In Early Christianty

Christian concern with Jerusalem involves the ancient concept of the city as a shrine of preeminent holiness, marking the physical and spiritual center of the cosmos, the spot at which history began and at which it shall reach its apocalyptic consummation.1 The idea of an umbilicus mundi, a scale-model as it were of the universe itself,2 at which a nation or tribe would gather periodically to renew its corporate life by the observance of the now familiar year-rites, was familiar to many ancient peoples,3 and the nations converted to Christianity had no difficulty accepting the supreme eschatological significance of Jerusalem and its Temple.4 The city’s unique status, however, raised certain questions which have never ceased to puzzle and divide Christian theologians, namely, (1) Just how literally are Jerusalem’s claims and promises to be taken? (2) How can the glory of Jerusalem be disassociated from the Jews and their persistent claims to be its legitimate heirs? (3) How can the prized continuity (back to Adam) of the city’s long history be maintained if Christianity is a completely new, spiritualized beginning? (4) How can Jerusalem be the Holy City par excellence without also being the headquarters of the church? (5) How can the city’s prestige be exploited in the interests of a particular church or nation?

These issues have all come to the fore in each of the main periods of Christian preoccupation with Jerusalem, namely, (1) the “Golden Age” of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, (2) the Imperial Age from Constantine to Justinian, (3) the Carolingian revival, (4) the Crusades, (5) the period of intrigues and grand designs, (6) the time of patronage by the Great Powers, and (7) the rise of Israel.

The question of literalism was paramount in the second and third centuries; the early Christians had been Jews of the apocalyptic-chiliastic persuasion with lively visions of a literal New Jerusalem, while an educated and growing minority (as also among the Jews) favored a more spiritual interpretation of the biblical promises and accused the old-school Christians of superstition and “Judaizing.”5 The banning of Jews from the city by Hadrian gave an advantage to the Gentile party,6 and the “Doctors of the Church” made the Hellenized or “spiritualized” image of Jerusalem the official one.7 Still, the millennialist teachings survived beneath the surface, occasionally bursting out in sectarian enthusiasm or becoming general in times of crisis, 8 while the doctors themselves repeatedly succumbed to the enticements of a real and earthly Holy City.9 Hence, the ambiguities of literalism versus allegory might have been minimized were it not that the continued presence and preachings of the Jews forced the Christians in self-defense to appeal to the doctrines of a purely spiritual Jerusalem.10

From Origen’s time to the present, churchmen of all sects have been one in insisting that the New Jerusalem is for Christians only, since the Jewish city can never rise again.11 In the absence of scriptural support for this claim various stock arguments are used, namely, Josephus’ description of the destruction of A.D. 70, with its atmosphere of gloom and finality;12 the argument of silence—the Bible says nothing about a restitution of the city after Vespasian;13 the ominously lengthening period of time since the expulsion of the Jews;14 various tortured allegorical and numerological demonstrations; 15 the appeal to history with the ringing rhetorical challenge: “Where is your city now?”16 A favorite argument (akin to a Jewish teaching about the Diaspora) was that Jerusalem had to be destroyed so that Jews and Christians alike might be scattered throughout the world as witnesses to the fulfillment of prophecy in the new religion.17 Against these were arguments which never ceased to annoy: Why did the city and temple continue to flourish for forty-two years after the final pronunciation of doom, and why during that time did the Christians show every mark of reverence and respect for both?18 Why did Jesus weep for the destruction if it was in every sense necessary and desirable?19 Why do the doctors insist that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was a great crime, and yet hail it as a blessed event, saluting its perpetrators as the builders of the New Jerusalem even though they were the chief persecutors of the Christians?20 If expulsion from Jerusalem is proof of divine rejection of the Jews, does the principle not also hold good for their Christian successors?21 How can the antichrist sit in the temple unless the city and temple are built again by the Jews?22 The standard argument, that only a total and final dissolution would be fit punishment for the supreme crime of deicide,23 was frustrated by the time schedule, which suggested to many that the city was destroyed to avenge the death not of Jesus but of James the Just.24

But if Jerusalem was to be permanently obliterated, how could the Christians inherit it? In a spiritual sense, of course. The church was the New Jerusalem in which all prophecy was fulfilled, the Millennium attained, and all things became new.25 But this raised a serious question of continuity: Has God chosen another people? Can one preserve the meaning of the eschatological drama while changing all the characters?26 Can a people (the Christians) be gathered that was never scattered?27 And what of the Heavenly Jerusalem? The approved school solution with its inevitable rhetorical antithesis was to depict the Heavenly and the Earthly Jerusalems as opposites in all things, the one spiritual, the other carnal;28 yet none of the fathers is able to rid himself of “corporeal” complications in the picture, and the two Jerusalems remain hopelessly confused, 29 for in the end the two are actually to meet and fuse into one.30 Palestine was the scene of busy theological controversy and these and related mysteries when the “Golden Age” of Christian Jerusalem came to an end with the persecutions of A.D. 250.31

After the storm had passed, Constantine the Great at Rome, Nicaea, Constantinople, and elsewhere celebrated his victories over the temporal and spiritual enemies of mankind with brilliant festivals and imposing monuments.32 But his greatest victory trophy was “the New Jerusalem,” a sacral complex of buildings presenting the old “hierocentric” concepts in the Imperial pagan form, with the Holy Sepulchre as the center and chief shrine of the world. 33 Jerusalem was treated as the legitimate spoils of Christian-Roman victory over the Jews, whose entire heritage accordingly-including the temple—passed intact into the hands of the Christians.34 Henceforth, there remained no objections to giving Jerusalem its full meed of honor.35 Continuity back to Adam was established with suspicious ease by the rapid and miraculous discovery of every relic and artifact mentioned in the Bible;36 and a flood of pilgrims came to rehearse, Bible in hand (the earliest pilgrims, Silvia [383 A.D.] and the Bordeaux Pilgrim [333 A.D.], are markedly partial to Old Testament remains), the events of each holy place and undertake weary walks and vigils in a cult strangely preoccupied with caves37 and rites of the dead.38 The Patriarch Macarius, who may have contrived the convenient discoveries of holy objects with an eye to restoring Jerusalem to its former preeminence,39 promoted a building boom which reached a peak of great activity in the sixth and seventh centuries.40 Financed at first by imperial bounty, the building program was later supported by wealthy individuals, and especially by a line of illustrious matrons whose concern for the Holy City goes back to Queen Helen of Adiabene, 41 and whose number includes Helen, the mother of Constantine; his mother-in-law, Eutropia; Eudocia, the wife of Theodosius II; Verina, the wife of Leo II; Sophia, the mother of St. Sabas; Paula, Flavia, Domitilla, and Melania, rich Roman ladies and friends of St. Jerome.42 By the end of the fourth century, Jerusalem had more than 300 religious foundations, sustained by generous infusions of outside capital, until the economic decline of the fifth century forced the government to take the initiative, culminating in Justinian’s ambitious but fruitless building program.43 The period was one of specious brilliance in which, A. J. Hubert notes, everything had to be splendens, rutilans, nitens, micans, radians, corsucans—i.e., brilliantly surfaced—while the actual remains of the buildings show slipshod and superficial workmanship. 44

Spared the barbarian depredations suffered by most of the world in the fifth and sixth centuries, Jerusalem was an island of security and easy money, where the population of all ranks was free to indulge in those factional feuds which were the blight of the Late Empire. Points of doctrine furnished stimulation and pretext for violent contests involving confused and shifting combinations, ambitious churchmen and their congregations, hordes of desert monks, government and military officials and their forces, local and national, the ever-meddling great ladies, members of the Imperial family and their followings, and the riotous and ubiquitous factions of the games.45 The Jews of Alexandria became associated with one of these factions of the Emperor Phocas, who ordered his general Bonossus to suppress the corresponding faction in Jerusalem by converting all Jews by force.46 While pitched battles raged in the streets, a Persian army appeared at the gates, sent by Chosroes, the pro-Christian monarch, seeking vengeance on the treacherous Phocas for the murder of his friend Mauritius. 47 The Jews regarded this as a timely deliverance by a nation that had succored them before and sided with the Persians—an act not of treachery (as Christian writers would have it) but of war, since Phocas had already called for their extermination as a people.48 The Christian world was stunned when Chosroes took the cross from Jerusalem in A.D. 614, and elated when the victorious Heraclius brought it back in 628. Under the vehement urging of the monk Modestus, whom he had made patriarch and who aspired to rebuild Jerusalem as a new Macarius, Heraclius, against his better judgment, took savage reprisals on the Jews. 49 But within ten years the city fell to Omar, who allowed the pilgrimages to continue while making Jerusalem a great Moslem shrine by the revival of the temple complex, which the Christians also, after long and studied neglect, now claimed as their own.50

Though Christians, originally as Jews and, later, on church business, had always made pilgrimages to Jerusalem,51 the great surge of popular interest beginning in the fourth century alarmed some churchmen, who denounced the pilgrimage as a waste of time and means, dangerous to life and morals, and a disruptive influence in the church.52 Along with monasticism, with which it was closely associated, the pilgrimage to Jerusalem was an attempt to get back to the first order of the church, to retrieve the lost world of visions, martyrs, prophets, and miracles;53 and this implied dissatisfaction with the present order.54 The writings of the fathers furnish abundant evidence for the basic motivation of the pilgrims, which was the desire to reassure oneself of the truth of Christianity by seeing and touching the very things the Bible told of55 and experiencing contact with the other world by some overt demonstration (healing was the most popular) of supernatural power. 56 Only at Jerusalem could one receive this historical and miraculous reassurance in its fullness; only there did one have a right to expect a miracle.57 The earliest holy place visited “was not, as might have been supposed,” the Holy Sepulchre, but the footprint of the Lord on the Mount of Olives, the spot where he was last seen of men as he passed to heaven, and would first be seen on his return.58 Contact was the basic idea, contact with the biblical past and contact with heaven itself, of which Jerusalem was believed to be a physical fragment.59 Tangible pieces of the Holy City, carried to distant parts of the world, gave rise to other holy centers, which in turn sent out their tangible relics like sparks from a central fire: Sparsa sunt ligna et accensus est mundus, says St. Augustine.60 The Christian world was soon covered by a net of holy shrines, built in imitation of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or the temple, and often designated by the names of Jerusalem, the temple, or the sepulchre.61 Each became a pilgrim center in its own right, and there was a graded system of holiness measured on a scale of distance in time from the Lord and in place from Jerusalem,62 which remained “as far above all the other cities in the world in renown and holiness as the sun is above the stars.”63

After being fought over for two centuries by Moslem dynasties, Jerusalem in 800 was placed under the protection of Charlemagne, who was doing Hārūn al-Rashīd the service of annoying his Umayyad enemies in Spain.64 Though Rome had come under his protection five years earlier in the same way—by the presentation of holy keys and a banner by the bishop—it was the prestige of ruling Jerusalem that warranted the changing of Charlemagne’s title from king to emperor.65 Like Constantine, Charlemagne stimulated a revival of large-scale pilgrimages to Jerusalem,66 and a tradition of royal generosity, endowing a church, school, monastery, and library67—the Jerusalem hospitals for pilgrims were a tradition going back to pre-Christian times.68 From Darius to Augustus and the emperors of the West, great rulers had courted the favor of heaven by pious donatives to the Holy City,69 and this tradition of royal bounty was continued through the Middle Ages, when kings imposed Jerusalem taxes on their subjects and monks from Jerusalem made regular fund-gathering trips to Europe.70 During the years of the “quasi-Protectorate of the Western Emperors” over Jerusalem and the revived Byzantine control (made possible by Moslem disunity),71 Northern and Slavic Europe came to bathe in the Jordan, pray at the Holy Sepulchre, and endow pious foundations. 72 Stimulated by the end-of-the-world excitement of the year 1000, this stream “multiplied tenfold” in the 11th century,73 culminating in great mass pilgrimages of thousands led by eminent lords and churchmen.74 When the Seljuks, having defeated the Byzantine army in 1071 and occupied Jerusalem in 1075, became oppressive in their fees and controls of the holy places, Christian leadership felt obliged to “take up again the part of Charlemagne,” and the armed pilgrimage led by Robert le Frison, 1085—90, was hailed throughout Europe and viewed by the Pope and the Byzantine Emperor alike as advance reconnaissance for a crusade.75

The Crusades were the expression of a popular religious revival in which Jerusalem, restored to its full apocalyptic status (the Crusading literature has a strongly Old Testament flavor),76 offered a welcome door of escape to all classes from economic and social conditions which in Europe had become intolerable.77 The Crusades have also been described as the complete feudalization of Christianity78 by an ancient chivalric tradition with Christ as a liege lord whose injuries must be avenged and whose stronghold must be liberated. 79 We see it in the language of the Crusading literature,80 the significant exchange of embassies, and the close resemblance of Asiatic to European arms and accoutrements, suggesting an older common “epic milieu,”81 and the nature of the Crusades as a Völkerwanderung.82 Since the fourth century the western church had accepted, along with the Roman victory-cult,83 the concept of world polarity, dividing the human race into the Blessed (Jerusalem, Church, ager pacatus) and the Damned (Babylon, Unbelievers, ager hosticus), 84 reflected in the jihād concept of the Moslem countercrusade.85 Such a concept assumed papal leadership of all crusades, giving rise to baffling questions of imperial, papal, and royal prerogative.86 These came to a head in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, whose Assizes, though the most perfect expression of a model feudal society, remained but an ideal,87 “a lawyers’ paradise,” where royalty, exploiting the city’s propinquity to heaven, dramatized its own claims to divine authority, with pageantry of unsurpassed splendor.88 This motif was developed by the military religious orders of the Hospitalers (founded by the Amalfi merchants in 1048 and open only to the nobility), and the Templars, each claiming a monopoly of the unique traditional power and glory of Jerusalem and the temple, and hence displaying an independence of action which in the end was its undoing.89

The Crusades challenged the infidel to a formal trial-of-arms at Jerusalem, to prove which side was chosen of God.90 The great scandal of the Crusades is accordingly not the cynical self-interest, betrayal, and compromise with the enemy that blights them from the beginning,91 but simply their clear-cut and humiliating failure,92 which dealt a mortal blow to medieval ideas of feudal and ecclesiastical dominion.93 With the loss of all the East, “Operation Jerusalem” adopted a new strategy of indirection, approaching its goal variously and deviously by wars against European heretics,94 by preaching missions, through which the Franciscans held a permanent Roman bridgehead in Jerusalem,95 and by local crusades against Jews and Moslems as steps in grand designs of global strategy: the grandiose plans of Charles VIII, Alfonso of Castile, João II, Albuquerque, and Don Sebastian all had as their ultimate objective the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre,96 as indeed did all of Columbus’ projects.97 A marked cabalistic influence has been detected in these plans, and indeed the ever-living hopes of the Jews, fired by new prophecies and new messiahs, were not without effect in Catholic and Protestant circles, 98 as appears in the career of the Humanist Guillaume Postel, who, acclaimed at the court of France for his philological researches in Jerusalem, urged the transfer of the Papacy to that city, and finally declared himself to be the Shekhinah.99

The great reformers, while mildly condemning pilgrimages,100 placed strong emphasis on the purely spiritual nature of the New Jerusalem and the utter impossibility of the Jews’ ever returning to build an earthly city.101 This was necessary to counteract the tendency to apocalyptic excitement and renewed deference to the Jews attendant upon the Reformation’s intensive preoccupation with the Bible,102 as various groups of enthusiasts took to building their own local New Jerusalems103 or preparing to migrate to Palestine for the task;104 such groups flourished down through the 19th century.105 Protestant pilgrims to Jerusalem from the 16th to the 20th centuries have consistently condemned the “mummery” of the older pilgrimages while indulging in their own brand of ecstatic dramatizations.106 While the Catholic practice has been to identify archaeological remains as the very objects mentioned in the Bible, the Protestants have been no less zealous in detecting proof for the scriptures in every type of object observed in the Holy Land.107 Chateaubriand’s much publicized visit to Jerusalem in 1806 combined religious, literary, and intellectual interest and established a romantic appeal of the Holy Land that lasted through the century.108 When Jerusalem was thrown open to the West in the 1830s by Mohammed Ali, European and American missionaries hastened to the spot with ambitious projects of converting the Jews with an eye to the fulfillment of prophecy in the ultimate restoration of the Holy City.109 Even the ill-starred Anglo-Lutheran Bishopric of 1841 had that in view,110 and Newman’s denunciation of the plan as a base concession to the Jews and Protestants111 indicated the stand of the Roman Church, which in 1847 appointed a resident patriarch for Jerusalem.112 In the mounting rivalry of missions and foundations that followed, France used her offices as protector of Roman Catholics and Holy Places in the East (under the Capitulations of Francis I, 1535, renewed in 1740) to advance her interests in the Orient, e.g., in the Damascus ritual-murder affair of 1840;113 and when Louis Napoleon was obliged by his Catholic constituents to reactivate French claims to holy places which France had long neglected and the Russians long cherished, “the foolish affair of the Holy Places” (as he called it) led to the Crimean War and its portentous chain of consequences.114

