena’s discovery of the Crucifixion crosses and a miraculous healing that identified the True Cross of Christ. The chapter then examines Willibald’s identity with the image of the Holy Cross, which was instrumental in his recovery from a childhood illness. Hugeburc also uses the phrase, crucicolus, or ‘lover of the cross’, to describe the venerable bishop.116 Turning to Willibald’s description of Jerusalem, his two-fold reference to the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux raises two primary questions. First of all, why does he mention the locus before introducing the Basilica of Constantine? Secondly, why does he attribute the healing of his eyesight to the act of entering the basilica? In short, the text suggests that the locus was before and/or near the entrance of the church. The accounts of Epiphanius and Daniel the Abbott indicate that the commemoration of the Miraculous Healing was located along the eastern approach to the Basilica of Constantine. Consequently, it will be argued that Willibald’s references to the place ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux Domini are actually allusions to the Miraculous Healing. Scholars unanimously identify Adomnán’s description of a column commemorating the Miraculous Healing 116

On the translation of crucicolus as ‘lover of the cross’, see section 3.1.2.2.

21

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 22

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

with the North Gate column depicted on the Madaba Map.117 The chapter rejects this assumption, arguing instead that Adomnán is describing the same tradition as Epiphanius, Daniel the Abbot and Willibald and that his column was likewise situated near the Holy Sepulchre. Willibald’s description of three crosses standing against the eastern wall of the basilica further establishes the commemorative landscape of the Holy Cross legend. Finally, Willibald’s interpretation of his own miraculous healing – the restoration of his eyesight – will be examined. The chapter on the Calvarie locus (3.2) focuses upon four questions.118 First of all, how is Calvary described in the biblical texts? Secondly, what is Willibald’s image of the Calvarie locus? Third, what is the identity of the aecclesia that Willibald locates in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus? Fourth, the chapter will examine Helena’s purported ‘moving’ (collacare) of the place of Calvary inside the city, an explanation that answers a question of Willibald’s own concern: why was the site located inside the city walls? The chapter concludes by examining three commemorations associated with the Rock of Calvary at the time of Willibald’s visit – the Crucifixion, the tomb of Adam and the centre of the world. Although the phrase, Calvarie locus, has connotations of the Crucifixion, Willibald fails to mention any of the aforementioned commemorations in his otherwise stark account of the place of Calvary. The chapter on the sepulchrum Salvatoris (3.3) examines the scriptural references for the tomb of Christ, before providing a brief outline of the tomb’s commemorative history. The chapter then focuses upon Willibald’s description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris, beginning with the tomb’s physical surroundings – the hortus and the mirabilis domus. Willibald’s account of the tomb itself is divided into five parts: 1) his use of sepulchrum and monumentum, 2) his enigmatic phrase, est quadrans in imo et in summo subtilis, 3) the tomb’s exterior, 4) the tomb’s interior and 5) the stone ante ianua sepulchri. The chapter underscores four central points. First of all, Willibald portrays the tomb in terms compatible with the biblical narrative. Secondly, he gives but faint 117 Although the terms are not historical, the book will generally refer to the gates of the city using directional terms – e.g., the North Gate (also known as the Damascus Gate, St Stephen’s Gate and Ba¯b al-‘Amu¯d), the former South (Sion) Gate and the East Gate (also known as St Stephen’s Gate, Benjamin’s Gate and the Lion’s Gate). The aforementioned column will be referred to as the North Gate column. 118 The Vita’s spelling of ‘the place of Calvary’ will be used throughout the book – thus, Calvarie locus and not Calvariae locus as it appears in the Vulgate.

22

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 23

INTRODUCTION

attention to the contemporary surroundings of the tomb. Third, the chapter emphasizes the oral nature of Willibald’s account. Fourth, as the locus of the Resurrection, the sepulchrum Salvatoris captured Willibald’s imagination unlike any other place in the city of Jerusalem. Willibald’s description of the Church que vocatur Sancta Sion consists of a two-fold reference to its location in medio Hierusalem and its setting as the place of Mary’s death. The chapter (3.4) argues that his reference to Holy Sion as in medio Hierusalem must be read in light of his previous description of Calvary as prius extra Hierusalem and that he considered Holy Sion to be the centre of biblical Jerusalem. Furthermore, the image of Holy Sion’s antiquity was likely enhanced by the visible ruins of the city’s third-century southern walls. Pilgrims walking to Holy Sion from the Holy Sepulchre in the ‘New City’ encountered the ‘ancient’ wall, which heralded the southern area of Jerusalem as a distinct and more antiquated section of the city. The chapter also considers the commemorations associated with Holy Sion that underscore its image as the location of New Testament Jerusalem, including the Resurrection appearances of Jesus, Pentecost, the Last Supper, the stoning of Stephen and the death of Mary. Although the Marian commemoration is the only one mentioned by Willibald, his encounter with the aforementioned traditions shaped his perception of Holy Sion as the centre of biblical – and specifically New Testament – Jerusalem. The next chapter (3.5) addresses Willibald’s reference to a piscina near the porticus Salamonis, which he associates with the Healing of the Paralytic as recorded in John 5. Willibald omits the topographical references of Jn 5:2, while referring to the portico of Solomon, which is not mentioned in the Johannine narrative. Furthermore, two features of the Byzantine Sheep Pool, or the pool of Bethesda, the site traditionally associated with the commemoration of the Paralytic Healing, are conspicuously absent – neither a church nor the commemoration of Mary’s Nativity is mentioned in Willibald’s account – while, from at least the twelfth century, an alternative ‘Sheep Pool’, the pool of Israel, was associated with the Paralytic Healing. The first part of the chapter examines two possible locations of Willibald’s piscina–the pool of Bethesda and the pool of Israel, identified as the probatica piscina on the twelfth-century Cambrai Map. While still considering the question of the piscina’s location, the second part of the chapter addresses Willibald’s reference to the porticus Salamonis. After discussing the biblical

23

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 24

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

evidence, references to the structure in four different pilgrim accounts will be examined. While the biblical references associate the portico with the area of the Temple Mount, the pilgrim accounts do not provide a consistent witness regarding its location; rather, the term is applied to structures in more than one location and not necessarily on or contiguous with the Temple Mount. Of the four, the twelfth-century account by Daniel the Abbot, who associates the porticus Salamonis with the Byzantine Sheep Pool, most clearly informs Willibald’s description of the pool of Paralytic Healing, tipping the balance of the chapter’s argument in favour of the Byzantine site. The location of the piscina also informs the course of Willibald’s movements through the city of Jerusalem – upon leaving Holy Sion, Willibald took an intramural route through the city to the piscina, located to the north of the Temple Mount, before passing through the East Gate on his way to the Mount of Olives. The section’s sixth chapter (3.6) examines Willibald’s three references to the dormition commemorations of St Mary: her death on Holy Sion, a confrontation between the Jews and the Apostles during her funeral procession (the so-called Jephonias legend) and her sepulchrum in the aecclesia sancta Mariae. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the early dormition traditions, before turning to Willibald’s account of the three sites. After revisiting the reference to Mary’s death on Holy Sion, attention will shift to the second Marian site, a magna columna commemorating the Jephonias legend. At issue is the location of the monument, important for establishing Willibald’s movements through Jerusalem, which has been misidentified by scholars despite incontestable evidence placing it outside the East Gate of the city.119 The Jephonias monument also informs the nature of inter-religious relations in post-Byzantine Jerusalem. Likely built during the Inter-conquest period, it commemorates a victorious confrontation with the Jews and may be a Christian rebuke of Jewish involvement in the Persian conquest of 614. Since a cross still surmounted the monument in the first half of the eighth century, it also testifies to the freedom of religious expression enjoyed by Christians during the Umayyad period. Finally, the chapter examines Willibald’s image of the tomb of Mary, comparing it to the other tombs mentioned in the Vita, including the sepulchrum Salvatoris. The chapter highlights the significance of the Marian 119 The monument also figures prominently in the chapter on the Miraculous Healing. See section 3.1.

24

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 25

INTRODUCTION

topography in Willibald’s description of Jerusalem – three sites and a commemorative pathway. However, his devotion to Mary must be qualified. While failing to mention the birthplace of Mary in his description of the pool of Bethesda, Willibald shows no interest in the physical details of the Marian sites, including the appearance of her tomb. The next chapter (3.7) examines Willibald’s reference to the Church ubi Dominus ante passionem orabat, which commemorated Jesus’ Holy Prayer on the eve of his Passion, an event otherwise known as the Agony. The chapter begins with the place name, ‘Gethsemane’, and its use in the biblical and pilgrim sources, before discussing the commemorative histories of the Agony and the Betrayal of Jesus. The discussion then focuses upon the location of the church mentioned by Willibald, who alone of the Early Islamic pilgrims describes an ecclesiastical structure on the locus of the Agony. While the Agony was commemorated upon a common site during the Byzantine and Crusader eras, a number of scholars believe that the commemoration – and with it, Willibald’s church – assumed a different location during the Early Islamic period; both the Eleona and the site of Dominus Flevit have been proposed. The following discussion will dismiss the respective claims of the two locations, arguing instead that Willibald’s church was located on the Byzantine-Crusader site. The chapter will conclude by highlighting two additional aspects of Willibald’s description of the Church ubi Dominus orabat. First of all, the Church of the Agony is Willibald’s only reference to the events of Jesus’ final days. Secondly, his quotation of Jesus’ imperative to his disciples to watch and pray (Mt 26:41) underscores his emphasis upon the Christian virtue of perseverance. The chapter on Willibald’s description of the Church of the Ascension (3.8) begins with a survey of the scriptural references to the Ascension, a brief history of the church and a discussion of the site as the setting of Christ’s Return. The chapter then analyzes Willibald’s account of the church, which includes references to its perpetuallyburning lamp, its open roof and two columns. Each feature of the church corresponds with an aspect of the Ascension story that Willibald orders according to the biblical narrative. He omits, however, one of the defining characteristics of the church itself – its rounded shape. In short, even though Willibald was captured by the locus of the Ascension, which grabbed his imagination more than any other site save the sepulchrum Salvatoris, he does not provide any gratuitous information on the architecture of the church, describing

25

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 26

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

only those elements that have a commemorative, or narrative, function. The chapter concludes with Willibald’s description of the Church of Nicea, which he likens favourably to the Church ubi Dominus ascendit. The ninth and final chapter in the section (3.9) examines the sequence of Willibald’s description of Jerusalem, which follows a logical and coherent route. The same circuit is described in a number of other sources, suggesting that the common pattern reflects an on-the-ground phenomenon – i.e., the standardized walking tour of the city. While previous discussions of the so-called Jerusalem circuit have focused upon the Byzantine period, Willibald provides evidence for its continuity into the post-Byzantine era, indicating that the Persian destruction and ninety years of Islamic rule had not altered the movements of Christian pilgrims. The course of the circuit changes with the advent of the Crusaders. The second part of the chapter examines the Jerusalem circuit as a source for Willibald’s account of the Holy City. The phenomenon of the Jerusalem circuit was so central to his experience of Jerusalem that Willibald – like other pilgrim writers – found it to be the best organizing principle for describing the holy sites, while the influence of the circuit is such that Willibald does not mention any site that was not on the route. Finally, Willibald’s account of Jerusalem does not show any dependency upon written sources. Rather, it appears that the circuit of Jerusalem was so firmly etched into his memory that some fifty years later he could accurately organize his account of the city upon its template. The section concludes with a short summary of Willibald’s description of the holy sites of Jerusalem (3.10). The third and final section of the work considers Willibald’s image of Jerusalem as a whole. In short, Willibald viewed Jerusalem as an ignotus – a strange and distant – place. To explore the point, the section is divided into three chapters. The first chapter (4.1) addresses Willibald’s frequent references to the hardships of pilgrimage travel. Along with the death of his father, the episodes include illness, physical disability, prolonged hunger, exposure to the natural elements and imprisonment. The amelioration of Willibald’s difficulties was frequently attributed to the providence of God. Even so, God’s intervention only occurred after some duration of time and discomfort, and despite the presence of divine grace, the tenuous and toilsome nature of the earthly life was a fundamental reality of Willibald’s world; hardships were central to his pilgrimage experiences, which, in turn, affected his image of Jerusalem

26

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 27

INTRODUCTION

as a remote and distant place. The elderly bishop measured the distance which separated the western pilgrim from Jerusalem in terms of the number and degree of adversities that had to be endured before reaching the city’s sacred walls. The second chapter of the section (4.2) looks at the cultural encounters described by Willibald. While distinctions between the Greek and the Latin worlds are not noted, a sharp contrast exists in Willibald’s attitudes towards the Greeks and the Saracens, and his interactions with the pagani Sarracinorum, such as his imprisonment in Emesa, left an indelible mark upon his image of Jerusalem. While Willibald portrays the Holy Land almost exclusively in Christian terms, the area was surrounded by a distinct band of Saracen authority that had to be successfully negotiated in order to enter and exit the region. Decades after his travels, Willibald would remember the Holy Land as a place under the sovereignty of a people as culturally and religiously dissimilar as any he had ever known. While Willibald’s image of Jerusalem as a strange and distant place is supported by his attention to the personal hardships and foreign encounters of his travels, the final chapter (4.3) goes a step further, arguing that Willibald’s descriptions of his pilgrim travels also convey his understanding of the Christian life. Whereas Willibald viewed the earthly life as a laborious journey, the vocation of the Christian was one of faithful perseverance as expressed by the Vita’s quotation of Mt 10:22 – qui autem perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit. Unlike his Holy Land travels, the virtue of perseverance could be pursued by everyone under his episcopal care.

1.4 The Limitations of the Work Finally, the study is not without its limitations. While the Latin texts have been consulted, the work depends upon English translations for the Greek, Armenian and Arabic sources. Published translations, largely those of Wilkinson, are used throughout the work.120 Second, although the work contains an annotated summary of Willibald’s Holy Land itinerary, the work focuses upon his account of Jerusalem. The extra-Jerusalem material is worthy of its own study. 120 Since Wilkinson does not translate the entire Vita, the translations of Talbot and Brownlow will also be used.

27

Section 01.qxd:Section 01.qxd

5/15/09

2:32 PM

Page 28

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Third, the work focuses upon the Christian topography of Jerusalem and the religious imagination of the venerable bishop; it is neither a historical study of Early Islamic Jerusalem nor of the life of Willibald. Although the book contributes to our understanding of Early Islamic Jerusalem, the findings are largely confined to the commemorative landscape of the Christian city. Similarly, while the study does not provide a historical reassessment of Willibald, it contains a detailed outline of his life and travels, which corrects a number of errors in the secondary literature. Finally, while the thought of Willibald is one of the central interests of the work, the contextual analyses of his religious influences are rather limited. Tracing Willibald’s intellectual development is complicated given the wealth of his experiences. Along with his Holy Land travels, Willibald’s thought was shaped by his life as a child oblate, his vocation as a peregrinus ex patria, his sojourns in Rome and Constantinople, his years at Monte Cassino and his role in the Anglo-Saxon mission as the bishop of Eichstätt. Although each of these experiences will be discussed, the nature of these encounters and their impact upon the development of Willibald’s religious life are not examined in detail. While the work explores Willibald’s image of the Holy Land and his vision of the Christian life, it is a preliminary investigation into the religious imagination of the eighth-century churchman and does not integrate the thought or influence of Willibald into the larger context of the Anglo-Saxon mission in Germany.

28

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 29

2. the contextual background 2.1 The Life of Willibald of Eichstätt1 2.1.1 Willibald’s Childhood Willibald was born in Wessex in 700 CE, the oldest son of a landowning family.2 The defining event of his early life was a life-threatening illness that he contracted at the age of three.3 In response to the illness, Willibald’s parents made a vow at the foot of an outdoor cross pledging their son to the monastic life if he was spared by God. Willibald subsequently recovered, and at the age of five, he entered the monasterio quae vocatur Waldheim 4 as a child oblate under a certain Abbot Egwald.5 1 The chronological summary of Willibald’s life relies upon the past contributions of scholars, particularly Heidingsfelder (1938) and Bauch (1962). For additional summaries, see Braun (1953), D. Webb (2002), 45-8, Prinz (1995), 319-21 and JW (1977), 206-8. 2 The place of Willibald’s birth is not mentioned in the Vita. On the wealth of Willibald’s family, see Schieffer (1954), 104, Bauch (1962), 125 and Noble and Head (1995), 148, n. 4. On eighth-century Wessex, see Yorke (1990), 128-56, esp. 52-93 and (1995), 149-91. 3 On the childhood illness of Willibald, see VW, 89.2-41 and section 3.1.2.1. 4 Waldheim is the present-day site of Bishop’s Waltham. It has been suggested that the placement of Willibald, the eldest son, into a monastery was an aberration of the early Anglo-Saxon practice of primogeniture. However, a variety of practices existed in the eighth-century, including partible inheritance between brothers. Personal communication with Prof. Barbara Yorke. 5 Nothing further is known of Abbot Egwald.

29

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 30

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

2.1.2 Willibald’s Journey to Rome At the age of twenty, leaving behind a step mother and at least two brothers and two sisters,6 Willibald permanently left his Anglo-Saxon homeland in the company of his father and younger brother, Wynnebald (701-61),7 on pilgrimage to the tomb of St Peter in Rome.8From an unknown location in Wessex, the party made the short trip to the port of Hamblehaven.9 From there, they crossed the English Channel, alighting on the European mainland at the market town of Rouen.10 Although Willibald prayed at multa oratoria sanctorum along the way,11 Gorthonicum is the only place name mentioned for the journey between Rouen and the Alps.12 After the Alpine crossing,13 Willibald and his party arrived in the Tuscan city of Lucca, where his father became fatally ill. After burying their father, the brothers continued their journey towards Rome.14 2.1.3 The Sojourn in Rome Willibald arrived in Rome on November 11, 720.15 The brothers most likely lived in the city’s Anglo-Saxon colony where they devoted themselves to the spiritual life.16 Save for a lengthy bout with the plague, See V. Wynn., 107.15. On the life of Wynnebald, see Bauch (1970c). The relationship between Willibald and Wynnebald is sometimes confused; for instance, see Barefoot (1993), 20, who incorrectly states that Wynnebald was the elder brother. 8 On the journey to Rome, including the death of Willibald’s father, see VW, 91.1-92.3 and V. Wynn., 107.12-108.8. Also see map 1. On the popularity of AngloSaxon pilgrimage to Rome in early the eighth century, see Bede, HE, 5.7. Also see Stancliffe (1983) and Levinson (1946), 5-44. On the shrine of St Peter, see Stalley (1999), 24-8, Finegan (1976) and Toynbee and Perkins (1957). 9 Willibald refers to Hamblehaven near Southhampton as Hamel-ea-mutha iuxta illa mercimonio que dicitur Ham-wih (VW, 91.5). 10 Sumption (1975), 209 curiously interprets Willibald’s reference to resting for a few days in Rouen as follows: ‘he brought with him a boat-load of goods to sell in Rouen, and paid for his journey to Rome out of the proceeds’. 11 VW, 91.12-4. 12 Holder-Egger identifies Gorthonicum with Dertonam, or Tortona. Bauch (1962), 90, n. 37 suggests the alternative, Cottianicum. The place name is omitted from map 1. 13 The Vita incorrectly places the Alpine crossing after Lucca (see VW 91.15-25). 14 On the death of Willibald’s father, see section 4.1.1. 15 Willibald’s sojourn in Rome is described in VW, 91.25-92.16 and in V. Wynn., 108.8-29. See Daltrop (1987a). On the background to eighth-century Rome, see Llewellyn (1996) and Davis (1992). 16 On the Anglo-Saxon colony in Rome, see Moore (1937). Located in the presentday district of Borgo, it is approximately 600 meters from the tomb of Peter. 6 7

30

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 31

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

there is no reason to suppose that Willibald lived a sequestered life, and he presumably participated in the public liturgy of Rome.17 While living in Rome, he would have encountered the culturally-diverse world of Christendom, including the city’s Greek population. He also likely met pilgrims in Rome who had successfully returned from Jerusalem, inspiring his own decision to travel to the Holy City. 2.1.4 Willibald’s Journey to Jerusalem After the Easter feast of 723, Willibald left Rome, setting off towards Jerusalem with at least two other companions.18 Willibald initially journeyed by land via Terracina to Gaeta.19 From there, he took a boat to Naples,20 sailing, two weeks later, down the Italian coastline to Reggio in Calabria.21 He then crossed the Strait of Messina to the Sicilian city of Catania, which lay in the shadows of Mt Etna.22 Here, Willibald relates the legend of St Agatha – that whenever the mountain begins to erupt, the city’s inhabitants take the corpus sanctae Agathae and raise it towards the volcano until the eruptions cease.23 Willibald was in Catania for three weeks and then travelled the short distance to Syracuse. From there, he set out across the mar Adria,24 coming to Malvasia,25 Kea,26 Corinth27 and Samos before arriving in

17 On the liturgy of Rome, see Baldovin (1987), 143-66, van Dijk (1961) and Ó Carragáin (1995). On the Marian feasts of Rome, see Clayton (1984), 212-3. 18 On Willibald’s journey from Rome to Damascus, see VW, 92.26-95.21 and map 1. Places appear on all of the maps in the order that they are first mentioned in the Vita, thus allowing the reader to compare the probable course of his travels with the itineraries as they occur in the text. For other maps of Willibald’s journey to Jerusalem, see Bauch (1962), karten 1 and 2, JW (2002), 234, map 40, Appel, Braun and Hofmann (1987), 66-7 and Brownlow (1895), end. On Willibald’s two companions, see VW, 92.27. Wynnebald did not accompany Willibald to Jerusalem but remained in Rome, save for a trip to England in c. 727-30, until he joined the Boniface mission in c. 739 (V. Wynn., 108.30-109.11). 19 See Bauch (1962), nts. 44-5. 20 Compare with Willibald’s second visit to Naples in 729 (VW, 102.11-3). 21 Compare with Willibald’s second visit to Reggio (VW, 101.30). 22 VW, 93.7-11. 23 On St Agatha (February 5), see Farmer (1992), 6-7. 24 VW, 93.12; compare with VW, 99.20, where Willibald refers to the eastern Mediterranean as the mar Adria. Also see Act 27:27. 25 VW, 97.12-3: Manafasia in Slavinia terrae. See Bauch (1962), 91, n. 54. 26 VW, 93.13: et inde navigantes in insulam nomine Choo. Less likely is the island of Chios, see Bauch (1962), 92, n. 56. 27 VW, 93.13-4: demittebant Chorintheos in sinistra parte.

31

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 32

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the city of Ephesus,28 where he visited illum locum ubi Septem dormientes requiescent29 and the Church of St John the Evangelist.30 Leaving Ephesus, Willibald walked to Phygela, where he was forced to beg for bread,31 and then to Miletus, where he saw two solitaries living on pillars.32 Willibald then continued to the city of Strobolis33 before wintering in Patara on the southern coast of Asia Minor.34 At winter’s end, Willibald travelled by sea along the coast to Mons Gallianorum, where his party again suffered from hunger.35 From Mons Gallianorum, they continued by sea, arriving in Paphos36 on the western coast of Cyprus.37 Willibald spent three weeks in Paphos, where he celebrated Easter and the first full year of his travels since leaving Rome.38 From Paphos, Willibald walked the length of the island to Constantia,39 the city of St Epiphanius (d. 403),40 remaining there until after the feast of John the Baptist.41 Leaving Cyprus, Willibald sailed to Antaradus42 in Syria, marking his arrival into the regio Sarracinorum.43 From there, Willibald walked to the village of Arca,44 which had a community of Greek 28 Willibald describes an uneventful passage from Sicily to Asia Minor. Compare with Paul’s travels in Act 20:15-6. 29 On the legend of the Seven Sleepers, see Bauch (1962), 92, n. 60. Also see Theodosius, DSTS, 26. 30 On the Church of St John the Evangelist, see Krautheimer (1965), 175-6, figs. 67, 68 and pl. 84. 31 On the episode in Phygela, see VW, 93.17-9 and section 4.1.3.1. 32 VW, 9.22-4 incorrectly places Willibald’s visit to Miletus after his winter sojourn in Patara. See Bauch (1962), 93, n. 65. 33 See Bauch (1962), 93, n. 63. 34 On the winter in Patara, see VW, 93.20-2 and section 4.1.3.2. Also see Bauch (1962), 93, n. 64. 35 On Mons Gallianorum, or Candeloro, on the southern coast of Asia Minor, see Bauch (1962), 93, n. 67 and section 4.1.3.3. 36 On Paul’s visit to Paphos, see Act 13:6-12. 37 On Willibald’s description of Cyprus, see section 4.2.1. On the history of Cyprus, see Kyrris (1984) and (1985), 176-85, Cameron (1992) and Stratos (1965), vol. 3, 40. 38 VW 94.5-6. 39 On the city of Constantia, see Bauch (1962), 94, n. 72. Constantia was the seat of the metropolitan during the Byzantine period. After the city’s destruction by the Arabs in 648, the metropolitan was transferred to Famagusta. On the Roman roads between Paphos and Constantia, see Miller (1916), 827-30. 40 On the life of Epiphanius of Salamis (May 12), see Butler (1997), 65-6. 41 June 24, 724. 42 Also known as Tartus. 43 VW, 94.7-8. See map 2. 44 See Bauch (1962), 94, n. 76.

32

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 33

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Christians,45 before continuing to the city of Emesa46 and the Church of St John the Baptist, errantly ascribed as a foundation of St Helena.47 Upon their arrival in Emesa, Willibald and his party were arrested as spies.48 During his imprisonment, Willibald developed a close relationship with the city’s Christian community. Members of the congregation brought the pilgrims their daily food, took them to the city’s baths twice a week and escorted them to church via the market on Sundays. After spending several weeks in prison, Willibald’s party was finally released and supplied with valid documents for their onward journey. From Emesa, Willibald travelled cum licentia to the city of Damascus, which contained the tomb of St Ananias and the church commemorating the conversion of Paul.49 With his arrival into Damascus – where the resurrected Christ had appeared to Paul – Willibald had finally entered the regio Christi. 2.1.5 Willibald’s Sojourn in Constantinople Leaving aside his Holy Land travels (724-6),50 Willibald departed the region from the port of Tyre on November 30, 726, arriving in Constantinople a week before Easter.51 He spent the next two years living in a receptacula inside the Church of the Apostles,52 which housed the relics of Andrew, Timothy and Luke along with those of John Chrysostom (d. 407).53 From Willibald’s small room, he potuit aspicere ubi sancti resquiescebant.54 He most likely participated in the city’s stational liturgy,55 On the Greek Christians of Arche, see section 4.2.1. On the city of Emesa, see Bauch (1962), 94, n. 79 and King (2002). 47 According to the sixth-century Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 46, the head of John the Baptist was kept in the church in a glass vase. Willibald acknowledges that the relic had previously been there (VW, 94.11-2). 48 On Willibald’s arrest in Emesa (VW, 94.13-95.15), see section 4.2.2.1. For another example of the arrest of Latin pilgrims, see Bernard, It. Bern., 7. 49 VW, 95.17-21; Act 9:1-18. Also see Bauch (1962), 95-6, n. 87. 50 Willibald’s Holy Land travels are discussed in section 2.2. 51 VW, 101.17-8: et postea tunc navigaverunt totum gemem a natale sancti Andreae apostoli usque una ebdomada ante pascha. Since Easter fell on April 13, Willibald arrived on April 6, 727. On Willibald’s winter journey, see Ohler (1989), 11. 52 On the Church of the Apostles, see Downey (1951). 53 On the relics of Luke, Timothy and Andrew, see Chronicon Paschale, 356-7 (Whitby and Whitby (1989), 33) and Holum and Vikan (1979), 119-20. On the life of John Chrystostom, see J.N.D. Kelly (1995). 54 VW, 101.21-3. 55 There is no reason to assume that Willibald was a recluse during his time in Constantinople. On the stational liturgy of Constantinople, see Baldovin (1987), 167-226. 45 46

33

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 34

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

and he was, no doubt, aware that the Church of Hagia Sophia possessed the relic of the True Cross.56 During his time in Constantinople, he also made a trip to Nicea to see the ecclesiastical setting of the Council of 325.57 Willibald lived in Constantinople during one of the seminal periods of the iconoclastic controversy.58 In 726-7, Emperor Leo III (reigned 717-41) ordered the removal of all images of saints and angels,59 while in 727, Pope Gregory II (715-31) anathematized the destruction of images. Although Willibald does not mention the controversy, he sailed back to Italy cum nuntiis papae et cesaris, suggesting that he was well-informed of the controversies between Rome and Constantinople.60 2.1.6 Willibald’s Return to Italy Willibald provides no details of his return to Italy prior to his arrival in Sicily, where he stayed in the cities of Syracuse and Catania before reaching Reggio on the Italian mainland.61 From there, he travelled to the island of Volcano, infamously identified as the infernus Theodrichi.62 Willibald attempted to climb the volcano in order to gaze inside the Hell of Theodoric; however: He was unable to do so because the ashes of black tartar, which had risen to the edge of the crater, lay there in heaps: and like the snow which, when it drops from heaven with its falling masses of flakes, heaps them up into mounds, the ashes lay piled in heaps on the top of the mountain 56 For a description of the Great Friday veneration of the True Cross in Hagia Sophia, see Adomnán, DLS, 3.3. The argument by Woods (2006-7) that DLS, 3.3 is a description of Heraclius’ restoration of the True Cross in Jerusalem is not convincing, particularly in light of the testimony of Sebe¯os, Histoire, 29 that the relics were in Constantinople at the time of Arculf ’s visit (see Meddeb (1996), 67). Having spent three Easters in Constantinople (727, 728 and 729), Willibald likely attended the Good Friday liturgy in Hagia Sophia. Also see Regan (1978) and Taft (1980-1). 57 On Willibald’s visit to Nicea, see VW, 101.23-7 and section 3.8.2.5. 58 On the iconoclastic controversy, see Baynes (1951), Brown (1973), Henry (1976), Kitzinger (1954) and Ladner (1940). 59 On the first edict of Leo III, see Anastos (1968), Sefton (1987) and Jeffery (1944). 60 VW, 101.17-29: et post duobus annis navigaverunt inde cum nuntiis papae et cesaris. 61 See VW, 101.28-30; compare with VW, 93.6-12. On Willibald’s journey from Jerusalem to Monte Cassino, see map 7. Also see Bauch (1962), karten 1 and 2, JW (2002), 246, map 44, Appel, Braun and Hofmann (1987) 66-7 and Brownlow (1895), end. 62 The Hell of Theodoric first appears in Gregory the Great, Dialogi, 4.30. Also see Adomnán, DLS, 3.6 and O’Loughlin (1996b) and (2007), 133-42.

34

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 35

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

and prevented Willibald from going any farther. All the same, he saw the black and terrible and fearful flame belching forth from the crater with a noise like rolling thunder: he gazed with awe on the enormous flames, and the mountainous clouds of smoke rising from below into the sky. And that pumice stone which writers speak of he saw issuing from the crater, thrown out with flames and cast into the sea, then washed up again on the seashore by the tide, where men were collecting it and carting it away.63

Willibald then sailed to the island of Lipari, home of the Church of St Bartholomew,64 before arriving in Naples.65 A number of days later,66 Willibald travelled to the city of Capua. The archbishop of Capua67 then misit eum ad alio urbe ad illo episcopo, et ille episcopus misit illum ad urbe Tiana ad illum episcopum, et ille episcopus misit illum ad Sanctum Benedictum.68 His arrival at the Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino in the autumn of 729 brought an end to his travels to the holy sites of Christendom, which had respectively begun with his departures from Wessex in 720 and Rome in 723.69 As summarized in the Vita, tunc fuerant 7 annos, quod de Roma transpire coepit, et omnium errant 10 annos, quod de patria sua transibat.70 2.1.7 The Monte Cassino Years Willibald assumed a number of roles during his ten-year stay at Monte Cassino.71 During his first two years, he served respectively as a 63 VW, 101.30-102.7, trans. in Talbot (1954), 171-2. According to Prinz (1995), 321, the episode shows that Willibald is a ‘gewissermaßen reiner, neugieriger Tourist’, while Barefoot (1993), 20 states that most of the Vita ‘lacks interest today, but there is an engaging glimpse of this adventurous Anglo-Saxon striving to climb the volcano at Stromboli but failing to reach the summit’! Also see Levinson (1946), 44. 64 On the relics of Bartholomew, see Gregory of Tours, Liber in Gloria Martyrum, 1.34. Also see Bauch (1962), 116, n. 214. 65 Compare VW, 102.11-3 with Willibald’s first visit to Naples (VW, 93.1-6). 66 Willibald stayed in Naples for several days (VW, 102.12). 67 Other sources indicate that Capua did not become an archbishopric until 966. See Bauch (1962), 117, n. 220 and JW (2002), 249, n. 51. 68 VW 102.15-6. The towns of Capua and Teano are between Naples and Monte Cassino. 69 The abbey of Monte Cassino, founded by Benedict (c. 480-550), was destroyed by the Lombards in 577 and reestablished in 717 by Abbot Petronax. On the restoration of the monastery by Petronax, see Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, 40. Also see von Padberg (2000) and Brechter (1950). 70 VW, 102.17-8. 71 On Willibald’s tenure at Monte Cassino, see VW, 102.19-35.

35

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 36

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

sacristan and deacon of the monastery.72 He spent his last eight years as a porter.73 The monastic complex had two campuses. For the first four years, Willibald was the porter for the monastic house that stat supra in monte valde excelso, while the final four years were spent in the lower monastery iuxta amne Rapitho.74 Willibald’s religious training, his multicultural experiences and his knowledge of the holy places were major assets to the Benedictine community.75 Reciprocally, he regarded St Benedict as the consummate model, later organizing his own monastery at Eichstätt after the example of Monte Cassino.76 Willibald presumably assumed that he would live out his life as a monk of Monte Cassino. However, while in Rome during the autumn of 739, Willibald received a summons from Pope Gregory III (731-41).77 Willibald recalls two subjects discussed during his audience with the pope. The pope’s interest in Willibald’s Holy Land travels suggests the relative novelty of his experiences and indicates that, years after his return, he was still recognized as an authority on the holy places. However, the main purpose of the meeting was the recruitment of Willibald for the Boniface mission in Germany.78 During Boniface’s third visit to Rome in 737-8, he had enlisted a number of AngloSaxons, including Wynnebald, as co-workers in the mission and had presumably told the pope of his desire to elicit the services of Willibald as well.79 Although the Vita implies that Willibald never revisited 72 73

VW, 102.25: cubicularius aecclesiae et decanus. VW, 102.25-8.

74 Willibald spent six years in the mountain monastery and four in the river monastery. 75 See VW, 102.21-5. Willibald’s role in the revitalization of Monte Cassino and later as the mediator between Monte Cassino and the Boniface Mission has been initially explored by Dickerhof (1978/9) and Prinz (1965), 253-7. 76 See VW, 105.20-2. 77 On Pope Gregory III, see Davis (1992), 17-28. Willibald had escorted a Spanish priest from Monte Cassino to Rome (VW, 102.35-103.6). 78 Although their relationship is not verified in the sources, scholars have assumed that Willibald was either a cousin or nephew to Boniface. For studies on Boniface, see Sladden (1980), Talbot (1970), Reuter (1980), Schieffer (1972), Higgins (1933) and Sankt Bonifatius (1954). On the Boniface mission, see Schieffer (1972), Talbot (1954), Levison (1946) and Wallace-Hadrill (1975), 138-54. 79 VW, 104.11-3. Boniface and Pope Gregory III were almost certainly aware that Willibald was at Monte Cassino, which they likely learned from Wynnebald and the Anglo-Saxon community in Rome. Conversely, Willibald was presumably aware of Boniface’s visit to Rome, of his subsequent recruitment of Wynnebald and of his desire to acquire Willibald’s services. Consequently, Willibald may not have been surprised by the pope’s request.

36

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 37

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Monte Cassino – he left de Roma for the Boniface mission80 – he did not commence his transalpine journey for another four months.81 During this time, Willibald undoubtedly returned to Monte Cassino to bid farewell to his monastic community,82 and the contribulis who accompanied him to Germany may have been recruited from his fellow monks at Monte Cassino.83 2.1.8 Willibald’s Years in Germany After Easter in 740,84 Willibald made his final departure from Rome, travelling to Germany with at least three other contribulis.85 On the way, Willibald returned to Lucca, where his father had died twenty years before.86 In contrast to the assiduous description of Willibald’s initial crossing of the Alps in 720,87 his crossing in 740 is confined to a single sentence – inde venit ad Tichine urbe,88 et inde ad urbe Prixa,89 et inde venit ad locum que dicitur Cartha90 – suggesting that the passage took place without incident.91 Upon his arrival in Bavaria,92 Willibald presented himself to Duke Odilo93 and then visited a nobleman by the name of Suidger.94 Willibald and Suidger subsequently travelled to Linthard95 to meet with Boniface, who sent the two men to Eihstat, an area Suidger had 80 81

VW, 105.18. VW, 104.26-7: pergebat inde Willibaldus in pascha, qui illic veniebat in natale

sancti Andreae. Willibald arrived in Rome for the feast of St Andrew in 739 and left for Germany soon after Easter in 740. 82 The distance between Rome and Monte Cassino is only 85 miles, or 135 km. 83 See VW, 105.18. Willibald’s departure from Monte Cassino severed a number of significant relationships, including his friendship with Tidbercht, qui cum eo pergebat omnia (VW, 102.19). 84 April 24. 85 See map 7. 86 Compare VW, 104.28 with Willibald’s first visit to Lucca (VW, 91.15-22). 87 See VW, 91.22-5. 88 Pavia. 89 Prixa, or Brixen, is a reference to Brescia, the hometown of Abbot Petronax. See Paul the Deacon (Historia Langobardorum, 40) and Bauch (1962), 119, n. 242. 90 Garda am Gardasee. 91 VW, 104.28-9. 92 On Willibald’s initial movements in Bavaria, see VW, 104.29-43. 93 On Duke Odilo, see Jarnut (1977), 273-84. The location is not mentioned in the Vita. 94 On Suidger, see Bauch (1962), 120, n. 246. 95 On Linthard, see Böhm (1987), 85-6.

37

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 38

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

given Boniface in redemptionem animae suae,96 in order to see quomodo sibi placeret.97 Although Willibald’s describes the area as totum vastatum and without a domus, there was a church in Eihstat dedicated to St Mary.98 After finding a suitable place for Willibald’s mission, they returned to Boniface, who was now in Freising.99 The three men then travelled to Eichstätt, where Boniface duly ordained Willibald to the priesthood on July 22, 740.100 A year later, Boniface summoned Willibald to Sulzeprucge in Thuringia101 to the home of his brother, Wynnebald,102 and on October 22, 741,103 Willibald, now forty-one, was ordained to the episcopacy by Boniface, who was assisted by bishops Burchardt of Würzburg (d. 753)104 and Wizo of Buraburg. A majority of scholars believe that Willibald was originally ordained as the bishop of Erfurt in Thuringia, one of Boniface’s newly-created dioceses. The argument is based upon the location of Willibald’s ordination along with the negative evidence of the Boniface epistulae – namely, the name of the new bishop of Erfurt is never mentioned.105 Against this, the Compare with VW, 94.27 and 102.32. VW, 104.31-3. 98 VW, 104.34-5. On the area of Eichstätt, see Eigler (1990). 99 On Freising, see Bauch (1962), 121, n. 254. 100 According to VW, 104.42-3, Willibald’s priestly ordination took place on 11. Kal. Augusti fuit ad natale sancti Appollinaris et sancte Mariae Magdelene. 101 On Sulzeprucge, or Sülzenbrücken, see Bauch (1962), 122, n. 263. 102 According to VW, 105.2-3, the brothers had not seen each other for eight and a half years. The reference is generally regarded as a mistake for eighteen and a half years, which fits the time between Willibald’s departure for the Holy Land in 723 and the brothers’ reunion in Thuringia in 741. It is rather surprising that the two brothers did not see each other when they lived respectively at Monte Cassino and Rome, which were only 85 miles (135 km) apart. (Willibald joined Monte Cassino in 729 and Wynnebald was in Rome until after Boniface’s third trip to Rome in 737/8, when he was recruited for the Anglo-Saxon mission in Germany. However, Wynnebald had left Rome prior to Willibald’s arrival in the city in November 739). 103 VW, 105.10-1 states that the ordination took place circa illam fere horam tribus ebdomadibus ante natale sancti Martini. On the date of Willibald’s episcopal ordination, see Bigelmair (1950). 104 On Burchardt of Würzburg, see Wendehorst (1967). 105 See Boniface, Ep., 40 [Tangl, 50] and Ep., 41 [Tangl, 51], which discuss the appointment of a bishop to the newly-formed diocese of Erfurt but fail to mention the bishop’s name. On Willibald’s possible ordination as the bishop of Erfurt, see Angenendt (1990), Kaiser (1990), Engels (1990), Sage (1990), Michels (1987), Pfeiffer (1974) and (1990), Stabb (1988), von Padberg (1981) and (1995) and Buchner (1927). The argument is accepted by the diocese of Eichstätt (www.bistum-eichstaett.de/ englisch/diocese/geschich.htm). 96 97

38

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 39

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Vita Bonifatii states that Boniface entrusted Willibald with the diocese of Eichstätt,106 while, according to Hugeburc, Willibald remeabat iteruam ad predistinatam mansionis suae locum a week after his ordination.107 If Boniface originally ordained Willibald to the see of Erfurt, the project was quickly abandoned, and Willibald served nearly fifty years as the bishop of Eichstätt, where he constructed a monastery after the example of Monte Cassino.108 Although the Vita does not provide any information on the episcopal activities of Willibald, a number of details are known of his later life. In 751/2, Willibald helped Wynnebald establish a monastery at Heidenheim, west of Eichstätt.109 Willibald was in Heidenheim sometime in 760/1 advising Wynnebald against his plans to retire to Monte Cassino110 and was at his brother’s bedside when he died on December 18, 761.111 Willibald’s sister, Walburga (d. 779),112 arrived in Heidenheim in the same month, taking over as abbess of the double monastery.113 Some sixteen years later, on September 24, 777, Willibald conducted Wynnebald’s translatio, and a new church in Heidenheim dedicated sancto seculorum omnium Salvatore was consecrated by Willibald on Willibald of Mainz, Vita Bonifatii, 8. VW, 105.8-9. 108 VW, 104.35-6. On the cathedral of Eichstätt, or the Willibaldsdom, the site of Willibald’s eighth-century church, see Braun (1986). 109 According to V. Wynn., 111.9-35, Wynnebald left Mainz (c. 752) in response to the vini uberitas, which he feared was about to destroy the monastic life of the area. From Mainz, Wynnebald went ad fratre suo episcopo Willibaldo (VW, 111.15-6), who was living ad monasterium quae dicitur Eihstat. After a time of mutual consultation, the two brothers travelled ad illum locum que vocatur Heidanheim where a locum aptum was found for Wynnebald’s monastery. There, with the consilio episcopi, Wynnebald built an aecclesia and monasterium, most likely in the spring of 752. Wynnebald died on December 18, 761, after serving as abbot for almost ten years. On the monastery of Heidenheim, see Braun (1952). 110 V. Wynn. 113.8-26. Although he had an invitation to join the monastery of Monte Cassino, Wynnebald had been repeatedly confined to bed during a recent trip to Würzburg and Fulda due to a serious case of gout (V. Wynn. 113.1-8). The episode highlights the attraction that Monte Cassino held for the Anglo-Saxon monks. Noble (2000), xxiii incorrectly states that Wynnebald ‘lived at Monte Cassino for some years’. 111 V. Wynn., 113.27-114.20. See Bauch (1962), 184, n. 42. 112 On the life of Walburga, see Appel (1984), Bauch (1970a) and (1962), 249-75; also see Wolfhard, Miraculis S. Waldburgis. Willibald survived Walburga, who died on February 25, most likely in the year 779. After her death, the monastery appears to have come under the direct leadership of Willibald, as it was inherited by Willibald’s successor, Gerhoh (d. 806). On Gerhoh, see Kreitmeir (1992), 8-9. 113 On the Anglo-Saxon tradition of the double monastery, see Bateson (1899), esp. 184-5 and Godfrey (1976). 106 107

39

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 40

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

September 24, 778.114 Between these two events – on Tuesday, June 23, 778 – Willibald dictated the story of his life and travels to Hugeburc in the monastery of Heidenheim. Sometime after the martyrdom of Boniface in 754, the priest Sola (d. 794) settled in the area under Willibald’s jurisdiction,115 and while there are no extant traces of Willibald’s own writings, sometime during his episcopal career, he seems to have written a letter to the pope addressing the Christian character of the area.116 Willibald was also active in the conciliar work of the church.117 In April 742, he took part in the Concilium Germanicum, a council convened by Boniface and Carloman,118 for the purpose of reforming the Austrasian, or eastern Frankish, church.119 The decisions of the Concilium Germanicum were signed by Boniface and six other bishops, including Willibald.120 In either 746 or 747, Willibald participated in a special synod of Anglo-Saxon bishops again convened by Boniface. One result of the episcopal gathering, whose location is unknown, was the composition of a letter to King Æthelbald of Mercia (716-57), Britain’s most powerful ruler at the time.121 The letter, which was signed by Willibald, was a rebuke of the king’s sexual misconduct, particularly with respect to his behavior towards ‘holy nuns and virgins vowed to God’.122 In 762, Willibald participated, along with seventeen abbots and twenty-six other bishops, in the synod of Attigny convened by Chrodegang of Metz (d. 766).123 A confraternity was formed at the synod for the purpose of mutual prayer, which entitled members to one hundred masses and one hundred spoken psalms upon their death. Willibald’s signature appears on the twenty-first line of the proceedings as Willibaldus episcopus de monasterio Achistadi.124 Along with his conciliar work, Willibald participated in the conferment of holy orders: in On the new church in Heidenheim, see V. Wynn., 115.1-17. On the translation of Wynnebald, see V. Wynn., 115.37-117.11. 115 Ermanrich, Vita Sualonis, 158.36-8. 116 Heidingsfelder (1938), 14. 117 See Hartmann (1989); also see Cubitt (1995). 118 On the life of Carloman, who abdicated his rule in 747, see Wood (1994a) and Wallace-Hadrill (1983). 119 On the Concilium Germanicum, see Jäschke (1974), Jarnut (1979), Angenendt (1996), 1289 ff, Schieffer (1972), 208-11, Levison (1946), 83-6 and Reuter (1994). 120 Boniface, Ep., 44 [Tangl, 56]. 121 On the life of Æthelbald, see York (1990), esp. 111-7. 122 Boniface, Ep., 57 [Tangl, 73]. The letter is also discussed in section 4.2.2.7. 123 On the Synod of Attigny, see Claussen (2004), 55-7. For a map of the places represented by the participants of the synod, see Ewig (1979), 226. 124 Willibald was one of five monastic bishops at the synod of Attigny. See Heidingsfelder (1938), 11. 114

40

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 41

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

785/6, he assisted Lull of Mainz (d. 786) and Megingaud of Würzburg with the episcopal consecration of a priest by the name of Bernwelf.125 Willibald’s name also appears in a number of legal documents. He is the third co-signer of the testament of Bishop Remigius of Strasbourg, which is dated March 15, 778.126 Sometime after March 25, 783, Willibald witnessed the deed of a certain Abbess Einhild of Milz,127 and on October 8, 786, less than a year before his death, Willibald transferred property to the monastery of Fulda.128 Although no details have survived, tradition places Willibald’s death on July 7, 787.129

2.2 Willibald’s Holy Land Travels Willibald was in the Holy Land for little more than two years, arriving in the summer or autumn of 724 and departing from Tyre on the feast of St Andrew (November 30) in 726.130 Willibald stayed in Jerusalem on four separate occasions. Thus, in addition to his entry and departure, Willibald made three circuits of the region in between his four sojourns in the Holy City. 2.2.1 Willibald’s Entry into the Holy Land After a week’s stay in Damascus, where he visited the tomb of Ananias and the Church of Paul’s Conversion,131 Willibald journeyed to

Heidingsfelder (1938), 13. Heidingsfelder (1938), 12. 127 Heidingsfelder (1938), 12. 128 Heidingsfelder (1938), 12-3. On the monastery of Fulda, see Heinemeyer (1980). 129 On the death of Willibald, see Wagner (1990), Heidingsfelder (1938) and Bauch (1962), 88-9, n. 10. On the legacy of Willibald, see Appel, Braun and Hofmann (1987). 130 Willibald left Cyprus for Syria after Easter 724 and arrived in Jerusalem on November 11 of the same year. During this time, he was imprisoned in Emesa for a number of weeks. Therefore, he entered the Holy Land in the summer or autumn of 724. On Willibald’s approach to Jerusalem, see map 2. Also see Bauch (1962), karte 3 and JW (2002), 238. On the road systems of Palestine, see Avi-Yonah (1950-1), 54-60 and (1966) and Roll (1995) and (1998). 131 VW, 95.17-21. On Ananias and the conversion of Paul, see Act 9:1-18 and Meinardus (1981). Willibald does not mention the Cathedral of St John the Baptist (see Adomnán, DLS, 2.28.2) since it had been destroyed by Caliph al-Wali¯d (d. 715) to make room for the Great Mosque. See Creswell (1989), 46-73. 125 126

41

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 42

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the Galilee.132 It is difficult to reconcile Willibald’s movements with his account of the Galilee, which, beginning with Nazareth and Cana, initially follows the chronology of Jesus’ childhood and early ministry.133 Willibald’s account of Nazareth begins with a description of the Church of the Annunciation: the locus ubi Gabriel primum venit ad sancta Maria et dixit: ‘Have Maria’.134 Here, Willibald provides his only reference to the Muslim presence inside the Holy Land – illam aecclesiam christiani homines sepe conparabant ad paganis Sarracinis, qui illi volebant eam destruere.135 The statement reveals Willibald’s perceptions of the precarious nature of the Christian holy sites and the tensions that existed between the two religious communities. From Nazareth, Willibald made the short journey to the village of Cana ubi Dominus aquas in vino convertit.136 A magna aecclesia commemorated the site of Jesus’ first public miracle;137 upon its altar was unum de 6 hydriis, quas Dominus iusserat implere aqua, et in vinum verse sunt. In what appears to have been a pilgrim ritual, Willibald and his companions communicaverunt de illo vinum.138 From Cana, Willibald climbed Mt Tabor, the traditional site of the Transfiguration, where he found a monastery and a church 132 On Willibald’s description of the Galilee, see VW, 95.21-14. On the sites of Galilee, see Kopp (1949), (1950a) and (1950b). 133 See map 2 and Hagen (1987), 65. Willibald was also in the Galilee during his second and third circuits of the Holy Land; therefore, his description may conflate the three trips. However, Willibald provides a convincing account of his travels from Nazareth to Caesarea Philippi, couching his point-to-point descriptions of the Galilee with references to his own movements and to his lengths of stay. For example, Willibald stayed one day in Cana (VW, 95.28), one night in Bethsaida (VW, 96.5) and one night near the source of the Jordan River (VW, 96.9). 134 Lk 1:26-38. On the sites of Nazareth, see Alliata (1995). On the Church of the Annunciation, see Kopp (1963), 49-86, R. Schick (1995), 419-20, Ovadiah (1970), 144-5, nr. 147, Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1982), 159-60, Bagatti (1969) and Finegan (1992), 43-53. Also see Livio (1990). 135 VW, 95.23-4. See section 4.2.2.2. 136 VW, 95.25-8. The location of biblical Cana – either kafr kenna, nine kilometers northeast of Nazareth, or khirbet kana, fourteen kilometers north of Nazareth – is disputed. Willibald most likely visited the site of kafr kenna, the present-day site of the commemoration. See Kopp (1963), 143-54, R. Schick (1995), 362, Bagatti (1964-5), 269-92 and Loffreda (1969). 137 Jn 2:1-11. 138 Whereas Willibald drank wine from the jar, the Piacenza Pilgrim (Itin., 4, trans. JW (2002), 131) comments that he ‘filled one of them up with wine and lifted it up full onto [his] shoulder’.

42

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 43

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

consecrated to Moses and Elijah.139 He then descended to Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee where he stayed for a number of days.140 He associates the sea with Jesus’ walking on the water,141 and in his only reference to the contemporary Jewish presence in the Holy Land, he states that the area had numerous churches and synagogues, adding that the Lord was held in magna honor. Travelling along the sea, Willibald passed through Magdala,142 before coming to the village of Capernaum ubi Dominus principis filiam suscitavit.143 He then travelled to Bethsaida, the hometown of Peter and Andrew, whose domus had been converted into a church.144 He stayed one night in Bethsaida before visiting Chorazin ubi Dominus demoniacos curavit et diabolos mittebat in gregem porcorum.145 Willibald then headed north towards Caesarea Philippi, which had a church and a large number of Christians,146 and then to the VW, 95.28-31. Mt 17:1-13, Mk 9:2-8 and Lk 9:28-36. On Mt Tabor and the commemoration of the Transfiguration, see JW (2002), 356, Kopp (1963), 242-7, R. Schick (1995), 412-3, Ovadiah (1970), 71, nr. 60, Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1982), 132 and Thomson (1967). 140 On Willibald’s description of Tiberias, see VW, 95.31-4. On the Christian presence in Tiberias, see R. Schick (1995), 464-5. 141 Mt 14:22-36, Mk 6:45-56 and Jn 6:16-21. 142 VW, 96.1. Epiphanius, Hag., 32 refers to a church containing the house of Mary Magdalene. On Magdala, see Shanks (2007), Corbo (1974) and Kopp (1963), 190-7. 143 VW, 96.1-4. On the healing of the centurion’s daughter, see Mt 9:18-26. On Capernaum, see Loffreda (1993), R. Schick (1995), 279-80, Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1981), 209-11, nr. 191, Kopp (1963), 171-9, Corbo (1969) and Finegan (1992), 97-111. Willibald omits the nearby site of the Seven Springs, or Heptapegon, associated with the miracle of the Multiplication (Mk 6:30-44). See Adomnán, DLS, 2.24, Pixner (1985a) and Murphy-O’Connor (1998), 277-81. 144 VW, 96.4-5. Strickert (1998), 29 writes regarding Willibald’s description: ‘Here the place of Peter and Andrew has been elevated so that Philip [who is associated in Jn 1:44 with the town of Bethsaida] has dropped out of the picture. However, the mention of the church may point to a confusion with a visit to Capernaum. There is no archeological evidence for such a structure at Bethsaida’. Given the general reliability of Willibald’s account, it is unlikely that he is confusing Bethsaida with Capernaum. See Pixner (1985b), 207-16, Kopp (1963), 180-6 and R. Schick (1995), 269-70. 145 VW, 96.5-7. Mt 8:28-34, Mk 5:11-20 and Lk 8:32-9. On the site of the miracle of the Swine, or Kursi, see Tzaferis (1989b), R. Schick (1995), 387-8 and Abel (1927). Located on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, Willibald’s reference to the site as Chorazin (Mt 11:21 and Lk 10:13), presently associated with a ruined city three km northwest of Capernaum, is not in error. The name, Chorazin, was used until the end of the Crusades to designate the site commemorating the miracle of the Swine. See Kopp (1950) and Bauch (1962), 99, n. 104. 146 VW, 96.14. On Caesarea Philippi, see Kopp (1963), 231-5 and R. Schick (1995), 423. On the early pilgrim cult at Caesarea Philippi (Paneas), see Franco Beatrice (1989). 139

43

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 44

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

headwaters of the Jordan River, where he was impressed by the local cattle: They breed remarkable cattle (mirabilia armenta) there, long in the back, short in the leg, and with huge horns. They are all the same color, purple. In that place there are deep swamps, so when summer comes, and the sun is very hot and scorches the land, these cattle move over to the swamps, and submerge their whole body, with only their head sticking out.147

Willibald also recalled that the local shepherds had given his party some sour milk!148 From Caesarea, Willibald resumes his approach to Jerusalem. Following the Jordan River Valley, Willibald came to the monastery of St John the Baptist.149 The monastery had around twenty monks and stood a mile from the ipse locus where Jesus was baptized: ibi est nunc aecclesia in columnis lapideis sursum elevata, et subtus aecclesia est nunc arida terra, ubi Dominus fuit baptizatus in ipso loco; et ubi nunc baptizant, ibi stat crux lignea in medio, et parva dirivatio aque stat illic, et unus funiculus extensus supra Iordannem, hinc et inde firmatus.150 On the feast of Epiphany, the infirmi et egroti venientes et habent se de funiculo et sic demergant in aquam, sed et mulieres que sunt stereles venient ibi.151 Willibald concludes his account of the place of Jesus’ baptism by adding that he also bathed in the river.152 A few miles away at Gilgal was a small wooden church containing the twelve stones erected by the Israelites as a memorial of their crossing of the Jordan.153 Willibald then travelled to Jericho, where he visited Elisha’s spring.154 147 VW, 96.10-3, trans. in JW (2002), 240. See JW (2002), 240, n. 24 and Bauch (1962), 99, n. 107. 148 VW, 96.10: pastores dabant nobis acrum lac bibere. Hugeburc accidentally leaves the wording in the first person, highlighting the dictational nature of the text. 149 VW, 96.15-23. On the place of Jesus’ baptism and the monastery of St John the Baptist, see Kopp (1963), 113-37, R. Schick (1995), 430, Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1981), 249, nr. 244 and Milik (1960), 581. 150 VW, 96.17-20. 151 VW, 96.21-2. 152 VW, 96.22-3 and VW, 104.5-6. 153 VW, 97.1-4. On Gilgal, see R. Schick (1995), 300. The church with its twelve stones appears on the Madaba Map. 154 VW, 97.4-9. Elisha’s spring is described in 2 Kgs 2:19-22. The spring is mentioned by Theodosius, DSTS, 1 and also appears on the Madaba Map. See JW (2002), 299 and R. Schick (1995), 322-4.

44

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 45

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

From there, he journeyed to the monastery of Euthymius,155 halfway between Jericho and Jerusalem, before making his initial ascent into the Holy City. 2.2.2 Willibald’s First Sojourn in Jerusalem Willibald arrived in Jerusalem on November 11, 724,156 most likely taking accommodations near the Holy Sepulchre.157 He immediately took ill and convalesced for over a month before exploring the holy sites of the city.158 Willibald left Jerusalem in time to celebrate Christmas in Bethlehem.159 2.2.3 Willibald’s First Circuit of the Holy Land Willibald’s first circuit of the Holy Land took him south of Jerusalem.160 Willibald visited the Shepherds’ Field ubi angelus pastoribus apparuit, dicens ‘Adnuntio vobis gaudium magnum’,161 before preceding to Bethlehem ubi Dominus natus est for the feast of the Nativity.162 According to Willibald, Jesus had been born in a spelunca sub terra and a gloriosa church in similitudine crucis stood over the cave. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Willibald’s description of the Church of the Nativity is his reference to the church’s two altars. While the permanent altar was in the church, a smaller, portable altar was used quando volunt ibi intus missam celebrare in spelunca. When mass was over, iterum levant illum foras. From Bethlehem, Willibald continued to Tekoa, the place ubi infants quondam occisi fuerant ab Herode.163 He also saw the tomb of 155 VW, 97.9 actually reads: et inde pergebant ad monasterium Sancti Eustochii. On the monastery of Euthymius, see R. Schick (1995), 367-8, Hirschfeld (1990), 15-8, Ovadiah (1970), 103-4, nr. 97 and Chitty (1932). 156 VW, 97.25: et illic veniebat in festivatate sancti Martini episcopus noster. 157 Since Willibald was familiar with the Holy Sepulchre prior to his circuit of Jerusalem, which took place after his five-week illness, he appears to have stayed in a hostel near the church. 158 VW, 97.26-8. 159 VW, 97.26-7, together with VW, 98.23-99.1, implies that Willibald travelled to Bethlehem for the feast of the Nativity; also see Bauch (1962), 112, n. 176. 160 See map 3. 161 VW, 98.23-4. The Shepherds’ Field appears in Lk 2:8-18. It is uncertain whether the site mentioned by Willibald is Keniset er-Ra‘wat or Khirbat Siyar el-Ghanam. On the former site, see Tzaferis (1975) and (1993a). For a view advocating Khirbat Siyar el-Ghanam, see Corbo (1987). Also see R. Schick (1995), 365-6 and 384. 162 On Willibald’s description of Bethlehem, see VW, 98.24-99.1. On the Church of the Nativity, see Petrozzi (2000), R. Schick (1995), 266-9, Hamilton (1947), 266-9 and Vincent and Abel (1914a). Also see Murphy-O’Connor (2000) and JW (1976), 82-3. 163 VW, 99.1-2.

45

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 46

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

unus de prophetis, presumably Amos.164 From there, he went to the monastery of St Saba.165 Its Judean setting and its monastic structure were of particular interest to Willibald, who observed monks living both in the monastery and in small cells carved into the steep mountain valley. Following the valley between Bethlehem and Gaza, Willibald encountered a small church commemorating the place ubi Philippus baptizavit eunuchum.166 From there, he continued to Gaza where he visited an unnamed sanctus locus.167 Somewhere near Gaza, Willibald attended Mass at the Church of St Matthias,168 where he was struck with a blindness that lasted for two months: cumque sacra missarum sollemnia ibi fuerant celebrata, episcopus noster Willibaldus stans ibi ad missam lumen oculorum amisit et cecus fuit duos menses.169 Willibald then proceeds to describe his itinerary, failing to indicate how the blindness effected his negotiation of the Palestinian terrain on his return to Jerusalem.170 From St Matthias, he travelled to St Zacharias, which, he stipulates, was not the father of John the Baptist sed alius prophete.171 Finally, he visited the tombs of the Patriarchs in Hebron, or Aframia, where the tres patriarche, Abraham, Isac et Iacob, requiescent cum uxoribus suis, before returning to Jerusalem.172 164 VW, 99.2-3. Jerome, Ep., 108.12.1 associates Tekoa with Amos, while Cyril of Scythopolis, Lives of the Monks of Palestine, 123.20 testifies to a shrine dedicated to Amos. According to the twelfth-century report of Daniel the Abbot (WB, 56, trans. in JW (1988), 149), ‘there is a great cave beneath the church and in this cave lie the twelve prophets in three sepulchres: Habakkuk, Nahum, Micah, Ezekiah, Adbias, Zachariah, Ezekiel, Ismael, Saveil, Baruch, Amos and Hosea’. On the site of Tekoa, see Escobar (1976), R. Schick (1995), 461-2 and Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1981), 256-7, nr. 255. 165 VW, 99.3-8. On the monastery of St Saba, see R. Schick (1995), 402-3, Hirschfeld (1990), 31-2 and Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1981), 240-2, nrs. 234-5. 166 VW, 99.8-9. On Bethzur, the site of the baptism of the Eunuch, see Bauch (1962), 108, n. 145 and JW (2002), 289. 167 VW, 99.9-10. See R. Schick (1995), 298-300. 168 See Bauch (1962), 108-9, n. 149 and R. Schick (1995), 298. Since the location of St Matthias is unknown, it is omitted from map 3. 169 VW, 99.11-2. 170 Willibald’s blindness raises numerous questions, including the implication that he was unable to see the tombs of St Zacharias and the Patriarchs. 171 VW, 99.12-3. St Zacharias (Bethzachara) is mentioned by Theodosius, DSTS, 3, the Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 32 and appears on the Madaba Map; see Alliata (1998), 78. Also see Bauch (1962), 109, nts. 152 and 153, JW (2002), 292 and Tsafrir (1986), 130, n. 9. 172 VW, 99.14-5. On the tombs of the Patriarchs, see Vincent and Mackay (1923) and R. Schick (1995), 304. The route of Willibald’s journey through southern Palestine appears to be somewhat confused (see map 3). JW (2002), 244, n. 33 suggests that Willibald has conflated two journeys (compare Willibald’s movements with the two itineraries listed in Theodosius, DSTS, 3 and 5). Although Willibald’s descriptions may not reflect the actual sequence of his itinerary, his movements comprise a single trip since he expressly states that he made four sojourns in Jerusalem (VW, 104.8) — and, thus, only three intervening journeys.

46

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 47

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

2.2.4 Willibald’s Second Sojourn in Jerusalem The restoration of Willibald’s eyesight took place soon after his return to the Holy City: et inde venit iterum in Hierusalem, et introiens in aecclesiam ubi sancta crux Domini inventa fuerat, aperti sunt oculi eius, et visionem recipit.173 Although the duration of his second sojourn is uncertain – he stayed in Jerusalem for aliquantulum tempus174 – Willibald likely returned from southern Palestine in time for the Easter festival and remained in the city for the feasts of Ascension and Pentecost.175 2.2.5 Willibald’s Second Circuit of the Holy Land Willibald’s second circuit of the Holy Land began in the late spring or summer of 725.176 He visited the cities of the Mediterranean coast as far as Tripoli and then crossed over to Damascus, following the Jordan Valley back to Jerusalem. On his way to the sea, Willibald stopped at the Church of St George in Diospolis, or Lydda,177 before arriving in Joppa. There, he visited the aecclesia sancti Petri where the apostle suscitavit viduam qui fuit nominate Dorca.178 Travelling north along the coast of the ‘Adriatic sea’,179 Willibald came ad urbes Tyro et Sidone.180 The cities frequently appear as a unit in the scriptural text.181 Thus, despite providing some topographical clarity regarding the two cities – 6 milia sunt inter illis duabus urbibus, et stant in litore maris182 – Willibald follows suit, stating that he came to the cities of ‘Tyre and Sidon’ rather than to Tyre and then to Sidon. Tyre offers an interesting case study regarding Willibald’s descriptions of sacred 173 174

VW, 99.15-7. See sections 3.1.5 and 4.1.6. VW, 99.16-7.

175

On the feasts of Ascension and Pentecost in the Jerusalem liturgy, see Kretschmar (1955). 176 Willibald’s second circuit of the Holy Land is described in VW, 99.17-100.1. See map 4. On the coastal cities, see El’ad (1982). 177 On the Church of St George, see R. Schick (1995), 389-91, Ovadiah (1970), 130-1, nr. 134 and Bauch (1962), 110, n. 157. 178 VW 99.18-9. On the Church of St Peter in Joppa, see Bauch (1962), 110, nts. 158-60 and R. Schick (1995), 359. 179 Compare VW, 99.20 (venit ad mare Adrian) with Saewulf, Relatio, 5. Bauch (1962), 110, n. 161 and JW (2002), 245, n. 35 and 278 argue that the reference is a mistake. 180 On Tyre, see Bauch (1962), 110, n. 162 and R. Schick (1995), 466-86; on Sidon, see Bauch (1962), 110, n. 163. On the region of Tyre and Sidon, see Bikai (1998). 181 The cities are frequently mentioned in the biblical text, appearing separately and as a unit in both the Old and New Testaments. 182 VW, 99.21. The actual distance between the two cities is 42 km. See Bauch (1962), 111, n. 164.

47

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 48

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

space. While he initially treats Tyre as a biblical city, he describes the place in socio-political terms upon his exit from the Holy Land.183 From Tyre, Willibald followed the coast to the city of Tripoli;184 he then crossed Mt Lebanon for Damascus before returning to Jerusalem via Caesarea Philippi.185 2.2.6 Willibald’s Third Sojourn in Jerusalem The only information known about Willibald’s third sojourn in the Holy City is the statement that he ibi fuit totum hiemen.186 Therefore, he must have returned from his second circuit at least by the late autumn of 725.187 Regarding his departure, since he was in northern Syria for all of Lent, which began on February 9, 726, Willibald must have left Jerusalem sometime in January. The timing suggests that he departed Jerusalem in time to celebrate the feast of Epiphany at the place of Jesus’ baptism.188 2.2.7 Willibald’s Third Circuit of the Holy Land Willibald’s third circuit of the Holy Land, which took place during the late winter and spring of 726, is perhaps the most intriguing as no sancti loci are mentioned in the account.189 The circuit is introduced as follows: pergit super 300 milia ad urbem Emesam in Syriae; et inde venit ad urbe Salamaitha, illa est in extremis finibus Syrium.190 The purpose of Willibald’s journey to northern Syria, let alone to Salaminias,191 is uncertain; however, it was likely taken for one of two reasons – Willibald’s party either intended to leave the Holy Land altogether, or they specifically See sections 4.2.2.4-5. See Bauch (1962), 111, n. 165. 185 VW, 99.22-100.2. The absence of details regarding his journey to Jerusalem suggests that he took the same route (i.e., via the Jordan River Valley) as he had during his initial approach to the Holy City. 186 VW, 100.1-2. 187 It is possible that he was in Jerusalem for the 14 September feast of the Holy Cross; however, he was more likely attended the festival the following year during his fourth and final sojourn in the city. See below. 188 Although he does not mention being present for the occasion, he refers to the feast in his description of the site (VW, 96.21). 189 VW, 100.2-12. See map 5. Although Willibald was in Emesa twice during his third circuit of the Holy Land, the places are numbered as they first appear in the text. 190 VW, 100.2-3. The distance between Emesa and Jerusalem is approximately 230 km not 450 km (300 miles) as noted by Willibald. 191 On Salaminias, see Bauch (1962), 111, n. 169. 183 184

48

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 49

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

returned to Emesa in order to renew their visas for another year.192 During their lengthy imprisonment in Emesa, Willibald and his companions had developed a strong relationship with the area’s Christian community. It is unclear, however, what bearing these relationships had, if any, upon the original purpose of their journey. If their intent was to renew their papers, they apparently bypassed Emesa without pursuing the issue. Once in Salaminias, where their presence may be explained by their connections with the region’s Christian community, Willibald contracted an illness which forced him to remain in the city throughout the season of Lent. Only then does the pilgrims’ concern for renewing their visas surface in the narrative. With Willibald bedridden, some of his companions went in search of the rex Sarracinorum in order to obtain the necessary papers. Their efforts were in vain, however, since the rex himself had fled the area due to the epidemic.193 The pilgrims then returned to Salaminias until the end of Lent.194 A week before Easter, the entire party returned to Emesa, presumably timing their arrival in order to celebrate the festival with the Christian community that had befriended them during their previous ordeal in prison. They also succeeded in procuring new visas from the governor (preses), but he stipulated that the party travel in pairs in order to have an easier time obtaining food.195 With the documents in hand, the pilgrims returned to Jerusalem. 2.2.8 Willibald’s Fourth Sojourn in Jerusalem Willibald’s fourth and final sojourn in Jerusalem took place during the summer of 726.196 It began sometime after March 24, when Willibald was in Emesa for Easter, and ended well before November 30, when he departed Tyre for Constantinople. During his fourth sojourn in the Jerusalem, Willibald was almost certainly present for the August 15 feast of the Dormition as well as the 14 September feast of the Holy Cross, the latter providing him with one of his final images of the Holy City. 192 There were seven others with him during his first visit to Emesa (VW, 94.13). Since the matter involved renewing their visas, the party most likely comprised the same eight people. 193 See Bauch (1962), 111, n. 172 and JW (2002), 245, n. 37. 194 The distance between the two cities is approximately 50 km. 195 It is unclear whether the governor’s demand was an intentional restraint imposed upon the pilgrims or a helpful gesture on their behalf. Given the dangers of travelling in small groups, there is no reason to believe that the party actually travelled in pairs. 196 VW, 100.12-3. Willibald describes the fourth sojourn as lasting aliquantum tempus.

49

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 50

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

2.2.9 Willibald’s Departure from the Holy Land Willibald departed the Holy Lands in the autumn of 726.197 Leaving Jerusalem, he took the road through Samaria to the port of Tyre. On his way, visited the Church of Jacob’s Well, which commemorated the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman.198 His description of the church includes the woman’s reply to Jesus: patres nostri in monte hoc adoraverunt, et tu dicis, quod in Hierosolimis est locus, ubi adorare oportet.199 He also passed through the city of Sebastia, where requiescent nunc sanctus Iohannis baptista et Abdias et Heliseus propheta.200 He also stopped for the night in an unnamed magna villa.201 Willibald’s journey then took him through a large olive grove where he encountered a lion qui aperto ore rugiens rancusque eos rapere ac devore cupiens.202 The crisis was mitigated by an Ethiopian man travelling with his wife, two camels and a mule. Upon seeing the lion, the Ethiopian told Willibald and his fellow pilgrims: nolite timere vos, sed pergamus inante. As they moved forward, the lion fled, allowing the party to continue their journey.203 With the flight of the lion of Samaria, Willibald provides his final image of the Holy Land. Although Willibald did not leave the region until his embarkation from the port of Tyre, the text instantly shifts from descriptions of a sacred nature – the Christian Holy Land – to the exigencies of his pilgrim travels. While his previous reference to Tyre evokes the biblical landscape of ‘Tyre and Sidon’, in describing his departure from the Holy Land, Willibald’s attention returns to the

197 See map 6. Willibald introduces Sebastia before he describes the Well of Jacob. He also mentions the caput Libani and the turris Libani, which are not identified on the map. 198 VW, 100.16-21; Jn 4:5-42. On the well of Jacob, see Kopp (1963), 155-66, Finegan (1992), 72-6, Bull (1975), R. Schick (1995), 417, Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1981), 244-6, nr. 240 and Bagatti (1965-6). 199 VW, 100.19-20; Jn 4:20. Although the scripture is a critique of temple worship, the verse may reflect Willibald’s satisfaction from having prayed at the tomb of Christ and other the sancti loci of Jerusalem. 200 VW, 100.12-6. See R. Schick (1995), 448-9. 201 VW, 100.20-1. 202 VW, 100.21-101.1; also see section 4.3.2.3. 203 Later, the pilgrims heard the lion give a loud roar, which they interpreted as its desire to devour some people harvesting olives (VW, 100.29-101.1).

50

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 51

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

socio-political context of his travels – the presence of the Saracen authorities and his own personal security.204 From Samaria, Willibald journeyed to the seaside city of Ptolemais, or Acre,205 and then followed the coast north to the turris Libani.206 According to Willibald, those travelling through the area without a carta were arrested and taken to Tyre.207 Since he had the appropriate papers, he proceeded without incident. However, his reference to valid visas, an issue that indelibly shaped his Holy Land experience, underscores the anxiety the problem had previously caused Willibald and his fellow companions. Willibald’s final act in the Holy Land was the smuggling of some balsam through the customs of Tyre.208 To do so, Willibald devised a clever, though risky, plan by which he filled a gourd (munerba) with the balsam and then took a hollow cane that had a firm bottom and filled it with the stronger smelling substance of petroleum (petre oleo).209 He inserted the cane into the balsam-filled gourd, cut the cane level with the outer edge of the gourd and closed the hole. The scheme went according to plan. When the authorities searched his baggage, they opened the gourd. Once they smelled the petroleum, they returned the gourd and let Willibald go. After a wait of several days, Willibald left Tyre on November 30, 726 for the city of Constantinople.210

204 Willibald’s descriptions of Tyre evoke the distinctions of Harrison (1996), 1-16 between the concepts of macro-space and micro-space in the medieval world. Whereas micro-space relates to the empirically-known world, macro-spatial attitudes refer to the cosmological framework of the mind. Macro-space has little to do with geography. Rather, it is a cosmological category ‘embracing God, religion and human beings within what on the surface looks like a geographical context’ (p. 2). In describing his departure from the Holy Land, Willibald has shifted from macro-spatial language to the concerns of micro-space. 205 Willibald refers to the city as Thalamaitha (VW, 101.1-2). See Bauch (1962), 114, n. 189 and R. Schick (1995), 241-2. Also see Act 21:7. 206 On the turris Libani, also mentioned in Song 7:4, see Bauch (1962), 114, n. 190. 207 VW, 101.3-5: et qui illic venit non habens cartam, non pertransiret locum, qui in custodia est ille locus et est claustrum; sed cito, si venerit sine carta, tollent illum cives et mittunt ad urbe Tyro. 208 VW, 101.6-16. The episode is often highlighted in the secondary literature on Willibald. See Sumption (1975), 209, Ohler (1989), 63 and Yorke (1995), 308. 209 Willibald claims that he would have been put to death had they found the balsam (VW, 101.12-3: cito illos punientes martyrizarent). 210 VW, 101.17-8.

51

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 52

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

2.2.10 Conclusion: Willibald’s Holy Land Travels Two points are worth raising regarding Willibald’s Holy Land travels. First of all, despite his reticence on the subject, one can assume that he arranged his movements according to the Jerusalem liturgy.211 Indeed, it appears that he was in Jerusalem for the feasts of Easter, the Ascension, Pentecost, the Dormition and the Holy Cross. Significantly, each festival relates to a site described in his account of the Holy City. The argument that he was present for the Jerusalem-based festivals is further strengthened by his presumed attendance in Bethlehem for Christmas and at the site of Jesus’ baptism for Epiphany. Secondly, none of his four stays in Jerusalem lasted more than a few months. Nonetheless, Willibald was in residence long enough to become well-familiar with the city and to visit its holy places on a number of occasions.

2.3 The Jerusalem Context 2.3.1 Historical Summary 2.3.1.1 The Pre-Constantinian Period The first significant alteration to biblical Jerusalem was the expansion of the city by King Agrippa (reigned 41-4 CE).212 His so-called Third Wall enlarged the city to the north and the west, incorporating the site traditionally identified as the Calvarie locus.213 The Jewish Temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE, and the city was fundamentally reshaped by Hadrian, who reconstituted Jerusalem as the Roman city, Aelia Capitolina, in the 130s.214 A large Roman column stood inside the 211 One can further assume that Willibald was an active participant in the daily liturgy of Jerusalem. 212 On the archaeology of Jerusalem, see Geva (2000), 1-28, Kenyon (1967) and (1974), Stern (1993), Avi-Yohan (1975-8), Mackowski (1980) and Negev (1972). For older works on the subject, see Williams (1849) and Wilson and Warren (1871). On the archaeology of New Testament Jerusalem, see Finegan (1992) and JW (1978a). 213 A description of the so-called Third Wall and its ascription to King Agrippa is given by Josephus, The Jewish War, 5.147-159 in Whiston (1999), 852-4. Also see Avi-Yonah (1968), Shanks (1987), Hamrick (1977) and (1981), Kloner (1986) and Wightman (1993), 159-84. 214 On Aelia Capitolina, see Golan (1986), Vincent and Abel (1914b), 1-39, Avi-Yonah (1940b), 8-9, JW (1976), 75-80, Cohn (1987), 115-40, Mare (1987), 201-15, Kenyon (1974), 256-64, Margalit (1989), and Bahat (1990), 58-67. It is unclear whether Hadrian’s refounding of Jerusalem was the cause or the consequence of the Second Jewish Revolt.

52

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 53

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

North Gate, which is still known in Arabic as Ba¯b al-‘Amu¯d, or ‘the Gate of the Column’.215 The city had two cardines, both beginning at the North Gate and running towards the south. The cardines were crossed by the decamanus, which joined the eastern and western forums of the city.216 A temple was built immediately to the north of the city’s western forum over the site traditionally associated with the Crucifixion and Burial of Jesus.217 Roman activity on the Temple Mount is of less interest to the study since the area was neglected by Byzantine Christians and forbidden to Christians of the Early Islamic period. Most scholars accept the presence of a sustained Christian community throughout the Roman period, which retained a living memory of the holy sites.218 Although the practice was not widespread, Christian travel to the city is recorded prior to the reign of Constantine.219 2.3.1.2 The Byzantine Period With Constantine’s ascension over Licinius in 323, Jerusalem became the focus of a new Christendom. Much of the development of Christian Jerusalem during what is regionally known as the Byzantine period (325-614)220 was the result of imperial patronage. Besides The column is discussed in section 3.1.4.4. The decamanus did not run in a straight line; rather, it came off the eastern cardo at two separate locations. 217 Since the primary sources are confused, the identity of the West Forum temple, which included a statue of Venus, or Aphrodite, is debated. At issue is the location of the Capitoline temple, or the temple of Jupiter. According to Murphy-O’Connor (1994), 407-15: ‘despite the evidence of Jerome and certain Late Byzantine texts, the Holy Sepulchre remains the most probable site of the Capitoline temple’. Gibson and Taylor (1994), 68-71 argue that the Capitoline temple was located near the Antonia Fortress. Bahat (1990), 59 locates it on the Temple Mount. 218 On the Christian community in Jerusalem between the first and fourth centuries, see the opposing arguments of Bagatti (1971) and Taylor (1993). Also see section 3.4. 219 On pre-Constantinian pilgrimage to Jerusalem, see Windisch (1925), Hunt (1999), Maraval (2002) and Harvey (1966). 220 The time between the Persian conquest and the Arab conquest will be regarded as the Inter-conquest period (614-638) and not as a continuation of the Byzantine period. On Byzantine Jerusalem, see Peters (1985), 131-75, P.W.L. Walker (1990), Tsafrir (1978) and the works of Wilkinson. On the topography of Byzantine Jerusalem, see Vincent and Abel (1914b), Milik (1960) and (1961), Ovadiah (1970), Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1981) and (1984), Bahat (1990), 68-79 and Mare (1987), 217-61. On Holy Land pilgrimage during the Byzantine period, see Hunt (1984) and (1981), Ousterhout (1990a), Maraval (1995) and Bitton-Ashkelony (1998). On Christian perceptions of the holy places, including the concept of the Holy Land, see Wilken (1992b) and Turner (1965). On the Christian legacy of Byzantine Jerusalem, see O. Grabar (1996), 21-44. For additional studies, see Tsafrir (1998a), Wilken (1988), Hamilton (1952), Rubin (1982) and (1998), and Stroumsa (1989), G.T. Armstrong (1967) and (1969) and Vikan (1982), 74-92, (1991) and (1997). 215 216

53

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 54

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Constantine, who endowed the Holy Land with four churches – the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the Eleona on the Mount of Olives and the basilica at Mamre – Theodosius (reigned 379-95),221 Eudocia (d. 460),222 Justinian (reigned 527-65)223 and Mauritius (d. 602)224 each placed their imperial stamp upon the city. The commemorative landscape was accompanied by the stational liturgy of Jerusalem. While primarily based in the Basilica of Constantine and secondarily in the Church of Holy Sion, the Jerusalem liturgy incorporated the various churches and holy sites of the city into its weekly and annual calendar;225 Jerusalem worship was both public and processional. While the period began with the city’s bishop under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Caesarea, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the see of Jerusalem was recognized as the fifth patriarchate after Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch.226 The Byzantine period also saw the growth of Palestinian monasticism.227 Besides providing custodians for the holy shrines and an infrastructure for pilgrim hospitality, the monasteries – as living models of the Christian life and the burial places of local saints – became loci sancti of their own.228 The Byzantine period was also known for its theological controversies, including Origenism, Pelagianism and

221 Theodosius is generally credited with the construction of the Byzantine Church of the Agony (see Hunt (1972) and (1997b) and section 3.7. 222 Eudocia built the Basilica of St Stephen to the north of the city and extended the city’s southern walls, which re-incorporated Mt Sion (the Western Hill) (see section 3.4). Eudocia was the only imperial patron to have lived in Jerusalem. 223 Justinian built the Nea Church, or the New Church of St Mary. See Procopius, Aedificia Justiniani, 6 and Taylor (2008). He also made a much-maligned attempt, still evident today, to rebuild Constantine’s Church of the Nativity. See Hamilton (1947). 224 The Emperor Mauritius, or Maurice, built the upper part of the Church of St Mary in Gethsemane. See section 3.6.2.3. 225 On the Jerusalem Liturgy in the Byzantine period, see Egeria (It. Eg., 24.1-49.3) and the AL. Also see Baldovin (1987), 45-104, (1989) and (1990), JW (1979) and (1993a) and Bradshaw (1998). 226 See Rubin (1998). 227 On Palestinian monasticism, see Chitty (1966), Hirschfeld (1990), (1992) and (1993), Meinardus (1964-5), (1965-6) and (1969), Patrich (1995), Bottini, Di Segni and Chrupcal-a (1990), Wilken (1998), Perrone (1995) and (1999) and C.H. Turner (1904-5). 228 On the hospitality of monks, including their use as guides, see Egeria, It. Eg., 3.1-22.10. Willibald visited the monasteries of Sabas and Euthymius (VW, 97.9-10 and 99.3-8).

54

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 55

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Monophysism, the later aggravated by the Chalcedonian definition of 451. The monks of Palestine were heavily involved in these theological disputes.229 2.3.1.3 The Persian Conquest of 614 After a three-hundred-year reign, Christian control of the Christian Holy Land came to an end in 614 with the Persian, or Sassanian, siege of Jerusalem led by Chosroes (591-628). The Christian accounts of the events describe it as a bloody and destructive affair.230 While physical evidence for the general destruction of Jerusalem is lacking,231 the Christian structures of the city were looted and burned.232 The Holy Sepulchre and the Church of Holy Sion were soon restored; however, the relic of the True Cross, seized during the sack, remained in Persian possession. Along with the Holy Sepulchre, four important churches were either destroyed or substantially damaged – the Church of Holy Sophia, the Church of the Agony, the Eleona and the Nea. The Church of Holy Sophia, which commemorated Jesus’ trial at the Praetorium of Pilate, was never rebuilt.233 The respective arguments for the post-Byzantine restorations of the Church of the Agony and the Eleona are discussed below.234 In both cases, the sites were restored by the Crusaders in the twelfth century. The Nea, the largest church in Jerusalem, was also significantly damaged.235 The church is mentioned by the Commemoratorium and the Georgian lectionary sources but not 229 On the religious controversies of Palestine, see Perrone (1980), J.N.D. Kelly (1975), Honigman (1950) and Frend (1972). On the theological involvement of the monks of Palestine, see Cyril of Scythopolis, Lives of the Monks of Palestine. 230 Two Christian sources are of particular interest. The first work is the Capture of Jerusalem by Strategius. The second is entitled the History of Heraclius by the Armenian Sebe¯os, trans. in Bedrosian (1985). Also see Conybeare (1910) and Clermont-Ganneau (1898). 231 See Magness (1992), esp. 73. 232 See R. Schick (1999a). 233 On the Church of Holy Sophia, see R. Schick (1995), 330-1, Milik (1960), 362-3, Milik (1961), 136-7, nr. 6 and 151-5, JW (2002), 339. Material remains of the church have not been found. Also see sections 3.5.2.2 and 3.9.1.2. On the biblical and commemorative locations of Jesus’ trial, see Pixner (1979), Benoit (1952) and (1984), Bieberstein (1989) and Vincent (1952). 234 See sections 3.7.2.3 and 3.7.2.1. 235 On the Nea, see Taylor (2008). Ben-Dov (1985), 233-41 suggests that the Jews had a strong motive for destroying the New Church of St Mary since it had been built with reused columns from the Temple. However, it was not heavily damaged or had been repaired by 634 when Sophronius preached a Christmas Eve sermon in the church.

55

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 56

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

by the pilgrim visitors of the Early Islamic period.236 Although the Persian conquest is a watershed in the history of Christian Jerusalem, the extent of its destruction is not always clear. 2.3.1.4 The Inter-conquest Period Persian control of Jerusalem lasted from 614 to 629.237 The Jews, who had assisted the Sassanid invaders, were initially left in charge of the city;238 however, a change in policy began in 617, which returned a degree of sovereignty back to Christian rule. In 628, after years of constant warfare, the Emperor Heraclius (610-41) concluded peace terms with the Sassanians, and Palestine was once again in Byzantine hands.239 Heraclius personally returned the True Cross to Jerusalem in 629 in an occasion marked with particular circumstance.240 Heraclius also renewed Hadrian’s second-century decree, which excluded Jews from the city of Jerusalem, extending the zone to a radius of three miles.241 The Inter-conquest period was a brief, though innovative, chapter in the history of Christian Jerusalem. Under the leadership of Modestus (d. 631), abbot of St Theodosius and then patriarch of Jerusalem, the Christian community began restoring many of the city’s holy sites, beginning with the Holy Sepulchre. Since the restorations took place while the memory of the Christian city was still fresh, the commemorative topography of the Byzantine period largely survived.242 The most significant change concerned the commemoration of Jesus’ Trial before Pilate. Rather than rebuild the ruined Church of Holy Sophia, the 236 Comm., 2; GL, 258 (March 16), 1063 (June 26), 1123 (August 3) and 1251 (September 16). Similar references are found in the Georgian Calendar (see R. Schick (1995), 332-3). The church did not survive into the Crusader period. 237 On the Inter-conquest period, see Mango (1992) and Schick (1995), 20-67. 238 On the role of the Jews in the Persian conquest of Palestine, see R. Schick (1995), 26-31, Stemberger (1998) and Starr (1935). 239 On the Byzantine recovery of Jerusalem, see R. Schick (1995), 49-67. 240 See Meddeb (1996), 64-5, Baynes (1912), Frolow (1953), Grumel (1966), Drijvers (2002) and Mango (1992); also see sections 3.1.4.4 and 3.6.2.2.2. 241 See Starr (1935), 287. 242 See O. Grabar (1996), 19. Although Sebe ¯os, Histoire, 29 reports that the True Cross and other objects from the Jerusalem churches were taken to Constantinople prior to the Arab conquest of the city (see Meddeb (1996), 66-7 and Schick (1995), 75), relics from the Byzantine period are mentioned in the post-Byzantine sources. The crown of thorns in the Church of Holy Sion is described by the AG, 4 and Bernard, It. Bern., 12. The relic of the True Cross is listed in the Comm., 1. The relics of the cup, the sponge and the lance also appear in a number of the post-Byzantine texts. See AG, 1, Adomnán, DLS, 1.7-8 and Epiphanius, Hag., 3.

56

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 57

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

tradition was moved to Mt Sion.243 The period most likely gave rise to newly-built monuments commemorating the legends of the Holy Cross and Mary’s Dormition.244 2.3.1.5 The Early Islamic period The Byzantine restoration of the city came to an end with the Arab, or Muslim, invasion of the mid-630s.245 The Arab army did not sack Jerusalem, and there is little archaeological evidence of conquestrelated destruction.246 After the period of the Caliphs, the Umayyad dynasty (661-750), based in Damascus, was established by Mu‘a¯wiya b. Abi¯ Sufya¯n (reigned 661-80), the governor of Syria since 639.247 A recent ‘reexamination of the archaeological evidence indicates that there was a great deal of Umayyad activity in Jerusalem’,248 while Grabar has emphasized ‘the profound alteration to everything in the city which came out of the extraordinary activities of the Umayyad princes’.249 When Willibald visited Jerusalem in 724–6, the city had been under Islamic control for some ninety years. By then, the greatest architectural monuments of the Umayyad Period – the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque – had been

See AG, 5. See sections 3.1.4 and 3.6.2.2. 245 On the Arab invasion of Palestine, see Kaegi (1969) and (1992), Gil (1996b), Constantelos (1972), Hitti (1961) and Kennedy (1989). On the Christian topography of Early Islamic Jerusalem, see R. Schick (1985), Bahat (1990), 80-9, O. Grabar (1996) and Gil (1992). For historical descriptions of the period, see Prawer and Ben-Shammai (1996), Gil (1992), 430-47 and (1996b), Le Strange (1890) and Goitein (1982). On the sanctity of Jerusalem in early Islamic thought, see O. Grabar (1998), El’ad (1998), Goitein (1966) and Busse (1968). 246 See R. Schick (1998), 75-6 and (1988). 247 On the Umayyad dynasty, see Hawting (2000), Hamilton (1988) and LivneKafri (2007). 248 See Magness (1991), 216, who adds: ‘This activity was not limited to the area of the Temple Mount, but included a general overhaul of the fortification system of the city. The reconstruction of the fortifications appears to have been carried out during the reign of Hisham, who until now has not been linked to building projects in Jerusalem. The recognition that the Temple Mount was not the sole focal point of Umayyad activity in Jerusalem adds a new dimension to our knowledge of the development of the city in the Early Islamic period’. On recent archeological advancements to our understanding of Umayyad period, see the works of Magnus (1992), Piccirillo (1988) and R. Schick ((1988), (1995), (1998), (1999a) and (1999b)). 249 O. Grabar (1996), 19. On the urban character of Umayyad Jerusalem, see pp. 44-134. 243 244

57

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 58

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

built.250 Excavations have also revealed a row of large palatial buildings immediately south of the Haram esh-Sharif.251 The Umayyad dynasty lasted for approximately ninety years until its overthrow by the Abbasids in 749/50, who shifted the capital of the empire from Damascus to Baghdad. Although the so-called Abbasid period lasted until the Fatimid takeover in 975, the city was under Tulunid control between 870 and 905 and then under the protection of various Arab governors. The Fatimids (975-1073) ruled until surrendering to the Turkish Seljuks in 1073; they regained control of the city in 1098, just prior to the arrival of the Crusaders in 1099.252 Although the Umayyad period was relatively benign, the subsequent dynasties were less amiable towards the Christian communities, and tensions rose throughout the Early Islamic period, culminating with the Fatimid destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009;253 while the tomb of Christ and the Rotunda, or Anastasis, surrounding it were reconstructed in the mid-eleventh century, the Basilica of Constantine was never rebuilt. Along with the destruction of 1009, there were also earthquakes, fires and riots during the Early Islamic era.254 Particularly significant are the earthquakes of 749, 1016 and 1033.255 2.3.1.6 The Crusader Period Despite numerous continuities with the Early Islamic period, the Crusaders greatly altered the commemorative landscape of the city.256 Most significantly, they had a strong interest in – and presence on – the 250 ‘Abd al-Malik constructed the Dome of the Rock in 692. See O. Grabar (1959), (1996) and (2006), Blair (1992), El’ad (1992), van Ess (1992), Creswell (1989), 19-42 and Goiten (1950). ‘Abd al-Malik’s successor, al-Wali¯d, built the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the 710s. See Hamilton (1949) and Creswell (1989), 73-83. 251 See Ben-Dov (1976) and (1985). While the terms, Temple Mount and Haram esh-Sharif, denote the same geographical area, the Muslim occupation of the area (i.e., during the Early Islamic period) will be referred to as the Haram. 252 On the post-Umayyad history of Jerusalem, see Ben-Dov (1985), 323-41, Gil (1996b), Le Strange (1890) and K. Armstrong (1996), 245-70. There are a number of discrepancies in the secondary literature with respect to the dates of the Abbasid, Tulunid, Fatimid and Seljuk periods in Jerusalem. 253 See Canard (1965). 254 On the riots of 938 and 966 and their damage to the Holy Sepulchre, see Coüasnon (1974), 18-20 and K. Armstrong (1996), 256. 255 On the earthquakes of the Early Islamic period, see Tsafrir and Foerster (1992), B. Willis (1928), Kallner-Amiran (1950-1) and Russell (1985). 256 The Crusader landscape is occasionally discussed. For instance, the Crusaders changed the location of the pool of Paralytic Healing (see section 3.5). They also rebuilt the Church of the Agony (see section 3.7.2.3) and the Eleona (3.7.2.1). See JW (1988), 24-84.

58

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 59

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Temple Mount, which had been consciously neglected during the Byzantine period. The Crusaders possessed the Dome the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which they respectively referred to as the Temple of the Lord (templum Domini) and the Temple of Solomon (templum Salamonis). The Crusader interest in the Temple Mount shifted the pattern of pilgrim movements through the city. Pilgrims now left the Holy Sepulchre for the Temple Mount instead of proceeding to Holy Sion, which was the norm during the pre-Crusader periods.257 2.3.2 Pilgrimage and the Christian Communities of Early Islamic Jerusalem Despite the building projects of the Umayyads, Christian activity in the city was not affected. The stational liturgy of Jerusalem continued throughout the period,258 while pilgrim movements within the city remained unchanged.259 As in the Byzantine period, the Christian community was rather diverse, divided by language, ethnicity and theological orientation.260 While the same commemorative landscape was recognized by a diverse group of pilgrims,261 the holy sites were in the hands of Chalcedonian Christians.262 2.3.3 Christian-Muslim Relations during the Umayyad Period 2.3.3.1 The Pact of ‘Umar The book will briefly discuss three areas of Christian-Muslim relations.263 The first is the so-called Pact of ‘Umar, or the capitulation treaties.264 According to Eutychius, ‘Umar, the conqueror of Jerusalem (d. 644), dictated a treaty of guarantee for the Christians stating: ‘you See section 3.9.1.5. As indicated by the GL, the GC and the Typicon. 259 On the Jerusalem circuit, see section 3.9. 260 On the Christian communities of Jerusalem during the Early Islamic period, see Linder (1996), R. Schick (1995), 112-38 and Gil (1992), 430-89. Also see Louth (2000), Kennedy (1986), Griffith (1997) and Moorhead (1981). 261 See section 3.9. 262 Anastasius of Sinai, Interrogationes et responsiones, 767-70. Also see R. Schick (1995), 9-13. 263 On Christian-Muslim relations during the Umayyad period, see Gibb (1958) and R. Schick (1995), 159-224. 264 On ‘Umar and the capitulation treaties, see Abu Munshar (2007), 1-118, Gil (1996b), 8-9, Tritton (1930), 10-9 and R. Schick (1995), 161. On the image of ‘Umar, see Busse (1986). See sections 3.1.4.4 and 4.2.2.2. 257 258

59

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 60

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

are assured of complete safety for your lives, your goods and your churches. The latter will not be occupied by Muslims, nor destroyed, provided you do not rise in revolt together’.265 According to al-Tabari, the ‘churches are not to be occupied or destroyed, and neither the churches, their dependencies, not their cult are to be damaged, not the population’s crosses and money. Their religion is not to be despised, nor is any of them to be harmed’.266 Abu¯-Yu¯suf reports that Abu¯ ‘Ubayda arranged terms of surrender with some Christians and agreed ‘to leave their churches and their synagogues alone on condition that they do not build any new churches or synagogue’.267 Although the period of tolerance would end in the tenth century with the establishment of Fatimid rule, the Umayyads rarely, if ever, destroyed churches or converted them into mosques, which were normally newly-erected buildings.268 Moreover, there was no effective prohibition against the building of new churches in the Umayyad period.269 Willibald’s account describes one possible contravention of the Pact of ‘Umar. With respect to the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, Willibald reports: illam aecclesiam christiani homines sepe conparabant ad paganis Sarracinis, qui illi volebant eam destruere.270 While testifying to the sporadic tension between the two parties, the comment represents Willibald’s only reference to Muslim interference with the Christian holy places. 2.3.3.2 The Prohibition of Images and Icons The second issue concerns icons and representational art, a topic that affected both Islam and Christianity in the eighth century.271 The only known instance of a Muslim attack against Christian images before the end of the Umayyad period was carried out by Yazid II b. ‘Abd al-Malik (reigned 720-4).272 Although the instance is documented in both Christian and Islamic sources, its specific association with Yazid Quoted in Coüasnon (1974). Also see Stewart (1895), 64-8 and Vincent and Abel (1914b), 242. 266 Quoted in R. Schick (1995), 73. 267 Quoted in R. Schick (1995), 74. 268 R. Schick (1998), 88. Al-Wali¯d’s demolition of the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Damascus in order to make room for the Great Mosque is one exception. See Creswell (1989), 46-68. 269 See Piccirillo (1988) and R. Schick (1995), 161-3. 270 VW, 95.22-4. 271 See R. Schick (1995), 180-224 and Crone (1980). 272 Vasiliev (1956). 265

60

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 61

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

suggests that the intervention of the Islamic state against Christian representational art was considered unusual at the time.273 Otherwise, the silence of the Christian and Islamic sources suggests that the suppression of Christian images did not take place during the Umayyad period.274 Willibald provides no evidence that images were a source of tension between the Muslim and Christians communities in the Holy Land. 2.3.3.3 The Prohibition of Crosses While there is little evidence that the Umayyad authorities were intolerant of Christian images, it is important to distinguish the image of the cross from the larger issue of representational art. Doctrine was of greater concern to the Islamic world than images, and when objections were made regarding Christian representations, they were usually directed against the doctrine expressed by the respective image.275 The issue largely concerned the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, commonly represented by the image of the cross. Moreover, since the cross was also an imperial symbol of the Byzantine Empire, ‘the crucifix was more objectionable to the Muslims than any picture, and its suppression is encountered in the Umayyad period more often than the destruction of pictures’.276 According to Theophanes, when ‘Umar began building his mosque in Jerusalem, the structure continued to fall down until the Jews informed him that the presence of a cross on the Church of the Ascension was the reason for the failed attempts. ‘Umar proceeded to remove the cross and completed the mosque: ‘for this reason the Christ-haters tore down many crosses’.277 In 686-9, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. Marwan, the governor of Egypt, ordered the destruction of all gold and silver crosses.278 Sometime before 705, ‘Amr b. Sa’d, the governor of Damascus, issued an order prohibiting the public display of crosses in the city. The Jews of Damascus executed the order by destroying a number of crosses attached to buildings. The governor responded to the public disturbances by declaring that his order only applied to the King (1985), 267. See King (1985), 277, R. Schick (1999), 40-7 and Griffith (1992). 275 King (1985), 269. 276 King (1985), 269. 277 Theophanes, Chronographia, 342, trans. in Turtledove (1982), 42. 278 Severus ibn al-Muquaff, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria (PO 5), 25. 273 274

61

Section 02.qxd:Section 02.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 62

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

display of processional crosses.279 According to Abu¯ Yu¯suf, ‘Umar II (reigned 717-20) wrote to one of his subordinates: ‘Do not leave a cross exposed without breaking and destroying it’.280 Nonetheless, the archaeological evidence indicates that ‘no effective prohibition against the public display of crosses was in effect in Early Islamic times’.281 This is supported by references in the pilgrim sources, such as the wooden cross in the Jordan River at the place of Jesus’ baptism mentioned by Adomnán and Willibald.282 Willibald also indicates that the magna columna associated with the funeral procession of St Mary and prominently positioned outside the city’s East Gate was surmounted by a cross, while the monument of the Miraculous Healing was almost certainly adorned with the same image.283

See R. Schick (1995), 164, n. 20 and King (1985), 271. Quoted in R. Schick (1995), 164. 281 R. Schick (1995), 166. 282 Adomnán, DLS, 2.16.2; VW, 96.16-9. 283 VW, 97.32-3. On the two monuments, see sections 3.6.2.2.2 and 3.1.4.4. 279 280

62

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 63

3. willibald and the holy sites of jerusalem Willibald’s description of Jerusalem consists of the following sites: • • • • • •

the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux Domini, the locus que dicitur Calvarie locus, the sepulchrum Salvatoris, the church que vocatur Sancta Sion, a piscina near the porticus Salamonis, a magna columna commemorating the place ubi Iudei volebant tollere corpus sanctae Mariae, • the church sancta Mariae containing sepulchrum eius, • the church ubi Dominus ante passionem orabat and • the church ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum.

3.1 The Holy Sepulchre I: The locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux Domini The present chapter addresses the first of three sites associated with the Holy Sepulchre,1 the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux 1

Although Willibald not does use a collective term to describe the complex of sites encompassing the loci of the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and the legend of the Holy Cross, the designation, the Holy Sepulchre, will be used throughout the book. The term will always denote the entire complex of sites and will never be used as a specific

63

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 64

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Domini.2 After summarizing the legend of the Holy Cross3 – Helena’s discovery of the Crucifixion crosses and a miraculous healing that identified the True Cross of Christ – Willibald’s association with the image of the Holy Cross will be examined: 1) the role of an outdoor cross in healing him from a childhood illness and 2) the Vita’s description of him as a crucicolus, or ‘lover of the cross’. The initial discussion of his two-fold reference to the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux, which he associates with the dramatic restoration of his sight following a two-month blindness, will raise two questions: 1) why, in his initial reference, does he introduce the locus before mentioning an aecclesia and 2) why, in the second reference, does he attribute his healing to the entrance of the church? The chapter will briefly discuss the commemorative history of the Finding of the True Cross, before examining the textual sources for the Miraculous Healing – the Breviarius B, Epiphanius, Daniel the Abbot and Adomnán. Once it has been established that a prominent monument dedicated to the Miraculous Healing was located along the eastern approach of the Basilica of Constantine, it will be argued that Willibald’s references to the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux are actually allusions to the Miraculous Healing. The significance and location of three wooden crosses, also described by Willibald, will then be examined. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Willibald’s own Miraculous Healing – the restoration of his sight. 3.1.1 Helena and the Legend of the Holy Cross The original story of the Holy Cross legend has been effectively summarized by Stephan Borgehammar: Helena, the pious mother of the pious emperor Constantine, went to Jerusalem to seek out the places which had been hallowed by Christ. When she arrived, she was inspired to look especially for the Holy Cross, reference to the tomb of Christ. While outdated in many respects, the most comprehensive work on the Holy Sepulchre is still Vincent and Abel (1914b). The best recent studies are Corbo (1981-2), Coüasnon (1974) and Gibson and Taylor (1994). Also see Conant (1956), Corbo (1965b) and (1988), Patrich (1993), Murphy-O’Connor (1999), de Sandoli (1984), Ousterhout (2000), Taylor (1993), 113-42 and P.W.L. Walker (1990), 235-81. 2 Hereafter referred to as the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux. 3 The legend of the Holy Cross will be referred to by a number of names, including the Finding of the Holy Cross, the Invention of the Holy Cross and the Holy Cross legend. Both terms, Holy Cross and True Cross, will be used.

64

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 65

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

but its burial-place had fallen into oblivion. She then inquired of the inhabitants where the place of the Passion was and found that it was covered by a heathen sanctuary. Having had this pulled down and the ground dug up, there appeared three crosses. The True Cross could not at first be identified, but moved by the Spirit, Helena applied the crosses to a mortally sick woman, and when the True Cross touched her, the woman was miraculously restored to health.4

Thus, the legend of the Holy Cross contains two central events. The first one is Helena’s discovery of the Crucifixion crosses. Since three crosses were found, it took a second event – the Miraculous Healing – to discern which one was the True Cross of Christ. There are three significant variations on the original narrative. First of all, slight differences exist regarding the place where the crosses were found. However, the location is always identified with the immediate area of Jesus’ death and burial.5 Secondly, the recipient of the Miraculous Healing can be a sick woman (as mentioned by Borgehammar), a dead virgin or a recently-deceased young man.6 Third, the setting of the Miraculous Healing also varies, occurring at the site of Helena’s discovery, in the context of a passing funeral procession or in a near-by house.7 In every case, the Miraculous Healing is set within the general, if not immediate, vicinity of the place where the crosses were originally discovered.

4 Borgehammar (1991), 78-9. Borgehammar also discusses the independent sources of the Holy Cross legend. Also see Drijvers (1992), (1993) and (2003), Drake (1979), (1984) and (1985) and Heid (1989). 5 The crosses were found either near the tomb of Christ or the place of the Crucifixion. According to Socrates Scholasticus (HE, 1.17), the three crosses were found inside the tomb of Jesus, while Sozomen (HE, 2.1) locates the find ‘at no great distance’ from it. Theodoret of Cyrus (HE, 1.17) similarly states that the crosses were ‘buried near the Lord’s sepulchre’. On the other hand, Sulpicius Severus (Chronicon, 2.33.2) associates the location with the locus passionis, while, according to Rufinus (HE, 1.7), Helena found the crosses by looking near ‘the place where the sacred body of Christ had hung on the Cross’. Paulinus of Nola, Ep., 31.5 and Ambrose, De orbitu Theodosii, 43 also associate the discovery with Golgotha. On Ambrose, De orbitu Theodosii and the Helena legend, see Steidle (1978). 6 In the Western version (Paulinus of Nola, Ep., 31.5; Severus Sulpicius, Chronicon, 2.34.4-5), the recipient of the healing is a mortuus iuuenis, whereas the Eastern tradition (see Borgehammar (1991), 7-30) speaks of a mortally-ill woman. Similarly, in the pilgrims texts, the Latin sources, the Brev. B, 2 and Adomnán, DLS, 1.11.2, speak of a young man, while the Eastern sources, Epiphanius, Hag., 4 and Daniel the Abbot, WB, 15, each refer to a dead virgin. 7 Compare, for example, the Brev. B, 2 and Epiphanius, Hag., 4.

65

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 66

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

3.1.2 Willibald and the Image of the Holy Cross 3.1.2.1 Willibald’s Childhood Illness The image of the Holy Cross plays a dominate role in the narrative of Willibald’s childhood illness.8 After Willibald contracted a life-threatening ailment at the age of three, his parents made a vow at the foot of an outdoor cross pledging their son to the monastic life. According to Hugeburc, ‘it is the custom of the Saxon race that on many of the estates of nobles and of good men they are wont to have, not a church, but the standard of the Holy Cross, dedicated to our Lord, and reverenced with great honor, lifted up on high, so as to be convenient for the frequency of daily prayer’.9 Willibald survived, and two years later, in fulfillment of their vow, his parents entrusted him to the monastery of Bishop’s Waltham. Despite its hagiographic overtones, there are compelling reasons to accept the principal elements of the story – Willibald’s illness, his parents’ vow, the village cross, his successful recovery and his admission into the monastery as a child oblate. The story’s veracity is suggested by the relationship between Willibald, Hugeburc and the original readership of the text. Since Willibald and Hugeburc were related and most likely grew up in the same area of Wessex, they presumably knew of each other – certainly of each other’s families – from their childhood days in Britain. Moreover, Hugeburc was an adult companion of Willibald’s sister, Walburga, who was her abbess at Heidenheim when she composed the Vita.10 Therefore, Hugeburc was privy to reliable information on the bishop’s early life. Finally, Hugeburc primarily wrote the Vita for the local community of Eichstätt-Heidenheim, which included a number of Anglo-Saxon friends and relatives familiar with Willibald’s life. In a word, it is most unlikely that a fallacious account of Willibald’s childhood would have been included in the Vita given the ease to which the veracity of the story could have been exposed by any number of persons, let alone by Willibald himself. Our primary interest concerns the cross connected with the restoration of Willibald’s health. According to Hugeburc, the vow took place in front of a sancta crucis signum that had been erected outSee section 2.1.1. VW, 88.32–7, trans. in Brownlow (1895), 4. 10 On Hugeburc’s relationship with Walburga, see V. Wynn., 114.21-7 and Bauch (1962), 184, n. 44. 8 9

66

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 67

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

doors for the purpose of daily prayer.11 Hugeburc adds that such crosses, which stood in place of churches, were a mos Saxanice gentis.12 The reference implies that the practice was not observed by Christians in the region of Eichstätt.13 Given the detailed and contextualized attention to the sancta crux, the object must be considered as an authentic feature of the story. In light of his young age, Willibald may not have remembered the events in question. Yet, given the need to explain his presence in the monastery, Willibald was likely told the story of his miraculous healing by those familiar with the events, including his monastic guardians. Moreover, Willibald was probably familiar with the village cross, which was presumably pointed out to him when he was home.14 In short, it is reasonable to conclude that Willibald was raised to believe that his life was indelibly associated with the image of the Holy Cross. The events surrounding Willibald’s childhood set a significant precedent for his Holy Land travels. To begin with, he was predisposed to view the Holy Cross as a restorative agent, having the potency to affect physical healing. Secondly, this agency was not restricted to relics of the True Cross; rather, images of the cross could be equally potent. Thirdly, Willibald was familiar with the veneration of the Holy Cross in an extra-ecclesial context. Finally, if the image of a cross in rural Wessex could elicit the physical restoration of a mortally-ill child, Willibald, no doubt, regarded Jerusalem’s locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux as a place of curative power. 3.1.2.2 The inclitus crucicolus Willibald’s personal association with the image of the Holy Cross is further emphasized by Hugeburc’s description of the bishop as a crucicolus, or ‘lover of the cross’. Hugeburc employs the word twice, describing Willibald as an inclitus crucicolus and again as an inluster Cramp (1992), 221 states that Willibald’s cross ‘was not necessarily a stone cross’, while Yorke (1995), 233 assumes that it was stone. 12 VW, 88.34. 13 VW, 88.32-3. 14 The distance between the family homestead and the monastery as well as the amount of time that Willibald spent at home during his childhood are uncertain. The Vita implies that he had returned home when he recruited his brother and father for the pilgrimage to Rome. See VW, 90.2-91.5. Also see V. Wynn., 107.12-20. 11

67

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 68

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

clarusque Christi crucicolus.15 The phrases imply that Willibald’s affection towards the Holy Cross was generally known and that his episcopacy was characterized by the veneration of the image. Since the term was applied to Willibald during his own lifetime, crucicolus may have been a recognized nickname, or epithet, of the bishop. In sum, his childhood healing and the expression, crucicolus, underscore the importance of the Holy Cross in the life of Willibald. Together, they suggest the following: Willibald developed a predilection towards the Holy Cross during his formative years in Wessex. In turn, his encounters with the commemorative landscape of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem reinforced his personal association with the image. Throughout his life, he retained his affinity with the Holy Cross to such an extent that his biographer could champion the elder bishop as a crucicolus, or ‘lover of the cross’. 3.1.2.3 Willibald’s Description of the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux Domini The discussion now turns to Willibald’s two-fold description of the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux. Willibald’s first reference introduces his description of Jerusalem: Et inde venit ad Hierusalem, in illum locum, ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux Domini; ibi est nunc aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus; et haec fuit prius extra Hierusalem; sed Helena, quando invenit crucem, collocavit illam locum intus intra Hierusalem. Et ibi stant nunc tres cruces ligneas foris in orientale plaga aecclesie secus pariete ad memoriam sanctae crucis dominicae et aliorum qui cum eo crucifixi erant; illa non sunt nunc intus in aecclesia, sed foris stant sub tecto extra aecclesia.16 15 VW, 87.34 and 92.18. The word, crucicolus, will be translated as ‘lover of the cross’ as per Brownlow (1895), 3 and 9: ‘the renowned lover of the cross’ and the ‘illustrious lover of the Cross of Christ’. While Talbot omits the first reference, he translates VW, 92.18 as ‘this celebrated bearer of Christ’s Cross’. Bauch translates VW, 87.34 as ‘der berühmte Kreuzeverehrer’ and VW, 92.18 as ‘der edle and ruhmreiche Kreuzesverehrer Christi’. Wilkinson’s partial translation of the Vita does not include the references in question. Hugeburc uses a number of terms to describe Willibald, most commonly referring to him as venerandus and beatus. While these terms are also used by Hugeburc in the V. Wynn. in reference to Wynnebald, the term, crucicolus, was unique to Willibald. (Brownlow (p. 3) incorrectly translates VW, 87.39-88.1 (abba preclarusque christicolus Wynnebaldus) as ‘the renowned lover of the cross’, which Bauch correctly renders as ‘der berühmte Christusverehrer Wynnebald ’). It is possible that Hugeburc’s use of crucicolus was a counterweight to the hagiographical norm of designating the vita’s subject as a confessor and sanctus. These terms did not apply to Willibald, since he was still alive when the text was composed. 16 VW, 97.10-6.

68

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 69

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

The second reference appears in the narrative of Willibald’s second sojourn in the city and pertains to the healing of his eyesight: venit iterum in Hierusalem, et introiens in aecclesiam ubi sancta crux inventa fuerat, aperti sunt oculi eius, et visionem recipit.17 Willibald’s descriptions of the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux raise two primary questions – 1) why, in the first instance, does he introduce the locus before mentioning an aecclesia and 2) why, in the second, does he attribute his healing to the entrance of the church? Willibald’s account of Jerusalem begins with a reference to the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux, suggesting that it was the first significant site that he encountered upon his entry into the city. Yet, in contrast to other post-Byzantine sources, the locus is described without a clear, corresponding reference to the Basilica of Constantine, which was intimately associated with Helena’s Invention of the Holy Cross. Adomnán and Bernard both link the commemoration with the basilica, while Antiochus and the Armenian Guide cite the tradition in their respective names for the church: ‘the House of the Holy Cross’ and ‘the Finding of the Cross’.18 A church is mentioned by Willibald in the proceeding line is – ibi est nunc aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus – raising the question regarding the relationship between the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux and the aforementioned aecclesia.19 In addition, Willibald uses the word, locus, in each of his first two lines: • et inde venit ad Hierusalem, in illum locum, ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux Domini and • ibi est nunc aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus. In short, what is the relationship between the two loci? Do they refer to the same place, consequently linking the place of the Holy Cross with the church, or should they be interpreted as two separate loci? The ambiguity is reflected in the English translations of the text. Wilkinson’s translation implies that Willibald is referring to the same locus – ‘From there he came on to Jerusalem, to the place where the Lord’s Holy Cross was found. That place is called “The Place of Calvary” and there is now a church there’.20 By contrast, both Talbot VW, 99.15-6. Adomnán, DLS, 1.6.1-2; Bernard, It. Bern., 11; Antiochus the Monk, Epistola ad Eustathium, 1427-8; AG, 2. 19 Also see section 3.2.1.3. 20 JW (2002), 241. 17 18

69

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 70

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

and Brownlow translate the references with different words, thereby suggesting two separate loci. According to Brownlow, ‘from thence they came to Jerusalem, to that place where the holy cross of our Lord was found. There is now a church in that spot which was called the place of Calvary’.21 Similarly, Talbot renders the lines: ‘then they came to Jerusalem, to the very spot where the holy cross of our Lord was found. On the site of the place called Calvary now stands a church’.22 The ambiguity of Willibald’s two-fold use of locus is possibly resolved when the scriptural references to Calvary are taken into account.23 While Mt 27:33 states that the crucifixion party venerunt in locum qui dicitur Golgotha quod est Calvarie locus, according to Mk 15:22, perducunt illum in Golgotha locum quod est interpretatum Calvarie locus. Both evangelists use the word locus twice in their introductions of Calvary, essentially referring to the site as ille locus que dicitur Calvarie locus. Consequently, Willibald may be employing a formulaic biblical phrase for Calvary, and the line in question could be translated: ‘there is now a church upon “the place that is called the place of Calvary”’. However, since Willibald also uses the phrase, ille locus que dicitur, to introduce a number of other sites, the point is not entirely convincing.24 Even so, there is no reason to assume a link between the Calvarie locus and the locus of the Holy Cross – i.e., Willibald’s locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux was not necessarily in illo loco where ibi est nunc aecclesia – which returns us to our initial question: why does Willibald introduce the locus of the Holy Cross before mentioning an aecclesia? The second question raised by Willibald’s description of the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux concerns the restoration of his eyesight. In short, why does he attribute his healing to the entrance of the church (in contrast to his first reference, Willibald explicitly links the place ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux with a church, attributing his healing to the act of introiens in aecclesiam)? As will be discussed below, the Finding of the Holy Cross was traditionally identified with the western apse of the Basilica of Constantine. However, Willibald attributes his healing to the entrance of the church rather than its apse. The two references collectively suggest that Willibald encountered the place Brownlow (1895), 19. Talbot (1954), 165. 23 On the scriptural references to Calvary, see section 3.2.1.1-2. 24 See section 3.2.1.2. 21 22

70

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 71

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

‘where the Holy Cross was found’ prior to entering the church, thus raising suspicion that he is not referring to the ‘traditional’ locus of the Holy Cross.25 In addition to these primary questions, other contextual questions are implicit throughout the discussion. First of all, how does Willibald’s childhood healing inform the events surrounding the restoration of his sight? Does the childhood narrative hold any clues for understanding Willibald’s references to the topography of Jerusalem? Secondly, how did the legend of the Holy Cross influence Willibald’s interpretation of his healing? 3.1.3 The Commemoration of the Finding of the Holy Cross During the Byzantine period, Helena’s Finding of the True Cross was commemorated in the apse of the Basilica of Constantine.26 The Brevairius A describes an altar of silver and gold supported by nine golden columns and located in the western apse of the basilica at the place where the True Cross was found.27 Surrounding the altar were ‘twelve quite marvelous columns of marble’ upon which were placed ‘twelve silver bowls in which Solomon seated the demons’.28 This ‘hemisphere’ of columns and silver bowls is also described by Eusebius, who refers to the apse as the ‘crowning part’ of the basilica.29 The lavishly-decorated apse was certainly targeted during the Persian sack of the Holy Sepulchre in 614. However, since Modestus, who was forced to raise money for the renovations, had fewer resources than his Constantinian counterparts, the restored apse and the commemorative décor of the Finding of the True Cross were, no doubt, diminished by comparison to their former Byzantine glory.30 The post-Byzantine texts continue to associate the basilica with Helena’s Finding of the Holy Cross, presumably still commemorated 25 The argument assumes that Willibald is referring to the eastern entrance of the basilica. See section 3.1.4.4. 26 The crypt in the Holy Sepulchre, where the event is presently commemorated, was only constructed in the twelfth century. See Coüasnon (1974), 41 and Gibson and Taylor, (1994), 76. On the Chapel of St Helena, also see Corbo (1965b) and (1981-2), 107, Broshi and Barkay (1985) and Broshi (1993). 27 Brev. A, 1. 28 Brev. A, 1, trans. in JW (2002), 117. 29 Eusebius, VC, 3.38. Borgehammar (1991), 114-5 describes the hemisphere of columns as ‘a remarkable structure’. 30 On the repairs of Modestus, see Eutychius of Alexander, Annales, 88 and 119 (Stewart (1895), 38) and R. Schick (1995), 52-4 and (1999), 222.

71

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 72

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

in the western apse. The Armenian Guide refers to the Martyrium as the ‘Finding of the Cross’, while listing the distance between the ‘Finding of the Cross’ and the tomb of Christ as twenty ells.31 After introducing the basilica ‘built with great magnificence by King Constantine’, Adomnán adds that ‘people say it is built on the site where, by the grace of the Lord . . . the Lord’s Cross was discovered . . . together with the crosses of the two robbers’.32 Epiphanius refers to the Basilica of Constantine as the church ‘in which the three Crosses were found’.33 According to the Commemoratorium, it was 19 dexteri from Holy Calvary to where the Holy Cross was discovered.34 However, none of these sources provide any information on the physical appearance of the commemoration. The only possible exception is the manuscript drawings of Adomnán, which suggests that it was decorated with the image of three crosses.35 3.1.4 The Commemoration of the Miraculous Healing The second event of the Holy Cross legend – the Miraculous Healing – was also commemorated during the Byzantine period. In its section on Golgotha, the Breviarius B refers to ‘an exedra at the place where the man was brought back to life and proved which was the Cross of Christ’, therefore, associating the Miraculous Healing with the place of the Crucifixion.36 The text also mentions the ‘place where the three crosses were found buried’, locating it, as to be expected, in the Constantinian basilica.37 In short, both events of the Holy Cross legend were commemorated inside the Holy Sepulchre during the Byzantine period. At some point, perhaps during the restoration of the Holy Sepulchre in the first half of the seventh century, the commemoration of the Miraculous Healing assumed a different location. The monument was moved slightly north of the eastern entrance of the basilica, where it greeted pilgrims of the post-Byzantine period upon their approach to the Holy Sepulchre.38 31

AG, 2.

Adomnán, DLS, 1.6.2, trans. in JW (2002), 173-4. Epiphanius, Hag., 3, trans. in JW (2002), 208. 34 Comm., 56. 35 See section 3.1.4.5. 36 Brev. B, 2, trans. in JW, (2002), 118: et ibi est exedra ubi fuit persuscitatus per quem fuit crux Christi declarata. 37 Brev. B, 2, trans. in JW (2002), 118. 38 For a summary of following argument, see Aist (2008). 32 33

72

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 73

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

3.1.4.1 Epiphanius Epiphanius provides a seventh-century account of the commemoration of the Miraculous Healing. Moving west to east through the Holy Sepulchre, Epiphanius describes the tomb of the Lord, the place of Calvary and the place ‘where the Holy Cross was found’,39 before concluding his description of the Holy Sepulchre as follows: On the left side of [the Basilica of ] Saint Constantine is the icon of the very holy Theotokos, who forbade Saint Mary [the Egyptian] to enter the church on the day of the Exaltation [of the Holy Cross]. There also she made her promise. And on the left side is the house of Joseph. And below (kato¯then) the house there is a structure with four columns (tetrakionin) in which Saint Helena met the funeral procession of the maiden. The maiden was placed against the three crosses, and spoke when it was the Cross of the Lord.40

Epiphanius’ description includes a number of commemorative details, including the person of Helena, the three crosses, the funeral procession and the deceased maiden. Epiphanius locates the monument of the Miraculous Healing in relation to the icon of Mary and a certain house of Joseph, both on the left, or north, side of the basilica. In the Life of Mary the Egyptian, Mary, a harlot from Egypt, arrives in Jerusalem with a group of pilgrims for the feast of the Holy Cross.41 On the day of the feast, an invisible force prevents Mary from entering the basilica. After a number of failed attempts to enter the church, Mary retreats to one corner of the outer atrium, where she begins to weep. There, she sees the icon of the Theotokos hanging above her, and Mary makes a vow that she will follow the instructions of the Theotokos if she is able to enter the basilica to venerate the Holy Cross. Her desire is granted, and upon returning to the icon, Mary is sent to the desert, where she lives the rest of her life. Thus, according to the Life, the icon of the Theotokos was associated with the eastern front entrance of the basilica and located in one of the two corners of the atrium that abutted the church’s front façade. One can assume that the icon was still associated 39 Both events of the Holy Cross legend were recognized during the Early Islamic period. According to Epiphanius, Hag., 3, ‘between the guardroom and the Crucifixion is the door of Saint Constantine, in which the three crosses were found’. 40 Epiphanius, Hag., 4, trans. in JW (2002), 208. 41 See Sophronius, Vita Sanctae Mariae Aegyptiacae (PL 73), 671-90.

73

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 74

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

with the front façade of the church in the post-Byzantine period, and given Epiphanius’ reference to the left side of the basilica, the icon should be located either in the northwest corner of the outer atrium, or, if it was inside the church, in the ‘l’angle nordest du Martyium’.42 Also on the left, or north, side of the basilica was the house of Joseph.43 The fact that Epiphanius refers to it after his description of the icon suggests that the structure was to the east of the image.44 Given the icon’s association with the entrance to the basilica, the house of Joseph was likely located near or east of the front façade of the church. A few points are worth mentioning regarding the identity of the house of Joseph. First of all, the Joseph in question is not Joseph of Arimathea, who is associated with the burial of Jesus, but Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary and the foster-father of Jesus.45 The identification is based upon the second-century Protoevangelium of James,46 a text which has greatly influenced the commemorative landscape of the Holy Land. Pilgrims of the Early Islamic period were shown the birthplace of Mary,47 the blood of Zacharias,48 the family home of John the Baptist49 and the house of Joachim.50 Secondly, the ‘house’ was a consecrated liturgical space. Its ecclesiastical nature is suggested by Epiphanius’ tendency to refer to places of worship as houses. Holy Sion is described as the ‘house of God’.51 The family home of David 42 Vincent and Abel (1914b), 227-8. Compare with JW (2002), 365, who suggests that the icon may have been in the upper north gallery of the basilica. 43 While Epiphanius’ house of Joseph is otherwise unknown, it will be argued below that the structure is mentioned in Adomnán, DLS, 1.10. On recent excavations on the north side of the Holy Sepulchre, which have uncovered a church from the Early Islamic period, see Avni and Seligman (2003), 153-62. The church appears to be too far west to be the so-called house of Joseph. 44 However, the icon may have been in the house of Joseph as suggested by JW (2002), 365, who associates the house with the upper north gallery of the basilica. Also see JW (1977), 177 and Vincent and Abel (1914b), 226. Epiphanius’ reference to the house of Joseph is frequently overlooked in the secondary literature – e.g., see R. Schick (1985), Bahat (1996) and Garbarino (2005). 45 See Vincent and Abel (1914b), 226, who describes the house of Joseph as the ‘maison de Joseph d’Arimathie’. 46 For references to the house of Joseph, see Proto., 9-16. 47 Proto., 1-5. See section 3.5.1.1. 48 Epiphanius, Hag., 5. Proto., 24.3. 49 Epiphanius, Hag., 14. Proto., 22.3. 50 Epiphanius, Hag., 37. Proto., 4. 51 Epiphanius, Hag., 7.

74

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 75

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

was to the left of the church of Bethlehem,52 while the church containing ‘the house of the Magdalene’ stood in Magdala.53 Epiphanius also describes the ‘house of Joachim’ as a monastery’.54 Third, the house of Joseph almost certainly commemorated the Annunciation of Jesus. According to the Protoevangelium, Mary was placed under the custody of the Temple priests at the age of three. When she was twelve, the priests summoned the widowers of Jerusalem to the Temple, and Joseph, a resident of the city, was chosen as her bridegroom. Joseph took Mary to his house, where she resided while Joseph worked outside the city. The Protoevangelium then describes the Annunciation, which occurs in the house during Joseph’s absence, thereby establishing an alternative tradition to Luke’s version, which is set in Nazareth.55 Inferences to the house of Joseph and the Jerusalem setting of the Annunciation also appear in an eighth-century sermon of John of Damascus,56 verifying that the tradition set forth in the Protoevangelium was recognized by Christians during the Early Islamic period.57 The mutual testimony of Epiphanius and John of Damascus indicates that the Jerusalem-based tradition was acknowledged at least by the Greek community of Jerusalem, if not others. Although the site is not mentioned in the lectionary sources, one can also assume that the house of Joseph served as a station for the feast of the Annunciation.58 While the house of Joseph had a liturgical function, its size is more difficult to gauge. Its form could have ranged from an exedra with a consecrated altar to a four-sided roofed enclosure. Epiphanius, Hag., 11. Epiphanius, Hag., 32. 54 Epiphanius, Hag., 37. 55 See Proto., 7-11. The Nazareth tradition is recorded in Lk 1:26-38. The point raises the question of contemporary pictorial representations of the Annunciation, which should be surveyed to determine whether the scene is ever depicted within a Jerusalem context. See, for instance, the mosaic of the Annunciation in S. Maria Maggiore, Rome (Kitzinger (1977), fig. 127). 56 John of Damascus, Homilia I in Dormitionem B.V. Mariae, 6 (PG 96), 709-10, trans. in Allies (1898), 157. 57 Muslim tradition also recognizes the Jerusalem setting of the Annunciation. Mukaddasi, Description of Syria, including Palestine, mentions the gates of Mary’s Oratory (Le Strange (1896), 46), while the Mihrab of Mary, in the southeastern corner of the Haram, specifically commemorates the event (see Join-Lambert (1958), 173). 58 Although the house of Joseph does not appear in the lectionary sources, the work assumes that every commemorative locus in Christian Jerusalem had a corresponding liturgical expression. On the feast of the Annunciation see GL, 267-76 and Fletcher (1962). 52 53

75

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 76

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Epiphanius ultimately locates the Miraculous Healing below (kato¯then) the house of Joseph. The monument may have been directly beneath, or underneath, the house, indicating that the latter was located on an upper story or stood upon a subterranean area, such as a crypt.59 This would imply that the commemorative structure was inside, as assumed by Vincent and Abel and Wilkinson, who respectively place Epiphanius’ monument under the roof of the basilica.60 However, kato¯then is an ambiguous term that does necessarily imply that the structure was ‘immediately underneath’ the house of Joseph; it may also mean ‘lower than’, referring to the relative heights of the two structures.61 At issue is whether Epiphanius’ monument of the Miraculous Healing was indoors. Three arguments collectively favour an outdoor location.62 First of all, Epiphanius describes the monument in the context of a passing funeral procession. While the setting of the legend predates the building of the basilica and the monument may have been located indoors (i.e., the procession passed over ground now covered by the church), a structure commemorating a funeral procession would most likely stand in an outdoor location.63 Secondly, while Epiphanius describes the monument as a tetrakionin, or a four-columned structure, he refers to a second tetrakionin, one associated with the funeral procession of Mary, that was certainly outdoors – outside the EAST GATE of the city.64 Third, the twelfthcentury description of Daniel the Abbot, which will be discussed below, locates the commemoration beyond – i.e., to the east of – the great door of the ruined basilica. While Daniel does not explicitly state 59 Vincent and Abel (1914b), 226: ‘On peut considerer ce passage comme la plus ancienne mention de la forme architecturale de la crypte de Saint-Hélène, forme scrupuleusement respectée dans les restaurations postérieures’. However, the crypt of the basilica dates to the eleventh century. 60 Vincent and Abel (1914b), 226; JW (2002), 365 places it below the upper north gallery of the basilica. 61 For example, a house may be below (kato ¯then) a hill, which means that it is further down the slope, not directly underneath it. 62 The locus of the Miraculous Healing described in the Brev. B, 2 was presumably indoors; however, Epiphanius is clearly describing a different location. While the Brev. B locates the Miraculous Healing next to Golgotha – and the Invention of the Cross is to the west – Epiphanius’ monument was east of both sites. 63 This is particularly true if Epiphanius’ monument was a recently-erected and purpose-built monument. See below. 64 It is possible for a tetrakionin to be indoors. However, the general parallels between these two monuments suggest an outdoor location. See sections 3.1.4.4 and 3.6.2.2.2.

76

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 77

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

that the location was outdoors, he indicates that the commemoration was not inside the area of the former basilica. A fourth argument could be added: the explicit statement by Adomnán that the location of the Miraculous Healing was exposed to the noonday sun.65 While the book argues that Epiphanius and Adomnán are describing the same site, scholarly consensus associates Adomnán’s account of the Miraculous Healing with the North Gate column. Therefore, since the outdoor location of Epiphanius’ monument can be established independently of Adomnán, the argument will be withheld until the seventh-century texts are further examined. In summary, Epiphanius’ monument of the Miraculous Healing stood outside on ground that was lower than but not directly underneath the house of Joseph, a structure which was on the left, or north, side of the basilica.66 Given its proximity to the icon of Mary, the monument appears to have been near, though likely to the east of, the eastern façade of the church. Therefore, the monument may be tentatively placed either within the northern half of the outer atrium or somewhere north of its northern wall. Finally, Epiphanius’ reference to the funeral procession may indicate that the area of the monument communicated with the cardo maximus, which ran directly in front of the Holy Sepulchre, some twenty to thirty meters from the basilica’s front façade. In other words, Epiphanius’ monument was located in an exposed plaza, somewhere to the north and east of the basilica where it was encountered by pilgrims prior to their entrance into the Holy Sepulchre. 3.1.4.2 Daniel the Abbot Daniel the Abbot, a Russian who visited Jerusalem in 1106-8, nearly a century after the destruction of the Basilica of Constantine in 1009, compliments the account of Epiphanius.67 Reflecting the legacy of the Early Islamic period, Daniel’s description of the Holy Sepulchre See section 3.1.4.4. It is unclear if the monument was lower than the house due to the architectural design of the respective structures, the natural terrain of the ground or a combination of both. The present day Khan el-Zeit Street, which follows the same course as the Roman cardo maximus, forms a crown in front of Zalatimos’ bakery at the point corresponding to the central entrance way of the Holy Sepulchre’s propylaeum. In other words, the ground descends to the north. Similarly, it remains uncertain if the house of Joseph was level with the floor of the basilica or, as suggested by Wilkinson, in the upper gallery of the church. 67 On the destruction of the basilica, see Ousterhout (1989), 66-78. 65 66

77

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 78

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

includes commemorations associated with the now-ruined basilica and its eastern façade: Here is the place where St Helena found the True Cross near the place of the Lord’s Crucifixion . . . And on that spot a very large square church (dedicated to the Exaltation of the True Cross) was built, but now there is only a small church. Here to the East is the great door to which came St Mary the Egyptian desiring to enter and kiss [the cross] . . . and near this door is the place where St Helena discovered the True Cross of the Lord, instantly restoring a dead virgin to life!68

According to Daniel, a ‘very large square church’ dedicated to the True Cross – i.e., the Basilica of Constantine – had originally been built ‘on that spot’ where the cross was found. At the time of Daniel’s visit, only a ‘small church’ stood upon the area of the former basilica. It was within this smaller church that Daniel encountered the place of Helena’s Finding of the True Cross.69 Daniel then makes a second reference to ‘the place where St Helena discovered the True Cross of the Lord’, locating it near the east door of the basilica. Since he has previously identified Helen’s Finding of the True Cross with the small church near the place of the Crucifixion, a location consistent with the event’s commemorative history, Daniel’s second allusion to the legend refers to the Miraculous Healing – as indicated by his remark, ‘instantly restoring a dead virgin to life’ – and provides an important precedent for referring to the Miraculous Healing in terms of the Finding of the Holy Cross. Like Epiphanius, Daniel’s account moves through the Holy Sepulchre from west to east and refers to the story of Mary the Egyptian before describing the Miraculous Healing.70 Daniel adds an explicit reference to the great eastern door. As previously discussed, his description of the Miraculous Healing as ‘near the door’ implies that the event took place beyond – or farther to the east of – the front entrance and had not been inside the former basilica. In short, while Daniel does not describe the appearance of the site, there is significant agreement between the two texts regarding commemoration, location Daniel the Abbot, WB, 15, trans. in JW (1988), 131. Daniel implies that the great door of the basilica had not been incorporated into the small church – i.e., it had been built upon the western half of the ruined basilica. According to Gibson and Taylor (1994), 85, Daniel’s description is a ‘clear reference to the small cave chapel of c. 1107’. 70 See Daniel, WB, 15 and Epiphanius, Hag., 4. 68 69

78

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 79

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

and context.71 Since Daniel is describing a damaged landscape, Epiphanius’ monument was most likely in ruins. Nonetheless, his recognition of the commemoration highlights the site’s importance throughout the Early Islamic period. 3.1.4.3 Willibald Having established that the commemoration of the Miraculous Healing was located in front of the Basilica of Constantine at least by the seventh century, we can return to the eighth-century account of Willibald and the two questions elicited by his references to the locus ‘where the Holy Cross was found’. First of all, why did Willibald describe the site prior to mentioning a church – i.e., the basilica? Secondly, why did he attribute his healing to the act of entering the church? The answers can now be deduced: prior to his entry into the Basilica of Constantine, Willibald encountered the monument of the Miraculous Healing and, with it, a landscape of physical healing to which he attributed the restoration of his eyesight. Although Willibald does not explicitly mention the legend of the Miraculous Healing, Daniel the Abbot provides a precedent for referring to both the Finding of the Cross and the Miraculous Healing as the locus ‘where the Holy Cross was found’. Willibald’s testimony also provides evidence of the Latin recognition of the site. 3.1.4.4 Adomnán Having established the location of the Miraculous Healing, the discussion now turns to the seventh-century account of Adomnán, who describes a ualde summa columna in the middle of the city, north of the holy places, where the Lord’s cross was placed upon a dead iuuenis, or young man, who was subsequently restored to life.72 According to Adomnán, the column was outside where ‘it is seen by every passer-by’. However, his main interest in the column lies in its witness to the physical centrality of Jerusalem.73 The city’s status as the centre of the world See table 2. Adomnán, DLS, 1.11.1-2: de aliqua ualde summa columna quae a locis sanctis ad septemtrionalem partem in medio ciuitatis stans pergentibus obuiam habetur breuiter dicendum est. Haec eadem columna in eo statute loco ubi mortuus iuuenis cruce Domini superposita reuixit. On his previous reference to the Finding of the Holy Cross, see Adomnán, DLS, 1.6.1. The argument assumes that the commemorative and topographical description of the column is derivative of Arculf. 73 On Adomnán’s interest in the column, see O’Loughlin (1992b), 45-6. The column’s association with the centre of the world was its secondary commemoration. 71 72

79

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 80

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

was demonstrated by the miraculous phenomenon that no shadow was cast from the column at mid-day on the summer solstice. Adomnán concludes his description by linking the centre of the world with the holy places of Jerusalem: ‘This explains why the Psalmist used these words to sing his prophecy of the holy places of the Passion and Resurrection which are in this Aelia, “Yet God, our King, of old worked salvation in the midst of the earth”.74 This means “in Jerusalem”, which is called the “Mediterranean” and “Navel of the Earth”’.75 Two other sources are based upon Adomnán’s description of the column. In the early eighth century, Bede produced an abbreviated edition of Adomnán’s De locis sanctis, which includes a chapter on the column.76 Bede omits Adomnán’s phrase, ‘north of the holy places’, merely describing the column as ‘in the middle of Jerusalem’. He also adds a quotation from Victornius of Poitiers (d. 303), explicitly associating the column with the place of the Crucifixion: ‘There is a place, which we believe to be the centre of the whole world. The Jews call it in their own language, Golgotha’.77 The second source ultimately based upon Adomnán’s account is a twelfth-century drawing, or ‘map’, of Jerusalem in a manuscript from Prüfening, now in the Bayerische Staatsbibliotek in Munich.78 The drawing is accompanied by Bede’s description of the Holy City.79 Therefore, the manuscript is a twelfth-century visual interpretation of Bede’s eight-century redaction of Adomnán’s seventh-century account 74 Ps 73:12 (Ps 74:12 in the Vulgate). The reference is from Jerome, Commentariorum in Hiezechielem Prophetam, 2.5.5/6 (CCSL 75), 55-6, who links Ps 73:12 to the Passion of Christ: et psalmista natiuitatem exprimens Domini: ‘Veritas’, inquit, ‘de terra orta est’; ac deinceps passionem: ‘Operatus est’, ait, ‘salutem in medio terrae’. 75 Adomnán, DLS, 1.11.4, trans. in JW (2002), 177. 76 Bede, DLS, 2.6. Bede reshapes the material and introduces a few additional sources into his text; Bede is not an independent source for the topography of Jerusalem. 77 Bede, DLS, 2.6, translated in JW (2002), 220; Victorinus (Ps. Cyprianus), de Pascha, 1.2. Although Bede associates the column with the Golgotha, he separates the material from his preceeding description of the Holy Sepulchre (Bede, 2.1-3), inserting information on the Temple (Adomnán, 1.14), Mount Sion and the pool of Bethesda (Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 4 and 8). Bede also moves the description of the sudarium (Bede, 4; Adomnán, 1.9) and the Church of Mary’s Weaving (Bede, 4; Adomnán, 1.10), which belongs to Adomnán’s account of the Holy Sepulchre (1.2-11). 78 The Prüfening manuscript, Clm 13002, fol. 4v, is dated 1165. For an image of the drawing, see Verdier (1974), 18, fig. 1, Bahat (1990), 83, Simek (1992), 152 and Prawer and Ben-Shammai (1996), pl. 1. Also see Klemm (1980), kat. 87, 62-3. 79 Like Bede, the map is not an independent source for Jerusalem. There is no evidence that the artist had any firsthand knowledge of Jerusalem.

80

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 81

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

of the holy places.80 The illustration depicts the walled city of Jerusalem with its towers and six gates as designated by Bede. Thus, beginning in the west, or the bottom right, the illustration labels David’s Gate, the Fuller’s Gate, St Stephen’s Gate, the Benjamin Gate, the Small Gate and the Trumpeter’s Gate.81 The only structure inside the city is a prominent column positioned along the vertical east-west axis of the map with its base hidden behind the city’s western wall.82 The top of the column, which is surmounted by a cross supporting the nimbed head of Christus Helios, is located in the centre of the drawing. Since Bede omits Adomnán’s description of the column as ‘north of the holy places’, the artist’s placement of the object simply follows Bede’s reference to the ‘middle of Jerusalem’. Verdier states that the column corresponds à l’ancien forum d’Aelia Capitolina et aux églises du Golgotha, an observation accepted by Pullan, while, according to Bahat, the column’s cross represents the Holy Sepulchre.83 Despite these interpretations of the manuscript, no one has considered the obvious implication that Adomnán’s column was actually located near the Holy Sepulchre.84 Yet, while the map may accurately depict the placement of the column, it does not provide independent collaboration for its location. Nonetheless, the map indicates that readers of Bede – similar to Bede’s reading of Adomnán – associated the column with ‘the holy places of the Passion and Resurrection’; in short, a precedent exists for identifying Adomnán’s column with the Holy Sepulchre. 80 The Prüfening manuscript is commonly mislabeled in the secondary literature. Bahat (1990), 83 states that the map was made by Arculf and reproduced by Adomnán. More correctly, he indicates that the map was reproduced from the ‘shortened version of Bede Venerabilis, which included material from Adamnanos’ work’. In Bahat (1980), 127, the same map is accompanied by the errant caption: ‘Map of Jerusalem in the 7th century (Arculfus)’. The caption in Prawer and Ben-Shammai (1996), pl. 1 states that it is a ninth-century manuscript of ‘the chronicle of Saewulf (ca. 680)’, while Simek (1992), 152 labels the map: ‘Darstellung Jerusalems in der Reisebeschreibung des Arculf von Adamnan’. Also see Verdier (1974), 28 and Pullan (1998), 168-9. 81 Manuscripts more commonly list the sixth gate as the Tekoa Gate. Bede’s six gates (DLS, 1.2) are the same ones mentioned by Adomnán (DLS, 1.1.1-4). 82 Although Adomnán, DLS, 1.1.14 describes a mosque on the Haram esh-Sharif, Bahat (1990), 83 states that ‘this map of Jerusalem is of the city prior to the construction of the Muslim buildings’. Bahat is wrong to imply that Muslim construction would have altered the map, since Christian depictions of Jerusalem during the Early Islamic period commonly ignored the Islamic presence in the city. 83 Verdier (1974), 26; Pullan (1998), 171, n. 70; Bahat (1990), 83. 84 However, see Pullan (1999), 169 and Kühnel (1987), 92. Verdier (1974), 21 believes the column was relocated (from the North Gate) by the artist in light of its commemorative associations with the Holy Sepulchre. See below.

81

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 82

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Instead, modern scholars have unanimously identified Adomnán’s column with the Roman-period column of the North Gate plaza,85 which appears on the Madaba Map.86 According to Vincent and Abel, ‘l’ombre projetée par cette colonne [at St Stephen’s Gate] servait à marquer la position du soleil sur l’écliptique 87 . . . Adamnanus a certainement entendu Arculfe parler de cette colonne quand il disserte de aliqua valde summa columna, quae a locis sanctis ad septentrionem in medio civitatis stans pergentibus obvia habetur’.88 Avi-Yonah identifies the North Gate column with Arculf, arguing that it was associated with ‘various legends’.89 Meehan claims that Adomnán’s summa columna faces the porta sancti Stephani and ‘is clearly discernible in the Madaba Mosaic’.90 According to Donner, ‘es handelt sich um die Säule auf dem freien Platz gegenüber der Innenseite des Damaskustores, die auf der Mosaikkarte von Madeba dargestellt ist’,91 while Wilkinson opines that Adomnán’s column ‘is no doubt the column shown inside the north gate of the city (the present Damascus Gate) by the Madaba Map’.92 Wightman argues that the North Gate ‘column gave physical expression to the Christian (and later Muslim) tradition that Jerusalem stood at the centre of the world’,93 and according to Paczkowski, Arculf ‘parla della colonna sul piazzale di fronte all’attuale porta de Damasco’.94 Other scholars, such as Pullan and Verdier, make similar assumptions.95 Indeed, an opposing opinion has not been found in the secondary literature. By extension, scholars take it for granted that Adomnán’s column was not a purpose-built monument; rather, they accept that the

85 Scholars assume that the column dates from the Roman period and that it was adorned with a statue of the emperor. See Bahat (1990), 62-4. 86 On the Madaba Map, see Piccirillo and Alliata (1998) and Avi-Yonah (1940). 87 Vincent and Abel (1914b), 922. 88 Vincent and Abel (1914b), 922, n. 5. Since Adomnán had no firsthand knowledge of Jerusalem, one cannot assume that he was aware of the North Gate column. 89 Avi-Yonah (1940a), 52. Avi-Yonah erroneously associates Arculf with the Late Byzantine period. 90 Meehan (1958), 21. 91 Donner (1979), 352, n. 38. 92 JW (2002), 177, n. 26. 93 Wightman (1993), 221. Also see Wightman’s ‘Plan of Jerusalem at the end of the 6th century’, 217, fig. 69, nr. 5, which describes the North Gate column as the ‘Column at centre of plaza (‘navel of the world’)’. 94 Paczowski (2005), 194. 95 Verdier (1974), 24; Pullan (1998), 168-71. Also see Jeremias (1926b), 82.

82

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 83

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Roman column was Christianized during the Byzantine period. The scholarly position is nicely summarized by Pullan: The Jerusalem column had been set up earlier by pagan emperors; yet, as the Madaba Map, and Arculf suggest, it seems to have become a Christian landmark as well. . . . eventually the column became associated with Christian content, accruing legends, often to do with miracles concerning the cross, which rendered it part of the Christian topography of the city.96

The argument for identifying Adomnán’s column with the North Gate column is admittedly appealing.97 First of all, Adomnán indicates that the column was ‘north of the holy places’. The North Gate is approximately 350 meters due north of the Holy Sepulchre. Secondly, the column was positioned where ‘every passer-by’ could see it. The North Gate plaza was a main node of Jerusalem, and its column was in full view of the pedestrian traffic passing in and out of the city. Third, Adomnán’s column was exposed to the midday sun on the summer solstice. The diameter of the half-circular plaza was between sixty and eighty meters.98 Fourth, although Adomnán does not explicitly mention a funeral procession, the setting could easily have accommodated such an event.99 Fifth, there is an intuitive tendency to identify Adomnán’s description, ualde summa columna, with the most prominent column on the Madaba Map.100 Finally, while Adomnán’s description of the column as in medio civitatis is problematic, it does not necessarily disqualify the North Gate setting. The phrase may simply mean that the column was inside the city walls, although it likely has a more nuanced meaning. Indeed, the North Gate column was one of the city’s civic ‘centres’, marking the point from

96 Pullan (1998), 168. Also see Verdier (1974), who argues that the column is an example of the transformation of pagan institutions by Christianity. 97 Given the scholarly consensus, the argument for associating Adomnán’s column with the North Gate has not been articulated in the secondary literature. 98 See Wightman (1993), 221 and Magen (1984). 99 However, since all versions of the legend set the Miraculous Healing in the immediate proximity of the Holy Sepulchre, the junction of the Holy Sepulchre and the cardo maximus is more persuasive. 100 However, identifying columns in a columned city is precarious task at best, and while the Madaba Map gives positive proof for the existence of a large column at the North Gate, it was not the only large column in the city.

83

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 84

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

which road distances were measured from Jerusalem.101 Since the Madaba Map is derived from a detailed road map that used the Jerusalem column as its central point, the base of the North Gate column is also the true centre of the mosaic.102 Therefore, can the North Gate column be described as ‘north of the holy places’ and ‘in the middle of the city’? Furthermore, is the column’s witness to Jerusalem’s status as the centre of the world derived from its function as the city’s civic centre? If so, Christians appropriated not only the column but its significance as well. However, since Adomnán describes the centre of the world as the column’s secondary commemoration, the argument is considerably weakened.103 Moreover, while, reflecting cartographical concerns, the column is located at the geometric axis of the Madaba Map, the Holy Sepulchre is the centre of the vignette of Jerusalem – the map distorts the size and location of the Holy Sepulchre, making the disproportionately large image the focal point of the city.104 In other words, the map expresses the fundamental Christian perception that the Holy Sepulchre was ‘in the middle of Jerusalem’, a concept routinely used by Christians to describe the site. Melito of Sardis uses the phrase to describe the setting of the Crucifixion,105 all versions of the Breviarius use it in reference to the Basilica of Constantine,106 while Epiphanius places the tomb of the Lord in the middle of the Holy City.107 Although the Holy Sepulchre’s association with the centre of Jerusalem has specifically Christian nuances, the description was not geographically inaccurate, and the thirteenth-century Muslim writer, Yâkût, had no qualms in describing the Holy Sepulchre as standing ‘in the middle of the city’.108 In short, while the phrase, in medio civitatis, could conceivably apply to the area of the North Gate, it has distinct associations with the Holy Sepulchre. Avi-Yonah (1940a), 30. According to Avi-Yohan (1940a), 30, one would expect the Holy Sepulchre to be the centre of the map; however, more exact calculations have shown that ‘the true centre of the map is the base of the column inside the northern gate of the city’. AviYohan argues that this was due to the fact that road distances from Jerusalem were measured from the column. Also see Verdier (1974), 28 and Pullan (1998), 168. 103 Moreover, it seems rather unlikely that the distant column would be considered as the centre of the world at the cosmological expense of the Holy Sepulchre. See below. 104 Avi-Yonah (1940a), 30. 105 Melito of Sardis, Paschal Homily, 71-2 and 93-4. See Harvey (1966). 106 Brev., 1, Brev. A, 1 and Brev. B, 2. 107 Epiphanius, Hag., 2. 108 See Le Strange (1976), 128. 101 102

84

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 85

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Thus, despite the compelling arguments, there are a number of problems with the North Gate location. First of all, two other references in the pilgrim sources have been mistakenly identified with the North Gate column. The first appears in the account of the Piacenza Pilgrim: On this highway [going north from Jerusalem to Diospolis], not very far from the city, stands a marble column in the middle of the road. In former times the Lord was being taken towards it to be scourged, it was lifted up by a cloud and escaped, and was set down in this place. You can see this is true, since it has no base to stand on, but rests directly in the earth, and can be moved to and fro. On top of it stands a cross made of iron. You can climb it by steps, and people take lights and incense up it.109

Conrad Schick regards portions of a giant column discovered outside the Damascus Gate as belonging to the column of the Piacenza Pilgrim.110 The comment, published in ‘Notes and News’ of the PEFQSt in 1902, has been interpreted by Lecoffre as a reference to the Madaba Map: ‘la colonne d’Antonin [the Piacenza Pilgrim], d’une localization imprecise, pourrait être celle qui est représentée à la porte septentrionale de la ville dans la mosaïque de Mâdaba’.111 Avi-Yonah cites the Piacenza Pilgrim as evidence that the imperial statue on the North Gate column was replaced by a cross,112 while Pullan has also weighed the possibility, noting that ‘it is unclear whether the column with a cross seen by the Piacenza Pilgrim in the sixth century was at St Stephen’s Gate [i.e., the North Gate] or further north of the city’.113 Along with its location in the middle of a highway, the pilgrim notes that the column had no base and could be moved back and forth. Moreover, there were steps adjacent to the column, allowing people to climb to the top, which hardly describes the grand column of the North Gate. Wilkinson has rightly argued that ‘we should rather seek [the column] in the district of the city of Diospolis’.114 The second column misidentified with the North Gate column is the so-called Jephonias monument associated with the funeral procesPiacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 25, trans. in JW (2002), 141-2. Schick (1902), 2-3. 111 Lecoffre (1902), 320. 112 Avi-Yonah (1940a), 52. 113 Pullan (1998), 170, n. 52. 114 JW (2002), 142, n. 35. 109 110

85

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 86

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

sion of St Mary and described by Willibald: et ipse dixit, quod ante portam civitatis staret magna columna, et in summitate columne stat crux.115 Both the internal and external evidence places the column outside the East Gate of the city,116 while the North Gate location is commemoratively incoherent since a funeral procession from Holy Sion to Gethsemane would pass nowhere near the North Gate. Nonetheless, a number of scholars, including Bauch, Bahat and Wilkinson, have considered the possibility.117 Pullan assumes that the North Gate column was described by both Adomnán and Willibald: ‘in the seventh century Arculf associates the [North Gate] column with a miracle of the cross . . . and an eighth century account [i.e., Willibald] refers to a great column with a cross at the city gate’,118 while according to Verdier, ‘cette tradition [of Willibald] est d’accord avec le témoignage d’Arculfe, rapporté par Adamnanus, suivi par Béde, que le miracle du jeune home rappelé à la vie eut lieu sur la place d’Aelia où s’élevait la grande colonne d’Hadrian’.119 In short, columns respectively described by Willibald and the Piacenza Pilgrim have been erroneously identified with the North Gate column. The point underscores the tendency of scholars to associate references to columns in the pilgrim literature with the column on the Madaba Map, while the accumulative effect is that the North Gate column has become a lightning rod of Christian commemorations. It is certainly dubious that three commemorations – the centre of the world, the Miraculous Healing and the funeral of Mary – were associated with a single Roman column, when, in each case, the location begs the commemorative credibility of the respective legend.120 Once the columns of Willibald and the Piacenza Pilgrim are correctly identified, a second objection becomes apparent; namely, the North Gate column does not appear in a single pilgrim text. Of particular interest are three texts that describe their pilgrim subjects as entering the city from the north. In Jerome’s description of Paula’s arrival into Jerusalem, he VW, 97.32-3. See the full discussion in section 3.6.2.2.2. The AG, 7 and Epiphanius, Hag., 24 also describe the monument. 117 Bahat (1996), 46; Bauch (1962), 103, n. 124; JW (2002), 242, map 43. 118 Pullan (1998), 170, n. 52. According to Pullan (1998), 171, n. 68: ‘Willibald notes that the column at the [North Gate] was “to remind people of the place where the Jews wanted to take away the body of St. Mary”’. 119 Verdier (1974), 24. Neither Adomnán nor Bede associates the event with ‘la grande colonne d’Hadrian’. 120 See below. 115 116

86

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 87

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

refers to the tomb of Helena Abiadene, otherwise known as the Tomb of the Kings and located approximately 600 meters north of the city, but he fails to mention the North Gate column.121 John Rufus begins the pilgrim circuit of Peter the Iberian at the Basilica of St Stephen, some two hundred meters north of the city. From there, Peter went to the Holy Sepulchre, passing the column on his way; again, the column is ignored.122 According to Eucherius, ‘people coming into the city from the north are taken to their first holy place by the layout of the streets, and visit the Martyrium, lately built with great magnificence’.123 In short, the North Gate column is not mentioned in any of the pilgrim sources. This may be the case, because, third, there is no evidence that the North Gate column 1) had any commemorative significance or 2) was adorned with any Christian imagery. To be sure, the Roman column was a significant geographical landmark of the city and the Arabic name for the North Gate – Ba¯b al-‘Amu¯d, or ‘the Gate of the Column’ – suggests that it was still standing during the Early Islamic period.124 According to Avi-Yonah, the imperial statue on the column was replaced by a cross.125 Paczkowski places the bust of Christ on it, while Bahat suggests that it was crowned with the image of a saint.126 While such possibilities cannot be ruled out, the speculation is influenced by the errant appropriation of Willibald, the Piacenza Pilgrim and the Prüfening manuscript.127 While Verdier correctly states that the iconography of the Prüfening map reflects the column’s commemorative significance, the appearance of the monument (regardless of its location) can not be based upon the twelfth-century manuscript.128 The point is further informed by the Madaba Map. Despite the column’s prominence in the vignette of Jerusalem, there is nothing Jerome, Ep., 108, 9.1. John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi, 99. 123 Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 5-6, trans. in JW (2002), 94. Also see Bede, DLS, 2. 124 Although they do not explicitly mention the column, Mukadassi in 985, Idrı ˆsıˆ in 1154 and Mujıˆr ad Dıˆn in 1496 each refer to the North Gate as the Ba¯b al-‘Amu¯d. See Le Strange (1976) 132-6 and (1896), 38 and 39, n. 7. I am not aware of any Crusader sources that mention the column. 125 Avi-Yonah (1940a), 52. 126 Paczkowski (2005), 194, n. 174: ‘Nel disegno che illustra il pellegrinaggio di Arculfo si vede, di fronte alla porta principale, una colonna sormontata dal busto di Cristo, laddove un tempo c’era la statua de Adriano’. Bahat (1990), 83. 127 The columns mentioned in Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 25 and VW, 97.32-3 were both surmounted with crosses. 128 See Verdier (1974), 21: sur le dessin du manuscript de Prüfening, elle [i.e., the column erected by Hadrian] supporte la croix et l’imago clipeata du Christ. 121 122

87

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 88

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

to suggest that the column was a Christianized feature of the city. Although the map depicts an image of Christian Jerusalem, the map contains a number of topographical details that do not have a specifically Christian function. Similarly, a large column on a map of Christian Jerusalem does not mean that it was Christianized, particularly when it is distinctly unadorned.129 In the end, the Madaba Map and the Arabic name for the North Gate are the only solid evidence for the column; neither source suggests that it had any Christian significance. The fourth objection concerns Adomnán’s failure to mention the gate, which he previously identifies as the gate of St Stephen, even though the column all but stood in its shadow.130 Arculf presumably provided Adomnán with more details of the column’s location than is contained within the text, perhaps even drawing the abbot a map of Jerusalem, which would have pinpointed its position within the city. Yet, instead of naming the gate, the column’s location is described visà-vis the holy sites of the Passion and Resurrection. Having examined the North Gate location, the discussion now turns to the arguments for identifying Adomnán’s column with the locus of the Miraculous Healing collectively described by Epiphanius, Willibald and Daniel the Abbot. In all, four areas of argumentation will be discussed: 1) commemoration, 2) location, 3) appearance and 4) context. First of all, it is not insignificant that the two commemorations associated with Adomnán’s column – the Miraculous Healing and the centre of the world – were intimately connected with the Holy Sepulchre. Regarding the latter, the idea of Jerusalem’s centrality emerges in the writings of the post-exilic period, particularly in Ezekiel, which describes Jerusalem as the ‘centre of the nations, with countries all around her’.131 Throughout Ezekiel, Jerusalem is portrayed as a cosmic mountain at the centre of the world (omphalos) – the ‘meeting place of heaven and earth’ – an image specifically associated with the Jewish Temple.132

129

The column may very well have been adorned with a cross. However, there is no evidence that the column had any commemorative function. 130 See Adomnán, DLS, 1.1.3. 131 Ez 5:5 and 38:12. 132 On early Jewish understandings of the centre of the world, see Safrai (1996), Talmon (1977), Alexander (1982) and (1998).

88

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 89

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Christianity appropriated the idea of Jerusalem’s centrality, shifting the Temple tradition to the Calvarie locus,133 and by the Early Islamic period, the idea that Calvary was the centre of the world was commonplace.134 Two generations prior to Arculf ’s visit to Jerusalem, Sophronius describes the Rock of Calvary as the navel of the earth: And prostrate I will venerate The Navel-point of the earth, that divine Rock In which was fixed the Wood Which undid the curse of the tree.135

Sophronius’ description suggests that the centre of the world was physically marked on or near the Rock of Calvary. In the ninth century, the centre of the world was located in the adjacent courtyard, roughly equidistant from the loci of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. According to Bernard, chains stretching across the inner courtyard intersected at the axis mundi,136 while the tenth-century Typikon of the Anastasis lists a liturgical station at the omphalos as part of its Great Friday liturgy.137 While the commemoration shifted from the Rock of Calvary to the adjacent courtyard, the centre of the world remained inside the Holy Sepulchre. Adomnán is not the only source to link the summer solstice with the centrality of Jerusalem. The twelfth-century account of Nikulás of þverá (c.1140) explicitly associates the phenomenon with the Holy Sepulchre: ‘There is the church [which] . . . is called the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and it is open above over the sepulchre. The centre of the earth is there, where the sun shrines directly down from the sky on the feast of John’ (June 24 – i.e., the summer solstice).138 Along with 133 On the association of Golgotha, or the place of Calvary, with the centre of the world, see Paczkowski (2005), Jeremias (1926b), esp. 80-5, Piganiol (1945), Wilken (1992b), 11 and J.Z. Smith (1987), 84-5 and 166, n. 51. For early Christian references, see Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., 13.28, Hilary of Poitier, Commentarius in Matthaeum, 33.4 (PL 9), 1075, Didymus of Alexandria, De Trinitate, 1.15 (PG 39), 324, Ambrose, Expositio in Luke, 10.114 (CCSL 14), 378 and Andrew of Crete, Oratio XI in exaltationem sanctae crucis II (PG 97), 1044A. 134 Wilken (1992b), 230. 135 Sophronius, Anacr., 20.29-32, trans. in JW (2002), 158. 136 Bernard, It. Bern., 11. In the early twelfth century, Daniel the Abbot, WB, 10-1 also locates the centre of the world in the inner courtyard. 137 Typicon, 3.1. See Vincent and Abel (1914b), 230 and Jeremias (1926b), 82, n. 5. 138 Nikulás of þverá, Extract from Nikulás of þverá, 80-7, trans. in JW (1988), 217. On the feast of St John the Baptist, see GL, 1055-61. For a discussion of the summer solstice and the centre of the world, see Verdier (1974), 29-31.

89

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 90

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the evidence of Sophronius and Bernard, Nikulás’ association of the centre of the world, the feast of St John the Baptist and the dome of the church suggests that Adomnán’s column was likewise located near the Holy Sepulchre. Indeed, given the well-documented histories of the centre of the world and the Miraculous Healing, it would be somewhat remarkable to find either commemoration outside the immediate vicinity of the Holy Sepulchre. The probability that both traditions were associated with a single column located a considerable distance from the site – while the same traditions were still being commemorated in their authentic locations – is remote indeed. A few scholars have acknowledged that the two commemorations mentioned by Adomnán are traditionally associated with the Holy Sepulchre. According to Pullan, ‘Arculf ’s comment is a curious one, for there is no doubt that Golgotha was believed by Christians to mark the sacred centre of the earth’,139 while Kühnel points out that Adomnán’s reference to the Miraculous Healing differs little from the miracles related to the discovery of the True Cross at Golgotha.140 Paczkowski describes Adomnán’s account as ‘una tradizione abbastanza curiosa e non collegata con la basilica del S. Sepelcro’.141 Despite acknowledging the curiousness of Adomnán’s remarks, scholars have interpreted the evidence to accommodate the assumption that the column was located at the North Gate without fully considering its commemorative credibility.142 Two additional aspects of the commemorative argument must be addressed. First of all, Adomnán is the only source that associates both commemorations with the same site. Yet, even for him, the primary commemoration of the column was the Miraculous Healing; the centre of the world was a secondary and attributive feature.143 Moreover, Adomnán’s restraint in identifying the column as the axis mundi should be seen in light of Sophronius’ reference to the Rock of Calvary

Pullan (1998), 169. Kühnel (1987), 92. 141 Packowski (2005), 194. 142 See, for instance, the arguments of Jeremias (1926b), 82 and Verdier (1974), 24-5. 143 The monument’s primary association with the legend of the Holy Cross is acknowledged by Adomnán, who introduces the column as the place where the young man was revived by the Holy Cross. Only then does he describe the column’s association with the centrality of Jerusalem. See the discussion in O’Loughlin (2007), 118-3, who does not recognize the Miraculous Healing as the primary association of the column. 139 140

90

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 91

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

as the navel of the earth.144 In other words, Adomnán’s column derived its secondary function from its proximity to the recognized locus of centre of the world.145 Secondly, Adomnán differs from Epiphanius and Daniel the Abbot regarding the recipient of the miraculous healing. Adomnán describes a young man, while the other two writers refer to a young maiden. The difference in gender reflects a consistent distinction in the transmission of the legend between the East and the West and does not provide grounds for two separate commemorations. As previously established, the same site was recognized by both Western (i.e., Willibald) and Eastern (i.e., Epiphanius and Daniel the Abbot) pilgrims. The second argument for identifying Adomnán’s column with the aforementioned tradition is location. As previously discussed, scholars have assumed that Epiphanius’ monument was indoors. It has been argued, however, that ‘below the house of Joseph’ does not necessarily mean ‘underneath’ it, while Epiphanius’ allusion to the funeral procession, the monument’s similarities to a Marian structure outside the East Gate and the supporting testimony of Daniel the Abbot all suggest an outdoor location. On the other hand, Adomnán’s description, ‘north of the holy places’, has led scholars away from the Holy Sepulchre. It is not insignificant, however, that the column’s location is described in relation to the holy places, and while the phrase suggests a degree of separation, it does not imply a distance of any great measure – only that the column was north of the roughly east-west axis between the Rock of Calvary and the tomb of the Christ. The point is most significant: like Epiphanius and Daniel the Abbot, Adomnán’s source, Arculf, is making a west-to-east walk-through of the Holy Sepulchre. In other words, from Arculf ’s perspective anything on his left side was ‘north of the holy places’. Considering that the primary designation of the col144 Adomnán does not explicitly state that the column was located on the ipse locus of the centre of the world. Rather, the column was a signifier, indicating that the entire city was the ‘navel of the earth’, a status which Adomnán attributes to the ‘holy places of the Passion and Resurrection’. 145 While Adomnán fails to locate the actual centre of the world, the column should be regarded as complimenting the tradition of Sophronius. Since the Rock of Calvary was located inside the Holy Sepulchre, it was not exposed to the noonday sun on the summer solstice. Therefore, the idea – it was never an observed phenomenon – became attached to an outdoor structure in the area. While the idea captured the imagination of Arculf, it is unclear whether he was ever in Jerusalem for the summer solstice.

91

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 92

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

umn was its location in medio civitatis, the idea that Arculf is describing a place on his left as he moved through the eastern end of the Holy Sepulchre is far more credible than a column 350 meters away on the edge of the city.146 There is also a precedent in the pilgrim literature for using directional references to describe the relationship between places within the Holy Sepulchre. Epiphanius, for example, locates the prison of Christ to the north of the garden, or inner courtyard,147 while the Ottobonian Guide (1099–103) states that the prison was north of the tomb.148 In each case, the two loci were only meters apart. As previously alluded to, the phrase, ‘north of the holy places’, did not dissuade either Adomnán or Bede from associating the column with the Holy Sepulchre. Adomnán’s description of the column includes a two-fold reference to the holy places: 1) the phrase, ‘north of the holy places’ (DLS, 1.11.1) and 2) his use of Ps 73:12 (Ps 74:12 in the Vulgate) – ‘yet God, our King, of old worked salvation in the midst of the earth’ – as a reference to the ‘holy places of the Passion and Resurrection’ (DLS, 1.11.4). Bede cites Ps 73:12 before explicitly associating the column with Golgotha: ‘There is a place, which we believe to be the centre of the whole world. The Jews call it in their own language, Golgotha’.149 Since both writers were arm-chair pilgrims, their perceptions of the city are not determinate; neither are they insignificant. Even in lieu of the phrase, ‘north of the holy places’, there is a clear precedent, beginning with Adomnán’s interpretation of Arculf, for associating the column with the ‘holy places of the Passion and Resurrection’. A final point regarding location concerns the column’s relationship with Adomnán’s manuscript drawings of the Holy Sepulchre.150 First of all, the proposed site of Adomnán’s column – somewhere to the north and east of the basilica’s entrance – is outside the area represented by the drawings. Second, since we must assume that Epiphanius’ monument was standing at the time of Arculf’s visit, the omission of the Miraculous 146 See the discussion below on the identity of the two churches mentioned in chapters 1.9 and 1.10, which supports the argument that the column (1.11) belongs to Adomnán’s account of the Holy Sepulchre and that Arculf is describing its location from the perspective of his west-to-east walk-through of the Holy Sepulchre. 147 Epiphanius, Hag., 3. 148 Ottobonian Guide, 2. 149 Bede, DLS, 2.6; Victorinus (Ps. Cyprianus), de Pascha, 1.2. 150 For facsimiles of the drawings, see JW (2002), 379-86.

92

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 93

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Healing from the manuscript drawings does not inform the location of Adomnán’s column. Third, the drawings omit the front atrium, while the basilica, which lacks an eastern entrance, is proportionally diminished. Scholars maintain that the eighth-century basilica still preserved its Constantinian dimensions.151 The argument is confirmed by the Commemoratorium, which indicates that the basilica was still the longest section of the complex: ‘From the Holy Sepulchre to Holy Calvary is 28 dexteri; from Holy Calvary to where the Holy Cross was discovered is 19 dexteri. The whole range of buildings including the Holy Sepulchre, Holy Calvary and St Constantine, is altogether 96 dexteri long and 30 wide’.152 Therefore, the length of the Basilica of Constantine was approximately 49 dexteri, or half the size of the entire complex.153 Rather, the distortions in the manuscript drawings most likely reflect the importance of the tomb of Christ in the pilgrim imagination.154 Nonetheless, the drawings raise an important question: was the eastern access to the basilica restricted in the post-Byzantine period? At issue is not the question of Persian destruction but rather the implications of the legend of ‘Umar. According to Eutychius of Alexander (bef. 939), ‘Umar, the conqueror of Jerusalem, refused to pray inside the Holy Sepulchre in order to prevent the church from being turned into a mosque. So, He went out to the steps, which are at the door of St Constantine’s church, at the east end, and prayed there alone upon the steps. . . . [Afterwards, ‘Umar] wrote a charter, wherein he forbade any Mohammedan whatever to pray upon those steps, save himself alone, and forbade them to assemble there for prayers, or to be called together there for prayers by the voice of the muezzin. . . . But in these our days the Mohammedans have disobeyed the written words of [‘Umar] . . . they have done the same thing, too, with regard to the steps, which were at the gate of Constantine’s church, the steps upon which [‘Umar] prayed, and they have taken to themselves half of the vestibule [i.e., atrium] of the church, and made an oratory therein, which they call ‘Umar’s oratory.155

For an opposing view, see Garbarino (2005), esp. fig. 8 and 11. Comm., 56. 153 While the calculation may not include the distance from the tomb to the western end of the Anastasis, the Commemoratorium indicates that the basilica was still the largest feature of the complex. 154 See section 3.3. 155 Eutychius of Alexander, Annales, 118-20, trans. in Stewart (1895), 65, 67-8. 151 152

93

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 94

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

In the late nineteenth century, during excavations of the Russian Hospice, an area corresponding to the southern end of the former atrium, an undated Kufi inscription referring to a mosque was found in a sandstone block, 110 cm square and 105 cm thick.156 Citing examples from Damascus and Jerusalem, Busse argues that a mihrab was originally located in the south wall of the atrium and that the oratory was intended for individual prayer – not as a congregational place of worship – until the Al-Aqsa Mosque was built on the Haram. In the ninth or tenth century, sometime before Eutychius, Muslims remembered the old site of the oratory and constructed a mosque on the south side of the atrium.157 While the presence of the oratory must be considered, it does not adversely effect the location of the Miraculous Healing. First of all, Eutychius explicitly limits the oratory to one half of the atrium. The implication is that the other half of the atrium remained in Christian hands. Secondly, the respective traditions consistently describe a different sides of the complex – the Miraculous Healing was to the north, while the oratory was on the south. Third, there is no evidence in the Early Islamic sources that pilgrim movement through the Holy Sepulchre was altered after the Arab conquest – i.e., pilgrims continued to access the Holy Sepulchre from the east. Both Epiphanius and Adomnán describe the complex as a west-to-east walk-through, while continuing their account near the East Gate of the city. They presumably exited the Holy Sepulchre by its eastern door. In short, Adomnán’s description of the column’s location is in full and complete agreement with the evidence of Epiphanius, Willibald and Daniel the Abbot. While Adomnán places the column in medio civitatis, Epiphanius begins his account of the Holy Sepulchre by describing its location ‘in the middle of the Holy City’.158 Since both texts are describing the monument from the perspective of a west-to-east walk-through of the Holy Sepulchre, Adomnán’s phrase, ‘north of the holy places’, compliments Epiphanius’ reference to the left side of the basilica. Adomnán indicates that the monument was outdoors, where it was exposed to the

156 See Busse (1993), esp. 75-6. The evidence has caused Biddle, Avni, Seligman and Winter (2000), 41 to entertain the unlikely possibility that ‘it is perhaps thus from ‘Umar’s time that the main entrance to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was moved to the south, to roughly where it is today, the eastern portico being from now on forbidden to the Christians’. 157 See Busse (1993). Bahat (1990), 81, 86-7 dates the mosque to 935. 158 Epiphanius, Hag., 2.

94

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 95

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

noonday sun on the summer solstice, while the arguments for locating Epiphanius’ monument outdoors have been previously detailed – its open-air location is supported by Daniel’s statement that the commemoration was near, or beyond, the eastern door, while the evidence of Willibald indicates that he encountered the Miraculous Healing prior to entering the church. Finally, Adomnán’s statement that the column was seen ‘by every passer-by’ describes the heavily-trafficked entrance to the Holy Sepulchre and its nearby junction with the cardo maximus, a most appropriate setting for the passing funeral procession mentioned by Epiphanius.159 On the argument of location alone, there is a much stronger case for associating Adomnán’s column with the established tradition of the Holy Sepulchre than with the area of the North Gate. The third argument concerns the appearance or design of the commemoration, which is only described by Adomnán and Epiphanius. While the argument appears to be the most problematic; the evidence still supports the mutual identification of the respective structures. Whereas Adomnán describes the monument as a ualde summa columna, Epiphanius refers to it as a tetrakionin, or ‘a structure with four columns’.160 To begin with, the disparity of number is misleading. The presumed task is not to reconcile four columns with one but rather to reconcile a single structure with a large column. However, the two descriptions do not have to be harmonized. Rather, a similar precedent in the textual sources will resolve the problem – i.e., a second example of a Latin writer using the singular word, columna, to refer to an object otherwise described by a Greek writer as a tetrakionin. Indeed, such a parallel occurs between Epiphanius and Willibald in their respective descriptions of the Jephonias monument, which stood outside the East Gate of the city.161 Epiphanius once again uses the 159 Compare Adomnán’s reference to ‘every passer-by’ with Eusebius’s description of the propyleaum of the Holy Sepulchre that ‘afforded to passers-by on the outside a view of the interior which could not fail to inspire astonishment’ (VC, 3.39, trans. in Richardson (1991), 530). 160 Epiphanius, Hag., 4; Donner (1971), 83, section 2, lines 12-3. Donner translates the phrase as: ‘unter dem Hause ist ein kleiner Viersäulenraum’. Epiphanius’ use of the diminutive, tetrakionin, which is reflected in Donner’s translation, does not suggest that the structure was incompatible with Adomnán’s ualde summa columna. The English translation is found in JW (2002), 208. 161 See table 1. Most scholars do not recognize the mutual testimony of Epiphanius and Willibald regarding the Jephonias monument (see section 3.6.2.2.2). The problem again lies in the respective accounts of the monument’s design. Scholars reject the descriptions as incompatible, failing to recognize the parallels that exist between Epiphanius and the two Latin texts.

95

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 96

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

word, tetrakionin, to describe the structure,162 while Willibald refers to it as a magna columna.163 The Marian commemoration provides a clear example of a Latin and Greek writer referring to the same structure as a columna and tetrakionin.164 The precedent removes the largest obstacle preventing Adomnán’s column from being identified as Epiphanius’ monument; the possibility that the discrepancy denotes a physical alteration to the monument can also be dismissed.165 Having discussed commemoration, location and appearance, a fourth argument, the topographical context of the respective texts also locates the column near the Holy Sepulchre. The column appears at the end of Adomnán’s intramural description of Jerusalem. In the ensuing chapters, Adomnán takes the reader to Gethsemane and the Mount of Olives (1.12-15), while the preceding two chapters – on the sudarium (1.9) and the cloth woven by St Mary (1.10) – separate the column from material that is clearly associated with the Holy Sepulchre. In short, the argument associating Adomnán’s column with the Holy Sepulchre will be further strengthened if the churches possessing the respective cloth relics can be located within the complex. First of all, this would support the argument that Adomnán’s column belongs to his account of the Holy Sepulchre (1.1-11). Secondly, it would further suggest that the Church of Mary’s Weaving was located near the column of the Miraculous Healing. Arculf almost certainly saw the sudarium in the Holy Sepulchre, where, according to the Commemoratorium, it was kept in the early ninth century.166 The identity of the church possessing the linen cloth of Mary is more elusive;167 yet, there is reason to believe that it was the Epiphanius, Hag., 24; Donner (1971), 87, section 8, line 6. VW, 97.32-98.34. 164 For a more fulsome discussion of the parallels between the two monuments, see section 3.6.2.2.2. 165 While the monument’s appearance is open to question, the more-nuanced description of Epiphanius is perhaps more accurate. The monument was almost certainly adorned with an image of the cross. This is suggested by its commemorative focus on the True Cross, while both Willibald (VW, 97.33) and the AG, 6-7 indicate that the Marian commemoration was crowned by a cross. 166 Comm., 1. 167 Adomnán, DLS, 1.10.1-2, trans. in JW (2002), 176: the cloth relic is ‘venerated by the whole population. Pictures of the twelve Apostles are woven into it, and there is also a portrait of the Lord. Part of this cloth is red in color, and part, on the other side, is green as grass’. I am not aware of any discussion regarding the identity of the church. Neither Meehan (1958), 20-2 nor Donner (1979), 351-2 refer to the church in their topographical analyses of Adomnán’s DLS. 162 163

96

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 97

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

same structure as Epiphanius’ house of Joseph.168 As previously discussed, the house of Joseph is described in the Protoevangelium as the living quarters of Mary and the setting of the Annunciation.169 The text also associates the house with the weaving of Mary.170 According to the Piacenza Pilgrim, the girdle and headband of the Virgin were housed in the basilica near the icon of the Theotokos.171 In light of what appears to be a Marian focus on the north side of the basilica and given the association between Mary’s weaving and her house in Jerusalem, it seems likely that Adomnán’s unnamed church is Epiphanius’ house of Joseph. If so, then both texts describe the monument of the Miraculous Healing immediately after the house of Joseph. In any case, it is not insignificant that Adomnán, Epiphanius and Daniel the Abbot each describe the Miraculous Healing immediately after a Marian relic and before leading the reader towards the East Gate of the city.172 Finally, the historical context of the monument may be proposed. Given its appearance in the seventh-century sources, the structure was arguably built during the Inter-conquest period. Cyril Mango has previously advanced the idea that a monument was either planned or built in the wake of Heraclius’ restoration of the True Cross in 630.173 Among his arguments, Mango notes that the Golden Gate does not line up with the Dome of the Rock but rather with the axis of the Holy Sepulchre and that, at least by the ninth century, popular Christian legend associated the Golden Gate with Heraclius’ entry into the city. Epiphanius, Hag., 4. Proto., 9-16. 170 Proto., 10. 171 See the Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 20 and JW (2002), 365. 172 See table 3. Epiphanius, Hag., 4 and Daniel the Abbot, WB, 15 both refer to the icon of Mary prior to their description of the Miraculous Healing. After the monument of the Miraculous Healing, Epiphanius (5) and Daniel the Abbot (15-6) take the reader to the pool of Bethesda, while Adomnán describes the tomb of Mary (1.12) outside the East Gate. 173 Mango (1992), 6-7, 15. Similarly, Bahat (1998), 55 states that ‘the Byzantine dating of the gate also has a good historical event to match, namely the entry of the Emperor Heraclius into the city in 629’. Also see Bahat (1996), 42. Linder (1975), 54 notes that the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross was enriched with a new layer of historical and legendary material by the events of the early seventh century – the fall of Jerusalem, the loss of the relic of the True Cross and the restoration of the True Cross by Heraclius. On the view that the Golden Gate is an Umayyad foundation, see O. Grabar (1996), 42, R. Schick (1999a), 227 and Tsafrir (1998b), 162, n. 16. For a plan of the Golden Gate, see Bahat (1980), 53. 168 169

97

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 98

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

While Mango admits that his argument is speculative, it is worth considering the impact of the event upon the commemorative topography of Jerusalem, and it is certainly possible that the appearance of a new monument erected in front of the Holy Sepulchre and dedicated to the Miraculous Healing was inspired by the restoration of the True Cross.174 The destruction of the monument is less certain; if it was still standing at the beginning of the eleventh century, it seems unlikely that the monument survived the 1009 destruction of the Holy Sepulchre. Daniel’s account certainly implies that the monument had been destroyed by the early twelfth century. In summary, Epiphanius, Daniel the Abbot, Willibald and Adomnán provide a remarkably coherent description of the Miraculous Healing. On the other hand, evidence for the Christianization of the North Gate column has been found wanting, and the argument for two seventh-century monuments to the Miraculous Healing must be rejected. Rather, Adomnán and Epiphanius provide a common seventh-century witness to a purposed-built monument dedicated to the Miraculous Healing that was located 1) near the so-called house of Joseph, 2) north of the east end of the Basilica of Constantine and 3) in an exposed area that may have communicated with the cardo maximus. Willibald encountered the monument upon entering the Holy Sepulchre and attributed it with the restoration of his sight. In the early twelfth century, Daniel the Abbot recalled the legend as he surveyed the commemorative landscape of the ruined basilica. The sources indicate that the Miraculous Healing was a prominent feature upon the Christian topography of Early Islamic Jerusalem. 3.1.4.5 The Three Wooden Crosses Having established the location of the Miraculous Healing and, more generally, the commemorative landscape of the Holy Cross legend, which extended from the Finding of the Cross inside the basilica to the monument of the Miraculous Healing situated along its eastern approach, the discussion turns to a set of three wooden crosses: et ibi stant nunc tres cruces ligneas foris in orientale plaga aecclesie secus pariete ad memoriam sanctae crucis dominicae et aliorum qui cum eo crucifixi erant; illa non sunt nunc intus in aecclesia, sed foris stant sub tecto extra aecclesia.175 The crosses greatly impressed Willibald, who provides 174 The possible role of Heraclius in the erection of the Marian monument is discussed in section 3.6.2.2.2. 175 VW, 97.13-6.

98

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 99

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

more information on them than either the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux or the locus of the Crucifixion. Moreover, while his imagination was captured by the commemorative crosses, he fails to mention a number of relics, such as the lance, the sponge and the cup, that were on display inside the Holy Sepulchre.176 Willibald’s description of the three crosses raises two central questions: 1) which event – the Crucifixion or the Finding of the Holy Cross – are the crosses commemorating, and 2) where exactly were the crosses located? Regarding the first question, Willibald associates the commemorative objects with other crosses – they were ad memoriam sanctae crucis dominicae et aliorum qui cum eo crucifixi erant – suggesting a link to the Holy Cross legend and its motif of the three crosses. Adomnán’s drawings of the Holy Sepulchre also imply that Willibald’s tres cruces ligneas were associated with the legend of the Holy Cross rather than the Crucifixion. The drawings show a rectangular area on the east, or right, side of the plan containing the figure of three crosses with the label: Constantiniana basilica, hoc est martyrium, in quo loco crux dominica cum binis latronum crucibus sub terra reperta est.177 The Calvarie locus is marked on the drawings by a single cross that presumably corresponds to the cross of silver mentioned in Adomnán’s text.178 Similarly, the three crosses most likely represent actual objects, suggesting that at the time of Arculf ’s visit – less than two generations prior to Willibald – the Finding of the Holy Cross was commemorated inside the basilica by the image of three crosses. According to Willibald, the crosses, which had previously been intus in aecclesia, were now foris and in orientale plaga aecclesie secus pariete where they stood sub tecto.179 The description suggests that the outdoor crosses were located against the eastern façade of the basilica See AG, 1, Adomnán, DLS, 1.7-8 and Epiphanius, Hag., 3. JW (2002), 385. 178 Adomnán, DLS, 1.5.1. Willibald’s three crosses were not associated with the precise locus of Calvary. This is indicated by his reference to the movement of the crosses. However, compare with JW (2002), 362-3, who incorrectly states that Willibald’s three crosses replaced the silver cross mentioned by Adomnán. Also see JW (1977), 117: ‘Hugeburc tells us that he saw three crosses out of doors under a roof. . . . Hugeburc is not the first to record the roof above the cross, for it is already mentioned at the beginning of the sixth century and is represented, admittedly in a somewhat abstract way, on the early seventh-century silver flasks now in Monza and Bobbio’. 179 VW, 97.13-6. Gibson and Taylor (1994), 84-5 agree that Adomnán and Willibald are referring to the same crosses. 176 177

99

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 100

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

and were sheltered by a portico in the front atrium.180 The location was certainly appropriate: the three wooden crosses, representing the basilica’s primary commemoration, would have greeted pilgrims as they entered the church ‘where the Holy Cross was found’. Moreover, they would have stood in-between the Finding of the Cross and the Miraculous Healing, further establishing the area as the commemorative landscape of the Holy Cross. Along with the monument of the Miraculous Healing, the three crosses outside the basilica’s front entrance would also inform Willibald’s references to the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux – he mentions the locus prior to his introduction of the basilica, while associating the restoration of his sight with the entrance of the church. Moreover, if the tres cruces ligneas were located near the entrance of the church, a remarkable parallel would exist between the events of Willibald’s blindness and those of his childhood illness. In each case, his health was restored by the standing image of the Holy Cross.181 Despite the case for placing the tres cruces ligneas in front of the basilica, Willibald’s description is not without its difficulties. The main argument against the location is the contextual sequence of Willibald’s account.182 The description of the three crosses is sandwiched between ibi est nunc aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus; et haec fuit prius extra Hierusalem; sed Helena, quando invenit crucem, collocavit illam locum intus intra Hierusalem and et ibi secus est ille hortus, in quo erat sepulchrum Salvatoris.183 In short, it has been argued that the three crosses were located somewhere between the basilica and the tomb of the Christ.

180 While there were porticos on the north and south sides of the front atrium, it is unclear whether there was a portico – or overhanging roof – on the front eastern wall of the church. If not, for the crosses to have stood under a roof and against the eastern wall of the church, they were either in the northwest or southwest corner of the atrium. See Gibson and Taylor (1994), 85, who accept the eastern side of the basilica as the location of Willibald’s crosses. 181 The prominence afforded the image in the episode of his childhood illness suggests that the tres cruces ligneas were regarded by Willibald as an intervening agent in the restoration of his sight regardless of their location within the church. 182 According to Bauch (1962), 102, n. 115: ‘Diese Aufzählung entspricht genau der Reihenfolge, in welcher die Pilger die von Konstantin d. Gr. Erbaute and nach dem Persereinfall von 614 wieder hergestellte Gesamountanlage von Osten nach Westen durchschritten haben’. 183 Willibald’s use of secus ibi more likely indicates that the hortus was generally near the church rather than specifically near the crosses.

100

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 101

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Bauch contends that the apparent difficulties in Willibald’s description of the tres cruces ligneas are removed when the church in question is identified as the Church of Golgotha.184 Although Bauch’s concerns may be justified, the idea that Willibald is referring to the Church of Golgotha will be rejected – all usages of aecclesia in Willibald’s account of the Holy Sepulchre are references to the Basilica of Constantine.185 Moreover, Willibald’s reference to the church’s eastern wall does not correspond with the known layout of the ecclesia Golgothanae, which abutted the western end of the basilica. In other words, it did not have an external eastern wall.186 Leaving aside the identity of the church, the three crosses could possibly have been located in the inner courtyard. However, the difficulty of the eastern wall still remains. While Wilkinson asserts that ‘“east” should surely be “west”’,187 the possibility that Willibald mistakenly describes the basilica as if it was oriented towards the east (the east side of the church would then refer to the area of the inner courtyard) can be dismissed, since his ensuing description of the tomb of Christ demonstrates his awareness of the site’s western orientation.188 If anything, the clarity of Willibald’s account of the tomb suggests that his description of the three crosses is equally precise, and any attempt to place Willibald’s crosses behind the basilica must contend with the literal wording of the text. Indeed, the contextual argument is not as straight forward as it seems, since Willibald’s attention never leaves the basilica prior to his description of the crosses. Moreover, since his preceding comments mention Helena and the Finding of the Holy Cross, the ensuing reference to the three crosses continues the thematic context of the legendary event. In short, the argument that places the three crosses behind the basilica can be refuted on the following grounds – 1) the Bauch (1962), 102, n. 117. See section 3.2.1.3. 186 See Adomnán, DLS, 1.6.1. However, the manuscript drawings of Adomnán (JW (2002), 380-1), which depict the Church of Golgotha attached from the basilica and having an exposed eastern wall, contradict the text. See the respective plans of Coüasnon (1974), pl. 8, Corbo (1981-2), vol. 2, pl. 3 and Gibson and Taylor (1994), 75, fig. 45. 187 JW (1977), 117. There are a number of ways that Willibald’s description could be interpreted. He may have meant that the crosses were under a portico in the eastern part (in orientale plaga) of the inner courtyard, near the (western) wall of the basilica (aecclesie secus pariete), or the crosses could have been located against the eastern outer wall of the Rotunda. 188 VW, 97.19. 184 185

101

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 102

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

literal wording of the text, 2) the objects’ association with the Holy Cross legend and the known location of the Miraculous Healing, which establishes the front of the basilica as an area dedicated to the Holy Cross and 3) the presumed link between the crosses, the restoration of his sight and the precedent of his childhood illness. Willibald most likely encountered the monument of the Miraculous Healing and the three crosses prior to his entry into the Basilica of Constantine. 3.1.5 Willibald’s Blindness and the Miraculous Healing Having analyzed the topographical evidence, the discussion now examines Willibald’s interpretation of his blindness and the subsequent restoration of his sight. First of all, he associates the restoration of his sight with the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux rather than the locus of either the Crucifixion or Resurrection. The point is noteworthy since the locus of the Resurrection was the most sacred site in Jerusalem.189 Secondly, in associating the event with the Holy Cross, Willibald is appealing to a legend that is explicitly associated with the restoration of physical health. The locus of the Miraculous Healing most likely enjoyed a reputation as a place of miraculous cures, further drawing Willibald’s attention to the site. Third, there are significant parallels between Willibald’s blindness and his childhood illness. In both cases, healings were affected by the image of the Holy Cross. The former event was associated with an outdoor cross in Wessex, while the Jerusalem healing took place upon the commemorative landscape of the Holy Cross.190 Moreover, the life-giving propensities of the image were not limited to relics of the True Cross.191 The outdoor cross of Wessex was a signus of the Holy Cross, while the three wooden crosses were ad memoriam of the sancta crux dominicae. Fourth, the ‘miraculous healing’ of Willibald’s eyesight is further suggested by his use of eius oculi sunt aperti to describe the moment On the locus of the Resurrection, see sections 3.3. The monument of the Miraculous Healing was almost certainly adorned with the image of the cross, while the three wooden crosses likely stood at the entrance of the church. 191 VW, 88.34; VW, 97.14. Willibald never mentions the relic of the True Cross, even though he must have seen it in Constantinople (see Adomnán, DLS, 3.3). Although the relic was taken to Constantinople in the seventh century, the Comm., 1 lists a relic of the True Cross in its early ninth century description of the Holy Sepulchre. 189 190

102

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 103

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

when his vision returned: et introiens in aecclesiam ubi sancta crux Domini inventa fuerat, aperti sunt oculi eius, et visionem recipit.192 The phrase occurs in three biblical healing stories, two which are associated with blindness.193 In Mt 9:27-31, Jesus heals two blind men in the area of Capernaum, and their ‘eyes were opened’. In John 9, Jesus heals a man blind from birth by mixing a paste of mud and saliva into his eyes and telling him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The image of the ‘opening of the eyes’ is used repeatedly throughout the narrative.194 The phrase also occurs in Luke’s account of the raising of Tabitha, or Dorcas, from the dead.195 After Peter prayed for the life of Tabitha, she ‘opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up’. The wording likewise appears in some versions of the Miraculous Healing. Rufinus states that ‘when touched by the Cross of Christ, the woman suddenly opened her eyes’.196 In Willibald’s description of the event, he includes two phrases: aperti sunt oculi eius and visionem recipit. Although the wording seems redundant, given the connotations of the former phrase, the narrative effectively states that ‘Willibald was healed and received his vision’. Fifth, Willibald presumably saw a parallel between himself and the recipient of the Miraculous Healing. While the accounts of Epiphanius and Daniel the Abbot follow the Eastern version of the legend, which identifies the person as a young virgin,197 in the tradition transmitted to the West, the person was an iuuenis, or young man.198 From his perspective as an elderly bishop, Willibald undoubtedly considered himself to have been an iuuenis at the time of his own miraculous healing.199

192

VW, 99.15-6.

193

The phrase also has connotations of spiritual awakening and personal self-consciousness. See Gen 3:7 and Lk 24:31. 194 See JW (1978a), 104-8. Given its Jerusalem setting, Willibald must have identified with the narrative of John 9; however, he omits the pool of Siloam from his description of Jerusalem. 195 See Act 9:40. Willibald visited the church in Joppa which commemorated Peter’s raising of Tabitha (VW, 99.18-9). 196 See Rufinus’ version of the legend in Borgehammar (1991), 44-5, which states that when the Holy Cross was brought to the woman’s side, she repente adapertis oculis and immediately rose from her bed. 197 Epiphanius, Hag., 4; Daniel the Abbot, WB, 15. 198 Paulinus of Nola, Ep., 31.5; Severus Sulpicius, Chronicon, 2.34.4-5. 199 Willibald was approximately twenty-five years old at the time.

103

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 104

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Sixth, Willibald’s understanding of the event was possibly influenced by the liturgical calendar. The feast of the Holy Cross was celebrated on September 14 as the second day of the eight-day Encaenia, or festival of Dedication, which, along with Easter and Epiphany, were the three most important festivals of the Jerusalem calendar.200 As Egeria observes in the fourth century, it was a festival not to be missed.201 Despite the disruptions of the seventh century, Early Islamic Jerusalem was hardly void of commemorations to the Holy Cross. The Commemoratorium indicates that a relic of the True Cross remained in Jerusalem,202 while the monument of the miraculous healing, along with the three wooden crosses, must have had an important role in the post-Byzantine festival.203 Willibald was almost certainly in Jerusalem for the feast, which would have further familiarized him with the commemorative topography of the Holy Cross.204 However, Willibald’s blindness and the subsequent restoration of his sight occurred sometime in the spring, as his southern circuit of Palestine roughly took place between Christmas 724 and Easter 725.205 Consequently, his blindness likely concurred with the season of Lent, while his healing corresponded either with the end of Lent or with the season of Easter. Therefore, while the September festival may have strengthened Willibald’s association with the commemorative landscape, the real time of the liturgical calendar gave him a unique lens for interpreting the events – a Lent of darkness and physical infirmity followed by an Easter of light and restorative health. Finally, it is worth mentioning a letter written by Boniface (d. 754) to Daniel, the visually-impaired bishop of Winchester (d. 745), whereby Boniface offers the bishop the following counsel with respect to his deteriorating eyesight:

200

On the Encaenia, see Black (1954), Schwartz (1987), Fraser (1997) and Lethaby

(1897). 201 Egeria, It. Eg., 49.2, trans. in JW (1999), 164: ‘In fact I should say that people regard it as a grave sin to miss taking part in this solemn feast, unless anyone had been prevented from coming by an emergency’. 202 Comm., 1. 203 The present work assumes that all commemorative sites in Jerusalem had a corresponding liturgical function. A similar argument is advanced in Ousterhout (1981), 316-8. 204 On Willibald’s presence in Jerusalem for the September 14 feast of the Holy Cross, see sections 2.2.6 and 2.2.8. 205 Easter was on April 8 in the year 725.

104

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 105

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

News was brought to me recently by a priest who came to Germany from your parts that you had lost your sight. . . . Because I know your wisdom and your patience, I believe that God has permitted you to be afflicted in this way so that your virtue and merit may increase and that you may gaze with the eyes of the spirit on those things which God loves and commands, whilst seeing less of the things God hates and forbids. . . . You, my father, have eyes like those of Didimus,206 of whom Antony207 is related to have said that his eyes saw God and His angels and the blessed joys of the heavenly Jerusalem. . . . What are our bodily eyes in this time of trial but the windows of sin through which we observe sins and sinners, or, worse still, behold and desire them and so fall into sin?208

For Boniface, physical blindness offered a means by which personal virtue could be increased, while providing the afflicted with an opportunity to gaze upon the goodness of God with the ‘eyes of the spirit’. Boniface affirms that the vision of the heavenly Jerusalem was accessible to the blind, while reminding Daniel that physical sight exposed one to physical sin. The letter is particularly intriguing since it was composed in the mid-740s, a few years after Willibald’s arrival in Germany in the summer of 740. Prior to the composition of the letter, Willibald and Boniface had spent a significant amount of time together,209 and it is reasonable to assume that Willibald had told him about his Holy Land blindness.210 The subject could hardly have passed without the two men discussing the significance of the event. It is certainly possible, if not likely, that the interpretation of physical blindness that Boniface offered to Daniel was actually derivative of Willibald or that Boniface had offered the same explanation to Willibald. Although the letter does not refer to the topography of the Holy City, its reference to the heavenly Jerusalem is especially noteworthy. At the very least, Willibald’s experience must have been recalled by Boniface when he broached the subject of blindness with the bishop of Winchester.

The reference is to Didymus the Blind of Alexandria (c. 310 or 313-95 or 398). Anthony (d. 356/7) is recognized as the father of Christian monasticism. 208 Boniface, Ep., 30 [Tangl, 63], trans. Talbot (1954), 118-9. 209 On the meetings between Boniface and Willibald, see Heidingsfelder (1938), 1-8 and VW, 104.31-105.7. 210 If so, Willibald likely told Boniface about the monument of the Miraculous Healing. 206 207

105

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 106

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

3.1.6 Conclusion The discussion of Willibald’s two-fold reference to the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux has examined two sets of questions. First of all, why does Willibald introduce the locus before mentioning an aecclesia? Secondly, why does he attribute his healing to the act of entering the church? What, if any, significance did Willibald attribute to the front entrance of the church? In short, when Willibald entered the city of Jerusalem, he encountered a prominent monument dedicated to the Miraculous Healing prior to entering the Basilica of Constantine. A few months later, his eyesight, afflicted during his circuit of southern Palestine, was restored as he passed the monument and the three crosses upon entering the basilica. The interpretation raises two questions. First of all, Willibald does not explicitly mention the Miraculous Healing; rather, he refers to the place ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux. As previously mentioned, the problem is resolved by Daniel the Abbot, who provides a precedent for referring to the Miraculous Healing as the place ‘where the Holy Cross was found’. Second, in Willibald’s latter reference – introiens in aecclesiam ubi sancta crux Domini inventa fuerat – he refers to an aecclesia rather than a locus. Is it possible that the reference is Willibald’s name for the church – i.e., the aecclesia ubi sancta crux inventa fuerat? Is Willibald, after all, referring to the Basilica of Constantine and the locus of the Finding of the Holy Cross inside the church? If so, how would this inform Willibald’s first reference to the locus, which is introduced prior to the church? It is possible that Willibald’s description is the amalgamation of two distinct phrases – introiens in aecclesiam and ubi sancta crux Domini inventa fuerat. In other words, he may be indicating that as he entered the church, he came to the place where the Holy Cross was found. The point is supported by the fact that Willibald does not provide a name for the basilica in his initial description of Jerusalem despite his four-fold use of aecclesia. Yet, even if Willibald’s second reference is an appellation for the church, the conditions still remain: the monument of the Miraculous Healing was located along the approach to the basilica, while Willibald explicitly associates his healing with the entrance of the church.211

211 Willibald does not use any particular term to denote the larger complex of the Holy Sepulchre, and it is unclear what Willibald considered to be the entrance of the aecclesia, the actual basilica or its propyleaum farther to the east.

106

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 107

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

In conclusion, Adomnán and Epiphanius provide a common seventh-century witness to a purposed-built monument to the Miraculous Healing that stood along the northern half of the eastern approach to the Holy Sepulchre where it was encountered by pilgrims prior to their entrance into the Basilica of Constantine. Willibald alludes to the monument in the eighth century, while Daniel the Abbot surveys its ruined landscape in the early twelfth century. While the three-fold focus of the Holy Sepulchre – the loci of the Resurrection, Crucifixion and the Finding of the Holy Cross – is well-documented, the prominence of the Holy Cross legend during the Early Islamic period has not been fully appreciated.212 The loci of the Miraculous Healing and the Finding of the Holy Cross, together with the three wooden crosses, established a sacred landscape dedicated to the Holy Cross that provided pilgrims with their first impression of the Holy Sepulchre. For Willibald, it was also the setting for one of his most enduring memories, the miraculous healing of his sight.

3.2 The Holy Sepulchre II: The locus que dicitur Calvarie locus Having examined the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux, the work turns to the second site associated with the Holy Sepulchre, the Calvarie locus, which Willibald describes as follows: ibi est nunc aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus; et haec fuit prius extra Hierusalem; sed Helena, quando invenit crucem, collocavit illam locum intus intra Hierusalem.213 The first part of the chapter addresses four questions. First of all, how is Calvary described in the biblical sources? Secondly, how does Willibald define the Calvarie locus? Third, what is the identity of the aecclesia that Willibald locates in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus? Finally, a question of Willibald’s own concern: why was the Calvarie locus located inside the city walls? The second part of the chapter discusses three commemorations associated with the Calvarie locus – the Crucifixion, the tomb of Adam and the centre of the world. 212 In addition to the Holy Sepulchre, other sites in Jerusalem, including the Monastery of the Holy Cross (see section 3.2.1.4) and the Sheep Pool (see section 3.5.3), were associated with the True Cross. 213 VW, 97.11-3.

107

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 108

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

3.2.1 Willibald’s Description of the Calvarie locus 3.2.1.1 Biblical References to the Calvarie locus Each of the four gospel writers refers to Calvary: • venerunt in locum qui dicitur Golgotha quod est Calvarie locus (Mt 27:33), • perducunt illum in Golgotha locum quod est interpretatum Calvarie locus (Mk 15:22), • postquam venerunt in locum qui vocatur Calvarie ibi crucifixerunt eum et latrones unum a dextris et alterum a sinistris (Lk 23:33) and • baiulans sibi crucem exivit in eum qui dicitur Calvarie locum hebraice Golgotha (Jn 19:17). As previously noted, Matthew and Mark each use the word, locus, twice in their respective accounts, indicating that the site was properly known as the Calvarie locus, a term also used by John.214 The syntax is also similar: qui dicitur is found in both Matthew and John, while Luke uses the variant form of qui vocatur. All four writers describe the Calvarie locus as the place where Jesus was crucified. Of the four, John offers the most detail: ‘now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid’.215 Thus, according to John, the Calvarie locus was large enough to hold three Roman crucifixions and a cultivated tract of land, or garden, containing the tomb of Jesus.216 3.2.1.2 Willibald’s Image of the Calvarie locus Willibald’s description of Calvary is most similar to Matthew. The bishop employs the expression, the Calvarie locus, the two-fold use of locus and the phrase, que dicitur, omitting only Matthew’s reference to Golgotha. Based upon the biblical examples, Willibald seemingly

214 On the name of Calvary, see Jerome, Commentariorum in Matheum (on Mt 27:33) and Parrot (1957), 38-9. 215 Jn 19:41: erat autem in loco ubi crucifixus est hortus et in horto monumentum novum in quo nondum quisquam positus erat. 216 The area traditionally identified with the locus Calvarie is an old quarry approximately 650 by 475 feet which was originally outside the walls of Jerusalem. On the dimensions of Calvary, see Drijvers (2003), 30, Taylor (1998), 186 and Coüasnon (1974), 50-1. Also see Díez (2004), 320-1, who argues that the quarry was only exploited during the Roman period.

108

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 109

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

refers to Calvary by the full, though somewhat awkward, phrase: the locus que dicitur Calvarie locus.217 Yet, while Willibald replicates the biblical syntax, he uses the expression, que dicitur, nine additional times, five of which are preceded by the word, locus, including a reference to his own monastery: • • • • • • • • •

the locus que dicitur Eihstat monasterium,218 the locus . . . que prisco dicitur vocabulo Hamel-ea-mutha,219 the locus que dicitur Patera,220 the locus que dicitur Cartha,221 the locus que dicitur Sulzeprucge,222 the mercimonium que dicitur Ham-wih,223 the urbs que dicitur Reggia,224 the castellum que dicitur Arche,225 and the urbe que dicitur Tyberiades.226

In other words, the syntax, locus que dicitur, was common to Willibald and is used to introduce a number of non-biblical places. Consequently, does the phrase, locus que dicitur Calvarie locus, reveal Willibald’s use of scriptural language, or does it reflect his natural style of speech? Although the question may be impossible to answer, it underscores the nature of Willibald’s dictations. While containing numerous biblical references, his descriptions almost never show a literal dependence upon the scriptural text; even Willibald’s reference to Calvary, despite its similarities to Matthew, is not verbatim. Both images of Calvary – the ipse locus of the Crucifixion and the larger physical setting of the event – appear in the pilgrim sources.227 Its larger context is evidenced by its association with the Basilica of See section 3.1.2.3. VW, 105.20. 219 VW, 91.4-5. 220 VW, 93.21. 221 VW, 104.29. 222 VW, 105.11. 223 VW, 91.5. 224 VW, 93.6-7. 225 VW, 94.9. 226 VW, 95.31. 227 Unless otherwise stated, Calvary and Golgotha will be used as synonymous terms. 217 218

109

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 110

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Constantine. The basilica incorporated the Rock of Calvary, recognized as the locus of the Crucifixion, into the western end of its southern aisles, and its designation during the Early Byzantine period as the Martyrium228 and Golgotha229 suggests that the entire church was identified with the area of biblical Calvary. According to Egeria’s description of the Jerusalem liturgy, people assemble in ‘the Great Church known as the Martyrium because it is on Golgotha, Behind the Cross, where the Lord was put to death’.230 She also describes the basilica as the ‘Great Church built by Constantine on Golgotha’,231 while Cyril of Jerusalem and the Bordeaux Pilgrim make similar references.232 The most intriguing reference in the Byzantine sources is the sixth-century account of Theodosius, which distinguishes between the scripturally-synonymous terms of Calvary and Golgotha.233 Theodosius connects Golgotha with the place ubi crux Domini inuenta est, a reference to the Basilica of Constantine, while identifying the Calvarie locus as the place where the Dominus crucifixus est. According to Theodosius, the two sites were separated by fifteen paces. There appears to have been, at least among the Latin community, a commemorative distinction between the two terms.234 While Cyril and the two Latin writers, Egeria and Theodosius, refer to it as Golgotha, Calvary never appears as a title for the Basilica of Constantine. Like Theodosius, the Latin writers of the Early Islamic period use variations of Calvary to denote the ipse locus of the Crucifixion. The Commemoratorium refers to sanctus Calvarie as distinct from the Lord’s tomb and the Basilica of Constantine.235 Bernard designates the place of the Crucifixion as Mons Calvarie, which he locates inside the basilica,236 while Adomnán speaks of the Calvarie locus ‘on which the Savior of mankind

See, for example, Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 6 and JW (2002), 363-4. On references to the basilica as Golgotha, see Coüasnon (1974), 50-1, Gibson and Taylor (1994), 80 and JW (1999), 31, n. 4. 230 Egeria, It. Eg., 30.1. 231 Egeria, It. Eg., 25.1-6, 25.8-10, 27.3, 30.1, 37.1 and 41.1. 232 Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., 1.1, 4.10, 4.14, 5.10-1, 10.19, 12.39, 13.4, 13.22, 13.23, 13.26, 13.28, 13.32, 13.39 and 16.4; Bordeaux Pilgrim, It. Burg., 594. 233 Theodosius, DSTS, 7. 234 It is unlikely, as suggested by Tsafrir (1986), 131 and 140, that Theodosius’s reference to Golgotha is in error. 235 Comm., 1 and 56. 236 Bernard, It. Bern., 11. 228 229

110

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 111

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

once suffered’.237 The evidence suggests that Willibald’s reference to the Calvarie locus likewise denotes the specific location of the Crucifixion, the Rock of Calvary, which he does not otherwise mention. On the other hand, Willibald’s description of the intramural setting of Calvary suggests a larger context.238 Since the statement – et haec fuit prius extra Hierusalem; sed Helena, quando invenit crucem, collocavit illam locum intus intra Hierusalem – immediately follows his reference to Calvary (ibi est nunc aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus), haec fuit and ille locus (collocavit illam locum) appear to be references to the Calvarie locus.239 Willibald describes Helena as moving a single locus; however, there are three sites in question – the place of the Crucifixion, the sepulchrum Salvatoris and the place ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux. In other words, to retain the veracity of the biblical narrative, which indicates that the neighboring sites of the Crucifixion and the Burial were outside the city, as well as the integrity of the Holy Cross legend, which places the discovery of the True Cross in the immediate area of the other two sites, Helena had to have moved all three loci. Willibald’s use of the singular suggests that he regarded the three loci as comprising a distinct unit which he designates as the Calvarie locus. Thus, two arguments can be made regarding Willibald’s image of Calvary. The internal evidence – his use of the singular as an apparent reference to the three holy sites – suggests that he understood the term, Calvarie locus, as a designation for the larger setting of Jesus’ death and burial. However, since Willibald’s primary intention was to explicate the intramural location of the holy sites,240 attention to grammatical number was not his chief concern, and in the end, the collective testimony of the Latin texts of the Early Islamic period is more difficult to dismiss. In short, Willibald’s use of Calvarie locus was most likely intended as a specific reference to the locus of the Crucifixion (i.e., the Rock of Calvary), which he, otherwise, fails to mention. 3.2.1.3 Willibald’s Church on the Calvarie locus The discussion now turns to the identity of Willibald’s aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus. At issue is whether the church is the Basilica of Adomnán, DLS, 1.5-6.1. Also see section 3.2.1.4. 239 VW, 97.12-3. 240 See below. 237 238

111

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 112

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Constantine or the so-called Church of Golgotha, located upon the Rock of Calvary, a distinction made by both Adomnán and the Armenian Guide.241 According to the Guide, the Church of Golgotha was located upon the rock of Jesus’ Crucifixion, while the ‘principal’ church of the Holy Sepulchre – the Basilica of Constantine – is referred to as the Martyrium and the ‘Finding of the Cross’.242 Adomnán describes the Church of Golgotha, which stood where ‘the Savior of mankind once suffered’,243 as a church distinct from the Basilica of Constantine, which was built upon the place where the Holy Cross was discovered.244 His reference to the altar of Abraham, located ‘between these two churches’, further establishes the separate identities of the respective churches. The aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus is Willibald’s initial reference to a church in his description of the Holy Sepulchre. Therefore, if the aecclesia is the Church of Golgotha, then Willibald inexplicably fails to introduce the principal church of the complex, opting instead to mention the smaller church in spite of the basilica’s physical dominance. Moreover, despite the precedent of Adomnán and the Armenian Guide, the consecrated area around the Rock of Calvary did not demand recognition as a separate church. According to Bernard, Mons Calvarie and the place ‘where the Lord’s Cross was found’ were both located inside the Basilica of Constantine.245 In other words, Bernard considered the commemorative space around the Rock of Calvary as part of the larger basilica. The argument that the aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus is the Basilica of Constantine is further supported by Willibald’s additional references to a church in his account of the Holy Sepulchre. In his description of the three wooden crosses, Willibald refers thrice to an aecclesia.246 The crosses stood 1) foris in orientale plaga aecclesie; they were not 2) intus in aecclesia but were rather 3) sub tecto extra aecclesia. Since Willibald continues using the word, aecclesia, without any qualifiers, he is presumably referring to the same church that he associates with the Calvarie locus, while his reference to an external eastern wall fits the known layout of the basilica.

241 It has been previously assumed in section 3.1.2.3 that the church was the Basilica of Constantine. 242 AG, 2-3. 243 Adomnán, DLS, 1.5-6.1. 244 Adomnán, DLS, 1.6.1-2. 245 Bernard, It. Bern., 11. 246 VW, 97.13-6.

112

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 113

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Finally, the church mentioned by Willibald as the setting of his own miraculous healing – et introiens in aecclesiam ubi sancta crux Domini inventa fuerat – is a clear reference to the Basilica of Constantine, which was intimately associated with the legend of the Holy Cross. In short, all five references are allusions to the Basilica of Constantine, and Willibald envisions the Holy Sepulchre as a complex consisting of a single, dominant church. 3.2.1.4 Willibald’s Intramural Dilemma The fourth question is Willibald’s own: why was the Calvarie locus located inside the city walls? According to Jn 19:20, the event took place near the city, while Heb 13:12 explicitly states that Jesus suffered outside the city gate. Yet, despite the biblical evidence, the Calvarie locus was located in the heart of Jerusalem. Willibald’s explanation is one of the more amusing statements in the Vita as he credits the empress with the impossible feat of moving the locus: haec [Calvarie locus] fuit prius extra Hierusalem; sed Helena, quando invenit crucem, collocavit illam locum intus intra Hierusalem.247 The remark reflects Willibald’s concern over the intramural location of the site and reveals his critical, though inaccurate, engagement with the historical topography of the city. The relevant expansion of the city took place during the reign of King Agrippa (41-4 CE),248 and within a generation of the Crucifixion, Christianity’s most sacred sites had been incorporated into the city.249 The anomalous location of the Calvarie locus has elicited numerous comments from Christian pilgrims. According to Photius, ‘Helena, when she visited Jerusalem and cleared that holy place of the piles of rubbish and filth there, extended the buildings and the city wall. She started at a point on the ancient wall overlooking the saving Tomb, extended the perimeter, and enclosed the life-giving Tomb within the enlarged circuit’.250 In light of Photius’ testimony, Willibald’s statement that the empress had actually moved the site should be revised accordingly – namely, Helena was responsible for

247

VW, 97.12-13.

See section 2.3.1.1. On the excavations informing the original extramural location of the Holy Sepulchre, see Gibson and Taylor (1994), Schein (1981), Vriezen (1978), Lux (1972) and Kenyan (1967), 151-4. 250 Photius, Amph., 316.1.1, trans. in JW (2002), 258. 248 249

113

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 114

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the enlargement of the city. Her role in the intramural location of the sites was commonly recognized during the Early Islamic period, certainly by the eighth-century Christians of Jerusalem from whom Willibald derived the errant information. Willibald’s description of Helena’s activities raises one final point. Namely, Gil interprets the account as a reference to the monastery of the Holy Cross, located two miles west of the city.251 Gil’s unreferenced claim is presumably based upon Willibald’s comments in VW 97:10-3 that the holy sites were originally extra Hierusalem. The expression relates to the problem of Calvary’s intramural location and does not refer to an eighth-century site outside the city walls; to the contrary, Willibald’s references to the place of the sancta crux clearly denote the immediate area of the Basilica of Constantine. Moreover, while the aforementioned monastery was dedicated to the Holy Cross, the site commemorated the location of the tree used to make the cross and was not directly related to Helena’s discovery of the relic.252 Although Willibald may have known of the monastery’s existence,253 Gil’s reference is clearly mistaken.254 3.2.2 The Commemorations of the Calvarie locus In his brief account of the Calvarie locus, Willibald fails to describe the commemorative landscape associated with the Rock of Calvary, including the Crucifixion, the tomb of Adam and the centre of the world.255 As the following discussion will emphasize, Willibald’s image of the Calvarie locus is characterized by its neglect of commemorative detail. 251 Gil (1992), 442. Although archaeology dates the monastery to the Byzantine era, the origins of the church are obscure, and numerous legends, mostly arising during or after the Crusader period, fill the lacunae in the church’s history. Among the legends is the belief the Helena founded the monastery. On the monastery of the Holy Cross, see Economopoulos (1984), Tzaferis (1987), (1993b), 143 and (2001). 252 Also see the tradition associating the True Cross with the Sheep Pool, translated in JW (1988), 74-5. 253 The condition of the monastery at the time of Willibald’s visit is unclear. 254 Gil (1992), 442 also places the sudarium, described by Adomnán (DLS, 1.9), at the monastery of the Holy Cross. Although Gil does not footnote the source, he must base his erroneous identification upon the reference, ad sanctam crucem et sudarium, in the Comm., 1, although the text clearly states that the objects were ‘at the Holy Sepulchre’. Moreover, while Adomnán does not provide the location of the sudarium, it appears in his section on the Holy Sepulchre (DSL, 2-11). 255 Another commemoration presumably encountered by Willibald was the altar of Abraham. See Theodosius, DSTS, 7a, Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 19 and especially Adomnán, DLS, 1.6.2. Also see JW (2002), 363.

114

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 115

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

3.2.2.1 The Place of the Crucifixion The Rock of Calvary, recognized as the ipse locus of the Crucifixion, is a tall vertical column of living rock standing between nine and fourteen meters above the surrounding rocks with a top surface area of approximately four square meters.256 It was left standing in an ancient quarry, presumably due to a large fissure running down its length rendering the stone obsolete.257 It is unclear how the rock column was integrated into the second-century Roman temple, or if it was ascribed with any particular significance at the time.258 When the Hadrianic complex was dismantled by the Constantinian workers, the column was fully exposed, identified as the site of the Crucifixion and incorporated into the southwest corner of the newlybuilt basilica. The basilica’s floor was almost as high as the top of the rock column, while its southern aisle communicated directly with the rock.259 In the year 420 CE, Theodosius II donated a crux gemmata,260 which is described in the Breviarius: the cross was inlaid with gold and precious stones and crowned the top of the rock.261 Adomnán’s reference to a great silver cross – ‘fixed in the same socket as the wooden cross on which the Saviour of mankind once suffered’ – provides a glimpse into the restored furnishings of the rock following the looting of the Holy Sepulchre in 614.262 While failing to describe the rock’s appearance, Willibald also omits its relationship to the other sites of the Holy Sepulchre. By contrast, the distances between the holy places are often mentioned in the pilgrim sources. The Piacenza Pilgrim measures eighty paces between the Rock of Calvary and the tomb of Christ, while Theodosius and the Armenian Guide list the distance as fifteen and ten paces On the dimensions of the Rock of Calvary, see Gibson and Taylor (1994), 57. This interpretation is disputed by Díez (2004), 319-21, who argues that a larger hillock named Calvary was hewn into the Rock of Calvary sometime after the Crucifixion. On excavations around the Rock of Calvary, see Katsimbinis (1977), Lavas and Mitropoulous (1995), Lavas (1998) and Díez (2004). Also see Coüasnon (1974), 38-40, Gibson and Taylor (1994), 56-60, 74 and Taylor (1998), 182-6. 258 On the relationship between the Rock of Calvary and the temple of Hadrian, see Gibson and Taylor (1994), 65-8, 71 and Bahat (1990), 66. 259 On the relationship between the Rock of Calvary and the elevation of the basilica, see Gibson and Taylor (1994), 76 and Coüasnon (1974), 39. 260 See Theophanes, Chronographia, 86. 261 Brev., 2. 262 Adomnán, DLS, 1.5.1, trans. in JW (2002), 173. Also see JW (2002), 173, n. 17. 256

257

115

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 116

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

respectively.263 The Piacenza Pilgrim gives the distance between Calvary and the place ‘where the Cross was discovered’ as fifty paces, whereas Theodosius measures the length as fifteen paces.264 The Commemoratorium states that it was 28 dexteri from Holy Calvary to the Holy Sepulchre, while it was 19 dexteri from Holy Calvary to the place of the Holy Cross.265 Finally, Willibald ignores the ecclesiastical context of the Rock of Calvary. The physical arrangement of the area is particularly difficult to reconstruct – the Early Islamic site was substantially different from its Byzantine predecessor as the locus underwent extensive renovations in the wake of the Persian conquest.266 Among the changes, Modestus erected a four-pier vault against the rock, creating a raised platform near the top of the pillar that supported the small Church of Golgotha.267 Since Adomnán refers to its door, it appears to have had enclosing walls.268 Adomnán also describes a large bronze wheel for lamps hung from its roof. The space is distinctly depicted as a foursided structure in the manuscript drawings of Adomnán, which place the door within its western wall.269 In the end, Willibald’s description of the place of the Crucifixion is limited to two details: 1) his biblical reference to the Calvarie locus and 2) his simple admission that the locus now supported a church – i.e., the Basilica of Constantine.270 3.2.2.2 The Tomb of Adam During the pre-Constantine period, Christians transferred the Jewish legend of the tomb of Adam, associated with Mt Moriah, from the

263 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 19; Theodosius, DSTS, 7b; AG, 3. The distance is approximately 35 meters. 264 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 20; Theodosius, DSTS, 7b. 265 Comm., 56. 266 On the problems of the Church of Golgotha, see Coüasnon (1974), 39. 267 On the location of the four pilasters, see Corbo (1981-2), pl. 40, A, C, D and E and Gibson and Taylor (1994), 58, fig. 41. On Modestus’ Church of Golgotha, see Gibson and Taylor (1994), 79, 81-3. As a consequence of Modestus’ renovations, the AG, 3 and Adomnán, DLS, 1.5 could speak of the ecclesia Golgothanae as distinct from the larger basilica. 268 Adomnán, DLS, 1.5.1-2. Gibson and Taylor (1994), 83 oppose the argument by Corbo (1981-2), 99 that the church was open on its four sides. 269 JW (2002), 380-1, pls. 6-7. 270 Willibald makes an additional reference to the Crucifixion in his description of the three wooden crosses (see section 3.1.4.5.); however, the crosses commemorate the legend of the Holy Cross and do not inform the place of the Crucifixion.

116

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 117

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Temple to the place of the Crucifixion.271 While Byzantine pilgrims were presumably aware of the tradition,272 from the seventh-century onwards, the tomb has been located on the west side of the rock in a chapel underneath the four-pier vault of Modestus.273 Both Epiphanius and the Armenian Guide mention the tomb; however, neither source provides a description of the site.274 Though failing to mention its Adamic associations, Adomnán describes the place as a cave which was ‘cut into the rock below the place of the Lord’s Cross’.275 The cave also contained an altar on which the Eucharist was offered for ‘the souls of certain privileged men’.276 The tomb of Adam, located against the base of the Rock of Calvary, was a well-recognized commemoration in the Early Islamic period. 3.2.2.3 Jerusalem: The Centre of the World The third commemoration associated with the Calvarie locus is its association with the centre of the world (the axis mundi, or omphalos).277 As previously discussed, Christian tradition appropriated the idea of Jerusalem’s centrality, shifting the Temple tradition to the Calvarie locus, and its association with the place of Jesus’ Crucifixion was an exegetical fact by the fourth century.278 In the seventh-century, 271 While no association is made between Christ and Adam by the Evangelists, Paul’s explicit parallel between the two figures (Rom 5:12-21) provided a theological raison for the Christian take-over of the tradition. The exegetical sources include Origen’s third-century comment that ‘the body of Adam, the first human being, was buried where Christ was crucified’ (Commentaria in evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 27:32-3 (PG 13), 1777). In the fourth century, Epiphanius of Salamis (Adversus haereses, 46.5) states that at the Crucifixion of Jesus, ‘the bones of our first ancestor’ were wet with Christ’s blood, while from Milan, Ambrose wrote: ipse autem crucis locus vel in medio ut conspicuous omnibus vel supra Adae, ut Hebraei disputant, sepulturam (Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, 10.114 (CCSL 14), 378). Although the tomb of Adam is not mentioned in the Byzantine pilgrim texts, the exegetical references suggest that the tradition was physically recognized. On early Christian traditions regarding Adam’s association with Calvary, see Díez (2004), esp. 145-89, Taylor (1993), 122-34, Jeremias (1926a), 34-40 and (1926b), 74-128, esp. 74-80. 272 However, there are no references to the tomb of Adam in the Byzantine pilgrim texts. The tradition of his creation is mentioned in the Brev., 2. Also see Brev. A, 2 and Brev. B, 2. 273 Coüasnon (1974), 50. 274 AG, 3; Epiphanius, Hag., 2. 275 Adomnán, DLS, 1.5.1-2. Adomnán accepted an alternative tradition, promulgated by Jerome (Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos, 23.2, Ep., 46.3 and Ep., 108.11.3), that places Adam’s tomb at Hebron. See O’Loughlin (1992a), (2000c) and (2004), 84-94. 276 Adomnán, DLS, 1.5.2, trans. in JW (2002), 173. 277 See Adomnán, DLS, 1.11 and section 3.1.4.4. 278 See section 3.1.4.4.

117

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 118

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Sophronius associates the Rock of Calvary with the navel of the earth,279 while in the ninth century, chains stretching across the nearby courtyard intersected at the axis mundi.280 Not too far removed from the Rock of Calvary, Adomnán’s large column testified to the city’s location at the centre of the world,281 while the twelfth-century account of Nikulás of Þverá makes a similar claim for the open roof of the Anastasis.282 Although Willibald was undoubtedly cognizant of the tradition, the centrality of Jerusalem is not acknowledged in the bishop’s account of the Holy City.283 3.2.3 Conclusion: Willibald and the Calvarie locus The chapter on Willibald’s description of the Calvarie locus has addressed four principal questions. First of all, regarding the biblical sources, the gospel writers associate Calvary with the place of the Crucifixion, while, according to John, the area also included a garden containing the tomb of Christ. Second, Willibald’s reference to Helena’s relocation of the site may reflect a Johannine conception of Calvary. On the other hand, the Latin sources of the period consistently use the word, Calvarie, as a specific reference to the Rock of Calvary, and since Willibald does not otherwise mention the place of the Crucifixion, he more likely intended the narrower use of the term. Third, regarding the identity of Willibald’s aecclesia in illo loco que dicitur Calvarie locus, the internal evidence of Willibald indicates that all five references to an aecclesia in his account of the Holy Sepulchre are allusions to the Basilica of Constantine; Willibald envisions the site as consisting of a single, dominant church. Fourth, while Willibald was keen to explain the intramural location of Calvarie locus, his claim that Helena collocavit the site inside the city should be read in light of Photius’ comments that the empress was responsible for the expansion of the city. Finally, Willibald’s description of Calvary is characterized by its neglect of commemorative detail, and his use of the biblical term, Calvarie locus, is his only reference to the setting of the Crucifixion. Willibald adds nothing to the armchair pilgrim’s knowledge of Sophronius, Anacr., 20.29-32. Bernard, It. Bern., 11. In the early twelfth century, Daniel the Abbot, WB, 10-1 also locates the centre of the world in the inner courtyard. 281 Adomnán, DLS, 1.11. See section 3.1.4.4. 282 Nikulás of Þverá, Extract from Nikulás of Þverá, 80-90; (JW (1988), 217. 283 See section 4. 279 280

118

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 119

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Calvary, and the starkness of his description, unencumbered by allusions to its contemporary surroundings, forces his readers to reflect upon the place of the Crucifixion using the resources of their own biblical imagination.

3.3 The Holy Sepulchre III: The sepulchrum Salvatoris In contrast to the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux and the locus que dicitur Calvarie locus, Willibald provides a rather fulsome description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris: et ibi secus est ille hortus, in quo erat sepulchrum Salvatoris. Illa sepulchra fuerat in petra excisa, et ille petra stat super terram et est quadrans in imo et in summo subtilis; et stat nunc in summitate illius sepulchri crux, et ibi supra nunc edificata est mirabilis domus, et in orientale plaga in illo petro sepulchri est ostia facta, per quam intrabunt homines in sepulchrum orare; et ibi est intus lectum, ubi corpus Domini iacebat; et ibi stant in lecto 15 crateras aureas cum oleo ardentes die noctuque. Illud lectum, in quo corpus Domini iacebat, stat in latera aquilonis intus in petra sepulchri et homini est dextera manu, quando intrat in sepulchrum orare; et ibi ante ianua sepulchri iacet ille lapis magnus quadrans in similitudine prioris lapidi, quem angelus revolvit ab ostium monumenti.284

The present chapter on the sepulchrum Salvatoris is divided into two sections. The first part surveys the scriptural references to the tomb and provides a brief outline of its commemorative history. The second half of the chapter is an analysis of Willibald’s description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris. 3.3.1 Background to the sepulchrum Salvatoris 3.3.1.1 The Gospel Narratives References to the sepulchrum Salvatoris are found in each of the four Gospels, with John providing the most information.285 Among the details offered by the gospel accounts are the following: the tomb was located outside the city walls in a garden, or cultivated area, not far from the place of the Crucifixion. The tomb’s door could be sealed by 284 285

VW, 97.16-25.

Mt 27:32-28:8, Mk 15:20-16:8, Lk 23:26-4:10 and Jn 19:17-20:18.

119

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 120

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

a large stone. To enter the tomb one had to bend down, suggesting a low door. Inside, there was room for around five people. On the right-hand side of the tomb, one could sit on the shelf where Jesus’ body had lain.286 These details are consistent with our knowledge of first-century tombs.287 Moreover, two different words – sepulchrum and monumentum – are used in the Vulgate to denote the tomb.288 3.3.1.2 The sepulchrum Salvatoris: An Historical Outline The sepulchrum Salvatoris was ‘rediscovered’ during the Constantinian excavation of the Hadrianic temple in c. 325.289 The Constantinian workmen disengaged the tomb and its contiguous rock from the surrounding hillside, while leveling the adjacent area of the tomb into a circular space approximately thirty-five meters in diameter.290 The rock tomb was transformed into an aedicule with marble facing, ornamented columns and precious stones and metal.291 According to the Piacenza Pilgrim, the aedicule was ‘roofed with a cone which is silver, with added beams of gold’. There were also ‘ornaments in vast numbers, which [hung] from iron rods: armlets, bracelets, necklaces, rings, tiaras, plaited girdles, belts, emperors’ crowns of gold and precious stones’.292 The aedicule was presumably stripped by the Persians in 614;293 however, the living rock of the tomb was essentially unharmed, and long before Willibald’s eighth-century visit, the damage had been The summary is taken from Biddle (1999), 54-5. On the archaeology of Second Temple tombs, including the tomb of Christ, see Kloner (2003) and (2005) and Magness (2006). 288 The respective references will be examined in section 3.3.2.2.1. 289 On the discovery of the tomb, see Eusebius, VC, 3.26 and J.Z. Smith (1987), 76-83. 290 On the surrounding topography of the tomb, see Gibson and Taylor (1994), 51-63, esp. 61-3. Also see Coüasnon (1974), 15. 291 Eusebius, VC, 3.33-4. The most thorough discussion of the tomb of Christ is found in Vincent and Abel (1914b), 105-290. While their work remains essential reading, the tomb has changed less in form than Vincent and Abel believed. For reconstructions of the tomb, see JW (1972) and A. Grabar (1972), which, as Biddle (1999), 21 argues, are ‘as close as we are likely to get to the original form of the structure unless new representations are found or until evidence for its precise plan and dimensions are recovered in the restoration of the present structure’. Also see Biddle (1990), (1991) and (1994) and A. Grabar (1958). 292 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 18, trans. in JW (2002), 139. 293 According to Biddle (1999), 70, ‘there is no evidence that [Constantine’s] Edicule did not also survive [the Persian destruction of 614], but it can scarcely have remained unscathed’. On the conflagration of the Holy Sepulchre in 614, see Conybeare (1910), 509, 510, R. Schick (1995), 328 and Biddle (1999), 149, n. 92. 286 287

120

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 121

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

restored. Adomnán describes the tomb’s exterior as covered with choice marble (electo marmore), while its roof was decorated with gold.294 According to Adomnán and Photius, the original marks of the masons’ tools could still be seen inside the tomb.295 On the orders of the Fatimid ruler, Hakim (reigned 966-1021), the tomb was systematically destroyed in 1009, and most, but not all, of the living rock was razed to the ground. In the mid-eleventh century, a new aedicule was created out of its ruins, and subsequent destructions and restorations have been a part of its history up to the present day.296 Consequently, information on the tomb during the Early Islamic period is largely dependent upon texts and various visual images.297 3.3.2 Willibald’s Description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris 3.3.2.1 The Physical Surroundings of the sepulchrum Salvatoris 3.3.2.1.1 The Tomb’s Garden Setting Willibald introduces the tomb by noting its garden context: ibi secus est ille hortus, in quo erat sepulchrum Salvatoris.298 The reference raises three points. First of all, the association of a hortus with the tomb of Christ is based upon Jn 19:41: erat autem in loco ubi crucifixus est hortus et in horto monumentum novum in quo nondum quisquam positus erat. Secondly, Willibald uses the imperfect active to introduce the tomb – ille hortus in quo erat sepulchrum. The reference to the biblical past agrees with the wording of Jn 19:41, in which erat describes both the garden and the tomb. Willibald’s use of erat effectively stresses the tomb’s biblical setting, while deemphasizing the contemporary appearance of the site. As will be discussed, this distinction between the biblical past and the commemorative present occurs elsewhere in Willibald’s description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris. Third, despite Willibald’s allusion to the biblical past, his reference to the hortus also reflects his knowledge of the contemporary nomenclature of the Holy Sepulchre, as the inner courtyard was commonly known as Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.7. Also see Mommert (1897). Adomnán, DLS, 1.3.2; Photius, Amph., 316.1.3. 296 On the history of the tomb from 1009 to the present, see Biddle (1999), 74-137. 297 According to Biddle (1999), 20-8, there are at least thirteen types of visual representations of the aedicule, which can be placed into four separate categories. 298 VW, 97.16. Also see Gibson and Taylor (1994), 61. 294 295

121

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 122

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the Holy Garden during the Early Islamic period.299 Epiphanius refers to the area between the tomb and the place of the Crucifixion as the Garden of Joseph.300 Bernard describes the courtyard between the churches of the Holy Sepulchre as a roofless hortus, having ‘walls sparkling with gold and a paved floor of costliest stone’.301 While Bernard highlights the ornamentation of the garden, Willibald does not mention its artificial features. 3.3.2.1.2 The mirabilis domus Willibald’s description of the tomb’s surroundings includes a brief reference to the Anastasis, or Rotunda, the round church – approximately thirty-five meters in diameter – built over the tomb: et ibi supra nunc edificata est mirabilis domus.302 The Armenian Guide describes the Anastasis as a ‘dome a hundred ells high and a hundred ells wide’; the church had twelve columns on the ground level and twelve more supporting an upper story.303 The most fulsome account of the Early Islamic period is by Adomnán, who describes the Anastasis as: a very large church, entirely made of stone, and built on a remarkable round plan. Three walls rise from the foundations, and the distance between one wall and the next is about the width of a street. There are three altars arranged in three special emplacements in the middle wall. In this lofty round church one of these altars is on the south, another on the north, and a third on the west. The church rests on twelve columns of remarkable size. It has eight doors, or entries, in the three walls divided by the width of a street. Four of them are on the north facing east . . . and the other four are on the south facing east.304 299 During the Byzantine period, the inner courtyard was strongly associated with the Crucifixion. The Brev., 2, for example, refers to the ‘great court, where the Lord was crucified’. The Early Islamic sources associate the courtyard, or ‘garden’, more closely with the tomb of Jesus than with the place of the Crucifixion. The perceived change may correspond with the seventh-century alterations to the Rock of Calvary. 300 Epiphanius, Hag., 3. The reference is to Joseph of Arimathea, the owner of Jesus’ tomb (see Mt 27:57-60, Mk 15:43-6, Lk 23:50-3 and Jn 19:38-42). 301 Bernard, It. Bern., 11, trans. in JW, (2002), 266. In the fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., 14.5 describes the inner courtyard: ‘now richly adorned with kingly gifts, it was formerly a garden, and tokens and traces of this still remain’, trans. in McCauley and Stephenson (1970), vol. 2, 35. On Cyril’s description of the garden, see Gibson and Taylor (1994), 61. 302 VW, 97.18-9. For a description of the Rotunda, see Stalley (1999), 65-6. 303 AG, 1, trans. in JW (2002), 165. 304 Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.3-5, trans. in JW (2002), 171.

122

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 123

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

The late eleventh-century account by Jachintus describes the inside of the Anastasis, again noting the twelve columns: ‘[there] are arranged twelve columns, each of which has at its head and foot a band of gilded bronze, and above they are overlaid with gold. And between them are another six which are square and very large, overlaid with slabs of marble’.305 By contrast, Bernard states that there were nine columns around the sepulchre, and ‘the walls between them are made of excellent stone’.306 These accounts of the Anastasis share two common features. First of all, they describe the physical appearance of the structure, particularly noting the size and arrangement of its columns. By contrast, Willibald merely describes the building as mirabilia. The word is used in the Vita on two other occasions – to describe a breed of purple long-horned cattle that he encountered near Dan (ibi sunt armenta mirabilia)307 and, in a phrase glossed by Hugeburc, to describe the Hell of Theodoric (statimque post istis horribilis seu terribilis ignis flagrantiae vaporibus flammivomisque fumi fetidis mirabilis visionum spectacuis exploratis).308 In other words, the Anastasis made the same impression upon Willibald as hell and a purple cow! Willibald’s description of the Anastasis as a mirabilis domus underscores his tendency to emphasize the biblical setting of the sancti loci at the expense of the ecclesiastical landscape,309 and except for his incidental reference to the basilica’s eastern wall, the summation of his architectural description of the Holy Sepulchre is his five-fold use of aecclesia and his reference to the domus. The second feature common to the pilgrim accounts is their recognition of the Anastasis as a church. The Armenian Guide refers to ‘the columns of the church’, naming the structure, ‘The Resurrection’.310 Adomnán describes it as ‘a very large church’,311 while, according to Bernard, it was one of the four churches of special importance in the city.312 To be sure, Willibald uses the word, domus, in reference to

Jachintus, Pilgrimage, 10, trans. in JW (2002), 271. Bernard, It. Bern., 11, trans. in JW (2002), 266. 307 VW, 96.10. 308 VW, 102.7-9. 309 Although Willibald acknowledges that the tomb is set within the artificial enclosure of the domus, since the structure was supra the tomb, he leaves the impression that the mirabilis domus protected but did not necessarily alter the landscape below. 310 AG, 1, 311 Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.3. 312 Bernard, It. Bern., 11. 305 306

123

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 124

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

other Holy Land churches.313 In his description of Bethsaida, he notes that the former domus of Peter and Andrew was now an aecclesia (et inde pergebant ad Bethsaidam, inde erant Petrus et Andreas. Ibi est nunc aecclesia, ubi prius erat domus illorum),314 while the domus mentioned in his account of Capernaum (ubi fuit domus et mura magna) was presumably the Church of the House of Peter.315 Willibald includes the word twice in his description of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem: the cave ubi Christus natus was now a quadrangulus domus in petra excisum,316 while the church built over the place ubi Christus natus was a gloriosa domus.317 Although Willibald’s use of domus often has ecclesiastical connotations, he does not explicitly describe the Anastasis as an aecclesia. Rather, he makes a distinction between the aecclesia (the Basilica of Constantine) and the sepulchrum Salvatoris in the Anastasis – placing the latter in the hortus secus the church.318 Still, the point must be qualified: while Willibald perceived the Holy Sepulchre as a complex consisting of a single, dominant church, he recognized the sepulchrum Salvatoris as the holiest locus in Jerusalem.319 Finally, Willibald’s reference to the mirabilis domus seems to be out of sequence since it occurs in the middle of his description of the tomb. Yet, his account actually follows a logical progression. After noting the exterior shape of the sepulchrum, which was surmounted by a cross, the sightline of Willibald’s attention rises until it focuses upon the mirabilis domus that was supra the tomb. Willibald’s attention then returns to the sepulchrum, before taking the reader inside the tomb itself. In other words, the sequence moves from the tomb’s exterior – with the crux in summitate illius sepulchri literally pointing out the domus – to its inner chamber. 3.3.2.2 The Physical Description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris The discussion of Willibald’s account of the tomb is divided into five parts: 1) Willibald’s use of sepulchrum and monumentum, 2) the phrase,

313 In his description of Eichstätt, Willibald uses domus as a general reference to a building – nulla domus ibi erat nisi illa aecclesia sanctae Mariae (VW, 104.35-6). 314 VW, 96.4-5. 315 VW, 96.1-4. On the house of Peter, see Corbo (1969) and Loffreda (1993). 316 VW, 98.26. 317 VW, 98.31-99.1. 318 VW, 97.15-6. Willibald also fails to mention the presence of altars in the Anastasis, which are described by both Adomnán (DLS, 1.2.3) and Bernard (It. Bern., 11). See section 3.3.2.2.5. 319 See below.

124

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 125

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

est quadrans in imo et in summo subtilis, 3) the tomb’s exterior, 4) the tomb’s interior and 5) the stone ante ianua sepulchri. 3.3.2.2.1 Sepulchrum and monumentum Willibald uses two words, sepulchrum and monumentum, in his description of the tomb. Altogether sepulchrum is used on eight occasions, while the word monumentum appears in a single instance. Both terms are similarly found in the gospel accounts of Jesus’ tomb, although sepulchrum is only used by Matthew. Otherwise, the Passion narratives of the Vulgate use monumentum, with Matthew shifting between the two terms.320 The different terms are noted by Adomnán, who was convinced that the words had distinct meanings. For him, the entire aedicule was the monumentum, while sepulchrum specifically referred to the inner chamber of the tomb.321 Is it possible to discern a similar distinction in Willibald’s treatment of the two words? Below are Willibald’s eight uses of sepulchrum:322 • • • •

et ibi secus est ille hortus, in quo erat sepulchrum Salvatoris, illa sepulchra fuerat in petra excisa, et stat nunc in summitate illius sepulchri crux, et in orientale plaga in illo petro sepulchri est ostia facta, per quam intrabunt homines in sepulchrum orare, • illud lectum, in quo corpus Domini iacebat, stat in latera aquilonis intus in petra sepulchri, • et homini est dextera manu, quando intrat in sepulchrum orare and, • ibi ante ianua sepulchri iacet ille lapis magnus quadrans. While, in some instances, sepulchrum may specifically refer to the inner burial chamber, Willibald’s comment that the sepulchrum was surmounted by a cross is a clear reference to the aedicule. He also uses the term with regards to both the biblical past and the commemorative present. While the phrases – the sepulchrum erat in the garden, it fuerat carved out of rock and a door est facta into it – refer to the tomb in its original biblical context, Willibald’s references to the cross stat nunc on the top of the sepulchrum, people intrat in sepulchrum orare and the large stone iacet in front of the tomb describe the contemporary nature of the site. In short, Willibald does not treat sepulchrum in any distinctive way. 320 Matthew uses monumentum on five different occasions (27:52, 53, 60, 60 and 28:8), while making use of sepulchrum on another four (27:61, 64, 66 and 28:1). 321 Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.9-10. Also see O’Loughlin (2007), 36. 322 The following references are found in VW, 97.16-25.

125

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 126

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Moreover, none of Willibald’s references, including his proper name for the tomb, sepulchrum Salvatoris,323 show any direct link with Matthew: • erat autem ibi Maria Magdalene et altera Maria sedentes contra sepulchrum (Mt 27:61), • iube ergo custodiri sepulchrum usque in diem tertium (Mt 27:64), • illi autem abeuntes munierunt sepulchrum signantes lapidem cum custodibus (Mt 27:66) and • vespere autem sabbati quae lucescit in primam sabbati venit Maria Magdalene et altera Maria videre sepulchrum (Mt 28:1). In other words, the Vita’s eight references to sepulchrum are all original to Willibald. Willibald’s singular use of monumentum occurs in his reference to the tomb’s door: et ibi ante ianua sepulchri iacet ille lapis magnus quadrans in similitudine prioris lapidi, quem angelus revolvit ab ostium monumenti.324 Three aspects of the description are worth noting. First of all, Willibald’s use of ab ostium monumenti is preceded by a separate parallel phrase denoting the contemporary entrance to the tomb – ante ianua sepulchri. Secondly, whereas ante ianua sepulchri is not a scriptural expression, ab ostium monumenti is taken from Mt 27:60, which describes the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea: et advolvit saxum magnum ad ostium monumenti et abiit.325 Thirdly, Willibald uses the phrase to describe the angels’ removal of the stone after the Resurrection of Jesus, which actually occurs in Mt 28:2 (magnus angelus enim Domini descendit de caelo et accedens revolvit lapidem).326 Though used out of context, Willibald’s single use of monumentum is a reference to the biblical narrative and is not used to refer to the contemporary entrance of the tomb. 323

Despite the preferential treatment given to monumentum in the Vulgate, sepulchrum is more commonly used by Latin pilgrims. The tomb is referred to as the sepulchrum Domini by three Latin sources of the Early Islamic period – Comm., 1, Bernard, It. Bern., 11 and Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.8. Adomnán also uses the term, mausoleum Salvatoris, in 1.2.13, and, as mentioned above, Adomnán uses both sepulchrum and monumentum in his account of the tomb. It is unlikely, however, that Adomnán’s contemporary source, Arculf, used the word, monumentum. Rather, its inclusion in DLS most likely reflects Adomnán’s own use of scripture. 324 VW, 97.23-5. 325 Mk 16:3 uses the similar phrase, ad ostio monumenti. 326 In Lk 24:2 and Jn 20:1, the removal of the stone is described in the passive tense without a subject. The angels are not mentioned.

126

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 127

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

It is worth considering the possibility that the phrase, ad ostium monumenti, was inserted by Hugeburc during her final composition of the text. Her redaction of Willibald’s first-person dictations into a third-person narrative gave her the opportunity to liberally emend the work, and it is reasonable to assume that Hugeburc may have infuses the text with additional (i.e., verbatim) scriptural references. Yet, while hortus, sepulchrum, petra, lapis and angelus each appear in the biblical narratives of Jesus’ burial and Resurrection, ab ostium monumenti is the only instance of a verbatim phrase in Willibald’s entire account of the tomb. In other words, even if she is responsible for the phrase, Hugeburc’s redactions were extremely restraint. The point further underscores the oral nature of Willibald’s testimony. Although Willibald’s descriptions of the holy places are interwoven by a tapestry of scriptural images, he shows almost no reliance upon the wording of the biblical text.327 3.3.2.2.2 Quadrans in imo et in summo subtilis The enigmatic phrase – est quadrans in imo et in summo subtilis – has received more attention than any other aspect of Willibald’s account of the Holy Sepulchre. Wilkinson translates the phrase as ‘at the bottom it is square, but it is pointed on top’.328 Bauch renders it as ‘unten viereckig und oben schmal’, while Vincent and Abel interpret it as ‘carré à sa base et pointu au sommer’.329 Barag and Wilkinson have described it as Willibald’s ‘most interesting (though obscure) phrase’;330 yet, the description has caused more puzzlement than clarity for scholars working on the historical reconstruction of the tomb.331 Biddle points out that the first half of the phrase – est quadrans in imo332 – is particularly problematic, arguing that the

On the biblical quotations used by Willibald, see section 4.3.1.1. JW (2002), 241. 329 Bauch (1962), 59; Vincent and Abel (1914b), 222. 330 Barag and JW (1974), 183. 331 See the discussion in Biddle (1999), 71. Some scholars have interpreted Willibald’s description as an indication that the tomb was modified at some stage after the Persian attack of 614. For example, R. Schick (1995), 329 suggests that Modestus’ quick repairs underwent additional changes prior to Willibald visit to Jerusalem in the 720s. 332 Willibald also uses quadrans in VW, 97.24 to describe the stone in front of the tomb. 327 328

127

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 128

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

exact meaning of in imo is unknown, while the subject of est is unclear.333 The primary question is whether the phrase is a description of the inside or the outside of the tomb. Scholars have largely assumed that the phrase is referring to the external shape of the monument, which is suggested by the sequence of Willibald’s account. However, as early as 1849, Willis argued that quadrans in imo ‘refers to the square form of the chamber within’.334 Biddle endorses Willis’ view, observing that its internal chamber is still quandrans in imo.335 He also points out that the phrase, in imo, is used by Adomnán in an obvious reference to the tomb’s interior.336 Biddle further rejects the idea that Willibald’s description introduces new information regarding the aedicule, concluding that ‘there is thus no need to assume a change in the basic shape of the aedicule between the late seventh and the late ninth centuries, and no need to suppose that the form of the aedicule built by Constantine did not survive unchanged until 1009’.337 Willibald’s phrase – and the scholarly debate surrounding it – warrants a few comments. First of all, scholars have been surprisingly reluctant to entertain the possibility that Willibald’s description is not completely accurate. While the present study argues for the reliability of Willibald’s account, caution should be taken in the present instance. To be sure, the remark lacks the exactitude desired by Jerusalem scholars. Secondly, the phrase appears in the context of Willibald’s description of the tomb’s exterior. The words, quandrans in imo, are juxtaposed to in summo subtilis, which, in turn, introduces Willibald’s reference to the cross that stood in summitate illius sepulchri. The phrase simply cannot be read as a reference to the tomb’s interior. The point, though, should be rephrased. First of all, it is not unlikely that from Willibald’s perspective the description was valid of the entire tomb, both inside and out. Secondly, while Biddle may be correct to associate the phrase with the inside of the tomb, it cannot be the case that it applies exclusively to its interior. 333 Biddle (1999), 71 also refers to the phrase, quadrans in imo et in summo subtilis, as an ‘elegant chiasmus’ and offers the translation, ‘square below and slender above’. 334 Willis (1849), 176, n. 1. Similarly, Lauffray (1962), 215 refuses to believe that the aedicule was ever externally square, preferring to apply the phrase to the eastern shape of the tomb. 335 Biddle (1999), 71. 336 Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.12; Biddle (1999), 71. 337 Biddle (1999), 71.

128

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 129

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

3.3.2.2.3 The Tomb’s Exterior Leaving the phrase aside, the discussion now turns to Willibald’s references to the tomb’s exterior. The most unequivocal reference is his description of the crux that stood in summitate illius sepulchri. The object is described by Adomnán as a large golden cross.338 The tomb’s exterior is also denoted by Willibald’s descriptions of its door: et in orientale plaga in illo petro sepulchri est ostia facta, per quam intrabunt homines in sepulchrum orare and ante ianua sepulchri iacet ille lapis magnus quadrans in similitudine prioris lapidi, quem angelus revolvit ab ostium monumenti.339 Once again, Willibald appears to be using two separate words – ostia (in illo petro sepulchri est ostia facta) and ianua (ante ianua sepulchri) – to describe the same object. To enter the aedicule today, one must go through two low doors, first coming into an intermediate room, the Chapel of the Angels, before entering the tomb chamber. If this was the design of the eighthcentury aedicule, an argument could be made that the two words (ostia and ianua) refer to the separate entranceways. However, recent interpretations of the tomb have recognized that the fully-enclosed anteroom emerged no earlier than the eleventh century. The Constantinian aedicule, which survived until 1009, had an open porch, and pilgrims walked directly into the burial chamber.340 Accordingly, Willibald is describing the Salvatoris sepulchrum as a one-room tomb with a single door.341 Rather, the two words may reveal a further distinction between the tomb of the biblical narrative and the eighth-century aedicule. While est ostia facta is not a biblical expression, Willibald’s use of the past tense associates the word, ostia, with the original tomb, complimenting his other use of ostia in the phrase, ab ostium monumenti, taken from Mt 27:60. On the other hand, the word, ianua, does not appear in the gospel accounts of the tomb. Its use in the present tense – the large square stone iacet ante ianua sepulchri – suggests that Willibald is using the words to distinguish between the ostia of the first-century tomb and the ianua of the contemporary aedicule. Willibald also gives the misleading impression that the sepulchrum’s exterior had a natural rock surface. All together, he makes four references Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.7. VW, 97.19-20 and 23-5. 340 Biddle (1999), 82 (fig. 66) and 109. 341 Compare with the manuscript drawings of Adomnán in JW (2002), 380-1. 338 339

129

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 130

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

to the rock; the first two are particularly deceptive as they commence Willibald’s account of the tomb:342 • • • •

illa sepulchra fuerat in petra excisa, ille petra stat super terram, in orientale plaga in illo petro sepulchri est ostia facta and illud lectum, in quo corpus Domini iacebat, stat in latera aquilonis intus in petra sepulchri.

In fact, the eighth-century tomb was greatly embellished. As previously mentioned, Adomnán indicates that the exterior was covered with choice marble (electo marmore), while the roof was decorated with gold.343 According to Photius, a number of exterior decorations had been added for the sake of piety.344 Despite its marble walls and goldplated roof, Willibald neglects to mention the tomb’s ornamentation. Willibald’s interest in its rock nature is based upon the gospel descriptions of the tomb. The Synoptic writers describe the tomb as hewn, with Matthew and Mark specifically using the word, petra: • posuit illud in monumento suo novo quod exciderat in petra (Mt 27:60), • posuit eum in monumento quod erat excisum de petra (Mk 15:46) and • posuit eum in monumento exciso in quo nondum quisquam positus fuerat (Lk 23:53).345 While Willibald’s allusions to the tomb’s petra have biblical resonance, they are not dependent upon the Synoptic texts. Once again, Willibald’s dictations incorporate biblical images that are conveyed in his own words. 3.3.2.2.4 The Tomb’s Interior Willibald’s description of the interior of the tomb consists of the following statements: • et in orientale plaga in illo petro sepulchri est ostia facta, per quam intrabunt homines in sepulchrum orare, • et ibi est intus lectum, ubi corpus Domini iacebat, See VW, 97.17-22. Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.7. 344 Photius, Amph., 316.2.1. 345 Jn 19:41 indicates that the tomb was new but makes no mention of its rock nature. 342 343

130

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 131

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

• et ibi stant in lecto 15 crateras aureas cum oleo ardentes die noctuque and • illud lectum, in quo corpus Domini iacebat, stat in latera aquilonis intus in petra sepulchri et homini est dextera manu, quando intrat in sepulchrum orare. The discussion will raise seven points with respect to Willibald’s description of the tomb’s interior. First of all, while Willibald portrays the entire sepulchrum as a natural rock object, this was particular true of the inner chamber. Both Photius and Adomnán describe the marks of the masons’ tools, which could still be seen inside the tomb.346 Adomnán further emphasizes the tomb’s austerity – ‘to this day there is not a trace of ornament inside this small building forming the Lord’s Tomb’ – while noting that the rock was ‘a mixture of red and white’.347 Secondly, Willibald’s attention was primarily focused upon the burial lectum of Jesus. While there are gospel references to Jesus’ body being placed in the tomb, the burial bench is never mentioned.348 However, its existence, along with its position within the tomb, is implied by Mk 16:5, which describes a young man in a white robe sitting on the right side of the tomb. References to the lectum prior to the aedicule’s destruction in 1009 appear in three other pilgrim texts. Writing in the early fifth century, Jerome describes Paula’s veneration of the bench: ‘then like a thirsty man who has waited long, and at last comes to water, [Paula] faithfully kissed the very shelf on which the Lord’s body had lain’.349 Adomnán describes the lectum as ‘a single shelf stretching from head to foot without division, which would take one person lying on his back’,350 while Photius refers to the burial shelf as ‘a rectangular recess long enough to take a man lying at full length, and on this the faithful Joseph is said to have laid the sinless body of the Lord’.351 Third, Willibald details the location of the lectum. He begins by describing its location on the north side of the tomb: illud lectum, in quo corpus Domini iacebat, stat in latera aquilonis intus in petra sepulchri. He then adds that the lectum was on the right-hand side as one enters Photius, Amph., 316.1.3; Adomnán, DLS, 1.3.2. Adomnán, DLS, 1.3.2. 348 Mt 27:59-60, Mk 15:46, Lk 23:53 and Jn 19:42. 349 Jerome, Ep., 108.9.1, trans. in JW (2002), 83. 350 Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.11, trans. in JW (2002), 172. 351 Photius, Amph., 316.1.4, trans. in JW (2002), 258. 346 347

131

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 132

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the tomb to prayer (homini est dextera manu, quando intrat in sepulchrum orare). Willibald’s description of the lectum is unique in this respect.352 Yet, despite his emphasis upon the lectum’s location within the tomb, Willibald does not enable the reader to visualize the setting of the tomb vis-à-vis the other sites of the Holy Sepulchre.353 Fourth and most significantly, the lectum was the locus of the Resurrection. Although Willibald does not explicitly mention the Resurrection, he provides a two-fold description of the lectum as the place ubi corpus Domini iacebat. By indicating that it was now empty, Willibald is identifying the bench as the locus of the Resurrection.354 Furthermore, the lectum is the only object specifically described by Willibald as a secondary relic of Christ. To touch the bench was to touch an object that had made physical contact with the Dominus. Fifth, the significance of the bench as the locus of the Resurrection is indicated by the witness of fifteen lamps – craterae aurea cum oleo ardentes die noctuque in lecto.355 Adomnán mentions the presence of twelve oil lamps on and above the tomb’s lectum, explicitly stating that the lamps represented the twelve Apostles.356 Given Luke’s reference to the three women at the grave, the fifteen lamps mentioned by Willibald may represent the sum of the Apostles and the three women.357 Sixth, Willibald depicts the interior of the tomb as a sacred place of prayer. Although he prays at the other holy sites, Willibald explicitly associates the practice with the Salvatoris sepulchrum – pilgrims intrabunt in sepulchrum orare, a phrase which he also repeats in the singular. Through his detailed description of the lectum’s location and his use of the words, intrare and orare, Willibald not only describes the tomb as a place of prayer but also beckons his readers to venerate the sepulchrum in their own imagination. Finally, Willibald’s description of the Salvatoris sepulchrum is full of repetition, with each of the following words appearing at least twice: intrare, intus, orare, lectum, corpus Domini and iacebat. The words reflect Willibald’s focus on the burial bench and underscore his Compare with Willibald’s description of the locus of the Ascension (VW, 98.14-23). For instance, Willibald fails to give the distances between the respective holy sites. 354 See section 3.6.2.3.2, where the empty tomb is compared with the tomb of Mary. 355 VW, 97.21. 356 Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.12. The Piacenza Pilgrim (Itin., 18) mentions a single bronze lamp, which ‘burns there day and night’. 357 Although other women were present, Lk 24:10 mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary, the mother of James, by name. 352

353

132

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 133

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

interest in sharing the sacred space with others – the reader is invited to enter (intrare) inside (intus) the tomb to pray (orare) at the bench (lectum) where the body of the Lord (corpus Domini) used to lay (iacebat). The repetition may also reflect clarifying statements stemming from Hugeburc’s questions. If so, this pattern is not prevalent throughout the text.358 Rather, the use of repetition is unique to his description of the tomb, which, for Willibald, was the holiest place in Jerusalem. 3.3.2.2.5 The Stone ante ianua sepulchri Willibald ends his account of the sepulchrum Salvatoris with a reference to the magnus quadrans lapis that lay ante ianua sepulchri, adding that the stone was in similitudine prioris lapidi, quem angelus revolvit ab ostium monumenti.359 The lapis is mentioned ten times in the Passion narratives, appearing in all four of the gospel accounts.360 The stone is never described by the Evangelists as magnus or quadrans, nor, as mentioned, does the word, ianua, appear in the biblical accounts of the tomb. As previously discussed, the words, ab ostium monumenti, occur in Mt 27:60 in relation to Jesus’ burial rather than to the angel’s removal of the stone, which appears in Mt 28:2, while the word, revolvit, only appears in Mt 28:2.361 In summary, his description of the stone, et ibi ante ianua sepulchri iacet ille lapis magnus quadrans, is original to Willibald, while his allusion to the biblical story, the lapis quem angelus revolvit ab ostium monumenti, conflates two Matthean verses. Willibald’s description of the stone elicits three comments with respect to the pilgrim sources.362 First of all, Willibald describes a single stone.363 According to Adomnán, the stone was ‘split and divided into two pieces’,364 while Photius also describes two sections of stone – one

358 Brownlow (1895), viii argues: ‘the repetitions and ampliations of the descriptions are evidently the answers to questions put to him while he was telling his tale’. While Brownlow is correct to underscore the dictational nature of the Willibald’s report, there is little evidence of ‘repetitions and ampliations’ in the text. 359 VW, 97.24-5. Also see Kloner (1999). 360 Mt 27:60, Mt 27:66, Mt 28:2, Mk 15:46, Mk 16:3, Mk 16:4, Lk 24:2 and Jn 20:1. 361 Other forms of revolvere are also used in Mk 16:3, Mk 16:4 and Lk 24:2. 362 Byzantine sources for the stone include Jerome, Ep., 108.9.2, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., 1.6, the Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 18 and Sophronius, Anacr., 20.12. The stone is also represented in a number of pilgrim ampullae, including Monza 3 and Monza 5. See Barag and JW (1974), 182. 363 As does Bernard, It. Bern., 10. 364 Adomnán, DLS, 1.3.1.

