Download PDF | Jerusalem Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York Continuum, 1999.
545 Pages
Preface
On June 23—28, 1996, forty internationally-renowned scholars convened in Jerusalem for deliberations on The Sanctity and Centrality o f Jerusalem to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The conference was under the auspices of four academic institutions: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America (the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies); The Seminary of Judaic Studies (recently renamed The Schechter Institute of Judaic Studies); The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; and Tantur Ecumenical Institute for Theological Studies. They were joined by eleven co-sponsoring institutions: The American Jewish Congress; Bethlehem University; Boston College; Brandeis University; The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; The National Association of Arab Americans; Notre Dame University; Tel-Aviv University; Union Theological Seminary; Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; and Yale University.
This volume includes the presentations delivered during that weeklong conference. We wish to acknowledge a number of key persons whose commitment to the idea of such a scholarly gathering was crucial to its realization and success. Chancellor I. Schorsch of The Jewish Theological Seminary offered his enthusiastic support from the outset, as did the chairman of The Seminary of Judaic Studies International Board, Professor J. Fleishman. Father T. Stransky, Director of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute, was a full partner in the planning of the conference; he graciously placed at our disposal the beautiful premises of his institution in southern Jerusalem as the primary site for our proceedings. Other venues for conference sessions included The Seminary of Judaic Studies, the Hebrew University, and Bethlehem University.
Special thanks are due Professor Y. Nini of Tel-Aviv University, Dr. Z. Zameret of Yad Izhak BenZvi, and Dr. M. Hassassian of Bethlehem University, each of whom hosted an evening of public lectures presented by conference participants. I would like to thank H. Davis for her efforts in organizing the conference, coordinating its schedule, and preparing the abstract booklet, conference program, and other materials. She was likewise instrumental in editing and preparing this volume for publication. Finally, our gratitude to Continuum Publishing Company of New York for its cooperation in publishing these proceedings.
Introduction
A city will inevitably adopt many of the characteristics and forms regnant in any given age. When that city is not just another urban center, but possesses a spiritual and religious dimension as well, the reshaping of its urban terrain might indeed be extensive and reflect ideas and practices which find literary and religious expression as well. The study of Jerusalem offers a unique opportunity to examine the impact of a dominant culture on a city. Each time Jerusalem was conquered and ruled by a different group, the city’s physical appearance was inevitably reshaped, including its size, population, leadership, public buildings, and governing institutions. Moreover, given the differing traditions, other aspects of urban life were lifewise affected.
New religious edifices were built and given special prominence, and the yearly calendar was altered and new holidays celebrated, both publicly and privately. Under these circumstances, the newly dominant culture would quickly reshape the city’s landscape in accordance with its particular traditions. Thus, the politics and religious life of a city such as Jerusalem, including varied cultural creations and archeological remains, are inextricably intertwined, and each component reflects in one way or another the ideals and worldviews of the ruling power. What uniquely characterizes Jerusalem is the religious value it holds for each of the three major religions of the western world. Dominated over the centuries by a variety of cultures and traditions, Jerusalem bears the stamp of each in its physical and spiritual legacies. It is therefore fascinating not only to study how each tradition totally redefined this urban setting to suit its own political, social, and religious agendas, but also to compare the similarities and differences between them.
The following types of questions were addressed throughout the conference: • How did the Jews, Christians, and Muslims each reshape the city during their political hegemony? How did the city-plan, as well as the organi zation and location of public buldings, reflect the character of the ruling power? In what ways do the art and architecture of each period represent the ideas and values propagated by the various regimes? • What political and social institutions were created by each tradition, and how did these institutions promote the particular agenda of each? Who constituted the leadership elite in the city, and how did it evolve over time in response to changing political and religious contexts? • How was the religious life of the city expressed in each era, in its material, institutional, and spiritual realms? It what ways was the religious ambience of the city affected by its political and social contexts? Were the forms and practices developed in Jerusalem by each tradition reflective of practices elsewhere? To what degree did the city develop its own distinct ideas and religious forms, and to what degree was it receptive to outside influences?
