was killed at the readiest point outside the city.
If on the N. side, as the tradition bound up with
Eudocia's Church seems to imply, it would probably
be outside the gate of the Second Wall.
(2) James the Great, the brother of John, is
supposed to have been beheaded in a prison now
marked by the W. aisle of the Church of St.
James in the Armenian Quarter a tradition of
no value. It is worthy of note, however, that, as
in the case of St. Peter, the spot is not remote
from the Palace of Herod.
(3) James the Just, ' the brother of Jesus, who
was called the Christ' (Ant. XX. ix. 1), according
to Hegesippus (preserved in Eusebius, HE n. xxiii.
4ff.) also suffered a violent death (c. A.D. 62) after
a mode which is very improbable (see HDB, art.
'James,' 3), the stoning excepted, to which
Josephus testifies. The Grotto of St. James near
the S.E. corner of the Temple area, on the E. side
of Kidron, is supposed to be his tomb (15th cent,
tradition), or preferably his hiding-place (6th cent,
tradition). While the' tomb is as old as the days
of the Apostle, or even older, the inscription above
its entrance bears reference to the B e ne Hezir (S. R.
Driver, Notes on Heb. Text of Books of Samuel*,
1913, p. xxi).
(f) The tree (with the bridge) where Judas hanged
himself, and Akeldama, the field of blood (Ac I 19 ),
are shown, but there are rival sites for the latter,
and the former has often changed (Conder, The
City of Jerusalem, p. 18f.).
(g) Sites associated with the Virgin. Besides
the tradition of the Dormitio Sanctce Maries, the
scene of the Virgin's death, in proximity to the
Ccenaculum, the Tomb of the Virgin is marked by
a church, originating in the 5th cent., in the valley
of the Kidron, outside St. Stephen's Gate (Sanday,
Sacred Sites, p. 85).
(h) The scene of the Ascension. Discarding Lk
24 50 , Christian tradition early laid hold upon the
summit of the Mount of Olives (cf. Ac I 12 ) as the
scene of the Ascension. The motive for this will
be understood from what has been written by
Eusebius (Demons. Evang. vi. 18 [Migne, Pair.
Grceca, xxii. col. 457 f.]; cf. Wilson, Golgotha, p.
' All believers in Christ flock together from all quarters of the
earth, not as of old to behold the beauty of Jerusalem, or that they
may worship in the former Temple which stood in Jerusalem, but
that they may abide there, and both hear the story of Jerusalem,
and also worship in the Mount of Olives over against Jerusalem,
whither the glory of the Lord removed itself, leaving the earlier
city. There, also, according to the published record, the feet
of our Lord and Saviour, who was Himself the Word, and,
through it, took upon Himself human form, stood upon the
Mount of Olives near the cave which is now pointed out there.'
Constantino erected a basilica on the summit,
where the Chapel of the Ascension now stands.
His mother, the Empress Helena, built a church at
the same point, and another, called the Eleona, to
mark the cave where Christ taught His disciples
(Watson, Jerusalem, p. 124). The latter has re-
cently been discovered and excavated (RB, 1911,
3. History. i. JERUSALEM UNDER ROMAN PRO-
CURATORS ; AGRIPPA i. AND AGRIPPA ii. (A.D. 30-
70). The writings of Josephus afford evidence that
it is possible to narrate the history of events in
Jerusalem during the Apostolic Age without re-
ference to the Christians. From our point of view
we must sit loose to the fortunes of the Jews as
such, in whom Josephus was interested ; but for
a due appreciation ot the history of the Christian
Church in Jerusalem a sketch of contemporary
events must first be given, special note being made
of points of contact with the narrative of Acts.
