And now for something completely different: restoration work at Christ’s tomb
This must be delicate work, both in the physical and in the philosophical sense:
For the first time in centuries, scientists have exposed the original surface of what is traditionally considered the tomb of Jesus Christ. Located in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem, the tomb has been covered by marble cladding since at least 1555 A.D., and most likely centuries earlier.
“The marble covering of the tomb has been pulled back, and we were surprised by the amount of fill material beneath it,” said Fredrik Hiebert, archaeologist-in-residence at the National Geographic Society, a partner in the restoration project. “It will be a long scientific analysis, but we will finally be able to see the original rock surface on which, according to tradition, the body of Christ was laid.”
I’m not sure what exactly they might be looking for in that “scientific analysis,” but the following explains it a bit without being especially specific. It’s not the first time the site has been restored, either:
This burial shelf is now enclosed by a small structure known as the Edicule (from the Latin aedicule, or “little house”), which was last reconstructed in 1808-1810 after being destroyed in a fire. The Edicule and the interior tomb are currently undergoing restoration by a team of scientists from the National Technical University of Athens, under the direction of Chief Scientific Supervisor Professor Antonia Moropoulou.
The exposure of the burial bed is giving researchers an unprecedented opportunity to study the original surface of what is considered the most sacred site in Christianity. An analysis of the original rock may enable them to better understand not only the original form of the tomb chamber, but also how it evolved as the focal point of veneration since it was first identified by Helena, mother of the Roman emperor Constantine, in A.D. 326.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre isn’t the only site reputed to be the place of Jesus’ burial; there are others. But the Church of the Holy Sepulchre seems to have the most traditional clout:
According to Eusebius of Caesarea, the Roman emperor Hadrian in the 2nd century AD built a temple dedicated to the goddess Aphrodite in order to bury the cave in which Jesus had been buried.The first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great, ordered in about 325/326 that the temple be replaced by a church. During the building of the Church, Constantine’s mother, Helena, is believed to have rediscovered the “True Cross”, which tradition holds that when she found three crosses she tested each by having it held over a corpse and when the corpse rose up under one, that was the true cross…
According to tradition, Constantine arranged for the rockface to be removed from around the tomb, without harming it, in order to isolate the tomb; in the centre of the rotunda is a small building called the Kouvouklion in Greek[ or the Aedicula in Latin, which encloses this tomb. The remains are completely enveloped by a marble sheath placed some 500 years before to protect the ledge from Ottoman attacks. However, there are several thick window wells extending through the marble sheath, from the interior to the exterior that are not marble clad. They appear to reveal an underlying limestone rock, which may be part of the original living rock of the tomb.
Ah, so the marble sheath was to protect from Ottoman attacks. The church has also suffered a number of earthquakes, and some fires. Here’s some more history vis a vis Islam:
After Jerusalem was captured by the Arabs, it remained a Christian church, with the early Muslim rulers protecting the city’s Christian sites. A story reports that the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab visited the church and stopped to pray on the balcony; but at the time of prayer, he turned away from the church and prayed outside. He feared that future generations would misinterpret this gesture, taking it as a pretext to turn the church into a mosque. Eutychius added that Umar wrote a decree prohibiting Muslims from praying at this location…
…In 935, the Orthodox Christians prevented the construction of a Muslim mosque adjacent the Church…In 966, due to a defeat of Muslim armies in the region of Syria, a riot broke out and was followed by reprisals. The basilica was burned again. The doors and roof were burnt, and the Patriarch John VII was murdered.
On 18 October 1009, Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the complete destruction of the church as part of a more general campaign against Christian places of worship in Palestine and Egypt. The damage was extensive, with few parts of the early church remaining. Christian Europe reacted with shock and expulsions of Jews (for example, Cluniac monk Rodulfus Glaber blamed the Jews, with the result that Jews were expelled from Limoges and other French towns[citation needed]) and an impetus to later Crusades.
When in doubt, blame the Jews. Ironic, isn’t it?
Throughout history, has there been a more persecuted group than the Jews?
It’s almost like the rest of humanity is jealous that God chose the Jews as his special people.
There were no Muslims at hand in Limoges at the time [citation also needed!]. The Wandering Jew was a fixture of the Medieval European landscape. A convenient scapegoat.
I was just reading that below the debris they found another marble slab. Interesting
Neo said:
“When in doubt, blame the Jews. Ironic, isn’t it?”
It is impossible to judge the situation in Europe based on the information provided. Throughout history Jews have been far from passive bystanders in World Affairs. The Jews regarded Jerusalem as rightfully theirs and resented the strong Christian presence in Jerusalem. This took an ugly turn when the Persians invaded the Holy Land against the Eastern Roman Empire (AKA Byzantine Empire) and the Jews in Jerusalem cooperated with the Persians and massacred many Christians.
Denis:
You have to reach pretty far back for that one. Sad.
OM Says at 8:27 pm
“Denis:
You have to reach pretty far back for that one. Sad.”
Of course you have to reach pretty far back. The events Neo is discussing happened 1050 years ago.
Dennis Says:
October 28th, 2016 at 7:33 pm
Neo said:
“When in doubt, blame the Jews. Ironic, isn’t it?”
It is impossible to judge the situation in Europe based on the information provided. Throughout history Jews have been far from passive bystanders in World Affairs. The Jews regarded Jerusalem as rightfully theirs and resented the strong Christian presence in Jerusalem. This took an ugly turn when the Persians invaded the Holy Land against the Eastern Roman Empire (AKA Byzantine Empire) and the Jews in Jerusalem cooperated with the Persians and massacred many Christians.
* * *
Hadn’t heard that story, but don’t particularly question it.
Considering the mess Muslims have made of the workd by holding onto a 1200 year old family feud, and looking at other people who attempt to justify today’s war by looking back a couple of hundred years, I really would like to put some kind of statute of limitations in the court of world opinion on this type of justification, something like “after the death of the last ACTIVE PARTICIPANT in the (alleged) transgression, plus 50 years to clear out their indoctrinated children, and THAT’S IT.”
Thank you Neo for this interesting article. I forwarded it on to my brother who spent time in Israel about 10 years ago on a dig at Tel Rehov. I have pictures of him wheel barrow in hand and covered with grime and dust. This is right up his alley.
Dennis; Aesop Fan:
You know, Dennis, when you write something like that, you’d better add a link so people can see who and what you’re quoting, and where you’re getting such information.
Because in reputable histories, reports of that sort are considered mostly propaganda.
I am assuming this is what you’re referencing. You can see that accounts vary widely, but the evidence for what you’re describing seems to be lacking.
What’s more, the Jews who were killed in retaliation were people in Europe who had been minding their own business.
Jews: criticized for fighting back, criticized for not fighting back.
Not remotely Jewish, but demonizing Jews has been an easy target for demagogues for two thousand years.
neo-neocon Says at 11:00 pm
Dennis; Aesop Fan:
“You know, Dennis, when you write something like that, you’d better add a link so people can see who and what you’re quoting, and where you’re getting such information.”
I wasn’t quoting anyone. That the Jews helped the Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 is a well accepted part of Roman (Byzantine) history. The Jews massacred the Christians of Jerusalem and set up an autonomous Jewish kingdom which lasted 15 years. Jerusalem was later reconquered by the Romans and Jews in turn were massacred.
Wikipedia has a discussion about that incident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_conquest_of_Jerusalem
The war against the Romans by Shah Khosrau II exhausted both the Romans and the Persians and prepared the way for the rapid conquest by the Muslims a few years later. Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims in about 636.
I forgot to put in the link for the later Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(636%E2%80%93637)
An identifiable ethnic group more successful than the majority is going to be a target.
Indians in East Africa and Chinese in Southeast Asia are two examples.
Conservative Protestants in Latin America get some grief for their conservative social views and individual prosperity.
The only massacres of any size I can think of in recent times was in Indonesia under, iirc, Sukarno. That was locals against Chinese.
We had an ethnic Chinese exchange student from Malaysia in our town. she couldn’t get into a Malaysian university because of quotas–see a Malaysian version of The Gentlemen’s Agreement–so she came back to the US, got her ChemEng BS and MS at U-mich and U-Wisc, respectively. Has a good job.
We win.
Excellent article on “Inventing the Crusades,” by historian Thomas Madden.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades
Also, if anyone would like to experience the next best thing to a visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, I highly recommend the extraordinary Nat Geo IMAX film “Jerusalem,” which is (or was) playing in giant screen theaters around the country. You have the experience of being immersed in Jerusalem from the perspectives of 3 young women: Jew, Christian and Muslim. The film documents the ceremony of the Holy Fire that takes place inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre each year on the Saturday before Easter.
Truly stunning film, especially in IMAX:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/jerusalem-movie-national-geographic_n_3936483.html
neo-neocon Says at 11:00 pm
“Jews: criticized for fighting back, criticized for not fighting back.”
The Roman treatment of Judaism undoubtedly left the Jews with reasons for resentment. However Judaism was a legal religion in the Roman Empire. The Romans were not at war with Jews at the time that the Persians attacked Jerusalem. The attack was an act of pure aggression by the Persian Shaw against the Romans. When the Jews sided with the enemy the Romans were understandably upset.
Neo has brought in something into the discussion which I don’t believe was not present previously – not just blaming Jews for the behavior of their fellow religionists – but pogroms in Europe based on the events in the Middle East. That is an entirely different discussion.
Ach, so many negatives there Dennis I’m thrown for a little bit of an interpretive loop by “do not believe was not” — so in the conventional treatment of the double negative, the “something”, namely the subject of pogroms in Europe against Jews, (which in one narrow way, anyhow, would always have to be derived from the place of origin of the dispersed Jews, i.e., the Middle East, to say nothing of the Jews differing theological dispositions from the Christians of Europe), was “present previously” (in the discussion? or if not in the discussion, then at least in the world) Or, in the alternative (which is primarily why confusing to me) was indeed to be presumed to not be present previously in the discussion? Anyhow, if you can straighten out my dimwitted confusion, you’ll have my thanks for that.
sdferr Says at 9:50 am
“Ach, so many negatives there Dennis.”
Yes indeed. Unfortunately editing once something is posted is not possible.
Heh, good: clear as mud. And in sympathetic agreement, I too have often wished to be able to reach into a comment and fix this or that particle of language business or some other matter.
For the time being however, I’ll take your echo of “indeed” as an affirmation of the second proposition I put forward, this one: “. . . in the alternative . . . was indeed to be presumed to not be present previously in the discussion”. Onward and upward then.
To sdferr Say at 10:10 am:
If there is some misunderstanding, let me make myself clear. I don’t think anyone would justify murdering European Jews because of events in the Middle East.
What I’m trying to do is to reconstruct the mindset of the Europeans of the time and why they held the opinions they did. At the time they were under siege by Islam and probably viewed the Jews as possible collaborators with their enemies.
Oh, be assured that there is and must be a great deal of misunderstanding — and not just on my part in a carefully expressed subject concerning a narrow question of linguistic interpretation about a double negative — but in everyone or for everyone on these wide questions of the history of peoples, the tales they tell, the songs to their god(s), the actions they take, the injustices they commit (and sometimes too, the beneficences), the causes of these actions, and so on. Historical accounts cannot seem to help making all manner of pretensions to completeness, and still widely fail in that.
Dennis:
I didn’t mean to imply you were literally quoting a source. What I meant was that you were referring to a source and getting your information from it and not providing a link to the source.
You write: “That the Jews helped the Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 is a well accepted part of Roman (Byzantine) history.” Yes, but most people are unfamiliar with that history, and sources help to familiarize them and help them make a decision about its veracity.
That’s not the part I was challenging, though, and that’s not what you originally wrote that I was responding to. I would not have bothered to respond if that’s all you had written.
You actually wrote this [emphasis mine]: “the Jews in Jerusalem cooperated with the Persians and massacred many Christians.”
In a more recent comment, you repeated it, “The Jews massacred the Christians of Jerusalem and set up an autonomous Jewish kingdom which lasted 15 years.” It’s the word “massacre” I’m talking about. What I read said there was only one account that implicated Jews; the others did not, and the archeological evidence doesn’t support the reports of such widespread destruction, either.
As for the killing of Jews in Europe, that was mentioned towards the end of my original post. This is the quote [emphasis mine]:
That’s what I was referring to when I wrote “When in doubt, blame the Jews. Ironic, isn’t it?”, which was the very next sentence in my post.
In your very first comment in this thread, you yourself reference Europe. So I am puzzled as to why you now claim not to have realized I was talking about killings of Jews in Europe when you wrote this morning:
No, not a different discussion. It was the subject of the original discussion you were originally reacting to. I had originally discussed pogroms in Europe around the year 1000 and a bit later, and it was you who brought up a massacre at the hands of Jews that may or may not have actually happened in the Middle East approximately four hundred years earlier.
A recent book, The War of the Three Gods: Romans, Persians and the Rise of Islam, looks at the evidence for that alleged massacre of Christians by Jews in 614, and finds it wanting. You can read the pertinent pages (44-46) at Google books here.
The massacre of Christians by Jews was notably documented by the New Testament, specifically the Acts and testimony of Paul (Saul), that zealously worked for the Jewish executive oligarchy before his conversion. This would include the direct stoning and execution of Christians, which the Jewish oligarchy had judged and executed the judgment, as well as indirect appeals to the Romans to execute Christians based on false charges. Paul was perhaps a favorite target, because everyone seemed to know that he had participated in the persecution, execution, and capture of various Christians. This didn’t stop just because Paul converted, since it was the Jewish religious councils in each city, that was the only one that could authorize judicial killings (other than the king). Saul did not have the authority to capture Roman citizens or Jews who had converted, by himself.
The reason why the French didn’t like the Jews or the Arabs, was because of the Ummayads and their slave trade, of which Jewish vassals under Islamic warlords participated in such transactions. This was pretty well known since the Merchant Republics of Venice and Italy would have reported who they were selling to. Shipping 1000 blue eyed virgins to the Sunni Caliph, wasn’t something people could ignore for long. Charlemagne pushed back the Ummayads, which controlled most of North Africa and most of Spain before 780 AD. The Ummayads did not have a Sunni Caliph in their dynasty, that was still their highest religious and military leader back in Arabia.
The Jewish religion is rather complicated and many Jews back then would have refused to talk about it to outsiders. Even the Romans tasked with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ or execution of Paul, didn’t understand what charges required the execution that the Jews had presented. To the Romans, Paul or Jesus, had broken no laws. To the Jews, though, they had or false testimony made claim to it.
Because the Jewish clans were scattered to the four corners of the Earth, most likely for crucifying the mortal avatar of their own God, the God of Abraham and Jacob, many Jewish clans came under vassalage to the Arabs and Ummayads. This meant that they would be indistinguishable to the Spanish Reconquista, the Jews from the Muslims.
They were one alliance.
Being cursed by the Gentiles and scattered to the four corners of the Earth was said to be a divine punishment, designed to teach the Jewish clans a lesson. The Gentiles would be given a chance to listen to the Gospel and convert to the side of the God of Abraham and Jacob, something which the Jews thought reserved for their own tribe, that none of the other 12 tribes existed or had God’s protection. This would demonstrate to the Jews that even though the Gentiles do not follow Mosaic law or Torah traditions or the legal authority of Jewish councils or religious diets, they would still be saved.
The Gentiles that had converted to Christianity, could not trust the Arabs, the Jews, the Muslims, because they know intimately what Islam does to people from their experience in Spain. There’s good reason to believe Portugal and Spain, after the Reconquista, opened up the slave route to Timbuktu (an Islamic slave trading capital that links to Arabia, in Africa) in order to buy and sell slaves. Something Spain and Portugal picked up from their former Islamic overlords. The cultures in Spain and Portugal used to be rather advanced or perhaps cosmopolitan in their treatment of societies and classes. But that was before the onslaught of Islam. The Visigoths also brought a heretical version of enforced baptisms to the region, which was not part of the Gospel but what can one expect of war like barbarians that had literacy problems. They, of all people, were exactly what the Jewish people thought of Gentiles. As uncivilized savages that God’s light would never touch and purify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#Visigoth_rule_-_Repression_and_forced_conversions_.285th_century_to_711.29
With the victory of Tariq ibn Ziyad in 711, the lives of the Sephardim changed dramatically. For the most part, the invasion of the Moors was welcomed by the Jews of Iberia.
Both Muslim and Catholic sources tell us that Jews provided valuable aid to the invaders.[29] Once captured, the defense of Cé³rdoba was left in the hands of Jews, and Granada, Mé¡laga, Seville, and Toledo were left to a mixed army of Jews and Moors. The Chronicle of Lucas de Tuy records that “when the Catholics left Toledo on Sunday before Easter to go to the Church of the Holy Laodicea to listen to the divine sermon, the Jews acted treacherously and informed the Saracens. Then they closed the gates of the city before the Catholics and opened them for the Moors.” (Although, in contradiction to de Tuy’s account, Rodrigo of Toledo’s Historia de rebus Hispaniae maintains that Toledo was “almost of completely empty from its inhabitants”, not because of Jewish treachery, but because “many had fled to Amiara, others to Asturias and some to the mountains”, following which the city was fortified by a militia of Arabs and Jews (3.24). Although in the cases of some towns the behavior of the Jews may have been conducive to Muslim success, such was of limited impact overall.
So claims the authors at wikipedia at least, but if I was driven from my town and it was Islamic neighbors that had ratted me out, I wouldn’t call that “of limited impact” though. The link or narrative as I call it, is of the “Al Andalus Golden Age” propaganda vein, but since I know what else was going on in that era, it’s not hard to read between the lines.
The Muslims of the Ummayads, North African Moors, and Arabic Caliphs, got their sex slaves for their harems from somewhere. And when Jewish leaders are put in charge of so many Spanish cities and commerce, who do you think managed to get them the goods on a timely schedule. It’s something people back then would have known about, because it was weird and unusual enough to be a political and religious concern. To the Jewish religious leaders, it doesn’t matter what happens to anyone else, so long as their people survive. This stiff necked pride makes them endure over the times, as God plans to use, but it also makes them rather easy to single out.
Another reason the Muslims and Jews looked alike is because the Jews adopted the Arabic language and culture in Andalusia (Southern Spain).
As with all ethnic stereotypes, some of it is true and some of it is fiction. Or do Americans still believe they are the country of exceptionalism and the homeland of the brave, without exception?
When in doubt, blame the Jews. Ironic, isn’t it?
Without a citation, anyone can be blamed for anything, but that’s not the point.
I think what’s more ironic is how little knowledge people have of their own past, beyond a generation or two.
After all, Americans of today think the Leftist alliance’s advance started in 1960.