The articles in this volume have been organized chronologically, commencing with the biblical tradition. Japhet offers a broad sweep of the development of Jerusalem as a chosen city. Beginning with the pre-Israelite era, she traces the city’s gradual evolution toward a status of uncontested preeminence in Jewish life, carefully noting the various political, social, and religious factors impacting on this development from one era to the next. The other articles in this section focus on what are undoubtedly two of the most momentous events in the First Temple period. Zakovitch hones in on the Davidic traditions, and Hallo on the era of Hezekiah. Their analyses provide an illuminating study of contrasts. Zakovitch offers an insightful literary approach, focusing on the sources as evidence as to how David, his contemporaries, and the events associated with them were understood and depicted by later tradition.
The specific historical implications are downplayed, but the relationship between these literary traditions and their ideological projections is meticulously scrutinized. Hallo, for his part, draws heavily on Assyriological sources in an effort to reconstruct the events surrounding Sennacherib’s siege of 701 B.C.E. and Jerusalem’s escape from destruction. The extent to which external sources can illuminate and corroborate the biblical historical narrative is cogently argued, as are the implications for contemporary controversies regarding the historical reliability of the biblical narrative. Specifically, Hallo takes sharp issue with those scholars who would deny any value both to the Bible as an historical record and to related archeological evidence for the reconstruction (however partial) of the First Temple period.
The articles which address aspects of the Second Temple period concentrate on the last part of this 600-year era, i.e., the Hasmonean and, more particu-larly, Herodian eras. Influenced by the dominant culture symbolized by the Greek polis, Jerusalem’s status as the “mother” city of the Jews gained in importance. My article argues that by the early Roman period the city had become ever-more Jewish in many of its practices and observances. At the same time, however, it had also become a cosmopolitan city replete with institutions, languages, material culture, social patterns, and religious practices, many of which were adopted and adapted from the Greco-Roman world. Jerusalem was, at one and the same time, the most Jewish and most cosmopolitan of cities in Roman Palestine.
The tensions and creativity resulting from these diverse and, at times, conflicting tendencies were a hallmark of the city’s landscape during these centuries. Goodman argues that pilgrimage, especially from the Diaspora, was a product of Herod’s vision and initiative. The encouragement of Diaspora involvement in the city was important to this king for political, cultural, and especially economic reasons.The Temple played a crucial role in this scenario, constituting an engaging focus for visitors from abroad and thus attracting considerable funds which spurred the economy of the city as a whole, its environs, and Judaea generally.
Goodman’s linking of Judaean developments to wider phenomena in the Roman world adds an important dimension to his analysis. Several articles focus on the extent to which the city played a role in messianic movements of the later Second Temple period. Baumgarten offers a multifaceted view of messianism in the era, a view that has become widely accepted of late. Many differing messianic ideologies were to be found in Judaean society, some purely ideational in nature, others more practically oriented; some apocalyptic, others with specific political goals; some based on a crystallized philosophy, others revolving around a charismatic individual; some which place Jerusalem at its center, others seemingly oblivious to the city. While Baumgarten focuses on several non-Jerusalem-oriented messianic phenomena, particularly that of John the Baptist, Sanders discusses the role Jerusalem and its Temple played in the life of Jesus, in Acts, and especially in the writings of Paul.
While not a central theme in any of the above, the significance of the city and Temple, both historical and symbolic, found expression in each and every case. Alexander focuses on the book of Jubilee’s reference to Jerusalem as the navel of the universe and on the city’s geographical centrality as reflected in the description of the Table of Nations (Genesis 10). Claiming that neither earlier biblical nor Near Eastern models can fully account for this motif, Alexander looks to Greek models and finds the characterization of certain Greek religious centers as omphaloi (e.g., Delphi), as well as to the Ionic cartographic tradition, as the probable sources of Jubilees’ description. He places these ideas in the context of the newly-expanding Hasmonean state, with its center in Jerusalem, and views them as an attempt to legitimize Hasmonean territorial expansion.
Alexander also discusses the thirteenth-century Hereford map of the world, which probably derived from at least a fifth-century original. Reflecting a “symbolic and mythological geography” within Christianity, this map may have in some way been drawn from the Jubilees cartographic tradition. Finally, recalling a number of rabbinic statements on the centrality of Jerusalem, as well as the claim that the Temple contained the Foundation Stone for the entire universe, Alexander suggests that such a tradition may be polemical, intended either to counter Rome’s claim of centrality, or perhaps a less-centripetal, Diaspora-oriented, Jewish view. Finally, Shinan analyzes the names for Jerusalem which appear in several rabbinic traditions. Some lists include ten names, and others seventy.
He emphasizes the uniqueness of such lists in that they include negative as well as positive appellations and that they reflect the rabbinic memories of Jerusalem—her failings as well as her glory. Moreover, Shinan notes third- and fourth-century Samaritan parallels to such listings and suggests that these Jewish traditions may also stem from polemical concerns. A majox focus of the conference was Byzantine Jerusalem (324-638 C.E.). Tsafrir opens this section by offering a comprehensive account of the transformation of the city into a hub of Christian activity, commencing in the days of Constantine and continuing through the sixth century, with the flurry of building activity associated with Justinian. A Christian stamp was thus imprinted on the city, and the Church, through its various buildings and institutions, quickly came to dominate urban affairs, much as the Temple authorities had done earlier.
While also affecting other parts of Palestine, the Constantinian revolution was primarily aimed at Jerusalem and its environs. From a backwater town named Aelia Capitolina, the city was now thrust into the forefront of religious and political prominence. Christian clergy, monks, and pilgrims filled its streets, and the city’s ecclesiastical leadership strove for ever-greater political and religious prominence and recognition in the Byzantine world. Rubin deftly traces the attempts of Jerusalem bishops to promote their city’s cause by claiming that it is both the site of holy places where relics were found and where holy signs occur—in the present no less than in the past. Pilgrimage became a widespread and significant phenomenon in Byzantine Palestine, much as it had been earlier, at the end of the Second Temple period. Bowman’s study of the first such pilgrim itinerary (that of the Bordeaux Pilgrim, ca. 333) offers an original interpretation to what has generally been regarded as a dry listing of places and distances.
He contends that the biblical associations (both of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament) conjured up at these different sites may be understood as conveying a profound religious message for the Christian pilgrim. The phenomenon of pilgrimage is taken up by Bitton-Ashkelony from an entirely different perspective. She discusses the more reserved attitudes of the fourth- to fifth-century church fathers Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa which range from downplaying the religious value of pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Augustine) to outright opposition to the phenomenon (Gregory). She firmly argues that these reservations were not directed against pilgrimage as a religious value per se, but rather against the need for fulfilling this ideal specifically in Jerusalem; local pilgrimage to holy places and to tombs of martyrs and saints was of equal, if not superior, value.
Irshai discusses the Jewish dimension of the Jerusalem Church. Beginning with the primitive church in the first century, whose Jewish roots are selfevident, he points out aspects of the Aelia church which bore Jewish traits, not the least of which was the apparent presence in the city of a number of Jewish-Christian synagogues. Even in the fourth century, Jews appeared as significant figures in some of the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, in his letter to Emperor Constantius II and especially in his fifteenth catechetical lecture, which Irshai suggests was reworked to include references to Julian’s abortive attempt to rebuilt the Jerusalem Temple. Perrone tackles the intriguing question of the interrelationship between historical-earthly Jerusalem on the one hand, and the symbolic-heavenly one on the other. After tracing this dichotomy from New Testament times through the Ebionites, Justin, the gnostics, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and various chiliast ideologies down to the fourth century, he notes the divergent attitudes of Eusebius and Cyril. The focus of Perrone’s study, however, is the varying attitudes toward Jerusalem espoused by Jerome in his different writings, with a particular emphasis on his famous Epistle AG—from the enthusiastic embrace of the earthly “Constantinian” Jerusalem by a pilgrim to the denial of any unique status of the city. What is unusual about Epistle 46 is that it grapples with these two polarities in an attempt to reconcile between them. Perrone accounts for these differences by attempting to reconstruct the Sitz im Leben of each within Jerome’s career. Wilken focuses on the Byzantine tradition, which was fully committed to earthly Jerusalem as the gateway to heaven. It was only in this city that the true message of Jesus and the New Testament could be fully received, understood, and internalized, and it is only by living where Jesus lived, seeing what he saw, and touching what he touched that one could experience the fullest spiritual life. The bearers of this message were the monks of Jerusalem’s Judaean Desert who propagated an all-encompassing love for the earthly city. Wilken incorporates into his discussion Sabas’ and Theodosius’ well-known petition to the emperor Anastasius, as well as the emotional laments of the sixth-century monks, Strategius and Sophronius, as they witnessed the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians and Muslims respectively. Bradshaw takes up the fascinating question of