In the second half of the nineteenth century the major powers of churches were stimulated by mutual rivalry to seek commanding positions in Jerusalem through the founding of eleemosynary institutions over which they retained control.115 Beyond the hard facts of geography and economics, the religious significance of the city continued to exert steady pressure on the policies of all the great powers, as when the German kaiser gratified his Catholic subjects with the gift of the “Dormition,”116 proclaimed Protestant unity by the dedication of the great Jerusalem and the patronage (thwarted by his advisers)117 of Palestinian Zionism.118 The taking of Jerusalem by Allenby in 1917 was hailed throughout the Christian world as the fulfillment of prophecy,119 and deplored by the Moslems as a typical Crusade against their holy city.120 World War II was followed by increasing interest in Jerusalem as a center of oecumenical Christianity,121 though old religious and national rivalries, of long standing and great variety, continued to flourish.122 The twentieth-century pilgrimages acquired a touristic air in keeping with the times, interest in Jerusalem having a more sophisticated and intellectual tone.123 Even the old and vexing problem of the priority of Jerusalem, “mother of Churches,” over other Christian bishoprics is now approached in a spirit of mutual concession and with respect for the autonomy of the various bishoprics of Jerusalem.124 This liberal attitude may be a response to what is regarded in some Christian circles as the Jewish challenge to the basic Christian thesis that only Christians can possess a New Jerusalem.125 While the great powers for over a century cautiously sought to exploit the energies of Zionism and its sympathizers,126 it is now openly conceded that the Jews might indeed rebuild their city—though only as potential Christians. 127 Though some Christians are even willing to waive that proviso,128 the fundamental thesis is so firmly rooted that the progress of Israel is commonly viewed not as a refutation of it but as a baffling and disturbing paradox. 129 The Roman position, reflecting a 2000-year battle of prestige between Rome and Jerusalem,130 is especially resistant to change.131

With the Israel military victories of 1948, 1956, and 1967, the Christian world was confronted by a new image of a heroic Israel. The picture was agreeable or disturbing to Christians depending on which of two main postions one chose to take, and the years of tension following the Six-Day War of June 1967 were marked by an increasing tendency among Christians everywhere to choose sides. On the one hand, the tradition of the Church Fathers and Reformers, emphasized anew by Arnold Toynbee, looked upon a Jewish Jerusalem as a hopeless anachronism, and deplored any inclination to identify ancient with modern Israel. This attitude rested on the theory, developed by generations of theologians, that only Christians could be rightful heirs to the true Covenant and the Holy City. Roman Catholics continued to hold the position, propounded by Pope Pius X to Herzl in 1904, that the return of the Jews to Jerusalem was a demonstration of messianic expectations which that church considered discredited and outmoded. Those suspicious of the progress of Israel naturally chose to minimize the moral and world-historical significance of Jerusalem, and to treat the problems of modern Israel as purely political. On the other hand were Bible-oriented Christians of all denominations in whom the successes of the Israelis inspired to a greater or lesser extent renewed hope and interest in the literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy. To such persons in varying degrees the Jewish military achievements appeared as steps toward the fulfillment of the eschatological promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:18) As interest in Jerusalem shifted from the antiquarian appeal of the 1950s to heightened eschatological allure, something of the old Christian vision of Jerusalem seemed to stir the Christian conscience.

If Jerusalem did not exist, the Christians would have to invent it—indeed they have invented it, choking with emotion at the sight of sixteenth-century walls and tracing the Lord’s footsteps through late medieval streets.132 It has always been an indispensable authentication for their faith and an abiding reminder of prophetic promises.

*   This article first appeared under “Jerusalem: In Christianity” in the Encyclopedia Judaica, 16 vols. (Jerusalem: Macmillan, 1972) 9:1568—75. The footnotes are published here for the first time.

1.   H. W. Hertzberg, “Der heilige Fels und das Alte Testament,” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 12 (1932): 32, 39—42.

2.   Sibylle Mähl, “Jerusalem in mittelalterlicher Sicht,” Welt als Geschichte 22 (1962): 19.

3.   For a recent coordination with emphasis on Hebrew rites, see Samuel H. Hooke, ed., Myth, Ritual, and Kingship (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958).

4.   Jerusalem is to all Christians what Athens is to the Greeks and Rome to the Latins, Jerome, Epistolae (Letters) 46, in PL 22:489. The rites of the old shrines are now transferred to the Christian center, Theodoret, Graecarum Affectionum Curatio 11, in PG 83:1095.

5.   The issue is clearly stated by Jerome, Commentarius in Isaiam Prophetam (Commentary on Isaiah) XIV, 51, 7—13, in PL 24:487—88; XV, 54, 1—3, in PL 24:516; XVIII, 65, preface, in PL 24:627; Jerome, Commentarius in Jeremiam Prophetam (Commentary on Jeremiah) IV, 19, in PL 24:802, n.b; VI, 22, in PL 24:886, and in the note in Origen, Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) IV, 22, in PG 11:1058, n. 74.

6.   “Dissertatio de Vita Sancti Cyrilli” (“Disquisition on the Life of Saint Cyril”) I, 6, 34, in PG 33:61.

7.   It is only the ignorant rabble who “promise us a rebuilding of Jerusalem,” Theodoret, In Divini Ezechielis Prophetiam (On the Divine Prophecies of Ezekiel) 1045, in PG 81:1248; so Origen, Against Celsus IV, 80, in PG 11:1105—8; Origen, Peri Archon (On First Things) II, 4, 3, in PG 11:201—3; Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah XV, 54, 1—3, in PL 24:516; XVIII, 65, preface, in PL 24:627—29.

8.   Friedrich Baethgen, Der Engelpapst (Halle: Niemeyer, 1933), 76—77; Ray C. Petry, in Church History, 10 vols. (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962—64), 9:55.

9.   Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone (Dialogue with Trypho) 80, in PG 6:665; Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos (Expositions on the Psalms) 30, 8—10, in PL 36:253; Augustine, Contra Litteras Petiliani Donatistae (Against the Writings of Petilianus the Donatist) IV, 25—28, in PL 43:409—10; Jerome, Letters 46, in PL 22:485, 489; Cassiodorus, Expositio in Psalterium (Commentary on the Psalms) 86, 7—end, in PL 70:474, 621; Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in Isaiam Prophetam (Commentary on Isaiah) 292, in PG 70:468.

10.   When Christians are accused of Judaizing, the specific charge is “Chiliasm,” which “is found wherever the Gospel is not yet Hellenized, and must be regarded as a main element of Christian preaching,” Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, 7 vols. (New York: Russell & Russell, 1958), 1:167, n. 1.

11.   Arguments and references in Origen, Against Celsus IV, 22—23, in PG 11:1055—60. Protestant writers are just as emphatic, note 100 below.

12.   Flavius Josephus, Jewish War VI, 403—22.

13.   Origen, Against Celsus IV, 22, in PG 11:1057; George Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium (Compendium of History) 1, 408—10, in PG 121:448—49; Theodoret, Interpretatio in Psalmos (Interpretation of Psalms) 73, 1—3, in PG 80:1453—56.

14.   With each successive writer, this argument becomes more effective, e.g., Origen, Against Celsus IV, 22, in PG 11:1081; Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos (Treatise on the Psalms) 58, 12, in PL 9:381; 124, 2—3, in PL 9:680; 126, 1—2, in PL 9:693; “Index Analyticus in Cyrillum,” in PG 33:1711; Cosmas, Topographia Christiana (Christian Topography) 111, in PG 88:168; Fulbert, Tractatus contra Judaeos (Treatise against the Jews) 2, in PL 141:312; 3, in PL 141:317—18; Andronicus Comnenus, Dialogus contra Judaeos (Dialogue against the Jews) 41, in PG 133:869; Ernest Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 4 vols., tr. James Martin (Edinburgh: Clark, 1858), 3:291—92.

15.   Cedrenus, Compendium of History 1, 285—87, 423—24, in PG 121:321, 461—64; Michaeus Glycas, Annales (Annals) 238, in PG 158:449; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon (Chronicle) 2, 33, in PL 20:147—48.

16.   Using almost identical words, Ambrose, Historiae de Excidio Hierosolymitanae Urbis (History of the Destruction of Jerusalem) 19—20, in PL 15:2323; Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms 73, 1—4, in PL 36:929, but especially 931—32; Andronicus Comnenus, Dialogue against the Jews 54, in PG 133:893; Anonymus Saeculus, Tractatus adversus Judaeum (Tract against a Jew) 39, in PL 213:777; Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann, eds, Luther’s Works, 30 vols. (Philadelphia: Concordia, 1957), 2:361; or D. Martin Luthers Werke, 92 vols. (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1883—1941; reprinted Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1966—83), 42:520.

17.   Irenaeus, Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) IV, 3, 1, in PG 7:980; Justin, Apologia pro Christianis (Apology) 49, 5, in PL 6:336; Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms 30, 8—10, in PL 36:253; Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah 37, in PG 70:72. TB, Pesaḥim 87b—88a.

18.   Jerome bridges the gap by transferring the angelic announcement of A.D. 70 —transeamus ex his sedibus—to the time of the crucifixion, Epistola Paulae et Eutochii ad Marcellam (Letter of Paula and Eutochius to Marcella), discussed by Robert Eisler, Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: Winter, 1929), 1:130. Cf. Walafridus Strabus, De Subversione Jerusalem (On the Destruction of Jerusalem), in PL 114:967; Mähl, “Jerusalem in mittelalterlicher Sicht,” 13.

19.   Gregorius Magnus (Gregory the Great), Homiliae in Evangelia (Homilies on the Gospel) II, 39, in PL 76:1294—95; Strabus, On the Destruction of Jerusalem, in PL 114:971, 965; Origen, Homiliae in Jeremiam (Homlies on Jeremiah) 13, 1—3, in PG 13:400—01; Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah 407, in PG 70:648.

20.   Hadrian is both the benefactor of the human race and the Abomination of Desolation: Eusebius, HE IV, 5—6, in PG 20:308—16; cf. Domitian, cited in ibid. III, 19, in PG 20:252; Hadrian’s Aelia was the New Jerusalem! Cedrenus, Compendium of History 1, 437—38, in PG 121:477. Titus’ attack on Jerusalem was directed especially against the Christians, Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon 2, 50, in PL 20:157—58; Vespasian feared the Christians as he did the Jews, René Basset, ed., “Le synaxaire arabe jacobite,” in PO 16:310.

21.   The Christians find themselves in exactly the same position as the Jews and are given the identical comfort, Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones (Divine Institutes) V, 23, in PL 6:627—28; Origen, In Lucam Homiliae (Homily on Luke) 38, in PG 13:1897; Jerome, Commentarius in Ezechielem (Commentary on Ezekiel) 36, in PL 25:340; Cassiodorus, Commentary on the Psalms 59, 7—9, in PL 70:422; Haymond of Halberstadt, Enarratio in Malachiam Prophetam (Exposition on Malachi) 14, in PL 117:276. The principle had been laid down that whoever holds the Holy Places is the true church, since God would never allow them to fall into the hands of unbelievers. Athanasius, Quaestiones ad Antiochum Ducem (Questions to Duke Antiochus) 43—45, in PG 28:625. Below, note 91. The fathers are pleased to be able to identify their people with the Jews through their parallel sufferings.

22.   Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 25, 1—2, in PG 7:1189; Hippolytus, Exegetica 21—22, in PG 10:656, 921, 928; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses (Catechetical Lectures) 15, in PG 33:889; Clement of Alexandria, Stromatum I, 21, 57—62, in PG 8:856; Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum (Commentary on Matthew) 25, 1—7, in PL 9:1053—55; Theophylactus, Enarratio in Evangelium Marci (Exposition on the Gospel of Mark), in PG 123:630.

23.   Origen, Against Celsus IV, 32, in PG 11:1077; Hippolytus, Demonstratio de Christo et Antichristo (On Christ and the Antichrist) 2, 7, in PG 10:792; Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms 62, 18—19, in PL 36:759; 64, 1—2, in PL 36:773; Jerome, Letters, in PL 22:485—86; Chrysostom, Contra Judaeos et Gentiles, quod Christus Sit Deus (Against the Jews and the Gentiles that Christ is God) 6, 2—3, in PG 48:907; Chrysostom, Commentarius in Sanctum Matthaeum Evangelistam (Commentary on Matthew) 76, in PG 58:695, etc.

24.   Discussed by Eisler, Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas 1:147. Many fathers give other reasons. The time scale is the decisive factor, Christians and Jews each arranging it to suit themselves. The Trophies of Damascus IV, 2, 1—3 and 8, in PO 15:262—66.

25.   The view is stated by Charles Malik: “The promises made to ancient Israel were all fulfilled in Jesus Christ,” so that any subsequent development “has nothing to do either with eschatology or Christian theology. . . . Any further political expectation for the Jews would mean that there is still something which has not been already completed and finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ,” cited by David Polish, The Eternal Dissent (The Hague: Mouton, 1960), 204, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, etc., all say the same.

26.   “Here the Christian confronts a solemn, awful question,” P. Parker, Inherit the Promise (Connecticut: Seabury, 1957), 62. Renovatio has a special meaning in this case, for God really founds another city entirely, Augustine, Civitate Dei (The City of God) 18, 48, in PL 41:574—76; Eusebius, De Vita Constantini (On the Life of Constantine) 32, 16—18, in PG 24:321; Anonymous, Vita Sancti Pachomii (Life of Saint Pachomius) I, 30, in PL 73:250; Hilary, Treatise on the Psalms 67, 30—32, in PL 9:465; Nicolas Faber, In Fragmenta Sancti Hilarrii (On the Fragments of Saint Hilary) 30—31, in PL 10:908, etc.

27.   Many fathers treat the paradox: Jerusalem is “the sterile mother,” Gregory the Great, In Primum Librum Regum (Commentary on the First Book of Kings) II, 15, in PL 79:84, “black but comely,” Gregory the Great, Super Cantica Canticorum Expositio (Commentary on the Song of Songs) 1, 21, in PL 79:487; 6, 3, in PL 79:526. Hippolytus, De Consummatione Mundi (On the Consummation of the World) 3, in PG 10:908; Jerome, Commentarius in Zachariam (Commentary on Zechariah) I, 1, in PL 25:1426; Prosper, Expositio Psalmorum (Commentary on the Psalms) 131, 5—10, in PL 51:379; Hilary, Treatise on the Psalms 124, 2—4, in PL 9:680—81; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 83, 3, in PG 6:672—73; Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) I, 2, 3—4, in PG 41:392—96, etc.

28.   Clement of Alexandria, Stromata IV, 26, in PG 8:1381, even compares the Christian Jerusalem with the ideal cities of mythology and philosophy.

29.   Augustine, De Catechizandnis Rudibus (On the Catechising of the Uninstructed) 21, 37, in PL 40:336—37; he denies the title of Christian to those who would altogether reject a physical city, Contra Donatistas (Against the Donatists) IV, 10—11, in PL 43:409—10, and Jerome reluctantly warns against separating the two cities—the earthly Jerusalem is also holy, Letters 46, 7—10, in PL 22:488—89.

30.   H. Rusche, “Himmlisches Jerusalem,” in Michael Buchberger, ed., Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 9 vols. (Freiburg: Herder, 1960), 5:367; W. Schmauch, “Jerusalem: Theologie,” in Heinz Brunotte and Otto Weber, Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, 4 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), 2:260. Wolberus, Commentaria in Canticum Canticorum (Commentary on the Song of Solomon) 208, in PL 195:1209, even suggests a third Jerusalem acting as a physical link between them.

31.   Michel Join-Lambert, Jerusalem (New York: Putnam, 1958), 106. During the period the great teachers “felt that their knowledge would not be complete, nor could they achieve the highest merit [virtutem]” unless they visited Jerusalem, Jerome, Letters 46, 206, in PL 22:489.

32.   Eusebius, On the Life of Constantine III, 12—15; III, 33, in PG 24:600—601; Hugh W. Nibley, “The Loyalty Problem: Our Western Heritage,” Western Political Quarterly 6 (1953): 641—46.

33.   W. Telfer, “Constantine’s Holy Land Plan,” Texte und Untersuchungen 63 (1957): 696—700. Eusebius, On the Life of Constantine III, 12—15; III, 33, in PG 20:600. Jerome says Palestine again became the religious capital of the world, Letters 46, 8—10, in PL 22:489; “Disquisition on the Life of Saint Cyril,” I, 6, 34, in PG 33:61. Constantine could only express these ideas “in the pagan idiom,” Andrew Alföldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, tr. Harold Mattingly (Oxford: Clarendon, 1948), 112.

34.   Eutychius, Annales (Annals) 464—68, in PG 111:1012, compares Constantine’s conquest of the Jewish capital with Hadrian’s. Cf. Georgios Harmatolos, Chronicon (Chronicle) IV, 181, in PG 110:612, and Augustine’s victory chant, Expositions on the Psalms 63, in PL 36:759. The church stands forever on the foundation of the destroyed temple, Leo, Sermo (Discourse) 3, 1—2, in PL 54:145, literally occupying “non urbem sed locum,” Jerome, Commentarius in Jeremiam Prophetam (Commentary on Jeremiah) IV, 29, 5—10, in PL24:802. “Jerusalem was converted to the Christian faith in the time of Constantine,” Radulfi de Diceto, “Opera Historica,” in William Stubbs, ed., The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1876), 2:76.

35.   Suddenly “Aelia remembered that it had once been at Jerusalem . . . the basilicas of Constantine and of Helena . . . were reviving and exalting its venerable traditions,” Louis Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church, 3 vols. (London: Murray, 1931), 2:486.

36.   Jacob de Haas, History of Palestine (New York: Macmillan, 1934), 80—81; Georgios Hermatolos, Chronicle 410—11, in PG 110:620—21; Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea, 3 vols. (London: Murray, 1841), 2:80.

37.   Silvia visited two caves of Moses and Elijah, Job’s cave, the caves where Christ taught, was resurrected, born, ascended to heaven and (in spite of the scriptures) held the Last Supper, John W. Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine (London: Oxford University Press, 1941), 31. The footprint of Christ in a grotto under the Temple Rock “where the dead met to worship God,” Join-Lambert, Jerusalem, 170, was matched by the Holy of Holies, in a cave under the same rock, C. Raymond Beazley, The Dawn of Modern Geography, 2 vols. (London: Murray, 1901), 2:150.

38.   Constantine’s prime monument, the Anastasis, was “a round building on the plan of the imperial mausoleum . . . the grotto-tomb stood in the middle,” Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine, 20. There “you cannot imagine what a wailing and howling was carried on by all the people . . . day and night,” to commemorate not the death, but the resurrection of Christ! (This is the author’s translation from the original text.) Compare with John H. Bernard, tr. & ed., The Pilgrimage of S. Silvia of Aquitania to the Holy Places (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1891), 68, p. 65 (cf. p. 126); 57, p. 48 (cf. p. 112). Jerome explains this with the quotation: “Where the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together,” cited in E. S. Duckett, Wandering Saints of the Early Middle Ages (New York: Norton, 1959), 296.

39.   Join-Lambert, Jerusalem, 108—11.

40.   Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine, 160; nine-tenths of Palestine’s churches were built then.

41.   For the economic history, Avi-Yonah, “The Economics of Byzantine Palestine,” Israel Exploration Journal 8 (1958): 38—51. Queen Helen, see Josephus, Antiquities XX, 2, 4; Eusebius, HE II, 12, in PG 20:165, was later claimed by the Christians, Flavius Lucius Dexter, Chronicon (Chronicle), in PL 31:201; Jacob Raisin, Gentile Reactions to Jewish Ideals (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953), 262.

42.   Join-Lambert, Jerusalem, 129, 134—40; Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church 3:132—34, 140—43. The Lady Silvia found distinguished dames of her acquaintance inhabiting cells in Palestine, Bernard, The Pilgrimage of S. Silvia of Aquitania to the Holy Places 40, p. 23—24 (cf. 90—91); 54—55, p. 42—45 (cf. 107—9).

43.   Avi-Yonah, “The Economics of Byzantine Palestine,” 41, 47—51. “A countless host of priests and monks” came hither, “partly because of the sanctity of the two places, partly because of the fame of Jerome, and partly to enjoy the charity of rich and noble matrons,” Marius Mercatius, Fides Rufini Aquileiensis (The Faith of Rufinus of Aquileia) preface, in PL 48:239. Anonymous, De Locis Sanctis (On the Holy Places) 11, in PG 133:985, puts the number of religious establishments in Jerusalem at 365.

44.   Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine, 7—8; Sozomen, HE II, 26, in PG 67:26; Avi-Yonah, “The Economics of Byzantine Palestine,” 41—42, 49.

45.   The grand scale rioting began at the dedication of Constantine’s church, Cambridge Medieval History, 8 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926), 1:128, and culminated in the massacre at the Holy Sepulchre in 451 A.A. For a description, Marius Mercatius, The Faith of Rufinus of Aquileia 12, in PL 48:240; “Disquisition on the Life of Saint Cyril,” I, in PG 33:63—64.

46.   Cambridge Medieval History 2:285, 290; De Haas, History of Palestine, 116.

47.   William of Tyre, Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum (History of Overseas Territories) I, 2, in PL 201:214—15.

48.   Lawrence Edward Browne, Eclipse of Christianity in Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933), 25; de Haas, History of Palestine, 117. Adrian Fortescue, “Jerusalem,” in Charles G. Herberman, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, 16 vols. (New York: Appleton, 1910), 8:359—60, charges treason.

49.   Georgios Harmatolos, Chronicle 4, 22, in PG 110:833, treats the breaking of this oath to the Jews as a crime, formally recognized as such by the Coptic Church. Cf. de Haas, History of Palestine, 120.

50.   Omar, “after a lapse of six centuries,” revived the essential Jewish tradition of Jerusalem, Join-Lambert, Jerusalem, 169. On Sophronius and the Christian claims, Charles Diehl and Georges Margais, Le monde orientale de 395 à 1081, in Louis Lévéque, ed., Histoire du moyen age, 2 vols. (Paris: Les Presses Universitaire de France, 1936), 1:154—55.

51.   Jerome, Letters 46, 8—10, in PL 22:489; Eusebius, HE VI, 2, in PG 20:541—44; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2, 31, in PL 20:147; Basset, “Le Synaxaire arabe jacobite,” in PO 16:303—5.

52.   F. Dölger, in Relazioni 3:92. Among those discouraging pilgrimages are Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Cedrenus, Sulpicius Severus, Bede, Theodoret, William of Malmesbury, Geoffrey of Vendome, Gilles of Paris, the Russian Daniel, Rupert, and Thomas a Kempis. Note 54 below.

53.   Dölger, in Relazioni 3:88—93. They were looking for “une sorte de paradis perdu,” R. Roussel, Les pélerinages (Paris: Payot, 1954), 13. Pilgrimage and monastic life “met l’homme en communication directe avec Dieu,” Diehl, Le monde orientale 3:101. They would kiss the holy objects “like thirsty people,” Jerome, Letters 46 and 47, in PL 22:484—93.

54.   “In the whole of patristic literature there is not one homily or other exhortation . . . to undertake pilgrimages,” B. Koetting, Peregrinatio Religiosa (Münster: Regensberg, 1950), 42. It was a popular vote of no-confidence in the church, Adolf von Harnack, Das Mönchtum (Giessen: Kicker, 1895). “If you really believed, you would not have to visit these places to reassure yourselves,” says Gregorius Nyssenus (Gregory of Nyssa), Epistolae (Letters) 2, in PG 46:1013.

55.   Mähl, “Jerusalem in mittelalterlicher Sicht,” 14—15; Roussel, Les pélerinages, 48—50. The will to locate and materialize everything is paramount: “This is the tomb of Moses, in spite of the fact that the Scriptures say that no man knows his tomb,” Bernard, The Pilgrimage of S. Silvia of Aquitania to the Holy Places, 42, p. 27 (cf. 94). Ricoldus put a live baby into the Holy Crib so he and other pilgrims could worship it, Mähl, “Jerusalem in mittelalterlicher Sicht,” 16.

56.   It was believed that Jerusalem was actually a bit of heaven, Harnack, History of Dogma 6:8; Bernardi, Itinerarium in Loca Sancta (Journey to the Holy Places) 10—16, in PL 121:572—73; Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History) III, 16—17, in PL 95:258. At Jerusalem the most important “letters from heaven” descended, Mathew Paris, Chronica Majora, 7 vols. (London: Longman, 1872), 2:462—64; Maximilian Bittner, Der vom Himmel gefallene Brief Christi in seinen morgenländischen Versionen und Rezensionen, in Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 51 (1906): 71.

57.   Bernardi, Itinerarium in Local Sancta (Journey to the Holy Places) 10—16, in PL 121:572—73; Georgios Harmatolos, Chronicle 139—40, in PG 110:664; Cassiodorus, Commentary on the Psalms 67, 35—38, in PL 70:474; Mähl, “Jerusalem in mittelalterlicher Sicht,” 17.

58.   Stewart Perowne, “The Site of the Holy Sepulchre,” Listener 68 (1962): 351—53; F. M. Abel, “Jérusalem,” in DACL, 7:2311. It was the spot of the “ultima Domini vestigia,” Bede, Ecclesiastical History III, 16—17, in PL 95:257.

59.   A very moving description in Bede, Ecclesiastical History III, 17—18, in PL 95:258. The great central shrine was roofless in order to maintain contact with heaven, Bernardi, Journey to the Holy Places 10—12, in PL 121:572.

60.   Augustine, Sermones (Sermons) 117, 6—7, in PL 38:660. Cf. Gregory of Tours, Miraculorum de Liber Gloria Martyrum I, 5, in PL 71:709.

61.   M. Daniel-Rops, L’église de la cathedrale et de la croisade, 542. The four columns of the Holy of Holies were claimed by Mecca, Paris, Chronica Majora 6:349, Venice; John Evelyn, Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 2:438; and Rome, ibid., 246, where they stood on the very soil of Jerusalem, sent to Rome by St. Helen herself, ibid., 272—73, n. 1. Cf. John the Deacon, Liber de Ecclesia Lateranensi (On the Lateran Church) 1—4, in PL 194:1547—48. In the eighth century Syncellus identifies Constantinople with Jerusalem in the most literal sense, Paul Alexander, “The Strength of Empire and Capital as Seen through Byzantine Eyes,” Speculum 37 (1962): 346—47; the chief church of Spain was called simply “Jerusalem,” Petrus Braida, Dissertatio in Sanctum Nicetam (Disquisition on Saint Nicetas) 5, in PL 52:952. The Jerusalem in Rome, William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum 1, 202; 3, 172, like the Jerusalem Chamber in Westminster, Phillip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (London: Harper, 1905), 1:748—49, were mystically identified with Jerusalem. The Temple in London was a reproduction of Solomon’s Temple, “built round in imitation of this,” Samuel Purchas, His Pilgrimes 8:193; Walter Besant, Mediaeval London, 2 vols. (London: Black, 1906), 2:276—77. The same idea was followed in London’s St. Sepulchre, J. C. Dickinson, Monastic Life in Medieval England (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1962), 82.

62.   Walsingham, “The Nazareth of England,” gave the pilgrim “the same spiritual privileges as would the journey to Palestine,” Roussel, Les Pélerinages, 94. On the rule of distance, Mähl, “Jerusalem in mittelalterlicher Sicht,” 16; Titus Tobler, Dr. Titus Toblers zwei Bücher Topographie von Jerusalem und seinen Umgebungen, 2 vols. (Berlin: Reimer, 1853—54), 1:540.

63.   Giselbert, Historia Hierosolymitana (History of Jerusalem) IV, 35—38, in PL 166:555. It is “quasi alterum coelum,” Peter of Blois, De Hierosolymitana Peregrinatione (On the Pilgrimage to Jerusalem), in PL 207:1070, “a star in some other heaven,” Cassiodorus, Commentary on the Psalms 86—87, in PL 70:622, an “alter paradisus delicarum,” says Urban in Robert Manachus, Historia Hierosolymitana (History of Jerusalem) I, 1, in PL 155:672.

64.   On the political issues, Aziz Atiya, Crusade, Commerce, and Culture (Mass.: Smith, 1969), 36; Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine, 162—63.

65.   Sangallensis Monachus, De Gestis Beati Carolil Magni II, 11, in PL 98:1396—98; Anonymous, Annales Veteres Francorum, in PL 98:1427—28. Paris, Chronica Majora 1:368; Louis Halphen, Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire, tr. Giselle de Nie (New York: North-Holland, 1977), 93—94; Cambridge Medieval History 2:620—21, 704—5.

66.   Roussel, Les pélerinages, 14; Join-Lambert, Jerusalem, 176.

67.   Benedict Stolz, “The Benedictines in the Holy Land,” Christian News from Israel 11 (1960): 12.

68.   A. Philipsborn, “Les premiers hôpitaux au moyen age (orient et occident),” Nouvelle Clio 6 (1955): 144—46. In the history of hospitals in general “le role de Jerusalem est capital,” ibid., 160.

69.   Paul Heinisch, History of the Old Testament (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1952), 418. Vespasian continued the temple tax for the pagan temple, and Theodosius diverted it into the imperial treasury, as did the German Emperors, Cambridge Medieval History 7:646—47.

70.   In 883 and 887 King Alfred sent the monks back to Jerusalem loaded with gifts, Simeon of Durham, Historia Regum, in Thomas Arnold, ed., Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1882), 2:62; and in 889 following the example of Charlemagne imposed a regular Jerusalem tax, collected by the clergy, Richard of Cirencester, Speculum Historiale de Gestis Regum Angliae (London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1863—69), 2:41. Circa A.D. 900 “monks used to come annually to Rouen to collect alms” for Jerusalem. Stolz, “The Benedictines in the Holy Land,” 12, citing Ralph Glaber. The Jerusalem (later Saladin) tax became the foundation of Papal and national taxing policy in the Middle Ages, Ibsen’s review of A. Gottlob, Die päpstlische Kreuzzugsstreuen des 13. Jahrhunderts (Heiligenstadt: Cordier, 1892), Historische Zeitschrift 72 (1894): 315. This too has an old Jewish background, Cicero, Pro Flacco 28 (66—69).

71.   Charles Beazley, The Dawn of Modern Geography, 3 vols. (London: Frowde, 1905), 2:120—23; René Grousset, Histoire des croisades et du Royaume Franc de Jerusalem, 3 vols. (Paris: Librarie Plan, 1934), 1:lviii.

72.   Beazley, Modern Geography 2:126, 148—49, 107; Charles Homer Haskins, Norman Institutions (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918), 266—67; Richard of Cirencester (New York: Ungar, 1960), 2:178—79, 252, 283; Giraldus, Chronicon 3:397—98 (St. David of Wales); Kristnisaga 13:2; 17:5; Are, Islendinga-boc 10:14; Orvar-Odds Saga 33:8; 34:1.

73.   Beazley, Modern Geography 2:155—61, 165, 167, 125, 215, 405.

74.   Beazley, Modern Geography 2:125; Ralph Glaber, Chronicon 4, 6, in PL 142:680—82; Purchas, His Pilgrimes 8:18; on mass pilgrimages, Beazley, Modern Geography 2:129—30.

75.   Quote is from Beazley, Modern Geography 2:127. Gregory VII and the Emperor Michael VII were already thinking of a Crusade in 1073, G. Ostrogorsky, “The Byzantine Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order,” Slavonic and East European Review 35 (1956): 14. On Robert le Frison, L. Henri Pirenne, Bibliographie de l’histoire de Belgique (Bruxelles: Lamertin, 1931) 1:96—100.

76.   The Crusaders are God’s elect, true Israel, the Chosen People, Fulcher, Historia Hierosolymitana (History of Jerusalem) 39, 4, in PL 155:891; Godfrey was the new Moses, his advent announced (literally) on Sinai, Alberic, Historia Hierosolymitana (History of Jerusalem) VI, 33—35, in PL 166:554; his successor is designated in his epitaph as “Rex Baldwinus Judas alter Machabeus,” Purchas, His Pilgrimes 8:187; the first Crusaders are “the Princes of Judah bringing comfort to Jerusalem,” Guibert, Gesta Dei per Francos (Acts of God through the Franks) VIII, 4, in PL 156:806—8, defending her “in the midst of the Gentiles,” ibid., in PL 156:810. “You are now the Children of Israel,” cries Urban II, “fight better than the ancient Israelites for Your Jerusalem,” Oswald J. Reichel, The See of Rome in the Middle Ages (London: Longmans, Green, 1870), 320.

77.   “Through the Crusades . . . the primitive Christian institutions were restored; the sacred places . . . led it to the Christ of the Gospels,” Harnack, History of Dogma 6:9. Rodulfus Glaber, Historia (History) 3, 4, in PL 142:651: “Rejecta vestustate, passim candidam ecclesiarum vestem indueret.” Against the will of the leaders, the masses insisted on marching straight to Jerusalem, William of Tyre, History of Overseas Territories VII, 2, in PL 201:378—79. “Sehnsucht nach Freiheit” was the motive, Martin Grabmann, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2 vols. (Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1957), 1:258; and Urban’s speech lays strong emphasis on the escape motif, Fulcher, History of Jerusalem 1, 2, in PL 155:830—32.

78.   Adolf Waas, “Der heilige Krieg,” Welt als Geschichte 19 (1959): 215—16.

79.   Thus Geoffrey, though anxious to avoid bloodshed, was “bound to avenge the insult [injuriam] to his Lord,” Godefridus Rex, Concio ad Milites Christianos (Call to Christian Soldiers), in PL 155:391, and so, seeking “neither Tower, nor Gold, nor Spoile, but revenge . . . clave human bodies from the head to the raines,” Purchas, His Pilgrimes 7:449—50. Pope and Sultan exchange formal challenges and insults in the best epic and chivalric manner, John of Whethamstede, Registra Quorundam Abbatum Monasterius St. Albanus (London: Longman, 1872—73) 11:270—71.

80.   The Crusaders adopted the epic literary idiom, and dramatized themselves as the Knights of the Round Table, Grousset, Histoire des croisades 3:731. Later ages saw the Crusades in an epic setting, as Torqvato Tasso, Gerusalemme Liberata 1:1, 12, 21, 23; 4:7; 6, 9, etc.

81.   Franz Altheim, Gesicht vom Abend und Morgen (Frankfurt: Fischer Bücherei, 1955), 148—50. The close ties with central Asia are significant, Éduard Perrov, Le moyen age, in Maurice Crouzet, ed., Histoire genérale de civilisations, 7 vols. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957), 3:341; Grousset, Histoire des croisades 3:746.

82.   “Earlier crusades were armed migrations, not military invasions,” Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilization and Decay (New York: Macmillan, 1896, 1910), 124.

83.   C. Dawson, Dynamics of World History, 137; T. B. L. Webster, From Mycenae to Homer (London: Methuen, 1958), 59—61, 106. Jerome describes the fall of Rome both in terms of Jerusalem and of Troy, Grant Showerman, Eternal Rome (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925), 337—38.

84.   Laetitia Boehm, “‘Gesta Dei per Francos’ oder ‘Gesta Francorum?'” Saeculum 8 (1957): 44—45; Hugh W. Nibley, “The Hierocentric State,” Western Political Quarterly 4 (1951): 226—53, and “The Unsolved Loyalty Problem: Our Western Heritage,” Western Political Quarterly 6 (1953): 641—46. Christianity borrowed from paganism its mystique of victory, Oswald J. Reichel, The See of Rome in the Middle Ages (London: Longmans, Green, 1870), 344—45.

85.   Waas, “Der heilige Krieg,” 212—15, demonstrates at length that the Moslems took over the idea from the Christians, and not the other way around. Cf. Atiya, Crusade, Commerce, and Culture, 130—37.

