Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:38:41.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constantine and Jerusalem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

E. D. Hunt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 27 November 395, shortly after the remains of Theodosius had been interred beside the tombs of Constantine and his successors in Constantinople, the eastern praetorian prefect Fl. Rufinus was murdered by troops outside the capital. Zosimus' narrative of the incident, deriving from Eunapius, adds that Rufinus' widow and daughter escaped with a safe conduct to sail to Jerusalem, ‘which had once been the dwelling of the Jews, but from the reign of Constantine had been embellished with buildings by the Christians’. As the only glimpse of the fourth-century development of Jerusalem from outside the Christian tradition, Zosimus' passing remark is not without interest – even if no more than a casual and seemingly unpartisan aside. We cannot unfortunately make comparisons with what, if anything, Eunapius' contemporary Ammianus Marcellinus had said on the subject in his lost narrative of Constantine; but to judge from the Constantinian back-references in the surviving books it is unlikely to have been sympathetic – certainly no more so than his lukewarm endorsement of Julian's later attempt at restoring the Jewish Temple to Jerusalem, which Ammianus attributed merely to a desire ‘to perpetuate the memory of his reign with great public works’.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 1997 , pp. 405 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Zosimus, , Hisloria nova, ed. Paschoud, F., Paris 1986, v. 8Google Scholar. 2. The parallel Eunapian passage in Joh. Ant. fr. 190 (Muller, K., Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iv. 160Google Scholar) has only flight to ‘a church’.

2 Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res gestae, ed. Seyfarth, W., Leipzig 1978, xxiii. 1Google Scholar. 2, with Drijvers, J. W., ‘The rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem’, in Boeft, J. den and others (eds), Cognitio gestorum: the historiographic art of Ammianus Marcellinus, Amsterdam 1992, 19–26Google Scholar. On Ammianus and Constantine see Matthews, J., The Roman Empire of Ammianus, London 1989, 447–50Google Scholar.

3 Itinerarium Burdigalense, CCL clxxv (1965). 594–5Google Scholar, 598–9.

4 For example, Itinerarium Egeriae, ed. Maraval, P., Paris 1982, 25Google Scholar. 1, 6.

5 Eusebius, , Vita Constantini (hereinafter cited as VC), ed. Winkelmann, F., Berlin 1975, iv. 45Google Scholar. 3. That this speech survives in part as the second half of the surviving Tricennial oration was argued by Drake, H. A., In praise of Constantine, Berkeley 1976, 30–45Google Scholar; cf. Walker, P. W. L., Holy city, holy places?, Oxford 1990, 108–16Google Scholar.

6 VC iii. 33.

7 Ibid. i. 19; for date see Barnes, T. D., The new empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge, Mass. 1982, 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Constantine's military rank at Diocletian's court is established from Lactantius, , De mortibus persecutorum, ed. Creed, J. L., Oxford 1984, 18Google Scholar. 10.

8 Mosaicarum et Romanarum legum collatio, 15. 3 (ed. Baviera, J., Fontes iuris Romani Antejustiniani, Florence 1940, ii. 580–1)Google Scholar, with Barnes, , New empire, 55Google Scholar.

9 See Eusebius, , Martyrs of Palestine, ed. Schwartz, E., Leipzig 1908, 2Google Scholar. For the haruspices episode see Lactantius, , De mortibus persecutorum 10Google Scholar.

10 On the pagan character of Hadrian's foundation see Schürer, E. (rev. Vermes/Millar), The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh 1973, i. 553–5Google Scholar; cf. Millar, F., The Roman Near East 31BC–AD33J, Cambridge, Mass. 1993, 348–51Google Scholar.

11 On the controversial question of pre-Constantinian Christianity on Mount Sion see the sceptical discussion of Taylor, J. E., Christians and the holy places, Oxford 1993, 207–20Google Scholar. The source fora Christian presence is Epiphanius, , De mensuris el ponderibus 14, PG xliii. 261Google Scholar. For exclusion of Jews see Eusebius, , Historia ecclesiastica, ed. Schwartz, E., Leipzig 1908, vi. 3Google Scholar (from Ariston of Pella).

12 Eusebius, , Martyrs of Palestine 11Google Scholar. 4ff.; cf. Hunt, E. D., Holy Land pilgrimage in the later Roman empire AD 312–460, Oxford 1982, 4–5Google Scholar; Wilken, R. L., The land called holy, New Haven, Conn. 1992, 83Google Scholar.

