Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:38:47.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of a Tradition: King David‘s Tomb on Mount Zion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Ora Limor
Ora Limor*
Affiliation:
The Open University Tel Aviv
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most difficult objectives of research into sacred traditions is to reveal their underlying origins. For early periods, about which we have scanty and sporadic information, the scholar must be content with indicating the earliest piece of historical evidence that connects a tradition with a specific site, though the reasons for this connection often remain unexplained. The tradition that locates the tomb of King David on Mount Zion, the southwestern hill of ancient Jerusalem, has often been considered one such case. Nevertheless this case seems to be exceptional. In this study I shall attempt to show that it is possible not only to indicate the connection between a site and a tradition, but also to explain the circumstances of the emergence of this tradition.

Type
Miscellany
Information
Traditio , Volume 44 , 1988 , pp. 453 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 Fordham University Press 

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 See Eusebius, , Demonstratio evangelica, GCS 23.20 [PG 22.43]; von Skythopolis, Kyrillos, Leben des Sabas , ed. Schwartz, E. (Leipzig 1939) 153; Theodosius, , De situ Terrae Sanctae, CCL 175.118.Google Scholar

2 See Pinkerfeld, J., ‘David's Tomb,’ Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synagogues Bulletin 3 (1960) 41–43. This assumption was made because the edifice faced north toward the Temple Mount and not east as was customary in Christian churches. Pinkerfeld's assumption has on the whole been accepted by Avi-Yona (ibid. 43) and Tsafrir, Y., ‘Zion: The South-Western Hill of Jerusalem and its Place in the Urban Development of the City in the Byzantine Period’ (diss. Jerusalem 1975) 105, 197–205 (in Hebrew). This is the most extensive study on Mount Zion during the Byzantine period.Google Scholar

3 See Prawer, J., ‘The Friars of Mount Zion and the Jews of Jerusalem in the Fifteenth Century,’ Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 14 (1948–49) 15–24 (in Hebrew); Schein, S., ‘The Custodia Terrae Sanctae and the Image of the Jews in the Late Middle Ages,’ Cathedra 19 (1981) 47–54 (in Hebrew); Jacoby, D., ‘The Franciscans, the Jews, and the Problem of Mount Zion during the Fifteenth Century: A Reappraisal,’ Cathedra 39 (1986) 51–70 (in Hebrew). I am indebted to Elhanan Reiner for information concerning the Jewish settlement on Mount Zion and the Jewish traditions that relate to it.Google Scholar

4 Hirschberg, H. Z., ‘The Tombs of David and Solomon in Moslem Tradition,’ Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographic Studies 3 (1954) 213–20 (in Hebrew). Nallino's, C. A. well-known discussion is highly polemical: ‘Sull'infondata leggenda della “Tomba di Davide” sottostante al santuario del Cenacolo in Gerusalemme,’ Atti della R. accademia delle scienze di Torino 54 (1918–19) 737–57. See also Barkai, G., ‘Concerning the Location of the Tombs of the Later Kings of Judah,’ Between Hermon and Sinai: Memorial to Amnon , ed. Broshi, M. (Jerusalem 1977) 75–92 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

5 The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, ed. Adler, M. N. (London 1907) 24–25.Google Scholar

6 Eusebius, , Onomasticon, ed. Klostermann, E., GCS 11.1.42.Google Scholar

7 Ibid. 43.Google Scholar

8 Ibid. 82.Google Scholar

9 According to 1 Kings 2.10 King David was buried in the City of David, as were the kings of Judah who succeeded him up to Jehoahaz. Archaeological excavations from the late nineteenth century onward led to the identification of the City of David on the southeastern slope of the Temple Mount. In the Wars of the Jews (1.2.5; 5.4.2) Josephus suggests that the location of the City of David and the tombs of the House of David were known during the Second Temple period. They were, however, forgotten after Jerusalem was sacked by Hadrian and its Jewish residents were expelled.Google Scholar

10 Itinerarium Burdigalense, edd. Geyer, G. and Cuntz, O., CCL 175.20; Hieronymus, Epistula 46 (‘Paula et Eustochium ad Marcellam’), CSEL 54.1.343; Placentinus, Antoninus, Itinerarium, CCL 175.143–44, 167; Adamnanus, , De locis sanctis, CCL 175.207.Google Scholar

11 Venerabilis, Beda, De locis Sanctis, CCL 175.265: ‘Haec relationem Arculfi Galliarum episcopi secutus dixerim; ceterum Esdras aperte scribit in Hierusalem esse David sepultum.’ See Diaconus, Petrus, Liber de locis Sanctis, CCL 175.96.Google Scholar

12 The tradition locating David's tomb in Bethlehem is also found in Muslim sources such as 'Ali of Herat. See Le Strange, G., Palestine Under the Moslems: A Description of Syria and the Holy Land 650–1500 (Boston–New York 1890) 299.Google Scholar

13 Antoninus, CCL 175.144: ‘Nam et depositio Iacob et David in terra illa alio die de natale Domini devotissime celebratur, ita ut ex omni terra illa Iudaei conveniant, innumerabilis multitudo, et incensa offerentes multa vel luminaria et munera dantes ad servientes ibidem.’ Google Scholar

14 See Liebermann, S., Shkiin: A Few Words on Some Jewish Legends, Customs, and Literary Sources found in Karaite and Christian Works (Jerusalem 1939) 9–10, 98 (in Hebrew); for the celebration of the Ninth of Tevet see ‘The Scroll of Fasting,’ Medieval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes 2, ed. Neubauer, A. (London 1895) 24; Leiman, S. Z., ‘The Scroll of Fasts,’ JQR 124 (1983) 174–95. The holiday could not have been the Feast of Hanukkah which at that time fell on an earlier date.Google Scholar

15 Antoninus, CCL 175.168: ‘Nam depositio Iacob et David in terra illa die primo post natale Domini devotissime ab omnibus celebratur, ita ut ex omni terra Iudaeorum conveniant innumerabilis multitudo, incensa ferentes vel luminaria et dantes numera ac servientes ibidem.’ Google Scholar

16 The tradition locating David's tomb in Gethsemane is related by Mas'udi (943). See Strange, Le, Palestine 203. For other Muslim traditions see Nallino, , ‘Sull'infondata’ 415–18.Google Scholar

17 The version of the Armenian lectionary in the Paris ms was first published in 1905: Conybeare, F. C., Rituale armenorum (Oxford 1905); the new edition is based on the Jerusalem ms: Renoux, A., Le Codex arménien Jérusalem 121, PO 35, fasc. 1, no. 163 (Turnhout 1964); PO 36, fasc. 2, no. 168 (Turnhout 1971).Google Scholar

18 Garitte, G., Le Calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (x e siècle) (Brussels 1958); Tarchnischvilli, M., Le Grand Lectionnaire de l'église de Jérusalem (v e –viii e siècle), CSCO 189 (Louvain 1959); CSCO 205 (Louvain 1960).Google Scholar

19 Renoux, , Le Codex arménien 228–31.Google Scholar

20 Garitte, , Le Calendrier 112, 418; Tarchnischvilli, , Le Grand Lectionnaire, CSCO 189.14–15.Google Scholar

21 Garitte, , Le Calendrier 55, 182.Google Scholar

22 For the sepulchre of James in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, see Corbo, V., ‘La mort et la sépulture de Saint Jacques,’ Saint Jacques le Mineur, premier evêque de Jérusalem (Jerusalem 1962) 59–76.Google Scholar

23 Garitte, , Le Calendrier 182.Google Scholar

24 Renoux, , Le Codex arménien 228–31.Google Scholar

25 Tarchnischvilli, , Le Grand Lectionnaire, CSCO 189.14–15.Google Scholar

26 See Arendt, H., ‘What Was Authority,’ Nomos 1: Authority , ed. Friedrich, C. J. (Cambridge, Mass. 1958) 75–112.Google Scholar

27 Ibid. 98–101.Google Scholar

28 Ibid. 103–104.Google Scholar

29 Eusebius, , Historic ecclesiastica 7.19 (PG 20.681); Antoninus, CCL 175.140, 165.Google Scholar

30 Hesychius presbyter Hierosolymitanus, , Sermones, PG 93.1480. It is not certain that Hesychius gave the sermon its title.Google Scholar

31 Matt 26 36–46 and parallel texts. For the tradition during the Byzantine period, see Eusebius, , Onomasticon 75; Itinerarium Egeriae , CCL 175.79–80. For the liturgies, see Renoux, , Le Codex arménien 137–39; Tarchnischvilli, , Le Grand Lectionnaire 94.Google Scholar

32 See Baldi, P., Enchiridion locorum sanctorum (Jerusalem 1935) 799 p. 538.Google Scholar

33 See Willibaldus, , Hodoeporicon , in Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae, ed. Tobler, T. (Leipzig 1874) 32–33; Monacus, Bernardus, Itinerarium, in Descriptiones 94.Google Scholar

34 Vincent, L. H. & Abel, L. F., Jérusalem: Recherches de topographie, d'archéologie et d'histoire II: Jérusalem nouvelle (Paris 1914–26) 311.Google Scholar

35 Acts 7.58; for the church opposite the Damascus Gate, see Lagrange, M. J., Saint Étienne et son sanctuaire à Jérusalem (Paris 1894).Google Scholar

36 See Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca [= BHG], 3 (Brussels 1957) 1648x–1651d.Google Scholar

37 Garitte, , Le Calendrier 112, 418–19.Google Scholar

38 Compare the following descriptions: Breviarius de Hierosolyma, CCL 175.111; Antoninus, CCL 175.140, 165; Vita Willibaldi, Descriptiones 66; Monachus, Bernardus, Descriptiones 93.Google Scholar

39 See Hirschberg, , ‘The Tombs’ 213 for a summary of these traditions.Google Scholar

40 d'Aguilers, Raimundus, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Jerusalem, Recueil des historiens des Croisades, historiens occidentaux 3.293.Google Scholar

41 The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela 25; see Arce, A., ‘The Location of David's Tomb According to Benjamin of Tudela's Itinerary,’ Jerusalem in the Middle Ages, Selected Papers, ed. Kedar, B. Z. (Jerusalem 1979) 112–21 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar