Talk:Church of the Holy Sepulchre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Cppyvio and OrthodoxWiki

A see a cross-pollination between this article and the article at OrthodoxWiki. Since OW operates under a kind of "noncommercial use-only" license, I would kindly ask the authors to make sure that our article does not have copyvio. mikka (t) 20:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The OrthodoxWiki article was imported from this one on 10 February 2005 and at a quick glance it appears to conform very closely to this article as it stood at the time. Perhaps this is the "cross-pollination" you're seeing, but they have been diverging since. Copyright issues in this particular case have to do with the illustrations: those on the OrthodoxWiki article are all "by permission", those here are free and have all been added by the people who made them. Any text I have personally added here is my own work.
According to OrthodoxWiki's official policy on copyright material, Creative Commons is the default license for all content unless marked otherwise, and text incorporated by permission only will not be editable. Therefore, any OrthodoxWiki article that can be edited by the community is Creative Commons and has as good a chance of being free from copyvio problems as a Wikipedia article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I was worried about our possible legal problems, not theirs. So, you are saying we are OK. Thanks for the explanation. mikka (t) 20:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah. My point in the second paragraph, which I failed to actually state, was that even if there was any cross-pollination going on, that particular OrthodoxWiki article can be presumed to be Creative Commons licensed in the absence of any other notice. So if we have taken any content from it — I don't believe we have but if we have — we're still safe. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I am afraid, you are in error. Please re-read my first post; they do have "other notice" on their pages, that's my worry came from. mikka (t) 01:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
On that page? Where? I'm not speaking generally, I'm talking about this particular case, which is why I italicized this particular case in my initial response. Certainly other pages there might be encumbered somehow, but I don't see that this one is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why separate Ethiopian and Coptic presences?

Does anyone know why three different Oriental Orthodox denominations (Armenian, Ethiopian, Coptic) have presences in the COTHS? I mean, they're all in communion, so an Ethiopian could freely attend a service led by the Armenian Patriarch, right? I'm sure there would be language difficulties, but there would be if, say, an Orthodox Serb went to the Greek Orthodox service there as well. (And does anyone know what vernacular, if any, the Roman Catholic services are held in? Arabic?) --Jfruh 04:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because they're in communion doesn't mean they don't want their own presence there. Certainly there are no theological problems between them, although their rites vary a bit. This is the holiest shrine in Christendom, with pilgrims from all over, and various churches will want to be able to accomodate their own pilgrims. A presence requires some "territory", and terriory is parcelled out by the Status Quo. It is now virtually set in stone. How each one got there exactly is a complex historical question that might be worth researching. But in brief: the Syriacs are native to the region; the Armenians have a sizeable presence in Jerusalem itself (there's an "Armenian Quarter" in the Old City); and Jerusalem was once under the control of the Caliphs who ruled from Egypt which may account for the Coptic presence. I'm not sure how the Ethiopians got there except that they were evident latecomers: all their territory is on the roof, that being the only place left for them at the time.
In the Holy Sepulchre itself, I can't find that any language other than Latin is used for the Catholic services. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
In the case of the Copts & Armenians, it's likely because since the beginning of Christianity they have obeyed different patriarchs: the Patriarch of Alexandria for the Copts, & the Patriarch of Antioch for the Armenians. For the Ethiopians, the matter is a little more complex.
Until the 20th century, the Ethiopian church was de jure part of the Coptic church; in fact, the two had a number of doctrinal differences, which obviously led to tension between the two. This tension was manifested in two areas, one being the Ethiopian community in Jerusalem. On one hand, the Ethiopian pilgrims who came to Jerusalem had no source of money to support them until the late 19th century, so they were dependant on the charity of their Coptic & Armenian brethern for food & perhaps even shelter; on the other, the Copts & Armenians understandably considered them eccentric freeloaders, & treated them as such. Add to this the usual bickering that exists amongst any group of peoples living together, & you understand some of the dynamics here. Chris Proutky, Empress Taytu and Menilek II (ISBN 0947895019) discusses this problem as it affected the Ethiopians in her chapter "Jerusalem and Ethiopia". -- llywrch 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuseibeh and Joudeh families

The key to the entrance is held by the Muslim Nuseibeh family who were entrusted with guardianship by Saladin in 1178 to keep the peace between the various Christian factions.

I think that year has to be wrong. Saladin didn't even capture Jerusalem until 1187, and therefore had no authority to entrust anything in the city to anyone in 1178.

The year was wrong according to [1], and I've adjusted it accordingly, at least as far as Saladin is concerned. But also according to this website, ancestors to the family were assigned guardianship of the church from the very earliest Muslim days.
According to this [2] the Joudeh family has had custodianship of the key since 20 Rajab, 1050 AH, which (according to [3]) is equivalent to 5 November 1640. I should have added this just now, but am leaving the information here as a note to myself (or to anyone who wants to do it instead.) I note this appears to contradict the existing text, which dates the involvement of the Joudeh from the 18th, not the 17th, century.TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration

I cut the following sentence from the article:

The church was an inspiration for churches in Europe like Santa Gerusalemme in Bologna.

It made no sense where it was, at the head of a paragraph on the later history of the church. It previously had stood alone as its own paragraph, but it's unclear that it belongs in the History section at all since it doesn't really bear on the subject except to the extent that copies of the church can tell us what it looked like in various eras. But that idea wasn't developed. Perhaps we should have a separate section on architectural influences? If so, there should be more than one sentence anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adjustments

I removed the {{fact}} tag from the statement that the site is venerated by "most Christians". The edit summary complained that most Protestants don't venerate the site. However, most Christians are not Protestants. A large majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, and these groups do venerate the site as described.

Also, I for one am positively allergic to {{cquote}}. I can't see that it serves any useful purpose. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And I replaced the "mad" before the mention of Caliph al-Hakim. No, he wasn't really mad, which is the reason for the quote marks but that's how he was thought of in Europe. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venerated ground

My feeling is that it would be better to say "many Christians" or "the majority of Christians" venerate the site rather than "most", but no matter. The central issuse is verifiability. I soon as I see statements in the Wikipedia like "most customers prefer Acme Corporations products", "most sports fans reckon that Somewhereville FC have been consistently strong performers over the past ten years", I look for the citation. It's no different here. I have put the {{fact}} tag back in and whilst the sentence might need re-writing, it may well be possible to find a credible source. Otherwise the sentence will need to go. Thanks. Greenshed 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No it won't. Of course there are credible sources -- I have several -- but I don't see why this is a problem. For one thing, the rest of this article isn't cited either, so to insist on a cite for this one sentence among all the rest makes no sense. For another, it's a patently obvious fact that the site is held to be sacred by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, and there's no serious question that these groups together comprise "most Christians". Roman Catholicism alone is nearly (or maybe even more than) half. ("Most" is a simple synonym for "majority of", so I don't see your problem there either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I fear that I cannot agree that "most" is synonymous with "the majority". However, I certainly don't dispute that the site is held to be sacred by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox denominations. Whether each individual member of those churches actually venerates this ground seems more problematic. This may seem like a nice distinction but I am very keen that we get precisely written articles. If you can provide a credible citation then that would be a simple way ahead. In general, it would be good provide citations for the rest of the article. Also, I would be happy to put forward an alternative form of words for consideration. Greenshed 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Definition of "most". As for counting each individual member, I think this is not a useful distinction at all. If we were trying to characterize any other belief of a faith community, we have to do so by what that community officially teaches. It's functionally impossible to take the kind of survey you're insisting on, but to require it would mean that we cannot characterize any religion's beliefs at all. This would leave us with mostly empty articles on religions in general. I could come up with many alternative formulations myself. They are all more awkward and aren't terribly more informative. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting, or word problem?

Both city and church were captured by the Khwarezmians in 1244.

But I just read an article on the Sixth Crusade on wikipedia that states that the Mamelukes took the city. So who did take the city or are the Khwarezmians the same as the Mamelukes? I thought Khwarezmians were Persian-Turkic peoples, and the Mamelukes slave soldiers of Egypt?Tourskin 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those complicated periods of history where peoples were moving all over the place and it becomes hard to keep track of them. The Khwarezmian Empire had been destroyed about 20 years earlier by Genghis Khan, and much of its army fled west. There were hired as mercenaries by the Ayyubid Sultan, and it was while in his employ that they captured Jerusalem. Later on many of them hired on as Mamelukes. By then Mamelukes had progressed considerably from their slave origins and had become a power to be reckoned with, actually seizing power in Egypt in 1250.
So in one sense, no Mamelukes didn't capture Jerusalem. On the other hand, many of the same people were Mamelukes a short time later, and working for the same dynasty. You're not wrong to say it either way, but "Khwarezmian" is more precise. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a different person to whoever wrote the above 2 paragraphs ^^ . I would just like to say: the Mamluks are from Eurasian tribes (Eastern Europe & Russia, not Central Asia), who were taken as slaves in preference to being killed when they lost duels on the battlefield, etc. Many were remnants of the Kipchak tribe, etc. I would guess the modern Circassian communities of the Middle East are descended from Mamluks. They were ones who turned back the Mongol advance when they invaded the Middle East (in the nick of time, they took over Egypt and then went on to defeat the Mongols at Ain Jalut).

[edit] unofficial dead link

I removed the external link: The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem official site because it is dead; and also because, even when it was working, it was not the official web site of the Patriarchate. MishaPan 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link pruning and organizing

That list was unwieldy and had some deadwood. I removed (1) the Lancaster item because it is brief and contains no substantial information not already in Wikipedia article or more detailed in other sources; (3) the Trekker site because it too is brief etc.; and (3) the site of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, since, regardless of any connection between the church and the patriarchate, the actual website has nothing about the Holy Sepulchre. Bill 16:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzling item solved

I'm dumping here, rather than in the text of the article, a link to a little page that explains why there are two (both legitimate) Moslem custodians of the church. Someone may want to do something with it. Here's the link to the 1999 news item: "Muslims to Lose Sole Control of Holy Sepulcher Keys". Bill 11:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this information is already in the article, at the end of the "Status Quo" section. Is it unclear in some way? I suppose it would be nice if it were cited. (Apologies, but I can't get over the feeling that your name is familiar to me for some reason. Doesn't mean I ever met you of course; there are no doubt other Bill Thayers in the world. But it's an odd feeling.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Dumb of me! I read too fast. (Although the new key might be worth a mention.) Asfer Bill Thayer, it's a common enough name — but in view of your interests and the kind of materials on, and size of, my website, you've prolly prowled it a bit somewhere along the line. Tangential to Christianity, but hundreds of pages on churches, all kinds of stuff on Late Antiquity, a history of Armenia, etc. Best, Bill 15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

Stymphal, why are you so concerned with adding the French name? Your latest suggestion is a little puzzling; what evidence is there that the crusaders consecrated the church in French? What does that even mean? Where in the 12th century would any cathedral have been consecrated in the vernacular? And if you insist this is the case, then obviously it would have been done in Old French - but lucky for you, I suppose, it is spelled the same in Old and modern... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)