86.   William of Tyre, History of Overseas Territories IX, 16, in PL 201:448; XI, 11—13, in PL 201:497—99; Alberic, History of Jerusalem VII, 63—67, in PL 166:602—3; W. Ohnsorge, “Byzanz und das Abendland im 9. u. 10. Jahrhundert. Eine Zusammenfassung,” Nouvelle Clio 5 (1954): 447—49; Boehm, “Gesta Dei,” 44—46; D. M. Nicol, “Byzantium and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 13 (1962): 18; Charles Brand, “The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185—1192; Opponents of the Third Crusade,” Speculum 37 (1962): 179. On the very day of Charlemagne’s coronation the monks of St. Sabas (who had brought him the keys and banner of Jerusalem) fought a pitched battle with the Benedictines of Bethlehem whose patron was Leo III, Stolz, “The Benedictines in the Holy Land,” 12—13.

87.   Cambridge Medieval History 5:303; Steven Runciman, “The Crown of Jerusalem,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 92 (1960): 15; Angelo S. Rappoport, History of Palestine (London: Allen & Unwin, 1931), 282—85.

88.   Eugéne de Roziere, ed., Cartulaire du Saint Sépulcre 1, in PL 155:1106. Most royalty in time claimed the crown of Jerusalem, Runciman, “The Crown of Jerusalem,” 8—9. When the patriarch of Jerusalem, the two grand masters, the pope, and the emperor met at Verona to discuss Jerusalem, an envoy of Saladin (who “claimed Jerusalem as his by hereditary right from Sara”) Ishmael was present with a letter to “his most victorious brother,” the Pope, Horace Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages, 18 vols. (London: Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1925), 10:255—56.

89.   The claims of the Hospitalers, back to the Maccabees, are presented by an anonymous writer, De Primordiis et Inventione Sacrae Religionis Ierosolymorum, in PL 155:1097—1104; the claims of the Templars on Solomon’s Temple are apparent from St. Bernard’s PL 182:927—28; the rapacity and independence of the orders from John of Salisbury, Epistolae (Letters), 1, 140, in PL 199.

90.   So Baldric, Historia Hierosolymitana IV, in PL 166:1152. This is brought out in the exchange of letters between the pope and the Sultan in 1457, John of Whethamstede, Registra Quorundam Abbatum Monasterius St. Albanus 1:270.

91.   Grousset, Histoire des croisades 2:319, 608, 693, 745—48; 3:29, 359, 393, 650; cf. Philippe de Méziére’s verdict, cited in Atiya, Crusade, Commerce and Culture, 110—11; D. M. Bell, Le songe du vieil pélerin, 2 vols. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1955), 180—90: he calls for peace with the Moslem world.

92.   Waas, “Der heilige Kreig,” 217—18. Defeat made the Christians vulnerable to their own stock argument against the Jews, Raisin, Gentile Reactions, 505; Paris, Chronica Majora 4:345—46, says the catastrophe of 1244 was the literal fulfillment of Mark 13:2.

93.   G. Hegel, Philosophy of History (New York & London: Cooperative Publication Society, 1900), 393, 395; Grousset, Histoire des croisades 1:163—64; Boehm, “Gesta Dei,” 45, 47; Waas, “Der heilige Kreig,” 218, 224.

94.   Paetow, The Crusades, 209—20; F. Mourret, Précis d’histoire de l’église 2:9. The crusade against the Albigensians was viewed as a mystic crusade to Jerusalem, Pierre des Vaux-de Cernay, Histoire albigéoise (Paris: Vrin, 1951), 42.

95.   Though St. Francis is credited with the gentler new method of preaching instead of fighting, Waas, “Der heilige Krieg,” 221, the legend is that he challenged Saladin’s religious entourage to a formal ordeal by fire in the best feudal manner, Ernest Raymond, In the Steps of St. Francis (New York: Kinsey, 1939), 225—26. And certainly the Franciscans were tough and aggressive, as appears in many reports in Purchas, His Pilgrimes 8:181—82, 300, 302—3; 9:466, 478—80. Indeed they considered their order to be the New Jerusalem, M. R. James, Apocalypse in Art, 67.

96.   Charles VIII, Ranke, History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations (London: Bell, 1909), 27, 82; Alfonso and Joan I, Elaine Sanceau, The Perfect Prince, 107, 243, 412; Albuquerque and Sebastian, K. G. Jayne, Vasco da Gama, 101, 279. Such schemes are already apparent in the 4th crusade and the career of St. Louis, and still earlier in Nicephorus Phocas fantastic letter of 964 to the court of Baghdad. Grousset, Histoire des croisades 1:12.

97.   Salvador de Madariaga, Christopher Columbus (New York: Macmillan, 1940), 18, 106, 165, 359—61, 404; Samuel Elliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea (Boston: Little, Brown, 1942), 5, 45—46, 97, 304, 668.

98.   Purchas, His Pilgrimes 9:497; Albert Nathaniel Williams, The Holy City (New York: Deull, Slon & Pierce, 1954), 353—59; Jayne, Vasco da Gama, 284. The Reformation itself was hailed “as the first indication of the advent of the Messianic age,” L. I. Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (New York: Columbia University Press, 1925) 1:628, the early catharist preoccupation with Jerusalem being of Cabbalistic origin, 1:175.

99.   J. Bowsma, Concordia Mundi, 16—17, 178. On Humanist interest in Jerusalem, Boehm, “Gesta Dei,” 51—53, 59.

100.   Though “d’acharnes adversaires des pélerinages,” they still imitated them in their old Hebrew aspect, Roussel, Les pélerinages, 107. Luther can conceive of “honest” pilgrimages of the old type, Works 31:199; Werke 1:598; and is impressed by the unique holiness of Jerusalem, Works 2:344, 378; Werke 42:507, 533. Calvin objects primarily to the physical impossibility of gathering the saints at Jerusalem, John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, tr. John Owen, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1950), 5:228.

101.   Luther, Works 2:99—100, 342, 360—61; 3:77; 13:34—35, 269, 339; 14:20, 326—27; 21:104; 23:120—21, 369; 32:162—64; 35:291—92, 303—5, 329—30; Werke 42:333, 506—7, 519—20; 42:603; 8:32, 33; 41:127—28, 221—22; 5:57—58; 32:386; 33:186, 598—99; 8:60—61; John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, tr. James Anderson, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1949), 2:226.

102.   As is apparent from Luther, Works 14:6, 9, 19; 24:169—71, 237, 262; 31:198; Werke 1:31, 225—26, 228—29, 238; 45:615—17, 678, 701; 1:597—98; Calvin, Minor Prophets 5:228.

103.   Luther, Works 2:361—62; Werke 42:520; C. Henry Smith, Smith’s Story of the Mennonites (Kansas: Mennonite Publication Office, 1950), 282; G. H. Williams, Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), 23, 29, 150, 255—60.

104.   John Evelyn, Diary 5:177—78; George Fox, The Journal of George Fox, ed. Norman Penney, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 2:90, 130—32, 170—72, 338, 383, 481.

105.   Such were Jung-Stilling’s movement, Ernst Benz, “Ost und West in der christlicher Geschichtsanschauung,” Welt als Geschichte 1 (1955): 503—13, and the followers of Christian Offmann and Johann Lange, the Jerusalem Friends or Templers, Smith, Smith’s Story of the Mennonites, 282. Sir Henry Finch’s book, for which James I imprisoned him, calling for the Jews to return to Jerusalem and take “complete temporal dominion over the whole world,” had considerable influence for over 300 years, Christopher Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue (New York: Knopf, 1953), 149—50.

106.   Though the Quakers insisted that “wee . . . cannot owne noe other neither outwarde Jerusalem,” Fox, The Journal of George Fox 2:131, yet they risked life and limb to reach the physical Jerusalem, 2:338, 383, 481; W. C. Braithwaite, The Beginnings of Quakerism (London: Macmillan, 1912), 418—19. Purchas asserts that “to ascribe sanctitie to the place is Jewish,” His Pilgrimes 8:19, yet he was a pilgrim; and others who poured contempt on the holy places and rites were transported by the sight of the former, 10:444, 487; Braithwaite, The Beginnings of Quakerism, 424. So Robinson declared it un-Christian to heed “particular times and places,” Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine 2:72, yet was overwhelmed by the “coincidence of time, place and number” when twelve American missionaries met in a “large upper room” in Jerusalem, 1:335; and Schaff, who abhorred the superstitious “mummery” of the pilgrimage, immersed himself ten times in the Jordan and “almost imagined I was miraculously delivered from rheumatism,” David Schley Schaff, Life of Phillip Schaff (New York: Scribner, 1897), 311.

107.   Both attitudes are seen in William Thomson, The Land and the Book (New York: Harper, 1882), 625—26.

108.   F. Bassan, Chateaubriand et la terre saints (1959) 209, 247. All the French travelers to Jerusalem between 1800 and 1850 “represent un oriente de fantaise,” according to Bassan, who lists 67 of them, ibid., 35.

109.   Williams, The Holy City, 365. “In 1835 the Church Missions to the Jews” set up in Jerusalem, Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill, eds., Histoire of the Ecumenical Movement (Philadelphia: Westminister, 1954), 289. E. Krüger, “L’effort missionaire américain dans le proche orient,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 40 (1960): 278—84. Robinson, Palestine 1:327—28, 332—35; Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History 9:101—3; K. S. Latourette, Nineteenth Century Outside Europe, 398.

110.   This is consistently overlooked by historians, but clearly stated by Gladstone, Correspondence of Church and Religion of William Edwart Gladstone, 2 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1910), 1:243, and Bunsen.

111.   John Henry Newman, Apologia pro Vita Sua (London: Longman, Green, 1908), 128—38, 201.

112.   Fortescue, “Jerusalem,” 368—70. F. Mourret, Précis d’histoire de l’église 3:269: these moves “counterbalance as much as possible the influence of the Russian schismatics and the German Protestants.”

113.   Paul Goodman, Moses Montefiore (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1925), 62, 64—67.

114.   T. A. B. Corley, Democratic Despot (London: Barris & Rockliff, 1961), 148—49. G. Marchal, Guerre de Crimée, 2—5, showing that the war was actually fought about the Holy Places.

115.   Eugénie’s idealist plan for uniting the crowned heads of Europe in a common undertaking to rebuild the Holy Sepulchre found no takers, Corley, Democratic Despot, 267. “The French government saw in the pilgrimages a force to be utilized in the penetration of the Orient,” and even the anti-clerical parties supported them accordingly, Mourret, Précis d’histoire de l’église 3:379. It was to meet the growing power of France and Russia (which established a Jerusalem Bishopric in 1858) that the Protestants of England and Germany were appealed to for support “in the name of national interest and prestige,” De Haas, History of Palestine, 414, 416; cf. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 311—13.

116.   Wilhelm II, My Memoirs (London: Cassell, 1922), 210.

117.   Ibid., 208.

118.   In his childhood a favorite toy was “a wooden model of Jerusalem called ‘Heavenly Jerusalem,’ with removable domes,” Wilhelm II, My Early Life (New York: Doran, 1926), 40. Herzl hailed him in 1898 as “an emperor of peace . . . making a great entry into this eternal city,” Theodor Herzl, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, ed. Raphael Patai, tr. Harry Zohn, 5 vols. (New York: Yoseloff, 1960), 2:741, a white charger and his spiritual entourage dreamed of converting the Jews, 2:759; the arrogance of his staff thwarted his Zionist intentions, Israel Cohen, Theodor Herzl (New York: Yoseloff, 1959), 195—96, 199, 201.

119.   Rappoport, History of Palestine, 324—25.

120.   M. Crouzet, L’époque contemporaine, 7 vols. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1959), 7:605; T. Canaan, “Two Documents on the Surrender of Jerusalem,” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 10 (1930): 29, 31; the Turks surrendered Jerusalem “for the sole purpose of protecting the holy places.”

121.   Francis John McConnell, By the Way: An Autobiography (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952), 193—95. The Jerusalem meeting of 1928 “recall[ed] not inaptly the period of the great Oecumenical Councils,” J. Wand, in Edward Eyre, ed., European Civilization, 7 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1934—39), 6:1561, and gave “the impetus for the creation of the international Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews,” Rouse & Neil, Histoire of the Ecumenical Movement, 369. Such gatherings as the YMCA International Prayer Week at Jerusalem in 1951, ibid., 633, the Grand Mufti’s tea in 1955, Charles Smyth, Cyril Forster Garbett (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1959), 489—90 and the World Conference of Pentecostal Organizations in 1960, Christian News from Israel 11 (1960):12—14, are expressive of the idea.

122.   The astonishing variety, set forth by John of Wurzburg, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae (Description of the Holy Land) 12—13, in PL 155:1088, still survives, Join-Lambert, Jerusalem, 137. “American Jesuits from Baghdad, Presbyterian missionaries grouped around the American University of Beirut, multiplied schools and attracted students by the assurance of employment in Yankee enterprise,” says a resentful French observer, Crouzet, L’époque contemporaine 7:619. Today the Benedictine Order “seeks recruits in all countries . . . particularly in the United States,” for the work in Jerusalem, Stolz, “The Benedictines in the Holy Land,” 21.

123.   In 1948 the Vatican appealed for “the growth of Jerusalem as a universal Christian religious, cultural and educational center,” James McDonald, My Mission in Israel (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1951), 210—11. The mixture of cultural with religious interest is apparent in the pilgrimages of the Holy Year 1950, the Baptist pilgrimage of 2,500 members in 1955 and “the arrival of . . . ever increasing number[s] of interdenominational, . . . [and] studygroups,” Father Jean-Roger, “Christian Travel in Israel,” Christian News from Israel 10 (1960): 21—22. The scholarly emphasis is seen in the founding of the auxiliary residence of the Pontifical Biblical Institute at Jerusalem in 1925, and amusingly demonstrated by the impeccable good taste of Cyril Forster Garbett, Bishop of York, Smyth, Cyril Forster Garbett, 493—94, 497, 501. Waas, “Der heilige Krieg,” 211, 224, notes that World Wars I and II both began as Crusades but quickly dropped the allusion.

124.   Wilhelm de Vries, “Die Entstehung der Patriarchate des Ostens und ihr Verhältnis zur päpstlichen Vellgewalt,” Scholastik 37 (1962): 368—69.

125.   Polish, Eternal Dissent, 203—12. By the “dramatic entry of Israel . . . the Christian tradition in the Holy Land has been violently disrupted,” says Bishop E. M. E. Blyth, who takes comfort in the thought that Israel is “fulfilling Scripture in many ways, even unconsciously,” E. M. E. Blyth, “The Patriarchate of Jerusalem,” Modern Churchman, n.s. 5 (1961—62): 231. Marcel Simon, Versus Israel (Paris: De Boccard, 1948), 118—20, is genuinely alarmed; Eyre, European Civilization, 6:854, and Williams, The Holy City, 348, are nonplussed.

126.   In 1838 Shaftesbury got Palmerston to appoint a British viceconsul in Jerusalem charged with “protection of the Jews generally,” and in 1840 they sought cooperation with Russian Decabrist, Polish Liberationists, and French statesmen as part of a widespread liberation movement, Christopher Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue (New York: Knopf, 1953), 151. Metternich also joined, Goodman, Moses Montefiore, 65. The Anglo-Lutheran Bishopric of the following year was denounced by Newman as an implicit concession to the Jews in Palestine, which it was, Newman, Apologia pro Vita Sua, 128, 130, 132, 135, 138, 201. When the Grand Duke Frederick of Baden, who “evinced a deep interest in Zionism,” arranged for Herzl’s audience with the Kaiser, Zionism became “a question with which European politics must reckon,” Max Margolis and Alexander Marx, History of the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1927), 708. Even the Russian government was sympathetic, Herzl, Diaries 1:373.

127.   Joseph Sittler, “The Abiding Concern of the Church for the Jewish People,” Ecumenical Review 7 (1955): 221—23; cf. Herzl, Diaries 4:1593—94, 1603.

128.   So William F. Albright, “Israel—Prophetic Vision and Historical Fulfillment,” in Moshe Davis, ed., Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York: Harper, 1956), 37. Chateaubriand found the Jewish community in Jerusalem to be the one wholly admirable and miraculous phenomenon in the city, Bassan, Chateaubriand et la terre saints, 161; Journal, 177—78.

129.   Polish, Eternal Dissent, 203—12, quoting Charles Malik, 205, and the World Council of Churches, 1948: “The continued existence of a Jewish people which does not acknowledge Christ, is a divine mystery.” It is “a mystery and a wonderful phenomenon,” says Berdyaev, Meaning of History (London: Centenary, 1936), 50, refuting “the materialistic and positivistic criterion” of history, as it does Mr. Toynbee’s theory of history, to his annoyance, Poish, Eternal Dissent, 209. See note 125 above.

130.   The rivalry is expressed in many of the fathers, and in the determined attempts of the papacy to stop the pilgrimages to Jerusalem, Mähl, “Jerusalem in mittelalterlicher Sicht,” 151; James Wallace, Fundamentals of Christian Statesmanship (New York: Revell, 1939), 333—35; Cambridge Medieval History 1:174—75; Luc Compain, Étude sur Geoffroi de Vendôme (Paris: Bouillon, 1891), 67.

131.   “I [consider] only Rome an opponent [because] . . . only Roman Catholicism is as oecumenical as Judaism,” Herzl, Diaries 3:889, cf. 1:345, 353; 4:1603. On the Roman position, Joseph Samuel Bloch, My Reminiscences (Vienna: Löwit, 1923), 161—62; James G. McDonald, My Mission in Israel: 1948—51 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1951), 35, 205—7; Esco Foundation for Palestine, Palestine (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947) 1:277. During the U.N. debate of 1949 religious considerations were foremost, Survey of International Affairs 5 (1939—46): 307; Williams, The Holy City, 403.

132.   How easy it is to create holy places is seen in the designation by the Husseini family late in the 19th century of “the traditional site of Moses’ tomb” in Jerusalem, “Miscellany: This Year in Jersualem,” Palestine Review 52 (1938): 875.