Talk:John II (bishop of Jerusalem)

15 Sept. = Yom Kippur?
The idea that the date of the dedication was Yom Kippur (the fact given in the "Did You Know" column) is untenable, if the given Julian date (15 Sep 394) is correct. In that month the new moon was on Sep 11 at 23:36 UTC (Sep 12 02:57 Jerusalem solar time), as can be seen by using the calculator at. As the Jewish calendar uses lunar months, the 10th of Tishrei couldn't have been earlier than about Sep 20 (and indeed, the converter at shows that Yom Kippur of that year was on the 21st). Aheppenh (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Article is based on the research published by M. van Esbrœck in 1984 and on the Biblical Archaeology Review article by Bargil Pixner that says: "John ...blessed the altar of the Judeo-Christians (propitiatory, Hebrew kapporet), now in the Theodosian church, on the feast of Yom Kippur (September 15), possibly 394 A.D". In the research M. van Esbrœck starts from some homily of John Chrysostom in which is possible to know that in the 386 AD Kippur was the 18 Sept, thus saying at page 112: "La coincidence du 15 Septembre 394 avec le 10 Tishri est donc tres probable". Furthermore the whole homily is based on the idea of the necessary purification through the Mercy seat. Of course it should be nice if you edit the article adding a scholar reference that supports something different. A ntv (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew calendar is calculated and the rules in use in such an early time were not the present ones and could vary. Read for example Hebrew calendar. So the calculus of 10 Tishrei you made using the observational date could not fit with the use in such place in the IV century. Actually I don't think that scholars like Bargil Pixner, M. van Esbrœck and journal like Biblical Archaeology Review were not able to do the calculation you did. They preferred to use a different method: to start from a known year near the 394 to minimize the errors. In Wiki we shall not dispute in base of original research, but only in base of scholar references, that are always wellcome. A ntv (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is true, of course, that a sect that didn't practice normative Judaism probably didn't accept the Rabbanite calendar rules. All the same:

(a) If they used some kind of lunar-based calendar, then as I said, it is simply impossible for Yom Kippur - the tenth of the lunar month - to have been only four days after the new moon.

(b) If they used the Essene calendar, as you suggested in an earlier version of your notes, then that wouldn't work either: that calendar begins the month of Nisan around the vernal equinox, which in the fourth century was on or about Mar. 21; the tenth day of the seventh month would then have been around the beginning of October every year.

I don't claim to be any kind of scholar of the period, and I'm afraid I don't know of any other researcher who disagrees with van Esbrœck et al. But after all, his argument (which you quoted above) is simply that if 18 Sep 386 = Yom Kippur, then it's 'very likely' that 15 Sep 394 was too; that strikes me as a rather weak case.

I gather, too, that the year 394 itself is uncertain. If indeed the argument is that 15 Sep in the year of the dedication of the church coincided with Yom Kippur, then the closest year that might be a match to that is 392 (when the new moon was on 3 Sep at 13:53 UTC = 16:14 Jerusalem time); better matches would be 389 or 400. Aheppenh (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem of your calculation is that you presume that in the 394 the Judeo-Christian sect of Jerusalem followed a observational calendar. The Jewish calendar in such a time was calculated and could vary in use from town to town. The Essenes calendar had up to seven days (!) of difference to reconcile with the year of 365 days, so also here to take a observational date to determine a calendar day has not significance. As everything in the ancient history, nothing is so easy. Van Esbrœck guesses the 394 as most probable year because the emperor Theodosius died in 395 and from a passage of the homily it looks like he to be still alive (he paid for the new building). To pass from 384 to 394 Van Esbrœck makes a reference in a note to this text: E. Schwartz Christliche und Judische Ostertafeln Berlin 1905 pag 149-183. I don't have it nor I speak German so I cannot check. It looks like to be a quite important text because in google-book it is quoted by lots of books. You can perhaps go to a library to check the issue. Anyway this historical research is not so important: the fact is that John II in his homely makes so a clear reference to the purification (once from Kippur celebration, now from the the cross, that is celebrated -not by chance- the 14 Sept) and to a purification made in front of the kaponet (mercy seat) that the internal support for the Christianization of the feast of Kippur is evident. A ntv (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Archeologist Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra says says 20 Sept. 394 = Yom Kippur
I find this confusing. A_ntv cited a sentence from Esbroek, saying that Yom Kippur was very probably on September 15, 394 AD. He also cited a sentence from the archeologist Bargil Pixner, repeating that Esbroek said this. But mathematics and another archeologist say that this dating is incorrect. Nor does looking at the sermon, considering that there could be other calendars, or reviewing the possible years this could have happened in seem to lead to a conclusive result.