133

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 134

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

section was placed in the western part of the rotunda, while the other was bound with copper and stood next to the tomb.365 Secondly, Willibald does not mention the stone’s use as an altar. By contrast, Adomnán indicates that the larger portion of the stone formed a square altar, which was covered with linen and located in the eastern part of the Anastasis, while the smaller piece, likewise shaped into a square altar, was located in front of the tomb.366 Photius likewise states that the stone closest to the tomb served as an altar for the Passion liturgy.367 Finally, according to Willibald, the stone was a replica of the original – in similitudine prioris lapidi.368 Willibald’s statement complicates the descriptions of the stone’s division by Adomnán and Photius. The cause of the fracture is unknown – if, in fact, the two pieces were derivative of a single stone. Since the Piacenza Pilgrim describes the stone as decorated with gold and precious stone,369 it was presumably stripped of its ornamentation by the Persians. The fate of the Byzantine stone – its recognition upon being defaced, the extent of its relocation, if moved, and its possible fracture – is impossible to determine. However, Willibald’s description certainly suggests that the stones mentioned by Adomnán and Photius were not ‘authentic’. Nonetheless, Willibald valued the imitative stone as a vital feature of the Salvatoris sepulchrum.370 Since the stone was an important element in the Resurrection story, its presence enabled pilgrims to better imagine the biblical event. 3.3.3 Summary: The sepulchrum Salvatoris In conclusion, four points warrant particular emphasis. First of all, as the locus of the Resurrection, the sepulchrum Salvatoris – and, in particular, the lectum ubi corpus Dominus iacebat – captured Willibald’s imagination unlike any other place in Jerusalem. Willibald depicts the tomb as a place of holy prayer. Moreover, his description of the inner chamber is unique for its repetition and directional references, indicating his desire for his readers to conceptualize the layout of the tomb.

Photius, Amph., 316.1.6. Adomnán, DLS, 1.3.1. 367 Photius, Amph., 316.1.6. 368 VW, 97.23-5. Willibald’s admission also evokes his description of the three commemorative crosses (see section 3.1.4.5). 369 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 18. 370 Both the stone and the crosses were recognized by Willibald as significant features of the Holy Sepulchre. 365 366

134

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 135

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Secondly, Willibald portrays the tomb in terms compatible with the biblical narrative. He sets the tomb within the context of the hortus mentioned by John; he repeatedly emphasizes the rock-hewn nature of the tomb, and he describes a large replica stone that represents the one that the angelus revolvit ab ostium monumenti. Third, the chapter has emphasized the dictational nature of Willibald’s account. While his description of the tomb includes numerous words found in the biblical narratives, only one short phrase, ab ostium monumenti, is verbatim of scripture. Rather, Willibald’s report incorporates biblical images that are conveyed in his own words. By contrast, he gives but faint attention to the ecclesiastical landscape, referring to the Anastasis simply as a mirabilis domus. Finally, it is worth considering Payne’s description of the medieval attitude towards the Holy Sepulchre that appears in his history of the Crusades. According to Payne, the Holy Sepulchre did not represent the end of Christ’s suffering; rather, it was a symbol of God’s triumph over death: To the medieval mind Christ was most present in the empty tomb. They were not obsessed with the tragedy of his death, they rarely dwelt on the Crucifixion, and the manner of his death was perhaps the least important thing about it. What absorbed their imaginations was less the tragedy of his death than the triumph of the Resurrection. That was the supreme miracle that gave meaning to Christian life.371

Payne’s description of the medieval mind certainly reflects Willibald’s account of the Holy Sepulchre. Literally brushing by the locus of the Crucifixion, Willibald’s imagination was captured by the locus of the Resurrection – the empty lectum inside the sepulchrum Salvatoris.

3.4 The Church que vocatur Sancta Sion One of the side chapels in the present-day Dormition Abbey on Mt Sion is dedicated to the Virgin Mary, the patron saint of Bavaria.372 Behind the altar is a mosaic of Mary with eight of the region’s founding bishops Payne (1998), 19. The abbey, which belongs to the German Benedictines, was consecrated on April 10, 1910. Subsequent references to Holy Sion specifically denote the church site, while the term, Mt Sion, will be used as a geographical designation for the Western Hill. 371 372

135

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 136

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

paying homage to her. On Mary’s immediate left is Willibald, bishop of Eichstätt.373 While the other Bavarian bishops have no connection with the abbey, the depiction of Willibald, who visited the site in the eighth century, is particularly apropos. The mosaic raises the question to which the work now turns: what is Willibald’s image of the Church of Holy Sion? Willibald’s description of Holy Sion follows his account of the Holy Sepulchre: et abiit ad illam aecclesiam que vocatur Sancta Sion, illa stat in medio Hierusalem.374 From Holy Sion, he moves to a piscina near the porticus Salamonis, before describing a magna columna that commemorated the funeral procession of Mary. In relating the events of Mary’s funeral, Willibald mentions Holy Sion for a second time: Sancta Maria in illo loco in medio Hierusalem exivit de seculo, qui nominatur Sancta Sion.375 In sum, Willibald’s description of Holy Sion consists of a two-fold reference to its location in medio Hierusalem and its identity as the place of Mary’s death. The following chapter on the Church que vocatur Sancta Sion is divided into two parts. The first half of the chapter analyzes Willibald’s description of Holy Sion as in medio Hierusalem, arguing that the phrase reflects Willibald’s image of Holy Sion as the centre of biblical, or New Testament, Jerusalem.376 The second half of the chapter discusses the commemorative traditions associated with the Church of Holy Sion that underscore its identity as the home of the New Testament Church. Although the death of Mary is the lone commemoration mentioned by Willibald, the church’s association with events such as the Last Supper and Pentecost further supports the argument that in medio Hierusalem denotes its status as the centre of the early Church. Throughout its history three separate areas in Jerusalem have been identified as Mt Sion.377 The historical stronghold of Sion, captured from the Jebusites in the tenth century BCE,378 was originally on the

373 The mosaic was pointed out to me by Dr. Carolina Aznar. To my knowledge, it is the only image of Willibald in Jerusalem. 374 VW, 97.28-9. On the Church of Holy Sion, see R. Schick (1995), 335-6, Milik (1960), 361 and 566-7, Vincent and Abel (1914b), 431-78 and Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1982), 142. For various plans of the Church of Holy Sion, see Bahat (1980), 29-33. 375 VW, 98.5-6. 376 As discussed below, Christians understood Mt Sion to be the centre of both Old Testament (i.e., the City of David) and New Testament Jerusalem. 377 On the history of Sion, see Mare (1992), Dalman (1915) and Wilson (1902). 378 See 2 Sam 5:7 and 1 Chr 11:5. Also see 1 Kgs 8:1 and 2 Chr 5:2.

136

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 137

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Ophel Hill, half-way down the southern slope of Mt Moriah and to the immediate west of the Gihon Spring in the Kidron Valley. It was on this relatively low-lying hill that the original Israelite city of Jerusalem, also known as the City of David, was founded.379 As the city expanded, it initially grew to the north, incorporating the upper parts of Mt Moriah. By the second century BCE, Mt Moriah, the site of the subsequent temples, had become associated with Mt Sion.380 The city also expanded to the west of the Ophel Hill across the Tyropoeon Valley, where the terrain ascends sharply to a flat summit overlooking the lower heights of Mt Moriah.381 Because of its relationship to the original City of David, the area was commonly referred to as the Western Hill, or the Upper City. By the Second Temple period, the Western Hill, which included Herod’s great palace, was a wealthy and densely-populated section of the city.382 Although Josephus never mentions Mount Sion, he refers to the Western Hill as the Upper City and the Citadel.383 When Hadrian reconstituted Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina in 135, he excluded the Western Hill.384 Moreover, the camp of the Tenth Legion created a physical barrier between the city to the north and the summit of the Western Hill to the south.385 The isolation of Mount Sion was accentuated by the erection of city walls in the third century, which left the summit of the Western Hill outside the city.386 During the Roman period, the extramural area of the Western Hill became an uninhabited district largely given over to vegetation and littered with ruins.387 By the Byzantine period, ‘Mt Sion’ was exclusively associated with the Western Hill, which had a two-fold significance for Christian 379 On the archaeology of the Israelite City of David, see Shiloh (1984), B. Mazar (1983), 23-63, P.W.L. Walker (1990), 282-5 and Stern (1993), 716. 380 For example, see 1 Mac 4:37, 4:60, 5:54 and 7:33. 381 On the use of the Western Hill in the pre-exilic era, see Tushingham (1979), 39-55. 382 On the wealth of the Western Hill during the Second Temple period, see Broshi (1976) and Avigad (1983), 64-202. 383 See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 7.62-6 and The Jewish War, 1.39 and 5.137 in Whiston (1999), 236, 671 and 851-2. 384 On Hadrian’s reconstitution of Jerusalem, see Bahat (1990), 58-76, esp. 59. 385 See Murphy-O’Connor (1995), 313-6 and Wightman (1993), 195-6. For an alternative view on the location of the Tenth Legion camp, see Bar (1998). 386 See Wightman (1993), 201, fig. 65. 387 See Bordeaux Pilgrim, It. Burg., 592, Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica, 6.13.157 and 8.3.1-15 and Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., 16.18. Also see Is 1:8 and Mic 3:12.

137

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 138

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

pilgrims. First of all, Mt Sion was identified with biblical Jerusalem – in early Christian thought, there was no distinction between the location of Jerusalem during the Second Temple (New Testament) and the Israelite (Old Testament) periods.388 Secondly, Christian tradition identified Mt Sion as the centre of the nascent Church.389 The house where the disciples gathered after the Resurrection390 – also thought to have been the setting of the Last Supper391 – was located on the summit of Mt Sion.392 The fourth-century discovery of the tomb of Christ resulted in the relocation of the Jerusalem Church to the newly-built complex of the Holy Sepulchre. Although the area of Mt Sion was not included in the Holy Land building program of Constantine, the patriarch Maximus (335–49) soon built a new basilica on Mt Sion, known as the ‘Mother of All Churches’,393 since it was supposedly built upon the foundations of the original Jerusalem church. After the Holy Sepulchre, Holy Sion was the secondary church in the Jerusalem liturgy.394

388 According to P.W.L. Walker (1990), 283, writers such as Eusebius and Cyril of Jerusalem had no idea that Mt Sion was not the Sion of the Old Testament. 389 Although the continuity of Jerusalem’s Christian community is heavily debated, most scholars accept that Mt Sion was the home of a small Christian congregation during the early Christian period. The most relevant physical evidence is the widely-interpreted remains of the so-called tomb of David (see Pinkerfeld (1960) and Hirshberg (1976)), while the textual sources are the descriptions of the Bordeaux Pilgrim and Epiphanius of Salamis. According to the Bordeaux Pilgrim, It. Burg., 592, trans. JW (1999), 30-1, ‘Seven synagogues were there, but only one is left – the rest have been “ploughed and sown”, as was said by the prophet Isaiah’. Similarly, Epiphanius of Salamis, Treatise on Weights and Measures, 14 states that in the days of Hadrian there were seven synagogues and ‘a little church of God’. According to Taylor (1993), 208 and 219 and (1990), 19-20, the wealth of Mt Sion weakens the argument for the early Christian presence in the area. Taylor’s argument is rejected by Murphy-Connor (1995), 319-20. An argument has also been made by Pixner that an Essene quarter, which then became Christian, was on Mt Sion. See Pixner (1981), (1990a), (1990b) and (1991), 180-207. On the early Christian traditions of Mt Sion, see JW (1988), 46-50 and (2002), 350-3, Taylor (1993), 207-20, P.W.L. Walker (1990), 282-308, Bieberstein (1995) and Murphy-O’Connor (1995) and (1998), 103-7. 390 See section 3.4.2.1. 391 See section 3.4.2.3. 392 Despite its association with the early church, Sion never appears in the New Testament as a topographical reference to first-century Jerusalem. The seven references – Mt 21:5, Jn 12:15, Rom 9:33, Rom 11:26, Heb 12:22, 1 Pet 2:6 and Apoc 14:1 – are either Old Testament quotations or references to Sion as a heavenly or eschatological idea. 393 Theodosius, DSTS, 7b. 394 On Holy Sion and the stational liturgy of Jerusalem, see Baldovin (1987), 83-100.

138

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 139

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

During the Persian invasion of 614, the Church of Holy Sion was set on fire, and the people who took refuge in the church were consumed in the flames.395 Both Sebe¯os and the Georgian Lectionary refer to Modestus’ restoration of the church.396 While the archaeological evidence is ambiguous, Holy Sion is well-attested in the literary sources of the Early Islamic period.397 The Armenian Guide, Adomnán, Epiphanius and Bernard each describe the church in some detail,398 while Anastasius of Sinai states that the church was in the hands of Chalcedonian Christians.399 According to the Commemoratorium, the church was served by seventeen presbyters and clergy.400 3.4.1 In medio Hierusalem Despite Willibald’s two-fold reference to its location in medio Hierusalem, Holy Sion was distinctly positioned in the southern sector of the city,401 and since Christian veneration was primarily focused upon the sites of the Holy Sepulchre, Holy Sion could claim neither geographic nor cultic centrality within the city. The apparent distortion may be explained in one of three ways. First of all, the description could reflect a mistaken observation by Willibald. Secondly, the phrase, in medio ciuitatis, or in medio Hierusalem, may simple mean ‘inside the city walls’.402 Third, as will be argued, the physical topography of eighth-century Jerusalem was not be the primary determinant influencing Willibald’s image of Holy Sion as in medio Hierusalem. 3.4.1.1 Mount Sion and the Topography of Jerusalem Although Willibald’s reference to Holy Sion as in medio Hierusalem is not an accurate reflection of the physical layout of eighth-century

395

510.

Antiochus the Monk, Exomologesis (PG 89), 1855-6; see Conybeare (1910), 509,

396 Sebe¯os, Histoire, 24-9; GL, 565 and 1414. Also see Antiochus the Monk, Exomologesis (PG 89), 1427-8. 397 See R. Schick (1995), 335-6. 398 AG, 4; Adomnán, DLS, 1.18; Epiphanius, Hag., 7-9; Bernard, It. Bern., 12. 399 Anastasius of Sinai, Interrogationes et responiones (PG 89), 767-70. 400 Comm., 2. 401 Mt Sion’s southern position is noted by Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 3 and Adomnán, DLS, 1.1.6. Also see the Madaba Map (Tsafrir (1998b), 161, nr. 22). 402 Also see Adomnán, DLS, 1.11.1 and section 3.1.4.4. There is no reason to assume any topographical connection between Adomnán’s reference to the column as in medio ciuitatis and Willibald’s description of Holy Sion as in medio Hierusalem.

139

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 140

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Jerusalem, it is worth considering possible topographical influences upon his image of the area. Mt Sion was the highest point in the city, overlooking the summit of Mt Moriah with its lower ridge, the Ophel Hill, to the east. Mt Sion also had steep and well-defined slopes on three of its four sides. Only the gradual descent of its northern side lacks definition.403 Mt Sion’s physical characteristics often impressed pilgrim observers. Eucherius describes Mt Sion as overlooking the city like a citadel.404 According to Photius, Sion denotes the word, ‘high’, and he compares the mountain to a watchtower and garrison.405 Despite the fact that Holy Sion was not located in the centre of the city, Willibald’s phrase could reflect certain topographical concerns. For example, does in medio Hierusalem convey Willibald’s memories of Mt Sion as the highest point in the city? Does Willibald simply mean that the church stood in the middle of the Western Hill or, similarly, that the Church of Holy Sion crowned its summit? While these questions may possibly inform Willibald’s description of Holy Sion, in medio Hierusalem expresses a more fundamental image – the area’s association with biblical Jerusalem. 3.4.1.2 Sion, Calvary and the Biblical City of Jerusalem As previously mentioned, the phrase, in medio Hierusalem, may simple mean ‘inside the city walls’, and Willibald’s designation of Holy Sion as ‘in the middle of Jerusalem’ has been correctly understood by Jerusalem scholars as evidence of its intramural location.406 Indeed, it is possible to interpret Willibald’s second use of in medio Hierusalem, which appears in his account of Mary’s funeral, as juxtaposing the intramural location of Holy Sion with Mary’s tomb in the Jehoshaphat Valley. However, this clearly does not apply to his initial use of the phrase, which occurs in the context of his movements from the Holy Sepulchre to Holy Sion. Although both sites were located inside the city walls, the designation, in medio Hierusalem, is reserved for the latter of the two. To be sure, Willibald’s image of Holy Sion was fundamentally influenced by the location of Calvary. Since the events of the Crucifixion and Resurrection were prius extra Hierusalem, ‘Jerusalem’ had to be 403 Adomnán, DLS, 1.1.11 describes the ‘slope going gradually down from the northern ridge of Mt Sion’ to the lower parts of the city. 404 Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 3. 405 Photius, Amph., 316.1.1. 406 For example, see Bahat, (1996), 43 and Wightman (1993), 236.

140

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 141

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

elsewhere. In other words, if the Holy Sepulchre lay on ground that was originally outside the city, where was the Jerusalem of Jesus’ day? The answer was Mt Sion, the site of the Last Supper, the Resurrection appearances of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. According to Theodosius, Holy Sion was previously the house of St Mark the Evangelist, while Holy Sion, the ‘Mother of all Churches’, was founded by Jesus and the Apostles.407 Eucherius similarly associates the summit of Mt Sion with the activities of the Apostles.408 Mt Sion and Calvary are frequently juxtaposed in the pilgrim sources. According to the ninth-century writer, Photius, Mt Sion, or ‘ancient Jerusalem’, was one bowshot away from the ‘life-giving tomb of the Lord’.409 Eusebius and Jerome specifically note that Calvary was north of Mt Sion,410 while Eucherius states that the sites of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection were outside the area of Mt Sion.411 In short, Willibald’s description of Sion as in medio Hierusalem must be read in light of his emphasis upon Calvary’s location as prius extra Hierusalem,412 while his reference to Mary’s death conveys his understanding of the area as ‘ancient Jerusalem’ and the home of the New Testament Church. 3.4.1.3 The Walls of Jerusalem During the fifth century, the empress Eudocia built a new set of southern walls, incorporating Mt Sion inside the city and making redundant the former southern boundary of the city, an east-west line of third-century walls running approximately one hundred meters north of the Church of Holy Sion.413 Now encircled, the ‘biblical’ city Theodosius, DSTS, 7b. Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 4. 409 Photius, Amph., 316.1.1, trans. in JW (2002), 258. 410 Eusebius, Onom., 74; Jerome, Lib. Loc., 75. Also see Freeman-Grenville (2003), 45. 411 Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 4-6. 412 VW, 97.12. See section 3.2.1.4. 413 Mt Sion was enclosed within the city during the Second Temple period. After the Second Jewish revolt in the 130s CE, the city was greatly reduced in size, and when the Romans constructed a southern wall in the third century (see Bahat (1998), 54, who dates the Roman wall to the time of Constantine), it did not include the area of Mt Sion. The longer wall circumventing Mt Sion was restored by Eudocia (see the Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 25 and Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 3). Although Vincent and Abel ((1914b), 237, n. 27) believe the longer wall was abandoned in 975 as a response to the threat of Johannes Tzimiskes, it is generally accepted that the longer southern city wall of Jerusalem was abandoned following the earthquake of 1033. On the third-century southern wall of Jerusalem, see Bahat (1996), 43-5 and (1998), 54-6, Wightman (1993), 235-6 and Tsafrir (1977), 154-8. 407 408

141

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 142

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

of Mt Sion was clearly delineated, while the area of ‘new’ Jerusalem lay north of the former southern walls. According to Bahat, ‘the southern side [of the ramparts of Jerusalem] is the most problematic of all the wall’s structures’.414 While sections may have been dismantled, scholars agree that a remnant of the third-century walls remained visible throughout the Early Islamic period. Broshi and Tsafrir believe that the southern wall became an ‘inner line’, while Tsafrir adds that the wall ‘stood in ruins for four or five hundred years, or served in part as an interior wall’.415 Wightman believes that the ‘inner southern wall stood abandoned – and even partly dismantled in its eastern half ’ during the Late Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, implying, nonetheless, that the wall was still visible.416 According to Bahat, ‘during the entire early Muslim period the Roman city’s southern wall probably passed more or less along the same route as the present-day southern wall’.417 The assumption that the southern walls remained visible after the construction of Eudocia’s fifth-century walls rests upon three main arguments. First of all, the Piacenza Pilgrim mentions on old city gate in the area of the proposed line: ‘We went on from there [the Church of Holy Sophia towards the pool of Siloam] to an arch on the site of an ancient city gate’.418 The arch appears to have been near the presentday Dung Gate. Secondly, evidence of the wall appears on the Madaba Map.419 According to Broshi and Tsafrir, ‘it is possible that some parts of the wall were pulled down after it became an inner line, but in the Madaba mosaic map, usually dated to the latter half of the sixth century, the inner wall is partially visible’.420 Tsafrir adds: ‘a number of hints in the Byzantine sources and in particular the representation on the Madaba map confirm that the wall of Aelia continued to exist, at least

414 Bahat (1996), 43. According to Bahat (1998), 54, the wall ‘poses a serious problem to scholars’. 415 Broshi and Tsafrir (1977), 35-6; Tsafrir (1977), 158. 416 Wightman (1993), 220. 417 Bahat (1996), 43; also see Milik (1961), 142-3. 418 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 24. 419 See Tsafrir (1998b), 161, who identifies ‘J’ as ‘a gate at the end of the cardo, originally in the wall of Aelia before the expansion of the city southwards’. While Wightman (1993), 222 affirms that the wall was still visible in the Early Islamic period, he is equivocal about its representation on the Madaba Map. 420 Broshi and Tsafrir (1977), 35-6.

142

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 143

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

in parts, throughout the later Byzantine period, when it served only as an interior city wall’.421 Similarly, Bahat argues that the creator of the Madaba Map wished to show that the ‘gates of Sion’ separated the city from Mt Sion.422 Thirdly, the argument that the wall did not entirely disappear rests upon the generally-held view that the new southern wall, which was built sometime prior to the Crusades, followed the previous course of the old Roman wall.423 The argument could be established archaeologically, if it was demonstrated that the Early Islamic wall had been built either upon the foundations of or in alignment with the third-century wall. Unfortunately, at most, only a small portion of the Roman wall – located approximately ninety meters south of the Temple Mount – has been uncovered.424 While Broshi and Tsafrir admit that ‘the lack of archaeological evidence is most unfortunate’, they ‘see no reason [based upon the limited amount of excavations in the area] . . . to discard the proposed course of the Late Roman wall’, which is based upon the line of the Early Islamic ramparts.425 While scholars agree that portions of the third-century Roman walls were visible throughout the Early Islamic period, the influence of these remains upon the pilgrim image of Mt Sion has not been recognized. Yet, despite their post-biblical provenance, the visible ruins of these neglected walls, which were encountered by pilgrims on their ascent from the Holy Sepulchre likely accentuated the perceived antiquity of Mt Sion.426 In short, the line of ruins delimited the two cities; while leaving the ‘new’ and formerly extramural city behind them, the remnants of the old wall heralded pilgrims into the city of biblical Jerusalem and towards the Church of Holy Sion, which, according to Willibald, stood in medio Hierusalem. Tsafrir (1977), 156. Bahat (1998), 54. Bahat refers to the gates as the ‘Golden Gates described by Thomas the Undertaker’ in Strategius, The Capture of Jerusalem, 23.30 (see Conybeare (1910), 515). 423 See Broshi and Tsafrir (1977), 34 and Wightman (1993), 220. 424 See the reference in Broshi and Tsafrir (1977), 36, n. 14 to the oral communication of B. Mazar. According to Bahat (1998), 54, ‘nearly the entire southern Ottoman city wall has been excavated’, and ‘no remains of a Byzantine wall have been found along its suggested line’. 425 Broshi and Tsafrir (1977), 35-6. 426 On pilgrim movements between the Holy Sepulchre and Holy Sion, see section 3.9.1. 421 422

143

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 144

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

3.4.2 The Commemorations of Holy Sion The following discussion will examine traditions informing Holy Sion’s identity as the centre of New Testament Jerusalem.427 Although Willibald only mentions the death of Mary, the other commemorations were not without influence upon his image of Holy Sion. 3.4.2.1 The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus Among the oldest traditions associated with Holy Sion are the Resurrection appearances of Jesus. On the evening of his Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples, who were locked in a house in Jerusalem for ‘fear of the Jews’.428 John, who describes the absence of Thomas, provides resolution to the narrative by repeating the scene a week later in the same house, this time with Thomas present.429 Early Christians associated the house with Holy Sion, and the Jerusalem Liturgy commemorated the Resurrection appearances in the Sion church with an evening service on the first and eighth days of Easter.430 3.4.2.2 Pentecost Holy Sion is also associated with the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.431 The commemoration is mentioned by a number of Byzantine sources. Cyril of Jerusalem spoke about the suitability for sermons on the Holy Spirit in the Church of Holy Sion,432 and Paula was shown the place where the Holy Spirit descended ‘on the souls of more than a hundred and twenty persons’.433 According to Egeria, Holy Sion is the ‘very spot’ where the Holy Spirit descended after the Lord’s Passion’,434 while Eucherius states that the church on Mt Sion was where the Apostles were

427 Commemorations associated with the surrounding area of Mt Sion also highlight its New Testament significance. On the trial of Jesus and the house of Caiaphas, see JW (1988), 46-50 and (2002), 350-3, Murphy-O’Connor (1998), 103-7, Finegan (1992), 242-5, Bieberstein (1995), Broshi (1975), Kopp (1963), 351-73, Vincent and Abel (1914b), 482-515, and 222-46, Germer-Durand (1914), 71-94 and Power (1928), (1929a) and (1929b). 428 Jn 20:19. 429 Jn 20:26-9. 430 See Egeria, It. Eg., 39.5 and 43.3, AL, 45 and 52 and GL, 754-6 and 764. 431 Act 2:1-41. Act 2:2 describes the Holy Spirit’s descent upon the house of the Apostles. 432 Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., 16.4. 433 Jerome, Ep., 108.9, trans. in JW (2002), 84. 434 Egeria, It. Eg., 43.3.

144

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 145

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

‘filled by the Spirit once promised by the Lord’.435 Sophronius longed to ‘pass to Sion where, in the likeness of fiery tongues, the Grace of God descended’.436 References to Pentecost are less frequent in the Early Islamic texts, with the Armenian Guide, Epiphanius and Bernard each failing to mention it. However, Adomnán’s manuscript drawings of Holy Sion identify the place where the spiritus sanctus super apostolos descendit.437 The tradition is frequently mentioned in the Crusader sources.438 3.4.2.3 The Last Supper The association of the Last Supper with Holy Sion only emerged after Pentecost and the post-Resurrection events were well-established.439 The tradition is based upon the association of Jesus’ final meal in the so-called ‘upper room’ (avna,gaion)440 with the house (u‘perw/ | on)441 where the disciples gathered after the Resurrection. The link is made in the Didascalia of Addai, a text from the late fourth century,442and the association became permanent in the Latin world when, in the Vulgate, Jerome translated the Greek words with the term, coenaculum.443 The fifth-century Armenian Lectionary is the first source to specifically locate the Last Supper tradition on Holy Sion, while the Cypriot monk, Alexander, associates it with Sion in the sixth century.444 According to Sophronius, Jesus washed the disciples’ feet after their ‘mystic supper’ on Sion.445 The Last Supper was associated Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 4, trans. in JW (2002), 94. Sophronius, Anacr., 20.56-8, trans. in JW (2002), 158. 437 JW (2002), 375-6. 438 For example, see First Guide, 5, Ottobonian Guide, 5, Daniel, WB, 41 and Saewulf, Relatio, 19. 439 For example, Egeria, It. Eg., 35.2 commemorates the Last Supper in the Holy Sepulchre. On the tradition of its location on Holy Sion, see Pixner (1991), 219-28. 440 Lk 22:12; Mk 14:15. 441 Act 1:13. 442 According to the Didascalia of Addai, after the Ascension, the Apostles went up ‘to the upper room where the Lord had eaten the Passover meal with them’ (see Kopp (1963), 326). 443 See Kopp (1963), 326-7. 444 AL, 39; Alexander the Monk, De Inventione sanctae crucis, 4041. 445 Sophronius, Anacr., 20.59-62. An alternative tradition to the Last Supper existed in the Grotto of Gethsemane during the Byzantine period (see section 3.7.1.2.2). The tradition contradicts the biblical accounts, which set the meal inside the city. According to Kopp (1963), 328, the proponents of these traditions ‘could only have dared such a flagrant contradiction of the gospels in the absence of any solid tradition concerning the place of the Last Supper’. 435 436

145

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 146

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

with Holy Sion throughout the post-Byzantine period as the Armenian Guide, Epiphanius and Adomnán all refer to the tradition.446 While the Armenian Guide and Epiphanius locate the Upper Room on the right side of the church,447 Adomnán’s manuscript drawings, which are difficult to orientate, locate the locus cenae domini in the upper left-hand corner of the plan.448 While Bernard fails to mention the meal, he locates the footwashing in the church.449 3.4.2.4 The Stones of Stephen Acts describes the stoning of the deacon Stephen, recognized as the first Christian martyr.450 In 415, the priest Lucian discovered the relics of Stephen in Caphargamala.451 John II (386–417), the patriarch of Jerusalem, secured the relics from Lucian and interred them in Holy Sion, making the church the initial focal point of Jerusalem’s cult of St Stephen.452 The relics of Stephen were then transferred to a new shrine north of the city in 439.453 While there is no indication that Sion retained any of the bodily relics, the church continued to display the stones used in his martyrdom. According to the Breviarius, the sacrarium of Holy Sion contained ‘the stone with which St Stephen was stoned’,454 while the Piacenza Pilgrim includes a similar reference to the many stones used to stone Stephen.455 References to Stephen’s stoning also appear in the Early Islamic sources. According to Adomnán, the church contained the ‘rock on which Stephen was stoned and fell asleep outside the city’.456 Bernard fails to mention the stones but places the martyrdom in a church immediately to the east of Holy Sion.457

446 AG, 4; Epiphanius, Hag., 7; Adomnán, DLS, 1.18. Bernard, It. Bern., 12 identifies the church with the place ‘where the Lord washed the feet of his disciples’. 447 AG, 4; Epiphanius, Hag., 7. 448 On the manuscript drawings of Holy Sion, see JW (2002), 375-6 and 378-9, Finegan (1992), 232-6 and Mommert (1899). 449 Bernard, It. Bern., 12. 450 Act 7:54-60. 451 Lucian the Priest, Ep. Luciani, 807-9. 452 See Ep. Luciani, 813. Also see Hunt (1984), 212-20, van Esbroeck (1983), Clark (1982) and Kopp (1963), 325, n. 13. 453 See Hunt (1984), 242. 454 Brev., 4. 455 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 22.13-4. 456 Adomnán, DLS, 1.18.2, trans. in JW (2002), 179. 457 Bernard, It. Bern., 12. Compare with Brev., 4.

146

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 147

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

3.4.2.5 The Death of Mary Hippolytus of Thebes, likely writing in the late fifth century, provides the earliest known testimony of Mary’s death on Holy Sion.458 The sixth-century account of the Piacenza Pilgrim, which locates the house of Mary (from where she ‘was taken up from this life’) in the Church of St Mary in Gethsemane, suggests that the tradition of Mary’s death on Holy Sion was slow to develop.459 Sophronius indicates that the rock upon which Mary ‘was laid out in death’ was in the Church of Holy Sion,460 and by the post-Byzantine era the tradition was well-established. Epiphanius identifies the doorway through which the Apostles carried Mary’s body after her death,461 while the manuscript drawings of Adomnán place the event in the bottom right-hand corner of the plan.462 Bernard notes that Holy Sion is ‘the church where we are told Saint Mary died’.463 According to Willibald, Sancta Maria in illo loco in medio Hierusalem exivit de seculo, qui nominatur Sancta Sion.464 The tradition that places Mary’s death in her house on Mt Sion assumes that the area was the residential area of the city and the centre of the nascent Church.465 The aforementioned commemorations highlight the role of Holy Sion in the early life of the Church. While the Marian commemoration is the only one mentioned by Willibald, the other traditions undoubtedly influenced his image of Holy Sion as the centre of New Testament Jerusalem. 3.4.3 Conclusion Two distinct uses of in medio Hierusalem, or in medio civitatis, have been encountered in the pilgrim literature. On one hand, Christians (e.g., Melito of Sardis, the compiler of the Breviarius, Epiphanius, the artist of the Madaba Map and Adomnán) perceived the location of the Holy Sepulchre as in medio Hierusalem.466 Cosmologically, the sites of Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection, to which Christians affixed the omphalos, 458

JW (2002), 352.

Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 17. Sophronius, Anacr., 20.63-6. 461 Epiphanius, Hag., 7. 462 See JW (2002), 375-9. 463 Bernard, It. Bern., 11, trans. in JW (2002), 266. 464 VW, 98.5-6. 465 VW, 98.5-6. On the traditions of Mary’s death and assumption, see Shoemaker (2002). Also see Pixner (1991), 348-57 and Wright (1865). 466 Melito of Sardis, Paschal Homily, 71-2 and 93-4; Brev., 1; Brev. A, 1; Brev. B, 2; Epiphanius, Hag., 2; Adomnán, DLS, 1.11.1. 459 460

147

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 148

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

were the holiest places of Christendom; while geographically, they were located well inside the contemporary city. At the same time, Willibald uses the phrase to describe Holy Sion in contrast to the Holy Sepulchre, while other pilgrim writers, including Jerome, Eucherius and Photius, make similar distinctions. When pilgrims, including Willibald, were concerned with the question of historical topography – i.e., that the Crucifixion and Burial were originally outside the city – Holy Sion was properly recognized as the centre of Jerusalem. This image was further defined by its association with New Testament events, such as the Last Supper, the Resurrection appearances of Jesus, Pentecost, the stoning of Stephen and the death of Mary, and was likely enhanced by the ruined state of the city’s third-century southern wall that caused pilgrims walking from the Holy Sepulchre in the New City to perceive Holy Sion as a distinct and antiquated area of the city. Yet, despite its association with biblical Jerusalem, Holy Sion was, by no means, the most significant site in the city as the pilgrim imagination was more strongly captured by the loci of the Resurrection and the Ascension.467 In Christendom’s holiest city, the Church of Holy Sion was, at best, a distant third.

3.5 The Pool of the Paralytic Healing Leaving the Church of Holy Sion, Willibald ibat in porticum Salamonis; ibi est piscina, et illic iacent infirmi exspectantes remotionem aque, quando angelus veniret et moveret aquam, et tunc qui primum in illum ascenderet, sanaretur; ubi Dominus dixit paralytico: ‘Surge, tolle grabattum tuum et ambula’.468 Willibald is describing the pool of the Paralytic Healing, which appears in Jn 5:2-9.469 See sections 3.3 and 3.8. VW, 97.29-32. 469 According to John, a great number of disabled people reclined under the pools’ porticos (5:3) waiting for the waters to be stirred by an angel (5:4), for it was believed that the first person into the pool after the waters were disturbed would be cured. As Jesus approached the poolside, he noticed a man who had been lame for thirty-eight years. Jesus asked him, ‘Do you want to be made well?’ The lame man replied, ‘I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me’. Then, Dominus dixit paralytico: ‘Surge, tolle grabattum tuum et ambula’ (VW 97.29-32). The man was immediately cured, and picking up his mat, he began to walk. For exegetical discussions of Jn 5:2-9, including questions of topography, see Dodd (1963), 174-80, Davies (1974), 302-13, Barrett (1978), 249-56, Moloney (1998), 166-76, Witkamp (1985), Culpepper (1993), Jeremias (1966b), 9-14 and Kopp (1963), 306-20. 467 468

148

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 149

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

According to Jn 5:2, the miracle took place in Hierosolymis super Probatica piscina quae cognominatur hebraice Bethsaida quinque porticus habens. Thus, the narrative contains two topographical references – the Probatica piscina, or Sheep Pool, and Bethsaida, or similar manuscript variants, including Bethesda (Bezetha). Neither reference appears in Willibald’s description of the piscina. Instead, Willibald associates the piscina with the porticu Salamonis. While the portico of Solomon appears in Jn 10:23, Act 3:11 and Act 5:12, it is not mentioned in the narrative of the Paralytic Healing. In other words, while omitting the place names explicitly associated with the Healing of the Paralytic, Willibald links the event with another scriptural setting. Yet, Willibald’s allusion to the porticus Salamonis is neither a mistaken or confused reference. Rather, his identification of the setting over and against the familiar biblical account indicates a conscious association of the John 5 narrative with a structure identified as the porticus Salamonis, a link presumably based upon John’s reference to the quinque porticae. While mentioning the porticus Salamonis, two features associated with the Byzantine site – a church and the Nativity of Mary’ – are conspicuously absent.470 Moreover, by at least the twelfth century, the Paralytic Healing was commemorated in two distinct places.471 Although there is no evidence that the bifurcation took place as early as the eighth century, the chapter will consider two possible locations for Willibald’s pool – the Byzantine Sheep Pool, or the pool of Bethesda, and the pool of Israel, which is identified as the probatica piscina on the twelfth-century Cambrai Map. While still considering the piscina’s location, the second part of the chapter addresses Willibald’s allusion to the porticus Salamonis. After discussing the biblical evidence, four pilgrim references to the porticus Salamonis will be examined. Although the New Testament identifies the portico with the area of the Temple Mount, the pilgrim texts indicate that the term was applied to structures in two separate locations, and, in one case, the portico is neither on nor contiguous with the Temple Mount. In the end, the twelfthcentury account by Daniel the Abbot most clearly informs Willibald’s description of the pool of Paralytic Healing, tipping the balance in favour of the Byzantine site. The location of the piscina is also important for determining Willibald’s movements through the city.472 Upon On the Byzantine Sheep Pool, see section 3.5.1.1. See below. 472 See section 3.9.1. 470 471

149

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 150

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

leaving Holy Sion, he took an intramural route to the Byzantine Sheep Pool, located north of the Temple Mount, before passing through the East Gate on his way to the Mount of Olives.473 3.5.1 The Two Pools 3.5.1.1 The Pool of Bethesda The Paralytic Healing Josephus equates Bethesda (Bezetha) with the northern suburb of Jerusalem,474 while early Christian tradition associated the Paralytic Healing with twin pools located approximately one hundred meters north of the Temple Mount and immediately northwest of the present-day Basilica of St Anne.475 Origen (d. 254) describes the five porticos mentioned in John as surrounding the four edges of twin pools with the fifth spanning the middle.476 Following Origin, Eusebius’ account of the pool describes the porticos in the past tense.477 Similarly, Cyril of Jerusalem states that ‘there used to be a pool with five colonnades, four of which enclosed the pool, while the fifth spanned it midway.’478 The Bordeaux Pilgrim places the ‘twin pools with five porches called [Bethesda]’479 inside the city and to the north

473 Willibald did not take a route around the southeastern corner of the city and up the Jehoshaphat Valley. 474 Josephus, The Jewish War, 2.328, 2.530, 5.149, 5.151 and 5.246 in Whiston (1999), 752, 766, 852 and 858. 475 The pools are commonly described in the singular – e.g., the Sheep Pool or the pool of Bethesda. Jn 5:2 does not state that Bethesda was a twin pool; however, according to the Copper Scroll from Qumran discovered in 1952, twin pools known as Bethesda existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period. See Jeremias (1966a), 361-4. While scholars have variously dated the pool from the Iron Age to the Hellenistic period, Gibson (2005), 286 argues for its Herodian construction during the renovation of the Temple, which began c. 20 BCE. The site, now French national property and under the custody of the White Fathers of Jerusalem, was rediscovered during excavations on the property in 1856. On the pool of Bethesda, see C. Schick (1888) and (1900), Mommert (1907), Mauss (1888), Vincent and Abel (1914b), 669-84, Rousée (1962), 107-9, Jeremias (1966b), Duprez (1970), Bernard (1976-7), Gibson (2005) and Dauphin (2005). Plans of the pool of Bethesda are also found in Bahat (1980), 73-4. 476 Origen, Commentaria in evangelium Joannis, 5.2. 477 Eusebius, Onom., 59; compare with Jerome, Lib. Loc., 59. See FreemanGrenville (2003), 38. Kopp (1963), 311 suggests that the decorative architecture suffered heavily during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. 478 Cyril of Jerusalem, Homilia in Paralyticum, 2, trans. in McCauley and Stephenson (1970), vol. 2, 209. 479 The text reads Bethsaida.

150

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 151

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

of the Temple, while noting that ‘people who had been sick for many years used to be cured there’.480 One of the two pools was noted for its reddish discoloration. Eusebius states that ‘one is filled by the winter rains; in the other, the water appears to have become red in an extraordinary way, a sign, they say, that in former times the priests purified themselves there. Because of this it is called Probatike¯ [Sheep Pool], on account of the sacrifices’.481 The Bordeaux Pilgrim notes that ‘the water of these pools is turbid and its color is scarlet’.482 Eucherius states that of the twin pools at Bethesda, one is ‘usually filled by winter rains but the other is filled with dirty red water’.483 In the sixth century, the Piacenza Pilgrim writes that ‘the pool itself has become muddy and all the city’s laundry is done there’.484 During the mid-fifth century, a basilica was built on the east-west dyke, which separated the north and south pools. John Rufus describes the basilica as the Church of the Paralytic,485 while the sixth century Breviarius B states that est ibi basilica in tempore, ubi se lauabant infirmi et sanabantur.486 Despite the discoloring of one of the pools, the site maintained its reputation as a place of healing. While the Bordeaux Pilgrims notes that people used to be cured there,487 the Piacenza Pilgrim describes the church overlooking the pool as a place ‘in which many miracles take place’.488 Despite the topographical information contained in Jn 5:2, the pool of Siloam,489 south of the city, has been espoused by a number Bordeaux Pilgrim, It. Burg., 589.7-10, trans. JW (1999), 29. Eusebius, Onom., 59. Also see Jerome, Lib. Loc., 59: ‘A bathing-pool in Jerusalem which is called Probatica, and which can be translated cattle-dip. Formerly it had five porticos, and twin pools are to be seen there. One of them is filled by the winter rains, the other reddens somewhat remarkably as if the waters were stained with ancient blood and shows works and miracles. They say that the customary sacrifices used to be washed there by the priests, whence it got its name’. Both texts are translated in Freeman-Grenville (2003), 38. 482 Bordeaux Pilgrim, It. Burg., 589.10-1, trans. in JW, (2002), 29. 483 Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 8, trans. in JW (2002), 95. 484 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 27, trans. in JW (2002), 142. 485 John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi, 99. 486 Brevarius B, 7. 487 Bordeaux Pilgrim, It.Burg, 589.7-10. 488 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 27, trans. in JW (2002), 142. 489 On the history of the pool of Siloam from the First Temple to the Byzantine period, see JW (1978b), 116-25 and Cohn (1987), 1-72. On the recent discovery of the Second Temple pool, see Shanks (2005). 480 481

151

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 152

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

of biblical scholars, including Rudolf Bultmann, as the authentic setting of the Paralytic Healing.490 The argument rests upon three perceived discrepancies between the biblical narrative and the Bethesda pools. First of all, opponents argue that the pools of Bethesda were too deep for the disabled to enter safely. Secondly, they have assumed that the deep pools were used as a reservoir and not for ritual cleansing; thus, it seems unlikely that they were regarded as a source of healing. However, most of the attention has focused upon John’s reference to the stirring of the waters – angelus veniret et moveret aquam – which some scholars have interpreted as a reference to an intermittent spring. The pool of Siloam, on the other hand, was shallow, was a place of ritual cleansing and the only spring in Jerusalem, the Gihon, is intermittent and empties directly into the pool. However, archaeological evidence refutes each of these arguments in favour of the pool of Bethesda. First of all, despite the depth of the Bethesda pools, a set of extended steps have been discovered on the east side of the southern pool.491 Secondly, excavations have uncovered clear evidence for the pool’s association with ritual healing. In the Roman period, Bethesda was a pagan sanctuary dedicated to Asclepius; its low-lying pools are located but a few meters to the east of the large twin pools.492 The evidence suggests that the site was recognized for its curative powers during the Second Temple period and then transformed into a Roman sanctuary following the expulsion of the Jews from the city after the Bar Kochba Revolt.493 Third, John’s reference to the movement of the waters can be explained by the presence of a sluice connecting the two pools.494 Water from the smaller northern pool was periodically released into the slightly lower pool to the south, producing the effect described by John as the stirring of the waters. The sluice was probably responsible for the muddying of the waters frequently mentioned in the pilgrim sources since the channel cut through an area of thick red clay. 490 Bultmann (1971), 240-7. Also see Cohn (1987), 30-7, Nestle (1902), 172, n. 1, Jeremias (1966b), 15 and Boismard (1950), 468. 491 See Gibson (2005), 287. 492 Inscriptions and votive offerings dating to the second century CE indicate that the site was regarded as a sacred place of healing during the Roman period. On the cult of Asclepius, see Kee (1982). 493 These arguments are addressed in JW (1978a), 95-104, esp. 103-4. 494 On the sluice gate, see Gibson (2005), 287.

152

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 153

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Despite the debate over the biblical setting of John 5:2–9, pilgrim tradition has never associated the Paralytic Healing with the pool of Siloam,495 which also had a reputation as a place of healing.496 The textual evidence suggests that the Byzantine Church of Siloam, built in the fourth century under the patronage of Eudocia and destroyed in the seventh century, was never rebuilt.497 Although the church is not mentioned in any of the Early Islamic sources, Epiphanius and Bernard indicate that the area was still of interest to pilgrims,498 and Willibald almost certainly visited it during his four sojourns in the city. The Nativity of Mary A second commemoration, the Nativity of Mary, became associated with the Sheep Pool during the Byzantine period.499 According to the second-century Protoevangelium, Joachim, the father of Mary, was responsible for supplying the Temple with sacrificial sheep.500 The house of Joachim and his wife, Anna, became located in the immediate vicinity of the Sheep Pool, which was near the Temple, and was consequently identified as the birthplace of the Virgin Mary. By the sixth century, a church, presumably the same structure as the Church of the Paralytic, had been dedicated to Mary, and throughout the Late Byzantine period, the place was intimately associated with both traditions. The Piacenza Pilgrim notes that the Basilica of Saint Mary was attached to the ‘pool which has five porticoes’,501 while, according to Theodosius, ‘there [at the Sheep Pool] my Lord Christ cured the paralyzed man, whose couch is still there. Beside the Sheep Pool is the Church of my Lady Mary’.502 Sophronius also refers to both traditions: 495 Pilgrims attributed the pool to Solomon, an association influenced by Ecc 2:5-6: ‘I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees’. See Work of Geography, 150. 496 See John 9, Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 24 and Sophronius, SS. Cyri et Joannis miracula, 46 (PG 87), 3597-8. Muslim tradition also encouraged pilgrims to ‘bathe in the spring, the Spring of Silwa¯n, for it is one of the springs of Paradise’. See El’ad (1998), 305. 497 On the destruction of the church in 614, see Conybeare (1910), 515. While most scholars agree that the church was not in use during the Early Islamic period, see R. Schick (1995), 337-8. At issue is the reference in the GL (1218) to a service of ‘setting up the altar’ at Siloam for September 8. 498 Epiphanius, Hag., 10, explicitly associates the pool with Jesus’ healing of the blind man; see Bernard, It. Bern., 16. Adomnán does not mention the pool. 499 Proto., 1-5. Also see Vincent and Abel (1914b), 673-7. 500 Proto., 4. 501 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 27, trans. in JW (2002), 142. 502 Theodosius, DSTS, 8, trans. in JW (2002), 109.

153

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 154

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Let me enter the holy Probatica, Where the all-renowned Anna bore Mary. And enter the church, Church of the all-pure Mother of God, There in veneration to embrace those walls, so dear to me. Far be it from me, passing through the forum, To neglect the place where the Virgin Queen was born in noble palace! May I behold that floor Where the Paralytic went at the behest of the Healing Word To lift his bed from the ground.503

Although the church was damaged in 614, it continued in use throughout the Early Islamic period.504 Epiphanius refers to ‘the Sheep Pool which has five chancels (the so-called porches)’,505 while John of Damascus, an eighth-century contemporary of Willibald, describes the Sheep Pool as the ‘most holy shrine of the mother of God’.506 The Commemoratorium lists five priests and twenty-five anchoresses in sancta Maria, ubi nata fuit in probatica.507 However, the site and its two commemorations are omitted from a number of sources. The Paralytic Healing is not mentioned by the Armenian Guide, Adomnán or Bernard.508 While the Armenian Guide, Adomnán and Willibald fail to describe the Nativity of May, Bernard curiously locates her birthplace in the Jehoshaphat Valley.509 The omissions suggest that the site was in decline during the Early Islamic period. 3.5.1.3 The Pool of Israel At least by the twelfth century, the probatica piscina was identified with a different pool. The alternative pool is first mentioned in the Second Sophronius, Anacr., 20.81-94, trans. in JW (2002), 160. On the church during the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, see R. Schick (1995), 333-4, Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1981), 223-4, nr. 207, Milik (1960), 363 and Vincent and Abel (1914b), 669-98. 505 Epiphanius, Hag., 5, trans. in JW (2002), 208. 506 John of Damascus, Homilia I in Nativitatem B.V.Mariae, 11 (PG 96), 677. 507 Comm., 8. 508 Unlike the Dormition sites (see section 3.6), Mary’s Nativity did not receive much attention in the aftermath of the Persian conquest. The commemoration survived, but, relatively speaking, Mary’s birthplace did not capture the imagination of pilgrims in the seventh and early eighth centuries. 509 Bernard, It. Bern., 13: exeuntes autem de Jerusalem descendimus in vallem Josaphat, quae abest a civitate milliario, habens villam Gethsemane cum loco nativitatis sanctae Mariae. 503 504

154

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 155

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Guide, which begins with a description of the Byzantine Sheep Pool – ‘Near the gate of the city which looks towards the Valley of Jehoshaphat is the Church of Saint Anne, the Mother of Saint Mary . . . near there is the Sheep Pool which has five porches’ – before adding, ‘the Templars show you another pool and say that that is the Sheep Pool’.510 It is unclear whether the Templars were responsible for the change or whether they championed a tradition that existed prior to their arrival in Jerusalem – i.e., that the pool was a legacy of the Early Islamic period.511 The identity of the second site is less difficult to determine as the twelfth-century Cambrai Map labels the pool of Israel, immediately north of the north wall of the Temple Mount and approximately one hundred meters south of the Byzantine Sheep Pool, as the probatica piscina.512 While there is no evidence that the alternative tradition existed as early as the eighth century, it is worth considering the possibility that Willibald’s piscina is the pool of Israel. First of all, the Early Islamic sources suggest that the Byzantine site, commemorating the Paralytic Healing and the Nativity of Mary, was somewhat diminished after the Persian conquest of 614. Secondly, Willibald’s two-fold omission would be explained – the pool of Israel was never associated with a church, while Mary’s Nativity remained attached to the Byzantine site. Third, from at least the fourth century Christian tradition ascribed the pool to Solomon. According to the Bordeaux Pilgrim, north of the Temple ‘are two large pools, one to the right and the other to the left, built by Solomon, and further inside the city are the twin pools with five porches called [Bethesda]’.513 The two large pools built by Solomon are the pool of Mary (outside the city walls) and the pool of Israel,514 while the Pilgrim does not associate the twin pools of Bethesda with Solomon. Finally, the pool of Israel, which lay in the shadows of the Temple Mount’s northern wall, lent itself to associations with the so-called porticus Salamonis. Visible ruins on or Second Guide, 6, trans. in JW (1988), 240. JW (1988), 75 credits the Templars with the change. 512 For an image of the Cambrai Map (Cambrai, Centre Culturel, ms. 437, fol. 1r), see Bagatti, Piccirillo and Prodomo (1975), 61, fig. 13 and Bahat (1980), 120. The Paralytic Healing was identified with the pool of Israel from the Crusader period until the late nineteenth century. See Jeremias (1966b), 22-32. 513 Bordeaux Pilgrim, It. Burg., 589.7-10, trans. JW (1999), 29. The text reads Bethsaida. 514 The Strouthion pool was covered by Hadrian in the second century. 510 511

155

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 156

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

near the Temple wall, such as the northern portico of Herod’s Court of the Gentiles,515 may have been identified as the portico of Solomon and associated with the adjacent pool. However, the case for the pool of Israel may be weakened by Mukaddasi’s tenth-century description of the city of Jerusalem: ‘within the city are three great tanks, namely, the Birkat Bani Isrâiˆl, the Birkat Sulaimân and the Birkat ’Iyâd’.516 The description suggests that a pool in Jerusalem – the Birkat Sulaimân, or pool of Solomon – had stronger Solomonic associations in the Early Islamic period than the pool of Israel (Birkat Bani Isrâiˆl). According to Le Strange, while the Birkat ’Iyâd has been identified as the pool of the Patriarchs, the ‘Birkat Sulaimân is, doubtless, the medieval pool of Bethesda’ – i.e., the Byzantine Sheep Pool.517 The basis for Le Strange’s conclusion is unclear, although Willibald’s account is a likely influence. In any case, it raises the question: is Mukaddasi’s Birkat Sulaimân and Willibald’s piscina near the porticus Salamonis referring to the same locus, and if so, is it the site of the Byzantine Sheep Pool? Similarly, if the Sheep Pool was known as the pool of Solomon in the tenth century, was a nearby structure similarly referred to as the porticus Salamonis?

3.5.2 The porticus Salamonis 3.5.2.1 Biblical References to the porticus Salamonis There are three biblical references to the porticus Salamonis, each appearing in the New Testament.518 The first reference, which explicitly associates the portico of Solomon with the area of the Temple, occurs in Jn 10:23: ‘At that time the festival of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon’. The second reference, in Acts 3, links two events: Peter’s healing of a cripple near the Beautiful Gate, one of the entrances to the Temple precinct (Act 3:1–10), and a speech by Peter, which is set within the portico itself (Act 3:12–26). According to Act 3:11, ‘while [the healed crippled] clung to Peter and John, all the people ran together to See JW (1978a), 96. Mukaddasi, Description of Syria, including Palestine, 39. 517 Le Strange (1890), 201. The association differs from the fourth-century account of the Bordeaux Pilgrim, who distinguishes the pool of Bethesda from other pools built by Solomon. 518 According to Kopp (1963), 297, the boy Jesus’ teaching in temple (Lk 2:41-50) also took place under the portico of Solomon. 515 516

156

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 157

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

them in the portico called Solomon’s Portico, utterly astonished’. Finally, Act 5:12 notes that ‘many signs and wonders were done among the people through the Apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico’. The verse suggests that the portico was a regular meeting place for the disciples. Although Jn 10:23 indicates that the portico was in the Temple precincts and Act 3:11 suggests that it was near the Beautiful Gate, the scriptures provide no further details regarding its appearance or location. From the writings of Josephus, it appears that the portico was on the eastern side of the Temple.519 Since porticos existed on all four sides of the Temple enclosure – the largest and most elaborate was the Royal Portico on the south – there is no reason to assume that Christian pilgrims were aware of the biblical dentity of Solomon’s portico.520 3.5.2.2 Pilgrim References to the porticus Salamonis Four pilgrim sources, spanning the sixth to the twelfth century, mention the porticus Salamonis. Although one would expect the porticus Salamonis to denote a structure on or adjacent to the Temple Mount, the pilgrim accounts are not consistent regarding the location of the structure. The sixth-century text of the Piacenza Pilgrim refers to the porticus Salamonis in his description of the Church of St Sophia, or Holy Wisdom: orauimus in pretorio, ubi auditus est Dominus, ubi modo est basilica sancta Sofiae ante ruinas templi Salamonis sub platea, quae discurrit ad Siloam fontem secus porticum Salamonis.521 In ipsa ecclesia est sedis, ubi Pilatus sedit, quando audiuit Dominum.522 The description, edited by Geyer, is somewhat ambiguous as the location of the portico depends upon which locus the preposition, secus (secus porticum Salamonis), is meant to modify (i.e., the Church of St Sophia or the pool of Siloam). Wilkinson renders the description as follows: ‘We also prayed in the Praetorium, where the Lord’s case was heard: what is there now is the basilica of Saint Sophia, which is in front of the Temple of Solomon, below the street which runs down to the spring of Siloam outside 519 See Josephus, The Jewish War, 5.184-9 in Whiston (1999), 855. Also see Bahat (1998), 56. 520 On the porticos of the Temple, see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 15.391-416 in Whiston (1999), 522-4. On the Royal Portico, see Ben-Dov (1985), 121-33. 521 The text reads Salomonis. However, for the sake of consistency, the spelling from the Holder-Egger edition of the Vita will be used. 522 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 23.

157

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 158

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Solomon’s porch’.523 In following Geyer, Wilkinson’s translation suggests that the portico of Solomon was located near the pool of Siloam.524 Given the portico’s association with the Temple Mount, the Siloam location seems somewhat surprising. Aubrey Stewart amends Geyer’s edition by assigning the phrase, secus porticum Salamonis, to the subsequent sentence: in ipsa ecclesia est sedes, in qua sedit Pilatus, quando audiuit Dominum. Thus, Stewart’s translation reads: ‘We prayed in the Praetorium where the Lord was tried, which is now the Basilica of St. Sophia. In front of the ruins of the Temple of Solomon, under the street, water runs down to the fountain of Siloam. Near the porch of Solomon, in the church itself, is the seat upon which Pilate sat when he tried our Lord’.525 Stewart’s translation clarifies the text – the portico was not associated with the pool of Siloam but rather with the Church of St Sophia located on the western side of the Temple Mount.526 The account of the Piacenza Pilgrim then continues with additional references to St Sophia. Thus, the Pilgrim’s attention never leaves the immediate area of the church other than to note the directional flow of the passing water. In short, the Pilgrim’s porticus Salamonis was most likely a structure on the western side of the Temple Mount that was visible from the Basilica of St Sophia.527 The second reference to the porticus Salamonis occurs in the ninthcentury writings of Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople. According to Photius, ‘the Porch of Solomon, like what was once the Holy of Holies, now that they are occupied by the godless Saracens and serve as their mosque, are no longer known to any of the Christians in Jerusalem, for Christians are forbidden entry into places holy to the

523 524

JW (2002), 141. However, see JW (1988), 28 where he places the porch of Solomon, or the

Temple of Solomon, on the southern half of the Temple Mount. 525 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 23, trans. in A. Stewart (1896), 19-20. 526 Sources suggest that the Church of Holy Sophia was near the city’s eastern cardo to the west of the Temple Mount; however, no material remains have been discovered, and its specific location is uncertain. 527 The Pilgrim’s portico may have been near or associated with Wilson’s Arch. Later sources place the portico on top of the Temple Mount (see below). See Milik (1960), 176, who describes St Sophia as ‘située en contre-bas de la rue à colonnades, qui longe l’Esplanade dont la muraille oust s’appelait alors le portique de Salomon’. According to Wightman (1993), 261, ‘for Byzantine Christians, the [portico of Solomon] flanked the east side of the Valley Cardo, while the Praetorium of Pilate and [the] Church of Holy Wisdom [Sophia] stood nearby, probably on the street’s west side’.

158

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 159

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Saracens’.528 His statement that the portico was ‘no longer known’ does not imply that Christians were ignorant of its location, which was most likely visible from the Mount of Olives; rather, Christians could no longer access the site. According to Wilkinson, Photius’ portico was the so-called Temple of Solomon (i.e., the Al-Aqsa Mosque), which stood on the southern end of the Haram.529 While Photius appears to associate the portico with the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the twelfth-century Crusader text, the First Guide, distinguishes between the portico and the two ‘temples’ – the Dome of the Rock (the Temple of the Lord) and the aforementioned mosque (the Temple of Solomon): ‘Two bowshots from [the Holy Sepulchre] to the east is the Temple of the Lord, constructed by Solomon, in which Christ was presented by Simeon the Righteous. To the right of this Temple, Solomon built his own Temple, and, between these two temples, he built a beautiful portico with marble columns’.530 In other words, the Guide portrays the porticus as an east-west structure that was located in the middle of the Haram between the Dome and the mosque. The Guide is not incompatible with the description of the Piacenza Pilgrim,531 while its portico may be the same structure described by Epiphanius in the seventh century as a ‘special wall’ belonging to the Temple of Solomon.532 Finally, after describing the portico of Solomon (placing it between the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque), the First Guide states that the Probatica Pool was to the left, or north, of the Dome.533 In other words, while the Guide mentions both the portico of Solomon and the Probatica Pool, the two sites, which were separated by the Dome of the Rock, were not spatially related. So far, all three sources – the Piacenza Pilgrim, Photius and the First Guide – explicitly associate the portico of Solomon with the templum Salamonis, located on the southern half of the Temple Mount.534 The Photius, Amph., 107, trans. in JW (1988), 28. JW (1988), 28. 530 First Guide, 2, trans. in JW (1988), 87-8. 531 The western end of the Guide’s portico may correspond to the area described by the Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 23. 532 Epiphanius, Hag., 5; JW (2002), 20 has suggested that Epiphanius’ special wall was built after the Arab conquest. 533 First Guide, 2. 534 While JW (1988), 28 correctly associates the portico with the so-called Temple of Solomon on the southern end of the Temple Mount, Wightman (1993), 261 speculates that ‘after the Umayyad redevelopment’, the portico of Solomon ‘clung’ to the area of ‘the ruined south-western cloisters of the Temple enclosure between the present Causeway Vaults and the south-western angle’ of the Temple Mount. 528 529

159

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 160

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

fourth source, the testimony of the twelfth-century Russian pilgrim, Daniel the Abbot, is clearly divergent. After describing the cave where the Holy Mother of God was born, Daniel states that ‘nearby is the porch of Solomon, and there is the Sheep Pool where Christ cured the paralyzed man. This place is to the west of the house of Joachim and Anna, a stone’s throw from it’.535 Daniel’s description of the Sheep Pool as a stone’s throw west of the house of Joachim and Anna is a distinct reference to the Byzantine Sheep Pool. While the first three references to the porticus Salamonis locate the structure in the centre or southern half of the Haram, Daniel places the portico north of the Temple Mount. Moreover, while the First Guide separates the portico from the Probatica Pool, Daniel links the two structures, indicating that the portico of Solomon and the Sheep Pool were composite fixtures of the same site. 3.5.3 Conclusions: The Pool of the Paralytic Healing The following conclusions can be made regarding the portico of Solomon and the pool of the Paralytic Healing. First of all, the description of Daniel is decisive in establishing the identity of Willibald’s piscina as the site of the Byzantine Sheep Pool. Given the parallels between the two accounts – Daniel states that ‘nearby is the porch of Solomon and there is the Sheep Pool where Christ cured the paralyzed man’, while Willibald writes: ‘he came to the porticus Salamonis; there is a pool [of the Paralytic Healing] . . .’ – Daniel’s Sheep Pool and Willibald’s piscina are one and the same. The testimony of Daniel vindicates the previous assumption that Willibald’s association of the porticus Salamonis with the pool of the Paralytic Healing was not a mistaken reference and underscores the reliability of Willibald’s description of Jerusalem. Secondly, two separate structures were simultaneously identified by Christian pilgrims as the porticus Salamonis. While the references by the Piacenza Pilgrim, Photius and the First Guide, stemming respectively from the sixth, ninth and twelfth centuries, associate the portico with the so-called Temple of Solomon on the southern half of the Temple Mount, in identifying the porticus Salamonis with the Byzantine Sheep Pool, Daniel and Willibald bespeak a tradition spanning from at least the eighth to the twelfth century. Third, the association of the porticus Salamonis with the pool of the Paralytic Healing is based upon the reference to the quinque porticae in 535

Daniel, WB, 16, trans. in JW (1988), 132.

160

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 161

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

John 5:2. Once the exegetical association between the porticae had been made, Christians naturally identified the structure or structures surrounding the pool as the porticus Salamonis; consequently, the Solomonic ascription does not imply that the portico was a large or imposing structure. Indeed, it is unlikely that the porticus identified by Willibald and Daniel was as impressive as the similarly-named structure located on the Temple Mount. The exegetical link also explains how the porticus Salamonis could be identified with a site somewhat removed from the Temple Mount. Fourth, as suggested above, the porticus Salamonis appears to have been part of the pool’s superstructure. Its ascription to Solomon suggests a structure of some antiquity, possibly a set of ruins. Similarly, the porticus may have been identified with the Byzantine church, which would explain Willibald’s failure to mention an aecclesia in his description of the site. Indeed, the association is made by Epiphanius, who identifies the ‘so-called porches’ with the five chancels of the church.536 Fifthly, since the Bethesda site contained a structure known as the porticus Salamonis, Mukaddasi’s Birkat Sulaimân and Willibald’s piscina likely refer to the same pool. Sixth, though not previously discussed, the pool of Bethesda was associated with Solomon and the True Cross. According to a pre-Crusader legend: In the time of King David a man found in a wood a tree which was of a kind which grows with three leaves. He cut it down, and took it to the King to be admired. When the king, who was versed in mysteries, saw it he reverenced it, and did so as long as he lived. Solomon also, not only out of respect for his father, reverenced it, and even plated it all with gold. When she came to hear the wisdom of Solomon the Queen of the South made a prophecy about the tree, and said, ‘If King Solomon knew what this wood meant he would no longer desire to reverence it.’ . . . When the King heard this he took all the gold off the wood, and threw the wood down into the bottom of a pool. And so thereafter an angel used to come down every day into the pool, and when the angel descended the sick people were cured not because of the water but because of the wood. When the Crucifixion of Christ took place the pool was dry, and thus the Cross was taken from there which Jesus carried on his shoulders as far as the gate.537

536 537

Epiphanius, Hag., 5. The story, recorded by Master Franco of Liége, is translated in JW (1988), 75.

161

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 162

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

The Second Guide confirms that the pool in question was the pool of Bethesda and not the so-called Templar pool: ‘Near there is the Sheep Pool which had five porches. This Pool is the place where those who visit are told that the Wood of the Cross remained for a long time, but the Templars show you another Pool and say that that is the Sheep Pool’.538 The pool of Bethesda was yet another site associated with the True Cross.539 The seventh point relates to Willibald’s movements, which follows an intramural route from Holy Sion to the pool of Bethesda before exiting the city by the East Gate. After leaving the pool, he descended ad valle Iussabat.540 Finally, there is reason to suspect the vitality of the Bethesda site and its commemorative appeal during the Early Islamic period. First of all, the site and its two commemorations are omitted from a number of significant sources. Secondly, the twelfth-century emergence of an alternative pool, the Pool of Israel, which eventually replaced the Byzantine site, suggests that the pool of Bethesda was in a diminished state before the arrival of the Crusaders.

3.6 Willibald and the Marian Topography of Jerusalem Willibald continues his account of Jerusalem with a description of three commemorations associated with the dormition of St Mary: Similiter et ipse dixit, quod ante portam civitatis staret magna columna, et in summitate columne stat crux ad signum et ad memoriam, ubi Iudei volebant tollere corpus sanctae Mariae. Cumque ille 11 apostoli tollentes corpus sanctae Mariae portaverunt illum de Hierusalem, et statim cumque ad portam venerunt civitatis, Iudaei voluerunt conprehendere illum. Statimque illi homines qui porrigebant ad feretra et eam tollere conabant, retentis brachiis quasi glutinati inherebant in feretro et non poterant se movere, antequam Dei gratia et apostolorum petitione iterum resoluti fuerant, et tunc eos reliquerunt. Sancta Maria in illo loco in medio Hierusalem exivit de seculo, qui nominatur Sancta Sion; et tunc apostoli 11 portaverunt illum, sicut prius dixi, et tunc angeli venientes tulerunt illum de manibus apostolorum et portaverunt in paradiso. Et inde discendens episcopus Willibaldus, venit ad Second Guide, 6, trans. in JW (1988), 240. Also see the discussion on the monastery of the Holy Cross in section 3.2.1.4. 540 VW, 98.8. 538 539

162

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 163

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

valle Iussabat, illa stat iuxta Hierusalem civitate in orientale plaga; et in illa valle est aecclesia sancte Mariae, et in aecclesia est sepulchrum eius, non de eo quod corpus eius ibi requiescat, sed ad memoriam eius.541

The chapter will provide an outline of the early dormition traditions, before examining Willibald’s description of the Marian topography. After briefly revisiting his reference to Mary’s death on Holy Sion, attention will shift to the second site, a magna columna commemorating the confrontation between the Jews and the Apostles over Mary’s body (the so-called Jephonias legend).542 At issue is the location of the monument, which has been misidentified by scholars despite evidence that places it outside the East Gate of the city. Willibald’s description of the monument is important for 1) establishing his movements through the city, 2) supporting the argumentation in chapter 3.2 regarding the location of Adomnán’s column and 3) examining the nature of inter-religious relations in the post-Byzantine period. The chapter concludes with the third Marian site – the aecclesia sancta Mariae containing her sepulchrum. 3.6.1 Early Christian Sources on the Death and Dormition of St Mary There are no early Christian sources regarding Mary’s later life;543 however, by the fifth century, stories of her death were well-known in Jerusalem when ‘there was suddenly an efflorescence of diverse traditions, both narrative and liturgical, all celebrating the Virgin’s departure from the world’.544 While the ancient dormition stories can be grouped into various categories, in the so-called palm narratives,545 an angel appears to Mary on the Mount of Olives and announces her impending death as she hands her a palm branch from the Tree of Life.

541

VW, 97.32-98.10.

542

On the name of the legend, see below. Although the point has been debated, according to Shoemaker (2002), 26, ‘there is no evidence of any tradition concerning Mary’s Dormition and Assumption from before the fifth century’. On the early dormition traditions and its scholarship, see Shoemaker (2002), 9-77. Also see Clayton (1999), S.A. Harvey (1998), Rush (1950a) and (1950b), Smothers (1951) and Baumstark (1904). 544 Shoemaker (2002), 1. By the late fifth century, the dormition text, the Transitus Mariae (see Elliott (1993), 689-723), was condemned in Rome by the so-called Gelasian Decree (PL 59), 157-64. 545 While Shoemaker (2002), 57-76 also discusses the ‘Bethlehem narratives’, ‘Coptic traditions’, ‘atypical stories’, ‘late Apostle traditions’ and ‘traditions of Constantinople and Ephesus’, an outline of the palm narratives is sufficient for examining the Marian topography of Jerusalem. 543

163

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 164

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Mary then returns to her house in Jerusalem,546 where she informs her friends and family of the news. Miraculously transported from around the world, the Apostles soon arrive before Christ appears in the company of angels. Christ receives Mary’s soul, which takes the appearance of an infant clothed in white, and hands it over to the archangel Michael. The Apostles carry Mary’s body to her tomb in the Jehoshaphat Valley, encountering a group of Jews along the way.547 The Apostles eventually reach the tomb with Mary’s corpus, keeping vigil for several days until Christ returns to take her body to paradise. Two caveats need to be mentioned regarding the dormition stories. First of all, while it is important to know the basic outline of the legend, a particular version should not be attached to the commemorative landscape.548 Rather, variations of the legend – e.g., the number of Jews involved – were associated with the same locus. Secondly, one should be careful regarding the theological positions of the texts, particularly since the subject lends itself to doctrinal anachronisms.549 Nonetheless, the sources may be cautiously interrogated. For instance, do the texts indicate whether Mary physically died or was spared an earthly death? The Latin writers of the Early Islamic period describe an earthly death; however, they are not consistent in their wording. Willibald states that Mary exivit de seculo, Adomnán’s manuscript drawings mark the place where sancta Maria obiit550 and Bernard refers to Holy Sion as the church where defuncta traditur esse sancta Maria.551 The dormition traditions agree that Mary’s body and soul were separated and that her body is no longer on earth. What then is the relationship between her body and soul? In other words, were they reunited in paradise (an assumptionist view), or do they remain separated – i.e., in the state of dormition (an assumptionistless view) – until the

546 Some early narratives imply that Mary’s house was at the foot of the Mount of Olives rather than on Mt Sion. See Shoemaker (2002), 5. 547 The details of the confrontation are discussed below (section 3.6.2.2.1). 548 The point was previously made regarding the legend of the Holy Cross (3.1). 549 There was not a consensus, let alone an official doctrine, regarding the end of Mary’s life. It was only in 1950 that Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical, Munificentissimus Deus, which affirms the theological dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption. Even so, it remains vague on a number of questions, including the death of Mary. See Shoemaker (2002), 9 ff. 550 VW, 98.5; JW (2002), 375-9. Mary’s death is not mentioned in Adomnán’s text. 551 Bernard, It. Bern., 12.

164

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 165

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

general Resurrection?552 While Willibald states that the angels carried Mary’s body to paradise, he does not clearly advocate either an assumptionist or an assumptionistless tradition.553 3.6.2 The Dormition Commemorations of Jerusalem 3.6.2.1 St Mary and the Church of Holy Sion As previously discussed, Mary’s death is the only commemoration that Willibald associates with the Church of Holy Sion.554 The commemoration was a prominent feature of the church during the Early Islamic period,555 and despite its extra-biblical provenance, the tradition cultivates the church’s image as the centre of New Testament Jerusalem. 3.6.2.2 The Funeral Procession of St Mary 3.6.2.2.1 The Jephonias Legend The second Marian commemoration is the so-called Jephonias legend.556 As the eleven Apostles were carrying the body of Mary from Holy Sion to her tomb at Gethsemane in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, the funeral procession was interrupted by a group of Jews who volebant tollere corpus sanctae Mariae.557 In some versions, their hands become glued to the funeral bier, while, in others, their hands, though still attached to the bier, are severed from their arms by a sword-bearing

552 Although the terms are not consistently applied in the literature, ‘assumption’, like the word, ‘resurrection’, denotes a physical union between the body and the soul. ‘Dormition’, on the other hand, describes the condition in which the two remain apart. Since the separation of body and the soul occurs at some stage in all accounts, the word, ‘dormition’, refers to all traditions of Mary’s departure from the world, while the word, ‘assumptionless’, designates those traditions that do not specifically describe the reunion of Mary’s body and soul. On these terms, see Shoemaker (2002), 3-4, who cautions that ‘this theological bifurcation of the early traditions is highly over-determined in much scholarship. . . . Many of the earliest traditions simply do not fit in either of these theological categories’. 553 VW, 98.7. Compare with the assumptionless tradition of Adomnán: ‘how or when, or by whom, her holy body was carried from this tomb, or where it awaits resurrection, no one . . . can be sure’ (Adomnán, DLS, 1.12.3, trans. in JW (2002), 177). 554 See section 3.4.2.5. 555 See Epiphanius, Hag., 7, Bernard, It. Bern., 11 and the manuscript drawings of Adomnán (JW (2002), 375-6). 556 The confrontation appears in all of the dormition narratives. See Shoemaker (1999). 557 VW, 97.33-4.

165

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 166

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

angel.558 According to Willibald, their arms were only released Dei gratia et apostolorum petitione.559 The confrontation ends with the conversion of the Jews. Although Willibald describes a group of Iudaei, other accounts refer to a single individual, traditionally known by the name of Jephonias.560 3.6.2.2.2 Willibald’s magna columna A monument commemorating the Jephonias legend is described in the seventh-century texts of Epiphanius and the Armenian Guide. According to the Guide, ‘outside the city, at the place where the Jew snatched at the bier of the Holy Virgin and would not let her be buried, there is a dome resting on four marble columns and surmounted by a bronze cross’.561 The Guide places the monument two hundred and fifty steps above the tomb,562 thus, locating it within a finite radius east of the city walls while eliminating the lower ground to the south. According to Epiphanius, the monument was near the East Gate to the west of the tomb: ‘outside the gate to the east of the Holy City stands a structure with four columns, in which Jephonias snatched at the bier of the most Holy Theotokos. . . . near that to the east is holy Gethsemane, the Tomb of the most Holy Theotokos’.563 As the ground descends sharply from the East Gate towards the tomb, the two texts are in agreement regarding the location of the monument. In the early twelfth century, Daniel the Abbot also places the commemoration between the East Gate and the tomb of Mary,564 adding that ‘there used to be a convent for women on this spot but now it has been destroyed by the pagans’.565 558 The incident is frequently depicted in the icon of the Assumption, which shows the archangel Michael defending the corpse of Mary with a large sword. A single Jew kneels in submission, his severed hands still attached to the bier. 559 VW, 98.7-11. 560 The book will respectively refer to the Jephonias legend and the Jephonias monument. 561 AG, 6-7, trans. in JW (2002), 166. 562 AG, 7. 563 Epiphanius, Hag., 24, trans. in JW (2002), 212. 564 Daniel the Abbot, WB, 21-2 gives the distance between the commemoration and the East Gate as 8 fathoms (with manuscript variations of 20 and 50) and between it and the tomb as 100 fathoms. 565 Daniel the Abbot, WB, 21, trans. in JW (1988), 134. The monastery, which is not listed in R. Schick (1995), should be added to the corpus of Christian institutions in Early Islamic Jerusalem. The reference also implies that the Jephonias monument had been destroyed.

166

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 167

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Based upon the monument’s location, pilgrims imagined Mary’s funeral procession taking an intramural route from Holy Sion to her tomb,566 which is acknowledged in an eighth-century sermon by John of Damascus: When the Ark of God, departing from Mount Sion for the heavenly country, was borne on the shoulders of the Apostles, it was placed on the way in the tomb. First it was taken through the city, as a bride dazzling with spiritual radiance, and then carried to the sacred place of Gethsemane, angels overshadowing it with their wings, going before, accompanying, and following it, together with the whole assembly of the Church.567

The location of the monument has commemorative credibility, since an intramural route exiting through the East Gate is a logical and direct course between the two sites. The internal evidence places Willibald’s monument in the same location as it was 1) ante portam civitatis, 3) between the pool of Bethesda and the sepulchrum of Mary and 3) on ground overlooking the tomb.568 Although Willibald’s use of ante could denote a location inside the city, it is more properly interpreted as outside the city in agreement with the aforementioned sources. Secondly, the location fits the logical sequence of Willibald’s movements. Leaving the pool of Bethesda, located just inside the East Gate, Willibald encountered the monument on the other side of the city wall on his way to the tomb of Mary. Third, in agreement with the Guide, Willibald indicates that the monument was above the tomb of Mary: et inde [the Jephonias monument] descendens episcopus Willibaldus venit ad valle Iussabet, where he visited the tomb of sancta Maria.569 In short, Willibald’s placement of the monument is in full accord with Epiphanius, the Armenian Guide and Daniel the Abbot. 566

Rather than an extramural route up the Jehoshaphat Valley. John of Damascus, Homilia II in Dormitionem B.V. Mariae, 12 (PG 96), 737-8, trans. in Allies (1898), 188. 568 While the Vita commonly introduces each new site with a description of Willibald’s movement (i.e., abiit, ibat, venit), the description of the Jephonias monument begins: similiter et ipse dixit. There is nothing to suggest, however, that Hugeburc’s stylistic variation implies a departure from the otherwise logical and coherent route of Willibald. 569 VW, 98.8. 567

167

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 168

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

The location of Willibald’s monument has been correctly identified by Vincent and Abel, who, in accepting the common witness of the post-Byzantine sources, place the monument ‘á la tête de l’escalier de roc qui descendait de la porte orientale’.570 While the question should have been settled, subsequent scholars have advocated other sites, including the respective areas of the South (Sion) Gate and the North (Damascus) Gate. However, any suggestion that Willibald’s monument was not located at the East Gate either implies 1) ignorance of the East Gate monument or 2) the advocacy of two separate Jephonias monuments during the Early Islamic period. Bauch acknowledges the evidence of the Guide and favours the area of the East Gate (Stephen’s Gate) but, nonetheless, proposes two possibilities: als Ort der Begebenheit und Standort der Säule kommen sowohl das Stephanustor nordöstlich des Templeplatzes sowie das Davidstor südlich des Sionsberges in Frage.571 Bahat also offers two possibilities, including the South (Sion) Gate: The reference to the column (magna columna) between Mt Zion and the Valley of Jehoshaphat may possibly indicate the existence of a column beside Zion Gate. However, in that case, Willibaldus is the only source to mention a column beside Zion Gate. Perhaps he confused the two gates when he was dictating his description of Jerusalem. It should be recalled that the problem in his account is that the Church of Zion is placed within the city wall.572

Bahat appears, however, to favour the North Gate location: ‘Willibaldus notes the presence of a column with a cross beside the [Damascus] gate’.573 Other scholars, including Verdier and Pullan, likewise identify Willibald’s column with the North Gate.574 Vincent and Abel (1914b), 811, n. 2. Bauch (1962), 103, n. 124. Bauch appears to be referring to the South (Sion) Gate (see Bahat (1990), 81). David’s Gate is generally located on the western side of the city (i.e., the present-day Jaffa Gate). 572 Bahat (1996), 46, n. 52. Bahat’s use of the phrases, ‘confused’ and ‘the problem in his account’, incorrectly implies that Willibald’s descriptions are either inaccurate regarding the city walls or somehow complicates the location of the Jephonias monument. On the contrary, the evidence of Willibald is both consistent and accurate. 573 Bahat (1996), 46. Elsewhere, he suggests ‘that the statement: “There is a column (columna) at the city gate” may, in fact, be referring to the Damascus Gate’ (p. 46, n. 52). 574 Verdier (1974), 24; Pullan (1998), 170, n. 52 and 171, n. 68. Also see Daltrop (1987b), 72. 570 571

168

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 169

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

While scholarly awareness of the East Gate tradition is not always clear, Wilkinson accepts the existence of two Jephonias monuments. Acknowledging the evidence of the other sources, Wilkinson writes: ‘on leaving the East Gate, the first monument at which one arrived was a shrine, which marked the place where a Jew named “Jephonias” in the sources from the Abbasid period had wished to insult the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary as it was being taken to the Tomb’.575 Moreover, on his map of the Jerusalem circuit for the Armenian Guide, Wilkinson locates the ‘snatching at Bier’ outside the East Gate.576 By contrast, on his map of Willibald’s circuit of Jerusalem, Wilkinson places the magna columna at the North Gate.577 At least two factors have caused scholars to either overlook or deny the East Gate location of Willibald’s column. First of all, scholars do not believe that Willibald’s physical description of the monument can be reconciled with the other sources. Secondly, its association with the North Gate has been influenced by the Madaba Map. According to Epiphanius, the monument was a ‘structure with four columns’,578 while the Armenian Guide states that it was a ‘dome resting on four marble columns and surmounted by a bronze cross’.579 By contrast, Willibald describes the monument as a magna columna, et in summitate columne stat crux. While these descriptions may appear to be incompatible, questions regarding the monument’s design should not be confused with those of location. As previously discussed, four questions are of central importance when analyzing the topographical content of the textual sources: 1) the event or commemoration, 2) its location,

575 JW (1988), 31. Although there are no ‘sources from the Abbasid period’ (7501099) for the Jephonias legend, Wilkinson is clearly referring to the tradition described by Epiphanius, the AG and Daniel the Abbot. Wilkinson’s references to ‘Abbasid pilgrimage’ are problematic throughout his discussion in (1988), 1-84, since most of the sources are from the Umayyad period or earlier. Consequently, his use of ‘Abbasid’ should be read as ‘Early Islamic’. He also omits the Vita from his list of sources in (1988), 346-55. 576 JW (2002), 164, map 33. Also see his map of the general plan of Jerusalem ((1988), 25, fig. 1). 577 JW (2002), 242, map 43. Wilkinson has confirmed these views in personal communication. 578 Epiphanius, Hag., 24. 579 AG, 6.

169

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 170

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

3) its physical appearance and 4) its topographical context.580 In comparing Willibald’s description with the above sources, there is strong agreement regarding 1) the commemoration (the Jephonias legend), 2) its location (near the East Gate) and 4) its topographical context (between Holy Sion and the tomb of Mary). In other words, Willibald could have described the monument as a pink elephant, but it would not change the evidence that places the Jephonias monument outside the East Gate. Indeed, given the commemorative and topographical evidence, the argumentative onus rests with those who advocate a different location.581 In fact, once the problem of appearance is closely examined, the argument for locating Willibald’s monument outside the East Gate is actually strengthened. The apparent discrepancy lies in the perception and language of the respective eyewitnesses. As discussed in the chapter on the Miraculous Healing, the two commemorations – the Jephonias legend and the Miraculous Healing – respectively described by Epiphanius as a tetrakionin, or a ‘structure with four columns’,582 are also mentioned by Latin writers, who describe the same structures as columns – Adomnán associates the Miraculous Healing as a valde summa columna, while Willibald depicts the Jephonias monument as a magna columna. In short, the sources contain two examples in which a Greek and Latin writer refer to the same structure respectively as a tetrakionin and a columna. The point does not address the question of how this could be but rather that it was, in fact, the case. The linguistic parallel effectively resolves the discrepancy regarding the physical descriptions of the monuments, and the clear implication, already supported by the commemorative and topographical evidence, is that the texts are collectively describing two sites, which were similar in design.583 While there is no further need to reconcile the monument’s design, a couple of points are worth highlighting. First of all, the conceptual 580 See section 1. If the texts can not be reconciled, then it is possible that they are describing separate commemorations, locations and/or structures. At the same time, points of convergence are no less valid simply because another aspect of the description is problematic. 581 Opposing arguments unduly emphasize 3) physical appearance at the expense of 1) commemoration, 2) location and 4) context. 582 Epiphanius, Hag., 4 and 24; Donner (1971), 83 and 87; JW (2002), 208 and 212. 583 See table 1. Scholars, including Wilkinson, who believe that Willibald and Adomnán are describing the same column, interpret the sources as referring to three different monuments. I am not aware of any scholar who advocates four separate structures.