Pontius Pilate continued in office for some years
after the Death of Christ. At the beginning of
his term (A.D. 26) he had shown marked disregard
for the feelings of the Jews by introducing ensigns
bearing images of Caesar into Jerusalem. Later,
he gave further offence by appropriating the Corban
in order to carry out his scheme for the improve-
ment of the water-supply of the city and of the
Temple. Even though the work proceeded, Pilate's
cruelty in this instance was not forgotten and
helped to swell the account against him, which
resulted in his recall for trial (A.D. 36). Vitellius,
governor of Syria, paid a visit to Jerusalem at the
Passover of the same year, and adopted a more
conciliatory policy, remitting the market-toll and
restoring the high-priestly vestments to the custody
of the Jews. The procurators of Caligula's reign
(A.D. 37-41) may be left out of account.
The government now passed into the hands of
King Agrippa I., who ruled in Jerusalem during
the last years that the apostles as a body continued
there (A.D. 41-44). Agrippa had already rendered
service to the nation of the Jews by preventing
Caligula from setting up his statue in the Temple.
He was promoted by Claudius to be King of Judaea,
as his grandfather Herod had been. He journeyed
to Jerusalem, and as a thank-offering dedicated
and deposited in the Temple a chain of gold, the
gift of Caligula, in remembrance of the term he
had passed in prison before good fortune attended
While keeping the favour of the Emperor, he
also took measures further to ingratiate himself
with the Jews. According to Josephus, so good
a Jew was he that he omitted nothing that the
Law required, and he loved to live continually at
Jerusalem (Ant. XIX. vii. 3). His Jewish, or rather
his Pharisaical, policy seems to have been at the
root of his scheme for building the Third Wall,
and also explains his persecution of the Christians
(Ac 12 s ). His coins circulating in Jerusalem bore
no image, as an accommodation to Jewish scruples.
Outside the Holy City, however, he was as much
under the influence of the Graeco-Roman culture
of the age as his grandfather had been. After
his death, in the manner described in Ac 12 28 (cf.
Ant. xix. viii. 2 ; see art. JosEPHUS), Palestine re-
verted to the rule of procurators, so far as civil ad-
ministration was concerned. In religious matters
control was entrusted to Agrippa's brother, Herod
the King of Chalcis, whom tne younger Agrippa
succeeded. Hence the intervention of the latter
at the trial of St. Paul (Ac 25 13ff - 26). With one
or two exceptions the procurators who followed
were distasteful to the Jews, whose discontent
worked to a head in A.D. 66, when the open breach
with Rome occurred.
Under Cuspius Fadus (A.D. 44-46) the custody
of the high-priestly vestments was resumed by the
Roman authorities, and once more they were guarded
in Antonia, but this was countermanded upon a
direct application of the Jews to Claudius. During
the rule of Fadus and his successor Tiberius Alex-
ander (A.D. 46-48) the people of Jerusalem, like
their brethren throughout Judaea, were oppressed
by the great famine (Ac ll 28 *-), which Queen Helena
of Adiabene, now resident in Jerusalem (see above),
did much to relieve (Ant. xx. ii. 5, v. 2 ; cf. art.
FAMINE). In the time of Ventidius Cumanus (A.D.
48-52) the impious act of a Roman soldier at the
Passover season led to serious collision with the
Roman power and to great loss of life (Ant. xx. v.
3, BJl\. xii. 1). This was the first of a series of
troubles that led to Cumanus being recalled.
Antonius Felix (A.D. 52-60) Avas sent in his stead,
and under him matters proceeded from bad to
worse. Owing to the violent methods of the
Sicarii, life in Jerusalem became unsafe, and even
the high priest Jonathan fell a victim to their
daggers. Not only against Rome was there revolt,
but also on the part of the priests against the high
priests (Ant. xx. viii. 8). The events recorded in
Ac 23 and 24 fall within the last two years of
Felix's rule. Porcius Festus (60-62) succeeded
Felix, and died in office. In the confusion follow-
ing his death, which was fomented by Ananus the
high priest, Agrippa ii. intervened, and Ananus
was displaced, but not before James, the brother
of Christ, had suffered martyrdom at his hands
(Ant. XX. ix. 1). The date (A.D. 62) is regarded
as doubtful by Schurer (HJP I. ii. 187). Albinus
(A.D. 62-64) devoted his energies to making himself
rich, and under him anarchy prevailed, which be-
came even worse under Gessius Florus (A.D. 64-66).
His appropriation of the Temple treasures precipi-
tated the great revolt from Rome, which ended
with the Destruction of Jerusalem (Sept., A.D. 70).
Agrippa II. enters into the history of Jerusalem
during the procuratorship of Festus, whose services
he enlisted against the priests in their building of
a wall within the Temple area counter to his
heightened Palace (see above). Along with his
sister Bernice he sought in other ways, outwardly
at least, to conciliate the Jews. While Bernice
performed a vow according to prescribed ritual
(BJli. xv. 1), Agrippa showed some zeal, but little
discretion, in matters affecting the Temple. His
efforts at mediation upon the outbreak of hostilities
were in vain ; he was forced to take sides with
Rome, and appears in attendance upon Titus after
he assumed the command.
The harrowing details of the last four years pre-
ceding the Fall of Jerusalem, the factions, priva-
tions, bloodshed, and ruin, lie apart from the
history of the Apostolic Church, and are here
omitted. At an early stage of the war the Chris-
tians escaped to Pella beyond Jordan (Euseb. HE
III. v. 3), where they remained till peace was con-
cluded and a return made possible. This is usually
dated fully half a century later, after the founding
of the Roman city ^Elia Capitolina in the reign of
Hadrian (A.D. 136), but nothing is known for certain
beyond the fact of the return (Epiphanius, de
Mens. et Pond. xv. [Migne, Pair. Grceca, xliii. col.
261 f.]). Some would date the return as early as
A.D. 73 (see Wilson, Golgotha, p. 54 f.).
ii. THE CHRISTIANS IN JERUSALEM. Apart
from the Book of Acts there is little information
regarding the Christians during the years that
they tarried in Jerusalem. A not unlikely tradi-
tion gives twelve years as the period that the
Twelve remained at the first centre of the Church.
After that arose persecution and consequent dis-
persion. This may be dated in the short reign of
Agrippa I. (A.D. 41-44). Subsequent to this the
Church in Jerusalem, which from the first had
been Jewish-Christian, became pronouncedly Juda-
istic, perhaps an essential to its own preservation.
Up to the time of the revolt (A.D. 66), while there
were indeed conflicts with the Jewish authorities,
more or less coincident with interregna in the pro-
curatorship, there was no open breach. The sect
was tolerated, as others were, by the Jewish leaders,
so long as there was outward conformity to the
ritual of the Temple. The progressive movement
in Christianity was external to Jerusalem and even
to Palestine ; the Church in the metropolis of the
faith became increasingly conservative, and in the
end ceased to have any standing within the Church
Catholic. But this did not take place until the
post- Apostolic Age. Attention must be fixed
chiefly on the first few decades following the Death
of Christ, years in which originated much that
became permanent within the Church as well as
features that were destined to pass away.
(a) The disciples and the Lord. Throughout the
Book of Acts emphasis is laid upon the fact that
Christ had risen from the dead. So far as can be
discovered, the first Christians had no concern for
the scene of the Crucifixion nor yet for the empty
tomb. It was not until the 4th cent. A.D. that
these spots, so venerated in after ages, came to be
marked by a Christian edifice. The thoughts of
the early Christians were upon the living and not
the dead. They cherished the hope of the speedy
return of Christ to earth in all the glory of His
Second Coming, and reckoned that they lived in
the time of the end, when the fullness of Messiah's
Kingdom was about to be ushered in. This being
the case, they made no provision for posterity in
the way of erecting memorials to the Christ who
had sojourned among them in the flesh, and, as the
extracts from Patristic writers (see small type
above) reveal, after ' sacred sites ' began to be
marked, they were those associated with the post-
resurrection life of the Lord.
(b) Relation of the Christians to other dwellers in
the city. The desire to make converts to the faith
must have brought the Christians into contact
with their fellow-citizens and with those of the
Dispersion who chanced to be present in the city.
Their assembling in the Temple, for instance, was
not simply to fulfil the Law (Ac 3 1 ), nor yet for the
sake of meeting with each other (5 la ), but to work
upon the mass of the people through the words
and wonders of the apostles. Only by public ac-
tivity could the numbers have grown with the
rapidity and to the extent they did. Of necessity
this propaganda was attended by a measure of
opposition from those who were the traditional
enemies of the Lord. But, so long as Roman rule
was exercised, persecution could not make head-
way. While thus mixing to some extent with
other elements in the city, the Christians also lived
a life apart for purposes of instruction and fellow-
ship, and for the performance of the simple ritual
of the faith (Ac 2 42 12 12 , etc.). There is no evidence
that they possessed any special building like a
synagogue. A private house, such as that of
Mary, the mother of John Mark, would have served
their purpose, and according to tradition (see above)
this was the recognized centre. Even at the time
of the so-called Council (Ac 15 6 ) no indication is
given that the assembly was convened in an official
(c) Organization. Those who had companied
with Jesus in the days of His public ministry were
from the outset regarded as leaders in the Church,
and were in possession of special gifts and powers.
To the Twelve, who were Hebrews, there were
shortly added the Seven, perhaps as an accommoda-
tion to the Hellenists (Ac 6 1 ). This step probably
marks the first cleavage in the ranks of the Chris-
tians, as they began to be called, and paved the
way for the wider breach which in a few years
severed those at the ancient centre of Jewish faith
and practice from the numerically stronger division
of Gentile believers in other places. Harnack re-
gards it as possible that the Seven were ' Hellen-
istic rivals of the Twelve' (The Constitution and
Law of the Church, 30), the chief being St. Stephen,
whose adherents were persecuted after his death,
the apostles themselves being let alone (The Mission
and Expansion of Christianity*, i. 50 f. ; cf. Ac 8 1 ).
The appointment of the Seven reveals the fact
that in one respect the initial practice of the Chris-
tians had been tentative and could not be sustained.
The community of goods, which theoretically was
an ideal system, ultimately proved unworkable,
and was not imitated in other Christian communi-
ties. The poverty of the mother Church, which
continued after Gentile churches had been planted
at many points, has been regarded as the outcome
of this experiment, but it is likely that the causes
of this poverty in Jerusalem lay deeper than that.
G. A. Smith (Jerusalem, ii. 563) has shown that
Jerusalem is naturally a poor city, and he attri-
butes her chronic poverty to the inadequacy of
her own resources and the many non-productive
members her population contained. These condi-
tions were not altered in apostolic times. In view
of the circumstance that at a comparatively late
stage the further commission was given to St.
Paul and Barnabas to remember the poor (Gal 2 10 ),
i.e. at Jerusalem, this may conceivably be grounded
not upon special need but upon the analogy of the
tribute paid by those of the Diaspora to head-
quarters. 'The church at Jerusalem, together
with the primitive apostles, considered themselves
the central body of Christendom, and also the
representatives of the true Israel' (Harnack,
Mission and Expansion*, i. 330 f . ).
(d) The position of James, the Lord's brother.
More than any of the Twelve, who at first were so
prominent, is James, the Lord's brother, associated
with the Church in Jerusalem. He appears sud-
denly in Acts as possessed of authority equal to
that of the greatest of the apostles, and at the
Council he occupies the position of president. When
St. Paul visited the city for the last time he reported
himself to James and the elders. From extracts
of Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius, and from
Eusebius himself, we learn that James owed his
outstanding position to his personal worth, as also
to his relationship to Jesus, and it seems evident
that he was the leading representative of Judaistic
Christianity, of that section which by its adherence
to the Law and the Temple was able to maintain
itself in Jerusalem after others, even the chief
apostles, had been compelled to leave the city.
But James also suffered martyrdom (see above, 2,
iv. (e)). He was followed by his cousin Symeon,
whom Hegesippus (Euseb.) styles 'second bishop.'
There is great diversity of opinion as to when thia
appointment was made (Wilson, Golgotha, p. 55 n.).
The datj of his death is placed c. A.D. 107. As
Eusebius learned that until the siege of Hadrian
(A.D. 13 j) there were fifteen bishops, all said to be
of Hebrew descent (HE IV. v. 2), the tradition is
hard to believe. Harnack thinks that relatives of
Jesus or presbyters may be included in the number
(Mission and Expansion 2 , ii. 97).
(e) Effect of the Fall of Jerusalem upon the Church
there. The final destruction of the city in A.D. 70
is generally regarded as crucial not only for the
Jews but also for the Christians, not because the
latter were present at the time, but because there
had perforce to be a severance from the former
ways now that the Temple had ceased to be. But
the importance of this event has been over-rated
(A. C. McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, p. 546). As
regards the Church Catholic, the centre, or centres,
had already been moved, while the local church,
which escaped the terrors of the siege, was small,
tending indeed to extinction. The Church in ^Elia
Capitolina was Gentile-Christian, with Mark as
first bishop. It fashioned for itself a new Zion,
on the S. W. Hill ; and when in the 3rd cent.
Jerusalem became a resort of pilgrims, the ' sacred
sites ' did not include the Temple area, the Jewish
Zion, which indeed was regarded by the Christians
' with an aversion which is really remarkable, and
which increased as years passed by ' (Watson, Jeru-
salem, p. 119).
LITERATURE. (a) Contemporary authorities and Patristic
works are frequently cited in the article, and need not be
repeated. (b) Dictionary articles are numerous : HDB, SDB,
DCG, EBi, JE, etc. (c) Of topographical works those found
of most service are : C. W. Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy
Sepulchre, London, 1906 ; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, do. 1907-08 ;
L. B. Paton, Jerusalem in Bible Times, Chicago and London,
1908 ; C. R. Conder, The City of Jerusalem, London, 1909 ;
S. Merrill, Ancient Jerusalem, lx>ndon and New York, 1908 ;
C. M. Watson, The Story of Jerusalem, do. 1912 ; F. J. Bliss
and A. C. Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem, 189U-97, London,
1898 ; W. Sanday and P. Waterhouse, Sacred Sites of the
Gospels, Oxford, 1903. Other works not already cited: K.
Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, Leipzig, 1912, pp. 19-90 ; F.
Buhl, Geog. des alien Paldstina, Freiburg and Leipzig, 1896,
pp. 144-154 ; H. Vincent, Jerusalem antique, Paris, 1913 ft.
(a) Historical works : E. Schurer, HJP, Edinburgh, 1885-91 ;
A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic
Age, do. 1897, pp. 36-93, 549-568; C. von Weizsacker, The
Apostolic Age of the Christian Church 3 , Eng. tr., London, 1897-
98, bk. i. chs. i.-iv., bk. ii. ch. iii., bk. iv. ch. i., bk. v. ch. ii. ;
A. Harnack, The Missi,on and Expansion of Christianity in
the First Three Centuries?, Eng. tr., do. 1908, i. 44-#4, 182-184,
ii. 97-99, The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First
Two Centuries, Eng. tr., do. 1910, pp. 1-39.
JESSE ('Ie<r<ral). Jesse is mentioned in Ac 13 22
and Ko 15 12 as the father of David.
JESTING (etrpaireMa, Eph 5 4 ). That the Greek
word is used in an unfavourable sense is shown by
its association with 'filthiness' and 'foolish talk-
ing,' as well as by its characterization as 'not be-
fitting.' But in itself (being derived from etf, ' well,'
and rpbrw, 'I turn') it was morally neutral, and
originally it had a good sense. ' On the subject of
pleasantness in sport,' says Aristotle (Eth. Nic. II.
vii. 13), ' he who is in the mean is a man of grace-
ful wit, and the disposition graceful wit (evrpaireXia) ;
the excess ribaldry, and the person ribald ; he who
is in defect a clown, and the habit clownishness.'
And again (IV. viii. 3), 'Those who neither say
anything laughable themselves, nor approve of it
in others, appear to be clownish and narsh, but
those who are sportive with good taste are called
evrpdireXoi, as possessing versatility,' etc. This was
a characteristic of the Athenians, whom Pericles
praised as 'qualified to act in the most varied
ways and with the most graceful versatility ' (efrrpa.-
irAws [Thuc. ii. 41]). Aristotle admits that even
'buffoons are called men of graceful wit' (eiVpd-
ireXot), but questions their right to the term (IV
viii. 3). The nearest Latin equivalent "vrasurbanitas.
But gradually the coinage was debased, and evrpa-
ve\ia came to mean no more than badinage, per-
siflage, wit without the salt of grace; in Chry-
sostom's striking phrase, it was ' graceless grace '
(x<fy> fix*/>). See R. Trench, NT Synonym^, 1876,
p. 119 f. JAMES STRAHAN.
JESUS. This is the Greek form of the Hebrew
name Joshua ('salvation of Jahweh'), as we find
it in the LXX and NT writings. It is thus applied
1. Jesus Christ ; see art. CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY.
2. Joshua the son of Nun, who led Israel into
Canaan ; referred to by Stephen in his speech
before the council (Ac T 45 ) and by the writer to the
Hebrews (He 4 8 ). See JOSHUA.
3. Jesus surnamed Justus (Col 4 11 ), a Christian
convert of Jewish descent who was with the
Apostle Paul in Rome at the date of his writing
the Epistle to the Colossians. He is described,
along with Mark and Aristarchus, as a fellow-
worker unto the Kingdom of God and as having
been a comfort unto the Apostle. This reference
singles out the three mentioned as the only
members of the ' circumcision ' who had been help-
ful to the Apostle in Rome, and reminds us of the
constant hatred which the narrower Jewish Chris-
tians exhibited towards St. Paul, and also of the
failure of many of the Roman Christians to assist
and stand by the Apostle during his imprisonment
(cf. Ph 2 20 - 21 , 2 Ti 4 10 ). It has been pointed out
that the mention of Jesus in this passage by the
Apostle creates difficulties for those who impugn
the authenticity of the Epistle and suggest that it
is based on Philemon. If Philemon is genuine,
why add an unknown name which might arouse
suspicion ? It is extremely unlikely that an imi-
tator would add a name which so soon became
sacred among Christians (cf. A. S. Peake, in EGT,
'Colossians,' 1903, p. 546). W. F. BoYD.
JESUS CHRIST. See CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY.
JEW, JEWESS.-The term 'Jew' (Heb. nin;,
Gr. 'lovSaios) originally signified an inhabitant of
the province of Judaea, or, more strictly, a member
of the tribe of Judah in contrast with the people
of the Northern Kingdom of the ten tribes. After
the Babylonian captivity, however, the term was
applied to any member 01 the ancient race of Israel,
wherever settled and to whatever tribe he may have
belonged. Josephus, referring to Nehemiah's use
of the term in addressing the returned exiles, says :
' That is the name they are called by from the day
that they came up from Babylon, which [name] is
taken from the tribe of Judah, which came first
to these places ; and thence both they and the
country gained that appellation' (Ant. XI. v. 7).
The name is almost always regarded as a purely
racial designation, marking off all who belonged to
the ancient nation ; but as the nation was distin-
guished from the heathen world by its religious
views, the term came to signify one who was
separated not only by race but by religion from the
rest of mankind. The Jew himself preferred to be
called an ' Israelite,' as the latter was the name of
national honour and privilege (cf. art. ISRAEL),