Mathematics

Aheppenh (in the section above of the discussion) showed that according to a converter, Yom Kippur was on the 21st. He also says that the new moon was on September 11 in 394 AD. Naturally, a calendar with lunar months like the Jewish calendar would start the month on that day. So the month of Tishrei would start on Sept. 11, putting the 10th of Tishrei on about September 21.

A_ntv's response is that a sermon by St Chrysostom shows that 386 AD was September 18. When I check with the converter Aheppeh gave, it shows the 10th of Tishrei falling on Sept 19th, 386 AD in the Julian Calendar used in Byzantine times, and on Sept. 20, 386 AD in the modern Calendar. So it sounds like the calendar converter Aheppeh uses must not be too far off. There's a difference of a day or two with St Chrysostom's sermon, but maybe the saint was talking about the eve of Yom Kippur.

Unfortunately, it isn't clear what mathematical calculations Esbroeck used to find his dating

Another archeologist

In the book "The impact of Yom Kippur on early Christianity", Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra writes that the sermon happened on a special week of Christian celebrations called "the Encaenia".

Ben Ezra records that this special week was celebrated from 13 to 20th of Semptember, and a major purpose of the celebrations was to celebrate the Exaltation of the Cross and the Dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. He mentions the pilgrim Egeria's view that this week was scheduled in accorance with the Dedication of Solomon's Temple, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 7:8-10, on the 8th-14th of Tishrei. The holidays' dates are roughly similar.

Ben Ezra writes: "this homily... was delivered by John II... on the third day of the Encaenia, one day after the Exaltation of the Cross (15 September 394). If van Esbroeck's dating of the dedication is correct, the last day of the week of Encaenia (20 September), coincided with the eve of Yom Kippur." (page 300)

'''Using a different Calendar? (even then it seems unlikely to would produce such a result)'''

A_ntv wrote: "The Hebrew calendar is calculated and the rules in use in such an early time were not the present ones and could vary." That makes sense, but just because they could have varied doesn't mean the calendar did vary. And it seems strange for the months to vary very much, because then "lunar months" wouldn't be starting from a "new moon". Aheppenh considered that they could be using an Essene calendar. Well, this sounds strange for 394 AD, because I thought the Essenes were a much earlier group.

But even using different calendars, Aheppenh used a pretty straightfoward calculation to show we couldn't be talking about the Essene calendar: "that calendar begins the month of Nisan around the vernal equinox, which in the fourth century was on or about Mar. 21; the tenth day of the seventh month would then have been around the beginning of October every year." In other words, it's simple to find the spring equinox and count from there.

A_ntv's reply here is pretty confusing for me: "The Essenes calendar had up to seven days (!) of difference to reconcile with the year of 365 days, so also here to take a observational date to determine a calendar day has not significance." I am not sure what he means, because Aheppenh's idea sounds pretty straightforward.

Aheppenh admitted that an unusual group like Jewish Christians might not follow Rabbinical calculations. This is A_ntv's idea and sounds possible. But it doesn't sound like Esbroek was talking about differences in calendars based on differences between Christianity and Judaism. It makes sense that the Jewish calendar could vary between towns, but John II's sermon was in Jerusalem, and that would be one of the most important and reliable towns for calculating dates.

Suggestions in the Sermon (Inconclusive)

A_ntv pointed out that John II's sermon on this day was about purification through the mercy seat. And that's true, but the sermon was connected with John II's blessing of an actual mercy seat in the church. Now this blessing of the mercy seat, and the sermon about the mercy seat, could have happened on Yom Kippur. But if not, the fact that the occasion for the sermon was the blessing of an actual mercy seat means that there was a good enough reason for this sermon topic, even if the date wasn't Yom Kippur.