170

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 171

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

task is not to reconcile Epiphanius’ four columns with the single column mentioned by the Latin writers. Rather, one should think in terms a single structure being perceived as a large column. Secondly, it should not be overlooked that Willibald’s description shares a common feature with the Armenian Guide as both texts indicate that the monument was surmounted by a cross, with the Guide specifying that it was made of bronze.584 The influence of the Madaba Map has also caused scholars to either overlook or deny the East Gate location of Willibald’s column in favour of the North Gate. First of all, Willibald’s description of the monument as ante portam civitatis has been interpreted as a reference to the North Gate. Secondly, while scholars have overlooked the parallels involving Epiphanius, they have identified Willibald’s magna columna and Adomnán’s valde summa columna as the same column. As previously established, Adomnán’s column was located near the Holy Sepulchre, while there is little, if any, evidence for the Christianization of the North Gate column.585 Despite the fact that Jerusalem was a columnated city, the North Gate column has become a lightning rod for references to columns in the pilgrim literature.586 The accumulated effect is that the column has become associated with three separate commemorations – the Miraculous Healing, the centre of the world and the Jephonias legend – even though each tradition had a more credible location elsewhere in the city.587 With respect to the Jephonias legend, the North Gate location assumes that the funeral procession took an illogical and indirect route from Holy Sion to Gethsemane. Finally, Wilkinson has argued that the Madaba Map contains all the main pilgrim sites of the city.588 Although this may have been true when the map was made (c. 600), Christian Jerusalem continued to develop up to the end of the Byzantine period, while the Persian AG, 6. Willibald’s description of the Jephonias monument – in summitate columne stat crux – has been mistaken as evidence for the Christianization of the North Gate column. See Pullan (1998), 170, n. 52. 586 See section 3.1.4.4. 587 The three commemorations are all described by Latin writers of the postByzantine period (Adomnán and Willibald). Not only should these traditions be relocated, elsewhere from the North Gate the possible implication that Latin Christians recognized a separate commemorative landscape – or that the North Gate column was a Latin counterpart to the traditions of the Eastern Christians – should not be entertained. 588 JW (1976), 97-8. 584 585

171

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 172

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

conquest of 614 and the Byzantine restoration of the Inter-conquest period altered, at least to some degree, the commemorative topography of the city. To the point, the evidence suggests that the Jephonias monument was erected during the post-Byzantine period.589 Consequently, it is not depicted on the Madaba Map. While few scholars have correctly identified Willibald’s magna columna, even less consideration has been given to the significance of the monument. First of all, the location of the column informs Willibald’s movements through Jerusalem. After visiting the pool of Bethesda, Willibald encountered the Jephonias monument outside the East Gate of the city on his way to Mary’s tomb in the Jehoshaphat Valley.590 Secondly, the Jephonias monument shares numerous similarities with the monument of the Miraculous Healing. Both monuments commemorate funeral processions and are similarly described by the pilgrim writers. Moreover, since they first appear in the seventhcentury sources,591 they were probably erected at the same time – most likely in the aftermath of the Persian conquest592 – and subsequently became important features of the Christian landscape during the Early Islamic period. Moreover, the monuments fit the historical context of post-Byzantine Jerusalem.593 While the restoration of the True Cross by the emperor Heraclius may have provided an impetus for the monument of the Miraculous Healing, Jewish involvement in the Persian conquest may have incited Christians to build the Jephonias monument.594 While the commemorative loci survived into the Crusader period, the twelfth-century account of Daniel the Abbot implies the destruction of both monuments.595

589

See below. As will be discussed in chapter 3.9, Willibald’s movements have implications for our understanding of Christian activities during the Early Islamic period. 591 The Jephonias monument is mentioned by Epiphanius and the AG, while the monument of the Miraculous Healing is mentioned by Epiphanius and Adomnán. 592 Though less likely, the possibility that they were erected before 614 cannot be rule out. However, the monuments would have been easy targets of Persian destruction. Rather, the monuments were presumably constructed during a time of Christian ascendancy, suggesting the Inter-conquest period. 593 Both monuments commemorate legends that had been in circulation for approximately two centuries. What, then, was the impetus to erect the structures in the seventh century? 594 See below. 595 Daniel the Abbot, WB, 15 and 21. 590

172

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 173

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Third, the Jephonias monument provides at least two insights into the inter-religious relations of the post-Byzantine period. First of all, the monument was a physical expression of anti-Jewish sentiment. It is unclear to what extent Willibald encountered Jews in the Holy Land. His only reference occurs in his description of Tiberias, where, he notes, there were many churches and sinagoga Iudeorum.596 Since he immediately adds sed et magna honor dominica, the reference appears to be favourable. Yet, in Jerusalem, Willibald encountered a Christian landscape with decidedly antiJewish overtones.597 As the Jephonias monument likely dates to the Inter-conquest period, it was erected while the memory of the Jewish role in the Persian destruction of Jerusalem was still vivid.598 The emperor Heraclius ordered a number of reprisals against the Jews for their complicity in the Persian conquest and renewed Hadrian’s second-century expulsion of the Jews from the city.599 Although the point is speculative, the monument may have been a specific rebuke to the recent perfidy of the Jews – a victor’s monument built during the short period of Christian ascendancy prior to the Arab conquest in the 630’s. Willibald’s description of the magna columna also informs the relationship between the Christian community and the Umayyad authorities. Of particular interest is Willibald’s reference to the crux in summitate columne. The visible presence of the cross indicates that there was no effective prohibition against the object’s public display in Jerusalem, testifying to the amiable state of affairs between Muslims and Christians during the Umayyad period.600 While the column bespeaks the animosity between the Christian and Jewish communities, it provides evidence of the license enjoyed by Christians under Umayyad rule. The final significance of the monument concerns its relationship with the liturgical life of the city. By establishing a fixed point VW, 95.31-4. The monument of the Miraculous Healing also has a strong anti-Jewish component as the legend of the Holy Cross includes the thwarted attempt of the Jews to frustrate Helena’s discovery of the holy sites. See Borgehammar (1991), 163-73. 598 On the Jewish role in the Persian conquest of Jerusalem, see R. Schick (1995), 26-31. 599 Starr (1935), 287. On the Jewish presence in Jerusalem during the Early Islamic period, see Gil (1982) and (1996a). 600 On the public display of crosses during the Umayyad period, see R. Schick (1995), 163-6 and King (1985). 596 597

173

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 174

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

between Holy Sion and the tomb of St Mary, the monument gave physical expression to a sacred pathway. Although Willibald does not describe the three Marian loci in liturgical terms, it is reasonable to assume that the funeral procession was liturgically commemorated with a station at the magna columna. Neither the procession nor the monument is mentioned in the lectionary sources. For the August 15 feast of the Dormition, or the Holy Theotokos, the Georgian Lectionary lists but a single station at the ‘building of King Mauritius in Gethsemane’; not even Holy Sion, the location of Mary’s death, is mentioned.601 Despite the lack of evidence, the study assumes that every commemorative locus in Christian Jerusalem had a corresponding liturgical expression.602 3.6.2.3 The Church of St Mary 3.6.2.3.1 History of the Church of St Mary The third Marian commemoration mentioned by Willibald is the aecclesia sancta Mariae containing her sepulchrum.603 In 451, the empress Pulcheria (399-453) reportedly asked Juvenal of Jerusalem, the city’s patriarch from 425-59, for relics of the Theotokos from the Church of St Mary in Gethsemane while he was in Constantinople for the Council of Chalcedon.604 The church is also described by numerous writers of the Late Byzantine period, including the Breviarius B, Theodosius, the Piacenza Pilgrim and Sophronius.605 A more opulent upper church

601 GL, 1148-54. Willibald likely attended the Dormition festival during his fourth sojourn in Jerusalem (see section 2.2.8). On the Marian liturgy of Jerusalem, see Shoemaker (2002), 132-40. Since Shoemaker’s study is limited to the Byzantine period, he does not discuss the Jephonias monument. 602 See Ousterhout (1981), 316-8, who, also in the absence of collaborative evidence, argues that commemorative landscapes had a corresponding liturgical function. The same argument applies to the monument of the Miraculous Healing. 603 On the history of the church, see Shoemaker (2002), 98-107, Taylor (1993), 202-4, Bagatti, Piccirillo and Prodomo (1975), 15-6, Katsimbinis (1976), Díez Merino (1973), 205-20, Jungie (1944), 681-7 and Vincent and Abel (1914b), 805-31. For plans of the church, also see Bahat (1980), 109-10. Since writers, such as Jerome, Egeria and Cyril, fail to mention the tomb of Mary, scholars question the authenticity of the tradition. These arguments are opposed by Bagatti (1963), 38-52. 604 The reference is from an eighth-century sermon by John of Damascus, Homilia II in Dormitionem B.V. Mariae, 18 (PG 96), 748. Also see Honigman (1950), 267-8 and Wilkinson (2002), 306. 605 Brev. B, 7. Theodosius, DSTS, 10; Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 17; Sophronius, Anacr., 20.95-8 refers to the church as the ‘glorious sanctuary of Gethsemane’.

174

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 175

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

was built by the emperor Mauritius (reigned 589-602) near the beginning of the seventh century.606 If the church was damaged in the Persian conquest of 614, it was soon repaired.607 Epiphanius describes it as ‘an extremely beautiful church’,608 while Adomnán indicates that the church consisted of two levels: the lower section, ‘which is beneath a stone vault, has a remarkable round shape . . . the upper Church of Saint Mary is also round, and one can see four altars there’.609 In the ninth century, Bernard states that the round church ‘has no roof and suffers from the rain’.610 According to the Commemoratorium, the church was ministered by thirteen presbyters and clergy, six monks and fifteen nuns.611 A number of feasts were held at the Church of St Mary.612 The most important was the feast of the Dormition, or the Holy Theotokos, on August 15,613 which Willibald most likely attended.614 The church also had two dedications. The first was held on June 13, while the second one, on October 23, is described as the ‘great dedication’ in the ‘building of King Mauritius’.615 According to Bagatti, the difficulties of the two dedications are solved when both the upper and lower churches are taken into account. The ‘great’ dedication of See Bagatti, Piccirillo and Prodomo (1975), 17-8 and R. Schick (1995), 353-4. According to Eutychius, Annales, 88, 119 (Stewart (1895), 36), the Church of Gethsemane was destroyed by the Persians in 614. The statement likely refers to the Byzantine Church of the Agony. See Taylor (1993), 204 and R. Schick (1995), 353-4. 608 Epiphanius, Hag., 25. Also see AG, 7. 609 Adomnán, DLS, 1.12.2,5, trans. in JW (2002), 177-8. On Adomnán’s descriptions of the two churches, see Bagatti, Piccirillo and Prodomo (1975), 18 and 48-58. Also see O’Loughlin (1996a), 95-9. 610 Bernard, It. Bern., 12, trans. JW (1988), 266-7. On the subsequent history of the church, see Johns (1939) and Bagatti, Piccirillo and Prodomo (1975), 18 and 59-82. 611 Comm., 10. 612 GC, 250, 278, 302 and 365. 613 GL, 1088. A feast on August 15 honoring Mary’s divine maternity was originally held at the Kathisma (AL, 64). The station was moved to Gethsemane before the end of the Byzantine period and commemorated Mary’s death and assumption rather than her maternity. The feast at the Kathisma church was then celebrated on August 13. On the Kathisma church, see Shoemaker (2002), 81-98, Avner (1990) and Testini (1962). 614 See section 2.2.8. Willibald was presumably familiar with the feast of the Dormition prior to his travels to Jerusalem as it was commemorated in Rome at least by the pontificate of Pope Sergius I (687-701). On the Marian feasts in Anglo-Saxon England and Rome, see Clayton (1984), 209-21 and Burghardt (1957). 615 GL, 1320-4. 606 607

175

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 176

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

23 October refers to the upper church, while the dedication of the lower church was celebrated on June 13.616 3.6.2.3.2 Willibald and the Tomb of St Mary The tomb of Mary is a standard feature of the pilgrim literature in the post-Byzantine period. The Armenian Guide refers to the ‘holy tomb of the Virgin in the Valley of Gethsemane’, Epiphanius to ‘the tomb of the most Holy Theotokos’ and Bernard to the ‘Church of St Mary which contains her tomb’.617 None of these sources, including Willibald, describe the physical appearance of the tomb.618 Only Adomnán provides directional details: ‘at the east end [of the lower church] there is an altar, on the right of which is the empty rock tomb in which for a time Mary remained entombed’.619 Despite the reticence of the pilgrim sources, Mary’s tomb was a significant place of veneration. Not only were eulogiai, souvenir tokens, produced for the tomb,620 both the physical and textual evidence indicates that pilgrims took away pieces of the rock tomb.621 The essential nature of Mary’s tomb was the fact that it was empty.622 The point is underscored by Willibald: in aecclesia est sepulchrum eius, non de eo quod corpus eius ibi requiescat, sed ad memoriam eius.623 Mary’s tomb stands in sharp contrast to the tombs of other saints. The cult of saints was based upon the praesentia of bodily relics from which the saints’ potentia was derived.624 This view is explicitly advanced in the inscription on the tomb of St Martin of Tours: ‘Here lies Martin the bishop, of holy memory, whose soul is in the hand of God; but he is fully here, present and made plain in miracles of every

616 617

Bagatti, Piccirillo and Prodomo (1975), 17-8.

AG, 7; Epiphanius, Hag., 25; Bernard, It. Bern., 13. Also see Sophronius, Anacr.,

20.100. 618 On the tomb of Mary, see Bagatti, Piccirillo and Prodomo (1975), 18 and Kopp (1955). 619 Adomnán, DLS, 1.12.2-3, trans. in JW (2002), 177. 620 Shoemaker (2002), 107-15. 621 Bagatti, Piccirillo and Prodomo (1975), 43 describe ‘irregular holes found in the middle of the bench’ which they ascribe to the work of ‘pious visitors’. On the numerous churches which list ‘lapis de sepulchro sanctae Mariae’ in their registers, see Bagatti (1949), 136-7. 622 See Naureth (1995). 623 VW, 98.10. 624 On the praesentia and potentia of the saints, see Brown (1982), 86-127 and Crook (2000), 1-39.

176

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 177

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

kind’.625 Saints, like Martin, interceded with God on behalf of the supplicant while awaiting their own bodily resurrection. Willibald’s veneration of the saints is noted throughout the Vita. He prayed at multa sanctorum oratoria on his way from Wessex to Rome,626 while the tomb of St Peter was his initial destination as a peregrinus ex patria.627 The tombs of numerous saints are mentioned in his travels, and his belief that the saints were physically present is evidenced by his repeated use of the word, requiescere, to describe their tombs.628 The Vita Wynnebaldi records Willibald’s attendance at the death and translation of his brother, Wynnebald. Upon each occasion, Wynnebald’s bodily presence was the source of miracles in and around his tomb.629 However, Mary’s sepulchrum confronted Willibald with an anomaly. Whereas saints, like Peter and Wynnebald, were in their tombs, Mary’s body was in paradise.630 Therefore, while the other tombs anticipated the coming Resurrection, the tomb of Mary had no such future. Her resurrection, if not already complete, would take place in paradise, already inhabited by her body and soul, rather than at her tomb. Mary’s tomb was venerated as a secondary, or contact, relic; however, the potentia of the locus was not derived from her physical presence. Mary’s tomb draws parallels with another empty tomb – the tomb of Christ. The empty nature of the sepulchrum Salvatoris is emphasized by Willibald’s two-fold reference to the lectum as the place where the corpus Domini iacebat. Otherwise, his treatment of the tombs is quite dissimilar. Willibald gives a robust description of the appearance and layout of the tomb of Christ; by contrast, he provides no information on the physical features of Mary’s tomb. Although Willibald prayed at her tomb,631 the site did not capture his imagination like the sepulchrum Salvatoris. His inattention to the physical details of her sepulchrum, which are similarly neglected in the other pilgrim sources, The passage is translated in Brown (1982), 4. VW, 91.12-4. 627 VW, 90.13 and 91.25-92.2. 628 Examples include Frigidian (VW, 91.21), Agatha (VW, 93.8), the Seven Sleepers (VW, 93.16), Epiphanius (VW, 94.6), Ananias (VW, 95.18), the prophet of Tekoa (VW, 99.3), Saba (VW, 99.7), the three patriarchs (VW, 99.14), John the Baptist, Abdias and Elisha (VW, 100.15-6), Andrew, Timothy and Luke (VW, 101.20), Severinus (VW, 102.13) and his own father (VW, 104.28). 629 V. Wynn., 114.28-117.31. 630 VW, 98.7. 631 VW, 98.11. 625 626

177

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 178

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

suggests that knowledge of Mary’s tomb did not hold much import for the followers of her cult.632 3.6.3 Summary: Willibald and the Marian Topography of Jerusalem The chapter has discussed the three Marian commemorations described by Willibald – Mary’s death on Holy Sion, the so-called Jephonias legend and her tomb in the Jehoshaphat Valley – with much of the discussion focusing upon his description of the Jephonias monument. From the pool of Bethesda, Willibald exited the East Gate of the city where he encountered a magna columna marking the Jephonias legend; the location is also described by Epiphanius, the Armenian Guide and Daniel the Abbot. The Jephonias monument was almost certainly erected during the postByzantine period and was likely twinned with the monument of the Miraculous Healing; the two monuments first appear in the seventh-century sources, commemorate funeral processions and are similarly described in the pilgrim texts. The monument also informs our understanding of the inter-religious climate in Jerusalem in the post-Byzantine period. While the monument was associated with strong anti-Jewish sentiments and was possibly built as a rebuke to Jewish participation in the Persian conquest, the cross, which crowned the structure, symbolizes the religious freedom enjoyed by Christians during the Umayyad period. The monument also gave physical expression to the funeral procession of Mary, which followed an intramural route between Holy Sion and her tomb in Gethsemane. Although the Marian topography is prominent in Willibald’s description of Jerusalem – three of the nine sancti loci refer to Mary – his devotion to Sancta Maria must be qualified in two respects. As previously discussed, he fails to mention the birthplace of Mary in his description of the pool of Bethesda. Secondly, Willibald shows no interest in the physical appearance of her tomb, which is similarly neglected in the other pilgrim sources.

3.7 The Church ubi Dominus ante passionem orabat From the Church of St Mary, Willibald ascendit in montem Oliueti, coming to the Church ubi Dominus ante passionem orabat.633 It was 632 On the other hand, as mentioned above, pilgrims valued the souvenir tokens and rock samples of the tomb. 633 Following references will be shortened to the Church ubi Dominus orabat.

178

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 179

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

here, Willibald adds, that Jesus dixit ad discipulos, ‘Vigilate et orate, ut non intretis in temptationem’.634 Willibald’s reference to the place ubi Dominus orabat describes an event otherwise known as the Agony, or the Holy Prayer,635 which took place immediately prior to his Betrayal by Judas.636 On the eve of his Crucifixion, Jesus led his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, where, removing himself from the disciples, he spent time in prayer agonizing over his impending death. The following chapter on Willibald’s description of the Church ubi Dominus orabat is divided into three parts. The first part covers the contextual background beginning with the place name, Gethsemane, and its use in the scriptural and pilgrim sources before turning to the commemorative histories of the Agony and the Betrayal. The second part addresses the location of the church mentioned by Willibald, who alone of the Early Islamic pilgrims describes an ecclesiastical structure on the locus of the Agony. While the Agony was commemorated upon a common site during the Byzantine and Crusader eras, a number of scholars believe that the commemoration – and with it, Willibald’s church – assumed a different location during the Early Islamic period; the Eleona and the site of Dominus Flevit have both been proposed. The following discussion will dismiss claims for the two aforementioned sites, arguing that Willibald’s church was located on the Byzantine-Crusader site. Finally, the chapter will highlight two aspects of Willibald’s image of the Church ubi Dominus orabat. First of all, the Agony is Willibald’s only reference to the events of Jesus’ final days; he fails to mention the Last Supper, the Betrayal and the Trial before Pilate. Secondly, Willibald’s quotation of Jesus’ imperative to his disciples to watch and pray underscores his emphasis upon the Christian virtue of perseverance. 3.7.1 The Commemorations 3.7.1.1 Gethsemane Given its association with both the Agony and the Betrayal, the place name, Gethsemane, is an appropriate starting point for discussing the two commemorations. Gethsemane is mentioned twice in the bible, appearing in Matthew and Mark’s narratives of the last evening

634 635 636

18:1-12.

VW, 98.11-4; Mt 26:41.

On Jesus’ Agony, see Mt 26:36, Mk 14:32 and Lk 22:39. On the betrayal of Jesus, see Mt 26:45-56, Mk 14:41-52, Lk 22:39-46 and Jn

179

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 180

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

of Jesus’ life.637 In each case, the text states that Jesus and his disciples went out to a ‘place called Gethsemane’ after their final meal together in the city. While omitting the term, Gethsemane, Luke states that Jesus went out ‘as usual to the Mount of Olives’,638 whereas John indicates that Jesus and his disciples crossed the Kidron Valley and entered a cultivated area.639 Like Luke, John notes that the area was a familiar meeting place.640 In sum, the Gospels indicate that Gethsemane was an area of olive cultivation frequented by Jesus and his disciples that was located somewhere on the Mount of Olives. While occurring in separate loci, both the Agony and the Betrayal took place in the immediate vicinity of Gethsemane. However, references to Gethsemane and its association with the two commemorations are not consistent in the pilgrim texts, and sources variously identify Gethsemane as the setting of either the Agony or the Betrayal. The Betrayal is never identified with a place other than Gethsemane or the Jehoshaphat Valley,641 while the place of the Agony is sometimes associated with the Mount of Olives.642 Moreover, Gethsemane sometimes appears in the sources without an explicit reference to either commemoration, and references to the ‘Church of Gethsemane’ are notably confusing since three foundations associated with Gethsemane – the Byzantine Church of the Agony, the Grotto of Gethsemane and the Church of St Mary – were located in the immediate area.643 Consequently, despite the Mt 26:36 and Mk 14:32. Lk 22:39. 639 Jn 18:1. 640 Jn 18:2. 641 Theodosius, DSTS, 10 and Epiphanius, Hag., 27 place the betrayal in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. 642 See Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., 13.38. 643 On the commemorative landscape of Gethsemane, see Trusen (1910), Orfali (1924) and Storme (1972). On the confusion of Gethsemane, see P.W.L. Walker (1990), 229-34. For an example of a confused description of Gethsemane relating to the Early Islamic period, see Bahat (1996), 94: 637 638

The Church of Gethsemane is known through its being referred to in the Commemoratorium and in the various liturgical lists. The church incorporates two sites: the Place of Betrayal, or the Cave, and the Place of Prayer. The Cave, which has been reexamined, clearly had an ecclesiastical nature during the early Muslim period. Beside the Church of Gethsemane was the Church of Agony, which, it is widely accepted stood on the site of the present-day Church of all Nations. First of all, the ‘Church of Gethsemane’ is not mentioned in the Commemoratorium. Since the church incorporated the ‘place of the Betrayal, or the Cave’, he must

180

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 181

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

scriptural associations of the term and its common use in the primary and secondary literature, the word, Gethsemane, although necessarily discussed with regard to the sources, will be generally avoided. 3.7.1.2 The Commemoration of the Betrayal Although the narrative of the Betrayal is subsequent to Jesus’ solitary prayer, pilgrims ascending the Mount of Olives encountered the commemoration of the Betrayal prior to that of the Holy Prayer. Consequently, its commemorative history will be discussed before turning to the Agony. 3.7.1.2.1 The Scriptural Sources Jesus’ Betrayal – and subsequent arrest – is described in each of the four Gospels.644 While variations occur in the narratives, the gospels are in general agreement over its location. According to the Synoptic Gospels, the Betrayal occurred in the place where Jesus initially gathered with his disciples – after retreating from the group for the sake of prayer, Jesus returned to the disciples where he was subsequently met by Judas’ party. John, who omits the Agony, differs only by adding that Jesus went out (exe¯lthen) [from the cultivated area] to meet the approaching group.645 3.7.1.2.2 The Pilgrim Sources According to the Pilgrim’s fourth-century account of the Bordeaux Pilgrim, the Betrayal was located in the Jehoshaphat Valley at the base of the Mount of Olives. There, to the left of the pathway and among some vineyards was the petra ubi Iudas Scarioth Christum tradidit.646 Two be referring to the Church of St Mary, which is listed in the Commemoratorium (10 and 25). Moreover, his statement that the place of the Betrayal and the place of the Agony were incorporated into the same church is in error. During the twelfth century, the vigil of the disciples was associated with the grotto; however, the Agony was only transferred to the grotto after the Crusader period (see Meistermann (1920), 206-32). Finally, Bahat states that the ‘Place of Prayer’ was incorporated into the ‘Church of Gethsemane’, while also mentioning the Church of Agony as a separate structure, thereby, describing two sites for the commemoration of the Agony. Also see Taylor (1993), 195: ‘Byzantine and medieval pilgrims always made a distinction between “Gethsemane”, understood to be the cave [i.e., the Grotto of Gethsemane] and its immediate vicinity – which would incorporate the later garden and the Tomb of the Virgin – and the place of Christ’s solitary prayer, which was seen to be above the cave, further up the hill’. While this is generally the case, see the descriptions of Gethsemane by Eusebius, Onom., 75 and Jerome, Lib. Loc., 75. 644 Mt 26:45-56, Mk 14:41-52, Lk 22:39-46 and Jn 18:1-12. 645 Jn 18:4. On the location of the Betrayal, see Taylor (1995), 28-30. 646 Bordeaux Pilgrim, It. Burg., 594.

181

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 182

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

features of the description are worth emphasizing. First of all, the Pilgrim associates the locus of the Betrayal with a rock. Finegan argues that the Pilgrim’s use of petra likely refers to a mass of living rock – i.e., a cave rather than to a detached boulder.647 Consequently, the reference to the vineyards does not necessarily indicate that the Betrayal was located outside. Secondly, the Pilgrim places the area to the left, or north, of the pathway leading towards the summit of the Mount of Olives.648 The Betrayal is mentioned in Egeria’s description of the Great Friday liturgy. According to Egeria, the bishop descends with the gathered assembly from the place of the Agony to Gethsemane, where the Lord’s arrest is read.649 By the time the story is finished, ‘everyone is groaning and lamenting and weeping so loud that people even across the city can probably hear it all’.650 Egeria adds that the assembly is provided with ‘hundreds of church candles’.651 Her emphasis on the excessive need for candles suggests that the station, which occurred after daybreak, was held in a space lacking direct light. Any ambiguity in the two aforementioned sources is removed by Theodosius, who explicitly states that the Betrayal was commemorated in a cave.652 The three Byzantine writers appear to be referring to a natural cave, known today as the Grotto of Gethsemane, which is southeast of and directly adjacent to the Church of St Mary.653 As described by the Bordeaux Pilgrim, the cave is located in the Jehoshaphat Valley at the base of the Mount of Olives to the north of the ancient pathway that ascends the mountain. The grotto is 17 meters long and 9 meters wide, while its natural entrance, no longer in use, is over 16 meters wide. The excavations by Virgilio Corbo in 1956-7 have indicated that the cave was once used for olive pressing, supporting its possible association with Gethsemane (Gat-shemanim), which means ‘oil-press’, or ‘press of

Finegan (1992), 175. See Dalman (1935), 322-3. 649 Egeria, It. Eg., 36.2. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., 10.19 explicitly associates the Betrayal with the place of Gethsemane, ‘which to the eyes of our imagination almost shows Judas still’, trans. in McCauley and Stephenson (1970), vol. 1, 209. Also see Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., 13.38. 650 Egeria, It. Eg., 36.3, trans. in JW (1999), 154. 651 Egeria, It. Eg., 36.2-3. 652 Theodosius, DSTS, 10. 653 For a discussion of the grotto, see Taylor (1995) and (1993), 192-201. For a plan of the grotto, see Bahat (1980), 109. 647 648

182

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 183

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

oils’.654 Since olive production was an autumn activity, the cave could have served as sleeping quarters at other times of the year and would have been a suitable place for pilgrims to stay during the Jerusalem festivals. In short, the archaeological evidence supports the possibility that the grotto was the authentic site of biblical Gethsemane. Our interest, however, concerns the grotto’s commemorative legacy, which continued to be associated with the Betrayal during the Early Islamic period. Epiphanius refers to ‘the holy cave where the Lord took refuge with his disciples’, adding that Jesus was betrayed in the garden which was ‘in the same place’.655 Bernard describes the grotto as the ‘church where the Lord was betrayed’.656 The grotto’s association with the Betrayal is also mentioned in the Crusader sources.657 The Grotto of Gethsemane was also remembered as the place where Jesus ate with his disciples, with some sources alluding to the Last Supper. According to the Brevairius B, the place where ‘Judas betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ’ was also the place where ‘the Lord had supper with his disciples’,658 while Theodosius indicates that the grotto was where ‘the Lord washed the disciples’ feet and held the Supper’.659 Theodosius also describes the presence of ‘four couches . . . there in the place where my Lord reclined in the midst of the Apostles, and each couch holds three men’.660 Similarly, the Piacenza Pilgrim states that there ‘are three couches on which we reclined and where we also reclined to gain their blessing’.661 Adomnán, who omits the Betrayal, describes the cave as the frequent meeting place of the disciples, while noting the presence of four rock tables.662 Bernard likewise notes the presence of ‘four round tables at which [the Lord] had supper’.663 These ‘couches’ and ‘tables’, referred to as beds in the Crusader

Corbo (1965a), 1-57. On the meaning of Gethsemane, see Taylor (1995), 30-1. Epiphanius, Hag., 26-7, trans. in JW (2002), 212. Also see Hag., 6, where to the right of the Tower of David was the ‘Pavement’, a small church where Judas betrayed the Lord. The reference may be an allusion to Judas’ conversations with the chief priests in Mt 26:14-6 and 27:3-4, Mk 14:10-1 and Lk 22:3-5. 656 Bernard, It. Bern., 12, trans. in JW (2002), 267. 657 For example, see Daniel the Abbot, WB, 23. 658 Brev. B, 7, trans. in JW (2002), 121. 659 Theodosius, DSTS, 10, trans. in JW (2002), 109. 660 Theodosius, DSTS, 10, trans. in JW (2002), 109. 661 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 17, trans. in JW (2002), 138. 662 Adomnán, DLS, 1.15. 663 Bernard, It. Bern., 12, trans. in JW (2002), 267. 654 655

183

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 184

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

sources, were likely the remnants of circular crushing basins originally used in the production of olive oil.664 In summary, while the Betrayal was not the only commemoration associated with the Grotto of Gethsemane, it was identified with the cave and its immediate surroundings throughout the periods in question. Given its commemorative importance as well as its proximity to the Church of St Mary, Willibald undoubtedly encountered the grotto and the place of the Betrayal during his visit to the Marian shrine. 3.7.1.3 The Commemoration of the Agony 3.7.1.3.1 The Scriptural Sources Omitted by John, the narrative of the Agony appears in each of the Synoptic Gospels.665 Luke indicates that Jesus withdrew a stone’s throw from the disciples, providing an important standard for locating the Agony.666 Matthew and Mark present a more fulsome version of the event, which includes an additional locus and three separate agonies of Jesus. According to the two Evangelists, Jesus took Peter, James and John with him when he removed himself from the disciples. At one locus, Jesus asked the three disciples to keep vigil while he proceeded alone to a second locus where the Agony, or agonies, actually occurred. The distances between the loci are not specified by Matthew and Mark, who add that Jesus withdrew from the three disciples upon three separate occasions, finding the disciples asleep upon each of his subsequent returns. 3.7.1.3.2 The Pilgrim Sources Eusebius attests to a pre-Constantinian tradition of Christians gathering to remember the Agony of Christ: Gethsemane was the ‘place where the Savior prayed before the Passion. It is at the foot of the Mount of Olives and today the faithful eagerly go to pray there’.667 By contrast, Cyril disassociates Gethsemane from the place of the Agony: ‘Gethsemane bears witness where the Betrayal took place; not yet do I speak of the Mount of Olives, where they who were with Him that night were praying’.668 Cyril’s distinction is also reflected in Egeria’s description of the Great Friday liturgy.669 Having left the summit of the Mount of Olives, Egeria’s Taylor (1995), 31. Mt 26:36-44, Mk 14:32-41 and Lk 22:39-46. 666 Lk 22:41. 667 Eusebius, Onom., 75, trans. in Freeman-Grenville (2003), 45. 668 Cyril, Cat., 13.38, trans. in McCauley and Stephenson (1970), vol. 2, 29. 669 Egeria, It. Eg., 36.1-3. Also see AL, 40. 664 665

184

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 185

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

procession descended the hill to the ‘place where the Lord prayed’. After commemorating the Agony, the assembly conducted the bishop to Gethsemane, where they recounted the events of the Betrayal. In describing the transition between the two places, Egeria remarks: ‘they have had a very big hill to come down – so they go very slowly on their way to Gethsemane’.700 She also indicates that people were tired from their vigil and weakened from fasting. Her comments imply that people were fatigued before they left the place of the Agony and not from the continuation of the liturgical procession to Gethsemane. In other words, the long descent had preceded rather than followed the station of the Holy Prayer. Egeria also quotes Luke’s comment that Jesus withdrew from his disciples about a stone’s throw.701 Her attention to Luke’s narrative suggests that the fourth-century place of the Agony was not very far from the site of the Betrayal. While it was somewhat above and distinct from Gethsemane, Egeria locates the place of Jesus’ Agony on the lowest slopes of the Mount of Olives. Egeria is also the first to report the presence of a church at the place of Jesus’ Holy Prayer.702 Describing it as an elegans ecclesia, Egeria indicates that the church, hereafter referred to as the Byzantine Church of the Agony, was big enough to accommodate the Great Friday procession.703 The church is also mentioned by Jerome, who amends Eusebius’ description of Gethsemane by adding: ‘and now a church is built over the spot’.704 The Byzantine church has been identified with the site of the present-day All Nations Church, built in 1924. The Byzantine ruins were uncovered in 1919, revealing a foundation measuring 20 ⫻ 16 meters.705 A large mass of rock, presumably associated with place of Jesus’ Agony, was located immediately in front of the chancel. The fourth-century sources are entangled with respect to the place names used for the Agony. Egeria and Cyril each distinguish between Gethsemane and the place of the Agony, while Jerome and Eusebius associate the Agony with Gethsemane. Egeria and Jerome both mention the church. However, Egeria locates it on the Mount of Egeria, It. Eg., 36.2, trans. in JW (1999), 154. Egeria, It. Eg., 36.1; Lk 22:41. 702 On the tradition that ascribes the church to Theodosius, see Hunt (1984), 1589, esp. n. 17, who argues against the emperor’s patronage. 703 Egeria, It. Eg., 36.1: in eo enim loco ecclesia est elegans. Ingreditur ibi episcopus et omnis populus. 704 Jerome, Lib. Loc., 75, trans. in Freeman-Grenville (2003), 45. 705 On the excavations of the Byzantine church, see Orfali (1924). 700 701

185

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 186

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Olives, while Jerome places it in Gethsemane.706 While these discrepancies underscore the aforementioned problems of the place name, they also indicate that Gethsemane and the place of the Agony were located in the same vicinity. Cyril and Egeria, both of whom had an intimate knowledge of the area, advocate a more narrow definition of Gethsemane, which may have been defined by the grotto itself. On the other hand, while Jerome and Eusebius both lived in Palestine, they were less acquainted with the commemorative landscape of the sancti loci and approached questions of topography from an exegetical perspective.707 For them, Gethsemane was not limited to the grotto but comprised the adjoining grounds at the foot of the Mount of Olives. Although the Agony is well-documented for the fourth century, it rarely appears in the Late Byzantine sources. While the nearby commemorations of Mary’s tomb and the Betrayal of Jesus caught their attention,708 the Agony is not mentioned by Theodosius,709 the Piacenza Pilgrim710 or Sophronius.711 According to Eutychius, the Church of Gethsemane was one of the first churches destroyed by the Persians in 614.712 Theophanes claims that ‘Abd al-Malik wanted to use pillars from Holy Gethsemane in 691–2 to rebuild the mosque at Mecca but was prevailed upon by the Christian leaders of Jerusalem.713 It seems reasonably clear that the sources are describing the Byzantine Church of the Agony. While most scholars assume that the church was destroyed in 614, Murphy-O’Connor dates the church’s destruction to the earthquake of 749.714

706 Jerome establishes a precedent for referring to the site as the Church of Gethsemane. 707 On Jerome’s limited travels in the Holy Lands, see Kelly (1975), 134 and JW (2002), 2-3. 708 The Church of St Mary and the Betrayal of Jesus is mentioned by Theodosius (DSTS, 10) and the Piacenza Pilgrim (Itin., 17), while Sophronius (Anacr., 20.95-100), who omits the Betrayal, describes the tomb of St Mary. 709 See Theodosius, DSTS, 10. 710 See Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 17. 711 See Sophronius, Anacr., 20.95-100. 712 Eutychius, Annales, 88, 119. 713 Theophanes, Chronographia, 365. Also found in Turtledove (1982), 64. 714 Murphy-O’Connor (1998), 128-9. Also see JW (2002), 305 and R. Schick (1995), 352.

186

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 187

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

The Agony is not mentioned by either the Armenian Guide or Epiphanius.715 While the omissions may be significant, one should remember that the Late Byzantine sources are equally reticence, and the silence of the two seventh-century texts should not be necessarily interpreted as evidence for the destruction of the Byzantine church. On the other hand, the first reference to the Agony in the Early Islamic period testifies to an apparent discontinuity in the commemoration’s location as Adomnán indicates that the rock ‘where Jesus prayed’ was inside the lower Church of St Mary where it had been set into a wall.716 According to Adomnán, this was the rock upon which ‘the Lord knelt to pray in the field of Gethsemane just before he was betrayed on the night when he was “given up into the hands of wicked men”717 and to Judas. The marks of his knees are visible, printed deeply in this rock, as if it had been soft wax’.718 Adomnán’s comments raise two relevant points. First of all, his description of the rock – whether it had been shifted from its previous location in the Church of the Agony or had been newly identified – supports the argument for the destruction of the Byzantine church.719 Secondly, whereas a number of scholars have argued that the Early Islamic commemoration was relocated farther up the Mount of Olives, Adomnán significantly testifies that the Agony had, in fact, moved down the slope, amalgamating, at least temporarily, with the Church of St Mary.720 The next Early Islamic source, besides Willibald, to mention the Agony is Bernard, who, unlike Adomnán and Willibald, also describes the Betrayal.721 From the place of the Betrayal at the Church of St Mary

715 For a suggestion that the commemoration may have been neglected during the Early Islamic period, see Storme (1972), 67. 716 Adomnán, DLS, 1.12.4: hanc inferiorem rotundam sanctae Mariae ecclesiam intrantes illam vident petram ad dexteram parieti insertam, supra quam Dominus in agro Gethsamani illa nocte, qua tradebatur a Iuda. 717 Mk 14:41. Also see JW (2002), 177, n. 31. 718 Adomnán, DLS, 1.12.4, trans. in JW (2002), 177-8. Also see John of Würzburg, Descriptio, 8. 719 Kopp (1963), 348 believes that Arculf ’s rock was ‘probably a piece of the rock from in front of the high altar of the Church of the Agony. The stone may, of course, have come from elsewhere. But this explanation of the two impressions could have been possible only after the collapse of the Church of the Agony’. 720 See JW (2002), 177, n. 30, who states that it was unlikely that the rock was actually inside the church, suggesting (p. 305) that Adomnán ‘perhaps misunderstood Arculf when he spoke of a Gethsemane rock taken to the Tomb of the Virgin’. 721 Although Adomnán, DLS, 1.15 provides a description of the Grotto of Gethsemane, he describes the tradition of Jesus eating with his disciples rather than the Betrayal.

187

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 188

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

in the ‘village’ of Gethsemane, Bernard ‘hurried on to the Mount of Olives’ and on its ‘lower slopes’ was shown the ‘place where the Lord made his prayer to the Father’.722 Bernard’s account mirrors the fourthcentury descriptions of Egeria and Cyril, who also distinguish between the Betrayal in Gethsemane and the Agony’s location on the Mount of Olives. The commemoration of the Agony also appears in the lectionary sources for the Great Friday liturgy. The Georgian Lectionary places the commemoration somewhere between the Church of the Ascension and Gethsemane.723 Unfortunately, the page describing the station is partially missing, and its location is not mentioned.724 According to the Typikon, the procession descended the Mount of Olives to the place of the Holy Prayer before continuing to Holy Gethsemane.725 While the lectionaries follow other sources in distinguishing between the place of the Agony and Gethsemane, they do not contribute any additional information regarding the location of the Holy Prayer in the Early Islamic period. In summary, although the Byzantine Church of the Agony was damaged or destroyed in 614, the Holy Prayer was commemorated throughout the Early Islamic period. Adomnán indicates that the stone of Agony had been incorporated into the nearby Church of St Mary. However, the commemoration did not become fixed to the Marian shrine. Bernard, who distinguishes the Agony from both the Church of St Mary and the Grotto of Gethsemane, places it on the lower slopes of the Mount of Olives. The discussion now turns to the location of Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat. 3.7.2 The Location of Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat Willibald’s account of the Church ubi Dominus orabat appears as follows: Et ibi [aecclesia sancte Mariae] orans, ascendit in montem Oliveti, que est ibi iuxta valle in orientale plaga; illa vallis est inter Hierusalem et Oliveti. Et in monte Oliveti est nunc aecclesia, ubi Dominus ante passionem orabat et

Bernard, It. Bern., 13. The GL lists separate stations for the place of the Ascension (645-48), the place of the Agony (648-50) and Gethsemane (651-3). Different Gospels readings of the Agony and Betrayal take place at each station. 724 GL, 648. 725 Typicon, 2.1-4. See Vincent and Abel (1914b), 414-5 and Kopp (1963), 340 and 349. Also compare with Egeria, It. Eg., 36.1-3. 722 723

188

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 189

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

dixit ad discipulos: ‘Vigilate et orate, ut non intretis in temptationem’. Et inde venit ad aecclesiam in ipso monte, ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum.726

The description of the site consists of its commemoration (the aecclesia ubi Dominus ante passionem orabat), its location (in monte Oliveti) and an accompanying scriptural reference (Dominus dixit ad discipulos: ‘Vigilate et orate, ut non intretis in temptationem’). The description also contains two contextual references. From the Church of St Mary in valle Iussabat, Willibald ascendit in montem Oliveti. Then, from the Church ubi Dominus orabat, Willibald went to the Church of the Ascension in ipso monte. In other words, the church was in monte Oliveti, somewhere between the vallis Iussabat and the summit of the Mount of Olives. A preliminary comment should also be made concerning Willibald’s use of the word, nunc. Read out of context, the description – est nunc aecclesia – implies that the structure was recently built. So assumes Milik, who writes: ‘pars ailleurs, Villibald est le seul pèlerin de l’époque arabe à y visiter vers 725 une église relativement neuve: et in monte Oliveti est nunc ecclesia ubi Dominus ante passionem suam orabat’.727 The assumption is particularly tempting in light of the presumed destruction of the Byzantine Church of the Agony. Yet, while Willibald’s church may be a newlybuilt structure, nunc provides no evidence for the argument, since nunc is used throughout Willibald’s account of the holy places, appearing in his description of the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth,728 the monastery of the Transfiguration,729 the Church of Peter and Andrew’s House in Bethsaida,730 the Church of the Lord’s Baptism,731 the Church of Tekoa,732 the Church at Jacob’s Well in Samaria733 and the Basilica of Constantine on Calvary.734 For Willibald, nunc merely indicates that an

VW, 98.11-4. Milik (1960), 552. The emphasis on nunc is that of Milik. Also see Baldi (1935), 682, n. 1, who for the same reason states: ‘videretur ergo ecclesiam orationis reaedificatam fuisse’. 728 VW, 95.22. 729 VW, 95.29. 730 VW, 96.4. 731 VW, 96.17. 732 VW, 99.3. 733 VW, 100.17. 734 VW, 97.11. 726 727

189

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 190

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

ecclesiastical structure stood upon the biblical site; it is not a comment on the relative date of the structure.735 As previously alluded to, there is no consensus on the location of Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat. None of the seventh- or eighthcentury texts, save for Adomnán’s reference to the rock in the Church of St Mary, mention the Agony, while Bernard describes the locus in the ninth century without referring to a church. Moreover, while the overlapping foundations of the Byzantine- and Crusader-period churches have been uncovered, no material evidence for an Early Islamic church has been identified. Although some scholars maintain that the church was on the Byzantine-Crusader site, many have argued that Willibald’s description of his movements place the church farther up the hill. In all, three different locations for Willibald’s church – the Eleona, Dominus Flevit and the Byzantine Church of the Agony – have been proposed. 3.7.2.1 The Eleona The first location that will be considered is the Eleona,736 a Constantinian foundation built over a sacred cave associated with Jesus’ Apocalyptic Discourses and located near the summit of the Mount of Olives.737 The Eleona was a prominent church in Byzantine Jerusalem and is mentioned by pilgrims throughout the period.738 According to Eutychius, the Eleona was one of the first churches destroyed by the Persians in 614.739 Although there is no archeological evidence for the period, the Eleona’s continuity into the Early Islamic period is indicated by Epiphanius:

735 Willibald appears to use nunc to describe functioning churches. It seems unlikely that the Church ubi Dominus orabat was in ruins. 736 On the Eleona, see R. Schick (1995), 350-1, Ovadiah (1970), 82-3, nr. 71, Ovadiah and Gomez de Silva (1982), 139, Milik (1961), 555-7, P.W.L. Walker (1990), 20217, Taylor (1993), 143-56, Finegan (1992), 165-9, Bloedhorn (1995), Vincent and Abel (1914b), 337-60 and 396-7, Vincent (1911) and (1957) and Burtin (1914), 401-23. For plans of the Eleona, also see Bahat (1980), 114. 737 For Jesus’ Apocalyptic Discourses, which took place during the final week of his life, see Mt 24:3-26:4 and Mk 13:3-37. Also see Acts of John, 97 and 102. Eusebius, De Laudibus Constantini, 9.17 associates a cave with Jesus’ teachings after the Resurrection. On the cave’s pre-Constantinian traditions, see JW (1976), 84. 738 For example, see Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 10, Brev. B, 7 and Sophronius, Anacr., 19.5-12. 739 Eutychius, Annales, 88, 119; Stewart (1895), 36. R. Schick (1995), 350-1 argues that the church was damaged but not destroyed. However, Schick’s references to Sophronius and Arculf should be omitted from the argument. Sophronius describes the commemorative landscape of Byzantine Jerusalem, while the source of the ‘Arculf ’s reference’ is Eucherius’ fifth-century account of Jerusalem. See below.

190

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 191

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

And further on to the east there are 2,340 steps going up to the Place of Teaching in which Christ taught the Apostles saying, ‘I am about to be taken up. And as for you, go and teach the things I have taught you’. Not far to the north of the Place of Teaching is a church, in the middle of which is the [Holy] Stone where Christ stood when he was taken up.740

The church also appears in the Commemoratorium, which lists the Church ubi docuit discipulos suos Christus as having three monks and one presbyter.741 The church is not mentioned by the Armenian Guide, Epiphanius or Bernard,742 while Adomnán’s reference to the church is based upon the fifth-century text of Eucherius.743 Vincent and Abel maintain that Willibald transferred the Agony to the Eleona,744 while Kopp presents a three-fold argument for the Eleona based upon Willibald’s account of his movements on the Mount of Olives.745 Leaving the aecclesia sancta Mariae, Willibald (1) ascendit in montem Oliveti. He then reached the Church ubi Dominus orabat, which was (2) in monte Oliveti. From there, (3) he went to the church in ipso monte, ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum. First of all, Kopp questions whether the word, ascendere, legitimately describes the slight

Epiphanius, Hag., 33, trans. JW (2002), 214. Comm., 24. Sources indicate that Modestus (d. 631) was buried at the Eleona (see Strategius, The Capture of Jerusalem, 24.14, Conybeare (1910), 517 and Garitte (1960)) and that the feast of the Saints of Jerusalem (GC, 89 (September 11)) was held in the church during the period. For additional references to the Eleona in the GC, see R. Schick (1995), 351, n. 203. 742 The anonymous Life of Constantine also fails to mention the Eleona. See Milik (1960) 552, n. 1, who notes: ‘pareillement, et paradoxalement, le Vie de Constantin ne mentionne pas non plus l’antre mystique de l’Enseignement’. The paradox of the Life of Constantine is that it falsely credits Helena with founding numerous churches in the Holy Land while failing to mention the Eleona, which was one of only four Constantinian foundations. A partial translation of the Life appears in JW (2002), 387-92. 743 Adomnán, DLS, 1.25.1-8. His source is the fifth-century text of Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 10. According to JW (2002), 182, n. 42, ‘it seems that Adomnán expounded [the passage] after Arculf’s departure. It seems likely that Arculf himself did not mention this church (the Eleona), because it had been destroyed before his visit by the Persians in 614 AD’. Also see Taylor (1993), 150-1. On Adomnán’s exegetical interests in the Eleona, the setting of Jesus’ Apocalyptic Discourses, see O’Loughlin (1992b), 46-8 and (1997c). 744 Vincent and Abel (1914b), 397, n. 1. For Vincent and Abel’s full discussion on the Eleona, see (1914b), 301-36 and 407-9. Also see Kopp (1963), 346, n. 54. 745 Kopp (1963), 348. Bahat (1996), n. 328 also buys into this ‘complicated possibility’, stating that Willibald’s ascent up the Mount of Olives is described ‘in detail’. 740 741

191

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 192

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

climb from the tomb of Mary to the Byzantine Church of the Agony. Secondly, he does not believe that the phrase, in monte Oliveti, accurately describes the position of the Byzantine church, which was located at the foot of the hill. Third, Kopp argues that the phrase, in ipso monte, indicates that the Church ubi Dominus orabat was ‘upon the same mountain’ as the Church of the Ascension, concluding that Willibald’s aecclesia was the Eleona. Each of Kopp’s three points is easily dismissed. The first argument is one of relative topography. Although the distance is not great, the ground clearly ascends from the Church of St Mary to the Byzantine site of the Agony. Moreover, Egeria expressly describes the opposite movement between the Byzantine church and Gethsemane as a descent.746 Kopp’s second objection is also refuted by pilgrim writers who use the phrase, in monte Oliveti, to refer to any portion of the eastern hill rising from the bottom of the Jehoshaphat Valley. For example, the Tombs of the Valley, which are appreciably lower than the Byzantine Church of the Agony, are commonly described as in monte Oliueti despite their proximity to the valley floor. For instance, in a reference to the Tomb of Bene Hezir, Theodosius states that James is buried in monte Oliueti.747 Kopp’s third point has been countered by Bauch, who argues that Kopp has misinterpreted ipso in the phrase in ipso monte. After leaving the Church ubi Dominus orabat, Willibald came to the Church ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum, which, according to Bauch was ‘“auf dem Berge selber”, nicht wie Kopp übersetzt: “auf demselben Berge”’.748 In short, although Willibald’s ascent underlies the argument for relocating the Agony during the Early Islamic period, the description does not indicate that the church was located above the Byzantine site, let alone as high as the Eleona. While Kopp’s arguments have been dismissed, the evidence of the Commemoratorium should also be considered. Along with the Church ubi docuit discipulos suos Christus (the Eleona), the Commemoratorium lists two other churches on the Mount of Olives – the Church of the

Egeria, It. Eg., 36.2-3. Theodosius, DSTS, 9. The Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 16 and Adomnán, DLS, 1.14 also locate the Tombs of the Valley on the Mount of Olives. 748 See Bauch (1962), 104, n. 128, who believes that Willibald’s aecclesia is a restoration of the Byzantine Church of the Agony. 746 747

192

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 193

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Ascension and the Church of St Mary.749 Willibald likewise describes three churches on the Mount of Olives. While both sources include the Church of St Mary and the Church of the Ascension, they differ with respect to the second of the three churches – Willibald mentions the Church ubi Dominus orabat, while the Commemoratorium lists the Church ubi docuit discipulos suos Christus. Is it possible that the two churches are the same, and, thus, Willibald’s church is the Eleona? While the argument is attractive in its simplicity, there is no reason either to assume that only three commemorative churches existed on the Mount of Olives during the Early Islamic period or that the Commemoratorium should serve as a corrective to Willibald’s account. If the Commemoratorium informs Willibald’s description of the Agony, it occurs in its references to the monastic activity on the lower slopes of the mountain. Along with the numerous hermits attached to the Church of St Mary, there were two ‘near the steps as you go up the holy Mount’ and three others ‘at the top of the steps in Gethsemane’.750 The commemoration of the Agony was presumably attractive to religious solitaries, and it is not inconceivable that the hermits mentioned by the Commemoratorium were the guardians of Willibald’s church. Finally, the histories of the respective commemorations argue against the Eleona. While the Agony was identified with the lower slopes of the Mount of Olives in both the Byzantine and Crusader periods, the Eleona is equally noted for the continuity of its own commemoration – as the place where Jesus taught his disciples. The church retained this association with the teachings of Jesus despite the commemorative changes of the twelfth century when the Eleona became known as the place where Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer.751 Thus, in arguing that Willibald transferred the Agony to the Eleona, scholars are opposing two wellentrenched traditions. Not only it is difficult to reconcile the displacement of the Agony from its traditional location on the lower slopes of the Mount of Olives, it is equally unlikely that the place of Jesus’ solitary prayer was ever associated with the setting of his teaching ministry. In the end, the argument for identifying Willibald’s church with the Eleona must be rejected. Vincent and Abel and Kopp each wrote Comm., 23-5. Comm., 10, 25-6. 751 This is due to a conflation of Lk 10:38-11:4 with Mk 11:12-25. Also see MurphyO’Connor (1998), 125-6. 749 750

193

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 194

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

in the first half of the twentieth century, and the argument for the Eleona has attracted few recent proponents.752 Yet, even among its distracters, such as Milik, who believes ‘la suggestion que Villibald confound le lieu de l’Oraison avec l’Éléona est bien gratuite’,753 are advocates for the Agony’s relocation during the Early Islamic period. 3.7.2.2 Dominus Flevit The monastic ruins of Dominus Flevit have also attracted the attention of scholars looking for an alternative to the Byzantine site. The 1954 excavations of Baggati on the grounds of Dominus Flevit revealed a monastic settlement consisting of a church, oratory, sacristy and aedicule dating to the seventh and eighth centuries; the numismatic evidence delimits the duration of the monastic site to between 685 and 785.754 While Bagatti cautiously speculates that the site may be the one located ‘at the top of the steps of Gethsemane’ by the Commemoratorium,755 he does not refer to Willibald’s reference to the Church ubi Dominus orabat. However, other scholars, most notably Milik, have linked the site to Willibald and the Early Islamic commemoration of the Agony.756 Along with the Commemoratorium’s reference to the hermitage ‘at the top of the steps in Gethsemane’ and the numismatic evidence corresponding to the date of Willibald’s visit, Milik errantly cites Willibald’s use of nunc as evidence for linking his church to the monastic site of Dominus Flevit.757 Milik also claims that the site has rapport direct avec le mystère de l’Agonie – an aedicule on the southern side of the courtyard that continued as an open-air oratory after the abandonment of the monastery, which he also associates with the June 6 feast of the Martyred Saints.758 Yet, despite Milik’s claim, there is no evidence linking Dominus Flevit to the commemoration of the Agony.

For a notable exception, see Gil (1992), 436. Milik (1960), 552, n. 1. 754 Bagatti (1955-6), 240-70. 755 Bagatti (1955-6), 268-70; Comm., 26. 756 Milik (1960), 550-5. 757 As discussed above, Willibald uses nunc to indicate that an ecclesiastical building stood upon the biblical site not as a reference to the structure’s date. 758 GC, 71: a Gethsémani mémoire de mille et trios cents martyrs. Also see GL, 1014. 752 753

194

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 195

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

More recently, scholars, including Robert Schick, Bahat and Murphy-O’Connor, have perpetuated the argument. Schick is equivocal but, nonetheless, replicates the argument, stating that once the monastery at Dominus Flevit had been built, the commemoration of the Agony may have been transferred there.759 If so, he believes that Dominus Flevit is the church mentioned by Willibald, Bernard760 and the Georgian Calendar. Although Schick is measured in his comments, both Bahat and Murphy-O’Connor are inconsistent in their arguments. Bahat states that the ‘place of Prayer’ was incorporated into the Church of Gethsemane (i.e., the Church of St Mary);761 however, he also argues that the Agony was relocated above the Byzantine site: Destroyed in 614 during the Persian invasion, the Church of the Agony was rebuilt further up the slope and functioned until the Crusader period. The church known today as Dominus Flevit may be, in fact, the church that was rebuilt after the Persian conquest and may be the church referred to as Gethsemane in sources dating to the early Muslim period.762

Bahat bases his view of this ‘complicated possibility’ on Willibald’s ‘detailed’ description of his ascent from the Church of Mary.763 According to Murphy-O’Connor, from at least the seventh century to the arrival of the Crusaders, the liturgical procession on Holy Thursday commemorated the Agony at Dominus Flevit.764 At the same time, he identifies Willibald’s church with the Byzantine site: ‘Willibald, in 724-5, is the last pilgrim to mention [Egeria’s church];

R. Schick (1995), 352-3. Bernard, It. Bern., 14-5. From the Valley of Jehoshaphat, Bernard hurried to ‘the lower slopes’ of the Mount of Olives, where he was shown the place ‘where the Lord made his prayer to the Father’. The ‘lower slopes’ of the Mount of Olives does not easily fit the location of Dominus Flevit, which was a good distance up the mountain and appreciably higher than the Byzantine site. 761 Bahat (1996), 94. See above. 762 Bahat (1996), 94. 763 Bahat (1996), 94, n. 328. 764 Murphy-O’Connor (1998), 127-8. As previously discussed, the liturgical sources for the Early Islamic period do not provide any substantive information with respect to the locus of the Agony. They merely indicate that the Agony was located somewhere between the Church of the Ascension and ‘Gethsemane’. See GL, 642-53. 759 760

195

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 196

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

it was destroyed by an earthquake some twenty years later’.765 Murphy-O’Connor’s views are superfluous as the argument for the relocation of the Agony assumes that Willibald’s church was not located on the Byzantine site. As with the Eleona, the possibility that Dominus Flevit was the site of Willibald’s church must also consider the question of continuity. Since the Crusaders commemorated the Agony at the Byzantine site, the case for Dominus Flevit must accept the eventual rejection of the site and, thus, the double relocation of the commemoration. Furthermore, the argument must take into account Adomnán’s reference to the stone of the Agony in the Church of St Mary which was down the hill from the Byzantine site and adjacent to the Grotto of Gethsemane. Indeed, if the Agony moved at all, its relationship to the locus of the Betrayal must be considered, particularly in light of the consistent attention that pilgrims give to the description of Luke, that places the sites but a stone’s throw apart. The argument for Dominus Flevit ultimately rests upon three factors – the destruction of the Byzantine church and the lack of material evidence for its restoration, the misreading of Willibald’s description of his ascent up the Mount of Olives and archaeological support for monastic activity at Dominus Flevit during the period in question.766 There is no direct evidence, however, linking the site with Jesus’ Holy Prayer,767 and in the end, the argument associating the Agony with the Early Islamic monastery of Dominus Flevit must likewise be rejected. 3.7.2.3 The Byzantine-Crusader Site Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat almost certainly stood on the Byzantine-Crusader site. While the argument has its proponents, there is no consensus on the relationship between Willibald’s aecclesia and the Byzantine church. According to Bauch, ‘Willibald ist . . . ein wichtiger Zeuge für den Wiederaufbau der Agonie-Kirche’.768 Meistermann states

Murphy-O’Connor (1998), 128-9. To these arguments may be added the inconclusive references to the hermitages above Gethsemane mentioned in the Comm., 26. 767 Two inscriptions have been found in the excavations of Dominus Flevit. Neither inscription refers to the dedication of the monastery. Bagatti (1955-6), 243-5 originally interpreted one of the inscriptions as a dedication to St Anna. Milik (1960), 553-4 has re-interpreted it as a reference to a monk from the Anastasis. 768 Bauch (1962), 104, n. 128. 765 766

196

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 197

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

that ‘Saint Willibald le trouva restauré’,769 while Linder claims that the Church of the Agony in Gethsemane ‘remained as rubble for some fifty years after the Muslim Conquest and was only restored in about 685’.770 According to Murphy-O’Connor, Willibald was the last pilgrim to mention the Byzantine church before it was destroyed by the earthquake of 749.771 Hoade is wonderfully equivocal, ambiguously stating that ‘the following centuries’ after the destruction of the Persians saw the Church of the Agony ‘rise and fall again’.772 As the sampling of scholarly opinion highlights, the origin and duration of Willibald’s church remains in question – i.e., it is unclear whether the church was the Byzantine structure, a modification of the Byzantine structure or a newly-built church. Despite the uncertainties of the structure, the location of Willibald’s church was a legacy of the Byzantine period. The argument for continuity is strongly supported by the Crusader occupation of the site. The Byzantine church was centred upon a single mass of rock located in front of the chancel. It was not oriented towards true east but rather veered 13°30´ to the north, in line with the Temple Mount to the southwest. By the second half of the twelfth century, a new Crusader church had been built two meters above the Byzantine foundation.773 It was oriented due east and incorporated natural rock into each of its three apses. According to John of Würzburg, the apses represented the loci of the three-fold prayers of Jesus.774 Theoderic specifies that Jesus’ first prayer was in the left apse, the second was in the middle and the third was on the right.775 Meistermann (1906), 166. Linder (1996), 139. Although the claim is unsubstantiated, the date, 685, must be a reference to Adomnán’s DLS (Arculf ’s sojourn in Jerusalem and the subsequent composition of Adomnán’s text is dated to c. 680). Yet, while Adomnán mentions the stone of the Agony in the Church of St Mary ( DLS, 1.12.4), he makes no reference to the Church of the Agony. 771 Murphy-O’Connor (1998), 128-9. His argument implies that Willibald’s church was the original Byzantine structure. JW (2002), 305, who believes that Willibald encountered a restored church, also mentions the possibility that it was destroyed by the earthquake of 749. 772 Hoade (1973), 282-3. 773 In 1165, John Würzburg, Descriptio, 8 speaks of a ‘new church called the Church of the Savior’, and in 1172, Theoderic, Libellus, 24 states that ‘a new church has now been built’. On the Crusader church of the Agony, see Meistermann (1920), 145-77. For plans of the Byzantine and Crusader churches, see Bahat (1980), 108 and Storme (1972), 47. 774 John Würzburg, Description, 8. On the three-fold prayers of Jesus, see Mt 26:36-45 and Mk 14:32-42. 775 Theoderic, Libellus, 24. 769 770

197

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 198

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

The Crusaders located the vigil of the disciples in the Grotto of Gethsemane. According to Theoderic: You go then towards the Mount of Olives, and to your south you see quite a large church called ‘Gethsemane’. Our Saviour came there with his disciples from the garden, and said to them, ‘Sit here, while I go there and pray’. When you go into it you will immediately find a venerable altar, and, to your left, going into an underground cave, you will find four distinct places, in each of which three Apostles lay and slept.776

Similarly, John of Würzburg describes ‘a cavern where the sorrowful and tired disciples stayed behind, with the Lord going three times away from them, and three times coming back’.777 The two writers make a clear distinction between the location of the disciples (the vigil) and the place of Jesus’ prayer (the Agony). From the Grotto of Gethsemane, Theoderic describes the Church of the Agony as ‘about a stone’s throw, and a little higher up, towards the Mount of Olives to the south’.778 Moreover, Theoderic describes the place where the crowds greeted Jesus on Palm Sunday as ‘in the centre of the space between Gethsemane and the places of the prayers, on the side of the Mount of Olives’.779 According to John of Würzburg, ‘the distinction between these places, that is to say where the disciples stayed behind, and where the Lord prayed, are clearly visible in the Valley of Jehoshaphat’.780 Whereas the holy prayers took place in the Crusader Church of the Agony, the disciples remained in the cavern ‘next to the large church there in which is the burial of the Blessed Virgin Mary’.781 To summarize the evidence, by the midtwelfth century, a new Church of the Agony had been built upon the Byzantine foundation, while the vigil of the disciples was located in the Grotto of Gethsemane. The discussion now turns to the Crusader sources that predate the building of the new church. According to Saewulf, who visited Jerusalem in 1101–3 soon after the Latin conquest of Jerusalem in 1099:

Theoderic, Libellus, 24, trans. in JW (1988), 299. John of Würzburg, Descriptio, 8, trans. in JW (1988), 255. 778 Theoderic, Libellus, 24, trans. in JW (1988), 300. 779 Theoderic, Libellus, 24, trans. in JW (1988), 300. 780 John of Würzburg, Descriptio, 8, trans. in JW (1988), 255. 781 John of Würzburg, Descriptio, 8, trans. in JW (1988), 255. 776 777

198

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 199

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

There too is Gethsemane to which the Lord came with his disciples, at the time of his betrayal, from Mount Sion across the Brook Kidron. There is a chapel (oraculum) where he sent Peter and James and John, saying, ‘Stay here and watch with me!’, and he went forward and fell on his face and prayed. And he came to his disciples and found them sleeping. Also there are the places where the disciples slept, each by himself . . . . A little further up the Mount of Olives is a chapel (oraculum) in the place where the Lord prayed, according to what it says in the Passion: ‘And he was distant from them a stone’s throw’.782

First of all, Saewulf ’s first oraculum, which commemorates the vigil of the three disciples, is the Grotto of Gethsemane. The identity of the grotto can be established from Saewulf ’s reference to the ‘places where the disciples slept’. Theoderic, who explicitly refers to the chapel’s cavernous setting, also mentions ‘four distinct places, in each of which three Apostles lay and slept’.783 The Second Guide similarly refers to ‘four separate places where [Jesus] found the disciples sleeping three by three’.784 These ‘beds’ are the tables and couches mentioned in the preCrusader texts.785 Secondly, while Saewulf’s first oraculum is the Grotto of Gethsemane, his second chapel, which commemorated the Agony itself, was most certainly located on the Byzantine-Crusader site.786 This is indicated by Saewulf’s description of the chapel as ‘a little further up the Mount of Olives’, while noting Luke’s comment that it was stone’s throw away. The location is supported by other texts of the early twelfth century. Daniel the Abbot, who visited the site four years after Saewulf, indicates that ‘here, a short stone’s throw to the south [of the cave where Christ was betrayed], is the place where Christ prayed to his Father . . . and there is now a small church built in that place’.787De situ urbis Jerusalem similarly locates the place of prayer at a stone’s throw to the right of the cave.788 Therefore, Saewulf ’s chapel represents a structure dedicated to the Agony that stood on the Byzantine-Crusader site sometime between the destruction of the Byzantine church and the subsequent construction of its Crusader counterpart. The early twelfth-century chapel – its Saewulf, Relatio, 17, trans. in JW (1988), 106. Theoderic, Libellus, 24, trans. in JW (1988), 299. 784 Second Guide, 6, trans. in JW (1988), 241. 785 See Theodosius, DSTS, 10, Adomnán, DLS, 1.15 and Bernard, It. Bern., 12. 786 On this point, see Storme (1972), 57-6. 787 Daniel the Abbot, WB, 23, trans. in JW (1988), 134. 788 De situ urbis Jerusalem, 7. See JW (1988), 179. 782 783

199

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 200

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

location if not the structure itself – was almost certainly a legacy of the Early Islamic period,789 raising the question of its relationship to Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat.790 In the end, whether Willibald’s aecclesia was the Byzantine church, Saewulf ’s oraculum or an intermediary structure is uncertain; if separate constructions, they likely shared the same foundations. 3.7.3 Willibald and the Image of the Agony While the preceding discussion has primarily focused upon the location of Willibald’s church, two points should be made regarding his image of the Agony. First of all, the Church ubi Dominus orabat is Willibald’s only reference to the events of Jesus’ final days. He fails to mention, for example, the Last Supper and Jesus’ Trial before Pilate. Willibald also omits the Betrayal and the Grotto of Gethsemane; however, the scripture used in his account of the Agony may have associations with the cave. The words of Mt 26:41 – vigilate et orate, ut non intretis in temptationem – belong to Jesus’ conversation with his three disciples and correspond to the place of the disciples’ vigil,791 while Willibald’s reference to the place ubi Dominus orabat denotes the locus of Jesus’ Holy Prayer. In other words, Willibald is describing two separate events, which took place in different loci. Although there are no references to the vigil in the Early Islamic period, it is reasonable to assume that the event, which was located in the Grotto of Gethsemane during the Crusader period, was physically commemorated. While both events may have been associated with Willibald’s church, the vigil was possibly identified with the grotto as early as the eighth century and Willibald’s description of the Agony may contain an implicit reference to the grotto, which is not otherwise mentioned. Secondly, Willibald’s description of the Agony underscores the Christian virtue of perseverance. While there are numerous quotations from the narrative of the Agony that highlight the nature of Christ, Willibald chose Jesus’ imperative to his disciples to watch 789 Storme (1972), 58, who suggests that the structure dates to the Early Islamic period, offers the possibility that it was constructed during ‘the period of tolerance which the Christians of Palestine enjoyed at the end of the reign of Caliph el-Hakim (d. 1021) and during the reign of his successors’. 790 Saewulf ’s description of the church as an oraculum underscores the point that Willibald’s church was not necessarily a large structure. 791 VW, 98.13-4.

200

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 201

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

and pray – vigilate et orate. In all, Willibald incorporates seven scriptural quotations in his account of the sancti loci.792 While the scriptures are usually the words of Christ or an angelic figure and stress the theophanic associations of the holy sites,793 the Agony is unique for its association with a scriptural imperative. Willibald’s emphasis upon the virtue of perseverance will be examined in the final chapter of the work.794 For now, it is sufficient to state that Willibald’s description of the Agony underscores the role of perseverance in the Christian life. 3.7.4 Conclusion: The Church ubi Dominus orabat The present chapter has primarily focused upon the location of Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat. The discussion has been necessitated by the assumption of numerous scholars that the church was not located on the Byzantine-Crusader site. The view is based upon the presumed destruction of the Byzantine church, the lack of material evidence for its restoration and a misinterpretation of Willibald’s description of his ascent up the Mount of Olives. The possibility that Willibald’s church was either at the Eleona or the present-day site of Dominus Flevit has been found wanting, and the evidence, particularly in light of the Crusader occupation of the site, does not support the argument that the commemoration was relocated during the Early Islamic period. Rather, Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat almost certainly stood on the Byzantine site. While Willibald is the only witness for the Church of the Agony during the Early Islamic period, his description is, nonetheless, informed by other pilgrim texts. Willibald’s description of his ascent up the Mount of Olives parallels, in reverse, the descent of the Great Friday liturgy as described by Egeria. Bernard places the locus of the Agony on the lower slopes of the mountain, while Saewulf ’s oraculum was located on the Byzantine-Crusader site. Moreover, the Byzantine and Crusader sources consistently refer to Luke’s description of the Agony as a stone’s throw from the place of the Betrayal, and it is difficult to believe that post-Byzantine Christians would have ignored or reinterpreted the biblically-sanctioned distance. Given the known 792 Act 9:4 ( VW, 95.20-1), Lk 1:28 ( VW, 95.22), Jn 5:8 ( VW, 97.31-2), Mt 26:41 ( VW, 98.13-4), Act 1:11 ( VW, 21-2), Lk 2:10 ( VW, 98.23-4) and Jn 4:20 ( VW, 100.19-20). 793 The only exception is Willibald’s quotation of Jn 4:20, which records the words of the Samaritan woman – patres nostri in monte hoc adoraverunt, et tu dicis, quod in Hierosolimis est locus, ubi adorara oportet ( VW, 100.19-20). 794 See section 4.3.

201

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 202

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

location of the Betrayal, the Early Islamic commemoration of the Agony – and, with it, Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat – must be considered in relation to the Grotto of Gethsemane. In sum, Willibald’s Church of the Agony was one in a line of successive structures, including the present-day All Nations Church, that have commemorated Jesus’ Holy Prayer upon the same sacred site.

3.8 The Church ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum From the Church ubi Dominus orabat, Willibald went to the church in ipso monte, ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum, which he describes as follows: Et in medio aecclesiae stat de aere factum sculptum ac speciosum et est quadrans, illud stat in medio aecclesie, ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum; et in medio aereo est factum vitreum quadrangulum, et ibi est in vitreo parvum cisindulum, et circa cisindulum est illud vitreum undique clausum, et ideo est undique clausum, ut semper ardere possit in pluvia sed et in sole. Illa aecclesia est desuper patula et sine tectu, et ibi stant duas columnas intus in aecclesia contra parietem aquilonis et contra parietem meridialis plage. Illa sunt ibi in memoriam et in signum duorum virorum qui dixerunt: ‘Viri Galilei, quid aspicitis in caelum’; et ille homo, qui ibi potest inter parietem et columnas repsere, liber est a peccatis suis.795

The church is also mentioned in Willibald’s description of the Church of Nicea: Et inde venit ad urbe Nicena, ubi olim habebat cesar Constantinus synodum, et ibi fuerunt ad synodo 318 episcopi, illi omnes habebant synodum. Et illa aecclesia similis est ille aecclesiae in Oliveti monte, ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum; et in illa aecclesia erant imagines episcoporum, qui erant ibi in synodo. Et ille Willibaldus pergebat illic a Constantinopoli, ut videret, quomodo esset facta illa aecclesia.796

The first part of the chapter surveys the scriptural references to the Ascension before providing a brief history of the church and its significance as the setting of Christ’s return. The second half is an analysis of Willibald’s description of the church, which includes 795 796

VW, 98.14-23. VW, 101.23-8.

202

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 203

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

references to a perpetually-burning lamp, its open roof and two columns. The three elements represent different aspects of the Ascension story and are ordered according to the biblical narrative. Yet, while the Ascension setting left a favourable impression upon him, Willibald omits one of the most defining characteristics of the church – its rounded shape. The analysis concludes with a discussion of the Church of Nicea, which he compares to the Church ubi Dominus ascendit. Overall, Willibald’s description of the Church ubi Dominus ascendit underscores the importance of the locus of the Ascension; save for the sepulchrum Salvatoris, the location captured Willibald’s imagination more than any other site in the Holy City. 3.8.1 The Contextual Background to the Church of the Ascension 3.8.1.1 Scriptural References to the Ascension The story of the Ascension appears in both Luke and Acts.797 Luke gives the impression that the event took place on the evening of the Resurrection, while, according to Acts, the Ascension occurred forty days later. The location of the event can be more or less established from the two accounts. In Luke, Jesus leads his disciples out of Jerusalem as far as Bethany. He then withdraws some distance from them before ascending into heaven. Acts indicates that the Ascension took place on the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s journey, or approximately half a mile from the city of Jerusalem.798 In short, the event can be located along the road to Bethany near the top of the Mount of Olives. 3.8.1.2. The Church of the Ascension: An Historical Outline The summit of the Mount of Olives, just north of the Bethany road, was recognized in early Christian devotion as the scene of the Ascension.799 Egeria names the place of the Ascension as the Imbomon; her use of the word, locus, suggests the absence of a church.800 Yet, before the end of the fourth century, a round open-air church devoted specifically to Jesus’ Ascension had been built at the Imbomon by an imperial lady named

Lk 24:50-1 and Act 1:3-11. See M.C. Parsons (1987). Act 1:12. 799 See Adomnán, DLS, 1.23.1, trans. in JW (2002), 180, who states: ‘nowhere on the whole Mount of Olives does one find a higher place than the one from which it is said that the Lord ascended into the heavens’. 800 Egeria, It. Eg., 39.3. Also see Bloedhorn (1995). 797 798

203

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 204

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Poemenia.801 The church is mentioned by a number of Byzantine sources, including Jerome,802 Eucherius803 and John Rufus.804 Although the Imbomon was damaged during the Persian conquest of 614,805 the church was soon restored by Modestus,806 and throughout the Early Islamic period, it was the most prominent Christian landmark in the city outside of the Holy Sepulchre. The church had three principle features – it was circular, had an open roof and commemorated the locus of the Ascension in the exposed centre of the church. These features are concisely described by Bernard, who indicates that ‘it is round and has no roof, and in the middle of it, at the place of the Lord’s Ascension, is an open-air altar at which they celebrate the rites of the Mass’.807 In addition to these features, Adomnán describes the lamps and windows of the church: ‘On the west of the round building . . . are eight upper windows paned with glass. Inside the windows, and in corresponding positions, are eight lamps, positioned so that each one of them seems to hang neither above nor below its window, but just inside it’.808 The church also served as an important station in the Jerusalem liturgy.809 Egeria notes that on the feast of Pentecost, the Ascension story is read in an afternoon service at the Imbomon.810 The Armenian Lectionary lists a station on Pentecost at the tenth hour,811 while, accord801

On Poemenia and the fourth-century construction of the church, see Palladius, Historia Lausiaca, 35, John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi, 35, Hunt (1984), 160-2 and Taylor (1993), 151-2. Surveys by C. Schick in the late nineteenth century (C. Schick (1896) and (1897b)), by Vincent on behalf of the French School of Archaeology in 1913 (Vincent and Abel (1914b), 360-400) and by Corbo in 1959 on behalf of the Franciscans (Corbo (1959-60) and (1965a), 93-114) have highlighted features of the Byzantine church. For plans of the church, also see Bahat (1980), 111-3. The structure, now a mosque, still stands on the Mount of Olives. 802 Jerome, In Sophoniam, 1.15-6. Based upon the date of the text, the church was built before 392. Also see Jerome, Ep., 108.12.1. 803 Eucherius, Ep. Faust., 127.15-8. 804 John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi, 99. Theodosius, DSTS, 17 refers to the Ascension without explicitly mentioning the church. 805 See R. Schick (1995), 354-5. 806 Antiochus, Epistola ad Eustathium (PG 89), 1427-8. On an inscription found at the church that may also confirm Modestus’ repairs, see Thomsen (1921), 98, nr. 140. Also see R. Schick (1999a), 222. 807 Bernard, It. Bern., 14, trans. in JW (2002), 267. 808 Adomnán, DLS, 1.23, trans. in JW (2002), 180-1. 809 According to the ninth-century Comm., 23, the church was administered by three presbyters and clergy. 810 Egeria, It. Eg., 43.4-6. 811 AL, 58.

204

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 205

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

ing to the Georgian Lectionary, the ascent up the Mount of Olives began the previous hour.812 The importance of the gathering is emphasized by Egeria, who claims that ‘not a Christian [was] left in the city’.813 The primary festival was, of course, the feast of the Ascension.814 While Egeria,815 the Armenian Lectionary 816 and the Georgian Lectionary 817 each describe the service, Adomnán provides the most colorful account of the feast: Every year, on the anniversary of the Lord’s Ascension, when it is noon, and the holy ceremonies of the Mass in this church are over, a violent storm of wind bursts in, so violent that no one can either stand or sit in the church or anywhere near it. People remain lying on their faces until this terrifying storm has passed over. . . . This terrible gale accounts for the fact that there can be no roof over this part of the building.818

On the night of the feast, additional lamps are lit: ‘their solemn and marvelous brilliance pours out through the window panes not only to illuminate the Mount of Olives, but also, as it seems, to set it on fire and to light up the whole area of the city below and its surroundings’.819 Willibald was most likely present for the feast of the Ascension during his second sojourn in the Holy City.820 3.8.1.3 The Return of Christ: The Unfinished Narrative The Ascension of Christ is an unfinished narrative. According to Acts, two men dressed in white robes appear immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, offering a divine message to the startled Apostles as they gaze into the sky: ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven’.821 The completion of the

812

GL, 881-97, esp. 889.

Egeria, It. Eg., 43.4. See Dalman (1916). 815 Egeria, It. Eg., 42 describes the liturgy prior to the construction of the church. On Egeria and the feast of the Ascension, see Davies (1954). 816 AL, 57. 817 GL, 856. 818 Adomnán, DLS, 1.23.15-6, trans. in JW (2002), 181. 819 Adomnán, DLS, 1.23.20, trans. in JW (2002), 182. 820 See section 2.2.4. 821 Act 1:11. 813 814

205

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 206

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

narrative awaits the return of Christ, which will also take place at the locus of the Ascension.822 The eminence of the church and its role in the future Resurrection is recognized in Rodulf Glaber’s eleventh-century History. Glaber describes a certain Burgundian pilgrim, named Lethbald, who, having visited all of the holy sites of Jerusalem, finally ‘reached the place on the Mount of Olives from which the Lord ascended into heaven in the sight of so many reliable witnesses . . . where it is promised that [the Lord] will come to judge the living and the dead’.823 Once inside the church, Lethbald: threw himself down flat on the ground, spread out like a cross, and rejoiced in the Lord with unspeakable joy. Then, standing up there he raised his hands towards heaven, strained to reach it as close as he could, and gave utterance to these words, his heart’s desire. ‘Lord Jesus’, he said, ‘ . . . I pray the supreme goodness of thine almighty power that if my soul is to depart from my body this year, I may not go away from this place, but that it may happen within sight of the place of thine Ascension’.824

Glaber’s account underscores the importance of the Church of the Ascension and its association with the final Judgment of Christ. 3.8.2 Willibald’s Description of the Church of the Ascension 3.8.2.1 The Perpetually-Burning Lamp The location of Jesus’ last physical contact with the world was legendary in the Christian imagination long before Willibald’s eighthcentury visit to Jerusalem. From at least the fourth century, Christians claimed that the footprints of Jesus were still visible, while stressing that the divine impressions could not be covered.825 In a letter to Sulpicius Severus, Paulinus of Nola describes the locus of the Ascension as a grassy area ‘so sanctified by [the Lord’s] divine footprints that it has never been possible to cover it over or pave it See Limor (1998) and Stander (1998), 285. Rodulf Glaber, Historiarum, 680, trans. in JW (2002), 272. 824 Rodulf Glaber, Historiarum, 680, trans. in JW (2002), 272. Lethbald died later that evening in his Jerusalem hospice. 825 See Zech 14:4: ‘on that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives’. Also see Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica, 6.18.17. 822 823

206

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 207

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

with stone’.826 Moreover, the footprints, if disturbed, were self-generating. According to Sulpicius Severus: It is a remarkable fact that the spot on which the divine footprints had last been left when the Lord was carried up in a cloud to heaven could not be joined by a pavement with the remaining part of the street. For the earth, unaccustomed to mere human contact, rejected all the appliances laid upon it, and often threw back the blocks of marble in the faces of those who were seeking to place them. Moreover, it is an enduring proof of the soil of that place having been trodden by God, that the footprints are still to be seen; and although the faith of those who daily flock to that place, leads them to vie with each other in seeking to carry away what had been trodden by the feet of the Lord, yet the sand of the place suffers no injury; and the earth still preserves the same appearance which it presented of old, as if it had been sealed by the footprints impressed upon it.827

Both Paulinus and Severus were remote authors, who had never actually seen the footprints.828 By contrast, the firsthand pilgrim accounts are more reserved, and the footprints are not mentioned by such Byzantine writers as Eucherius, John Rufus, Theodosius and the Piacenza Pilgrim. Nonetheless, the locus of the Ascension remained identified with the centre of the church and is described in a number of Early Islamic texts. Epiphanius states that ‘in the middle of [the church] is the stone where Christ stood when he was taken up, and it is called the Holy Stone’.829 Bernard reports that ‘in the middle of [the church], at the place of the Lord’s Ascension, is an open-air altar at which they celebrate the rites of the Mass’.830 According to Willibald, a beautiful square bronze object (de aere factum sculptum ac speciosum

826 Paulinus, Ep., 31.4, trans. in JW (2002), 334. Melania the Elder, who arrived in Nola from Palestine in 397, was Paulinus’ likely source for both the legend of Christ’s footprints and the legend of the Holy Cross (Ep., 31.5). 827 Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon, 2.33.6-8, trans. in Roberts (1991), 113. Severus’ description is incorporated into Adomnán’s account of the church ( DLS, 1.23.3-5). 828 Augustine, In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus, 47.4, benefiting from his correspondence between Paulinus and Severus, also describes the footprints: ibi sunt uestigia eius, modo adorantur, ubi nouissime stetit, unde adscendit in caelum. 829 Epiphanius, Hag., 33, trans. in JW (2002), 214. An Ascension stone is also described in the Crusader texts (see Daniel the Abbot, WB, 25). A stone said to contain the impression of Jesus’ footstep is still pointed out today. 830 Bernard, It. Bern., 15, trans. in JW (2002), 267.

207

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 208

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

et est quadrans) stood in medio aecclesia ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum.831 In the middle of the object was a square glass lamp containing a small candle (ibi est in vitreo parvum cisindulum).832 Willibald stresses that the candle was enclosed inside the glass so that it was able to burn in pluvial sed et in sole.833 Willibald’s description is further illuminated by Adomnán, who describes the church as having a ‘large circular bronze railing’ which was ‘about the height of a man’s neck’.834 Using the testimony of Adomnán, Conrad Schick argues that Willibald’s bronze object was actually a railing that circumscribed the locus of the Ascension rather than an object resting upon the floor of the church.835 Adomnán also describes a great lamp that corresponds to Willibald’s description of the vitreum quadrangulum with its perpetually-burning cisindulum: In the centre [of the bronze railing] there is a sizeable opening through which one looks down and sees the Lord’s footprints plainly and clearly impressed in the dust. On the west of the circular railing is a kind of floor, which is always open, and enables people to go in and approach the place of the holy dust, reach their hands down through a hole in the railing, and take grains of the holy dust. . . . A great lamp hangs above the circular railing from a pulley, and lights the footprints of the Lord, burning day and night.836

The discrepancy of the railing’s shape has been addressed by Schick: In regard of the brass ‘receptacle’ round the footprint place, which [Adomnán] gives as round, and Willibald as square, I think both are right from their point of view, the railing ‘about as high as a man’s neck’, was round, but the ever burning light in a lantern hanging over the footprints, had to be fixed on something higher up, and as there was not any roofing, it could only be done by means of posts on, or over, the railing,

VW, 98.15. VW, 98.17. 833 VW, 98.18-9. 834 Adomnán, DLS, 1.23.6 (trans. in JW (2002), 180): in eodem igitur loco, ut santus 831 832

refert Arculfus, sedulus eiusdem frequentator, aerea grandis per circuitum rota desuper explanata collocate est, cuius altitude usque ad ceruicem haberi monstratur mensurata. 835 C. Schick (1896), 321. 836 Adomnán, DLS, 1.23.6-8, trans. in JW (2002), 180.