13 Lactantius, , De mortibus persecutorum 12. 2Google Scholar. For Constantine's own testimony of his presence at Diocletian's court at the time of the outbreak of persecution see Eusebius, , VC ii. 51Google Scholar, and his Oratio ad sanctos, ed. Heikel, I. A., GCS Eusebius I, Leipzig 1902, 25Google Scholar.

14 See Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, Mass. 1981, 9, 25–6Google Scholar.

15 On the Licinian persecution see ibid. 70–2.

16 Eusebius, , VC ii. 28Google Scholar. 2.

17 As a counterweight to Eusebius' assertion that Constantine exacted ‘fitting punishment’ from Licinius and his supporters (VC ii. 18), note that Licinius' long-serving praetorian prefect, Julius Julianus, continued to be held in honour (Libanius, , Oration xviii. 9, ed. Norman, A. F., Cambridge, Mass. 1969Google Scholar), and served as consul in 325: Barnes, , New empire, 102–3Google Scholar.

18 The information is conveniently tabulated ibid. 8–9; but cf. Drijvers, J. W., Helena Augusta, Leiden 1992, 41–2Google Scholar, on date of elevation of Helena and Fausta.

19 For the foundation of Constantinople as a victory commemoration see Origo Constantini, ed. König, I., Trier 1987, 30Google Scholar, and on the conjunction of date with Constantius' Caesarship, Themistius, Oration iv, ed. Downey, G., Leipzig 1965, 58Google Scholar.

20 Despite the comments of Fox, R. Lane, Pagans and Christians, Harmondsworth 1986, 644Google Scholar: ‘its grasp of the Bible is not always firm and its allusions have a pleasant inaccuracy’. Lane Fox (pp. 627–62), offers very full discussion of the (possible) context of the speech, and of its content.

21 For the evidence see Barnes, , New empire, 76Google Scholar (?Dec. 324); Fox, Lane, Pagans and Christians, 638Google Scholar (‘spring 325’).

22 Eusebius, , VC ii. 72Google Scholar.

23 On the circumstances and course of the Council of Nicaea see, for example, Barnes, , Constantine, 214–19Google Scholar; Luibhéid, C., The Council of Nicaea, Galway 1982Google Scholar; Williams, R., Arius: heresy and tradition, London 1987, 48–81Google Scholar.

24 Eusebius, , Historia ecclesiastica vii. 19Google Scholar.

25 On Nicaea canon 7 see Hefele, C. J. and Leclercq, H., Histoire des conciles, i, Paris 1907, 569–76Google Scholar; for the terminology of status see Daley, B. E., ‘Position and patronage in the early Church’, JTS n.s. xliv (1993), 529–53, esp. pp. 535–6Google Scholar.

26 On this perspective of rival bishops see Walker, , Holy city, 52–7Google Scholar.

27 Eusebius, , VC ii. 45–6Google Scholar.

28 See Millar, F., The emperor in the Roman world, rev. edn, London 1992, 583, 593Google Scholar.

29 Eusebius, , VC ii. 40Google Scholar.

30 On the traditional site of the Tomb and Golgotha see Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 2–3Google Scholar; Taylor, , Christians and holy places, 113ffGoogle Scholar., is much more sceptical about any specific preConstantinian location.

31 Eusebius, , VC ii. 55. 2Google Scholar.

32 Ibid. iii. 28.

33 Writing to Bishop Macarius, Constantine presented the discovery as nothing short of miraculous, but was careful to link it to the ‘destruction of the common enemy of all’, i.e. his victory over Licinius: Eusebius, , VC iii. 30Google Scholar. 1. On the context, to Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 7–8Google Scholar, add Wilken, , Land called holy, 88–91Google Scholar.

34 On the ‘singularly uninformative’ nature of Eusebius' account of Nicaea see Barnes, , Constantine, 270Google Scholar. That Macarius was the instigator of Constantine's interest in Jerusalem is denounced as ‘one of those myths of scholarship’ by Borgehammar, S., How the holy Cross was found, Stockholm 1991, 125Google Scholar; yet no evidence supports his view that Constantine ordered the demolition of buildings in Jerusalem immediately after Chrysopolis, without any prompting, in the autumn of 324.

35 Barnes, T. D., ‘Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine', in Williams, R. (ed.), The making of orthodoxy: essays in honour of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge 1989, 100Google Scholar.

36 Eusebius, , VC iii. 34Google Scholar, speaks only of a surround of columns, not a separate church over the Tomb: Coüasnon, C., The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, London 1974, 21ffGoogle Scholar.; Kretschmar, G., Jerusalemer Heiligtumstraditionen in altkirchlicher und fruhislamischer Zeit, Wiesbaden 1987, 43ffGoogle Scholar.; and now Gibson, S. and Taylor, J. E., Beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, London 1994, 77Google Scholar (‘…the Anastasis was not part of Constantine's plan’).