It isn't clear what A_ntv means when he points out that John II "makes so a clear reference to the purification (once from Kippur celebration, now from the the cross, that is celebrated -not by chance- the 14 Sept) and to a purification made in front of the kaponet (mercy seat)"

Clearly, it does talk about "purification", specifically "purificiation of the lips" in the sermon. But the Wiki article hasn't mentioned any other discussions of "purification" in the sermon, and A_ntv hasn't given any more quotes from the article about "purification". It sounds like A_ntv is saying that the sermon talks about some kind of "purification" in front of a mercy sear, but this is confusing, because he hasn't given a quote or said what exactly he means. For example, is this purification in front of the mercy seat a reference to the "purification of lips", or a different purification? I'm sorry if I'm being too hard, but it sounds unclear.

Plus, a Yom Kippur purification goes beyond just purifying the lips, I assume. it makes sense that purifying the lips is associated with Kippur, but maybe that is not the only thing it is associated with.

One of the most common ancient Christian service, if not the most common one of the 4th century, the Liturgy of St James, says: "blot out my transgressions for Thy compassion's sake; and purify my lips and heart from all pollution of flesh and spirit; and remove from me every shameful and foolish thought, and fit me by the power of Thy all-holy Spirit for this service".

So simply mentioning the purification of lips doesn't necessarily mean a connection to the date of Yom Kippur.

It makes sense that the concept of the purification of the cross could be in an important sermon connected with purification from Yom Kippur, but the Wiki article on John II's sermon doesn't mention any such "purification" of the Cross. And even if there was such a mention, it could be a reference to the fact that the major holiday of the "Exaltation of the Cross" had taken place on September 14.

Plus, A_ntv's words are unclear about the celebration "not by chance" on Sept. 14: "John II... makes so a clear reference to the purification (once from Kippur celebration, now from the the cross, that is celebrated -not by chance- the 14 Sept)". That is, it doesn't sound like John II is saying that purifications from Yom Kippur and the Cross are celebrated on 14 September. Instead, it sounds like maybe A_ntv is just saying that it's not a coincidence that the Celebration of the Cross is on September 14, because September 15 is Yom Kippur, he thinks.

Now I can see the view that the Celebration of the Cross (Sept. 14) was a festival scheduled around the time of Yom Kippur (around mid-September), because they both involve Atonement. But that doesn't mean that in this particular year the Celebration of the Cross happened to match the date of Yom Kippur.

The Uncertainty of the Year

Aheppenh pointed out that the year is uncertain. The builder of the Church, Theodosius, was Roman Emperor from 379 to January 17, 395. A_ntv said the emperor is described in the sermon as if he was still alive, so it very likely wasn't built in 395, which A_ntv had suggested as possible when he said historians can discuss between 394-395 for this date.

400 AD can't be the date either, which Aheppenh said was possible for matching Yom Kippur with September 15.

This leaves two possibilities based on the limited facts given here: (A)There could have been a miscalculation of Yom Kippur in 392 AD, when the holiday should've been on September 13, and (B) September 15, 389, which Aheppenh said was a better match for Yom Kippur.

Unfortunately, none of these dates are really certain, because it isn't clear why Esbroek is saying the Theodosius Church was dedicated in 394 AD, instead of another year during Theodosius' rule.

It's confusing what A_ntv meant when he wrote "To pass from 384 to 394 Van Esbrœck makes a reference in a note to this text". It isn't clear why he mentions 384. It's true that earlier A_ntv had mentioned St Chrysostom's sermon in 386 AD, but that's a different year.

A_ntv wrote that this calculation is in a German book Christliche und Judische Ostertafeln, pages 149-183, but that he doesn't have the book or speak German. Well, I don't speak German, and 34 pages is alot to translate, but nonetheless, the book's whole text, including the pages in question, is free online on Google Books as its copyright ended: http://books.google.com/books?id=Sn8TAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false --Rakovsky (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

28 Sept. 335 (Gregorian Calendar) = Yom Kippur? (Extra Tangent)
The author, van Esbroek just appears to assume that the Church of Holy Zion was consecrated in 394. He, and archeologist Bargil Pixner who repeats him, appear to make several mistakes along the way.

First, Pixner writes in his article on the Upper Room (http://www.centuryone.org/apostles.html):


 * John of Bolnisi [Bishop of Bolnisi, Georgia), records that the feast of dedication of the Anastasis (a circular structure built over Jesus' tomb as a memorial of his resurrection) occurred on September 13, whereas the nearby Constantine church of the Martyrion was dedicated on September 14 and the Church of Hagia Sion (Holy Zion), the mother of all churches on Mt. Zion, on September 15. In Bishop John's own words: "And the 15th of the same month was the dedication of the Holy and Glorious Zion, which is the mother of all churches, that had been founded by the Apostles, which emperor Theodosius the Great has built, enlarged, and glorified, and in which the Holy Spirit had come down on the holy day of Pentecost."

Where does Bolnisi ever say that this all happened in 394 AD?

He doesn't say it all happened in 394 AD in this passage. He only listed the days of the month. But John of Bolnisi does show that the dedication happened in about 379-395 AD, because that's when Theodosius reigned.

Bolnisi clearly says that Zion, the Upper Chuch of the Apostles, was consecrated September 15, the same month as the Anastasis and the Basilica of the Martyrion. [Yes, but this is actually "calendar month", like saying New Years' and Christmas are the same month. It sounds alittle confusing though.]

Every year the Russian Church celebrates the consecration of the Martyrion on September 15, 335:


 * The construction of the church of the Resurrection, called "Martyrion" in memory of the sufferings of the Savior, was completed in the same year as the Council of Tyre, and in the thirtieth year of the reign of St Constantine the Great. Therefore, at the assembly of September 13, 335, the consecration of the temple was particularly solemn. Hierarchs of Christian Churches in many lands: Bythnia, Thrace, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Arabia, Palestine, and Egypt, participated in the consecration of the church. The bishops who participated in the Council of Tyre, and many others, went to the consecration in Jerusalem. On this day all the city of Jerusalem was consecrated. The Fathers of the Church established September 13 as the commemoration of this remarkable event. (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=102593)

John of Bolnisi the Bishop is an Orthodox Christian. He is going to follow the tradition of his church when he says that the Upper Room was consecrated September 15, and he means 335. [John of Bolnisi doesn't mean 335 AD, because he refers to the dedication of a church built by Theodosius, who lived in 379-395 AD]

Second, Pixner writes in his article:


 * The reconciliation was finalized when the bishop of Jerusalem, John II (served 387-419 A.D.), blessed the altar of the Judeo-Christians (propitiatory, Hebrew kapporet), now in the Theodosian church, on the feast of Yom Kippur (September 15), possibly 394 A.D. (http://www.centuryone.org/apostles.html)

Again, where does he get this 394 AD consecration? Where does he get the idea that John II was the bishop who consecrated the church?

Here's where: Pixner knows that about 394 Emperor Theodosius finished a church NEXT to the Zion Church of the Apostles. Tradition says that the Church of Zion- the Upper Room Church was consecrated on September 15, 335. [No, Tradition only says it was consecrated on September 15 after being built by Theodosius, who ruled in 379-395] Tradition says that Theodosius' octagon church NEXT to the Zion Upper Room church was consecrated in 394. the end of the 4th century. [I don't know if or when exactly Tradition says the octagon church was built] Tradition says that an altar was consecrated in one place or the other with Jewish poetic terms by Bishop John II who lived 356 – 417.

Is Pixner confusing the 2 consecrations? [There is no mention of 2 consecrations here, only the one by John II mentioned by John of Bolnisi in Theodosius' church] Is he just assuming that Bishop John II somehow consecrated the altar of the Zion Upper Room Church over in the Theodosius church? [John of Bolnisi said John II did this, so it's hardly an assumption.] Is he just assuming that when Christianity says the Zion Upper Room Church was consecrated September 15 that Christian Tradition must be talking about John II's consecration in 394 AD? [See bracketed comments above]

John of Bolnisi says the Upper Room church was consecrated Septemeber 15 (335) by church tradition. Pixner quotes these words and assumes this means that when John II consecrated the church NEXT to the Upper Room "possibly" in 394, he must have consecrated it in September 15, 394 AD. Fail. [Admittedly this is confusing. John of Bolnisi says Theodosius built the Zion Church and then John II consecrated Theodosius' church. Yet it turns out that Theodosius' Church was merely an octagonal church next to the Actual Church of the Apostles. So it sounds like there were two churches, and John II only consecrated one of them. So it is confusing simply when we say the church was consecrated by John II, because there were 2 churches next to eachother and aligned with eachother. But there is no indication by Pixner that Pixner is confused about which church is consecrated. Rather, he is simply repeating this broad, confusing idea that the Zion church was consecrated in about 394 AD]

Third, Wikipedia says in the entry "The Holy Sepulchre":
 * Each year, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates the anniversary of the consecration of the Church of the Resurrection (Holy Sepulchre) on September 13 (for those churches which follow the traditional Julian Calendar, September 13 currently falls on September 26 of the modern Gregorian Calendar).

Now when was the Zion the Upper Room Church consecrated? It was consecrated in September 15, 335 c.394 - on the Julian Calendar. [Wikipedia's article on the Cenacle says Theodosius' Church began being built in 382 AD. It also says that it was completed 394 AD, which Pixner describes as a possible date for completion. So it sounds like it was completed about 394, that is, c.394 AD]

So by our modern, Gregorian Calendar, the Upper Room church was consecrated September 28 16, 335. c.394. [The calendar converter lined to by Aheppenh showed the Gregorian calendar to be only one day ahead of the Julian in 394 AD]

So was September 28 16, 335  394 AD in the Gregorian Calendar on Yom Kippur, the 10th of Tishrei? Calendars have changed over the centuries. This could be hard to calculate exactly. Please let me know:

Was September 28 16, 335  394 on Yom Kippur?

Apparently not, because the Calendar Converter shows that this date falls on the 4th of Tishri. But Yom Kippur was scheduled for the 10th of Tishri.

Rakovsky (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

[Comments to my post from 2010, deleted and added by author Rakovsky to the above on May 25, 2011] Rakovsky (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The date of 335 is completely to be excluded. You are doing Original Research and confusing the church of the Resurrection, called "Martyrion", (i.e. the Holy Sepulchre, first consecrated in 335) with the "Theodosian Church" or "Holy Zion Church", first consecrated in 394 (alonside the Cenacle), placed in very different places in Jerusalem. At least scholars can discuss between 394 and 395. There is no reason to assume that, as you say, also the Theodosian Church was consecrated in 335, nor to consider the 394 consecration by John II a re-consecration.
 * Pixner was mainly an archaeologist, while for the historical part he based on, as indicated in the notes of the article: "M. van Esbrœck, Jean II de Jérusalem, in Analecta Bollandiana, Tome 102, Fasc.1-2 (1984), p. 99-134" I strongly suggest you to read (it is very interesting). M. van Esbrœck to determine the day of Yom Kippur in Jerusalem in that period used E. Schwartz Christliche und Judische Ostertafeln Berlin 1905 pag 149-183: you can check such text to guess when Yom Kippur was in 335 (or 395?). By the way in Wiki we can add only referenced material by scholars, as it is now for 394. By the way the nearness to Yom Kippur is interesting only because John's homily for the consecration of the church (published by van Esbrœck) is linked to the celebration of Kippur.A ntv (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that 335 is completely to be excluded, as John II didn't even live then to give the sermon. Plus, the only consecration Pixner was talking about was the one mentioned by John of Bolnisi, which is one that refers to the consecration in Theodosius' church around the time of that emperor's rule in the end of the 4th century.


 * I was doing some original research, looking into articles beyond the articles cited in the WIKI article on John II. But the problem wasn't my original research, but rather my reading of them- the sources never said the consecration of the church Pixner was referring to was in 335 AD.