208

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 209

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

and if they were four in number, made a regular and conspicuous square.837

Schick properly notes the complications of installing a hanging lamp inside a roofless church. Whether or not his explanation is fully accurate, Schick’s interpretation is convincing – Willibald is almost certainly describing a bronze railing and a hanging lantern. The position of the object has a direct bearing upon its symbolic function. If the lamp rested on the ground, then it represents the ipse locus of the Ascension.838 If it was suspended, as seems to have been the case, then it functions as a luminary of the locus below, which was presumably marked by the Holy Stone. The point highlights an interesting feature of Willibald’s account: although he associates the centre of the church with the place from ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum, he provides no descriptive details on the ipse locus of the Ascension. Finally, the perpetual flame kept vigil for Christ’s awaited return.839 Burning day and night, in both rain and shine, it was a memorial of Jesus’ departure. Yet, in lieu of Christ’s promised return, the luminary also reflected Christian anticipation of the Second Coming. 3.8.2.2 The Open Roof After devoting four and a half lines to the ever-burning lamp, Willibald’s attention turns to the church’s open roof: est desuper patula et sine tectu.840 Bernard also indicates that the church had no roof,841 while Adomnán states that ‘there is no vault or roof over the central part [of the church]; it is out of doors and open to the sky’.842 Adomnán also expounds upon the commemorative significance of the open roof: ‘the reason why there is no roof over the inner part of this building is so as not to hinder those who pray there from seeing the way, from the last place where the Lord’s feet were standing, when he was taken up to heaven in a cloud, to the heavenly C. Schick (1896), 321. Italics are those of Schick. This would contravene the belief that the locus could not be covered. 839 Compare the association of lamps and the expected return of Christ with the parable of the Ten Bridesmaids in Mt 25:1-13. Also see Joel 3:2 and Act 1:11. 840 VW, 98.19. 841 Bernard, It. Bern., 15. 842 Adomnán, DLS, 1.23.2, trans. in JW (2002), 180. 837 838

209

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 210

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

height’.843 Like the disciples, pilgrims could gaze towards the direction of Jesus’ ascent. Although Willibald not does provide an explanation for the open roof, that he perceived the roofless nature of the church in the same commemorative terms as Adomnán is indicated by the sequence of his account. Starting with the locus from which Jesus ascended (represented by the lamp), his attention then focuses upon the direction and destination of the ascent itself. In other words, the roof follows the lamp with respect to the Ascension narrative. This point is driven home by the third element of Willibald’s description – the columns representing the angelic figures of Act 1:11. 3.8.2.3 The Columns Willibald concludes his description of the Church of the Ascension with a reference to two interior columns which were contra parietem aquilonis et contra parietem meridialis plage – or against the north and south walls of the church.844 Willibald indicates that the respective columns had two religious functions. First of all, they were in memoriam et in signum duorum virorum qui dixerunt: ‘Viri Galilei, quid aspicitis in caelum’.845 The reference is found in Act 1:11, which describes two men dressed in white robes appearing immediately after Jesus’ ascension and telling the disciples: ‘This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven’. The verse expresses the New Testament understanding that the locus of the Ascension would also be the setting of Jesus’ future return. Thus, the columns culminate the three-fold commemoration of the Ascension narrative – Jesus ascends from the Mount of Olives (the ever-burning lamp) to the heavens (the open roof ) before the disciples are visited by the two angelic figures (the two columns). The columns encouraged pilgrims to visualize the biblical narrative of the Ascension, while witnessing to the promise of the Second Coming. The second function of the columns was penitential. According to Willibald, anyone who could crawl between the wall and either column would be freed from sin – et ille homo, qui ibi potest inter

Adomnán, DLS, 1.23.2-3, trans. in JW (2002), 180. VW, 98.19-20. 845 VW, 98.21-2. 843 844

210

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 211

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

parietem et columnas repsere, liber est a peccatis suis.846 While the remission of sins would be welcomed at any sanctus locus, its provision at the Church of the Ascension may be related to its role as the setting of Christ’s Return. Freed a peccatis suis, pilgrims could confidently await the coming of the Lord – and the Final Judgment – in a pure and sinless state.847 3.8.2.4 The Round Church The central feature of Willibald’s description of the Church ubi Dominus ascendit is its attention to the Ascension narrative. The point is significant for assessing Willibald’s interest in the architectural features of the church. While certain aspects of the ecclesiastical landscape captured his imagination, Willibald does not provide any gratuitous references to the church’s physical appearance; rather, he only describes the commemorative elements that are directly related to the Ascension story. On this point, Willibald’s omission of the church’s rounded shape, which is emphasized in other Early Islamic sources, is particularly indicative. Adomnán describes the church as mira rotunditas,848 while Bernard states that it was rotunda.849 The Armenian Guide describes the church as a ‘very beautiful dome-shaped building’ similar to ‘the Church of the Resurrection’,850 and according to Epiphanius, its columns stood in a circle.851 While its shape was considered a requisite

846 VW, 98.22-3. According to C. Schick (1896), 326-7, the columns were still standing in the fifteenth century, and ‘it was believed that if any one was able to embrace them, so that the ends of the finger (or only the middle fingers) could touch, it was a proof that he was a good man’. Schick adds that the columns ‘were still standing in Mejer Ed Din’s time, and I should think the pillar in the centre of the Greek altar . . . might be one of them, but removed and brought to this place’. Hoade (1973), 314 writes regarding the nearby Grotto of Pelagia: ‘From a dark vestibule a stair leads down to the grotto. It contains a simple sarcophagus with a Greek inscription (no longer visible). To the pilgrims of the past this was one of the “columns of ordeal”, so common all over the East. The passage behind the tomb is not difficult today. The Itinerary of a Certain Englishman (1344) tells of his experiences here, and how a certain lady of Naples, even when she put off her clothes, until she was contrite, could not make it’. 847 On the pilgrim traditions of penance and indulgences, see Sumption (1975), 98-113, D. Webb (2002), 1-113 and (1999), 49-82 and J.G. Davies (1988), 14-6. 848 Adomnán, DLS, 1.23.1. On Adomnán’s use of mira rotunditas, see O’Loughlin (1996a). 849 Bernard, It. Bern., 15. 850 AG, 7, trans. in JW (2002), 166. 851 Epiphanius, Hag., 28.

211

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 212

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

feature by other pilgrims, the roundness of the building did not have a symbolic function with respect to the Ascension narrative.852 In short, Willibald’s failure to mention the circular shape of the church highlights the commemorative focus of his description and underscores his inattention to the church as a subject in and of itself. 3.8.2.5 The Church of the 318 Bishops The question of Willibald’s architectural interests is also raised by his comparison of the Church of Nicea with the Church ubi Dominus ascendit.853 During his two-year sojourn in Constantinople, Willibald went to Nicea ubi olim habebat cesar Constantinus synodum, a reference to the Council of Nicea in 325, also known as the Council of the 318 Bishops (synodus 318 episcopi). The proceedings of the council took place in two venues. The business sessions were held in the Senatus Palace of Nicea, while the religious services took place in the Church of the Holy Trinity, or the Koimesis. Although the palace was in ruins by at least the sixth century, the Koimesis, a domed-cross church, still functioned as the primary church of Nicea at the time of Willibald’s visit.854 According to Willibald, he travelled from Constantinople ut videret, quomodo esset facta illa aecclesia for illa aecclesia similis est ille aecclesiae in Oliveti monte, ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum.855 First of all, Willibald’s descriptions contain a significant dearth of details. His only structural comment about the Church of the Ascension is its open roof, while he neglects to mention its circular shape. He provides no information on the physical features of the Church of Nicea, merely stating that church contained imagines episcoporum, qui erant ibi in synodo. Despite Bauch’s claim that ‘das interesse Willibalds an Arckitektur-Fragen wird durch diese Bemerkung Hugeburcs besonders ersichtlich’,856 Willibald’s account is almost entirely void of architectural details.

852 This does not preclude the circular form from having a symbolic association; rather, the point is that its shape did not inform the Ascension story – a four-sided structure with an open roof could equally have been commemorated the event. On the symbolism of round churches, see Krautheimer (1942), 9. 853 VW, 101.23-8. 854 See Bauch (1962), 115, nts. 201-2 and Krautheimer (1965), 205-10, fig. 82, pl. 116. 855 The identity of Willibald’s Church of Nicea is somewhat unclear as the Koimesis did not have obvious similarities with the Church of the Ascension. See below. 856 Bauch (1962), 115, n. 203.

212

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 213

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Secondly, Willibald does not specify how the two churches were similar. It is tempting to assume that the common feature was either an open roof or a circular design.857 However, it is important to consider the differences between the modern and medieval mind regarding architectural perceptions. According to Krautheimer, form and design made little impact upon the medieval observer, while ‘the practical and liturgical functions are always taken into consideration’.858 The most important features of a church concerned its religious significance – ‘questions of the symbolical significance of the layout or of the parts of a structure are prominent; questions of its dedication to a particular Saint, and of the relation of its shape to a specific dedication or to a specific religious – not necessarily liturgical – purpose’.859 Krautheimer’s comments suggest that the similarities between the two structures should be sought, not in terms of design, but rather with respect to their religious significance. Yet, herein lays a further difficulty – since Willibald is comparing a commemorative church (the Church of the Ascension) with a non-commemorative one (the Church of Nicea), there is a significance difference in the religious function of the two churches. As previously discussed, the features of the Jerusalem church were directly associated with the Ascension narrative. By contrast, the Church of Nicea was historically significant but lacked the same relationship between physical design and commemorative content. In Nicea, Willibald encountered an ecclesiastical context that was different from its Jerusalem counterpart. Yet, given Willibald’s statements that the Church of Nicea est similis to the Church of the Ascension and that he went to Nicea ut videret quomodo esset facta, he was apparently interested in the physical design of the respective churches, perhaps contrary to the generalizations of Krautheimer. In the one instance in which Willibald’s attention is clearly focused upon church architecture, he is regrettable remiss in rendering the relevant details. While the similarities between the two churches somehow captured his attention as a young pilgrim, the question of church architecture was pertinent to Willibald’s episcopal career as he oversaw the construction of ecclesiastical buildings in both Eichstätt and 857

These features, if they apply at all, are less obvious for the Koimesis. Krautheimer (1942), 1. Also see R. Webb (1999). 859 Krautheimer (1942), 1. 858

213

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 214

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Heidenheim.860 Of interest are the foundations of a round stone structure under the west choir of the present-day Eichstätt cathedral that have been dated to the late eighth or early ninth century. David Parsons speculates that the structure may be a model of the Holy Sepulchre, either built by Willibald or in memorium to him.861 While this may be the case, a possible connection with the Church of the Ascension should also be considered. 3.8.3 Conclusion: The Church of the Ascension The preceding discussion on Willibald’s description of the Church ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum has underscored the following points. Firstly, Willibald’s description highlights the interplay between the physical features of the church and the commemorative themes of the Ascension. The perpetually-lit lamp in the centre of the church illuminated the locus of the Ascension. The open roof enabled the pilgrim to gaze into the heavens of Jesus’ Ascension, while the two columns represented the heavenly witnesses of Act 1:11. Secondly, Willibald’s account is ordered by the sequence of the Ascension story. The point emphasizes the priority of the biblical narrative in Willibald’s recollection and organization of his Holy Land material. It also informs Willibald’s relationship with the sancti loci – the holy places existed as living monuments to the events of scriptures. Third, the chapter has discussed Willibald’s anticipation of the Return of Christ. The Ascension story is an unfinished narrative, and the future of salvation history focuses upon the locus of the Ascension, a point that did not escape the pilgrims of the Early Islamic period. Although Willibald’s description is primarily associated with the past narrative, each of the three elements has future connotations. While marking the locus of the Ascension, the lamp kept perpetual vigil for the Second Coming. While the open roof allowed pilgrims to gaze into the heavenly heights to where Jesus had ascended, it also enabled them to look expectantly for his return. Most explicitly, the two commemorative columns representing the Ascension witnesses reminded pilgrims of the promise that Jesus would Return in the same way that he had departed. Moreover, the columns offered the remission of sins. 860 On the monastery of Eichstätt, see VW, 105.20. On the church of Heidenheim, see V. Wynn., 115.1-17. 861 D. Parsons (1999), 50-7.

214

Section 03.qxd:Section 03.qxd

5/15/09

2:44 PM

Page 215

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Thereby, pilgrims could await the coming of the Lord – and the Final Judgment – in a pure and sinless state. While Willibald does not explicitly depict the place of the Ascension in eschatological terms, the themes are implicit in his description of the church. Throughout his account of the Holy Land, Willibald’s interest in the future events of salvation is evidenced in a number of ways. Willibald’s frequent use of requiescere to describe the tombs of the saints points towards the future Resurrection.862 He also has a pronounced interest in the virtue of perseverance and the final reward of the faithful – qui autem perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit.863 The virtue of perseverance is implicit in the perpetual vigil at the locus of the Ascension, a vigil culminating in the future return of Christ.864 Fourthly, the most important feature of the church was the locus of the Ascension, or the place from ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum, represented by an ever-burning lamp in medio aecclesia. Willibald begins his account by devoting over four and a half lines to describing the area before mentioning the church’s open roof in a single phrase. While he provides some details on the two commemorative columns, the objects were literally peripheral to the ‘middle of the church’. Next to the sepulchrum Salvatoris, the locus of the Ascension captured Willibald’s imagination more than any other place in Jerusalem. The comparison of the locus of the Ascension with the Salvatoris sepulchrum raises the fifth and final point – namely, Willibald is interested in the biblical loci and only incidentally mentions the contemporary ecclesiastical landscape of Jerusalem. In his description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris, Willibald devotes detailed attention to the tomb, the locus of the Resurrection, while his only allusion to the Anastasis is the vague comment: et ibi supra nunc edificata est mirabilis domus.865 Regarding the Church ubi Dominus ascendit, he does not provide any gratuitous information on the architecture of the church, describing only those elements that have a direct narrative function. Nonetheless, given their association with the loci of the Ascension and the Resurrection, the Church ubi Dominus ascendit and the Holy Sepulchre were, for Willibald, the two most important churches in the Holy City. See section 3.6.2.3.2. Mt 10:22. See section 4.3. 864 Also see Limor (1998). 865 VW, 97.18-9. 862 863

215

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 216

3.9 Willibald and the Circuit of Jerusalem Having discussed the sancti loci of Jerusalem, the following chapter will outline the sequence of Willibald’s movements, noting its integrity as a logical and coherent route. The same circuit is described in a number of other sources, suggesting that the common template reflects an on-the-ground phenomenon – i.e., a standardized walking tour of the city. While previous discussions of the Jerusalem circuit have focused upon the Byzantine period,866 Willibald provides evidence for its continuity into the post-Byzantine era, indicating that the Persian destruction and ninety years of Islamic rule had not altered the movements of Christian pilgrims within the city. The course of the circuit changes during the Crusader period. The second part of the chapter examines the circuit as a source for Willibald’s description of the Holy City. First of all, Willibald’s dictations follow the template of the Jerusalem circuit. In other words, the phenomenon was so central to his experience of Jerusalem that Willibald – like other pilgrim writers – found the circuit to be the best organizing principle for describing the holy sites. Secondly, the influence of the circuit is such that Willibald does not mention any site that was off the route. Finally, Willibald’s account of Jerusalem does not show any dependency upon written sources. Rather, it appears that the circuit of Jerusalem was so firmly etched in his memory that some fifty years later he could use it to accurately organize his account of the city. 3.9.1 Willibald as a Source for the Jerusalem Circuit 3.9.1.1. Willibald’s Description of Jerusalem Willibald orders his description of Jerusalem as follows: • the Holy Sepulchre, including the locus ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux, the Calvarie locus and the sepulchrum Salvatoris, • the church que vocatur Sancta Sion, • a piscina near the porticus Salamonis, 866

The Jerusalem circuit for the Byzantine period has been discussed in JW (1976). JW (2002) also provides maps of the ‘Jerusalem circuit’ for Paula (p. 82, map 14), Peter

the Iberian (p. 101, map 17), Theodosius (p. 108, map 20), the Brev. (p. 120, map 23), Sophronius (p. 159, map 32), the AG (p. 164, map 33), Arculf (p. 169, map 34), Epiphanius (p. 207, map 37), Willibald (p. 242, map 43) and Bernard the Monk (p. 264, map 49). The maps depict the sites but do not indicate the routes of the various circuits.

216

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 217

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

• a magna columna commemorating the place ubi Iudei volebant tollere corpus sanctae Mariae, • the church sancta Mariae containing sepulchrum eius, • the church ubi Dominus orabat and • the church ubi Dominus ascendit in caelum.867 Willibald’s description of the Holy City elicits four initial points. First of all, his account of Jerusalem is a litany of his personal movements from one site to the next: From the Holy Sepulchre, Willibald abiit to the Church of Holy Sion. He then ibat to the pool of the Paralytic Healing. Outside the East Gate was the Jephonias monument. Inde discendens, Willibald venit to the Valley of Jehoshaphat and the Church of St Mary. From there, he ascendit the Mount of Olives, where he visited the Church ubi Dominus orabat, before he venit to the Church of the Ascension.868

By contrast, Willibald could have described the sites using directional and non-personal language. For example: From the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of Holy Sion is approximately 200 paces to the south.869 The pool of the Paralytic Healing is to the east of the Holy Sepulchre.870 Outside the East Gate of the city is the Jephonias monument,871 and two hundred and fifty steps below the monument is the tomb of Mary in the Jehoshaphat Valley.872 The locus 867

Willibald, no doubt, visited sites in the city that he does not mention. Although Willibald is describing a walking tour of Jerusalem that follows the sequence of the sites as they appear in the Vita, the language of personal movement does not introduce every site. First of all, the reference to his illness separates the Holy Sepulchre material from the rest of his Jerusalem circuit, which begins: abiit ad illam aecclesiam que vocatur Sancta Sion (VW, 97.28). The study assumes that Willibald’s accommodations were near the Holy Sepulchre and that he was familiar with the complex prior to exploring the city after his illness. The pilgrim sources consistently indicate that pilgrims went from the Holy Sepulchre to Holy Sion (see below), and Willibald’s circuit likewise started from the Holy Sepulchre. Secondly, Hugeburc introduces the Jephonias monument with the phrase, similiter et ipse dixit. The phrase does not suggest a break in Willibald’s movements. If anything, the phrase may imply that the Jephonias monument was in the same vicinity as the pool of Bethesda – i.e., near the East Gate. From the monument, Willibald descended (inde descendes) to the Church of St Mary. 869 Compare with Theodosius, DSTS, 7b. 870 Compare with Epiphanius, Hag., 5. 871 Compare with Epiphanius, Hag., 24. 872 Compare with AG, 6-7. 868

217

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 218

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

of the Agony was on the lower slopes of the Mount of Olives,873 while the Church of the Ascension was on top of the mountain.874

While either form would have conveyed the same circuit, Willibald describes the holy sites of Jerusalem as a personal walking tour through the city.875 Secondly, Willibald’s account of the sancti loci follows a course that is neither haphazard nor random.876 The point has been previously overlooked, largely due to the misidentification of Willibald’s magna columna. When the column is associated with gates either on the north or south sides of the city, Willibald’s circuit is unintelligible.877 Yet, once the column is correctly identified with the East Gate, it becomes evident that Willibald is describing a coherent circuit through the city. Third, Willibald sets his description in a specific, temporal context, describing his encounters with the holy places as a one-off experience that took place during his first sojourn in Jerusalem. Willibald was infirmus from his arrival on the festivitas sancti Martini (November 11) until the week ante natale Domini.878 With Christmas approaching, Willibald, melius de infirmitate, visited the sites of Jerusalem before proceeding to Bethlehem for the feast of the Nativity.879 Fourth, save for the place ubi inventa fuerat sancta crux,880 Willibald does not mention any holy sites in the brief narratives of his subsequent sojourns in the city. Nonetheless, the work assumes that Willibald visited the sites on numerous occasions and that his dictations conflate the experiences of multiple encounters with the holy places.881 His knowledge of Compare with Bernard, It. Bern., 14. Compare with Bernard, It. Bern., 15. 875 A single, personal journey through the city is also described in Jerome’s account of Paula’s pilgrimage (Ep., 108) and the Anacr. (19 and 20) of Sophronius. 876 See map 8. 877 See maps 9 and 10. Also see section 3.6.2.2.2. 878 As previously mentioned, Willibald describes the Holy Sepulchre (VW, 97.10-25) prior to his illness (VW, 97.26-8) and his subsequent circuit of Jerusalem (VW, 97.28-98.23). The sequence implies that Willibald visited the Holy Sepulchre immediately upon his arrival before taking accommodations in the general vicinity of the church. He appears to have been familiar with the Holy Sepulchre prior to visiting the other sites of the city. 879 See Bauch (1962), 106, n. 133. Also see sections 2.2.2-3. 880 VW, 99.15-6. 881 Compare Willibald’s description with Arculf ’s nine-month residency in the city. Adomnán states that Arculf had been ‘many times’ to the tomb of Christ (DLS, 1.2.8), was ‘tireless in making pilgrimage to holy places [throughout the city]’ (DLS, 1.12.1) and was ‘constant pilgrim’ at the Church of the Ascension (DLS, 1.23.5). Like Arculf, one should assume that Willibald was a ‘constant pilgrim’ to the holy sites of Jerusalem. 873 874

218

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 219

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

the city suggests that he was familiar with the most common and direct route for visiting the holy sites. 3.9.1.2. The Jerusalem Circuit of the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Periods Before examining the other pilgrim texts, a few points should be emphasized. First of all, our primary interest is not in the accumulated inventory of the sites but rather in the sequence in which the sites are listed. Secondly, the discussion assumes that the ordering of the sites reflects either the sequence in which they were visited or, in the case of a standardized guide, the suggested order for visiting them. Third, not all of the texts describe the sites of Jerusalem in the same order. Nonetheless, Willibald’s circuit is not unique, and a common template will emerge. What does this template mean, particularly in terms of pilgrim movements within the city? The convergence suggests that there was a standardized walking route of Jerusalem. Together, with Sophronius, the Armenian Guide and Bernard, the Vita belongs to a group of texts that best elucidates the phenomenon of the Jerusalem circuit and – most significantly – its continuity between the Byzantine and post-Byzantine periods. The following discussion focuses upon the texts that 1) share the same circuit and 2) most directly inform the account of Willibald. Texts of the early Byzantine period, such as the Bordeaux Pilgrim,882 Jerome, Egeria, John Rufus883 and the Piacenza Pilgrim, provide a growing inventory of the Christian holy places. However, for the developing sequence of the circuit, it is useful to begin with the recensions of the Breviarius. After detailing the sites of the Holy Sepulchre, the original version describes three stations – the Church of Holy Sion, the Church According to JW (1976), 95, ‘the selection of holy places which was shown to the pilgrim from Bordeaux underlay the topography of the city throughout the Byzantine period. But the emphasis on pilgrimage changed, both by the addition of new holy places and by the erection of Christian buildings at holy places and elsewhere. . . . It is true that three of the sights mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrim and by Cyril are not shown to later pilgrims, namely the statues of the site of the Temple, the ruins of David’s palace, and the palm tree in the valley of Jehoshaphat’. On the circuit of the Bordeaux Pilgrim, also see Hamilton (1952). 883 See John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi. According to JW (1976), 95, the Jerusalem circuit ‘evidently originated at some time before Peter’s visit’ (soon after 460 CE), and from his time onwards, ‘the Christian pilgrim to Jerusalem followed what seems to have been a standardized itinerary’. While the pilgrimage of Peter the Iberian may have included ‘all the holy places’, his itinerary did not follow what would become the standardized route of the circuit. 882

219

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 220

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

of Holy Sophia and the Pinnacle of the Temple.884 Recension A extends the circuit from the Pinnacle down to the pool of Siloam,885 while Breviarius B continues even further – after describing the pool of Siloam,886 it leads pilgrims up the Jehoshaphat Valley from Siloam to the tomb of Mary and on to the summit of the Mount of Olives.887 In short, the Breviarius and its subsequent recensions take a route to and then around the southeastern corner of the city; the Sheep Pool north of the Temple Mount is not included.888 By contrast, the sixth-century text of Theodosius leads pilgrims in two different directions around the Temple Mount. Theodosius begins his Jerusalem circuit with the same sequence as the Breviarius – the Holy Sepulchre, Holy Sion889 and Holy Sophia.890 From Holy Sophia, Theodosius states that it was 100 paces to the pool of Siloam. He also indicates that it was about 100 paces to the pool of Bethesda.891 Yet, while Theodosius mentions the pool of bethesda, his focus remains on the route up the Jehoshaphat Valley. The Pinnacle of the Temple and the Tombs of the Valley, identified as those of James, Zacharias and Simeon, are mentioned prior to the place of the Betrayal and the Church of St Mary.892 The text implies that the route from Holy Sophia to the Pool of Bethesda was the secondary option of the circuit.893 The text of Theodosius underscores the main conundrum of the pilgrim circuit. From Holy Sion to Gethsemane, pilgrims had to make a Brev., 1-6. Brev. A, 6. 886 Brev. B, 7 describes a basilica ‘where at one time sick persons used to wash and be healed’. Its identity is based upon the reference to Siloam in Brev. A, 6. 887 Brev. B, 7. The pathway up the Jehoshaphat Valley is the most direct route between the pool of Siloam and the tomb of Mary. 888 See maps 11, 12 and 13. Although the Jerusalem circuit presumably followed specific pathways through the city, the maps make no attempt to reconstruct them. 889 Theodosius, DSTS, 7b also describes the house of Caiaphas (the Church of St Peter), which was fifty paces from Holy Sion. 890 Theodosius, DSTS, 7b. 891 Theodosius, DSTS, 8. 892 Theodosius, DSTS, 9-10. 893 See map 14. Since the text is comprised of numerous itineraries, the circuit of Theodosius is somewhat difficult to reconstruct. Although pilgrims went from Holy Sophia to the pool of Siloam, it is unclear whether this was a spur (and pilgrims returned back up the Tyropoeon Valley before visiting the Pinnacle of the Temple) or whether it was a main part of the circuit, with pilgrims proceeding from Siloam to the Pinnacle via the Kidron Valley. In any case, Theodosius introduces the Sheep Pool as an option, through the text favours the route. Secondly, the text favours the route around the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount, which includes the Pinnacle of the Temple and the Tombs of the Valley. 884 885

220

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 221

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

choice – they could either go around the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount, visiting the pool of Siloam, the Pinnacle of the Temple and the Tombs of the Valley, or they could go through the city, stopping at the pool of Bethesda before exiting through the East Gate. Both options led to the sites of Gethsemane and the Mount of Olives. Although pilgrims subsequently visited the remaining sites of the city, those not located on the primary route between the Holy Sepulchre and the Mount of Olives eventually assumed a second-tier status. The Jerusalem circuit of the Late Byzantine period eventually favoured the intramural route as narrated by Sophronius.894 After describing the Holy Sepulchre, Holy Sion and Holy Sophia, Sophronius goes to the pool of Bethesda and the birthplace of St Mary, by-passing the pool of Siloam and the Tombs of the Valley. He then descends to Gethsemane and the tomb of St Mary before arriving at the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives.895 The change in the circuit likely took place in the sixth century, sometime after the descriptions of the Brevairius and Theodosius, and it is not unlikely that the commemoration of Mary’s Nativity at the pool of Bethesda tipped the balance in favour of the intramural route. The destruction of the Persian conquest affected the stations but not the course of the circuit,896 while at least one new site, the Jephonias monument, was established along the existing route. The Armenian Guide, dated to the Inter-conquest period, begins with the Holy Sepulchre and then moves to Holy Sion.897 Holy Sophia, destroyed in 614, is omitted. More inexplicably, the pool of Bethesda is not mentioned. However, the Guide’s reference to the Jephonias Monument – which it locates outside the East Gate and above the tomb of St Mary – indicates that an intramural route from Holy Sion is being described. The Guide descends to Mary’s tomb in Gethsemane, before concluding its circuit with the Church of the Ascension.898 Sophronius, Anacr., 20.1-102. See map 15. 896 According to Bahat (1996), 49, ‘at the beginning of the early Muslim period, the network of Jerusalem’s streets was apparently similarly to that which had been in use during the Byzantine period’. Also see JW (1975) and Hamilton (1933). 897 AG, 1-7. 898 See map 16. The post-Byzantine maps subsequently omit the Church of Holy Sophia. Christians presumably used the eastern cardo on their way from Holy Sion to the pool of Bethesda and likely passed near the site of the former church, destroyed in 614. Consequently, there is more continuity between the Byzantine and post-Byzantine circuits (i.e., its streets and pathways) than appears in the maps. 894 895

221

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 222

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Less concise but still informative is the account of Bernard the Monk, who visited Jerusalem in 870, one and a half centuries after Willibald. Bernard’s circuit begins with the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of Holy Sion.899 Although Bernard fails to mention the pool of Bethesda, his route likewise took him through the city and out the East Gate as indicated by the phrase: exeuntes autem de Jerusalem descendimus in vallem Josaphat.900 Like Willibald, he describes the Church of St Mary, the place of the Agony and the Church of the Ascension. While Bernard’s account differs in some respects, it is based upon the same template of the previous texts.901 In short, the sources indicate that the route of the Byzantine circuit continued well into the Early Islamic period.902 It is useful to compare the preceding examination with Wilkinson’s summary of the circuit for the Late Byzantine period.903 According to Wilkinson: • The circuit began at the Holy Sepulchre with pilgrims visiting the tomb of Christ, the place of the Crucifixion and the place where the Holy Cross was found (not necessarily in that order). • Pilgrims then went to the Church of Holy Sion. • From there, they visited the Church of Holy Sophia, which commemorated Jesus’ Trial before Pilate. Wilkinson notes that ‘at this point in the circuit the pilgrims unfamiliar with Jerusalem . . . were taken down to Siloam’.904 • Pilgrims then visited the Sheep Pool, which commemorated Jesus’ Healing of the Paralytic and the Nativity of Mary. • Leaving the city by the East Gate, they went down a stepped street into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, where they were shown a church 899 Bernard, It. Bern., 11-2. From his vantage point on Mt Sion, Bernard describes four additional sites – two nearby churches, the prison of Peter and the Temple farther to the north. 900 Bernard, It. Bern., 13. In other words, he is not ascending the valley from the south. 901 Compare the respective circuits of Sophronius (map 15), the Armenian Guide (map 16), Willibald (map 17) and Bernard (map 18). 902 Adomnán and Epiphanius do not follow the aforementioned circuit. After describing the sites of the Holy Sepulchre, Adomnán leads the reader out the East Gate, while Epiphanius inserts a reference to the pool of Bethesda and the sites on the Haram esh-Sharif before describing the area of Holy Sion. Although the texts are heavily redacted, they suggest alternative patterns of movement. Nonetheless, the primary, circuit of city is the one described by Sophronius, the AG, Willibald and Bernard. 903 See JW (1976). 904 JW (1976), 95.

222

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 223

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

containing the tomb of Mary and the Grotto of Gethsemane, where Jesus was betrayed by Judas Iscariot. • Climbing the Mount of Olives, pilgrims stopped at the Eleona before arriving at the Church of the Ascension. Wilkinson accurately delineates the circuit, and in agreement with him, fourth points are worth emphasizing. First of all, the one obvious departure between the Byzantine and post-Byzantine circuits is the Church of Holy Sophia, which was destroyed in 614. However, the route between Holy Sion and the pool of Bethesda was not necessarily altered, and post-Byzantine pilgrims may have passed the site of the ruined church. The circuit still commemorated the Trial of Jesus, which moved to Holy Sion.905 Secondly, one may correctly assume that ‘unfamiliar pilgrims’ visited the pool of Siloam; however, by the end of the Byzantine period, the pool was not on the primary circuit.906 Third, by virtue of the circuit’s intramural route from Holy Sophia to the pool of Bethesda, the Tombs of the Valley and the Pinnacle of the Temple become secondary sites. Fourth, although it was most certainly commemorated in the sixth and seventh centuries, the Agony is inexplicably omitted from the Late Byzantine sources, and Wilkinson is justified in excluding the Agony from his summary of the Byzantine circuit. The Agony was commemorated by post-Byzantine pilgrims as per Willibald and Bernard. 3.9.1.3 The Termination of the Jerusalem Circuit While the pilgrim circuit commenced at the Holy Sepulchre, the circuit’s ending is slightly more ambiguous. The discussion has assumed that the circuit concluded with the Church of the Ascension. However, since the texts often describe additional sites after the Ascension, the point of termination must be addressed: where did the circuit officially end? After Willibald’s description of the Church of the Ascension, the Vita continues: inde venit in locum, ubi angelus pastoribus apparuit.907 At issue is Willibald’s use of inde. In short, does inde specifically refer to the Church of the Ascension, and, to the point, did Willibald depart directly from the Mount of Olives for the Shepherds’ Field? Or does inde refer more generally to the city of Jerusalem? Given Willibald’s extended residency in the Holy City, there is no reason to See AG, 5 and Epiphanius, Hag., 7-8. According to Cohn (1987), 53: ‘although it seems to have been visited by pilgrims on their guided tours around the Holy City, [the pool of Siloam was not] regarded important enough to be included in their travel books’. 907 VW, 98.23-4. 905 906

223

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 224

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

suppose that he journeyed to Bethlehem on the same day that he toured Jerusalem. While exploring the holy sites from his base in Jerusalem, he most likely embarked for Bethlehem on a separate day. The Armenian Guide also continues with a reference to Bethlehem. Yet, while Willibald’s transition is somewhat unclear, the Guide distinctly separates the Jerusalem circuit from its ensuing description of Bethlehem as it marks the distance to Bethlehem from the Holy Sepulchre, or ‘the Resurrection’, indicating that its circuit of Jerusalem properly ended with the Church of the Ascension.908 Sophronius’ Anacreonticon 19 describes the ascent up the Mount of Olives before proceeding to the tomb of Lazarus and the city of Bethlehem. However, Anacreonticon 20, which begins with the Holy Sepulchre and, thus, properly describes the Jerusalem circuit, ends with a reference to the Ascension.909 In short, the evidence indicates that the Jerusalem circuit ended with the Church of the Ascension. Wilkinson, who likewise identifies the Church of the Ascension as the final station of the circuit, makes a distinction between local and foreign pilgrims. Wilkinson argues that ‘a complete round’ of the holy places included a visit to Lazarus’ tomb in Bethany and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.910 Yet, ‘pilgrims from abroad sometimes postponed their visits to them and included them in longer journeys’.911 On any given day, Jerusalem-based pilgrims may have extended their travels. However, the majority of pilgrims presumably returned to the city after completing their tour at the Church of the Ascension. A final argument in favour of the Church of the Ascension as the culminating station of the circuit concerns the church’s significance and its location abreast the summit of the Mount of Olives. While the circuit was not thematic,912 the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Ascension were natural and appropriate bookends to the pilgrim tour. Thus, the circuit began with the sites of Jesus’ Crucifixion and Resurrection and ended with the themes of Christ’s Ascension and Second Coming. Moreover, the site of the Ascension afforded a view that stretched as far as the Dead Sea and the mountains east of the 908

AG, 8.

Sophronius, Anacr., 20.100-1. On Bethany, see Saller (1950) and (1957) and Taylor (1987). On the nearby church of Bethphage, see JW (2002), 288-9. 911 JW (1976), 97. 912 See below. 909 910

224

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 225

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Jordan River. However, it was the view to the west that commanded the pilgrims’ attention. Rising above and juxtaposed to the Holy City, the place of the Ascension offered pilgrims a breath-taking perspective of Jerusalem, which included the Temple Mount and the sites of the now-completed circuit. With its eschatological significance and its view of the holiest landscape of Christendom, the Church of the Ascension was particularly suited to anchor the pilgrim circuit of Jerusalem. 3.9.1.4 The Nature of the Jerusalem Circuit Having plotted its course, the discussion now turns to the nature of the Jerusalem circuit. Certain features of the circuit have been previously described by Wilkinson: Several of the Christian devotional processions and services commemorate the acts of Jesus in the holy places in a historical order. Such are the ones they came to hold during the ‘Great Week’ before Easter, and, after the Crusades, the devotions at the Stations of the Cross. Obviously the Jerusalem circuit . . . is different, for the pilgrim who follows it commemorates Jesus’ burial before his birth, and his execution before his trial. Nevertheless, it was an itinerary which enabled the pilgrim to visit each of the main holy places in a convenient order, and probably for this reason retained its popularity.913

Wilkinson underscores three important aspects of the Jerusalem circuit. First of all, by noting ‘the pilgrim who follows it’, he acknowledges that the sources are describing a walking route of the city. Although the details are speculative, it seems likely that the circuit was more than a recommended route for individual pilgrims; rather, it may be understood as a formally-organized group activity, presumably led by the local monks and officially supported by the Jerusalem church. On the evidence of Willibald, Sophronius and the Armenian Guide, the circuit was recognized by Latin, Greek and Armenian pilgrims, and it is reasonable to assume that language-specific tours were available for foreign pilgrims. Secondly, Wilkinson notes that the circuit was not organized according to a particular theme. The sites were related by their mutual significance to the Christian faith. Yet, the circuit itself merely provided a ‘convenient order’ for visiting the principal sites of the city. Thus, the 913

JW (1976), 97.

225

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 226

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

circuit was determined, above all, by the topography of Jerusalem – the location of the sancti loci and the city’s corresponding network of streets and pathways. Once the circuit was established, the route influenced the location of new commemorations, such the Jephonias monument.914 Wilkinson also refers to the non-liturgical nature of the Jerusalem circuit. The point need not be belabored – none of the texts, including Willibald, set the circuit within a liturgical context; its contents were too eclectic and its sequence too ahistorical for the circuit to have liturgical integrity. Yet, while the circuit was non-liturgical, it had a strong devotional component, with each site offering pilgrims the opportunity to commemorate in situ an important event of the Christian faith.915 3.9.1.5 The Jerusalem Circuit of the Crusader Period The route of the Jerusalem circuit was altered in the twelfth century as Crusader interest in the Haram esh-Sharif, or Temple Mount, reshaped the commemorative topography of Jerusalem and, subsequently, the course of pilgrim movements within the city. From the fourth to the twelfth centuries, pilgrims visited Holy Sion immediately after the Holy Sepulchre. By contrast, the Crusader sources generally describe the sites of the Temple Mount – the Temple of the Lord (the Dome of the Rock) and the Temple of Solomon (the al-Aqsa Mosque) – immediately after their account of the Holy Sepulchre. Pilgrims leaving the Holy Sepulchre approached the so-called temples by the route of the present-day Street of the Chain, crossing a viaduct over the Tyropoeon Valley to reach the Temple Mount. Since Holy Sion now ‘lay off the general route, which often enough was to go to the Holy Sepulchre and then to the Temple of the Lord, Mount Sion seems to have been fitted in to any place which was convenient in the pilgrimage’.916 3.9.2 The Jerusalem Circuit as a Source for Willibald The discussion now reverses the lens, examining how the Jerusalem circuit informs our understanding of Willibald’s dictations. First of all, Willibald’s dictations follow the template of the Jerusalem circuit. The phenomenon was so central to his experience of Jerusalem that 914 According to Avi-Yonah (1940a), 30, there was a trend during the Late Byzantine period to locate sites along main traffic routes for the sake of convenience and security. 915 Willibald prayed at Holy Sion (VW, 97.29) and the tomb of Mary (VW, 98.11). He also refers to prayer in his description of the sepulchrum Salvatoris (VW, 97.20-3). 916 JW (1988), 46.

226

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 227

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

Willibald – like other pilgrim writers – regarded the circuit as the best organizing principle for describing the holy sites. Other considerations, such as the liturgical calendar, which figures prominently in his chronology, do not factor into his description of Jerusalem, even though he was almost certainly in the city for Easter, the Ascension, Pentecost, the Dormition and the feast of the Holy Cross, which were each related to one of the holy sites in his account. Instead, Willibald chose to organize his description of the Holy City around the circuit, while neglecting to mention his participation in the Jerusalem liturgy. Secondly, Willibald does not mention any site that was not located on the circuit, omitting places such as the pool of Siloam, Aceldama and the Tombs of the Valley.917 Third, there is no indication that Willibald made use of written sources in his description of Jerusalem. His style is informal, and his account lacks the type of detail indicative of textual material. Moreover, he omits a number of important traditions associated with the circuit, such as the Sion commemorations, the Trial of Jesus, the place of the Betrayal and the birthplace of Mary. Rather, it appears that Willibald’s account of Jerusalem is reliant upon his own memory and was dictated to Hugeburc without the aid of other sources. In other words, the circuit was so fundamental to Willibald’s experience of Jerusalem, so firmly etched into his memory that some fifty years later he could use its template to accurately organize his account of the city. 3.9.3 Conclusion: Willibald and the Jerusalem Circuit The chapter has demonstrated that Willibald’s account of Jerusalem depicts the same circuit described by other sources of the Byzantine and post-Byzantine periods. The convergence of these texts suggests that the common template reflects an on-the-ground phenomenon – i.e., a standardized walking tour of the city’s holy sites. While the Byzantine circuit has been previously discussed, its continuity into the postByzantine era has been previously overlooked. The chapter has, in turn, used the Jerusalem circuit as a source for examining Willibald’s account of the Holy City. First of all, Willibald organized his description of the holy sites according to the circuit, while neglecting other considerations such as the Jerusalem liturgy. Second, Willibald does not mention any site that was not on the route. Finally, there is no evidence of Willibald’s reliance upon written sources. Rather, it appears that his account of Jerusalem was based upon his memory of 917

On Aceldama, see JW (2002), 277-6 and Adomnán, DLS, 1.19.

227

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 228

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the city some five decades after his departure. In short, the Jerusalem circuit was an indelible feature of Willibald’s image of the Holy City.

3.10 Summary: The Holy Places of Jerusalem From the outdoor cross in rural Wessex to St Peter’s tomb in Rome, Willibald’s western homelands were a rich spiritual landscape of churches, crosses, tombs and relics. If physical and spiritual blessings were available in the Latin West, for what purpose did one travel to Jerusalem? How, in Willibald’s imagination, did Jerusalem differ from the sacred topography of Western Europe? In summarizing his travels, Hugeburc emphasizes that Willibald visited ipsa terrarum loca, ubi Dominus noster nascendo patiendoque ac resurgendo nobis apparuit.918 Moreover, in his audience with the pope: sui iteneris ex ordine intimavit, quale modo multas migrando mundi istius meabit mansiones, et quomodo almam altissimi etherium Plasmatoris natalem adventus sui locum in Bethlem adorando, opem postulando lustrandoque perambulabat et nihilominus aliam baptismatis eius terram in Iordane speculando seque balneando visitabat; sed et in Hierusalem sicque in Sancta Sion, ubi sacer seculorum Salvator in cruce suspensus peremptus est atque sepultus et postea in monte Oliveti in caelum ascendit, istic quatuor vicibus veniendo orabat et Domino se commendabat.919

In short, the Vita associates Jerusalem and the surrounding region with the life of Christ – his birth, baptism, death, resurrection and ascension – and even though Willibald does not use a specific term for the region, such as terra sancta,920 he perceives the area primarily in terms of the Incarnation– i.e., the regio Christi.921 918 919

VW, 87.13-14. VW, 104.2-8: ‘He told him how he had passed from place to place, how he had

visited Bethlehem and prayed in the birthplace of his heavenly Creator, how he had seen where Christ was baptized in the river Jordan and had himself bathed there. He described his four visits to Jerusalem and Holy Sion, where our Holy Saviour had hung on the cross, was killed and buried and then ascended into heaven from Mount Olivet’, trans. in Talbot (1954), 173. 920 The idea of a Christian Holy Land first appears in the Palestinian monastic writings of the Byzantine period. See Wilken (1992b) and Markus (1994), 257-271. 921 Willibald does not describe the area in terms of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Compare with Eusebius, Onomasticon and the Madaba Map.

228

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 229

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

While Willibald’s image of the terra sancta warrants more attention, our focus remains on Jerusalem. Having analyzed his description of the individual sites, what can be said about his image of the city? What features characterize Willibald’s account of Jerusalem? First of all, Willibald depicts Jerusalem as a New Testament city. Pilgrims often associated Solomon with the city of Jerusalem,922 which is acknowledged by Willibald in his reference to the porticu Salamonis.923 Otherwise, Willibald does not provide any Old Testament references in his description of Jerusalem.924 While Mary’s Dormition and Helena’s Finding of the Holy Cross are extra-biblical legends, they are, nonetheless, rooted in the New Testament experience (i.e., the life of Mary and the crucifixion of Christ). Second, Willibald depicts Jerusalem as a place of divine healing. According to Hugeburc, Willibald visited the places where Christ performed miracles and wonders (alia prodigiorum virtutumque vestigia).925 Willibald curiously describes the pool of the Paralytic Healing in the present tense, while the locus of the Miraculous Healing was the setting of Willibald’s own physical healing.926 Third, Jerusalem offered pilgrims the opportunity to pray at the ipse locus of the events of salvation. Although Willibald provides disappointingly little on the Jerusalem liturgy, he associates prayer with the tomb of Christ, the tomb of Mary, Holy Sion and the Church of the Agony.927 There were also non-liturgical rituals that allowed pilgrims to recreate in situ aspects of the biblical narrative. At Cana, Willibald drank from one of the stone jars used in Jesus’ miracle of the water and the wine, and at the monastery of St John the Baptist, he took a bath in the Jordan River.928 Similar rituals in Jerusalem included squeezing through the columns at the Church of the Ascension for the remission of sins.929

See, for example, Piacenza Pilgrim, Itin., 23 and Bernard, It. Bern., 12. See section 3.5.2. 924 For Old Testament-related references in an Early Islamic text, see Epiphanius, Hag., 2 (the tomb of Adam), 4 (the Holy of Holies, the blood of Zacharias and the Temple of Solomon) and 6 (the Tower of David). 925 VW, 87.14. 926 VW, 97.28-32; VW, 99.15-6. 927 VW, 97.21-3 (tomb of Christ), VW, 98.11 (tomb of Mary), VW, 97.29 (Holy Sion) and VW, 98.12-4 (Church of the Agony). 928 VW, 95.25-28; VW, 96.22-3. 929 VW, 98.19-23. See section 3.8.2.3. 922 923

229

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 230

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Fourth, Willibald’s description of Jerusalem shows his engagement with the historical topography of the city. This is most apparent in his concern over the intramural location of Calvary.930 The city’s commemorative topography was also established on exegetical grounds. For instance, the association of the portico of Solomon with the pool of the Paralytic Healing is based upon John’s reference to the five porticos.931 In each case, scripture plays an important role in the explanation of the site. Fifth, Willibald largely describes the holy sites in their original biblical setting. He sets the tomb of Christ within the context of the hortus mentioned by John; he emphasizes the rock-hewn nature of the tomb, and he describes a large replica stone that represents the one that the angelus revolvit ab ostium monumenti.932 For Willibald, the holy places existed as living monuments to the events of scriptures. Sixth, Willibald shows little interest in the ecclesiastical landscape. Willibald literally brushes by the Calvarie locus without describing the Rock of Calvary, while simply referring to the Anastasis as a mirabilis domus.933 His description of the Ascension is somewhat more attentive to the contemporary landscape. Even so, Willibald does not provide any gratuitous references to the church’s physical appearance, describing only the commemorative elements that are directly related to the Ascension story.934 Seventh, although his account is full of scriptural images, Willibald’s descriptions of the holy sites show almost no direct reliance upon the biblical text. His account of Jerusalem contains three biblical quotations: surge, tolle grabattum tuum et ambula (Jn 5:8: pool of the Paralytic Healing), vigilate et orate, ut non intretis in temptationem (Mt 26.41: Church of the Agony) and viri Galilei, quid aspicitis in caelum (Act 1:11: Church of the Ascension).935 Otherwise, his summary of the Paralytic Healing differs significantly from the Vulgate, while the only verbatim phrase in his account of the tomb of Christ is ab ostium monumenti.936 The point underscores the oral nature of Willibald’s testimony. While his descriptions of the holy places are 930

VW, 97.11-3.

See section 3.5. VW, 97.16-25. See section 3.3. 933 VW, 97.11-2 (section 3.2.2) and VW, 97.18-9 (section 3.3.2.1.2). 934 VW, 98.14-23. See section 3.8. 935 VW, 97.31-2; VW, 98.13-4; VW, 98.21-22. 936 VW, 97.24-5. See section 3.3.2. 931 932

230

Section 03.9-10.qxd:Section 3.9-10.qxd

5/15/09

2:34 PM

Page 231

WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY SITES OF JERUSALEM

interwoven by a tapestry of scriptural images, his dictations were original and unscripted. While the above features characterize Willibald’s descriptions of the holy places, his image of the Holy City will be examined through one final lens – i.e., his lifelong vocation as a peregrinus ex patria. According to the Vita, his primary purpose for travelling to Jerusalem was not to visit the holy sites; rather, as a more remote and unknown place than Rome, Jerusalem was an ideal place to fulfill his religious vocation.937 Having analyzed the individual sites of the Holy City, the book now turns to Willibald’s image of the city as a whole and, with it, his understanding of the Christian life.

937

VW, 92.18-22.

231

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 232

4. hardships, perseverance and the christian life willibald,s image of the city of jerusalem Willibald’s most explicit reference to Jerusalem occurs in the account of his motive for leaving Rome, in which the Holy City is described as a ‘more remote and less well-known place’.1 Whether or not it accurately describes Willibald’s original motives, the phrase reflects his later perceptions, and despite his first-hand knowledge of the city, the elderly bishop viewed Jerusalem as a far and distance place, an image that is supported by Willibald’s attention to the personal adversities and cultural encounters of his Holy Land travels. Willibald’s dictations are also accompanied by an underlying subtext – an admonishment of the Christian virtue of perseverance. The point is driven home in the Vita’s quotation of Mt 10:22 – qui autem perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit.2 Willibald’s identity as a peregrinus ex patria had a significant impact upon his image of place. Influenced by the Irish, the AngloSaxon expression of peregrinatio was ultimately based upon the example of Abraham, whom God commanded to leave his country and kindred for the land of Canaan and whom the author of Hebrews

1 On Willibald’s motives for leaving Rome for Jerusalem, see VW, 92.18-26, trans. in Talbot (1954), 159. Also see D. Webb (2002), 45-8. 2 VW, 92.15-6.

232

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 233

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

describes ‘as a stranger and foreigner on the earth’.3 With a vision of the Christian life rooted in the experience of Abraham, Willibald permanently left his own homeland of Wessex in order to seek ignotas externarum ruras.4 As the Benedictine virtue of stabilitas had not yet taken its hold upon the religious life of Europe, any location outside his patria of Wessex provided a suitable setting for pursuing the monastic ideal. Thus, while Willibald’s ‘ostensible objective was not sacred sight-seeing but the pursuit of monastic perfection’, he was able to make ‘ample room for the wanderlust that characterized his own personality’.5 Despite its status as the centre of Western Christendom, Rome represented the unknown to the Wessex native. Yet, if Rome was ignotus, Jerusalem was ignotior, and according to the Vita, Willibald journeyed to Jerusalem because he wanted to live a more rigorous life and to maioram iam tunc peregrinationis ignotitiam adire optabat.6 In this respect, the farther Willibald travelled from his patria, the more foreign the destination, and Jerusalem, located as it was within the regio Sarracinorum, was among the most ignotus places he ever encountered. The fact that the area was controlled by pagan Saracens added significantly to its foreign character. In short, place is intrinsically related to Willibald’s sense of Christian vocation. That his vision of the Christian life is embodied within his report of distant travels to the Holy Land should come as no surprise.

4.1 The Influence of Hardships upon Willibald’s Image of Jerusalem Mark Twain, who visited Jerusalem in 1867, wrote regarding his Holy Land experiences: ‘we do not think in the holy places; we think in bed, afterwards, when the glare and the noise and the confusion are gone, and in fancy we revisit alone the solemn monuments of the past and summon the phantom pageants of an age that has passed away’.7 3 Gen 12:1-3; Heb 11:8-16, esp. 12. In the Irish expression of peregrinatio ex patria, monks tended to seek a ‘desert in the ocean’. By contrast, Anglo-Saxon monks often journeyed to the European mainland where they lived an ascetic life in the midst of a foreign gens. The urban setting of Rome was a common destination. 4 VW, 89.33. 5 D. Webb (2002), 46-7. 6 VW, 92.21-2. 7 Twain (1980), 451.

233

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 234

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Twain’s point is well made: separated by time and distance, ‘the glare and the noise and the confusion’ of the pilgrim experience generally dissipates, leaving but the ‘solemn monuments of the past’. However, in perusing Willibald’s Holy Land account, it becomes apparent that even fifty years later ‘the glare and the noise and the confusion’ of his original experiences remained firmly etched upon his mind as Willibald devotes a significant amount of attention to the hardships, sufferings and deprivations that accompanied him throughout his pilgrimage travels.8 The episodes include: the death of his father in Lucca,9 the lengthy illness in Rome,10 the begging for bread in Phygela,11 the long, cold winter in Patara,12 the threat of starvation near Mons Gallianorum,13 his arrest and imprisonment as a suspected spy in Emesa,14 the five-week illness upon his arrival in Jerusalem,15 the two-month blindness while travelling in southern Palestine16 and • the lengthy illness in Salaminias during the season of Lent.17

• • • • • • • •

Willibald’s difficulties were derived from a multiplicity of sources. Along with the death of his father, the episodes include illness, physical disability, prolonged hunger, exposure to the elements and imprisonment.18 Although the austerity of Willibald’s pilgrimage travels made a lasting imprint upon his memories of Jerusalem, there is no reason to According to Hoyland (1997), 224, ‘Willibald tells us less about the sights he visits than of the problems encountered, the anecdotes heard and the strange spectacles observed along the way’. 9 VW, 91.14-22. 10 VW, 92.3-16. 11 VW, 93.17-9. 12 VW, 93.20-2. 13 VW, 94.1-4. 14 VW, 94.10-95.15. 15 VW, 97.26-7. 16 VW, 99.9-16. 17 VW, 100.2-12. 18 The Vita also includes references to extended delays. Willibald endured a long, cold winter in Patara (VW, 93.20-2), while he waited many days for his ship to leave Tyre (VW, 101.16-7). 8

234

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 235

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

believe that his travels were more difficult than those of other pilgrims. With the exception of his father’s death, none of the incidents had a lasting impact upon his life. On the whole, the episodes involved short, intense periods of suffering from which he emerged essentially unharmed. With respect to personal adversity, it is useful to compare Willibald’s memoirs to the accounts of other pilgrims. By contrast, the fourth-century pilgrim, Egeria, appears indefatigable as she moves from one holy site to the next. Jerome’s Epistula 108 recounts Paula’s initial trip through the Holy Land in similar terms. Hunt aptly describes Jerome’s account as ‘a breathless outburst of biblical enthusiasm’,19 while Maraval refers to the narrative as a ‘veritable tapestry of biblical quotations and allusions’.20 Although the two accounts are set at a frantic pace, neither text gives any indication of the physical challenges of the pilgrim journey.21 Yet, for Willibald, his Holy Land journey was remembered for its long and arduous nature. 4.1.1 The Death of Willibald’s Father When Willibald and his brother, Wynnebald, arrived at the shrine of St Peter in Rome, they gave thanks for the successful completion of their difficult journey, which had been full of various crises (discrimina varia).22 Chief among them was the unforeseen death of their father in the Italian town of Lucca.23 The event was a lesson in the precarious nature of pilgrim travel and undoubtedly had a profound effect upon the two brothers, perhaps more so for Willibald, given his role in persuading his father to make the journey.24 The Vita gives some indication of the ordeal endured by the brothers regarding their father’s illness and subsequent death. Although Hugeburc’s reference to the crossing of the ardua Alpium is misplaced, appearing after the events in Lucca,25 the text suggests that the mountainous terrain had an impact upon the father’s fatal condition. Despite the statement that the father’s infirmity began immediately Hunt (1984), 171. Maraval (1997), 377. 21 This characteristic is common to other pilgrim texts of period. 22 VW, 91.25-92.2. 23 VW, 91.14-22. Willibald returned to his father’s grave in Lucca nearly twenty years later. See VW, 104.28. 24 VW, 90.2-22. 25 See VW, 91.22-5. 19 20

235

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 236

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

upon his arrival in Lucca, the Vita’s antecedent comment explicitly describes the two brothers leading their father into the town: Willibaldus et Wynnebaldus patrem eorum in comitatu iteneris pariter cum illis ducebant.26 The father’s placement into the dative is revealing in light of his previous appearance in the nominative: pater suus et frater celeps predistinatum et adoptatum inchoaverunt iter.27 The father, who began his pilgrimage as an active subject, had been reduced to the role of a passive and fatally-weakened object before his arrival into Lucca. Prior to reaching the city, the two brothers had likely struggled for some time with their ailing father. Once in Lucca, Willibald’s father was unable to convalesce. His health continued to fail, and the Vita describes the onset of a fever that soon took his life. The grieving brothers then buried their father, leaving him under the protection of Frigidian, the patron saint of Lucca.28 From there, they continued their journey, arriving in Rome for the November feast of St Martin.29 4.1.2 Willibald’s Illness in Rome Willibald’s sojourn in Rome would have its own discrimina. Sometime during their first summer in the city, both Willibald and Wynnebald contracted the plague (pestis), which was accompanied by extreme bouts of chills and fever.30 For the length of their respective illnesses, the two brothers were alternately strong enough to care for the other; however, the affliction lasted for several weeks. The gravity of the situation could not have been lost on Willibald. Since leaving Wessex, he had served as a bed nurse to both his father and his brother, and his own health remained in jeopardy. In the end, the two brothers were spared. The episodes in Lucca and Rome indicate that prior to his departure for Jerusalem, Willibald was well-familiar with the precarious nature of the pilgrim life. He undertook the journey to Jerusalem with a clear sense of the risks and dangers that would lie ahead and was undoubtedly aware that his safe return was anything but guaranteed. VW, 91.15-6. VW, 91.2-3. 28 VW, 91.19-22. To this day, there is a shrine to Willibald’s father, known by leg26 27

end as King Richard, in the Basilica di San Frediano in Lucca. 29 VW, 92.2-3. 30 On the brothers’ illness in Rome, see VW, 92.3-16.

236

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 237

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

4.1.3 Hardships in Asia Minor In the narrative of his outbound journey through Asia Minor, Willibald includes three episodes of hardships – two incidents of hunger and a winter of long-suffering. 4.1.3.1 Hunger in Phygela The first incident took place in Phygela, where Willibald and his companions were forced to beg for bread.31 The Vita does not indicate how long they had gone without eating, nor is the episode explicitly described in terms of suffering. Nonetheless, the reference to begging (petito) reflects the seriousness of the situation. The magnitude of their plight is further underscored by the buoyant image of the mendicant pilgrims relishing their meal of dry bread – they sat around the village fountain, dipping their bread into the water as they ate.32 The scene bespeaks the welcomed reprieve from hungered travels as well as the tangible results of the pilgrim’s assiduous efforts to secure provisions. 4.1.3.2 The Winter in Patara From Phygela, the band of pilgrims took the coastal road to Patara where they wintered until spring. There, the group endured what the Vita describes as the ‘horrible cold of the icy winter’.33 There is no mention of illness, and the episode is not presented as one of peril; rather, it was one of tedium and discomfort. The winter in Patara was an exercise in patience for which Willibald was eventually rewarded with the advent of spring. 4.1.3.3 Hunger in Mons Gallianorum Hunger was again the issue as the pilgrims arrived into Mons Gallianorum.34 This time, Willibald remembers the situation as one of acute suffering: ‘they were so straitened by the sharpness of severe hunger, that their inward parts being torn with want of food, they began to be afraid that the fatal day of death was at hand’.35 No details 31 32

VW, 93.17-9. VW, 93.18-9: et petito pane ibi, ibant ad fontem unum in medio villa, et sedentes ibi

super marginem, tingebant panem in aqua et sic manducabant. The passage has connotations of the Eucharist. Whereas the Vita uses the verb, tingere, intingere is used in the Vulgate to describe Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist (Mt 26:23 and Mk 14:20). 33 VW, 93.21-2: et illic morabant, usque dum hiemis gelidi horrendous preteriret frigus. 34 VW, 94.1-4. 35 VW, 94.1-3, trans. in Brownlow (1895), 11.

237

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 238

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

are offered regarding their eventual procurement of food other than the acknowledgement that the provisions had come from God. Willibald’s references to the three hardships encountered along the coast of Asia Minor emphasize the austere and strenuous conditions that he faced during his outbound journey to Jerusalem. 4.1.4 The Imprisonment in Emesa Although Willibald’s imprisonment in Emesa will be discussed in the context of his cultural interactions,36 the episode warrants comment with respect to the physical depravities of the experience. The length of his imprisonment was long enough for a weekly routine to be established. The conditions inside the prison are somewhat obscure; however, given Willibald’s reference to the actions of a certain negotiator, who supplied the prisoners with two meals a day and sent his son on Wednesdays and Saturdays to take them to the bath and again on Sundays to accompany them to church and the market, it appears that the pagani Sarracini did little to supply their basic needs. Despite the benevolence of the negotiator, the physical conditions of the prison could not have been pleasant, and the uncertainty of their fate, no doubt, accentuated their deprivation. Here, in one of her most colorful and alliterative glosses, Hugeburc describes Willibald’s precarious travels as inter tela et tormenta, inter barbaros et belligeros, inter carceres et contumacium catervas.37 4.1.5 Willibald’s Illness in Jerusalem Willibald was eventually awarded with his long-awaited desire to see the walls of Jerusalem. However, as cito ut illic veniebat, coepit egrotare et iacebat infirmus, and Willibald was in bed for over a month.38 As in Rome, he suffered a lengthy illness while in the immediate proximity of the holiest shrines of Christendom. Willibald’s experiences had taught him that life was precarious even upon the earthly thresholds of sacred space. 4.1.6 Willibald’s Holy Land Blindness If, during his illness, Willibald contemplated the possibility of dying in the Holy City, his two-month blindness may have raised the prospect of living out his life as a disabled mendicant of Jerusalem.39 See section 4.2.2.1. VW, 94.25-6. 38 On Willibald’s illness in Jerusalem, see VW, 97.25-8. 39 VW, 99.9-16. On Willibald’s blindness, see section 3.1.5. 36 37

238

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 239

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

Although he fails to indicate how the blindness affected his subsequent return to Jerusalem, there is no reason to doubt that he suffered a debilitating, if ultimately short-lived, ailment of the eyes. The episode was one of the more formidable experiences of his Holy Land travels. 4.1.7 The Illness in Salaminias During a return visit to northern Syria in the spring of 726, Willibald succumbed to another lengthy illness that forced him to stay in Salaminias for the entire season of Lent.40 Willibald was not alone in his suffering, for the Vita describes the entire region as infirmitas atque clades.41 Even the rex Sarracinorum had fled the area. Willibald’s condition complicated yet another problem – the need for his party to renew their visas. Thus, Willibald and his companions found themselves in an anxious and difficult predicament – they were foreign pilgrims struggling to secure visas in a plague- and panic-stricken area. With Willibald bedridden in Salaminias, his fellow companions went unsuccessfully in search of the rex Sarracinorum in order to obtain the necessary papers. The group then returned to Salaminias, where they waited until the week before Easter. This time, accompanied by Willibald, the group again returned to Emesa, where they had previously been incarcerated as alleged spies. A letter was finally secured from the governor, who stipulated that the party had to be divided into pairs, ostensibly to enhance their opportunity to obtain food but perhaps as a further caution against the plague. The episode superbly describes two realities of Willibald’s experience: the physical perils of the plague and the logistical imperative of securing valid documentation. Together, they affected a well-remembered crisis in the midst of his Holy Land travels. 4.1.8 Conclusion: Hardships Although the presence of the Divine is not mentioned in every instance, the amelioration of Willibald’s difficulties was frequently attributed to the providence of God.42 God’s grace was not limited by 40 VW, 100.3-4. On the purpose of Willibald’s travels to Emesa-Salaminias, see section 2.2.7. 41 VW, 100.7. Theophanes reports several plague-related deaths in the area for the previous year (725 CE). See Bauch (1962), 111, n. 172 and JW (2002), 245, n. 37. 42 Exceptions include the death of Willibald’s father (VW, 91.14-22), the long winter in Patara (VW, 93.20-2) and Willibald’s illness in Salaminias (VW, 100.2-12).

239

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 240

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

or partial to geography. God was active in the Holy Land, and to Willibald’s great comfort, God intervened in some rather isolated places during his oriental travels. Even so, God’s intervention only occurred after some duration of time and discomfort, and despite the presence of divine grace, the tenuous and toilsome nature of the earthly life was a fundamental reality of Willibald’s world. These same hardships were a central part of his pilgrimage experiences, which, in turn, shaped his image of Jerusalem. In a word, the elderly bishop measured the distance that separated the Western pilgrim from Jerusalem in terms of the number and degree of adversities that had to be endured before reaching the city’s sacred walls. His attention to the physical hardships of his journeys underlines his image of Jerusalem as a remote and distant place.

4.2 Cultural Influences upon Willibald’s Image of Jerusalem Having looked at the hardships of his pilgrim travels, the present chapter will discuss the influences of Willibald’s cultural interactions upon his perception of Jerusalem as a remote and distant place. The chapter will show that while the Vita makes no distinction between the Greek and the Latin worlds, a sharp contrast exists in Willibald’s attitudes towards the Greeks and the Saracens. Indeed, much of the ‘noise and confusion’ remembered by Willibald stems from his encounters with the Saracen world.43. While Willibald portrays the Holy Land almost exclusively in Christian terms, the area was surrounded by a distinct band of Saracen authority that had to be successfully negotiated in order to enter and exit the region. Decades after his travels, Willibald would remember the Holy Land as a place under the sovereignty of a people as culturally and religiously dissimilar as any he had ever known. 4.2.1 Willibald’s Image of the Greek world During his oriental travels, Willibald became intimately familiar with Greek culture, with his two-year stay in Constantinople pro43 Hoyland (1997), 224 highlights Willibald’s various ‘clashes with the Muslim authorities’ and Limor (2002), 273 states that ‘Willibald’s encounters with the Muslims are an integral part of his adventures and the harsh experiences that he had to endure’. Prinz (1995), 319 speaks of Willibald’s encounters with ‘ein fremdes, feindliches, politisch-religiöses Establishment’. Also see Scarfe Beckett (2003), 39-52 and Rotter (1986), 43-65.

240

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 241

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

viding the apogee of his encounter with the Greek world.44 Willibald’s sojourn in the city was coterminous with the first outbreak of the iconoclasm schism.45 The religious and political tensions between Rome and Constantinople could not have escaped him, particularly since he sailed back to Italy in 729 with papal and imperial envoys.46 Yet, in his descriptions of the Greek world, including his account of Constantinople, Willibald all but ignores the question of Greek identity. He does not indicate when he initially entered Greek territories on his outbound trip to Jerusalem, nor does he cite communication problems encountered while travelling through Greek-speaking areas. In sum, there is no indication that Willibald was travelling in a region culturally and linguistically different from his own. He presents the Latin and Greek realms as a common and integrated world. In all, Willibald makes four explicit references to the Greeks, all significantly appearing at the geographical border between the Greeks and the Saracens; thus, in contrast to Willibald’s treatment of the LatinGreek divide, the boundary between the Greek and Saracen worlds – largely centring upon the island of Cyprus – is distinctly marked. Cyprus is initially described as an island inter Grecos et Sarracinos.47 Willibald also states that the Cypriots sedebant inter Grecis et Sarracinis et inermes fuerant,48 qui pax multa fuit et conciliatio inter Sarracinis et Grecis.49 Willibald’s remark concerning the present state of peace reveals his understanding that Greek-Saracen relations were otherwise hostile. The fourth and final reference to the Greeks occurs upon Willibald’s arrival into the regio Sarracinorum.50 Leaving Cyprus, Willibald and his On Willibald’s description of Constantinople, see VW, 101.19-29 and section 2.1.5. The extent of Willibald’s involvement in the controversies and his own views on the subject are not mentioned in the Vita. 46 VW, 101.28-9: cum nuntiis papae et cesaris. The reference suggests that Willibald was well-aware of the divisive issues facing Christendom. 47 VW, 94.4-5. 48 The word, inermes, has been translated as both ‘unarmed’ and ‘unharmed’. Compare Bauch (1962), 53, ‘Die Bewohner von Cypern . . . waren ohne Waffen’ with JW (2002), 239, ‘no harm was done them’. 49 VW, 95.15-6. There was a break in the direct rule of Cyprus from Constantinople in 688 when Justinian II and the caliph Abd al-Malik signed a treaty neutralizing the island. For almost 300 years, Cyprus was a condominium of the Byzantine Empire and the Caliphate. The arrangement lasted until 965, when the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus II Phocas regained control of the island. On the history of Cyprus, see Kaegi (1989), 49-70, esp. 59, n. 33, Tritton (1959) and Cameron (1992), 1-20. 50 VW 94, 7-10. 44

45

241

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 242

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

companions sailed to the city of Antaradus on the Syrian mainland. From there, they went to the town of Arche, which, according to Willibald, had an episcopus de gente Grecorum.51 He further states that they habebant letania secundum consuetudinem eorum.52 Although he encountered numerous Greek churches and monasteries throughout his travels in Syria and Palestine,53 there are no additional references to the Greeks as Willibald penetrated further into the regio Sarracinorum. In sum, all four references appear in the immediate context of the Greek-Saracen border. Greek political and religious identity emerges vis-à-vis the Saracens rather than in contrast to the Latin West. 4.2.2 Willibald’s Image of the Saracen World 4.2.2.1 Willibald’s Imprisonment in Emesa Willibald’s arrest in Emesa as a potential spy exposed him to the political implications incumbent upon a peregrinus ex patria.54 The narrative begins with the pagani Sarracini discovering the party’s arrival into the city. Suspected of espionage, they were arrested and initially taken to a certain senex dives. Although the pagani Sarracini ostensibly appealed to the senex for his wisdom, they also sought his interpretative skills in order to discern the origins and intentions of the foreign pilgrims.55 As the Vita’s sole reference to the use of a translator, it is not insignificant that the pagani Sarracini are presented as the only people with whom Willibald could not directly communicate.56 After the pilgrims had related everything ab exordio about their travels, the senex reported to Willibald’s captors that he had frequently seen men from their part of the world; non querunt mala, sed legem eorum adimplere cupiunt.57 Willibald portrays the senex as favourably disposed 51 The reference is the only instance in which Willibald explicitly indicates the linguistic or national identity of a Christian community. 52 VW, 94.10. 53 Mango (1991), 149-50 writes: ‘the most active centre of Greek culture in the eighth century lay in Palestine, notably in Jerusalem and the neighboring monasteries’. Also see Blake (1965). 54 On Willibald’s imprisonment in Emesa, see VW, 94.10-95.15 and section 2.1.4. 55 VW, 94.17-8: unde essent aut quale fungerentur legatione. 56 The conversation between the senex and the pagani Sarracini was presumably in Arabic, and, thus, Willibald was not privy to their actual discussion. The conversation between the senex and the party of pilgrims likely took place in Greek. 57 VW, 94.18-20.

242

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 243

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

to their purpose. However, the ordeal in Emesa had only begun. When the pilgrims proceeded to the palace to acquire visas for their travels to Jerusalem,58 they were again accused as spies, this time by the preses, who had the pilgrims thrown into prison until the rex could decide their fate. Divine help appeared in the form as a certain negotiator, who sought the pilgrims’ release from prison for the redemptio suae animae.59 This, along with the fact that he took the pilgrims to church on Sundays, identifies the negotiator as a member of the Christian community of Emesa.60 Although the merchant’s attempt to negotiate their release proved unsuccessful, he continued to bring succor to the pilgrims by attending to their daily needs. He sent two meals a day to the prisoners. On Wednesdays and Saturdays, he arranged for his son to take them to the bathhouse, and on Sundays, after attending church, the merchant would lead the pilgrims per mercimonium, ut de rebus venalibus viderent, quid eorum mente delectaret, et ille tunc suo pretio illis opteneret, quidquid illorum mente aptum foret.61 The weekly routine suggests that the pilgrims were in prison for some time. Despite the efforts of the negotiator, the eventual hero was unus homo de Ispania,62 whose brother served as chamberlain to the king. With his brother’s help, the Spaniard secured an audience with the rex, while also talking the preses and the nautor of the pilgrims’ ship from Cyrus into speaking on the prisoners’ behalf.63 The three men explained the pilgrims’ situation to the king, who then asked the men: unde essent?64 The king was told: de occidentale plaga, ubi sol occasum VW, 94.21: ut rogarent illis viam transire ad Hierusalem. The merchant’s motives are identical to those attributed to the guests who came to Monte Cassino during Willibald’s tenure and to Suidger when he donated the regio Eihstat to Boniface. See VW, 102.32 and 104.33. 60 Although the negotiator’s ethic background and linguistic skills are not disclosed, his behavior marks him apart from the pagani Sarracini. 61 VW, 94.31-3. 62 The Spaniard’s occupation is unknown. 63 The nautor, who is not mentioned in the narrative of the pilgrim’s sailing from Cyprus, is another intriguing figure in the narrative. Emesa was approximately twenty-four miles from the coastal town of Antaradus, where the pilgrims arrived from Cyprus. Consequently, the captain’s presence in Emesa is slightly puzzling. Neither his ethic background nor the means by which he became associated with the pilgrims weeks after the Cyprus voyage are mentioned in the Vita. However, the involvement of other non-Arabs, who were presumably Christians, suggests that he was also a non-Arab Christian. 64 Since Willibald was not present at the palace and the conversation presumably took place in Arabic, his reconstruction of the events is, at best, second-hand. 58 59

243

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 244

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

habet, isti homines veniebant, et nos nescimus ruram citra illis et nihil nisi aquam.65 His favourable judgment is notably couched in religious terms: quare nos debemus eos punire? Non habent peccatum contra nos. Da eis viam et sine illos abire!66 The episode ends with a final gesture of goodwill. The customary payment exacted from prisoners upon their release was remitted, and Willibald and his companions, now in possession of the requisite documents, immediately left for Damascus. While some mercy was shown to the pilgrims by their Saracen captures, an ontological divide emerges in the narrative between the Saracens and the Christians. The Christians function as instruments of divine utility, rescuing the pilgrims from their Saracen antagonists. The juxtaposition between the groups could hardly be more distinct; the narrative, the longest in the Vita, reflects the fundamental impact that the episode had upon Willibald’s impression of the Saracens. 4.2.2.2 The Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth In Willibald’s description of Nazareth, the Saracens are explicitly depicted as adversaries of Christianity. Willibald states that the Christians frequently pay tribute to the pagani Sarracini to keep them from destroying the Church of the Annunciation.67 It is should be pointed out that the Koran recognizes the Annunciation and that an alternative tradition, accepted by Muslims, places the event in Jerusalem.68 Therefore, the alleged threat does not appear to be one of gratuitous destruction, since there was no reason for pagani Sarracini to oppose the commemoration. If the church in Nazareth was actually under threat by the pagani Sarracini (i.e., more than money was at issue), one of three possibilities may explain their intent. First of all, contrary to Willibald, the Saracens wanted to convert the church into a mosque. Second, they wanted to destroy the church and replace it with a newly-built mosque,69 or third, in light of their preference for the Jerusalem setting of the Annunciation, they wanted to destroy the Nazareth church and leave it in ruins. In any VW, 95.11-2. VW, 95.13-4. 67 VW, 95.23-4: illam aecclesiam christiani homines sepe conparabant ad paganis Sar65 66

racinis, qui illi volebant eam destruere. 68 The Annunciation is mentioned in suras 3 and 19. On the Jerusalem-based tradition of the Annunciation, see section 3.1.4.1. 69 Either the church’s destruction or its conversion into a mosque would have contravened the so-called Pact of ‘Umar. There are, however, a few examples of Christian churches, such as the cathedral of Damascus, that were destroyed during the eighth century. See Creswell (1989), 46-73.

244

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 245

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

case, Willibald’s comment underscores his perception of the antagonistic relationship between the Saracens and the Christians of Jesus’ hometown. Not only were the Saracens a menace to the Christian population, their presence was a real and present threat to the holy places. 4.2.2.3 Willibald’s Image of Islamic Jerusalem Willibald encountered the most visible expressions of the Saracen faith in Jerusalem, where the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque had been recently built.70 Yet, despite the physical prominence of these buildings, Willibald does not refer to the city’s Islamic presence, portraying Jerusalem exclusively in Christian terms.71 4.2.2.4 Willibald’s Departure from the Holy Land Willibald mentions the Saracen authorities twice in the narrative of his Holy Land departure, referring to them in each case by the less pejorative term, cives. The first reference occurs in his description of Lebanon.72 There, the cives vigilantly monitor the legal status of foreigners travelling through the area. Those sine carta are seized and taken ad urbe Tyro. The episode of Willibald’s smuggling of the balsam, which he asserts was punishable by death, then follows.73 Although the cives urbis search his baggage, they are unable to find the hidden contraband. Despite his safe passage, he distinctly remembers the port of Tyre as a gauntlet of Saracen authority. 4.2.2.5 The Ring of Saracen Authority The narratives of Willibald’s imprisonment in Emesa and his smuggling of the balsam through the port of Tyre reveal one of the more distinct features of Willibald’s image of the region – a ring of Saracen authority circumscribed the Holy Land.74 In order to enter and exit See section 2.3.1.5. As a rule the post-Byzantine pilgrim texts describe Jerusalem and the Holy Land in Christian terms. By comparison, Christian pilgrim texts of medieval Rome also ignore the city’s great imperial ruins (Llewellyn (1996), 177). 72 VW, 101.3-5. 73 See section 2.2.9. 74 For a preliminary sketch of Willibald’s mental map, see fig. 1. The figurative representations of mental maps must be viewed with caution. For instance, how should one represent Willibald’s image of the Aegean peninsula? The figure is intended to highlight certain aspects of Willibald’s perception of space, including the argument that a band of Saracen authority encircled the Christian Holy Land; however, the primacy of interpretation still lies with the Vita and should not be shifted to the figure. For a study of mental maps, see Lynch (1960), esp. 46-90. On using mental maps with mediaeval texts, see O’Loughlin (2007), 148-9. 70 71

245

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 246

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the region, gateways of Saracen authority had to be successfully negotiated. Willibald’s gate of entry was the city of Emesa. Although he was imprisoned, once he obtained the appropriate papers, Willibald was able to travel extensively throughout the Saracen-controlled territories. Willibald departed through the gateway of Tyre. While Willibald’s cunning in smuggling the balsam stands in contrast to his vulnerability as a Saracen-held prisoner, the attention that he devotes to his Holy Land exit, particularly to its socio-political dimensions, further reveals his perception that the region was encircled by a band of Saracen authority. Although Willibald makes but a single reference to the ‘pagan Saracens’ in his actual description of the Holy Land,75 the prominence of the pagani Sarracini in the narratives of his arrival and departure underscores his awareness that the Christian holy places lay in the hands of a foreign and pagan power. 4.2.2.6 The Conversation with Pope Gregory III A further reference to the Saracens occurs in the narrative of Willibald’s audience with Pope Gregory III, who was amazed by his encounters with the perniciosa pagani.76 The Islamic occupation of the Christian Holy Land was of great interest to the pope, and Willibald’s stories, including his imprisonment in Emesa, further confirmed the pope’s concerns over Islam and its threat to the Christian world. 4.2.2.7 The Letter of Boniface A few years after his audience with the pope, Willibald co-signed a letter, along with Boniface and other Anglo-Saxon bishops in Germany, offering stern advice to King Æthelbald of Mercia. The letter warns of the consequences of ungodly living and cites the example of the Arab conquest of Spain, which they interpret as the result of divine judgment: ‘so it has been with the peoples of Spain and Provence and Burgundy. They turned thus away from God and lived in harlotry until the Almighty Judge let the penalties for such crimes fall upon them through ignorance of the law of God and the coming of the Saracens’.77 The letter was composed in either 746 or 747, some two decades after Willibald’s first-hand encounters with the Saracens and approximately six years after his arrival in Eichstätt. 75 76

See VW, 95.22-4. VW, 103.11-2. Here, the perniciosa pagani are not identified by race but rather by

their nature as dangerous and wicked people. 77 Boniface, Ep., 52 [Tangle, 73], trans. in Emerson (2000), 106.

246

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 247

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

Of the letter’s cosignatories, Willibald had had the most direct interaction with the Saracens, raising questions regarding his contribution to the epistle. In other words, did Willibald have specific input regarding the letter’s description of the Saracens? Moreover, did Willibald’s experience with the Saracens influence the attitudes of those working in the Boniface mission? Conversely, does the Vita’s image of the pagani Sarracini derive solely from Willibald’s Holy Land experiences, or is his image of the Saracens also influenced by the subsequent events in Europe? To what extent did European fears reinforce Willibald’s memories of his Saracens encounters? In any case, the letter to King Æthelbald establishes Willibald’s knowledge of the larger context of the Saracen threat, while revealing his belief that the Saracens were agents of God’s judgment. 4.2.3 Conclusion: Cultural Influences While Willibald negotiated a wide range of cultural landscapes throughout his life and travels, few impacted him more than the regio Sarracinorum. His encounters with the Saracen world – and his legal status as a peregrinus in Saracen territory – had an enduring influence upon his perception of the Holy Land. Indeed, Willibald offers an image of Jerusalem that is in direct contrast to the exegetical and commemorative tradition of the Holy City as the centre of the world. For Willibald, the Holy City stood on the far eastern edge of his cognitive map; this image of Jerusalem as a distant place was greatly influenced by the fact that the region lay in the hands of the pagani Sarracini.

4.3 Willibald and the Virtue of Perseverance The previous two chapters have argued that Willibald’s image of Jerusalem as a ‘more remote and less known’ place is supported by his attention to the personal hardships and cultural interactions of his pilgrim travels. The present chapter goes a step further, arguing that Willibald’s descriptions of his travels also convey his understanding of the Christian life. Whereas Willibald viewed the earthly life as a laborious journey, the Christian life was one of faithful perseverance.78 78

On the donum perseverantiae and its role in the cult of saints, see Brown (1982), 72-3. Also see Augustine, De dono perseverantiae and J.F. Kelly (1993).

247

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 248

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

4.3.1 Matthew 10:22 The virtue of perseverance is expressly commended in the account of Willibald’s lengthy illness in Rome.79 The episode describes the brothers’ commitment to caring for each other while faithfully adhering to the disciplined life. The story is punctuated with Mt 10:22 – qui autem perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit – which appears to be an expression of Willibald’s vision of the Christian life.80 4.3.1.1 The Use of Scripture in the Vita Willibaldi The association of Mt 10:22 with the larger context of Willibald’s life is suggested by its use in the Vita. In all, ten scriptural quotations appear in the text; seven occur in Willibald’s account of the holy places and function as descriptors of the respective sites.81 Of the remaining two verses, the first, Ps 8:3 – ex ore infantium ceu lactantium perficere sibi solet laudem – occurs in the narrative of Willibald’s childhood.82 The image of singing praises to God is descriptive of his life as a child oblate. While the reference is used as a portent of his future prowess as an ecclesiastical leader, it does little to inform the spiritual character of the elderly Willibald. The final quotation – qui glorietur, in Domino glorietur – is from 1 Cor 1:31 and provides the closing words of the Vita.83 Hugeburc commences the concluding paragraph with a number of rhetorical questions concerning the character of Willibald.84 Who is more pious, temperate and gentle? Who is better at consoling the downcast, assisting the poor and clothing the naked? Hugeburc interrupts her rhetorical flow by interjecting a disclaimer that she did not write anything out of boasting (ad iactantia) but only what she had heard and seen for herself. Her words were Dei gratia, non hominis 79

VW, 92.3-16. Also see sections 2.1.3 and 4.1.2.

Also see Mt 24:13. Scriptural quotations are contained within Willibald’s descriptions of the Church of the Annunciation at Nazareth (Lk 1:28; VW, 95.22), the Shepherds’ Field near Bethlehem (Lk 2:10; VW, 98.23-4), the Church of the Ascension (Act 1:11; VW, 98.21-2), the pool of the Paralytic Healing (Jn 5:8; VW, 97.31-2), the Church of the Agony (Mt 26:41; VW, 98.13-4), the Church of Jacob’s Well (Jn 4:20; VW, 101.19-20) and the Church of Paul’s Conversion (Act 9:4; VW, 95.20-1). None of these scriptures are used as personal descriptors of Willibald. 82 VW, 89.21-2. The Vulgate reads: ex ore infantium et lactantium perfecisti laudem. 83 Hugeburc concludes the V. Wynn. (117.47) with Apoc. 5:13: honor et imperium et potestas in secula seculorum. Amen. In both vitae, the scriptures are used formulaically and function as statements of divine praise. 84 See VW, 106.20-5. 80 81

248

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 249

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

facta, and in accordance with the scripture, qui glorietur, in Domino glorietur. Amen. Hugeburc uses 1 Cor 1:31 as a further rebuttal against the charges of vainglory. At the same time, the scripture addresses the rhetorical questions regarding the virtuous life of Willibald. While exceeding all others in virtue, the bishop, who offers his own accolades to the glory of God, exceeds them in humility as well. Finally, the verse admonishes the reader to offer similar praises to God. In short, 1 Cor 1:31 functions as a personal disclaimer, a rhetorical encomium of Willibald and as an exhortation to the reader. Although Ps 8:3 and 1 Cor 1:31 have positive connotations, they are formulaic and do not speak directly to the Christian character of Willibald. 4.3.1.2 The Use of Matthew 10:22 in the Vita Willibaldi Of the ten scriptural quotations, Mt 10:22 is uniquely associated with the Christian character of Willibald. To review its context in more detail: during their first summer in Rome, Willibald and Wynnebald both contracted the plague.85 A pattern soon emerged by which one of the brothers was strong enough to care for the other for a week at a time: unus de duobus unam ebdomadam et alter unam in subsidium ministrandi illis requiem habebat.86 The image of Willibald and Wynnebald alternating their weekly roles as patient and caregiver for the duration of the long and sustained illness is a word picture of faithfulness and perseverance. All the while, the brothers remained faithful to their spiritual disciplines87 – the brothers non recedebant but rather inherebant to their spiritual practices, while the comparative propensius indicates that they were even more eager to do so. Here, Hugeburc explicitly introduces the theme of perseverance by using the word, perseverantes, as a descriptor of the two brothers – the persevering ones kept adhering even more eagerly to their spiritual practices. She remarks that the brothers’ actions were in accordance with the voice of truth (iuxta veritatis voce) before punctuating the episode with the words of Mt 10:22: qui autem perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit. By describing them as perseverantes, Hugeburc establishes an explicit link between the scriptural text and the two brothers, who embody the virtue of biblical perseverance. In short, perseverance finds a three-fold expression in the narrative: the longsuffering of the Also see sections 2.1.3 and 4.1.2. VW, 92, 12-3. 87 VW, 92.14-5: a sacre instituti norma non recedebant, sed propensius sacre lectionis studio perseverantes inherebant. 85 86

249

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 250

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

illness, the careful nurturing of a sick brother and the continued pursuit of the Christian life. 4.3.1.3 The Use of Matthew 10:22 in the Regula Benedicti Mt 10:22 is also quoted in the Regula Benedicti.88 In the chapter on humility, the Rule likens the heavenly ascent to a ladder of a dozen rungs. While the third step is the virtue of obedience, the fourth step is the enactment of this obedience ‘under difficult, unfavourable or even unjust conditions’. The obedient pilgrim ‘embraces suffering and endures it without weakening or seeking escape’ for ‘anyone who perseveres to the end will be saved’. The Rule admonishes the believer to ‘be brave of heart and rely on the Lord’ knowing that ‘those who are patient amid hardships and unjust treatment are fulfilling the Lord’s command’. The commendation of perseverance in the Regula Benedicti further establishes its importance in the life of Willibald. 4.3.1.4 The Scriptural Context of Matthew 10:22 The larger context of Mt 10:22 – Jesus’ Mission to the Twelve (Mt 10.5-15) – has a number of salient parallels with Willibald’s life, further suggesting a deliberate association between the scripture and the elderly bishop. First of all, two references to familial relationships occur in the passage. In verse 21, Jesus asserts that in times of adversity ‘brother will betray brother to death’.89 Mt 10:22 then functions as a rejoinder: those, however, ‘who persevere to the end will be saved’. The example of the Anglo-Saxon brothers offers a positive counterpoint to the scriptural indictment. Whereas Jesus predicts that brothers will betray each other to death, Willibald and Wynnebald restore each other to life. Precisely in their virtue of perseverance, the two brothers embody the disciple-like qualities worthy of salvation. Further into the discourse, in verses 37-8, Jesus again expounds upon familial relations: ‘whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me’. Above in verse 21, Jesus warns that brothers, parents and children will betray each other. Here, Jesus’ imperative is to love him more than other family members. The tension is curiously reflected in Willibald’s own life. While leaving 88 89

Regula Benedicti, 7. The following quotations are in Fry (1998), 18. The Vulgate reads: tradet autem frater fratrem in mortem.

