Jerusalem Explored, Volume 1—Text: Being a Description of the Ancient and Modern City, with Numerous Illustrations Consisting of Views, Ground Plans and SectionsPierotti, Ermete
History
Jerusalem Explored, Volume 1—Text: Being a Description of the Ancient and Modern City, with Numerous Illustrations Consisting of Views, Ground Plans and Sections
Pierotti, Ermete
Jerusalem -- Antiquities; Jerusalem -- Description and travel
We have now only to visit the walled enclosure to the south of the Sion
Gate. This is a small Armenian convent, which is said to occupy the site
of the house of Caiaphas: the tradition dates from the fourth century. I
have already said that the Pilgrim of Bordeaux mentions it, without
however stating that a church stood there. We find in the writings of
Nicephorus Callistus[787], that S. Helena built a church there, and
dedicated it to S. Peter; but this is not confirmed by any one besides.
None of the authors, contemporary with or posterior to S. Helena, allude
to it; and we cannot suppose that this Sanctuary would be omitted in the
Itinerary of S. Paula, which names all the others that were then in
existence. It was unknown at the time of the Crusades, as it is not
recorded by Edrisi, who wrote A.D. 1151, nor by Phocas, in his journey
in Palestine, A.D. 1185. Marinus Sanutus, in the fourteenth century, is
the first writer who mentions it. He calls it the Church of S. Saviour;
the name it still bears[788]. Hence I infer that the church and the
convent adjoining were erected at the end of the thirteenth century, or
at the beginning of the fourteenth. Although the tradition concerning
the House of Caiaphas goes back as far as the fourth century, I believe
it would be difficult to maintain its correctness, as we have no _data_
whatever from the Bible to assist us in fixing the position of the
High-priest's dwelling. The entrance is by a small door on the north,
near the north-west corner. The church is oblong in plan (50 feet long
by 25 wide), without any architectural features worthy of notice. The
pictures on the walls are ugly and grotesque. In the central altar at
the east end two large pieces of stone are exhibited, which are said to
have formed part of the mass that closed the door of the Sepulchre of
Christ. Their genuineness would be difficult to establish; but, be that
as it may, the Armenians ought to be ashamed of shewing them, as they
were entrusted to them by the Franciscans in 1570, at the time of the
war with Cyprus, and afterwards dishonourably appropriated. There is
neither history nor tradition to support the claims of these stones, and
the Latin Fathers suffer their loss with patience, since their thickness
would not correspond with the size mentioned by the Evangelist[789],
and the little that can be seen of them is enough to shew that they
cannot have belonged to a stone of the right shape. On the south of the
altar is a very small square-headed door leading into a narrow chamber,
in which two persons can scarcely stand. This is said to be the prison
where Jesus was kept during the remainder of the night after he was
brought to Caiaphas. The walls shew no signs of antiquity; the pavement
rests upon a mass of rubbish; the tradition is unfounded, and the place
perhaps was formerly only a closet. In the courts before the church they
point out the spot on which S. Peter stood when he denied his Master,
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account