37 For Eusebius' description of the complex see Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 10–14Google Scholar. The most recent reconstruction is that of Gibson and Taylor, Beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, ch. v.

38 On the dual role of Constantine's basilica, and its connection with the rock of Calvary, see Kretschmar, Jerusalemer Heiligtumstraditionen; the juxtaposition of rock and basilica can be seen from Taylor, , Christians and holy places, 125Google Scholar (fig. 10). For Eusebius' misleading account see, for example, Drake, H. A., ‘Eusebius on the True Cross’, this JOURNAL xxxvi (1985), 5–8Google Scholar; Walker, , Holy city, 247ffGoogle Scholar.

39 Eusebius, , VC iii. 30–2Google Scholar, with Drake, , ‘True Cross’, 8–11Google Scholar. On the discrepancy between Constantine's letter and Eusebius' account see also Yarnold, E.J., ‘Who planned the churches at the Christian holy places in the Holy Land?’, Studia Palristica xviii (1985), 105–9Google Scholar. The letter is dated from its mention of the vicar Dracilianus.

40 Following Drake, ‘True Cross’.

41 So Krttschmar, , Jerusalemer Heiligtumstraditionen, 53–6Google Scholar; Taylor, , Christians and holy places, 124 n. 18 (‘suffice to say here that the common preconception that the Rock of Calvary was covered over in the Hadrianic period appears, on the basis of archaeology, to be wrong’);Google ScholarGibson, and Taylor, , Beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 68–9Google Scholar.

42 Principally argued by Drake, , ‘True Cross’, who none the less acknowledges (p. 21Google Scholar) the lack of formal proof. He has been followed by Walker, , Holy city, 127–30Google Scholar, Borgehammar, , Holy cross, 93–122Google Scholar, and Drijvers, , Helena, 81–93Google Scholar. Cf. Barnes, T. D., ‘Religion and society in the age of Theodosius’, in Meynell, H. (ed.), Grace, politics and desire: essays on Augustine, Calgary 1990, 161Google Scholar and n. 19.

43 Decline and fall of the Roman empire, ch. xxiii (Everyman edn vol. ii. 383 n. 2) cited by Drake, , ‘True Cross’, 2Google Scholar.

44 VC iii. 27. Nothing about actual physical relics can be deduced from Eusebius' frequent use of the symbolism of the Cross as the ‘saving sign’.

45 See, for example, Walker, , Holy city, 127–30Google Scholar.

46 Itinerarium Burdigalense 594; cf. Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 38Google Scholar.

47 Cf. Lampe, Patristic Greek lexicon, s.v. γνώρισμα, offering ‘symbol of the Cross’ as the meaning of this phrase in Constantine's letter.

48 Thus by Egeria's day the celebration of the dedication of Constantine's basilica alongside the rock of Calvary had become joined with that of the discovery of the Cross: Itinerarium Egeriae 48. 2. Later generations of pilgrims beheld the spot where the wood was found beneath the altar in the apse of the basilica: Breviarius de Hierosolyma, CCL clxxv (1965). 1Google Scholar.

49 Epistula ad Constantium (ed. Bihain, E., Byzantion xliii [1973]Google Scholar), 3. For fragments of the wood spread over ‘the whole world’ see Cyril, , Catecheses 4. 10Google Scholar (P G xxxiii. 470); 10. 19 (685–7); 13. 4(777).

50 On this site see now Taylor, , Christians and holy places, 86–95Google Scholar.

51 Eusebius, , VC iii. 52–3Google Scholar. The date of Eutropia's visit to Mamre, and of Constantine's response, may be approximately established from the mention of Acacius, who is elsewhere attested in Palestine c. 328: ibid. iii. 62. 1, with Barnes, , Constantine, 228Google Scholar. The suggestion of Borgehammar, , Holy Cross, 139–42Google Scholar, and Taylor, , Christians and holy places, 310Google Scholar, that she travelled together with Helena (see below), is unsupported by any evidence, and especially improbable after the family rupture in 326.

52 Although the pagan associations of the site were to long outlast Constantine: Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 136–7Google Scholar.

53 For the place of the Nativity see Origen, , Contra Celsum, ed. Borret, M., Paris 1967, i. 51Google Scholar, with discussion by Taylor, , Christians and holy places, 96–112Google Scholar (who is unnecessarily reluctant to draw the conclusion that Bethlehem was being visited by Christian pilgrims in the third century); on pilgrims at the summit of the Mount of Olives see esp. Eusebius, , Demonstratio evangelica, ed. Heikel, I. A., Leipzig 1913, vi. 18Google Scholar. 23.