250

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 251

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

behind most of his family in Wessex, Willibald was a devoted sibling to his brother, Wynnebald, as well as to his sister, Walburga, who became the abbess of Heidenheim in 761. Secondly, Mt 10:18 – ad praesides et ad reges ducemini propter me in testimonium illis et gentibus – recalls Willibald’s imprisonment in Emesa. Just as Jesus predicts that governments would not always welcome his followers, Willibald’s internment was an encounter with the authority of the pagani Sarracini. The Emesa episode is curiously couched in religious terms. Upon releasing them, the rex Sarracinorum admits that the pilgrims had not peccatum against his people. In short, Mt 10:18 and Willibald’s imprisonment in Emesa espouse the twin themes of persecution and perseverance.90 Thirdly, the context of Mt 10:22 informs the practice of ascetic pilgrimage, particularly in verses 9-11, where Jesus raises the issue of provisions: ‘take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for laborers deserve their food. Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave’. Such references to money, food, clothing and accommodations, no doubt, triggered Willibald’s memories of his own pilgrim adventures, while Jesus’ commendation of hospitality – ‘whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones [will not] lose their reward’ (v. 42) – recalled times when his needs had been met by the generosity of others.91 Finally, Jesus’ words are set within the context of mission. While it is unlikely that Willibald initially understood his vocation in terms of evangelism, mission was a distinctive feature of the Anglo-Saxon expression of peregrinatio ex patria.92 As part of his episcopal duties, Willibald was responsible for the Christianization of the regio Eihstat. 4.3.1.5 The Use of Matthew 10 in the Vita Wynnebaldi Hugeburc also inserts a quotation from the Mission to the Twelve into the Vita Wynnebaldi. The verse occurs in the narrative of Wynnebald’s work in Bavaria, which, according to Hugeburc, was based upon the 90 Grabois (1986), 67 describes Willibald’s imprisonment in Emesa as ‘antiChristian persecution’. 91 For example, see Willibald’s references to hunger in VW, 93.18-9 and 94.1-4 as well as his description of the merchant, who brought the pilgrims their prandium and cenam while they were in jail in Emesa (VW, 94.29). 92 On the relationship between peregrinatio ex patria and the missionary life, see G.M.S. Walker (1970), 39-40. On the missionary activities of the Anglo-Saxons, see Wood (2001) 3-78, Sullivan (1955), Levinson (1946), 70-93 and Schieffer (1972). For the understanding of mission with respect to the activities of Boniface, see Hen (1999), 20.

251

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 252

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

biblical model of Mt 10:12-3: intrantes in domum, salutate eum; et si quidem domus digna est, pax vestra super eum, si autem non fuerit, pax vestra ad vos revertatur.93 Hugeburc’s use of Jesus’ Mission to the Twelve in both of her vitae underscores its authority in the eyes of the Heidenheim community. 4.3.2 Examples of Perseverance of the Vita Willibaldi 4.3.2.1 Perseverance and the Hardships of Willibald The multiple references to hardships that appear in Willibald’s descriptions of his life and travels inform his understanding of the Christian life in at least two respects. First of all, the hardships reveal his perception of the earthly journey as one of toil. Death, illness and suffering were endemic to the human condition. Secondly, adversity provided Christians with an opportunity to persevere in faith; each hardship story in the Vita is a vignette of Willibald’s fortitude. To recount the examples: despite the death of his father, Willibald continued on to Rome. He endured the symptoms of the plague, while holding fast to his monastic disciplines. He experienced hunger and cold, while persevering through Asia Minor, and he suffered imprisonment, blindness and two illnesses, while successfully visiting the holy sites of Christendom. His responses to these trials were varied. In some cases, perseverance meant the continuation of his pilgrim journey; in others, the situation required patience and long periods of immobility. At times, as with the death of this father, the source of suffering had no earthly resolution; instead, the virtue of perseverance had a future reward. Perseverance in this life meant salvation in the next. The raison d’être of the hardship stories was Willibald’s desire to exhort others in the pursuit of perseverance. His attention to his own adversities was not a boastful ploy; rather, the examples were cited as models of encouragement. If the context of Willibald’s hardships was unique, suffering was prolific, and the virtue of perseverance could be practiced by even the least-travelled Christian under his episcopal care. 4.3.2.2 Perseverance and the Holy Sites of Jerusalem Willibald’s advocacy of the virtue of perseverance is evidenced, to some degree, in his descriptions of the holy sites of Jerusalem. The image is evoked by his reference to oil lamps at the sepulchrum Salvatoris and the locus of the Ascension. The perpetually-burning 93

V. Wynn., 110.19-20.

252

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 253

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

lamps recall Jesus’ admonishment to his disciples to ‘keep their lamps burning, like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet’.94 Perseverance is needed since the vigil may be long, and no one knows the day or the hour of the master’s return.95 The image of perseverance is also expressed in Willibald’s description of the Church of the Agony, which he concludes with Mt 26:41: vigilate et orate, ut non intretis in temptationem. The verse emphasizes the divine mandate to persevere in prayer in the face of temptation. 4.3.2.3 The Lion of Samaria Perhaps the most provocative image of perseverance is Willibald’s encounter with a lion on the plains of Samaria.96 The antagonist of the story is a lion, qui aperto ore rugiens rancusque eos rapere ac devorare cupiens. The protagonist is an Ethiops, who was travelling with the pilgrims. When the travelers came upon the lion standing in the middle of the road, the Ethiopian told the pilgrims: nolite timere vos, sed pergamus inante! As the pilgrims moved forward, the lion retreated, allowing the party to continue on their way. The story is an analogy of Willibald’s understanding of the Christian life – in the face of earthly dangers, one should boldly proceed in faith. Willibald’s image of the lion of Samaria has a number of biblical parallels. In 1 Kgs 13, a lion of Samaria is an instrument of divine judgment, killing a person known as ‘the man of God from Judah’. In 1 Kgs 20:36, a man who disobeys a prophet is killed by a lion, while in 2 Kgs 17:26, the Lord sends lions to kill the people who had repopulated Samaria after the Assyrian conquest because they were not following law of God. Along with the Samarian examples, there are other scriptural references to the perils of lions. The question asked in Amos 3:4 – ‘Does a lion roar in the forest, when it has no prey?’ – acknowledges the threat, while the reference to impending peril in Ps 22:21 – ‘Save me from the mouth of the lion!’ – is accompanied by the entreatment in verse 19: ‘O Lord, do not be far away! O my help, come quickly to my aid!’. The biblical image of lions is one of danger and divine judgment.

Lk 12:35-6. Mt 25:1-13. 96 VW, 100.20-101.1. Also see Grant (1998). 94 95

253

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 254

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

In 1 Peter 5, there is a direct association between the image of the lion and the call to persevere: Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion [leo rugiens] your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in your faith, for you know that your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering. And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, support, strengthen, and establish you.97

Here, the lion is identified with the devil, the ultimate spiritual adversary, who pursues the weak and indolent of faith. 1 Peter 5 admonishes followers of Christ to stand firm in the faith, acknowledging that believers will suffer before receiving the succor of God. Willibald’s encounter with the lion ultimately focuses upon the words and actions of the Ethiops. Assuming the role of a divine spokesperson, the Ethiopian summons the pilgrims to have courage. Nolite timere vos, he asserts; pergamus inante! The phrase, nolite timere, appears nearly forty times in the Vulgate and is associated with divine theophanies, including appearances of Christ.98 In Lk 2:10, the angels begin the story of Christ’s Nativity by telling the shepherds not to be afraid: nolite timere ecce enim evangelizo vobis gaudium magnum. When Jesus is recognized by Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus, he immediately tells them: pax vobis ego sum nolite timere.99 In the Matthian account of the Resurrection, first an angel and then Jesus tell the women: nolite timere.100 In short, the words of the Ethiopian have strong scriptural overtones: he is a divine messenger beseeching the pilgrims to take heart and persevere. Of the biblical uses of nolite timere, perhaps the most striking parallel to Willibald’s encounter with the lion is the story of Jesus’ walking on the water.101 Standing in the midst of the sea, Jesus greets his startled disciples with the words, ego sum nolite timere, before beckoning Peter to walk towards him. Peter gets out of the boat and 1 Pet 5:8-10. For example, see Gen 15:1, Mt 1:20, Act 18:9 and Apoc 1:17. The singular form of the imperative, noli timere, is even more frequent. 99 Lk 24:36. 100 Mt 28:5 and 10. 101 Mt 14:27, Mk 6:50 and Jn 6:20. 97 98

254

Section 04.qxd:Section 04.qxd

5/15/09

2:36 PM

Page 255

HARDSHIPS, PERSEVERANCE AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

begins walking on the water, but his fear and lack of faith undermines his effort, and he begins to sink before being caught by Christ. The challenge to walk forward in the face of fear was precisely what Willibald encountered on the plains of Samaria. The pilgrims’ faith and obedience chased the lion away, and the party continued on their journey. The episode superbly illustrates Willibald’s understanding of the Christian life and its emphasis upon the virtue of perseverance. 4.3.3 Conclusion: Perseverance and the Christian Life Along with his descriptions of the holy places, Willibald’s story has an additional purpose. Embodied within the tales of his oriental travels is the bishop’s vision of the Christian life, which embraces the virtue perseverance. While few of his readers would have travelled to the distant city of Jerusalem, the virtue of perseverance was accessible to each and every person under his episcopal care. In all, four points embody Willibald’s understanding of the Christian life. First of all, hardships were endemic to the human condition. Life was precarious, and toil and suffering characterized the earthly journey. Secondly, hardships were a means through which God’s benevolence was imparted to the faithful. God was actively present in the world, even in the most remote and isolated places. However, while God ameliorated difficult situations, hardships often lasted an appreciable amount of time. Third, Christians should respond to the trials of the earthly life with faith and perseverance. This emphasis upon the human agent was fostered by Willibald’s monastic training and embraced by his vocation as a peregrinus ex patria. Finally, those who persevere to the end were rewarded with the gift of salvation: hic salvus erit.

255

Section 05.qxd:Section 05.qxd

5/15/09

2:35 PM

Page 256

5. conclusion: willibald and the holy places During the years of 777 and 778, Willibald spent a significant amount of time at the monastery of Heidenheim, a day’s journey west of Eichstätt. On September 24, 777, Willibald presided over the translation of his brother, Wynnebald,1 the founding abbot of Heidenheim, who had died sixteen years earlier, on December 12, 1961.2 Twelve months later, on September 24, 778, he dedicated the new church in Heidenheim seculorum omnium Salvatore.3 Between these two events, on Tuesday, June 23, 778, the elderly bishop dictated the story of his life and travels to Hugeburc in the company of other witnesses. The midsummer evening of 778 has provided an invaluable window for examining the eighth-century world of Willibald. The gap between Willibald’s adventures in the Holy Land and his dictations of the material – a span of nearly fifty years – begs the question of the text’s reliability. Mistakes certainly occur in the Vita – e.g., the description of the Alps is out of sequence,4 the monastery of Euthymius is incorrectly rendered as the monasterio Sancti Eustochii 5

On the translation of Wynnebald, see V. Wynn., 115.37-117.11. On the death of Wynnebald, see V. Wynn., 113.27-114.-20. 3 On the dedication of the church of Heidenheim, see V. Wynn., 115.1-17. 4 VW, 91.22-5. 5 VW, 97.9. 1 2

256

Section 05.qxd:Section 05.qxd

5/15/09

2:35 PM

Page 257

CONCLUSION: WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY PLACES

and distances are occasionally inaccurate6 – while there are confusions in a few of his itineraries, including his movements along the coast of Asia Minor, in the Galilee and through southern Palestine.7 Yet, on the balance, Willibald’s report of the Holy Land is remarkably reliable. Many apparent errors in the text – e.g., Willibald’s reference to the eastern Mediterranean Sea as the Adriatic8 and to the site of Kursi as Chorazin9 – record the nomenclature of the eighth century, while others discrepancies can be similarly explained. The reliability of Willibald’s account is particularly demonstrable when placed alongside other pilgrim sources. Willibald’s three wooden crosses appear on the manuscript drawings of Adomnán;10 Photius similarly credits Helena with the intramural location of Calvary.11 The garden near the tomb of Christ is mentioned by Epiphanius,12 the cross on top of the sepulchre is described by Adomnán,13 and the location of the Jephonias monument is confirmed by Epiphanius and the Armenian Guide.14 Regarding the locus of the Agony, Willibald’s ascent up the Mount of Olives finds parallels in the accounts of Egeria and Bernard.15 The descriptions of the Church of the Ascension by Willibald and Adomnán are mutually illuminating,16 Willibald’s association of the portico of Solomon with the pool of the Paralytic Healing is also described by Daniel the Abbot,17 and the same template of the Jerusalem circuit appears in Willibald, Sophronius, Bernard and the Armenian Guide. On the other hand, Willibald’s account is often sparse in details. The text omits a number of relics (e.g., the spear, the lance, 6 For example, see VW, 99.20-1 (the actual distance between Tyre and Sidon is approximately 42 km rather than 9 km, or 6 miles. See Bauch (1962), 111, n. 164) and VW, 100.2 (the actual distance between Jerusalem and Emesa is approximately 230 km rather than 450 km, or 300 miles. See Bauch (1962), 111, n. 169). 7 See maps 1, 2 and 3. On Willibald’s movements through Asia Minor, see VW, 93.14-22; see Bauch (1962), 92, n. 63. On Willibald’s movements through southern Palestine, see VW, 98.23-99.15; see Wilkinson (2002), 244, n. 33. 8 See section 2.2.5. 9 See section 2.2.1. 10 See VW, 97.13-6 and Wilkinson (2002), 280-1. 11 Compare VW, 97.12-3 with Photius, Amph, 316.1. 12 Compare VW, 97.16 with Epiphanius, Hag., 3. 13 See VW, 97.18 and Adomnán, DLS, 1.2.7. 14 VW, 97.32-98.5, AG, 6-7 and Epiphanius, Hag., 24. 15 VW, 98.11-4; Egeria, It. Eg., 36.1-3; Bernard, It. Bern., 3-5. 16 Compare VW, 98.14-23 with Adomnán, DLS, 1.23.1-20. 17 Compare VW, 97.29 with Daniel the Abbot, WB, 16.

257

Section 05.qxd:Section 05.qxd

5/15/09

2:35 PM

Page 258

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

the chalice and the crown of thorns), commemorations (e.g., the Last Supper, Pentecost, the Nativity of Mary, the Betrayal and the Trial of Jesus) and places (e.g., the Grotto of Gethsemane and the pool of Siloam) in Christian Jerusalem. Yet, despite the fifty-year gap between Willibald’s visit to Jerusalem and his dictations, the point remains: while Willibald’s account is not overly fulsome, its contents are extremely trustworthy. Having answered Grabar’s appeal,18 the book has established the reliability of Willibald’s account and its importance for the study of Early Islamic Jerusalem. As the only pilgrim source of the eighth century, the Vita significantly bridges the gap between the seventh- and ninth-centuries texts. More narrowly, the Vita anchors a select group of post-Byzantine texts – the Armenian Guide, Epiphanius and Adomnán – that inform the Christian topography of Jerusalem between the Persian conquest of 614 and the end of the Umayyad dynasty in 750. While focusing upon the Vita, the study has made a fresh examination of the Christian topography of post-Byzantine Jerusalem. As collectively described by Epiphanius, Daniel the Abbot and Willibald, a monument to the Miraculous Healing stood along the eastern approach to the Holy Sepulchre where it was encountered by pilgrims upon their entrance into the Basilica of Constantine. Using the fourfold criteria of commemoration, location, appearance and context, the book has demonstrated that Adomnán’s account of the Miraculous Healing, which has been unanimously identified with the North Gate column, refers to the same tradition. In short, there was only one monument of the Miraculous Healing in the seventh century, which was a post-Byzantine and purpose-built structure located near the Holy Sepulchre. The monument of the Miraculous Healing has a number of parallels with the Jephonias monument, which was located outside the East Gate of the city approximately 250 paces above the Church of St Mary. The monuments first appear in the seventh-century sources, commemorated funeral processions and were similar in appearance. While the location of the Jephonias monument can be clearly established, an apparent discrepancy exists regarding its appearance. Willibald 18 O. Grabar (1996), 10: the ‘value and reliability [of the Christian sources of the Early Islamic period] vary, and each of them deserves, and some have received, a study of its own’. See section 1.1.1.

258

Section 05.qxd:Section 05.qxd

5/15/09

2:35 PM

Page 259

CONCLUSION: WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY PLACES

describes the structure as a magna columna, while Epiphanius indicates that it was a tetrakoinin, or a ‘structure with four columns’.19 However, the same parallel occurs in the descriptions of the monument of the Miraculous Healing – Adomnán describes it as a column, while Epiphanius also refers to it as a tetrakoinin. In short, the sources provide two examples of a Latin writer using the word, columna, to refer a structure that is described by Epiphanius as a tetrakoinin.20 The commemorative landscape of the Holy Cross also included three free-standing crosses. While the manuscript drawings of Adomnán imply that Helena’s Finding of the Cross was commemorated inside the basilica by three crosses, the crosses were consequently moved outside the church – presumably to the front atrium – prior to Willibald’s visit in the early eighth century, perhaps due to a secondary phase in the basilica’s interior restoration. It is unclear what replaced the crosses; however, the ‘place where the Lord’s Cross was found’ was still located inside the church.21 Along with the Basilica of Constantine, pilgrims encountered other sites associated with the Holy Cross, including the monastery of the Holy Cross to the west of the city and the pool of Bethesda, where, according to legend, the wood of the cross was discarded by Solomon. Pilgrims also gave credit to Helena for the intramural location of Calvary. The study has demonstrated that two separate structures were simultaneously identified as the porticus Salamonis. While the references by the Piacenza Pilgrim, Photius and the First Guide, which associate the portico with the so-called Temple of Solomon on the southern half of the Temple Mount, stem respectively from the sixth, ninth and twelfth centuries, Daniel and Willibald, who identify the porticus Salamonis with the Byzantine Sheep Pool, located north of the Temple precincts, bespeak a tradition spanning from at least the eighth to the twelfth century. Even though the site was somewhat removed from the Temple Mount, the association of the porticus Salamonis with the pool of the Paralytic Healing is derived from the reference in John 5:2 to the pool having quinque porticae. Once the exegetical connection was made, Christians naturally identified the structure or structures surrounding the pool as the porticus Salamonis. Epiphanius, Hag., 24. Also see AG, 6. For numerous reasons, including commemorative credibility, location and the common testimony of other sources, the argument that Willibald and Adomnán are describing the same column has been rejected. 21 Bernard, Itinerarium Bernardi, 11. 19 20

259

Section 05.qxd:Section 05.qxd

5/15/09

2:35 PM

Page 260

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

The work has also argued for the continuity of the locus of the Agony. Numerous scholars have assumed that Willibald’s Church ubi Dominus orabat was not located on the Byzantine-Crusader site. This view is based upon the presumed destruction of the Byzantine church in 614, the lack of material evidence for its restoration and Willibald’s description of his ascent up the Mount of Olives. The argument of discontinuity has been refuted, while, on the contrary, there are compelling reasons for regarding Willibald’s Church of the Agony as one in a line of successive structures, including the present-day All Nations Church, that have commemorated Jesus’ Prayer upon the same piece of ground. Commemorations based upon the Protoevangelium had an important influence on the Christian topography of the Early Islamic period. Epiphanius’ house of Joseph, located in or near the Basilica of Constantine, was associated with Joseph, the husband of Mary, and commemorated a Jerusalem-based tradition of the Annunciation as described by the Protoevangelium and mentioned in an eighth-century sermon by John of Damascus. Given the Protoevangelium’s association of Mary’s weaving with the house of Joseph as well as the Marian focus on the north side of the Basilica of Constantine, Epiphanius’ house of Joseph and Adomnán’s Church of Mary’s Weaving were most likely the same structure. Although the liturgy was central to the Christian life of the city, pilgrims primarily encountered the holy sites through the so-called Jerusalem circuit. Sophronius provides a clear depiction of the circuit for the Late Byzantine period, while Willibald, Bernard and the Armenian Guide testify to the circuit’s continuity in the post-Byzantine era. The circuit was neither liturgical in character nor was it arranged by historical order; rather, its purpose was to enable pilgrims to visit the principal sites of the city in a logical and convenient sequence. Nonetheless, the circuit had a strong devotional component, with each site offering pilgrims the opportunity to commemorate in situ an important event of the Christian faith. The circuit appears to have been more than a suggested route for individual pilgrims; rather, one may think of a regular and formally-organized tour of the city led by the resident monks of the city. Along with the commemorative topography, Willibald’s description of Jerusalem also informs the inter-religious relations of the time. Although he had a negative impression of the ‘pagan Saracens’, he provides evidence of the amiable relations between Christians and Muslims during the Umayyad period. Willibald refers to a publicly-displayed cross

260

Section 05.qxd:Section 05.qxd

5/15/09

2:35 PM

Page 261

CONCLUSION: WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY PLACES

on the Jephonias monument, while providing evidence that the route of pilgrim movements through the city had not been affected by ninety years of Islamic rule. By contrast, the commemorative landscape of postByzantine Jerusalem was nuanced against the image of the Jew; the evidence suggests that the Jephonias monument was erected during the Inter-conquest period, perhaps in response to Jewish participation in the Persian conquest of 614. Despite the negative watershed of the Persian conquest, the Interconquest period was a time of restoration and innovation, most likely giving rise to the twin monuments of the Miraculous Healing and the Jephonias legend.22 The monument of the Miraculous Healing fits the context of Heraclius’ restoration of the True Cross, while, as mentioned above, the Jephonias monument may have been a commemorative rebuke to the Jews, who were expelled from the city by Heraclius’ re-implementation of Hadrian’s second-century decree. While the commemorative loci survived into the Crusader period, the twelfth-century account of Daniel the Abbot implies the destruction of both monuments.23 The work has also discussed aspects of the Crusader landscape. The commemoration of the Paralytic Healing was associated with the pool of Israel at least by the twelfth century, eventually replacing the Byzantine Sheep Pool. Saewulf describes an oraculum on the locus of the Agony before a larger Crusader church was built in the midtwelfth century, while the Crusaders located the vigil of the disciples in the Grotto of Gethsemane. Most significantly, the Crusaders took an interest in the Temple Mount, an area ignored by Byzantine Christians and off-limits to Christians of the Early Islamic period. As a result, the Jerusalem circuit was also altered. Upon leaving the Holy Sepulchre, pilgrims of the Crusader period went to the Temple Mount to visit the Temple of the Lord (Dome of the Rock) and the Temple of Solomon (Al-Aqsa Mosque) instead of ascending to Holy Sion. Secondly, the work has examined aspects of Willibald’s religious thought, including his perceptions of the holy sites, his image of the city of Jerusalem and his understanding of the Christian life. Willibald’s images of the holy sites often reflect the pilgrim norm. 22

The innovation of the period holds true even for the argument advocating alternative locations of the respective commemorations, since the two monuments of Epiphanius, most likely constructed during the Inter-conquest period, must still be taken into consideration. 23 Daniel the Abbot, WB, 15 and 21.

261

Section 05.qxd:Section 05.qxd

5/15/09

2:35 PM

Page 262

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

The loci of the Resurrection and Ascension were the two most important sites in the city, while places associated with Mary’s Dormition and Helena’s Finding of the Holy Cross were important landmarks for post-Byzantine pilgrims. Moreover, Willibald’s image of Holy Sion as the centre of biblical Jerusalem and his concern over the intramural location of Calvary were also shared by other pilgrims. The book has also discussed the unique features of Willibald’s report. While the contemporary ecclesiastical landscape is not completely ignored, Willibald describes the holy places in terms compatible with their biblical context. The Calvarie locus is mentioned without detailing the artificial features of the Rock of Calvary; the ornate exterior of the tomb of Christ is described as if it was natural rock, and the account of the Ascension is arranged according to the biblical narrative. Although Willibald’s descriptions are full of scriptural images, they do not show a direct reliance upon the biblical text. Moreover, Willibald offers a distinct image of the Holy City. Jerusalem’s status as the centre of the world – reflected in maps, emphasized in exegetical works and commemorated upon the city’s landscape – had influenced Christian thought for centuries; by contrast, Willibald viewed Jerusalem as a far and distant place. This perspective of Jerusalem is explicitly cited in his description of the city as a place more ignotus than Rome. Willibald’s attention to the physical hardships of his journeys underlines his image of Jerusalem as a remote and distant place; as an elderly bishop, he measured the distance separating Western pilgrims from Jerusalem by the number and degree of adversities that had to be endured before reaching the city’s sacred walls. Willibald’s image of Jerusalem as a distance place is also evidenced by his description of the Saracen world. Willibald negotiated a wide range of cultural landscapes throughout his life and travels. Yet, few impacted him more than the regio Sarracinorum. His encounters with the Saracen world – and his legal status as a peregrinus in Saracen territory – had an enduring influence upon his perception of the Holy Land. While Willibald portrays the Holy Land almost exclusively in Christian terms, the area was surrounded by a band of Saracen authority that had to be successfully negotiated in order to enter and exit the region. Decades after his travels, Willibald still remembered the Holy Land as a place under the sovereignty of a people as culturally and religiously dissimilar as any he had ever known. For Willibald, the Holy City stood on the far eastern edge of his mental map, and his image of

262

Section 05.qxd:Section 05.qxd

5/15/09

2:35 PM

Page 263

CONCLUSION: WILLIBALD AND THE HOLY PLACES

Jerusalem as a remote and distant place was greatly influenced by the fact that the area lay in the hands of a hostile and pagan nation.24 While Willibald’s image of Jerusalem as a ‘more remote and less known’ place is supported by his attention to personal hardships and cultural interactions, embedded within the tales of his oriental travels is the bishop’s vision of the Christian life – whereas Willibald viewed the earthly life as a laborious journey, the Christian life was one of faithful perseverance. In all, four aspects of Willibald’s understanding of the Christian life points can be identified. To begin with, hardships were endemic to the human condition. Life was precarious, and toil and suffering characterized the earthly journey. Secondly, hardships were a means through which God’s benevolence was imparted to the faithful. God was actively present in the world, even in the most remote and isolated places. Third, Christians were to respond to the trials of the earthly life with faith and perseverance. This emphasis upon the human agent in the Christian life was fostered by Willibald’s monastic training and further embraced by his vocation as a peregrinus ex patria. Fourthly, those who persevere to the end would be rewarded with the gift of salvation: hic salvus erit. As stated in the introduction, the reports of pilgrims ‘provide a glass through which we can see the transformation of European beliefs and perceptions as clearly, if not more so, than we can see the landscape of Jerusalem and the Holy Land’.25 Thus, while the work has focused upon the person of Willibald, the Vita also reveals the ‘beliefs and perceptions’ of the religious communities of Heidenheim-Eichstätt. Having served as its episcopal leader for over thirty-five years at the time of his dictations, Willibald had had a profound influence upon the religious thought of his diocese. On the other hand, the influence of Benedictine thought upon his religious formation and his vocation as a peregrinus ex patria were shared by others under his jurisdiction. In sum, the book makes a significant contribution to the field of AngloSaxon studies, providing a preliminary investigation into the religious thought of Willibald – his vocation as a peregrinus ex patria, his image of Jerusalem and the holy places and his vision of the Christian life. Having explored the mind of the venerable bishop, the work establishes a foundation for further examining the religious thought of the AngloSaxon mission in Germany. 24 25

See fig. 1. Bowman (1992), 164.

263

Section 05.qxd:Section 05.qxd

5/15/09

2:35 PM

Page 264

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Thus, the study calls for further research. Although the book contains an annotated summary of Willibald’s Holy Land itinerary and the extra-Jerusalem sections of the Vita are frequently discussed, the work focuses upon Willibald’s account of Jerusalem. The extraJerusalem material – e.g., the Galilee – is worthy of its own study. Secondly, while the book has primarily focused upon the Vita, the work calls for a study integrating the pilgrim sources of the post-Byzantine period, or, more narrowly, the commemorative history of the Christian Holy Land between the Persian conquest of 614 and the end of the Umayyad period in 750. Third, the work calls for a historical reassessment of Willibald of Eichstätt. While the thought of Willibald is one of the central interests of the work, the contextual analyses of his religious and intellectual influences are rather limited. Given the wealth of his encounters, tracing Willibald’s intellectual development is somewhat complicated. Along with his Holy Land travels, Willibald’s thought was shaped by his life as a child oblate, his vocation as a peregrinus ex patria, his sojourns in Rome and Constantinople, his years at Monte Cassino and his role in the Anglo-Saxon mission as the bishop of Eichstätt. Although each of these areas has been discussed, they have not been examined in detail, and the work had done little to integrate his religious influences. Moreover, while the work explores Willibald’s pilgrim imagination and his vision of the Christian life, it has not examined the thought or influence of Willibald with respect to the Anglo-Saxon mission in Germany. A comprehensive historical work on Willibald’s life remains to be written, which should include a rigorous analysis of his intellectual and religious life. Such a work would make a significant contribution to the intellectual history of the Boniface mission. Although the work has largely focused upon the city of Jerusalem, to a final word concerns the considerable life of Willibald, Holy Land pilgrim, harbinger of Monte Cassino and founding bishop of Eichstätt. Not many churchmen of the eighth century had the wealth of experiences or the longevity of years, and few are more worthy of study. While Willibald’s life provides a virtual tour of eighth-century Christendom, he was a significant and influential leader in his own right, particularly during his years in Monte Cassino and Eichstätt. It is hoped that this study has partially removed Willibald of Eichstätt from the footnotes of eighth-century history, elevating him to the status deserved of the remarkable ecclesiastic. Even if our knowledge of Willibald is largely dependent upon Hugeburc, the Vita is a most fitting monument to the Anglo-Saxon bishop.

264

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 265

BIBLIOGRAPHY

265

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 266

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 267

BIBLIOGRAPHY

primary sources Acts of John, trans. in Elliot (Oxford, 1993), 311–38. Adomnán. De locis sanctis, ed. L. Bieler (CCSL 175), 183–234, trans. in Meehan (1958) and JW (2002), 167–206. Aist, R. (2008) ‘The Monument of the Miraculous Healing in Post-Byzantine Jerusalem: A Reassessment of the North Gate Column of the Madaba Map’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 26, 37–56. Ambrose. De orbitu Theodosii, ed. O. Faller (CSEL 73), 371–401. — Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, ed. M. Adriaen (CCSL 14), 1–400. Anastasius of Sinai. Interrogationes et responsiones (PG 89), 311–824. Andrew of Crete. Oratio XI in exaltationem sanctae crucis II (PG 97), 1035–46. Antiochus the Monk. Epistola ad Eustathium (PG 89), 1421–8. — Exomologesis (PG 89), 1849–56. Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem (Codex Arm. Jerusalem 121), ed. A. Renoux (PO 35), trans. in JW (1999), 181–92. Armenian Guide, ed. M. Emin, Movsisi Kalankatuspwoy Patmutiwn Aluanip asxarhi (Moscow, 1860), trans. in JW (2002), 165–6. Augustine. De dono perseverantiae (PL 45), 993–1034. — In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus, ed. R. Willems (CCSL 36), 1–688. Alexander the Monk. De Inventione sanctae crucis (PG 87.3), 4015–88. Bede. De locis sanctis, ed. I. Fraipont (CCSL 175), 245–80, trans. in JW (2002), 216–30. — Historia ecclesiastica, ed. B. Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford, 1969). Benedict of Nursia. Regula Benedicti, ed. D.C. Butler (Freiborg, 1912), trans. in Fry (1998). Bernard the Monk. Itinerarium Bernardi, ed. T. Tobler, Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex saeculo VIII, IX, XII, et XV (Leipzig, 1874) 85–99, trans. in JW (2002), 261–9. Boniface. Epistolae, ed. M. Tangl, S. Bonifatii et Lulli Epistolae, MGH, Epistolae selectae, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1916), trans. in Emerson (2000). Bordeaux Pilgrim. Itinerarium Burdigalense, ed. P. Geyer and O. Cuntz (CCSL 175), 1–26, trans. in JW (1999), 26–34. Breviarius de Hierosolyma, ed. R. Weber (CCSL 175), 105–12, trans. in JW (2002), 92–3 and 117–21. Chronicon Paschale (PG 92), 69–1028, trans. in Whitby and Whitby (1989). Commemoratorium de casis Dei, ed. T. Tobler, Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex saeculo VIII, IX, XII, et XV (Leipzig, 1874), 77–84, trans. in JW (2002), 253–7. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechesis (PG 33), 367–1060, trans. in McCauley and Stephenson (1970), vol. 1 and vol. 2, 1–140. — Homilia in Paralyticum (PG 33), 1131–54, trans. in McCauley and Stephenson (1970), vol. 2, 209–22.

267

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 268

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cyril of Scythopolis. Lives of the Monks of Palestine, ed. E. Schwartz (TU 49.2), 5–247, trans. in Price (1991). Daniel the Abbot. Wallfahrtsbericht, ed. K.D. Seeman (Munich, 1970), trans. in JW (1988), 120–71. Decretum Gelasianum (PL 59), 157–64. De situ urbis Jerusalem, ed. De Vogüé, Les Églises de la Terre Sainte (Paris, 1860), 412–4, trans. in JW (1988), 177–81. Didascalia of Addai, ed. P. de Lagarde (Leipzig, 1854), trans. in Howard (1876). Didymus of Alexandria. De Trinitate (PG 39), 269–992. Egeria. Itinerarium Egeriae, ed. A. Franceschini and R. Weber (CCSL 175), 37–90, trans. in JW (1999), 107–64. Epiphanius the Monk. Hagiopolita, ed. H. Donner, ‘Die Palästinabeschreibung des Epiphanius Monachus Hagiopolita,’ ZDPV 87 (1971), 66–82, trans. in JW (2002), 207–15. Epiphanius of Salamis. Adversus haereses (GP 41), 173–1199 and (GP 42), 9–774. — Liber de mensuris et ponderibus (PG 43), 237–94. Ermanrich. Vita Sualonis, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH, Scriptores, vol. 15.1 (Hannover, 1887), 153–63, also in Bauch (1962), 196–238. Eucherius. Epistula ad Faustum Presbyterum, ed. I. Fraipont (CCSL 175), 235–43, trans. in JW (2002), 94–8. Eusebius. De Laudibus Constantini (PG 20), 1315–440. — Vita Constantini (PG 20), 909–1252, trans. in E.C. Richardson (1991), 481–559. — Historia ecclesiastica (PG 20), 47–906. — Onomasticon, ed. E. Klostermann (GCS, Eusebius 3.1), 1–177, trans. in Freeman-Grenville (2003). — Demonstratio evangelica (PG 22), 9–795. Eutychius of Alexander. Annales, ed. M. Breydy, Das Annalenwerke des Eutychios von Alexandrien (CSCO 471–2), partially trans. in A. Stewart (1895), 35–68. First Guide, ed. and tr. R. Hill, Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum: The Deeds of the Franks and the other Pilgrims to Jerusalem (Oxford, 1962), 98–101, trans. in JW (1988), 87–9. Gelasius of Cyzicus. Gelasius Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. Loeschke and M. Heinemann (GCS 28), 1–200. Georgian Calendar, ed. Garitte, Le Calendrier géorgio-palestinien du dixiéme siécle (SH 30), (Brussels, 1958). Georgian Lectionary, ed. with Latin tr. M. Tarchnischvili, Le Grand Lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (CSCO 188–9, 204–5). Gregory I. Dialogi (PL 77), 149–430. Gregory of Tours. Liber in Gloria Martyrum, ed. B. Krusch, MGH, SRM, vol. 1.2 (Hanover, 1885). Hilary of Poitier. Commentarius in Mattheum (PL 9), 917–1078. Hugeburc. Vita Willibaldi, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH, Scriptores, vol. 15.1 (Hannover, 1887), 86–106.

268

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 269

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— Vita Wynnebaldi, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH, Scriptores, vol. 15.1 (Hannover, 1887), 106–17. Jachintus. Pilgrimage, ed. J. Campos in Helmántica 8 (1957), 77, trans. in JW (1988), 270–1. Jerome. Commentariorum in Esaiam, ed. M. Adriaen (CCSL 73), 1–809. — Commentariorum in Hiezechielem Prophetam, ed. F. Glorie (CCSL 75), 1–743. — Commentariorum in Jeremiam, ed. S. Reiter (CCSL 74), 1–347. — Commentariorum in Matheum, ed. D. Hurst and M. Adriaen (CCSL 77), 1–283. — Commentariorum in Sophoniam, ed. M. Adriaen (CCSL 76–76A), 655–711. — Commentariorum in Zachariam Prophetam, ed. M. Adriaen (CCSL 76–76A), 746–900. — De viris Illustribus (TU 14), 1–56. — Epistula 46, ed. I. Hilberg (CSEL 54), 329–344. — Epistula 58, ed. I. Hilberg (CSEL 54), 527–41. — Epistula 78, ed. I. Hilberg (CSEL 55), 49–87. — Epistula 108, ed. I. Hilberg (CSEL 55), 306–51, partially trans. in JW (2002), 79–91. — Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos, ed. P. de Lagarde (CCSL 72), 1–56. — Liber Locorum, ed. K. Klostermann (GCS, Eusebius 3.1), 1–177. trans. in Freeman-Grenville (2003). — Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, ed. P. de Lagarde (CCSL 72), 59–161. John of Damascus. Homilia I in Nativitatem B.V.Mariae (PG 96), 661–80. — Homilia I in Dormitionem B.V. Mariae (PG 96), 697–722. — Homilia II in Dormitionem B.V. Mariae (PG 96), 721–54. John Phocas. Descriptio Terrae Sanctae (PG 133), 928–61, trans. in JW (1988), 315–36. John Rufus. Vita Petri Iberi, ed. R. Raabe, Petrus der Iberer (Leipzig, 1895), partially trans. in JW (2002), 99–102. John of Würzburg. Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, ed. T. Tobler, Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex saeculo VIII, IX, XII, et XV (Leipzig, 1874), 108–92, trans. in JW (1988), 244–73. Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, ed. and tr. H. St. J. Thackeray, et al., Josephus, vol. 4–9 (Cambridge, MA, 1930–63). Also trans. in Whiston (1999), 47–661. — The Jewish War, ed. and tr. H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, vol. 2–3 (Cambridge, MA, 1927–8). Also trans. in Whiston (1999), 667–936. Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 3 vols. (Paris, 1884–1957), trans. in Davis (1992). A Life of Constantine, ed. M. Guidi, Un Bios di Costantino (Rome, 1908), 46–53, partially trans. in JW (2002), 387–92. Lucian the Priest. Epistola Luciani (PL 41), 807–18. Melito of Sardis. Paschal Homily (SC 123), trans. in S.G. Hall (1979).

269

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 270

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mukaddasi. Description of Syria, including Palestine, trans. in G. Le Strange (PPTS 3) (1896), 1–98. Nikulás of þverá. Extract from Nikulás of þverá, trans. in JW (1988), 215–18. Origen. Commentaria in evangelium Joannis, ed. G. Preutchen (GCS, Origen 4), 1–480. — Commentaria in evangelium secundum Matthaeum (PG 13), 829–1800. Ottobonian Guide, trans. in JW (1988), 92–3. Palladius. Historia Lausiaca, ed. C. Butler (TS 2), 1–169. Paul the Deacon. Historia Langobardorum, trans. in Foulke (1974). Paulinus of Nola. Epistula 31, ed. W. Hartel (CSEL 29), 267–75. — Epistula 49, ed. W. Hartel (CSEL 29), 390–404. Photius. Amphilochia 316, ed. L.G. Westerink, Photii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, vol. 6.1 (Leipzig, 1987), 122–4, trans. in JW (2002), 258–9. Piacenza Pilgrim. Itinerarium, ed. P. Geyer (CCSL 175), 127–53, trans. in A. Stewart (1896), 1–37 and JW (2002), 129–51. — Itinerarium, Recensio Altera, ed. P. Geyer (CCSL 175), 157–74. Procopius of Caesarea. Aedificia Justiniani, ed. and tr. H. B. Dewing and G. Downey, Procopius, vol. 7 (Cambridge, MA, 1961), partially trans. in JW (2002), 124–8. Protoevangelium of James, trans. in Elliot (1993), 57–67. Qualiter sita est Civitas Ierusalem, ed. T. Tobler and A. Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana et Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae (Geneva, 1879), 347– 9, trans. in JW (1988), 90–1. Rodulf Glaber. Historiarum sui temporis (PL 142), 611–98, trans. in JW (2002), 272–3. Rufinus of Aquileia. Historia ecclesiastica (PL 21), 463–540. Saewulf. Relatio peregrinatione Saewulfi, ed. A. Rogers (PPTS 4) (London, 1896), 31–52, trans. in JW (1988), 94–116. Sebe¯os. History of Heraclius, ed. and tr. F. Macler, Histoire d’Héraclius par l’évêque Sebêos (Paris, 1904), Eng. trans. in Bedrosian (1985) and partially trans. in Fr. in Meddeb (1996), 63–7. Second Guide, ed. T. Tobler, Theoderici Libellus de Locis Sanctis editus circa A.D. 1172 (St. Gallen-Paris, 1865), 118–28, trans. in JW (1988), 238–43. Severus ibn al-Muquaff. History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, ed. and tr. B. Evetts (PO 5), 3–215. Socrates Scholasticus. Historia Ecclesiastica (PG 67), 29–842. Sophronius of Jerusalem. SS. Cyri et Joannis miracula (PG 87), 3423–675. — Sophronii Anacreontica (PG 87), 3733–840, partially trans. in JW (2002), 157–63. — Vita Sanctae Mariae Aegyptiacae (PL 73), 671–90. Sozomen. Historia Ecclesiastica (PG 67), 843–1630. Strategius. The Capture of Jerusalem by the Persians, ed. G. Garitte, (CSCO 203 (Iber. 12)).

270

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 271

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sulpicius Severus. Chronicon, ed. K. Halm (CSEL 1), 3–105, trans. in A. Roberts (1991), 71–122. Theodosius. De situ terrae sanctae, ed. P. Geyer (CCSL 175), 113–25, trans. in JW (2002), 103–16. Theoderic. Libellus de locis sanctis, ed. T. Tobler, Theoderici Libellus de Locis Sanctis editus circa A.D. 1172 (St. Gallen-Paris, 1865), 1–112, trans. in JW (1988), 274–314. Theodoret of Cyrus. Historia Ecclesiastica (PG 82), 879–1280. Theophanes. Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), trans. in Turtledove (1982). Typicon of the Anastasis, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias (St Petersburg, 1894). Victorinus (Ps. Cyprianus). de Pascha, ed. W. Hartel (CSEL 3b), 305–8. Willibald of Mainz. Vita Bonifatii, ed. W. Levison, MGH, SRG, vol. 57 (Hanover, 1905), 11–57. Work on Geography, ed. De Vogüé, Les Églises de la Terre Sainte (Paris, 1860), 414–33, tr. in JW (1988), 181–214. Wolfhard. Miraculis S. Waldburgis, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH, Scriptores, vol. 15.1 (Hannover, 1887), 535–55, also in Bauch (1962), 254–68.

secondary sources Abel, F.-M. (1927) ‘Koursi’, JPOS 7, 112–21. Abu Munshar, M. (2007) Islamic Jerusalem and its Christians, London. Aist, R. (2005) ‘Jerome’s Image of the Mount of Olives: A Critical Investigation of Epistula 108’, Holy Land Studies 4.1, 41–54. — (2008) ‘The Monument of the Miraculous Healing in Post-Byzantine Jerusalem: A Reassessment of the North Gate Column of the Madaba Map’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 26, 37–56. — (forthcoming a) ‘Adomnán, Arculf and the Source Material of De locis sanctis’, in J. Wooding, R. Aist, T. Clancy and T. O’Loughlin (eds), Adomnán: Theologian – Law-Maker – Peace-Maker, Dublin. — (forthcoming b) ‘Images of Jerusalem: The Religious Imagination of Willibald of Eichstätt’, in H. Sauer and J. Story (eds), Anglo-Saxon England and the Continent: Essays in Anglo-Saxon Studies, vol. 3, Arizona. Alexander, P.S. (1982) ‘Notes on the “Imago Mundi” of the Book of Jubilees’, JJS 33, 201–13. — (1998) ‘Jerusalem as the Omphalos of the World: On the History of a Geographical Concept’, in L. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 104–19.

271

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 272

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alliata, E. (1995) Holy Places of Palestine: Nazareth, Jerusalem. — (1998) ‘The Legends of the Madaba Map’, in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds), The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897–1997, Jerusalem, 47. Allies, M.H. (1898) St. John Damascene: On Holy Images, followed by Three Sermons on the Assumption, London. Anastos, M.V. (1968) ‘Leo III’s Edict against the Images in the Year 726–27 and Italo-Byzantine Relations between 726 and 730’, BF 3, 5–41. Angenendt, A. (1972) Monachi peregrini: Studien zu Pirmin und den monastischen Vorstellungen des frühen Mittelalters, Munich. — (1990) ‘Willibald zwischen Mönchtum und Bischofsamount’, in H. Dickerhof, E. Reiter and S. Weinfurter (eds), Der hl Willibald, Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgrunder, Regensburg, 143–69. Appel, B. (1984) ‘Willibald und Walburga – Patrone des Bistums Eichstätt’, in A. Leidl (ed.), Bistumspatrone in Deutschland, Munich, 23–31. Appel, B., E. Braun and S. Hofmann (eds). (1987) Hl. Willibald, 787–1987: Künder des Glaubens, Pilger, Mönch, Bischof, Eichstätt. Armstrong, G.T. (1967) ‘Imperial Church Building and Church-State Relations, A.D. 313–363’, CH 36, 3–17. — (1969) ‘Fifth and Sixth Century Church Buildings in the Holy Land’, GOTR 14, 17–30. Armstrong, K. (1996) Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, New York. Avi-Yonah, M. (1940a) The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem. — (1940b) Map of Roman Palestine, Jerusalem. — (1950–1) ‘The Development of the Roman Road System in Palestine’, IEJ 1, 54–60. — (1966) The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 BC-AD 640): A Historical Geography, Grand Rapids. — (1968) ‘The Third and Second Walls of Jerusalem’, IEJ 18, 98–125. — (ed.). (1975–8) Encyclopedia of Archaeological Investigations in the Holy Land, London. Avner, R. (1990) ‘The Recovery of the Kathisma Church and Its Influence on Octagonal Buildings’, in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcal-a (eds), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries, Jerusalem, 173–86. Avni G. and J. Seligman. (2003) ‘New Excavations at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre Compound’, in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcal-a (eds), One Land – Many Cultures, Jerusalem, 153–62. Avigad, N. (1983) Discovering Jerusalem, Nashville. Bagatti, B. (1949) ‘Eulogie palestinesi’, OCP 15, 126–66. — (1955–6) ‘Scavo di un monastero al ‘Dominus Flevit’, LA 6, 240–70. — (1963) ‘Le origini della “Tomba della Vergine” a Getsemani’, Revista Biblica 2, 38–52. — (1964–5) ‘Le antichita di Kh. Qana e di Kefr Kenna in Galilee’, LA 15, 251–92.

272

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 273

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (1965–6) ‘Nuovi apporti archeologici sul pozzo di Giacobbe in Samaria’, LA 16, 127–64. — (1969) Excavations in Nazareth, Jerusalem. — (1971) The Church from the Circumcision: History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians, tr. E. Hoade, Jerusalem. Bagatti, B., M. Piccirillo and A. Prodomo. (1975) New Discoveries at the Tomb of the Virgin Mary in Gethsemane, Jerusalem. Bahat, D. (1980) Jerusalem: Selected Plans of Historical Sites and Monumental Buildings, Jerusalem. — (1986) ‘Does the Holy Sepulchre Church Mark the Burial of Jesus?’, BAR 12, 26–45. — (1990) The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. — (1996) ‘The Physical Infrastructure’, in J. Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai, The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099), New York, 38–100. — (1998) ‘Two Recent Studies of the Archaeology of Jerusalem: Review Article’, PEQ 130, 51–62. Bain, R.N. (1896) ‘Armenian Description of the Holy Places in the Seventh Century’, PEFQSt, 346–9. Baldi, P.D. (1935) Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum: Documenta Sancti Evangelii Respicientia, Jerusalem. Baldovin, J.F. (1987) The Urban Character of Christian Worship, Rome. — (1989) Liturgy in Ancient Jerusalem, Nottingham. — (1990) ‘A Lenten Sunday Lectionary in Fourth Century Jerusalem’, in J.N. Alexander (ed.), Time and Community: in honor of Thomas J. Talley, Washington, 115–22. Barefoot, B. (1993) The English Road to Rome, Worchester. Bateson, M. (1899) ‘Origin and Early History of Double Monasteries’, TRHS, n.s. 13, 137–98. Bar, D. (1998) ‘Aelia Capitolina and the Location of the Camp of the Tenth Legion’, PEQ 130, 8–19. Barag, D. (1970) ‘Glass Pilgrim Vessels from Jerusalem’, Journal of Glass Studies 12, 35–63. Barag, D. and J. Wilkinson. (1974) ‘The Monza-Bobbio Flasks and the Holy Sepulchre’, Levant 6, 179–87. Barrett, C.K. (1978) The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed., London. Bauch, A. (1962) Quellen zur Geschichte der Diözese Eichstätt, I, Biographien der Grundungszeit, Eichstätt. — (1967) ‘Willibald: der erste Bischof von Eichstätt’, in G. Pfeiffer (ed.), FL, Würzburg, 10–32. — (1970a) ‘Die heilige Äbtissin Walburga’, in G. Schwaiger (ed.), BS 1, Regensburg, 168–85. — (1970b) ‘Der heilige Willibald, Bischof von Eichstätt’, in G. Schwaiger (ed.), BS 1, Regensburg, 148–67.

273

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 274

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (1970c) ‘Der heilige Wynnebald’, in G. Schwaiger (ed.), BS 1, Regensburg, 136–47. Baumeister, R. and H. Nies with A. d’Orange (illustrator). (1994) Der Heilige Willibald: Erster Bischof von Eichstätt, Passau. Baumstark, A. (1904) ‘Die leibliche Himmelfahrt der allerseligsten Jungfrau und die Lokaltradition von Jerusalem’, Oriens Christianus 4, 371–92. Baynes, N. (1912) ‘The Restoration of the Cross at Jerusalem’, EHR 27, 287–99. — (1951) ‘The Icons Before Iconoclasm’, HTR 44, 93–106. Bedrosian, R. (1985) Sebeos’ History, New York. Ben-Dov, M. (1976) ‘The Area South of the Temple Mount in the Early Islamic period’, in Y. Yadin (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968–1974, Jerusalem, 97–101. — (1985) In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem, tr. I. Friedman, New York. Benoit, P. (1952) ‘Prétoire, Lithostroton et Gabbatha’, RB 59, 531–50. — (1984), ‘Le Prétoire de Pilate à l’Époque Byzantine’, RB 91, 161–77. Bernard, J. (1976–7) ‘La guérison de Bethesda: Harmoniques judéo-hellénistiques d’un récit de miracle un jour de sabbat’, MSR 33, 3–34 and 34, 13–44. Bershin, W. (1987) ‘Hugeburcs Vita Willibaldi in der biographischen Tradition’ SMGBZ 98, 31–6. Biddle, M. (1990) ‘The Tomb of Christ’, Illustrated London News, Christmas Issue, 83–6. — (1991) ‘Jerusalem: the Tomb of Christ’, Current Archaeology 11, 107–12. — (1994) ‘The Tomb of Christ. Sources, Methods and a New Approach’, in K. Painter (ed.), Churches Built in Ancient Times, London. — (1999) The Tomb of Christ, Gloucestershire. Biddle, M., G. Avni, J. Seligman and T. Winter. (2000) The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, New York. Bieberstein, K. (1989) ‘Die Porta Neapolitana, die Nea Maria und die Nea Sophia in der Neapolis von Jerusalem’, ZDPV 105, 110–22. — (1995) ‘Die Hagia Sion in Jerusalem: Zur Entwicklung ihrer Traditionen im Spiegel der Pilgerberichte’, JbAC 20.1, 543–51. Bigelmair, A. (1950) ‘Das Jahr der Gründung des Bistums Eichstätt’, in Festgabe Karl Schornbaum, Neustadt, 19–35. Bikai, P.M. (1998) ‘The Region of Tyre and Sidon’, in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds) The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897–1997, Jerusalem, 238–41. Bischoff, B. (1931) ‘Wer ist die Nonne von Heidenheim?’, SMGBZ 49, 28–9. Birch, D. (1998) Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle Ages: Continuity and Change, Woodbridge. Bitton-Ashkelony, B. (1998) ‘The Attitudes of Church Fathers toward Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries’, in

274

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 275

BIBLIOGRAPHY

L. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 188–203. Björkman, W. (1965) ‘Karl und der Islam’, in Karl der Grosse, vol. 1, Persönlichkeit und Geschichte, 672–82, Düsseldorf. Black, M. (1954) ‘The Festival of Encaenia Ecclesiae in the Ancient Church with special reference to Palestine and Syria’, JEH 5, 78–85. Blair, S.S. (1992) ‘What is the Date of the Dome of the Rock?’, in J. Raby and J. Johns (eds), OSIA 9, 59–87. Blake, R.P. (1965) ‘La literature grecque en Palestine au VIIIe siécle’, Le Muséon 78, 367–80. Bliss, F.J. (1897) ‘Eleventh Report on the Excavations at Jerusalem’, PEFQSt, 18–26. Bliss, F.J. and A.C. Dickie. (1898) Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894–1897, London. Bloedhorn, H. (1995) ‘Die Eleona und das Imbomon in Jerusalem: Eine Doppelkirchenanlage auf dem Ölberg?’, JbAC 20.1, 568–71. Blowers, P.M. (ed. and tr.). (1997) The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity, South Bend. Böhm, K. (1987) ‘Willibald und Linthart’, in Hl. Willibald, 787–1987, Eichstätt, 85–6. Bonnery, A. (1991) ‘L’Édicule du Saint-Sépulcre de Narbonne: Recherche sur l’iconographie de l’Anastasis’, Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa 22, 7–41. Borgehammar, S. (1991) How the Holy Cross was Found, Stockholm. Bottini, G. C., L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcal-a (eds). (1990) Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries, Jerusalem. Bowman, G. (1992) ‘Pilgrim Narratives of Jerusalem and the Holy Land: A Study in Ideological Distortion’, in A.E. Morinis (ed.), Sacred Journeys: the Anthropology of Pilgrimage, Westport, Connecticut, 149–68. — (1998) ‘“Mapping History’s Redemption” Eschatology and Topography in the Itinerarium Burdigalense’, in L. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 163–87. Bradshaw, P.F. (1998) ‘The Influence of Jerusalem on Christian Liturgy’, in L. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 251–9. Braun, E. (1986) Eichstätt: Dom und Domschatz, Königstein im Taunus, Germany. Braun, J. (1952) Zwölfhundert Jahre Heidenheim, Gunzenhausen. — (1953) Der heilige Willibald: Bischof von Eichstätt, Eichstätt. Brechter, H.S. (1950) ‘Die Frühgeschichte von Montecassino nach der Chronik Leos von Ostia im Codex Lat. Monacensis 4623’, in H.S. Brechter and B. Bischoff (eds), Liber Floridus: Mittellateinische Studien: Festschrift für Paul Lehmann, St Ottilien, 271–86.

275

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 276

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Broshi, M. (1975) ‘Excavations in the House of Caiaphas, Mount Zion,’ in Y. Yadin (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968–1974, Jerusalem, 56–60, pl. 3. — (1976) ‘Excavations on Mount Zion, 1971–1972: Preliminary Report’, IEJ 26, 81–8. — (1993) ‘Excavations in the Holy Sepulchre in the Chapel of St. Vartan and the Armenian Martyrs’, in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, 118–22. Broshi, M. and G. Barkay. (1985) ‘Excavations in the Chapel of St. Vartan in the Holy Sepulchre’, IEJ 35, 108–28, pls. 14–7. Broshi, M and Y. Tsafrir. (1977) ‘Excavations at the Zion Gate, Jerusalem’, IEJ 27, 28–37. Brown, P. (1973) ‘A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy’, EHR 88, 1–34. — (1982) The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity, Chicago. Brownlow, W.R. (tr.). (1895) The Hodœporicon of Saint Willibald (PPTS 3), 1–36, London. — (1895) The Itinerary of Saint Willibald (PPTS 3), 37–54. London. Buchner, F.X. (1927) ‘Der heilige Willibald, Bishof von Erfurt?’, SHVE 40/1, 67–71. Bull, R.J. (1975) ‘An Archaeological Context for Understanding John 4:20’, BA 38.2, 54–60. Bultmann, R. (1971) The Gospel of John: A Commentary, tr. G.R. BeasleyMurray, Philadelphia. Burghardt, W. (1957) ‘The Testimony of the Patristic Age Concerning Mary’s Death’, Marian Studies 8, 76–9. Burtin, R. (1914) ‘Un Texte D’Eutychius Relatif a L’Éléona’, RB 11, 401–23. Busse, H. (1968) ‘The Sanctity of Jerusalem in Islam’, Judaism 17, 441–68. — (1986) ‘Omar’s Image as the Conqueror of Jerusalem’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8, 149–68. — (1993) ‘Die ‘Umar-Mosche im östlichen Atrium der Grabeskirche’, ZDPV 109, 73- 82. Butler, A. (1997) Butler’s Lives of the Saints: New Full Edition (May), revised by D.H. Farmer, Collegeville, Minnesota. Cameron, A. (1992) ‘Cyprus at the time of the Arab conquests’, Cyprus Historical Review 1, 1–20. Canard, M. (1965) ‘La destruction de l’Église de la Résurrection par le calife Hakim et l’historie de la descente du feu sacré’, Byzantion 35, 16–43. Canisius, H. (1603) Lectiones Antiquae, Inglostadt. Cardman, F. (1982) ‘The Rhetoric of Holy Places: Palestine in the Fourth Century’, SP 18, 18–25. — (1984) ‘The Fourth-Century Jerusalem: Religious Geography and Christian Tradition’, in P. Henry (ed.), Schools of Thought in the Christian Tradition, Philadelphia, 49–64.

276

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 277

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chadwick, H. (1974) ‘John Moschus and his Friend Sophronius the Sophist’, JTS 25, 41–74. Chitty, D.J. (1932) ‘The Monastery of Euthymius’, PEFQSt, 188–203. — (1966) The Desert a City, Oxford. Clark, E.A. (1982) ‘Claims on the Bones of Saint Stephen: The Partisans of Melania and Eudocia’, CH 51, 141–56. — (1989) ‘Piety, Propaganda, and Politics in the Life of Melania the Younger’, SP 18.2, 167–83. Claussen, M.A. (2004) The Reform of the Frankish Church: Chrodegang of Metz and the Regula canonicorum in the Eighth Century, Cambridge. Clayton, M. (1984) ‘Feasts of the Virgin in the Liturgy of the Anglo-Saxon Church’, ASE 13, 209–33. — (1999) ‘The Transitus Mariae: The Tradition and Origins’, Apocrypha 10, 74–98. Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. (1898) ‘The Taking of Jerusalem by the Persians, A.D. 614’, PEFQSt, 36–54. Cohn, E.W. (1987) New Ideas about Jerusalem’s Topography, Jerusalem. Conant, K.J. (1956) ‘The Original Buildings at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem’, Speculum 31, 1–48. Constantelos, D.J. (1972) ‘The Moslem Conquests of the Near East as Revealed in the Greek Sources of the Seventh and the Eighth Centuries’, Byzantion 42, 325–57. Conybeare, F.C. (1910) ‘Antiochus Strategos’ Account of the Sack of Jerusalem in 614’, EHR 25, 502–17. Corbo, V.C. (1959–60) ‘Scavo Archeologico a Ridosso Della Basilica Dell’Ascensione’, LA 10, 205–48. — (1965a) Ricerche archeologiche al Monte degli Ulivi, Gerusalemme, Jerusalem. — (1965b) ‘Scavo della Cappella Dell’invenzione della S. Croce e nuovi reperti Archeologici nella Basilica del S. Sepolcro a Gerusalemme’, LA 15, 318–66. — (1969) The House of St. Peter at Capharnaum, Jerusalem. — (1974) ‘Scavi archeologicii a Magdala (1971–1973)’, LA 24, 5–37. — (1981–2) Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme. Aspetti archaeologici dale origini al periode crociato, 3 vols., Jerusalem. — (1987) ‘Dove era il Poimnion o Campo dei Pastori’, LA 37, 311–32. — (1988) ‘Il Sancto Sepolcro di Gerusalemme: nova et vetera’ LA 38, 391–422. Coüasnon, C. (1974) The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, London. Cramp. R. (1992) Studies in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture. London. Crone, P. (1980) ‘Islam, Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine Iconoclasm’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 2, 59–95. Crook, J. (2000) The Architectural Setting of the Cult of Saints in the Early Christian West, c. 300-c.1200, Oxford. Crowfoot, J.W. (1941) Early Churches in Palestine, London.

277

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 278

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Creswell, K.A.C. (1989) A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture, Cairo. Cubitt, C. (1995) Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.650-c.850, Leicester. Culpepper, R.A. (1993) ‘John 5.1-18: A Sample of a Narrative Critical Commentary’, in M.W.G. Stibbe (ed.), The Gospel of John as Literature: An Anthology of Twentieth Century Perspectives, Leiden, 193–207. Dalman, G. (1915) ‘Zion, die Burg Jerusalems’, PJB 11, 39–84. — (1916) ‘Der Ölberg zur Himmelfahrtszeit’, PJB 12, 58–75. — (1935) Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels, tr. P.P. Levertoff, London. Daltrop, G. (1987a) ‘Willibald in Rom’, in B. Appel, E. Braun and S. Hofmann (eds), Hl. Willibald, 787–1987: Künder des Glaubens, Pilger, Mönch, Bischof, Eichstätt, 71–2. — (1987b) ‘Willibald in Jerusalem’, in B. Appel, E. Braun and S. Hofmann (eds), Hl. Willibald, 787–1987: Künder des Glaubens, Pilger, Mönch, Bischof, Eichstätt, 72–3. Dauphin, C. (2005) ‘The Bethesda Project at St Anne’s in the Old City of Jerusalem’, POC 55, 263–9. Davies, J.G. (1954) ‘The Peregrinatio Egeriae and the Ascension’, VC 8, 93–100. — (1957) ‘Eusebius’ Description of the Martyrium at Jerusalem’, AJA 61, 171–3. — (1988) Pilgrimage Yesterday and Today, London. Davies, W.D. (1974) The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine, Berkeley. Davis, R. (1992) The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (‘Liber Pontificalis’), Liverpool. Delehaye, H. (1998) The Legends of the Saints, with new introduction by T. O’Loughlin, Dublin. Devos, P. (1987a) ‘Egeriana: Nouvelle Édition catalane et commentaries divers’, AB 105, 159–66. — (1987b) ‘Egeriana (II): Études linguistiques et autres’, AB 105, 415–24. — (1991) ‘Egeriana (III)’, AB 109, 363–81. — (1994) ‘Egeriana (IV)’ AB 112, 214–54. Di Segni, L. (1998) ‘The “Onomasticon” of Eusebius and the Madaba Map’, in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds), The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897–1997, Jerusalem, 115–20. Dickie, A.C. (1897) ‘Architectural Notes on Remains of Ancient Church at Pool of Siloam’, PEFQSt, 26–9. Dickerhof, H. (1978–9) ‘Zum monastischen Gepräge des Bonifatius-Kreises’, SHVE 71/2, 61–80. Dickerhof, H., E. Reiter and S. Weinfurter (eds). (1990) Der hl. Willibald, Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgrunder, Regensburg. Díez, F. (2004) El Calvario y la Cueva de Adán: El resultado de las últimas excavaciones en la basilica del Santo Sepulcro, Estella (Navarra, Spain). Díez Merino, L. (1973) ‘La tumba de Maria en el Valle del Cedrón’, Cultura Biblica 30, 205–20.

278

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 279

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dirk, S.J.P. van. (1961) ‘The Urban and Papal Rites in Seventh and Eighth Century Rome’, Sacris Erudiri 12, 411–87. Dodd, C.H. (1963) Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge. Donner, H. (1971) ‘Die Palästinabeschreibung des Epiphanius Monachus Hagiopolita’, ZDPV 87, 42–91. — (1979) Pilgerfahrt ins Heilige Land. Die ältesten Berichte christlichen Palästinapilger (4.-7. Jht.), Stuttgart. Douglass, L. (1996) ‘A New Look at the Itinerarium Burdigalense’, JECS 4.3, 313–33. Doval, A. (1997a) ‘The Date of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catecheses’, JTS, n.s. 48.1, 129–32. — (1997b) ‘The Fourth Century Jerusalem Catechesis and the Development of the Creed’, SP 30, 296–305. Downey, G. (1951) ‘The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostles at Constantinople: A Contribution to the Criticism of the Vita Constantini Attributed to Eusebius’, DOP 6, 51–80. Drake, H.A. (1976) In Praise of Constantine: Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ ‘Tricennial Orations’, Berkeley. — (1979) ‘A Coptic Version of the Discovery of the Holy Sepulchre’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 20, 381–92. — (1984) ‘Miscellany: The Return of the Holy Sepulchre’, CHR 70.2, 263–7. — (1985) ‘Eusebius on the True Cross’, JEH 36, 1–22. Drijvers, J.W. (1992) Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine and the Legend of Her Finding the True Cross, Leiden. — (1993) ‘Helena Augusta: Exemplary Christian Empress’, SP 24, 85–90. — (1999) ‘Promoting Jerusalem: Cyril and the True Cross’, in J.W. Drijvers and J.W. Watt (eds), Portraits of Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient, Leiden, 79–95. — (2002) ‘Heraclius and the Restitutio Crucis: Notes on Symbolism and Ideology’, in G.J. Reinink and B.H. Stolte (eds), The Reign of Heraclius (610–641): Crisis and Confrontation, Louvain, 175–90. — (2003) ‘The True Cross: Separating Myth from History’, BR 19.4, 24–33 and 60–1. Dronke, P. (1984) Women Writers of the Middle Ages: A Critical Study of Texts from Perpetua († 203) to Marguerite Porete (†1310), Cambridge. Duprez, A. (1970) Jésus et les dieux guérisseurs: A Propos de Jean V, Paris. Duckworth, H.T.F. (1922) The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, London. Economopoulos, A. (1984) ‘Fresh Data Resulting from the Excavations in the Church of the Monastery of the Holy Cross’, Actes de Xe congrès international d’archéologie Chrétienne 2, 377–90. Eigler, F. (1990) ‘Das Siedlungsbild des Eichstätter Raums zur Zeit des heiligen Willibald’, in H. Dickerhof, E. Reiter and S. Weinfurter (eds), Der hl Willibald, Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgrunder, Regensburg, 217–35.

279

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 280

BIBLIOGRAPHY

El’ad, A. (1982) ‘The Coastal Cities of Palestine during the Early Middle Ages’, in L.I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem Cathedra, Jerusalem, 146–67. — (1992) ‘Why did ‘Abd al-Malik Build the Dome of the Rock? A Reexamination of the Muslim Sources’, in J. Raby and J. Johns (eds), OSIA 9, 33–52. — (1998) ‘Pilgrims and Pilgrimage to Jerusalem during the Early Muslim Period’, in L. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 300–14. Elliot, J.K. (1993) The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford. Elm, S. (1989) ‘Perceptions of Jerusalem Pilgrimage as Reflected in Two Early Sources on Female Pilgrimage (3rd and 4th centuries A.D)’, SP 20, 219–23. Emerson, E. (tr.). (2000) The Letters of Saint Boniface, with a new introduction and bibliography by T.F.X. Noble. New York. Engels, O. (1990) ‘Die Vita Willibalds und die Anfäge des Bistums Eichstätt’, in H. Dickerhof, E. Reiter and S. Weinfurter (eds), Der hl Willibald, Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgrunder, Regensburg, 171–98. Esbroeck, M. van. (1983) ‘Jean II de Jérusalem et les Cultes de S. Étienne, de la Sainte-Sion et de la Croix’, AB 101, 99–134. Escobar, J. (1976) ‘Estudio de los restos arqueologicos de Tecoai’, LA 26, 5–26. Ess, J. van. (1992) ‘‘Abd Al-Malik and the Dome of the Rock: An Analysis of Some Texts’, in J. Raby and J. Johns (eds), OSIA 9, 89–103. Ewig, E. (1979) ‘Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung der Fränkischen Reichskirche unter Chrodegang von Metz,’ in H. Atsma (ed.), Spätantikes und Fränkisches Gallien: Gesammelte Schriften (1952–1973), vol. 2, Munich, 220–31. Farmer, D.H. (1992) The Oxford Dictionary of Saint, 3rd ed., Oxford. Fletcher, R.A. (1962) ‘Celebrations at Jerusalem on March 25th in the Sixth Century A.D.’, SP 5, 30–4. Franco Beatrice, P. (1989) ‘Pilgerreise, Krankenheilung und Bilderkult: Eining Erwägangen zur Statue von Paneas’, JbAC 20, 524–31. Finegan, J. (1976) ‘The Death and Burial of St. Peter’, BAR 2.4, 3–8. — (1992) The Archeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church, rev. ed., Princeton. Foulke W.D. (tr.). (1974) Paul the Deacon: History of the Lombards, edited with introduction by E. Peter, Philadelphia. Fraser, M.A. (1997) ‘Constantine and the Encaenia’, SP 24, 25–8. Freeman-Grenville, G.S.P. (tr.). (2003) Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D.: The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea, indexed by R.L. Chapman III and edited and introduced by J.E. Taylor, Jerusalem. Frend, W.H.C. (1972) The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge. Frolow, A. (1953) ‘La Vraie Croix et les expeditions d’Héraclius en Perse’, Revue des etudes Byzantines 11, 88–105. Fry, T. (ed. and tr.). (1998) The Rule of St. Benedict in English, with an introduction by T. Moore, Collegeville, Minnesota.

280

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 281

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Garbarino, O. (2005) ‘Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme: Appunti de Ricerca Storico-architettonica’, LA, 55, 239–314. Garitte, G. (1960) ‘Le sepulture de Modeste de Jérusalem à la basilique de l’Eléona’, Le Muséon 73, 127–33. Germer-Durand, J. (1914) ‘La Maison de Caiphe et L’Église Saint-Pierre a Jérusalem’, RB 23, 71–94 and 222–46. Geva, H. (2000) ‘Twenty Five Years of Excavations in Jerusalem, 1967–1992: Achievements and Evaluation’, in H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Jerusalem, 1–28. Geyer, P. (1895) Adamnanus, Abt von Iona. I. Teil, Augsburg. Gibb, Hamilton A.R. (1958) ‘Arab-Byzantine Relations Under the Umayyad Caliphate’, DOP 12, 219–33. Gibson, S. (2005) ‘The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem and Jewish Purification Practices of the Second Temple Period’, POC 55, 270–93. Gibson, S. and J.E. Taylor. (1994) Beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem: The Archaeology and Early History of Traditional Golgotha, London. Gil, M. (1982) ‘The Jewish Quarters of Jerusalem (A.D. 638–1099) according to Cairo Geniza Documents and Other Sources’, JENS 41, 261–78. — (1992) A History of Palestine, 634–1099, tr. E. Broido, Cambridge. — (1996a) ‘The Jewish Community’, in J. Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai (eds), The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099), New York, 163–200. — (1996b) ‘The Political History of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim Period’, in J. Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai (eds), The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099), New York, 1–37. Gluth, K. (1982) ‘Die Pilgerfahrt Willibalds ins Heilige Land (723–727/29)’, SHVE 75, 13–28. Godfrey, J. (1976) ‘The Place of the Double Monastery in the Anglo-Saxon Minster System’, in G. Bonner (ed.), Famulus Christi: Essays in Commemoration of the Thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede, London, 344–50. Goitein, S.D. (1950) ‘The Historical Background of the Erection of the Dome of the Rock’, JAOS 70, 104–8. — (1966) ‘The Sanctity of Jerusalem and Palestine in Early Islam’, in S.D. Goitein (ed.), Studies in Islamic History and Institutions, Leiden, 135–48. — (1982) ‘Jerusalem in the Arab Period (638–1099)’, JC 2, 168–96. Golan, D. (1986) ‘Hadrian’s Decision to Supplant “Jerusalem” by “Aelia Capitolina”’, Historia 35.2, 226–39. Gottschaller, E. (1973) Hugeburc von Heidenheim: Philologische Untersuchungen zu den Heiligenbiographien einer Nonne des achten Jahrhunderts, München. Grabar, A. (1946) Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art Chrétien antique, Paris. — (1958) Ampoules de Terre Sainte, Paris.

281

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 282

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grabar, O. (1959) ‘The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem’, Ars Orientalis 3, 33–62. — (1996) The Shape of the Holy: Early Islamic Jerusalem, Princeton. — (1998) ‘Space and Holiness in Medieval Jerusalem’, in L.I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 275–86. — (2006) The Dome of the Rock, Cambridge, MA. Grabois, A. (1986) ‘Medieval Pilgrims, the Holy Land and its image in European Civilization’, in M. Sharon (ed.), The Holy Land in History and Thought, Johannesburg, 1986. Grant, R.M. (1998) ‘Lions in Early Christian Literature’, in A.J. Malherbe, F.W. Norris and J.W. Thompson (eds), The Early Church in its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, Leiden, 147–54. Griffith, S. (1992) ‘Images, Islam and Christian Icons: A Moment in the Christian/Muslim Encounter in Early Islamic Times’, in P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais, La Syrie de Byzance à L’Islam VII-VIIIe Siècles, Damascus, 121–38. — (1997) ‘From Aramaic to Arabic: The Languages of the Monasteries of Palestine in the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods’, DOP 51, 11–31. Groh, D.E. (1989) ‘The Onomasticon of Eusebius and the Rise of Christian Palestine’, SP 28.1, 23–31. — (2006) ‘The Road More Traveled: The Onomasticon of Eusebius’, BAR 32.2, 54–9. Grumel, V. (1966) ‘La reposition de la Vraie Croix à Jérusalem par Héraclius: le jour et l’année’, BF 1, 139–49. Hagen, D. (1987) ‘Die Pilgerreise des Heiligen Willibald’, in B. Appel, E. Braun and S. Hofmann (eds), Hl. Willibald, 787–1987: Künder des Glaubens, Pilger, Mönch, Bischof, Eichstätt, 63–70. Hall, S.G. (1979) On Pascha and Fragments, Oxford. Hamilton, R.W. (1933) ‘Streets Levels in the Tyropoeon Valley’, QDAP 2, 34–40. — (1947) The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem: a Guide, Jerusalem. — (1949) The Structural History of the Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem. — (1952) ‘Jerusalem in the Fourth Century’, PEQ 84, 83–90. — (1988) Walid and his Friends: An Umayyad Tragedy, Oxford. Hamrick, E.W. (1977) ‘The Third Wall of Agrippa I’, BA 40, 18–23. — (1981) ‘Archaeological Notes: 1. The Fourth North Wall of Jerusalem: “A Barrier Wall” of the First Century, A.D.’, Levant 13, 262–6. Harrison, D. (1996) Medieval Space: The Extent of Microspatial Knowledge in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, Lund. Hartmann, W. (1989) Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und Italien, Paderborn. Harvey, A.E. (1966) ‘Melito and Jerusalem’, JTS, n.s.17, 401–4.

282

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 283

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Harvey, S.A. (1998) ‘Incense Offerings in the Syriac Transitus Mariae: Ritual and Knowledge in Ancient Christianity’, in A.J. Malherbe, F.W. Norris and J.W. Thompson (eds), The Early Church in its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, 175–91. Harvey, W. (1935) Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem: Structural Survey, Final Report, London. Hastings, J. (1902) A Dictionary of the Bible, 982–4. Hauke, H. (1987) ‘Hugeburc, Leben des heiligen Willibald’, in B. Appel, E. Braun and S. Hofmann (eds), Hl. Willibald, 787–1987: Künder des Glaubens: Pilger, Mönch, Bischof, Eichstätt, 120. Hawting, G.R. (2000) The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661–750, 2nd ed., London. Heid, S. (1989) ‘Der Ursprung der Helenalegende im Pilgerbetrieb Jerusalems’, JbAC 32, 41–71. Heidingsfelder, F. (1938) Die Regesten der Bischöfe von Eichstätt, 1, Erlangen. Heinemeyer, K. (1980) ‘Die Gründung des Klosters Fulda im Rahmen der bonifatianischen Kirchenorganisation’, Hessiches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 30, 1–45. Heisenberg, A. (1908) Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche: Zwei Basiliken Konstantins, Leipzig. Hen, Y. (1998) ‘Holy Land Pilgrims from Frankish Gaul’, Revue Belge de Philologie et D’Histoire 76, 291–306. — (1999) ‘Milites Christi utriusque Sexus: Gender and the Politics of Conversion in the Circle of Boniface’, Revue Bénédictine 109, 17–31. Henry, P. (1976) ‘What was the Iconoclastic Controversy About?’, CH 45, 16–31. Higgins, J.S. (1933) ‘The Ultramontanism of Saint Boniface’, CH 2, 197–210. Hirschfeld, Y. (1990) ‘List of the Byzantine Monasteries in the Judean Desert’, in G. C Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcal-a (eds), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries, Jerusalem, 1–90. — (1992) The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period, New Haven. — (1993) ‘Monasteries and Churches in the Judean Desert in the Byzantine Period’, in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, 149–54. Hirshberg, J.W. (1976) ‘The Remains of an Ancient Synagogue on Mount Zion’, in Y. Yadin (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968–1974, Jerusalem, 116–7. Hitti, P.K. (1961) The History of the Arabs: From the Earliest Times to the Present, London. Hoade, E. (1973) Guide to the Holy Land, 7th ed., Jerusalem. Holloway, J.B. (1998) ‘Women Pilgrims I: Helena, Paula, Eustochium, Egeria’, in J.B. Holloway, Jerusalem: Essays on Pilgrimage and Literature, New York, 31–46. Holum, K.G. and G. Vikan. (1979) ‘The Trier Ivory, Adventus Ceremonial, and the Relics of St. Stephen’, DOP 33, 115–33.

283

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 284

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Honigman, E. (1950) ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’, DOP 5, 209–79. Howard, G. (1876) The Teaching of Addai, Chico, California. Hoyland, R.G. (1997) Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Princeton. Hunt, E.D. (1972) ‘St. Silvia of Aquitaine: The Role of a Theodosian Pilgrim in the Society of East and West’, JTS 23, 351–73. — (1981) ‘The Traffic in Relics: The Late Roman Evidence’, in S. Hackel (ed.), The Byzantine Saint, London, 171–80. — (1984) Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire AD 312–460, Oxford. — (1997a) ‘Constantine and Jerusalem’, JEH 48, 413–6. — (1997b) ‘Theodosius I and the Holy Land’, SP 29, 52–7. — (1999) ‘Were there Christian Pilgrims before Constantine?’ in J. Stopford (ed.), Pilgrimage Explored, Woodbridge, 24–40. — (2000) ‘The Itinerary of Egeria: Reliving the Bible in Fourth-Century Palestine’, in R.N. Swanson (ed.), SCH 36, Woodbridge, 34–54. — (2001) ‘The Date of the Itinerarium Egeriae’, SP 38, 410–6. Jarnut, J. (1977) ‘Studien über Herzog Odilo (736–748), Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 85, 273–84. — (1979) ‘Bonifatius und die fränkischen Reformkonzilien (743–748)’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 69 (kanonistische Abteilung 66), 1–26. Jäschke, K.-U. (1974) ‘Die Gründungszeit der mitteldeutschen Bistümer und das Jahr des Concilium Germanincum’, in H. Beuman (ed.), Festschrift für Walter Schlesinger 2, 71–136. Jeremias, J. (1925) ‘Wo lag Golgotha and das Heilige Grab?’ Angelos 1, 141–73. — (1926a) Golgotha, Leipzig. — (1926b) ‘Golgotha und heilige Felsen’, Angelos 2 (1926), 74–128. — (1966a) ‘Die Kupferrolle von Qumran und Bethesda’, Abba, 361–4. — (1966b) The Rediscovery of Bethesda, Louisville. Jeffery, A. (1944) ‘Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo II’, HTR 37, 94–102. Jeffery, G. (1919) A Brief Description of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, and Other Christian Churches in the Holy City, Cambridge. Johns, C.N. (1939) ‘The Abbey of St. Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat’, QDAP 8, 117–36. Join-Lambert, M. (1958) Jerusalem, tr. C. Haldane, London. Jungie, M. (1926) ‘La Mort et l’assomption de la Sainte Vierge dans la tradition des cinq primiers siècles’, EO 25, 5–20 and 129–43 and 281–307. — (1944) La Mort et l’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge: Etude Historico-Doctrinale, Vatican. Kaegi, W.E., Jr. (1969) ‘Initial Byzantine Reactions to the Arab Conquest’, CH 38, 139–49. — (1989) ‘Observations on Warfare between Byzantium and Umayyad Syria’, in M.A. Bakhit and R. Schick (eds), The Fourth International

284

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 285

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Conference on the History of Bilat al-sham during the Umayyad Period, vol. 2, Amman, 49–70. — (1992) Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests, Cambridge. Kallner-Amiran, D.H. (1950–1) ‘A Revised Earthquake-Catalogue of Palestine’, IEJ 1, 223–46. Kaiser, R. (1990) ‘Bistumsgründung und Kirchenorganisation im 8. Jahrhundert’, in H. Dickerhof, E. Reiter and S. Weinfurter (eds), Der hl Willibald, Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgrunder, Regensburg, 29–67. Katsimbinis, C. (1976) ‘New Findings at Gethsemani’, LA 26, 276–80, pl. 47–8. — (1977) ‘The Uncovering of the Eastern Side of the Hill of Calvary and Its Base: New Lay-Out of the Area of the Canons’ Refectory by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate’, LA 27, 197–208, pls. 19–38. Kee, H.C. (1982) ‘Self-Definition in the Asclepius Cult’, in B.F. Meyer and E.P. (eds), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition 3, London, 118–36. Kelly, J.F. (1993) ‘The Knowledge and Use of Augustine among the AngloSaxons’, SP 28, 211–6. Kelly, J.N.D. (1975) Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies, London. — (1995) Golden Mouth, London. Kennedy, H. (1986) ‘The Melkite Church from the Islamic Conquest to the Crusades: Continuity and Adaptation in the Byzantine Legacy’, The 17 th International Byzantine Congress: Major Papers, New York, 325– 43. — (1989) ‘Change and Continuity in Syria and Palestine at the time of the Moslem Conquest’, ARAM 1.2, 258–67. Kenyon, K.M. (1967) Jerusalem. Excavating 3000 Years of History, London. — (1974) Digging up Jerusalem, London. King, G.R.D. (1985) ‘Islam, Iconoclasm, and the Declaration of Doctrine’, BSOAS 48, 267–77. — (2002) ‘Archaeological Fieldwork at the Citadel of Homs, Syria: 1995– 1999’, Levant 34, 39–58. Kitzinger, E. (1954) ‘The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm’, DOP 8, 83–150. — (1977) Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd-7 th Century, London. Klemm, B. (1980) Die romanischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, vol. 1: Die Bistümer Regensburg, Passau und Salzburg, Wiesbaden. Kloner, A. (1986) ‘The “Third Wall” in Jerusalem and the “Cave of the Kings” (Josephus War V 147)’, Levant 18, 121–9. — (1999) ‘Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?’, BAR 25 (Sept/Oct), 22–9, 76. — (2003) ‘Iron Age Burial Caves in Jerusalem and its Vicinity’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 19–20, 95–118.

285

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 286

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (2005) ‘Reconstruction of the Tomb in the Rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre According to Archaeological Finds and the Jewish Burial Customs of the First Century CE’, in J. Pastor and M. Mor (eds), The Beginning of Christianity, Jerusalem, 269–78. Kopp, C. ‘Christian Sites around the Sea of Galilee’, tr. Jean Watt, Dominican Studies 2.3 (1949), 213–35, 3.1 (1950a), 10–40 and 3.3 (1950b), 275–85. — (1955) ‘Das Mariengrab in Jerusalem’, Theologie und Glaube 2, 81–94. — (1963) The Holy Places of the Gospels, tr. R. Walls, New York. Kraus, A. (1990) ‘Der heilige Willibald von Eichstätt: Person, Zeit, Werk’, in H. Dickerhof, E. Reiter and S. Weinfurter (eds), Der hl Willibald, Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgrunder, Regensburg, 9–28. Krautheimer, R. (1942) ‘An Introduction to an Iconography of Medieval Architecture’, JWCI, 1–33. — (1965) Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, New Haven. Kreitmeir, K. (1992) Die Bischöfe von Eichstätt, Eichstätt. Kretschmar, G. (1955) ‘Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten’, ZK 66, 209–53. Kühnel, B. (1987) From the Earthly to the Heavenly Jerusalem: Representations of the Holy City in Christian Art of the First Millennium, Rome. — (ed.). (1998) The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Art, Jerusalem. Kyrris, C.P. (1984) ‘The Nature of the Arab-Byzantine Relations in Cyprus from the Middle of the 7th to the Middle of the 10th Century A.D.’, GA 3, 149–76. — (1985) History of Cyprus, Nicosia. Ladner, G.B. (1940) ‘Origin and Significance of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy’, Mediaeval Studies 2, 127–49. Lang, D.M. (1951) ‘Peter the Iberian and his biographers’, JEH 2, 158–68. Lapidge, M. and M. Herren (tr.). (1979) Aldhelm: the Prose Works, Port Credit, Ontario. Lauffray, J. (1962) ‘La Memoria Sancti Sepulchri de Musée de Narbonne et le Temple Rond de Baalbeck’, MUSJ 38, 199–217. Lavas, G. (1998) ‘The Rock of Calvary: Uncovering Christ’s Crucifixion Site’, in B. Kühnel (ed.), The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Art, Jerusalem, 147–50. Lavas, G. and Th. Mitropoulous. (1995) ‘Golgotha, Jerualem. Die Aufdeckung der Kreuzigungsstelle Christi’, SAC 52, 964–8. Lecoffre, V. (1902) ‘Bulletin’, RB, 297–320. Le Strange, G. (1890) Palestine Under the Moslems: A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500, London. — (1976) History of Jerusalem under the Moslems from A.D. 650 to 1500, Jerusalem. Lethaby, W.R. (1897) ‘The Temple, the Church of the Ascension, and the Finding of the Cross’, PEFQSt, 75–7.

