Gospel Sites And ‘Holy Places’: The Contrasting Attitudes Of Eusebius And Cyril -- By: P. W. L. Walker

Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 41:1 (NA 1990)
Article: Gospel Sites And ‘Holy Places’: The Contrasting Attitudes Of Eusebius And Cyril
Author: P. W. L. Walker


Gospel Sites And ‘Holy Places’: The Contrasting Attitudes Of Eusebius And Cyril1

P.W.L. Walker

The land of Palestine has seen many upheavals in its time. Of particular interest for Christian scholars are those associated with the year 324/5 when Constantine came to power in the East. Palestine, previously a marginal province, became a central focus for the new Christian empire, Jerusalem, previously known as Aelia Capitolina, gradually became a Christian ‘holy city’, and the sites associated with the Gospels were soon the objects of intense pilgrim devotion being deemed as ‘holy places’.

Inevitably, therefore, it is to the fourth century that both archaeologists, concerned for the authenticity of the Gospel sites, and theologians, wishing to assess a Christian approach to those sites, must turn. In this paper, as we seek to assess both the reliability and the theology of our Christian forbears, it has been deemed simplest to examine and contrast the thought of the two principal Christian spokesmen in Palestine during those years of rapid change, Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem.

Both men were involved in this remarkable sequence of events. As metropolitan bishop of Palestine from 313 Eusebius (c. 260–339) played an integral part in those first exciting years after 325;2 whilst it was Cyril (c. 320–386) who, as bishop of

Jerusalem from before 350, was largely responsible for the subsequent development of a ‘Christian Jerusalem’, the home of a colourful liturgy and of a host of ‘holy places’. Yet it must be asked: were these two bishops at all concerned with the historical authenticity of the places then being associated with the life of Christ? And what religious or theological significance did they give to them?

On both these questions, concerning historical authenticity and theological significance, it has often been presumed that Eusebius and Cyril were agreed.3 In the following, however, it will be suggested that closer inspection indicates the need to treat them quite separately. Eusebius, with his natural historical bent, is revealed as far more concerned than Cyril with authenticity, whilst Cyril, with his unique role in Jerusalem catering for the increasing tide of pilgrims, is seen to give a much deeper religious significance to these ‘holy places’ than does Eusebius.

I. Historical Reliability

Those inclined to scepticism concerning the traditional Gospel sites will point to various issues: for example, the unre...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()