the influence of Jerusalem on Christian liturgy. Following an overview of the status questionis, he notes the many ways that this liturgy was assumed to have developed within the context of the city’s rituals and was disseminated throughout the Christian world by returning pilgrims. Without totally denying the cogency of this view, Bradshaw, however, seeks to fine-tune it, suggesting, for one, that even when Jerusalem practices were imitated, it was often a very selective process and may have taken place only after a long interval. Moreover, some of the so-called Jerusalem rituals may have in fact been introduced into the city by visiting pilgrims; in other words, the city imported traditions and not only exported them. Finally, Bradshaw notes that a number of liturgical traditions usually associated with Jerusalem were, in reality, of foreign vintage, often differing significantly from those of Jerusalem itself. Stemberger completes the section on Byzantine Jerusalem with a discussion of Christian and Jewish sources which respond to the Persian and Muslim conquests of the city in the early seventh century. These conquests, especially the former, unleashed a wide range of religious responses, from dirges over the city’s grim fate to ecstatic eschatological visions of messianic proportions. The relevant writings of Strategius, Sophronius, and Pseudo-Methodius are noted from the Christian side, as are the apocalyptic Sefer Zerubbabel, the piyyutim of Qallir and several midrashim from the Jewish. A fourth focus of the volume addresses the early Middle Ages, when Jerusalem came under Muslim rule. Grabar’s keynote address at the conference offered a panoramic overview of medieval Jerusalem (with a retrospective glance beginning with Aelia Capitolina) and thus opens this section. Grabar deftly surveys the development of sacred space in the city from one period to the next, noting that each successive regnant religious tradition added its own unique stamp to the city while incorporating earlier ones as well. The rich tapestry of early medieval Jerusalem, with its Christian and Jewish communities living beside the dominant Muslim population, is captured through Grabar’s description of the evolution of holy sites and what he terms the “petrification” of memories, in this case from biblical and New Testament sources as well as from late traditions associated with the prophet Muhammad himself. Once again, we see that Jerusalem absorbed different religious traditions while providing the setting for the emergence of new forms and patterns. Whatever Jerusalem’s importance in Islamic tradition, there is no gainsaying that Mecca remained its supreme religious center. The contrast between the place of Mecca in Islam and that of Jerusalem in Judaism is skillfully drawn by Lazarus-Yafeh. Beginning with a number of similarities between each holy city (its prehistory, the dissemination of holiness from one particular sacred spot to an entire city, and the phenomenon of pilgrimage), her discussion then focuses on three significant differences: (1) memories of the destruction of the Temple and their impact on the eschatological hopes within Judaism (not to be found in Islam); (2) the competition between Mecca and Medina (with no similar phenomenon in Judaism); and (3) the symbolism surrounding Jerusalem (with nothing comparable with respect to Mecca). These differences are explained not merely as a result of different historical circumstances, but indeed as a reflection of the very essence of each religious tradition. Elad traces the beginning of Muslim worship at the Haram el-Sharif (the Muslim term for the area of the Temple Mount) and the practice of pilgrimage to Jerusalem as encouraged by the ruling Umayyads. He analyzes the religious ceremonies involved in such visits and attempts to reconstruct the motivations for such pilgrimages, as well as the routes taken by pilgrims and the specific places visited both in the Haram and throughout the city. Neuwirth discusses the early religious development of Islam, when the new faith transcended its pagan roots, Medina-based setting, and Jerusalem orientation and proceeded to develop a character and symbolism of its own. Despite the hostility toward the Jews of Medina when they failed to accept Muhammad, many elements of Judaism did, in fact, penetrate early Muslim worship, such as the focus on sacred space, praying in its direction, and the use of Scriptures as an integral part of the ritual ceremony. Neuwirth argues that the “exodus” to Medina stimulated the search for a scriptural substitute for former ritual patterns and accorded a universal dimension to the new community and its message. Rosen-Ayalon’s article concludes this section by comparing descriptions of the city of Jerusalem by a Muslim, Jew, and Christian, all of whom visited Jerusalem in the eighth decade of the twelfth century. As might have been expected, each dwells on his own religious community, Al-Harawi on the Muslim, Benjamin of Tudela on the Jewish, and Theoderic on the Christian. Nevertheless, in a number of instances they each relate to the buildings and monuments of the “others,” and a comparison of these descriptions and the organization of their respective material is most instructive. None of these authors, however, relates in a meaningful way to the city’s population as a whole, or to its institutions and ruling authorities.