54 Eusebius, , Tricennial oration, ed. Heikel, I. A., Leipzig 1902, 9. 16–17Google Scholar; for the Bordeaux pilgrim, see above n. 3.

55 VC iii. 41–3; for Helena's involvement see Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 37–8Google Scholar; Drijvers, , Helena, 63—5Google Scholar, rightly questioning the notion of Helena as ‘founder’ of these churches.

56 VC iii. 43. 2 (Bethlehem); 43. 4 (Mount of Olives).

57 Itinerarium Egeriae 25. 9. In later ages Helena had become the founder of numerous Holy Land churches: Nau, F., ‘Les constructions palestiniennes dues à sainte Hélène’, Revue de l'orient chrétien x (1905), 162–8Google Scholar.

58 Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 40ffGoogle Scholar.; Heid, S., ‘Der Ursprung der Helena-Legende im Pilgerbetrieb Jerusalems’, Jahrbuchfiir Antike und Christentum xxxii (1989), 41–71Google Scholar; Drijvers, , Helena, 79ffGoogle Scholar. Among recent discussions, Borgehammar, , Holy Cross, 123–42Google Scholar, is alone in defending the historical veracity of Helena's discovery of the Cross.

59 Eusebius, , VC iii. 45Google Scholar, with Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 36–7Google Scholar, stressing that the emphasis on Helena's personal piety is not entirely Eusebian invention; for the footsteps of Christ see VC iii. 42. 2.

60 Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 32ffGoogle Scholar.; Drijvers, , Helena, 65ffGoogle Scholar.

61 Borgehammar's ‘new scenario’, with Helena travelling to Jerusalem as early as the autumn of 324, fails to take account of the considerable body of epigraphic evidence which continues to associate her with Italy and the west until 326: Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 31–2Google Scholar, further developed by Drijvers, , Helena, 45ffGoogle Scholar.

62 ‘A notoriously obscure episode’ (Barnes, T. D., Journal of Roman studies lxv [1975], 48Google Scholar), much favoured by a pagan literary tradition hostile to Constantine, for example Zosimus, , Historia nova, ed. Paschoud, F., Paris 1971, ii. 29Google Scholar. 2. For an attempt at the facts see Barnes, , Constantine, 220–1Google Scholar.

63 Eusebius, , VC iii. 42Google Scholar. 1. Drijvers, (Helena, 67Google Scholar n. 55), is over-confident in dismissing an y connection between Helena's journey and ‘the tragic events of 326’. Was the presence in the Holy Land c. 328 (see above, n. 51) of Fausta's mother, Eutropia, by contrast that of a refugee from the domestic upheaval?

64 Eusebius, , VC iii. 45Google Scholar.

65 For the political background see Barnes, , Constantine, 235–9Google Scholar, and on the Jerusalem ceremonies see Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 25–6Google Scholar.

66 The phrase is from the narrative of Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. Hansen, G. C., Berlin 1995, i. 33Google Scholar. 1, who had earlier (i. 28) taken the impending Jerusalem dedication to be the reason for the choice of Tyre as the location of the council. For our principal account see Eusebius, , VC iv. 43–5Google Scholar; Marianus' name and office are supplied by Sozomen, , Historia ecclesiastica, ed. Hansen, G. C., Berlin 1960, ii. 26Google Scholar. 1.

67 VC iv. 45. 2.

68 See the synodical letter cited by Athanasius, , Apologia contra Arianos, ed. Opitz, H-G., Berlin 1940, 84Google Scholar.

69 VC iv. 47.

70 As he himself perceived it: ibid. ii. 28. 2.

71 And a further (surviving) oration from Eusebius: ibid. iv. 46. For the date see Drake, H. A., ‘When was the De laudibus Constantini delivered?’, Historia xxiv (1975), 345–56Google Scholar.

72 VC iv. 40. For the actual dates (unknown in the case of the younger Constantine) see Barnes, , New empire, 8Google Scholar.

73 On date see ibid. Eusebius was able to allude to the creation of a fourth Caesar, in the Tricennial oration of 336Google Scholar (3. 1–4), but was silent on the subject in VC at a time when Dalmatius and his relatives had been murdered in a coup clearing the way for Constantine's sons. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Roman Calendar of 354 records the opening of Ludi Triumphales on 18 Sept. to commemorate Constantine's victory over Licinius: Salzman, M. R., On Roman time, Berkeley 1990, 134Google Scholar.

74 As set out in their synodical letter: Athanasius, , Apologia contra Arianos 84Google Scholar, with De synodis, ed. Opitz, H-G., Berlin 1941, 21Google Scholar. Cf. Socrates, i. 33; Sozomen, ii. 27. 13–14 with Barnes, , Constantine, 238–9Google Scholar, and Williams, , Arius, 78–9Google Scholar.

75 On Athanasius' fate at Tyre see now Barnes, T. D., Athanasius and Constantius, Cambridge, Mass. 1993, 22–3Google Scholar.

76 Ilincrarium Egeriae 48–9, with Sozomen, ii. 26. 4, and Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 107–10Google Scholar. The date of the Encaenia is established from the ancient Armenian lectionary, ed. Renoux, A., PO xxxvi (1971), 67Google Scholar.

77 See Scullard, H. H., Festivals and ceremonies of the Roman Republic, London 1981, 186–7Google Scholar. The coincidence was noted by Baumstark, A., Liturgie compareée, Chevetogne 1953, 203Google Scholar.

78 Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, L., Bonn 1832, 531Google Scholar, has 17 Sept. The attractive arguments of Fraser, M. A., ‘Constantine and the Encaenia’ (Stadia Patristica xxv, forthcoming)Google Scholar, relating Constantine's choice of date to a particularly significant conjunction of Jewish, Christian and Roman calendars, assume 13 Sept. from the start. I am grateful to Michael Fraser for an advance copy of his paper.

79 Itinerarium Egeriae 48. 2; the readings (as preserved in the Armenian lectionary) included John 10. 22ff., a New Testament reference to the Jewish festival of the Dedication. For possible Jewish pedigree for the Jerusalem Encaenia see Black, M., ‘The festival of Encaenia Ecclesiae’, this JOURNAL V(1954), 78–85Google Scholar; Schwartz, J., ‘The Encaenia of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Temple of Solomon and the Jews’, ‘Theologische Zeilschrift xliii (1987), 265–81Google Scholar. Wilkinson, J., ‘Jewish influences on the early Christian rite of Jerusalem’, Le Muséon xcii (1979), 347–59Google Scholar, posits more general Jewish influence on Jerusalem's liturgy.

80 On Golgotha's appropriation in the fourth century of ancient Jewish traditions, such as the burial of Adam, see Taylor, , Christians and holy places, 124–34Google Scholar; for the Solomon, relics, see Itinerarium Egeriae 37. 3Google Scholar.

81 Pace Wilkinson, , ‘Jewish influences’, 352ffGoogle Scholar.

82 For Eusebius' historical perception of the ‘fate of the Jews’ (following Origen) seeGrant, R. M., Eusebius as church historian, Oxford 1980, 97–113Google Scholar; Hunt, , Holy Land pilgrimage, 95–7Google Scholar; Wilken, R. L., John Chrysostom and the Jews, Berkeley 1983, 128ffGoogle Scholar., and Land called holy, 65–81.

83 Tricennial oration 9. 16; cf. VC iii 33. On Eusebius and the desolation of the Temple see Walker, , Holy city, 383–96Google Scholar, which runs counter to the suggestion of Wilkinson, (‘Jewish influences’, 352Google Scholar), that Eusebius actually regarded the Golgotha basilica as a new Temple.

84 See Wilken, , John Chrysostom, 138–48Google Scholar. I suspect that Drijvers, ‘The rebuilding of the Temple’, is too dismissive of the polemical element in Julian's rebuilding scheme.

85 See Barnes, , Constantine, 252Google Scholar, correcting Avi-Yonah, M., The Jews of Palestine, Oxford 1976, 161–6Google Scholar.

86 As recounted by Epiphanius, , Panarion, ed. Holl, K., Leipzig 1915, 30. 4Google Scholar. 1ff. On churches possibly built by Joseph see Taylor, , Christians and holy places, 227–8Google Scholar, 288–90.

87 This annual Jewish ritual was observed by the Bordeaux pilgrim in 333 (Itinerarium Burdigalense 591), and is later graphically depicted by Jerome, in his Commentary on Zephaniah i. 15 CCL lxxvi, (1970), 673–4Google Scholar.

88 Eusebius, , VC iv. 62Google Scholar. 1–2.

89 Ibid. iii. 38. For Constantine and the apostles in his mausoleum see ibid. iv. 60. 2–4, with Mango, C., ‘Constantine's mausoleum and the translation of relics’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift lxxxiii (1990), 51–61Google Scholar.