 * I highly doubt I was confusing the Martyrion of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre with the Holy Zion Church of the Apostles. The citations and sources I quoted about clearly said the Martyrion was consecrated September 13, and the Martyrion's consecration was celebrated on September 15.
 * Instead, I was pointing to the fact that, as I said: "Bolnisi clearly says that Zion, the Upper Chuch of the Apostles, was consecrated September 15, the same month as the Anastasis and the Basilica of the Martyrion."
 * In other words, I took John of Bolnisi's words to mean that both the Martyrion (consecrated Sept 13) and the Holy Zion Church (consecrated September 15) were consecrated in the same month of the same year.


 * In fact, as you say: "the Holy Sepulchre [was] first consecrated in 335... the "Theodosian Church" or "Holy Zion Church", [was]... consecrated in 394 (alonside the Cenacle), placed in very different places in Jerusalem.
 * Except that I'm not sure that the Zion Church was consecrated in 394 exactly, because Pixner merely said this was "possibly" the date.
 * And I'm not sure the Holy Zion Church was first consecrated in even the second half of the 4th century. That's because if the Church was really a long-held Christian church going back a few centuries before the Theodosian Church, then it seems that it is to be expected that at some point the Christians had already consecrated the Church of the Apostles before the octagonal church was built next to it.
 * Now it could be that you mean that the octagonal church in particular was first consecrated in c. 394 AD, as opposed to any part of the general church-site where the Church of the Apostles was located.


 * You're right that "At least scholars can discuss between 394 and 395", as those years are around the end of the reign of Theodosius, who ruled in 379-395 AD, and wasn't ruling in 335 AD. Still, I doubt whether those are the only two dates that the scholars can discuss. After all, you didn't show, nor am I aware of how Pixner arrived at the date of 394 AD for the consecration.


 * You're also right that: "There is no reason to assume that, as you say, also the Theodosian Church was consecrated in 335, nor to consider the 394 consecration by John II a re-consecration." There's no mention of the Theodosian Church as existing around 335 AD, nor would there be, as it was an octagonal church built by Theodosius during his rule and he wasn't ruling then. Nor is there mention of an earlier consecration of Theodosius' church in what have read, like the citations I gave and your article.


 * Plus, you're right that: "Pixner was mainly an archaeologist, while for the historical part he based on, as indicated in the notes of the article: "M. van Esbrœck, Jean II de Jérusalem, in Analecta Bollandiana", as Pixner himself cited this article as his basis for his writings about history. However, this was not the only writing Pixner cited. For example, Pixner said that the Bordeaux pilgrim who visited the Zion Church may have been a Jewish Christian, and for this he cited: Herbert Donner, Die ersten Pahtinapilger (Stuttgart: Catholic Bibelwerk, 1983), pp. 41f.


 * Yes, I would be interested in, and like reading the article by Esbroeck you pointed to, and I'm sure it's very interesting as you say, because it has John II's sermon where he apparently uses Jewish Christian imagery. However, I don't read French, the language in which it is written. One helpful source of information on the Jewish Christian community could be my website rakovskii.livejournal.com, which discusses the Zion Church, and the background concept of heavenly spheres John II referred to. In connection with this, it was surprising for me to read in the work of the author Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra that the heavenly spheres John II talked about included religious things like the Church, Mount Sinai, Mount Moriah, etc, while in the ancient world, the "heavenly spheres" were usually thought of in terms of more material, physical things like the planets.


 * Yes, you mentioned before that Esbroeck made a note about the book "Christliche und Judische Ostertafeln" in reference to his writing, and I trust you that this was the source for Esbroeck's idea that John II's sermon was on Yom Kippur. But unfortunately I don't read German either, so I can't use it to check about dates for Yom Kippur in 335 or 395.
 * You're right that "in Wiki we can add only referenced material by scholars". I've seen cases where WIki allows some uncontroversial statements in unusual topics, but it appears Wiki's policy is to put a note on the entry about the problem with citation.
 * But it's confusing to me what you mean when you write: "By the way in Wiki we can add only referenced material by scholars, as it is now for 394." It sounds like maybe you are saying that in Wiki we can only use referenced material by scholars as sources for our statements, like the article currently cites to for the claim that John II's sermon was in 394 AD.


 * I also doubt you're right when you say: "the nearness to Yom Kippur is interesting only because John's homily for the consecration of the church (published by van Esbrœck) is linked to the celebration of Kippur."
 * If it's true that John II decided to consecrate such an important Church as the Zion Church on Yom Kippur, this nearness in dates could be interesting, as it could relate to a hypothetical continued importance of Yom Kippur in some part of the Christian community, whether or not John II's homily (published by Esbroeck) in particular was linked to the celebration of Yom Kippur.
 * For example, imagine that there was no particular link between the consecration homily and celebrating Yom Kippur, but John II still chose to consecrate the Church on Yom Kippur. In that case, the nearness to Yom Kippur would still be interesting, because it would reflect the importance of Yom Kippur to some part of the Christian community, or at least for Jerusalem's bishop, John II.
 * It's true that hypothetically, a church could be consecrated on the same day as Yom Kippur, but it seems unlikely that it would be a coincidence in the 4th century Holy Land, where Christianity was still only a few centuries old and had, in a way, a strong direct connection with its Jewish past, in that the Holy Land was the land where the Jewish Christian community began and emerged out of the general Jewish religious community.
 * So if there was a nearness to Yom Kippur it could be interesting if it was part of a link between John II's homily and the celebration. But even if there was no link between the homily and the celebration, a nearness to Yom Kippur could still be interesting if it was intentional, because such an intentional link would suggest that the holiday had some meaning for John II and the Christian community at that time. And if no intentionality was known about the link, the coincidence between the consecration and the holiday could still suggest the possibility of such a link, and this too could be interesting.


 * Thank you and Take Care. :)
 * --Rakovsky (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Rakovsky, I can see that your interest is here beyond the the literaly works of John II, which is the subject of the Talk Page. So considering that a talk page is not a forum, (WP:FORUM) my answer will be short, but if you write to my email (Special:EmailUser/A_ntv) I'll be glad to answer you as well as to scan for you the relevant paragraphes from Esbroeck's article. Anyway in above discussion I was not supporting a particular thesis, but simply explaing what is written in Esbroeck's article. to clarify some misunderstandings:
 * -Esbroeck and Pixner suggest that the churches that followed from the very beginnings in the area of the Cenacle were always been used by Judeo-Christians, which community was separated from the "Great Church", this latter from Costantine's time built the other churches in Jerusalem (as the "Martyrion", i.e. the Holy Sepulchre, first consecrated in 335). The reconciliation between the two communities came under Theodose and John II on about 394, and this reconciliation was marked by the building of a new church (consecrated by John II) placed some meters aside (aside) the church/sinagogue of the Cenacle. (my note: there is no historical evidence, and it is not even probable, that the Judeo-Christian Community used the same calendar of the Rabbinic Judaism even in Jerusalem)
 * -Esbroeck and Ben Erza (which intresting book I've read) both suggest that the September Christian week of the Feast of the Cross was born as the Christianization of the September Yom Kippur festival, which, as Ben Erza has demostrated, went on to be celebrated, at least partially, also by (some?) Christians in the first 3 centuries.
 * -When I spoke about "purification" I obviously referred to the higher moment of the Yom Kippur rite itself: the High Priest who entered in the Holy of the Holies (at the presence of the Lord) and sprinkled blood on the Kippuret. This ritual has been easily connected to the Christian "Purification/Atonement by the Cross", and it is also linked to the "purification of lips" (which obviously refers to Is. 6, when the prophet entered at the presence of the Lord, as the High Priest did when he entered in the Holy of the Holies)
 * -The bold connection made by John II was to connect the entering of the Christian priest to the Christian altar to the entering of the High Priest in the Holy of the Holies: thus he identified the altar with the Kippuret. On this liturgical reading you can refer for example to the works of M.Barker.
 * But here we are fully off-topic from the aim of this Talk PageA ntv (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John II, Bishop of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214211318/http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/20130330.htm to http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/20130330.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)