This introspective focus appears to have been characteristic of medieval (and, for that matter, modern) Jerusalem society. A further focus of the conference—and the present volume—was the place of Jerusalem in medieval Jewish and Christian traditions. Stroumsa’s contribution continues a theme noted with respect to the Byzantine period, i.e., the tension between the notions of earthly and heavenly Jerusalem, which is now further sharpened by the preeminence attained by the city in the Byzantine period. Stroumsa studies these two contrasting yet interrelated dimensions in the Middle Ages. On the one hand, the upsurge of interest in earthly Jerusalem, sparked by the same religious currents which eventually led to the Crusades, was often expressed in the building of local imitations of Jerusalem loca sacra, e.g., churches which resembled the Holy Sepulchre, mounds reminiscent of the Golgotha, and monasteries which were often referred to as Jerusalem. Attempts to actually create a replica of Jerusalem are also known and are referred to by the author as an early example of EuroDisney.
Concomitant to this tendency, which generally languished after the failure of the Crusades, was the contrasting development of a mystical, spiritual Jerusalem, which could be realized within one’s own soul. Building on traditions articulated by Augustine and John Cassian, multiple levels of meaning were assigned to Jerusalem which could be realized through spiritual exercises and mystical contemplation. Going to Jerusalem came to be associated with leading a life of true spirituality and virtue. Constable’s investigation focuses on the symbol of the cross in medieval Europe, describing its alleged power in the religious and political spheres during the ninth to twelfth centuries. More specifically, the cross was associated with Jerusalem in the various ceremonies and celebrations throughout the Christian liturgical year.
The Crusades provided the opportunity for the identification of this effort with the symbol of the cross, and according to tradition Pope Urban II ordered all crusaders to wear a cross insignia on their outer garments; some even had it branded on their foreheads. The cross was also associated with other crusades (e.g., in Spain), and was used by pilgrims as well. Thus, by the twelfth century the cross had become a symbol of “Christian power and of individual salvation.” That the crusades highlighted the centrality of Jerusalem is well known; Chazan, however, goes one step further and focuses on Jewish awareness of this phenomenon among their Christian oppressors. In describing crusading efforts, the Hebrew chronicles, particularly the Mainz Anonymous, use biblical terminology which is laden with messianic meaning and often associated with Jerusalem (e.g., Isa. 40). Of more import, however, are the responses of the Jewish community, not only in the well-known martyrological sphere, thereby reflecting the religious fervor of the crusaders themselves, but also in the fact that the sacrifices being offered by Jewish martyrdom were reminiscent of Temple sacrifices and even more desired by God than the sacrifice of Jesus.
This latter sacrifice, the very core of Chrisitan faith, paled—in Jewish eyes at least—before the slaughter of Jewish men, women, and children on the altar of their faith during the crusades. Moreover, just as Christianity had appropriated the biblical imagery of Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his son for its theological agenda, so, too, did Ashkenazic Jewry in the way it carried out this martyrdom. The Hebrew chronicles often invoke the image of the 'Aqedah when describing these events. Linder deals with medieval Christian liturgical reaction to the collapse of crusader efforts, particularly defeat at the hands of Saladin in 1187. Liturgical expression varied in extent and content. Individual prayers, a single Mass, and even a full week’s liturgical cycle were instituted in the coming years and decades to commemorate this and subsequent crusading events. Some of these responses were of short duration, others struck deeper roots and continued to be recited for centuries. The geographical distribution of these prayers was wide, with a particular concentration in France and England. Beginning with concerns such as the crusading efforts and Jerusalem, some of these prayers eventually came to include other issues as well, such as prayers for the welfare of the king and his realm.
The many and varied ways that the memory of Jerusalem has been perpetuated in Jewish tradition is the subject of Golinkin’s broad investigation. He divides these traditions into three categories: (1) the various customs attributed to Second Temple Jerusalem; (2) post-destruction ceremonies intended to preserve the city’s memory; and (3) unique customs of Jerusalem which evolved over the last two millennia. Spanning the realms of prayer, days of mourning, wedding and funeral customs, and others, these customs on occasion continue those practiced during Second Temple times. Turning to Jewish liturgy, Reif has plotted the use of the theme of Jerusalem during the formative period of Jewish liturgy, i.e., the first millennium C.E. Noting the various prayers and prayer-settings in which Jerusalem is mentioned (whether in a historical or eschatological mode), Reif then discusses the various motifs associated with the city and the broader religious ideas behind them. Finally, he offers an overview as to how Jerusalem was viewed historically at various stages in this period. Visotzky relates to three midrashim which he dates to about the ninth century—Midrash Mishle, Tanna d’be Eliyahu and Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli'ezer— and notes the references to Jerusalem in each.
Whereas the city is rarely mentioned in Midrash Mishle, it plays a more prominent role in Tanna d5be Eliyahu, where it is noted several dozen times. However, Jerusalem is most prominently featured in a wide range of contexts in Pirqei de-Rabbi Eli'ezer. Anti-Samaritan (regarding the priority of Jerusalem over Mount Gerizim) and anti-Karaite passages are especially noted, and the question is raised as to whether the editor of this midrash might have, in fact, lived in the city. Ben-Shammai addresses a field which is now being inundated with new primary material as a result of access to Russian libraries and archives over the last decade. Once published and digested, these medievel exegetical texts, both Rabbanite and Karaite, will undoubtedly enrich our knowledge of Jewish cultural and religious life. In what he describes as preliminary remarks, BenShammai declares his “aim of putting the subject on the agenda” by focusing on the names given to Jerusalem by these exegetes in their translations and commentaries.
The biblical term is almost universally preserved, and the word used more and more by the Muslims, al-Quds, was likewise used by Arabicspeaking Jews when referring to the Temple and its precincts. Ben-Shammai suggests that the emphasis on the city may stem not only from the biblical text itself, but from a more contemporary agenda as well. From his survey of this material, he raises the following questions: could the Muslim conquest and shaping of the city have increased messianic expectations among the Jews, and not only among the Karaite population where it was clearly a central factor? Might the newly-claimed status of Baghdad as a “City of Peace” have caused Jewish exegetes to reemphasize the centrality and sanctity of Jerusalem? Or might this Rabbanite emphasis have been a response to internal Jewish polemics, particularly with regard to the Karaites? Our volume concludes with two articles that take us into the late Middle Ages and modern period respectively.
Each deals with a particular Christian community in Jerusalem. O’Mahony addresses the oft-neglected Ethiopian church prior to 1650. Garnering scraps of information from a wide variety of sources, he skillfully traces a series of events which point to the struggles and intrigues surrounding this community’s quest for recognition and legitimation in the holy city. Roussos’ presentation has a more contemporary ring as he addresses the frictions between local churches as their sponsoring countries, i.e., the European powers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, vied for positions of power in the city. Issues of the city’s internationalization and extraterritoriality, well known from twentieth-century diplomacy, had already surfaced in the nineteenth century, and were exploited by the different countries and churches in the course of promoting their own particular agendas.
While it is the written version of the formal presentations that ultimately finds expression in this volume, many of the most riveting moments of the conference were during the discussions and exchanges which took place after each paper. As is customary in delivering scholarly papers, most speakers focused on specific topics within well-defined historical contexts. In the less formal exchanges, however, participants felt freer to make wide-ranging diachronic and synchronic comparisons. Many commented on the fascinating changes in Jerusalem’s evolving urban landscape from one period to the next. As the city encompassed two parallel north-south ridges, the focus of Jerusalem’s urban plan as represented by its holiest buildings shifted from one to the other in successive eras. Under Jewish sovereignty (and under earlier Jebusite rule as well), the Temple was located on the eastern ridge: broad streets, bridges, and monumental staircases all connected various parts of the Herodian city with the Temple Mount.
