P
patrick457
Guest
This is a question that’s been bugging my mind recently. Are we as Catholics obligated to believe that this or that event occured in this or that place where a church is built?
As an example, let’s take the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Leaving aside the question as to whether the place Jesus was crucified on the Mount of Olives, Gordon’s Calvary or where this church now stands, I admittedly side with the opinion (expressed by authors such as Joan Taylor and Shimon Gibson) that while the location where the Holy Sepulchre stands is generally correct - in that it is in the place called Golgotha by the Gospels - and that the tomb contained in the Edicule may well have been the tomb of Jesus, the rocky knoll which is now called the Rock of Calvary is not the exact place where Jesus was crucified (and hence, where His cross stood). Instead, the spot may well have been somewhere else within that general area (perhaps nearer the city gates and the road, as was Roman custom): Joan Taylor proposes that it may well have been buried under the street when Jerusalem was remodeled in the 2nd century. For that matter, I don’t believe Calvary was a ‘mount’ as well; the Gospels never mention Golgotha as a ‘mount’ or even a ‘hill’ after all. They just say that it was a topos, “place.”
Another example of course is Mount Sinai. While Jabal Musa in the Sinai Peninsula is now generally hailed as the Biblical Horeb, there exists other candidates for the area.
Yes, I do sound rather scrupulous here (sorry!
) Now, while I feel that what happened is loads more important than where it happened, I just want to hear everyone’s opinion in this regard.
As an example, let’s take the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Leaving aside the question as to whether the place Jesus was crucified on the Mount of Olives, Gordon’s Calvary or where this church now stands, I admittedly side with the opinion (expressed by authors such as Joan Taylor and Shimon Gibson) that while the location where the Holy Sepulchre stands is generally correct - in that it is in the place called Golgotha by the Gospels - and that the tomb contained in the Edicule may well have been the tomb of Jesus, the rocky knoll which is now called the Rock of Calvary is not the exact place where Jesus was crucified (and hence, where His cross stood). Instead, the spot may well have been somewhere else within that general area (perhaps nearer the city gates and the road, as was Roman custom): Joan Taylor proposes that it may well have been buried under the street when Jerusalem was remodeled in the 2nd century. For that matter, I don’t believe Calvary was a ‘mount’ as well; the Gospels never mention Golgotha as a ‘mount’ or even a ‘hill’ after all. They just say that it was a topos, “place.”
Another example of course is Mount Sinai. While Jabal Musa in the Sinai Peninsula is now generally hailed as the Biblical Horeb, there exists other candidates for the area.
Yes, I do sound rather scrupulous here (sorry!
) Now, while I feel that what happened is loads more important than where it happened, I just want to hear everyone’s opinion in this regard.