286

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 287

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Levine, L. (ed.). (1998) Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York. Levison, W. (1940) ‘St Willibrord and his Place in History’, Durham University Journal 32 (n.s. 1), 23–41. — (1946) England and the Continent in the Eighth Century, Oxford. Leyerle, B. (1996) ‘Landscape as Cartography in Early Christian Pilgrimage Narratives’, JAAR 64.1, 119–43. Limor, O. (1998) ‘The Place of the End of Days: Eschatological Geography in Jerusalem’, in B. Kühnel (ed.), The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Art, Jerusalem, 13–22. — (2004) ‘Pilgrims and Authors: Adomnán’s De locis sanctis and Hugeburc’s Hodoeporicon Sancti Willibaldi’, Revue Bénédictine 114, 253–75. Linder, A. (1975) ‘The Myth of Constantine the Great in the West: Sources and Hagiographic Commemoration’, Studi Medievali, 3rd series, 16, 43–95. — (1996) ‘Christian Communities in Jerusalem’, in J. Prawer and H BenShammai (eds), The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099), New York, 121–62. Livio, J.-B. (1990) ‘The Excavations at the Sisters of Nazareth’, Le Monde de la Bible, Special issue, July, 23–32. Livne-Kafri, O. (2005) ‘On Muslim Jerusalem in the Period of its Formation’, LA, 55, 203–16. Llewellyn, P. (1996) Rome in the Dark Ages, London. Loffreda, S. (1969) ‘Scavi a Kafr Kanna’, LA 19, 328–48. — (1993) Recovering Capharnaum, Jerusalem. Louth, A. (2000) ‘Palestine Under the Arabs 650–750: The Crucible of Byzantine Orthodoxy’, in R.N. Swanson (ed.), SCH 36, Woodbridge, 67–77. Lowe, H. (1955) ‘Bonifatius und die bayerisch-fränkische Spannung’, Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 15, 85–127. Lux, U. (1972) ‘Vorläufiger Bericht ueber die Ausgrabung unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan in der Altstadt von Jerusalem in den Jahren 1970 und 1971,’ ZDPV 88, 185–201. Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City, Cambridge, MA. Mackowski, R.M. (1980) Jerusalem City of Jesus: An Exploration of the Traditions, Writings, and Remains of the Holy City from the Time of Christ, Grand Rapids, 79–83. Magen, M. (1984) ‘Excavations at the Damascus Gate (1979–1984)’, Qadmoniot 17, 117–20 (in Hebrew). Magness, J. (1991) ‘The Walls of Jerusalem in the Early Islamic period’, BA 54.4, 208–17. — (1992) ‘A Reexamination of the Archaeological Evidence for the Sassanian Destruction of the Tyropoeon Valley’, BASOR 287, 67–74.

287

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 288

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (2006) ‘What did Jesus’ Tomb look like?’, BAR 32.1, 38–49, 70. Mango, C. (1991) ‘Greek Culture in Palestine after the Arab Conquest’, in G. Cavallo, G. de Gregorio and M. Maniaci. (eds), Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali de Bisanzio, Spoleto, 149–60. — (1992) ‘The Temple Mount A.D. 614–638’, in J. Raby and J. Johns (eds), Bayt al-Maqdis: ‘Abd al-Malik’s Jerusalem, Oxford, 1–16. — (1995) ‘The Pilgrim’s Motivation’, JbAC 20.1, 1–9. Maraval, P. (1985) Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient: Histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe, Paris. — (1995) ‘Les Itinéraires de pèlerinage en Orient (entre le 4e et le 7e S.), JbAC 20.1, 291–300. — (1997) ‘The Bible as a Guide for Early Christian Pilgrims to the Holy Land’, in P.M. Blowers (ed. and tr.), The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity, South Bend, 375–88. — (2002) ‘The Earliest Phase of Christian Pilgrimage in the Near East (before the 7th Century), DOP 56, 63–74. Mare, W.H. (1987) The Archaeology of the Jerusalem Area, Grand Rapids. — (1992) ‘Zion’, in D.N. Freeman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, New York, 1096–7. Margalit, S. (1989) ‘Aelia Capitolina’, Judaica 1, 45–56. Markus, R.A. (1994) ‘How on Earth Could Places Become Holy? Origins of the Christian Idea of Holy Places’, JECS 2:3, 257–71. Matthew, A. (1999) Pilgrims to Jerusalem, Sevenoaks. Mauss, C. (1888) La piscine de Bethesda à Jérusalem, Paris. Mazar, B. (1975) The Mountain of the Lord – Excavating in Jerusalem, New York. Mazar, E. (2000) The Complete Guide to the Temple Mount Excavations, tr. D. Glick and N. Panitz-Cohen, Jerusalem. McCauley, L.P and A.A. Stephenson (1970) (trans.). The Works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation), 2 vols., Washington. McKitterick, R. (1989) ‘Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany: Reflections on the Manuscript Evidence’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 9, 291–329. — (1991) Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany, Leicester. Meddeb, A. (ed.). (1996) Multiple Jérusalem, Paris. Meehan, D. (1958) Adamnan’s ‘De Locis Sanctis’, Dublin. Meinardus, O. ‘Notes on the Laurae and Monasteries of the Wilderness of Judaea’, LA 15 (1964–5), 220–50, 16 (1965–6), 328–56 and 19 (1969), 305–27. — (1981) ‘The Site of the Apostle Paul’s Conversion at Kaubab’, BA 44, 57–9. Meistermann, B. (1906) Nouveau Guide de Terre Sainte, Paris. — (1920) Gethsémani: Notices Historiques et Descriptives, Paris.

288

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 289

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Michels, H. (1987) ‘Die Gründungsjahr der Bistümer Erfurt, Büraburg und Würzburg’, AMK 39, 11–42. Milik, J.T. (1960) ‘Notes D’Épigraphie et de Topographie Palestiniennes,’ RB 67, 354–67 and 550–91. — (1961) ‘La Topographie de Jérusalem vers la Fin de L’Époque Byzantine’, MUSJ 37, 125–89. Miller, K. (1916) Itineraria Romana: Römische Reiseweg und der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana, Stuttgart. Moloney, F. (1998) The Gospel of John, Collegeville, Minnesota. Mommert, C. (1897) ‘Die Grabeskirche des Modestus nach Arkulfs Bericht’, ZDPV 20, 34–53. — (1898) ‘The Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem on the Mosaic Map at Madeba’, PEFQSt, 177–83. — (1899) ‘Zur Orientirung der Arculf ’schen Planzeichnung der Zionskirche des VII. Jahrhunderts’, ZDPV 22, 105–17. — (1907) Der Teich Bethesda zu Jerusalem, Leipzig. Moore, W.J. (1937) The Saxon Pilgrims to Rome and the Schola Saxonum, Fribourg. Moore, E.A. (1961) The Ancient Churches of Old Jerusalem: The Evidence of the Pilgrims, London. Moorhead, J. (1981) ‘The Monophysite Response to the Arab Invasions’, Byzantion 55, 579–91. — (1985) ‘Iconoclasm, the Cross, and the Imperial Image’, Byzantion 55, 165–79. Moriarty, R. (2000) ‘“Secular Men and Women”: Egeria’s Lay Congregation in Jerusalem’, in R.N. Swanson (ed.), SCH 36, Woodbridge, 55–66. Morris, C. (2000) ‘Memorials of the Holy Places and Blessings from the East: Devotion to Jerusalem before the Crusades’, in R.N. Swanson (ed.), SCH 36, Woodbridge, 90–109. Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1994) ‘The Location of the Capitol in Aelia Capitolina’, RB 101, 407–15. — (1995) ‘The Cenacle: The Topographical Setting for Acts 2:44–45’, in R. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, vol. 4, Grand Rapids, 303–21. — (1998) The Holy Land: An Archaeological Guide from the Earliest Times to 1700, 4th ed., Oxford. — (1999) ‘Restoration and Discovery: Bringing to Light the Original Holy Sepulchre’, in T. Hummel, K. Hintlian and U. Carmesund (eds), Patterns of the Past, Prospects for the Future: The Christian Heritage of the Holy Land, London, 69–84. — (2000) ‘Where was Jesus Born? Bethlehem . . . of Course’, BR 16.1, 40–5 and 50. Naureth, C. (1995) ‘Das leere Grab Mariens’, JbAC 20, 1049–58. Nestle, E. (1902) ‘Bethesda’, ZNTW 3, 171–2. Negev, A. (ed.). (1972) Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, New York.

289

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 290

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nibley, H. (1959–69) ‘Christian Envy of the Temple’, JQR 50, 97–122 and 229–40. Noble, T.F.X. and T. Head. (1994) Soldiers of Christ: Saints and Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, University Park, Pennsylvania. Ó Carragáin, É. (1995) ‘Rome Pilgrimage, Roman Liturgy, and the Ruthwell Cross’, JbAC 20, 630–9. Ohler, N. (1989) The Medieval Traveller, tr. C. Hillier, Woodbridge. O’Loughlin, T. (1992a) ‘Adam’s Burial at Hebron: Some Aspects of its Significance in the Latin Tradition’, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 15, 66–88. — (1992b) ‘The Exegetical Purpose of Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis’, CMCS 24, 37–53. — (1994a) ‘The Latin Version of the Scriptures in Iona in the Late Seventh Century: The Evidence from Adomnán’s De locis sanctis’, Peritia 8, 18–26. — (1994b) ‘The Library of Iona in the Late Seventh Century: The Evidence from Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis’, Ériu 45, 33–52. — (1995) ‘Adomnán the Illustrious’, IR 46.1, 1–14. — (1996a) ‘Adomnán and mira rotunditas’, Ériu 47, 95–9. — (1996b) ‘“The Gates of Hell”: From Metaphor to Fact’, Milltown Studies 38, 98–114. — (1996c) ‘The View from Iona: Adomnán’s Mental Maps’, Peritia 10, 98–122. — (1997a) ‘Adomnán and Arculf: The Case of an Expert Witness’, JML 7 127–46 — (1997b) ‘Adomnán’s De locis sanctis: a Textual Emendation and an Additional Source Identification’, Ériu 48, 37–40. — (1997c) ‘Res, tempus, locus, persona: Adomnán’s exegetical method’, IR 48, 95–111. — (2000a) ‘The Diffusion of Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis in the Medieval Period’, Ériu 51, 93–106. — (2000b) ‘Palestine in the aftermath of the Arab conquest: the earliest Latin account’, in R.N. Swanson (ed.), SCH 36, Woodbridge, 78–89. — (2000c) ‘The Tombs of the Saints: their significance for Adomnán’, in M. Herbert (ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 International Hagiography Conference, Dublin, 1–14. — (2007) Adomnán and the Holy Places: Perceptions of an Insular Monk on the Location of the Biblical Drama, London. Orfali, P.G. (1924) Gethsémani, Paris. Ousterhout, R. (1981) ‘The Church of Santo Stefano: A “Jerusalem” in Bologna’, Gesta 20.2, 311–21. — (1989) ‘Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 48, 66–78. — (1990a) The Blessings of Pilgrimage, Urbana.

290

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 291

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (1990b) ‘The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Savior’, Gesta 29.1, 44–53. — (2000) ‘The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (in Bologna, Italy)’, BAR 26, 20–35. Ovadiah, A. (1970) Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land, Bonn. Ovadiah, A and C. Gomez de Silva. (1981) ‘Supplementum to the Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land (Part I)’, Levant 13, 200–61. — (1982) ‘Supplementum to the Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land (Part II)’, Levant 14, 122–70. — (1984) ‘Supplementum to the Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land, III: Appendices’, Levant 16, 129–65. Paczkowski, M.C. (2005) ‘Gerusalemme: “Ombelico de Mondo” nella Tradizione Christiana Antica’, LA, 55, 165–202. Padberg, L.E. von. (1981) Heilige und Familie: Studien zur Bedeutung familiengebundener Aspekte in den Viten des Verwandten- und Schülerkreises um Willibrord, Bonifatius und Liudger, Münster. — (1995) Mission und Christianisierung: Formen und Folgen bei Angelsachsen und Franken in 7 und 8. Jahrhundert. — (2000) ‘Missionare und Mönche auf dem Weg nach Rom und Monte Cassino im 8. Jahrhundert’, ZK 111, 145–68. Painter, K. (ed.). (1994) Churches Built in Ancient Times, London. Parrot, A. (1957) Golgotha and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, tr. Edwin Hudson, New York. Parsons, D. (1988) Books and Buildings: Architectural Description Before and After Bede [Jarrow Lecture, 1987], Jarrow. — (1999) ‘Some Churches of the Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Southern Germany: a Review of the Evidence’, EME 8, 31–67. Parsons, M.C. (1987) The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: the Ascension narratives in context, Sheffield. Patrich, J. (1993) ‘The Early Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Light of Excavations and Restoration’, in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, 100–17. — (1995) Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries, Washington. Payne, R. (1998) The Crusades: A History, Ware. Perrone, L. (1980) La chiesa di Palestine e le controversie christologische, Brescia. — (1995) ‘Monasticism in the Holy Land: From the Beginnings to the Crusades’, POC 45, 31–63. — (1999) ‘Aspects of Palestinian Monasticism in Byzantine Times: Some Comments and Proposals’, in T. Hummel, K. Hintlian and U. Carmesund (eds), Patterns of the Past, Prospects for the Future: The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, London, 264–72. Peters. F.E. (1985) Jerusalem: The Holy City in the Eyes of Chroniclers, Visitors, Pilgrims, and Prophets from the Days of Abraham to the Beginnings of Modern Times, Princeton.

291

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 292

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Petrozzi, M.T. (2000) Bethlehem, tr. G. Kloetzly and M.T. Petrozzi, Jerusalem. Pfeiffer, G. (1974) ‘Erfurt order Eichstätt? Zur Biographie des Bischofs Willibald’, in H. Beuman (ed.), Festschrift für Walter Schlesinger, Köln, 137–61. — (1990) ‘Das Problem des Eichstätter Raums zur Zeit des heiligen Willibald’, in H. Dickerhof, E. Reiter and S. Weinfurter (eds), Der hl Willibald, Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgrunder, Regensburg, 237–44. Piccirillo, M. (1988) ‘The Mosaics at Um er-Rasas in Jordan’, BA 51, 208–13 and 227–31. Piccirillo, M. and E. Alliata (eds). (1998) The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897– 1997, Jerusalem. Piganiol, A. (1945) ‘L’hemispairion et l’omphalos des lieux saints’, Cahiers archaéologigues 1, 7–14. Pinkerfeld, J. (1960) ‘David’s Tomb: Notes on the History of the Building, Preliminary Report’, Bulletin of the Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synogogues 3, Jerusalem, 41–3. Pixner, B. (1979) ‘Noch einmal das Prätorium: Versuch einer neuen Lösing’, ZDPV 95, 56–86. — (1981) ‘Das Essenerquarter in Jerusalem und dessen Einfluss auf die Urkirche’, Das Heilige Land 113, 3–14. — (1985a) ‘The Miracle Church of Tabgha on the Sea of Galilee’, BA 48.4, 196–206. — (1985b) ‘Searching for the New Testament Site of Bethsaida’, BA 48.4, 207–16. — (1990a) ‘Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion?’ BAR 16.3, 16–35, 60. — (1990b) ‘Church of the Apostles on Mt. Zion’, Miskan 13, 27–42. — (1991) Wege des Messias und Stätten der Urkirche, Basil. Prawer, J. and H. Ben-Shammai (eds). (1996) The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099). Price, R.M. (tr.). (1991) Lives of the Monks of Palestine, with an introduction and notes by J. Binns, Kalamazoo. Prinz, F. (1965) Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich: Kultur und Gesellschaft in Gallien, den Rheinlanden und Bayern am Beispiel der monastischen Entwicklung (4. bis 8. Jahrhundert), Munich. — (1995) ‘Hagiographische Text über Kult- und Wallfahrtsorte: Auftragsarbeit für Kultpropaganda, persönliche Motivation, Rolle der Mönche’, JbAC 20.1, 310–28. Power, E. (1928) ‘The Church of St Peter at Jerusalem: Its Relation to the House of Caiaphas and Sancta Sion’, Biblica 9, 167–86. — (1929a) ‘The House of Caiaphas and the Church of St. Peter’, Biblica 10, 275–303 and 394–416. — (1929b) ‘The House of Caiaphas and the Pilgrim of Bordeaux’, Biblica 10, 116–25.

292

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 293

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pullan, W. (1998) ‘The Representation of the Late Antique City in the Madaba Map: the Meaning of the Cardo in the Jerusalem Vignette’, in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds), The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897–1997, Jerusalem, 165–71. Regard, P. (1978) ‘Veneration of the Cross’, Worship 52.1, 2–13. Reinink, G.J. and B.H. Stolte (eds). (2002) The Reign of Heraclius (610–641): Crisis and Confrontation, Louvain. Renoux, C. (1996) ‘De Jérusalem en Arménie L’Heritage Liturgique de L’Église Arménienne’, POC 46, 293–304. — (1997) ‘The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Liturgy of Jerusalem’, in Paul M. Blowers (ed. and tr.) The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity, South Bend, 389–414. Reuter, T. (ed.). (1980) The Greatest Englishman: Essays on St. Boniface and the Church at Crediton, Exeter. — (1994) ‘“Kirchenreform” und “Kirchenpolitik” in Zeitalter Karl Martells: Begriffe und Wirklichkeit’, in J. Jarnut, U. Nonn and M. Richter (eds), Karl Martell in seiner Zeit, Sigmaringen, 35–59. Richardson, E.C. (tr.). (1991) Eusebius: Life of Constantine, in P. Schaff and H. Wace, NPNF (repr.), 2nd serices, vol. 1, 481–559, Edinburgh. Roberts, A. (tr.). (1991) Supitius Severus: Sacred History, in P. Schaff and H. Wace, NPNF (repr.), 2nd series, vol. 11, 71–122, Edinburgh. Roll, I. (1995) ‘Roads and Transportation in the Holy Land in the Early Christian and Byzantine Times’, JbAC 20, 1166–70. — (1998) ‘The Roads in Roman-Byzantine Palaestina and Arabia’, in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds), The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897–1997, Jerusalem, 109–13. Rosovsky, N. (ed.). (1996) City of the Great King: Jerusalem from David to the Present, Cambridge, MA. Rotter, E. (1986) Abendland und Sarazenen: Das okzidentale Araberbild und seine Entstehung im Frühmittelalter, New York. Rousée, J.-M. (1962) ‘Jérusalem (Piscine probatique)’, RB 69, 107–9. Rubin, Z. (1982) ‘The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Conflict between the Sees of Caesarea and Jerusalem’, in L.I. Levine (ed.), The Jerusalem Cathedra, II, Jerusalem, 79–105. — (1998) ‘The Cult of the Holy Places and Christian Politics in Byzantine Jerusalem’, in L.I. Levine, (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 151–62. Runciman, S. (1935) ‘Charlemagne and Palestine’, EHR 50, 606–19. — (1955) ‘The Pilgrimages to Palestine before 1095’, in K.M. Setton (ed.), A History of the Crusades, vol. 1, Philadelphia, 68–78. Rush, A. (1950a) ‘Assumption Theology in the Transitus Mariae’, AER 123, 97. — (1950b) ‘Scriptural Texts and the Assumption in the Transitus Mariae’, CBQ 12, 367–78.

293

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 294

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Russell, K.W. (1985) ‘The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd through the mid-8th Century A.D.’, BASOR 260, 37–59. Safrai, C. (1996) ‘The Centrality of Jerusalem: a Retrospect: Jerusalem – Truly the Navel of the World?’ in M. Poorthius and C. Safrai (eds), The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives, Kampen, 217–28. Sage, W. (1990) ‘Zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte des Bistums Eichstätt’, in H. Dickerhof, E. Reiter and S. Weinfurter (eds), Der hl Willibald, Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgrunder, Regensburg, 199–215. Saller, S. (1950) ‘An Ancient Church at Bethany’, CBQ 12, 400–4. — (1957) Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953), Jerusalem. de Sandoli, S. (1984) Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre (Historical Outline), Jerusalem. Sanjian, A.K. (1969) ‘Anastas Vardapet’s List of Armenian Monasteries in SeventhCentury Jerusalem: A Critical Examination’, Le Muséon 82, 265–92. — (1983) ‘The Armenians and the Holy Places in Jerusalem’, in The Third International Conference on Bilad al-Sham: Palestine, vol. 1: Jerusalem, Amman, 127–43. Sankt Bonifatius: Gedenkengabe zum zwölfhundertsten Todestag (1954), Fulda. Scarfe Beckett, K. (2003) Anglo-Saxon Perceptions of the Islamic World, Cambridge. Schein, B.E. (1981) ‘The Second Wall of Jerusalem’, BA 44.1, 21–6. Schick, C. (1888) ‘Pool of Bethesda. I. Recent Discoveries in Jerusalem’, PEFQSt, 115–22. — (1896) ‘The Church of the Ascension of the Mount of Olives’, PEFQSt, 310–27. — (1897a) ‘The Church at the Pool of Shiloah’, PEFQSt, 109–13. — (1897b) ‘The Site of the Ascension of our Lord’, PEFQSt, 114–5. — (1900) ‘Neue Funde am Bethesdateich in Jerusalem’, Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins 6, 82. — (1902) ‘Notes and News’, PEFQSt, 1–9. Schick, R. (1988) ‘Christian Life in Palestine: During the Early Islamic period’, BA 51.4, 218–21 and 239–40. — (1995) The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Historical and Archaeological Study, Princeton. — (1998) ‘Palestine in the Early Islamic period: Luxuriant Legacy’, NEA 61, 74–108. — (1999a) ‘Christians in Jerusalem in the Early 7th Century AD’, in T. Hummel, K. Hintlian and U. Cormesund (eds), Patterns of the Past, Prospects for the Future: The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, London, 219–230. — (1999b) ‘The Image Destroyers’, Odyssey 2.5, 40–7. Schieffer, T. (1972) Winfrid-Bonifatius und die christliche Grundlegung Europas. 2nd ed., Darmstadt.

294

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 295

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schneider, A.M. (1940) ‘Das Itinerarium des Epiphanius Hagiopolita’, ZDPV 63, 143–54. — (1941) ‘Zur Datierung der Vita Constantini et Helenae’, ZNTW 40, 245–9. Schüssler, H.J. (1985) ‘Die fränkische Reichteilung von Vieux-Poitiers (742) und die Reform der Kirche in den Teilreichen Karlmanns und Pippins’, Francia 13, 47–111. Schwartz, J. (1987) ‘The Encaenia of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Temple of Solomon and the Jews’, Theologische Zeitschrift 43, 265–81. Sefton, D.S. (1987), ‘The Popes and the Holy Images in the Eighth Century’, in T.F.X. Noble and J.J. Contren (eds), Religion, Culture and Society in the Early Middle Ages: Studies in Honor of Richard E. Sullivan, Kalamazoo, 117–30. Semmler, J. (1998) ‘Bonifatius, die Karolinger, und die Franken’, in D.R. Bauer, R. Heistand, B. Kasten, and S. Lorenz (eds), Mönchtum – Kirche – Herrschaft, 750 – 1000, Sigmaringen, 3–49. Shanks, H. (1987) ‘The Jerusalem Wall that shouldn’t be there: Three Major Excavations fail to explain controversial Remains’, BAR 13.3, 46–57. — (2005) ‘The Siloam Pool: Where Jesus Cured the Blind Man’, BAR 31, 16–23. — (2007) ‘Major New Excavation Planned for Mary Magdalene’s Hometown’, BAR 33.5, 52–5. Shiloh, Y. (1984) Excavations at the City of David, Jerusalem. Shoemaker, S.J. (1999), ‘“Let Us Go and Burn Her Body”: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions’, CH 68.4, 775–823. — (2002) Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, Oxford. Simek, R. (1992) ‘Hierusalem civitas famosissima: Die erhaltenen Fassungen des hochmittelalterlichen Situs Jerusalem (mit Abbildungen zur gesamten handscriftlichen Überlieferung)’, Jahrgang 16, vol. 12, 121–53. Sivan, H. (1988a) ‘Who was Egeria? Piety and Pilgrimage in the Age of Gratian’, HTR 81, 57–72. — (1988b) ‘Holy Land Pilgrimage and Western Audiences: Some Reflections on Egeria and her Circle’, CQ 38.2, 528–35. Sladden, J.C. (1980) Boniface of Devon: Apostle of Germany, Exeter. Smith, C.D. (1991) ‘Geography or Christianity? Maps of the Holy Land before AD 1000’, JTS, n.s. 42, 143–52. Smith, J.Z. (1987) To Take Place, Chicago. Smothers, E.R. (1951) ‘Saint Epiphanius and the Assumption’, AER 125, 355–73. Stabb, F. (1988) ‘Die Gründung der Bistümer Erfurt, Büraburg und Würzburg durch Bonifatius im Rahmen de Fränkischen und Päpstlichen Politik’, AMRK 40, 13–41.

295

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 296

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stanchi, R. (1987) ‘Die Willibald-Vita der Nonne Hugeburc von Heidenheim’, in B. Appel, E. Braun and S. Hofmann (eds), Hl. Willibald, 787–1987: Künder des Glaubens: Pilger, Mönch, Bischof, Eichstätt, 115–9. Stalley, R. (1999) Early Medieval Architecture, Oxford. Stancliffe, C. (1983) ‘Kings who Opted Out’, in P. Wormald (ed.) with D. Bullough and R. Collins, Ideal and Reality in Frankish and AngloSaxon Society, Oxford, 154–76. Stander, H.F. (1998) ‘Fourth- and Fifth-Century Homilists on the Ascension of Christ’, in A.J. Malherbe, F.W. Norris and J.W. Thompson (eds), The Early Church in its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, Leiden, 268–86. Starr, J. (1935) ‘Byzantine Jewry on the Eve of the Arab Conquest (565–638)’, JPOS 15, 280–93. Steidle, W. (1978) ‘Die Leichenrede des Ambrosius für Kaiser Theodosius und die Helena-Legende’, VC 32, 94–112. Stemberger, G. (1998) ‘Jerusalem in the Early Seventh Century: Hopes and Aspirations of Christians and Jews’, in L. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 260–72. Stern, E. (ed.). (1993) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem. Stewart, A. (tr). (1895) Extracts from Eutychii Annales (PPTS 11), 35–68, London. — (tr). (1896) Of the Holy Places Visited by Antonius Martyr (PPTS 2), 1–37, London. Stone, M.E. (1986) ‘Holy Land Pilgrimage of Armenians before the Arab Conquest’, RB 93, 93–110. Stopford, J. (ed.). (1999) Pilgrimage Explored, Woodbridge. Storme, A. (1972) Gethsemane, Jerusalem. Störmer, W. (1985) ‘Bayerisch-Ostfränkische Beziehungen vom 7. bis zum frühen 9. Jahrhundert’, in H. Wolfram and A. Schwarcz (eds), Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn, vol. 1, Wien, 227–52. Stratos, A. (1965) Byzantium in the Seventh Century, Amsterdam. Strickert, F. (1998) Bethsaida: Home of the Apostles, Collegeville, Minnesota. Stroumsa, G.G. (1989) ‘Religious Contacts in Byzantine Palestine,’ Numen 36, 16–42. Sullivan, R.E. (1955) ‘The Papacy and Missionary Activity in the Early Middle Ages’, Mediaeval Studies 17, 46–106. Sumption, J. (1975) Pilgrimage: An Image of Mediaeval Religion, London. Taft, R. (1980–1) ‘The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation of the Eve of the Iconoclasm’, DOP 34 /5, 45–75. Talbot, C.H. (1954) The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany, London. — (1970) ‘St Boniface and the German Mission’, SCH 6, 45–57.

296

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 297

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Talmon, S. (1977) ‘The “Navel of the Earth” and the Comparative Method’, in A.L. Merrill and T.W. Overholt (eds), Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam, Pittsburgh, 243–65. Tarchnischvili, M. (1955) Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, Vatican. Taylor, J.E. (1987) ‘The Cave at Bethany’, RB 94, 120–3. — (1990) ‘The Bagatti-Tesha Hypothesis and alleged Jewish-Christian Archeological Remains’, Mishkan 13, 1–26. — (1993) Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins, Oxford. — (1995) ‘The Garden of Gethsemane: Not the Place of Jesus’ Arrest’, BAR 21, 26–35 and 62. — (1998) ‘Golgotha: A Reconsideration of the Evidence for the Sites of Jesus’ Crucifixion and Burial’, NTS 44, 180–203. — (2008) ‘The Nea Church: Were the Temple Treasures Hidden Here?’, BAR, 34.1, 50–5, 58–9 and 82. Telfer, W. (1957) ‘Constantine’s Holy Land Plan’, SP 1, 696–70. Testini, P. (1962) ‘The “Kathisma” Church and Monastery’, in Y. Aharoni (ed.), Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Seasons 1959 and 1960, Rome, 73–91. Thomsen, P. (1903) ‘Palästina nach dem Onomasticon des Eusebius’, ZDPV 26, 97–188. — (1921) ‘Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihrer nächsten Umgebung’, ZDPV 44, 1–168. Thomson, R.W. (1967) ‘A Seventh-Century Armenian Pilgrim on Mount Tabor’, JTS 18, 27–33. — (1989) ‘Jerusalem and Armenia’, SP 18, 77–91. Tobler, T. (1874) Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex saeculo VIII, IX, XII, et XV, Leipzig. Tobler, T. and A. Molinier. (1879) Itinera Hierosolymitana et Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae, Geneva. Toynbee, J. and J.W. Perkins. (1957) The Shrine of St. Peter and the Vatican Excavations, New York. Tritton, A.S. (1930) The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects: A Critical Study of the Covenant of ‘Umar, Oxford. — (1959) ‘The Siege of Constantinople A.D. 714–716’, BSOAS 22, 350–3. Trout, D.E. (1999) Paulinus of Nola: Life, Letters and Poems, Berkeley. Trusen, H.W. (1910) ‘Geschichte von Gethsemane’, ZDPV 33, 57–97. Tsafrir, Y. (1977) ‘Muqaddasi’s Gates of Jerusalem – A New Identification Based on Byzantine Sources’, IEJ 27, 152–61. — (1978) ‘Jerusalem’, in K. Wessel and M. Restle (eds), ‘Jerusalem’, RBK, vol. 3, Stuttgart, 526–615. — (1986) ‘The Maps Used by Theodosius: On the Pilgrim Maps of the Holy Land and Jerusalem in the Sixth Century C.E’, DOP 40, 129–45.

297

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 298

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (ed.). (1993) Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem. — (1998a) ‘Byzantine Jerusalem: The Configuration of a Christian City’, in L.I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 133–50. — (1998b) ‘The Holy City of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map’, in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds), The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897–1997, Jerusalem, 155–63. Tsafir, Y. and G. Foerster. (1992) ‘The Dating of the “Earthquake of the Sabbatical Year” of 749 C.E. in Palestine’, BSOAS 55, 231–35. Tuchman, B.W. (1956) The Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour, New York. Turner, H.W. (1965) ‘The Christian Version of the Sacred Place and its New Testament Norm’, Studia Evangelica 5, 141–5. Turner, C.H. (1904–5) ‘The Lausiac History of Pallasius’, JTS 6, 321–55. Turtledove, H. (tr.). (1982) The Chronicle of Theophanes, Philadelphia. Tushingham, A.D. (1979) ‘The Western Hill under the Monarchy’, ZDPV 95, 39–55. Twain, M. (1980) Innocents Abroad, New York. Tzaferis, V. (1975) ‘The Archaeological Excavations at Shepherds’ Field’, LA 25, 5–52. — (1987) The Monastery of the Cross in Jerusalem, Athens. — (1989a) Excavations at Capernaum I, 1978–1982, Winona Lake, Minnesota. — (1989b) ‘A Pilgrimage to the Site of the Swine Miracle’, BAR 15.2, 44–51. — (1993a) ‘The Early Christian Holy Site at Shepherds’ Field’, in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, 204–6. — (1993b) ‘The Monastery of the Cross in Jerusalem’, in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, 143–6. — (2001) ‘The Monastery of the Cross: Where Heaven and Earth Meet’, BAR 27.6, 32–41. Vasiliev, A.A. (1956) ‘The Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid’, DOP 9/10, 25–47. Verdier, P. (1974) ‘La Colonne de Colonia Aelia Capitolina et L’Image Clipeata du Christ Helios’, Cahiers Archéologiques 23, 17–40. Vikan, G. (1982) Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, Washington. — (1991) ‘Guided by Land and Sea’, JbAC 18, 74–92. — (1997) ‘Pilgrim Eulogiai: Ensure a Safe Trip’, BAR 23.4, 56–9. Vincent, L.-H. (1911) ‘L’église de l’Éleona’, RB 20, 219–65. — (1952) ‘Le Lithostrotos Évangélique’, RB 59, 513–30. — (1957) ‘L’Éléona Sanctuaire Primitif de l’Ascension’, RB 64, 48–71. Vincent, L.-H. and F.M. Abel (1914a) Bethléem: le sanctuaire de la Nativité, Paris. — (1914b) Jérusalem nouvelle (Jérusalem: Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire II), Paris. Vincent, L.-H. and E.J.H. Mackay. (1923) Hébron, le Haram el-Khaliˆl, Paris.

298

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 299

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vitrone, F. (1994) ‘Hugeburc di Heidenheim e le Vitae Willibaldi et Wynnebaldi’, Hagiographica 1, 43–79. de Vogüé, M. (1860) Les Églises de la Terre Sainte, Paris. Vriezen, K.J.H. (1978) ‘Zweiter vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabung unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan in der Altstadt von Jerusalem (1972–74),’ ZDPV 94, 76–81, and pls. 5, 6. Wagner, H. (1990) ‘Zum Todesjahr des Hl. Willibald’, SHVE 83, 13–20. Walker, G.S.M. (1970) ‘St Columban: Monk or Missionary?’, SCH 6, 39–44. Walker, P.W.L. (1989) ‘Eusebius, Cyril and the Holy Places’, SP 20, 306–14. — (1990) Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century, Oxford. Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. (1960) Eusebius of Caesarea, London. — (1975) ‘A Background to St. Boniface’s Mission’, in J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, Early Medieval History, Oxford, 138–54. — (1983) The Frankish Church, Oxford. Webb, D. (1999) Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in the Medieval West, London. — (2002) Medieval European Pilgrimage, Houndmills/Basingstoke. Webb, R. (1999) ‘The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor and Motion in Ekphraseis of Church Buildings’, DOP 53, 59–74. Weber, C. (1989) ‘Egeria’s Norman Homeland’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 92, 437–56. Weinfurter, S. (1987a) ‘Das Bistum Willibalds im Dienste des Königs’, Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte 50, 3–40. — (1987b) ‘Die Willibald-Vita und ihre mittelalterlichen Überarbeitungen’, in Hl. Willibald, 787–1987, Eichstätt, 103–13. Wendehorst, A. (1967) ‘Burghard: Bischof von Würzburg’, in G. Pfeiffer (ed.), FL, Würzburg, 1–9. Whiston, W. (tr.). (1999) The New Complete Works of Josephus, with a commentary by P.L. Maier. Grand Rapids. Whitby, M. and M. Whitby. (1989) Chronicon Paschale, 284–628 AD, Liverpool. Whitelock, D. (1960) After Bede [Jarrow Lecture, 1960], Jarrow. Wightman, G.J. (1993) The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites to the Mamluks, Sydney. Wilken, R.L. (1988) ‘Byzantine Palestine: A Christian Holy Land’, BA 51, 214–37. — (1992a) ‘Eusebius and the Christian Holy Land’, in H.W. Attridge and G. Hata (eds), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, Leiden, 736–60. — (1992b) The Land Called Holy, New Haven. — (1996) ‘Christian Pilgrimage to the Holy Land’, in N. Rosovsky (ed.), City of the Great King: Jerusalem from David to the Present, Cambridge, MA, 117–35.

299

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 300

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (1998) ‘Loving the Jerusalem Below: The Monks of Palestine’, in L.I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, 240–50. Wilkinson, J. (1971) Egeria’s Travels, London. — (1972) ‘The Tomb of Christ: An Outline of its Structural History’, Levant 4, 83–97. — (1974) ‘L’Apport de Saint Jérome a la Topographie’, RB 81, 245–57. — (1975) ‘The Streets of Jerusalem’, Levant 7, 118–36. — (1976) ‘Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem during the Byzantine Period’, PEQ 108, 75–101. — (1977) Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades, Jerusalem. — (1978a) Jerusalem as Jesus Knew It: Archaeology as Evidence, London. — (1978b) ‘The Pool of Siloam’, Levant 10, 116–25. — (1979) ‘Jewish Influences on the Early Christian Rite of Jerusalem’, Le Muséon 92, 347–59. — (1983) ‘Christian Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Fourth Century A.D.’, in The Third International Conference on Bilad al-Sham: Palestine, vol. 1: Jerusalem, Amman, 177–83. — (1988) Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099–1185, with J. Hill and W. F. Ryan, London. — (1993a) ‘Christian Worship in the Byzantine Period’, in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, 17–22. — (1993b) ‘Constantinian Churches in Palestine’, in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, 23–7. — (1999) Egeria’s Travels, 3rd ed. Warminster. — (2002) Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades, 2nd ed. Warminster. Williams, G. (1849) The Holy City: Historical, Topographical, and Antiquarian Notices of Jerusalem, 2 vols., Cambridge. Willis, B. (1928) ‘Earthquakes in the Holy Land’, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 18, 73–103. Willis, R. (1849) The Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, London. Wilson, C.W. (1902) ‘Zion’, in J. Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible, 982–4. — (1906) Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, London. Wilson, C.W. and C. Warren. (1871) The Recovery of Jerusalem, London. Windisch, D.H. (1925) ‘Die ältesten christlichen Palästinapilger’, ZDPV 48, 145–58. Witkamp, L.T. (1985) ‘The Use of Traditions in John 5.1-18’, JSNT 25, 19–31. Wolf, C.U. (1964) ‘Eusebius of Caesarea and the Onomasticon’, BA 27, 66–96. Wood, I. (1994a) The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751, Harlow. — (2001) The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe, 400–1500, Harlow.

300

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 301

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Woods, D. (2002) ‘Arculf ’s Luggage: The Sources for Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis’, Ériu 52, 25–52. — (2006–7) ‘Adomnán, Arculf, and the True Cross: Overlooked Evidence for the Visit of the Emperor Heraclius to Jerusalem c. 630?’, ARAM 18–9, 400–12. Wright. T. (ed.). (1848) Early Travels in Palestine, London. Wright, W. (1865) ‘The Departure of My Lady Mary from this World’, JSLBR 6–7, 417–48 and 108–28. Yadin, Y. (ed.). (1976) Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968– 1974, Jerusalem. Yorke, B. (1990) Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, London. — (1995) Wessex in the Early Middle Ages, London.

301

Bibliography.qxd:Bibliography.qxd

5/15/09

2:33 PM

Page 302

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 303

INDICES

303

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 304

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 305

INDICES

I. Sources The lists of sources exclude most biographical references in the notes. a. Biblical References Gen 3:7 103 Gen 12:1-3 233 Gen 15:1 254 2 Sam 5:7

136

1 Kgs 8:1 1 Kgs 13 1 Kgs 20:36

136 253 253

2 Kgs 2:19-22 2 Kgs 17:26

44 253

1 Chr 11:5

136

2 Chr 5:2

136

Ps 8:3 Ps 22:19, 21 Ps 73:12

248-9 253 92

Ecc 2:5-6

153

Song 7:4

51

Is 1:8

137

Ez 5:5 Ez 38:12

88 88

Joel 3:2

209

Amos 3:4

253

Mic 3:12

137

Zech 14:4

206

1 Mac 4:37, 60

137

1 Mac 5:54 1 Mac 7:33

137 137

Mt 1:20 Mt 8:28-34 Mt 9:18-26 Mt 9:27-31 Mt 10 Mt 10:22

254 43 43 103 250-2 27, 215, 232, 248-51 43 43 254 179 179 43 138 190 209, 253 183 237 179, 180 184, 197 25, 179, 200, 201, 230, 248, 253 179, 181 183 119 70, 108 125 131 125, 126, 129, 130, 133 125, 126 125, 126, 133 125, 126 126, 133 254 125 254

Mt 11:21 Mt 14:22-36 Mt 14:27 Mt 14:32 Mt 14:41-52 Mt 17:1-13 Mt 21:5 Mt 24:3-26:4 Mt 25:1-13 Mt 26:14-6 Mt 26:23 Mt 26:36 Mt 26:36-45 Mt 26:41

Mt 26:45-56 Mt 27:3-4 Mt 27:32-28:8 Mt 27:33 Mt 27:52-3 Mt 27:59-60 Mt 27:60 Mt 27:61, 64 Mt 27:66 Mt 28:1 Mt 28:2 Mt 28:5 Mt 28:8 Mt 28:10

305

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 306

INDICES

Mk 5:11-20 Mk 6:30-56 Mk 6:50 Mk 9:2-8 Mk 11:12-25 Mk 13:3-37 Mk 14:10-1 Mk 14:15 Mk 14:32 Mk 14:32-42 Mk 14:41 Mk 14:41-52 Mk 15:20-16:8 Mk 15:22 Mk 15:46 Mk 16:3 Mk 16:4 Mk 16:5

43 43 254 43 193 190 183 145 180 184, 197 187 181 119 108 130, 131, 133 126, 133 133 131

Lk 1:26-38 Lk 1:28 Lk 2:8-18 Lk 2:10 Lk 2:41-50 Lk 8:32-9 Lk 9:28-36 Lk 10:13 Lk 10:38-11:4 Lk 12:35-6 Lk 22:3-5 Lk 22:12 Lk 22:39 Lk 22:39-46 Lk 22:41

42, 75 201, 248 45 201, 248, 254 156 43 43 43 193 253 183 145 179, 180 179, 181, 184 4, 184, 185, 196, 199, 201 119 108 130, 131 126, 133 132 103 254

Lk 23:26-4:10 Lk 23:33 Lk 23:53 Lk 24:2 Lk 24:10 Lk 24:31 Lk 24:36

Lk 24:50-1

203

Jn 1:44 Jn 2:1-11 Jn 4:5-42 Jn 4:20 Jn 5 Jn 5:2

43 42 50 201, 248 23 23, 149, 151, 160-1, 230, 259 148, 153 152 201, 230, 248 43 254

Jn 5:2-9 Jn 5:4 Jn 5:8 Jn 6:16-21 Jn 6:20 Jn 9 103 Jn 10:23 Jn 12:5 Jn 18:1 Jn 18:1-12 Jn 18:2 Jn 19:17 Jn 19:17-20:18 Jn 19:20 Jn 19:41 Jn 19:42 Jn 20:1 Jn 20:19, 26-9 Act 1:3-11 Act 1:11

Act 1:12 Act 1:13 Act 2:1-41 Act 3:1-10 Act 3:11 Act 3:12-26 Act 5:12 Act 7:54-60 Act 9:1-18 Act 9:4

306

149, 156, 157 138 180 179, 181 180 108 119 113 108, 121, 130, 135, 230 131 126, 133 144 203 201, 202, 205, 209, 210, 214, 230, 248 203 145 144 156 149, 156, 157 156 149, 157 146 43 201, 248

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 307

INDICES

Act 9:40 Act 18:9 Act 21:7

103 254 51

Rom 5:12-21 Rom 9:33 Rom 11:26

117 138 138

1 Cor 1:31

248-9

Heb 11:8-16 Heb 12:22 Heb 13:12

233 138 113

1 Pet 2:6 1 Pet 5:8-10

138 254

Apoc 1:17 Apoc 5:13 Apoc 14:1

254 248 138

Al-Tabari (see R. Schick (1995)) 60 Ambrose, De orbitu Theodosii 65 Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam 117 Anastasius of Sinai, Interrogationes et responsiones 59, 139 Antiochus, Epistola ad Eustathium 69, 204 Antiochus, Exomologesis 139 Armenian Guide 17, 56, 69, 72, 86, 96, 111, 115, 116, 117, 122, 123, 139, 145, 146, 154, 166-171, 176, 178, 187, 191, 211, 214, 217, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 257, 258, 260, map 16 Armenian Lectionary 16, 54, 144, 145, 184, 204-5 Augustine, In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus 207

b. Ancient Sources ᎑ -Yu᎑ suf (see R. Schick (1995)) Abu 60, 62 Acts of John 190 Adomnán, De locis sanctis 18-9, 21-2, 34, 43, 56, 62, 63, 65, 69, 72, 74, 77, 79-98, 102, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133-134, 139, 140, 146, 147, 154, 163, 165, 170, 171, 175, 176, 183, 187-8, 190, 191, 192, 196, 197, 199, 203, 204-5, 208, 209-10, 211, 214, 218, 222, 227, 257, 258, 259, tables 1, 3, manuscript drawings 19-20, 72, 92-3, 99, 116, 145, 146, 147, 164, 257, 259 Alexander the Monk, De Inventione sanctae crucis 145

Bede, De locis sanctis 80-1, 86, 92 Bede, Historia ecclesiastica 30 Benedict of Nursia, Regula Benedicti 250 Bernard the Monk, Itinerarium Bernardi 20, 33, 56, 69, 89-90, 110, 112, 118, 122, 123, 124, 126, 133, 139, 145, 146, 147, 153, 154, 164, 165, 175, 176, 183, 187-8, 190, 191, 195, 199, 201, 204, 207, 209, 211, 214, 218, 219, 222, 223, 229, 257, 259, 260, map 18 Boniface, Epistolae 38, 246 Bordeaux Pilgrim, Itinerarium Burdigalense 16, 110, 137, 138, 150-1, 155, 181-2, 219 Breviarius (all recensions) 16, 64, 65, 71, 72, 76, 84, 115, 117, 122, 146, 147, 174, 183, 190, 214, 219-20, 221, maps 11-3

307

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 308

INDICES

Cambrai Map 23, 149, 155 Commemoratorium 20, 55, 56, 72, 93, 96, 102, 104, 110, 114, 116, 126, 139, 154, 175, 191-4, 204 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 16, 110, 122, 133, 137, 144, 180, 182, 184-6, 188 Cyril of Jerusalem, Homilia in Paralyticum 150 Cyril of Scythopolis. Lives of the Monks of Palestine 46

Eusebius, Onomasticon 141, 150, 151, 181, 184-6, 228 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 71, 95, 120 Eutychius of Alexander, Annales 5960, 71, 93-4, 175, 186, 190 First Guide 145, 159-60, 259 Georgian Calendar 17, 56, 59, 175, 191, 194-5 Georgian Lectionary 17, 55, 56, 59, 89, 139, 144, 153, 174, 175, 188, 195, 205

Daniel the Abbott, Wallfahrtsbericht 20, 21, 22, 24, 46, 63, 65, 76-9, 88, 89, 91, 94-5, 97-8, 103, 106, 145, 149, 160, 166-7, 172, 178, 183, 199, 257, 258, 259, 261, tables 2, 3 De situ urbis Jerusalem 199 Didascalia of Addai 145

Hugeburc, Hodæporicon 13-4 (see Hugeburc, Vita Willibaldi) Hugeburc, Vita Willibaldi, cited throughout, including 1, 6-15, 21-7, 66, 231, 236, 256-64, table 1, maps 8-10, 17 Hugeburc, Vita Wynnebaldi 12, 15, 39, 66, 67, 177, 214, 248, 251, 252, 256

Egeria, Itinerarium Egeriae 16, 54, 104, 110, 144, 145, 182, 184-6, 188, 192, 195, 201, 203, 204-5, 219, 235, 257 Epiphanius, Hagiopolita 17-8, 19, 21, 22, 43, 56, 63, 65, 72, 73-7, 84, 86, 88, 91, 92, 94-8, 103, 107, 117, 122, 139, 145, 146, 147, 153, 154, 159, 161, 165, 166-71, 175, 176, 178, 180, 183, 187, 190-1, 207, 211, 214, 217, 222, 223, 229, 257, 258, 259, 260, tables 1-3 Epiphanius of Salamis, Adversus haereses 117 Epiphanius of Salamis, Treatise on Weights and Measures 138 Eucherius, Epistula ad Faustum Presbyterum 16, 80, 87, 110, 139, 140, 141, 144-5, 148, 151, 190, 191, 204, 207 Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica 137, 206

Itinerarium S. Willibaldi (Vita III ) 14-5 Jachintus, Pilgrimage 123 Jerome, Commentariorum in Hiezechielem Prophetam 80 Jerome, Epistulae 16, 86-7, 108, 131, 133, 144, 216, 218, 219, 235 Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos 117 Jerome, In Sophoniam 204 Jerome, Liber Locorum 141, 148, 151, 181, 185-6 John of Damascus, Homilia I in Dormitionem B.V. Mariae 75 John of Damascus, Homilia I in Nativitatem B.V.Mariae 154 John of Damascus, Homilia II in Dormitionem B.V. Mariae 167

308

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 309

INDICES

John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi 16, 87, 151, 204, 207, 214, 219 John of Würzburg, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae 187, 197-8 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 137, 157 Josephus, The Jewish War 52, 137, 150, 157

183, 186, 192, 207, 219, 229, 259 Protoevangelium 74-5, 97, 153, 260 Prüfening Manuscript (Clm 130002, fol. 4v) 80-1, 87 Rodulf Glaber, Historiarum sui temporis 206 Rufinus of Aquileia, Historia ecclesiastica 65, 103

Koran 244

Origen, Commentaria in evangelium Joannis 150 Origen, Commentaria in evangelium secundum Matthaeum 117 Ottobonian Guide 92, 145

Saewulf, Relatio peregrinatione Saewulfi 20, 47, 145, 198200, 201, 261 Sebe¯os, History of Heraclius 55, 56, 139 Second Guide, 154-5, 162, 199 Socrates Scholasticus. Historia Ecclesiastica 65 Sophronius, Sophronii Anacreontica 17, 89-91, 118, 133, 145, 147, 153-4, 174, 176, 186, 190, 214, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 257, 260, map 15 Sophronius, Vita Sanctae Mariae Aegyptiacae 73 Sozomen. Historia Ecclesiastica 65 Strategius, The Capture of Jerusalem by the Persians 55, 143, 191 Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon 65, 103, 207

Paulinus of Nola, Epistulae 65, 103, 206-7 Photius, Amphilochia 113, 118, 121, 130, 131, 133-4, 140, 141, 148, 158-9, 160, 257, 259 Piacenza Pilgrim, Itinerarium 16, 33, 42, 46, 85, 86, 87, 97, 114, 115-6, 120, 132, 133, 134, 141, 142, 146, 147, 151, 153, 157-9, 160, 174,

Theoderic, Libellus de locis sanctis 197, 199 Theodoret of Cyrus. Historia Ecclesiastica 65 Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae 16, 32, 44, 46, 110, 114, 115-6, 138, 141, 153, 174, 180, 182, 183, 186, 192, 199, 207, 214, 217, 220, 221, map 14

Life of Constantine 17-8, 191 Lucian the Priest. Epistola Luciani 146 Madaba Map 16, 22, 44, 46, 82-9, 139, 142-3, 147, 169, 171-2, 228 Melito of Sardis, Paschal Homily 84, 147 Mukaddasi, Description of Syria, including Palestine 75, 156, 161 Nikulas of Þverá, Extract from Nikulás of Þverá 89-90, 118

309

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 310

INDICES

Theophanes, Chronographia 61, 186 Typikon on the Anastasis 17, 59, 89, 188

Cramp, R. 67

Victornius of Poitiers, de Pascha 80, 92

Finegan, J. 182

Dickerhof, H. 5, 6 Donner, H. 82, 95

Geyer, P. 16, 19, 157, 158 Gibson, S. 53, 78, 99, 100, 116, 150, 152 Gil, M. 114 Gottschaller, E. 7, 8 Grabar, O. 2, 18, 57, 258 Grabois, A. 251

Willibald of Mainz, Vita Bonifatii 12, 38-9 Work of Geography 153 Yâkût (see Le Strange (1976)) 84 c. Contemporary Sources and Scholars Abel, F.-M. 74, 76, 82, 127, 141, 168, 191, 193 Avi-Yonah, M. 82, 85, 87, 226

Harrison, D. 51 Head, T. 13, 14 Heidingsfelder, F. 5, 29 Hoade, E. 197 Holder-Egger, O. 12-4 Hoyland, R.G. 234, 240 Hunt, E.D. 54, 185, 235

Bagatti, B. 175, 194 Bahat, D. 53, 81, 86, 87, 94, 97, 140, 141, 142-3, 168, 180-1, 191, 195, 221 Barag, D. 127 Barefoot, B. 35 Bauch, A., cited throughout, including 5, 12, 14, 29, 47, 68, 86, 100, 101, 127, 168, 192, 196, 212, 241 Biddle, M. 20, 94, 120, 127-8, Borgehammar, S. 64-5, 71 Bowman, G. 11, 263 Broshi, M. 142, 143 Brown, P. 176-7 Brownlow, W.R. 11, 12, 14, 68, 70, 133 Bultmann, R. 152 Busse, H. 94

Kopp, C. 145, 187, 191-4 Krautheimer, R. 213 Kühnel, B. 90 Lecoffre, V. 85 Le Strange, G. 156 Limor, O. 10, 240 Linder, A. 97, 197 Magness, J. 57 Mango, C. 97-8, 242 Maraval, P. 235 Meehan, D. 18, 82 Meistermann, B. 196 Milik, J.T. 158, 189, 194, 195 Molinier, A. 12, 13, 14, 16 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 53, 138, 186, 195, 196, 197

Canisius, H. 11-4 Cohn, E. 223 Corbo, V. 182

Noble, T.F.X. 13, 14

310

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 311

INDICES

O’Loughlin, T. 18, 90

Willis, B. 128 Woods, D. 18, 34 Wright T. 12

Paczkowski, M.C. 82, 87, 90 Parsons, D. 19, 214 Payne, R. 135 Pixner, B. 138 Prinz, F. 10, 35, 240 Pullan, W. 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 90, 168

Yorke, B. 29, 51, 67 II. People a. Biblical Names Abraham 46, 232 Amos 46 Ananias 33, 41 Andrew, disciple of Jesus 33, 43, 124, feast of St Andrew (Nov 30) 33, 37, 41, 51

Reiter, E. 5 Schick, C. 85, 208-9 Schick, R., cited throughout, including 3, 166, 195 Schneider, A.M. 17-8 Shoemaker, S.J. 163-5 Simek, R. 81 Stewart, A. 158 Storme, A. 200 Strickert, F. 43 Sumption, J. 30, 51

Christ, cited throughout Cleopas 254 David, king 161 Dorcas 47, 103 Elijah 43 Elisha 50

Talbot, C.H. 12, 14, 68, 69-70 Taylor, J. 53, 78, 99, 100, 116, 138, 181 Tobler, T. 12-4, 16 Tsafrir, Y. 101, 142, 143 Twain, M. 233-4

Gabriel 42 Herod 45 Isaac 46

Verdier, P. 81, 82-3, 86, 87, 168 Vincent, L.-H. 74, 76, 82, 127, 141, 168, 191, 193

Jacob 46 James 184, 192, 199, 220 Jesus, cited throughout Joanna 132 John the Baptist 50, feast of St John the Baptist (June 24) 32, 89-90 John, disciple of Jesus 156-7, 184, 199 Joseph of Arimathea 74, 122, 126, 131 Joseph, foster-father of Jesus 74-5, 260

Webb, D. 11, 15, 233 Weinfurter, S. 5, 14 Wightman, G.J. 82, 140, 142, 158 Wilkinson, J., cited throughout, including 3, 8-10, 13, 16, 27, 46, 47, 68, 74, 76, 82, 85, 86, 99, 101, 127, 157, 158, 159, 169, 171, 222-6, 241

311

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 312

INDICES

Judas 179, 181-3, 187, 223

Adomnán of Iona (abbot, d. 704), cited throughout as author of De locis sanctis Agatha of Catania (Christian martyr, d. 251) 31, 177 Agrippa, Herod I (king of Judea, d. 44) 52, 113 Aldfrith of Northumbria (king, d. 705) 18 Aldhelm of Malmesbury (bishop and scholar, d. 709) 8 Al-Walı¯d (Umayyad caliph, d. 715) 41, 58, 60 ‘Amr b. Sa’d (governor of Damascus, fl. 705) 689 Anthony of Egypt (monk, d. 356/7) 105 Arculf (Holy Land pilgrim, fl. 680), cited throughout as source of Adomnán, including 18-9, 34, 82, 88, 90-2, 96, 99, 126, 218

Luke the Evangelist 33 Mark the Evangelist 141 Mary, mother of James 132 Mary, mother of Jesus, cited throughout, including. 3, 4, 38, 74-5, 96-7, 126, 135-6, 140, 144, 147, 153-4, 16278, 260 Mary Magdalene 126, 132 Moses 43 Obadiah 50 Paul 33, 41 Peter, disciple of Jesus 43, 47, 103, 124, 156-7, 177, 184, 199, 254-5 Philip, disciple of Jesus 46 Pilate 55, 56, 158, 222 Sheba, queen 161 Simeon 159, 220 Solomon, king 71, 155-61, 229, 259

Bede (monk and scholar, d. 735) 19, 30, 80-1, 86, 92 Benedict of Nursia (abbot, d. 550) 35 Bernwelf (priest, fl. 785) 41 Boniface of Crediton (archbishop, d. 754) 1, 5, 19, 36-40, 104-5, 243, 246-7 (also see AngloSaxon Mission in Germany) Burchardt of Würzburg (bishop, d. 753) 38

Tabitha 103 Thomas, disciple of Jesus 144 Timothy 33 Zacharias, the prophet 46, 220 b. Historical Names ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (governor of Egypt, fl. 689) 61 ‘Abd al-Malik (Umayyad caliph, d. 705) 58, 186, 241 Abu᎑ ‘Ubayda (commander of Islamic army, d. 639) 60 Æthelbald of Mercia (king, d. 757) 40, 246-7

Carloman (mayor of Austrasia palace, d. 754) 40 Charlemagne (emperor, d. 814) 20 Chosroes (Persian ruler, d. 628) 55 Chrodegang of Metz (bishop, d. 766) 40 Constantine (emperor, d. 337), cited throughout, including

312

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 313

INDICES

53, 64, 72, 110, 128, 138, 212

Jerome (priest and scholar, d. 420), cited throughout as author, including 145 Johannes Tzimiskes (emperor, d. 976) 141 John Chrysostom (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 407) 33 John II (patriarch of Jerusalem, d. 417) 146 Justinian (emperor, d. 565) 54 Justinian II (emperor, d. 711) 241 Juvenal of Jerusalem (patriarch, d. 458) 174

Daniel of Winchester (bishop, d. 745) 104 Didymus of Alexandria (scholar, d. 398) 105 Egeria (pilgrim, fl. 380), cited throughout as pilgrim and author Egwald (abbot, fl. 705) 29 Einhild of Milz (abbess, fl. 783) 41 Epiphanius of Salamis (bishop, d. 403) 32 Eudocia (empress, d. 460) 54, 141-3, 153

Leo III (emperor, d. 741) 34 Licinius (emperor, d. 325) 53 Lucian (priest, fl. 415) 146 Lull of Mainz (bishop, d. 786) 41

Frigidian of Lucca (bishop, d. 588) 177, 236

Mary the Egyptian (ascetic, d. 421) 73, 78 Martin of Tours (bishop, d. 397) 176-7, feast of St Martin (Nov 11) 30, 38, 45, 218, 236 Mauritius (emperor, d. 602) 54, 174-5 Maximus (bishop of Jerusalem, d. 349) 138 Megingaud of Würzburg (bishop, fl. 785) 41 Melania the Elder (patroness and ascetic, d. 410) 207 Modestus (patriarch of Jerusalem, d. 631) 56, 71, 116-7, 139, 204 Mu‘a¯wiya b. Abı¯ Sufya¯n (caliph, d. 680) 57

Gregory II (pope, d. 731) 34 Gregory III (pope, d. 741) 1, 9, 36, 228, 246 Hadrian (emperor, d. 138) 52, 56, 86-7, 137, 138, 173, 261 Hakim (Fatimid caliph, d. 1021) 121, 200 Harûn (Abbasid caliph, d. 809) 20 Helena (empress, d. ca. 330), cited throughout, including 21, 33, 64-5, 68-9, 73, 78, 100, 101, 107, 110, 113-4, 118, 257, 259 Heraclius (emperor, d. 641) 56, 97-8, 172, 173, 261 Hugeburc (nun and author, fl. 780), cited throughout, including 7-15, 21, 44, 66, 68, 127, 133, 227-9, 235, 238, 248-9, 251-2, 264

Nicephorus II Phocas (emperor, 969) 241 Odilo (duke of Bavaria, d. 748) 37

313

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 314

INDICES

Paula (Holy Land pilgrim and companion of Jerome, d. 404) 86, 131, 144, 235 Paulinus of Nola (bishop, 431) 207 Peter the Iberian (bishop, d. 491) 87 Poemenia (imperial patroness, fl. 390) 204 Pulcheria (empress, d. 453) 174 Remigius of Strasbourg (bishop, fl. 778) 41 Sergius I (pope, d. 701) 175 Sola (priest, d. 794) 40 Sophronius (patriarch of Jerusalem, d. 638) 55 Suidger (Bavarian landowner, fl. 740) 37, 243 Sulpicius Severus (scholar, d. 425) 206 Theodosius I (emperor, d. 395) 54 Theodosius II (emperor, d. 450) 115 Titus (emperor, d. 81) 52 ‘Umar (conqueror of Jerusalem, d. 644) 59-60, 93, Pact of ‘Umar 59-60, 93, 244 ‘Umar II (Umayyad caliph, d. 720) Walburga (abbess and sister of Willibald, d. 779) 8, 15, 39, 66, 251, 256 Willibald of Eichstätt (bishop, d. 787), cited throughout, including 1-52, 216-264, as bishop of Eichstätt 1, 5-6, 9, 21, 27, 28, 38-41, 67-8, 103, 232-55, 262-4, childhood 1, 8, 11, 21, 28, 29-30, 66-7, 71, 100, 102, 248, 264, crucicolus (‘lover of the cross’) 21, 64, 67-8, encounter with

Lion of Samaria 50, 253-5, Holy Land blindness and recovery of eyesight 21-2, 46-7, 64, 69-71, 79, 98, 100, 102-5, 107, 238-9, 252, as Holy Land pilgrim 1, 9, 26, 41-52, 63-264, illness in Rome 30-1, 248-50, 252, image of the Holy Land 5-6, 8, 11, 26-7, 232-55, 262-4, imprisonment in Emesa 26-7, 33, 234, 238-9, 242-6, 251-2, as monk of Monte Cassino 1, 9, 28, 35-7, 264, need for Visa 33, 49, 51, 239, 245-6, as peregrinus ex patria 1, 6, 11, 28, 177, 231-3, 242, 247, 251, 255, 262-4, perseverance and the Christian life 6, 11, 25, 26-7, 179, 200-201, 215, 232-55, 262-4, as smuggler of balsam 51, 245-6, as the source of the Vita Willibaldi 1-2, 6-11, 256-7 Willibald, father of (d. 720) 9, 15, 26, 30, 37, 234, 235-6, known as King Richard 15 Willibald of Mainz (monk and biographer of Boniface, fl. 760) 12 Wizo of Buraburg (bishop, fl. 741) 38 Wynnebald (abbot and brother of Willibald, d. 761) 15, 30-1, 36, 38, 39, 177, 235, 236, 249, 250, 251, 256 Yazid II b. ‘Abd al-Malik (Umayyad caliph, d. 724) 60-1 c. References to other groups and cultures (including time periods and events) Anglo-Saxons, cited throughout, including 1-52, 232-3, 246-7, 263-4, Anglo-Saxon mission

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 315

INDICES

in Germany 1, 5, 11, 28, 31, 36, 247, 263, 264, council of Anglo-Saxon Bishops 40 (also see Boniface, Walburga, Willibald and Wynnebald) Armenians 15, 225 (also see Armenian Guide and Armenian Lectionary) Assyrians, Assyrian conquest 253-4

Abbasid period (750-975), 20, 58, Arab Conquest of Jerusalem (638) 17, 57, 94, 173, Arab Conquest of Spain (710) 246, Early Islamic Jerusalem (638-1099), cited throughout, including 2, 17-20, 57-8, Fatimid period (975-1073) 58, 60, MuslimChristian relations 24, 59-62, 242-7, 260, Post-Byzantine period (614-1099), cited throughout, including 2, 17-20, 56-8, Seljuk period (1073-1098) 58, Tulunid period (870-905) 58, Umayyad period (660-750) 2, 3, 24, 57-62, 159, 173, 178, 258, 260, 264

Crusaders, Crusader period (10991187) 20, 25, 26, 55, 58-9, 135, 155, 159-62, 172, 179, 184, 190, 195-200, 216, 225, 226, 261, Templars 155, 162 Greeks 27, 31, 32-33, 75, 95-6, 225, 240-2, Byzantine period (325-614), cited throughout, including 3, 16-7, 25, 26, 53-6, 59, 61, 71-2, 83, 110, 116, 137, 216, 219-223 (also see Arca, Constantinople, Cyprus and Nicea), Council of Chalcedon (451) 54, 174, Council of Nicea (325) 34, 212, Inter-conquest period (614-638), cited throughout, including 2, 17, 24, 56-7, 97-8, 221, 261

Persians, Persian Conquest (614) 2, 4, 17, 19, 24, 26, 55, 71, 93, 116, 120, 134, 139, 154, 155, 172-3, 175, 178, 186, 188, 190, 191, 195, 197, 204, 216, 221, 258, 261, 264 Romans, Latin pilgrims and culture, cited throughout, including 30-1, 79, 95-6, 110, 225, 240-2, Roman period 52-3, 82-3, 116, 152 (also see Rome)

Irish monks and pilgrims 232-3 Jebusites 136 Jews 3, 24, 43, 56, 61, 80, 92, 163-6, 172-3, 178, 261, Bar Kochba Revolt (130s) 152, Israelite period 138, JewishChristians relations 24, 172-3, 178, 261, Second Temple period 137-8, 141, 150, 152

Saracens (see Muslims) III. Places a. The City of Jerusalem Abraham, altar of 4, 112 Aceldama 227 Adam, tomb of 4, 22, 107, 114, 116-7 Aedicule 120-1, 125, 127-30 (also see Tomb of Christ)

Muslims 3, 27, 32, 42, 49, 50, 57, 59-62, 93-4, 158-9, 233, 238, 239, 240-7, 251, 260, 262,

315

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 316

INDICES

Aelia Capitolina, known as 52-3, 80, 81, 86, 137, 142 Agony, church or place of 3, 4, 25, 54, 55, 58, 63, 178-202, 217, 218, 222, 223, 229, 230, 248, 253, 257, 260, 261, maps 8-10, 17, 18 All Nations Church 185, 202, 260 Al-Aqsa Mosque 57, 59, 94, 158-9, 226, 245, 261 Anastasis 22, 58, 118, 122-4, 134, 135, 215, 230 Anne (St), basilica of 150, 155 Ascension, church or place of 3, 10, 19, 25-6, 47, 52, 61, 63, 148, 188, 189, 191, 192-3, 202-16, 217, 218, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 229, 230, 248, 2523, 257, 262, maps 8-10, 13-8 Asclepius, sanctuary of 152 Assumption of St Mary 164-5 (see Mary (St), church and tomb of ) Axis mundi (see centre of the world)

68-70, 73, 89, 100, 108-19, 140-1, 189, 216, 230, 257, 259, 262, rock or church of Calvary 22, 89, 90-1, 93, 108-19, 230, 262 cardo maximus 77, 95, 98 Centre of the world 22, 79-80, 86, 88-92, 107, 114, 116-8, 147-8, 171, 262 Chapel of the Angels 129 City of David 137 Column of the Flagellation 19 Court of the Gentiles 156 Cross (Holy), legend of, including the Miraculous Healing 3, 4, 21-2, 57, 63-107, 110-1, 113, 161-2, 171, 229, 259, 262, feast of the Holy Cross (Sept 14) 48, 49, 52, 73, 97, 104, 227, place of the finding of the Holy Cross 21, 47, 63-107, 111-2, 216, 218, 222, 259, relic of the True Cross 55, 56, 90, 97, 104, restoration of the True Cross by Heraclius (629) 56, 97-8, 261 (also see Willibald, childhood and Miraculous Healing, monument or place of ) Crown of thorns 4, 56, 258 Crucifixion, place of 22, 25, 53, 65, 72, 78, 80, 84, 89, 99, 102, 107, 108-19, 135, 122, 222, 224, 147 (also see Calvary)

Ba¯b al-‘Amu᎑ d, or Gate of the Column 22, 52, 87 (also see North Gate) Basilica of Constantine 19-20, 21, 22, 54, 58, 63, 69, 70-3, 76-9, 84, 93, 98, 99-102, 106, 107, 109-15, 118, 124, 189, 258, 259, 260 Beautiful Gate 156-7 Benjamin Gate 22, 81 Bethesda, pool of 10, 23-4, 25, 148-62, 167, 172, 178, maps 8-10, 14, 15, 17 (also see Paralytic Healing, pool of ) Betrayal, place of 4, 25, 178-202, 223, 227, 258 (also see Gethsemane)

Damascus Gate 22, 82, 85, 168 David’s Gate 81, 168 Dedication, festival of, or Encaenia 104, Jewish festival of Dedication 156 Dome of the Rock 17, 57, 59, 97, 159, 226, 245, 261 Dominus Flevit 25, 179, 190, 194-6, 201

Caiaphas, house of 4, map 14 Calvary, place of 22-3, 52, 63,

316

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 317

INDICES

Dormition of St Mary (see Mary (St), church and tomb of ) Dormition Abbey 135 Dung Gate 142

8-18, atrium 73-4, 77, 93-4, 100, inner courtyard 89, 92, 101, 121-2, front façade 74, 77, 78, 99, 106, propyleaum, 95, 106, three crosses 22, 63, 72, 68, 98-102, 106-7, 112, 259

Earthquakes 58, 141, 186, 196, 197 East Gate 22, 24, 62, 76, 86, 91, 94, 95, 97, 150, 162, 163, 166-72, 178, 217, 218, 221, 222, 258, tables 2, 3 Eleona, church of the 25, 54, 55, 58, 179, 190-4, 201, 223, map 13, 15

Imbomon 203-4 (see Ascension, place of ) Israel, pool of 23, 149, 154-6, 162, 261 Jehoshaphat Valley 140, 162-8, 172, 178, 180-2, 189, 192, 198, 217, 220, 222, 154, 155 Jephonias monument 3, 4, 17, 24, 57, 62, 63, 85-6, 95-6, 136, 163, 166-74, 178, 217, 218, 220, 221, 226, 257, 258, 261, table 1, maps 8-10, 16, 17, described as tetrakoinin 95-6, 170, 259, table 1, the Jephonias legend 24, 165-6 (also see Mary (St), church and tomb of ) Jeremiah, pit of map 14 Jerusalem Circuit 3, 10, 24, 26, 169, 216-28, 257, 260-1 Jerusalem Liturgy 16, 47, 52, 54, 59, 75, 89, 104, 110, 138, 144, 174, 182, 184-6, 188, 194-5, 198, 201, 204, 226, 227 Joseph, garden of (also see Garden, Holy) 122 Joseph, house of 73-7, 91, 96-8, 260, tables 2, 3, Jerusalem tradition of the Annunciation 4, 75, 97, 260

Fuller’s Gate 81 Garden (Holy) 22, 92, 100, 108, 118-9, 121-2, 124-5, 135, 127, 230 (also see Holy Sepulchre, inner courtyard) Gethsemane, place of 4, 25, 86, 96, 147, 165-7, 171, 174-6, 178-202, 220, 221, grotto of 145, 180, 182-6, 188, 196, 198-9, 200, 202, 223, 258, 261, maps 13-4, 18 Gihon Spring 137, 152 Golden Gate 97 Golgotha 70, 72, 80, 81, 90, 92, 108-19, church of Golgotha 19, 101, 112, 116 (also see Calvary) Haram esh-Sharif 58, 94, 159, 222, 226 (also see Temple Mount) Herod, palace of 137 Holy Cross, monastery of 114, 259 Holy Sepulchre, complex of 4, 19, 22, 23, 45, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 63-135, 136, 138, 139, 140-1, 143, 148, 171, 216-7, 219-24, 226, 258, 261, maps

Kathisma Church 175 Khan el-Zeit Street 77 Kidron Valley 137, 180, 199

317

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 318

INDICES

Lance, sponge and cup, relics of 56, 99 Last Supper 4, 23, 136, 138, 141, 145-146, 148, 179, 183-4, 200, 258 (also see Holy Sion and Gethsemane) Lent 48-9, 104, 234, 239 Lion’s Gate 22

Miraculous Healing, monument or place of 4, 21-2, 57, 62, 63-107, 172, 178, 229, 258, 259, 261, tables 1-3, described as tetrakoinin 95-6, 170, 259, table 1 Moriah, Mt 116, 137, 140 Mount of Olives 24, 54, 96, 150, 159, 163, 178-202, 203, 205-6, 212, 217, 218, 220-1, 223, 224, 228, 257, 260

Mark the Evangelist, house of 141 Martyred Saints, feast of (June 6) 194 Martyrium (also see Basilica of Constantine) 72, 87, 99, 110, 112 Mary (St), church and place of Nativity 23, 25, 74, 149, 178, 153-4, 221, 222, 227, 258, map 15 (also see Sheep Pool, Bethesda, pool of and Paralytic Healing, pool of ) Mary (St), church and tomb of 4, 24-25, 54, 63, 140, 162178, 180, 182, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 147, 217, 220, 221, 222, 223, 229, 258, table 3, maps 8-10, 13, 14, 15-8, death of St Mary 23, 24, 141, 144, 147, 148 (also see Holy Sion), Dormition of St Mary 3, 24-5, 49, 52, 57, 162-78, 227, 229, 262, feast of the Dormition (August 15) 175, funeral procession of St Mary 4, 24, 62, 85-6, 91, 140 (also see the Jephonias monument) Mary (St), church and relic of Weaving 96-7, 260, table 3 Mary (St), girdle of 97 Mary (St), headband of 97 Mary (St), icon of 73-4, 77, 97, tables 2, 3 Mary (St), pool of 155

Nea Church 54-6 North Gate, column, gate and plaza 22, 52-3, 82-8, 95, 168-71, 258, map 9 Omphalos (see centre of the world) Ophel Hill 137, 140 Paralytic Healing, pool of the 4, 23-4, 63, 136, 148-62, 216, 217, 220-23, 229, 230, 248, 257-9, 261, church of the Paralytic Healing 151, 153 (see Bethesda, pool of ) Pentecost 23, 47, 52, 136, 141, 144-5, 148, 204, 227, 258 (also see Holy Sion and Church of the Ascension) Peter, prison of 222 Pilate, Praetorium or house of 17, 55, 157-8 (also see Sophia (Holy), church of ) Pinnacle of the Temple 220, 221, 223, maps 11-4 Portico of Solomon 3, 4, 10, 23-4, 63, 136, 148-62, 216, 229, 230, 257, 259 Pool of the Patriarchs 156 Prison of Christ, 92 Resurrection, place of the 3, 23, 89, 102, 107, 132, 134-5, 147, 148, 215, 224, 262,

318

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 319

INDICES

feast of the Resurrection, or Easter 31, 32, 33, 37, 47, 49, 52, 104, 225, 227, 239 (also see Tomb of Christ) Return of Christ 25, 202-15, 224 (also see Ascension) Rotunda, see Anastasis Royal Portico 157 Russian Hospice 94

Summer solstice 83, 89, 95 (also see centre of the world) Temple, Jewish 52, 88, 117, 137, 151, 153, 154, 156-61 Temple Mount 17, 24, 53, 59, 143, 149, 150, 154, 156-61, 168, 197, 220, 221, 222, 225, 226, 259, 261 Temple of Solomon 59, 157-60, 226, 259, 261 Temple of the Lord 59, 159, 226, 261 Temple (Roman), western forum 53, 115, 120 Tenth Legion, camp of 137 Theodosius (St), monastery of 56 Theotokos, icon of (see Mary (St), icon of ) Tomb of Christ 10, 22-23, 24, 25, 53, 58, 63, 72, 73, 84, 91, 93, 100, 101, 108, 110, 111, 113, 115, 118, 119-135, 138, 141, 177-8, 203, 215, 222, 229, 230, 252-3, 257, 262 bench, or lectum 125, 130-3, 177, stone before the tomb 22, 119-20, 125-6, 129, 133-5, 230 Tomb of Helena Abiadene 86-7 Tomb of the Kings 86-7 Tombs of the (Jehoshaphat) Valley 192, 220, 221, 223, 227, map 14 Tomb of Bene Hezir 192 Trial of Jesus before Pilate 4, 55-6, 179, 200, 223, 227, 258 (also see Sophia (Holy), church of ) True Cross (see Cross (Holy)) Trumpeter’s Gate 81 Tyropoeon Valley 137, 226

Saints of Jerusalem, feast of (Sept 11) 191 Second Coming (see Return of Christ) sepulchrum Salvatoris (see Tomb of Christ) Sheep Pool 23-4, 148-62, 259, tables 2, 3 (also see Bethesda, pool of and Paralytic Healing, pool of ) Siloam, pool of 103, 142, 151-3, 157-8, 162, 220-3, 227, 258, maps 12-4, church of 153 Sion (Holy), church of 4, 19, 23, 24, 54, 55, 59, 63, 74, 86, 135-48, 150, 162-3, 165, 167, 170-1, 174, 216, 217, 219, 220-3, 226, 228, 229, 261, 262, maps 8-18 Sion Gate 168 Sion, Mount 4, 17, 57, 135-48, 167, 168, 199 Small Gate 81 Sophia (Holy), the church of 4, 17, 55, 56, 142, 157-8, 220-3, maps 11-5 South Gate 168, map 10 Stephen (St), the basilica of 54, 87, 146, stoning of St Stephen 4, 23, 146, 148 (also see Holy Sion) Stephen, the gate of (St) 22, 81, 82, 85, 88, 168 Street of the Chain 226 Sudarium 80, 96, 114

Upper City 137 ‘Umar’s Oratory 93-5

319

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 320

INDICES

Walls of Jerusalem, cited throughout, including 22, 23, 27, 52, 81, 83, 113, 137, 141-3, 148, 155, 167 Western Hill 137 Wilson’s Arch 158 Wisdom, Holy 157 (see Sophia (Holy), church of )

2, 4, 5, tomb of Ananias 33, 41, cathedral of St John the Baptist 41, 60, 244 church of Paul’s conversion 33, 41, 248 Dan 123 Dead Sea 224 Diospolis 47, 85, map 4, church of St George 47

Zacharius, blood of 74 Zion (see Sion)

Elisha’s Spring 44 Emesa 27, 33, 48-9, 234, 239, 242-4, 245, 246, 251, fig. 1, maps 1, 2, 5, church of St John the Baptist 32 Emmaus 254 Euthymius, monastery of 45, 54, 256, map 2

b. The Holy Land (Syria, Lebanon and Palestine) Acre 51, map 6 (see Ptolemais) Antaradus 32, 242, 243, maps 1, 2 Antioch 54 Arca, or Arche 32, 109, 242, map 2

Galilee 42, 257, 264 Galilee, the Sea of 43 Gaza 46, map 3 Gilgal 44, map 2

Bethany 17, 203, tomb of Lazarus 224 Bethlehem 45, 46, 52, 54, 74-5, 124, 218, 228, 224, map 3, church of the Nativity 45, 54, 124, 224, house of David 74-5, Bethsaida, 43, 124, 189, map 2, house church of Peter and Andrew 43, 124, 189 Bethzur 46, map 3

Hebron 46, map 3 Jacob’s Well, the church of 19, 50, 189, 248, map 6 Jericho 17, 44, 45, map 2 Joachim, the house of 74-5, 153, 160 John the Baptist (St), the house of 74 John the Baptist (St), the monastery of (place of Jesus’ Baptism) 44, 48, 52, 62, 189, 229, map 2, feast of Jesus’ Baptism, or Epiphany (Jan 6) 44, 48, 52, 104 Joppa 47, 103, map 4 Jordan River 44, 62, 224-5, 228, 229, map 4 Jordan River Valley 44, 47-8 Judah 253

Caesarea 54 Caesarea Philippi 43-4, 48, maps 2, 4 Cana 42, 229, map 2 Canaan 232 Capernaum 43, 103, 124, map 2, house church of St Peter 124 Caphargamala 146 Chorazin 43, 257, map 2 Damascus 33, 41, 47, 48, 57, 58, 60, 94, 244, fig. 1, maps 1,

320

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 321

INDICES

Kursi (see Chorazin)

c. Other Places Adriatic Sea 31, 47, 257 Alexandria 54 Alps 30, 37, 235, 256 Asia Minor 32, 237-8, 252, 257

Lebanon 245, Mt Lebanon 48, map 4, tower of Lebanon 51 Lydda (see Diospolis)

Baghdad 58 Basle 20 Bavaria 1, 37, 135, 251 Bishop’s Watham, monastery of 1, 8, 29, 66, map 1 Bobbio 99 Brescia 37, map 7 Britain 1, 66, fig. 1, map 1 Burgundy 246

Magdala 43, 75, map 2, feast day of Mary Magdalene (July 22) 7, house of Mary Magdalene 43 Mamre 54 Mathias (St), church of 46 Nazareth 4, 42, 60, 75, 189, 244-5, 248, map 2, church of the Annunciation 42, 60, 189, 244, 248

Calabria 31 Candeloro 32 Capua 35, map 7 Catania 31, 34, maps 1, 7 Constantia 32, maps 1, 2 Constantinople 1, 28, 33-4, 49, 51, 54, 158, 174, 202, 212, 240-1, 264, fig. 1, map 7, church of the Apostles 33, church of Hagia Sophia 34, relic of the True Cross 34 Corinth 31, map 1 Cyprus 32, 241, 243, fig. 1

Palestine 47, 104, 106, 186, 234, 242, 257 Ptolemais 51, map 6 Saba (St), monastery of 46, 54, map 3 Salaminias 48-9, 234, 239, map 5 Samaria 50-1, 189, 253-5 Sebastia 50, map 6 Shepherd’s Field 45, 223, 248, map 3 Sidon 47, 50, map 4 Syria 32, 48-9, 57, 239, 242 Tabor, Mt 42-3, map 2, monastery of the Transfiguration 189 Tekoa 45-6, 189, map 3, tomb of Amos 45-6 Tiberias 43, 108, 173, map 2 Tombs of the Patriarchs 46 Tripoli 47, 48, map 4 Tyre 33, 41, 47-8, 49, 50-1, 234, 245, 246, fig. 1, maps 4, 7

Eichstätt 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 28, 37-9, 66, 67, 109, 136, 213-4, 243, 246, 251, 256, 263, 264, fig. 1, map 7, church of St Mary 38 Egypt 73 English Channel 30 Ephesus 32, map 1, legend of the Seven Sleepers 32, 177 Erfurt 6, 38-9 Etna, Mt 31

Zacharias (St), church of 46, map 3

Freising 12, 38, map 7

321

Index.qxd:Index.qxd

5/15/09

3:26 PM

Page 322

INDICES

Fulda, monastery of 19, 41

Naples 31, 35, maps 1, 7 Nicea 34, 202-3, 212-3, map 7, church of Nicea 26, 202-3, 212-3

Gaeta 31, map 1 Garda am Gardasee 37, 109, map 7 Gaul 18 Germany 5, 9, 36-41, 105, 263

Paphos 32, map 1 Patara 32, 109, 234, 237, 239, map 1 Pavia 37, map 7 Phygela 32, 234, 237, map 1 Provence 246

Hamblehaven 30, 109, map 1 Heidenheim 11, 15, 39-40, 66, 214, 251, 252, 256, 263, map 7 Hell of Theodoric 34, 123, fig. 1, map 7

Reggio 31, 34, 109, maps 1, 7 Rome 1, 8, 9, 15, 28, 30-1, 32, 34, 35, 36-7, 54, 177, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 241, 248, 249, 252, 262, 264, fig. 1, maps 1, 7, shrine of St Peter 1, 30, 177, 228, 235 Rouen 30, map 1

Iona 18 Italy 34, 241 Kea 31, map 1 Linthard 37, map 7 Lipari 35, map 7, church of St Bartholomew 35 Lucca 9, 30, 37, 234, 235-6, fig. 1, maps 1, 7

Samos 31, map 1 Scotland 18 Sicily 34 Spain 243, 246 Strobolis 32, map 1 Sülzenbrücken 38, 109, map 7 Syracuse 31, 34, maps 1, 7Teano 35, map 7 Terracina 31, map 1 Thuringia 38

Malvasia 31, map 1 Mecca 186 Mediterranean Sea 47, 257 Messina, strait of 31 Miletus 32, map 1 Mons Gallianorum 32, 234, 237, map 1 Monte Cassino, monastery of St Benedict at 1, 9, 28, 35-7, 39, 243, 264, fig. 1, map 7 Monza 99 Munich 12, 80

Vatican 17 Volcano, island of 34, map 7 (also see Hell of Theodoric) Wessex 1, 8, 15, 29, 30, 35, 66, 67, 68, 102, 177, 228, 233, 236

322

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 323

ILLUSTRATIONS

323

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 324

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 325

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Miraculous Healing Jephonias Monument tetrakoinin

Epiphanius

Epiphanius

columna

Adomnán

Willibald

Table 1 Pilgrim Descriptions of the Miraculous Healing and the Jephonias Monument

325

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 326

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Marian Commemorations

Miraculous Healing

East Gate Sites

Epiphanius

Icon of the Theotokos and the House of Joseph

Monument

Sheep Pool

Daniel the Abbot

Icon of the Theotokos

locus

Sheep Pool inter alia

Table 2 The Miraculous Healing The Sequence of Epiphanius and Daniel the Abbot

326

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 327

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

Marian Commemorations

Miraculous Healing

East Gate Sites

Epiphanius

Icon of the Theotokos and the House of Joseph

Monument

Sheep Pool

Adomnán

The Church and Relic of Mary’s Weaving

Monument

Tomb of Mary

Daniel the Abbot

Icon of the Theotokos

locus

Sheep Pool inter alia

Table 3 The Miraculous Healing The Sequence of Epiphanius, Adomnán and Daniel the Abbott

327

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 328

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

328

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 329

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

329

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 330

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

330

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 331

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

331

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 332

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

332

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 333

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

333

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 334

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

334

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 335

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

335

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 336

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

336

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 337

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

337

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 338

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

338

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 339

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

339

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 340

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

340

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 341

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

341

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 342

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

342

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 343

THE CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY OF EARLY ISLAMIC JERUSALEM

343

Map.qxd:Map.qxd

5/15/09

10:03 AM

Page 344