However, for a variety of reasons, one of which was their declared aim of replacing the Jewish memory of the city, the Christians of the fourth century and later shifted the religious focus of the city to its western ridge. There they erected not only a new temple in the form of the Constantinian Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but many other churches and monasteries as well, including Justinian’s massive Nea Church at the southern end of the city’s main north-south street 0cardo), near Mount Zion. Other clusters of sacred institutions were to be found on Mount Zion itself, as well as on the slopes and crest of the Mount of Olives. The Temple Mount was deliberately ignored and left desolate. The Muslims, however, reversed this process and built their central mosques on the Jewish holy site along the eastern ridge.
This move not only constituted an explicit architectural challenge to Christianity’s heretofore preeminence in the city, but also allowed for the utilization of a large, available tract of land which also happened to be be associated with a sacred past honored by Islam as well. In addition, we can detect an interesting development within the Muslim tradition itself. At first, the Temple Mount’s surroundings were used for large palaces, and remains of a number of them have been found near the Mount’s southwestern corner. As time went on, however, two significant changes took place: more and more buildings bearing a religious character—prayer halls, monasteries, schools, and hospices—were erected adjacent to the Mount’s northern and western perimeters; these buildings were raised in order to put them as close as possible to the Haram’s entrances. This necessitated the building of high-vaulted substructures to allow for their significant elevation. Common to Jerusalem in each successive,1 period was the prominence of religious institutions and their leadership in civic affairs. With the exception of Herod’s thirty-three year rule, Jerusalem for centuries was principally under the sway of high priests. Other religious groups such as the priestly Sadducees and the Pharisees likewise constituted influential bodies in the latter part of the Second Temple period. In a similar vein, Byzantine Jerusalem saw the local clergy rise to prominence, as bishops, priests, and monks assumed a central role in the city’s daily affairs. The same appears to have held true for the Muslim period as well.
As might be expected, many expressions of religious piety were similar from one tradition to the next. Thus, large-scale gatherings of the faithful in the Temple, churches, or mosques were regular occurrences. The presence in the city of not only the official clergy, but of a wide spectrum of holy men, was a familiar phenomenon. Egeria’s account of her experiences in Jerusalem is a vivid statement of the aura of sanctity that pervaded the city and its population at certain holy moments throughout the year. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem was a common phenomenon in every age and, as a result, the ambience in Jerusalem always had an international, cosmopolitan dimension. Nevertheless, there were also some notable differences between the various traditions and how each related to Jerusalem.
For Christians and Muslims, Jerusalem was in essence a holy city, and its importance was due solely to the religious traditions associated with it. For both Christianity and Islam, there were other cities which functioned either as a political capital or religious center, comparable, if not surpassing, the sanctity of Jerusalem (e.g., Rome and Constantinople with regard to Christianity; Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad in Islam). For the Jews, however, Jerusalem was both a political capital and an exclusive religious center. It was a home both in a secular and religious sense. Not only was the Temple located there, but so, too, were royal palaces, civic and social institutions, as well as entertainment facilities (the gymnasium, theater, amphitheater, and hippodrome).
As a result, the loss of Jerusalem in 70 was a far more crushing blow for Judaism than its loss for Christians in 638 C.E., or for Muslims in 1099 C.E. Similarities and differences were likewise evident in the ways each religious tradition treated “the other.” Second Temple Jerusalem knew of very few nonJewish residents (the Herodian court being a major exception). What the status of non-Jews might have been we do not know, although it is quite certain that no outward pagan worship would have been tolerated. Christians, for their part, banned Jews from living in the city and allowed them to be present only on specific occasions.
In contrast, the Muslims appear to have adopted a policy which accorded a place—albeit inferior—to Christian and Jew alike. Finally, the loss or absence of Jerusalem, whether due to conquest or sheer distance, aroused profound religious stirrings within each of the three religious traditions. Whether in the form of poetry or prayer, customs or ceremonies, or in the use of Jerusalem-related names for buildings and institutions found elsewhere, each tradition reflects a deep attachment to the city and a profound acknowledgment of its centrality and sanctity.
June, 1998 Jerusalem Lee Levine
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق