2. I defer here to Alexis, Doval's dating in Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: The Authorship of the Mystagogical Catecheses, North American Patristic Society, Monograph Series 17 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 2001), 27Google Scholar; also, Doval, , “The Date of Cyril of Jerusalem's Catecheses,” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): 129–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. For an excellent consideration of baptismal rites, Victor, Saxer, Les rites de l'initiation chrétienne du II^e au VI^e siècle: Esquisse historiaue et signification d'après leurs principaux témoins (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, 1988), regarding fourth century Jerusalem, 195–214.Google Scholar

4. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 13.22 (hereafter Cat.).

5. On the Lenten, Catechumenate, Dujarier, M., A History of the Catechumenate: The First Six Centuries, trans. Haasl, E. (New York: Sadlier, 1979)Google Scholar; also Dujarier, , Le parrainage des adultes aux trois premiers siécles de l'Église; recherche historique sur l'évolution des garanties et des étapes catéchuménales avant 313 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1962)Google Scholar. An older but very thorough source, Puniet, P. de, “Catéchuménat,” Dictionnaire d'archéologie de chrétienne et de litugie II, 2, Paris (1910), cols. 2579–621Google Scholar. Regarding Cyril's own Lenten, Catechumenate, Doval, A., Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue, 25–57Google Scholar; Yarnold, E., Cyril of Jerusalem (London: Routledge, 2000), 34–40.Google Scholar

6. Worth noting are the brief but insightful remarks of Smith, Jonathon Z. concerning Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre's fusion of story, ritual, and place in the construction of Christian identity: Jonathon Z. Smith, To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 86 ff.Google Scholar

7. Life of Constantine 3.29–40 (hereafter Vita Const.) [Averil, Cameron and Stuart, Hall, trans., Eusebius: Life of Constantine (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999)]Google Scholar; In Praise of Constantine, 11–18 [Harold, Drake, trans., In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Orations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976)].Google Scholar

8. Ze'ev, Rubin, “The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Conflict Between the Sees of Caesarea and Jerusalem,” in Jerusalem Cathedra 2, ed. Lee, Levine (Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1982), 85, refers to it as “baffling”Google Scholar; Hunt, E. D., Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, A.D. 312–460 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 12Google Scholar, uses the word “puzzling.” See the relative comments of Walker, P., Holy City, Holy Places?: Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), esp. 253, who asks “How could Eusebius possibly have missed such an important and singular phenomenon?”Google Scholar

9. Eusebius does identify Golgotha, “the place of the skull,” in his Onamasticon, 74.19–21; likewise, the Bordeaux pilgrim (Itin. Burd. 594) mentions Golgotha in the following manner: “the hillock Golgotha where the Lord was crucified, and about a stone's throw from it the vault where they laid His body”: Itinerarium Burdigalense, ed. Geyer, P. and Cuntz, O., Itineraria et Alia Geographica, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 175 (Turnhout: Typographi Brepols, 1965), 1–26Google Scholar; John, Wilkinson, trans., Egeria's Travels (Warminster, U.K.: Aris and Philips, 1999), 31.Google Scholar

10. Walker, P., Holy City, 272–3. Cat. 14.5.Google Scholar

11. Walker, P., Holy City, 272.Google Scholar

12. Cat. 1.1; 4.14; 5.10; 10.19; 13.26, 32; 23.23, 28. See the comments of Walker, P., Holy City, 254.Google Scholar

13. Cat. 14.5; cf. 13.35.

14. Walker, P., Holy City, 246Google Scholar, points to Cyril's recurrent use of the phrase “to this day” (μέχρι σήμερον) to create “a sense (for Christians) of unbroken and unmediated contact with Christ.” With great theoretical depth, Georgia, Frank, Memory of the Eyes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 54–55Google Scholar, considers the manner in which the author(s) of the Historia Monachorutn, Apophthegmata patrum and other exempla of pilgrimage literature consciously encouraged a sense of “temporal displacement” in the depiction of desert asceticism. By infusing the monks' lives with events paralleling the miracles and actions of biblical characters, authors effectively situated these holy men in “another age.” Robert, Wilken, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992), 90–92, also notes the importance of the reconceptualization of historical time in the practices of pilgrimage and relic veneration.Google Scholar

15. This is not to suggest that Cyril was alone in weaving a vivid exegesis pertaining to Christ's passion. Indeed, visually evocative language can be found in many church fathers' sermons of the passion. What I am arguing here, however, is that Cyril applied fourth-century exegetical tools toward a political end, stamping Golgotha with a theological meaning markedly different from that of Constantine and Eusebius.

16. For example, In Praise of Constantine 2.1–5, 3.5–4; On Christ's Sepulchre 12.1–6.

17. On Christ's Sepulchre 5.1–5.

18. Frank, G., Memory of the Eyes, 17, also 16–29.Google Scholar

19. For this phrase, see Annabell, Wharton, Refiguring the Post Classical City: Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem, and Ravenna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 76–85.Google Scholar

20. On the particular difficulties facing the fourth-century church—for example, the growing numbers of converts and their character—, Dujarier, M., A History of the Lenten Catechumenate, 77–111Google Scholar; Doval, A., Cyril of Jerusalem: Mystagogue, 30–31Google Scholar; Paul, Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 116–17, 172Google Scholar; Thomas, Finn, From Death to Rebirth: Ritual and Conversion in Antiquity (New York: Paulist, 1997), 188–90, 192–93. Also Cyril's own comments regarding catechumens' questionable motivations for baptism, Protocatachesis 17.4.Google Scholar

21. For catechetics and baptismal practices prior to the fourth century, see the earlier third-century church manuals, for example, Didascalia and Hippolytus of Rome's Apostolic Tradition. A helpful collection of translated excerpts can be found in Finn, Thomas A., Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: West and East Syria, Message of the Fathers of the Church (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1992).Google Scholar

22. Ambrose, , De sacramentis, De mysteriis, Explanatio symboli ad competentes [Bernard, Botte, ed., Sources Chrétiennes 25 (1961)]Google Scholar; John, Chrysostom, Catecheses 1–8 [Antoine, Wenger, ed., Sources Chrétiennes 50 (1957)]Google Scholar; Catecheses 3, 9–11 [Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A., ed., Varia Graeca Sacra, Subsidia Byzantina 6 (Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1975)]Google Scholar; Catecheses 9, 12 [Montfaucon, , Patrologia Cursus Completus: Series Graeca (hereafter PG), vol. 49 (1862), 221–40]Google Scholar; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses 1–18 [Reischl, W. C. and Rupp, J., ed., Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia, 2 vols. (Munich: G. Keck, 1848/1860)]Google Scholar; Catechèses mystagogiques [A., Piédagnel, ed., Sources Chrétiennes 126 (1966)]Google Scholar; Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catecheses [Tonneau, R. and Devressee, R., ed., Les homelies catéchétiques de Théodore de Mopsueste (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana [Studi e Testi 145], 1949)].Google Scholar

23. Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus eos qui different baptismum (PG 46.415–32); Gregory of Nazianzus, Or 40 (PG 36.360–425); Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 46. Addressing issues of the ritualization and indoctrination described in Augustine's catecheses, William, Harmless, Augustine and the Catechumenate (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1995).Google Scholar

24. See the comments of Annabell, Wharton, Refiguring the Post Classical City, 76–85.Google Scholar

25. Frank, G., Memory of the Eyes, 16, offers this phrase to speak of the strategies of visual piety generated in this time period.Google Scholar

26. Egeria, Itin. 37. For Cyril's promotion of the cross to gain political and ecclesiastical advantage, see Jan Willem, Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 153–76Google Scholar. Drijvers presents a strong and convincing case for the symbolic centrality of the cross to Cyril's ecclesial ambitions for Jerusalem. This chapter draws directly from his earlier article, “Promoting Jerusalem: Cyril and the True Cross,” in Portraits of Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient, ed. Jan Willem, Drijvers and Watt, John W., Religions in the Greco-Roman World, 137 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 79–95.Google Scholar

27. Aelia's transformation into the Christian city Jerusalem: the most thorough discussion is Drijvers, J. W., Cyril of Jerusalem, 1–30Google Scholar. Cf. Averil, Cameron and Stuart, Hall, Eusebius: Life of Constantine, 132–38, 273–94Google Scholar; Jerome, Murphy-O'Connor, “Pre-Constantinian Christian Jerusalem,” in The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, ed. A., O'Mahony, Gunner, G., and Hintland, K. (London: Scorpion Cavendish, 1995), 3–13Google Scholar; Wilken, Robert L., The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992), 83–289Google Scholar; Rudolf, Leeb, Konstantin und Christus: Die Verchristlichung der imperialen Repräsentation unter Konstantin dem Grossen als Spiegel seiner Kirchenpolitik und seines Selbstverständnisses als christlicher Kaiser (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1992), esp. 86–92.Google Scholar

28. For a description of Christian practice in Palestine prior to Constantine, see Heyer, F., Kirchengeschichte des Heiligen Landes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984), 7–26Google Scholar. For Aelia Capitolina's geography: Tsafrir, Y., “Jerusalem,” in Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst, ed. Wessel, K. and Restle, M. (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1966), 525–615.Google Scholar

29. Eusebius, Vita.Const. 26.3; Jerome, Ep. 58.3, contends that the temple of Venus stood above Golgotha, while a statue of Jupiter was at the site of the resurrection. Conversely, coins excavated in this vicinity portray two temples to Tyche. For an alternative theory in light of this archeological evidence, see Biddle, M., The Tomb of Christ (Stroud, U.K.: Sutton, 1999), 56–57Google Scholar. Finally, in a consideration of both canonical gospels and New Testament apocrypha, Taylor, Joan E., “Golgotha: A Reconsideration of the Evidence for the Sites of Jesus' Crucifixion and Burial,” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 180–203, has argued that the crucifixion actually took place further south than Christian tradition has suggested; likewise, the phrase “Golgotha” in biblical accounts more accurately indicates a large vicinity as opposed to a specific location.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Melito, , Paschal Homily 94, cf. 71.Google Scholar

31. Epiphanius of Salamis, De mensurius et ponderibus 15 (PG 43.262).

32. Walker, P., “Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the 4th Century,” in The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, ed. Mahony, A. and others, 24–25Google Scholar, contends that Macarius, taking advantage of Eusebius's unpopularity at Nicaea, planned privately with Constantine regarding the excavations in search of Christ's tomb. For an excellent discussion of Caesarean-Jerusalem tensions at this time, see Mahony, and others, Holy City, 275–81Google Scholar. Cf. Coüasnon, C., The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 12–13.Google Scholar

33. Eusebius, of course, removes Macarius from the equation, claiming that Constantine was moved by “divine inspiration” and ordered that the site under the temple of Venus should be excavated to a great depth (Vita. Const. 3.26.5). Walker, P., Holy City, 276 ff.Google Scholar, notes, however, that Macarius's involvement is easily detected in Constantine's letter to the Jerusalem bishop, which Eusebius encloses in Vita Const. 3.30–32. Basing his argument on the earlier study by Drake, H., “Eusebius on the True Cross,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36: 1–22, esp. 8–11Google Scholar, Walker hypothesizes that Eusebius's omission regarding the cross's discovery may relate directly to his conflict with Macarius. Cf. Rubin, Z., “The Church of the Holy Sepulcher,” 87, who draws similar conclusions.Google Scholar

34. Walker, P., Holy City, 271Google Scholar. The authenticity of the site is not our concern here, though the debate surrounding the issue, which dates back to the nineteenth century, has enjoyed a recent resurgence. For example, Wharton, A., Refiguring the Post-Classical City, 90–94Google Scholar, claims that the Eusebian narrative regarding the tomb's discovery “has been uncritically absorbed into the history of Jerusalem” by “modern rationalist apologists.” Wharton chides such scholars for their “ideological blindness” to the “narratives of sacredness woven within the material remains of Jerusalem,” which “are politically loaded.” In direct contrast to this viewpoint, Biddle, M., The Tomb of Christ, 63–66Google Scholar, remarks that the tomb—most likely accessible until 135 c.e.—could have been marked by graffiti. He adds that scholars such as Wharton, and Joan, Taylor, Christians and Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993)Google Scholar, who dismiss the site's possible authenticity, betray “a profound misconception of the importance of traditional location in the organization of sacred space.” Cf. the comments of Rubin, Z., “The Church of the Holy Sepulcher,” 85, n. 21Google Scholar; also Walker, P., Holy City, 241–52.Google Scholar

35. Krautheimer, R., “The Constantinian Basilica,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: passim. Similar remarks, Krautheimer, , Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4th ed. (New York: Penguin, 1986), 39–63Google Scholar; Leeb, R., Konstantin und Christus, 86–92Google Scholar; Yarnold, E., “Who Planned the Churches at the Christian Holy Places in the Holy Land?” Studia Patristica 18 (1985): 105–9Google Scholar. A thorough discussion of Constantine's architecture in Jerusalem in light of archeological research and restoration activity, Kretschmar, G., Jerusalemer Heiligtumstraditionen in altkirchlicher und frühislamischer Zeit (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987), 30–62, 77–81.Google Scholar

36. Krautheimer, R., “Constantinian Basilica,” 127.Google Scholar

37. Ibid., 139.

38. For a solid discussion of these building projects as well as an extensive bibliography, see Leeb, R., Konstantin und Christus.Google Scholar

39. Kenneth, Holum, “Hadrian and St. Hellena: Imperial Travel and the Origins of Christian Holy Land Pilgrimage,” in The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Ousterhout, R. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 66–84.Google Scholar

40. Eusebius, , Vita Const. 3.29–40Google Scholar. Cameron, and Hall, suggest a date between 326–27 c.E. for the excavationGoogle Scholar; Constantine's letter would have followed soon after: Cameron, and Hall, , Eusebius: Life of Constantine, 274–76.Google Scholar

41. Eusebius, Vita Const. 3.31.

42. Krautheimer, R., Early Christian Art, 63; Eusebius, Vita Const. 3.40.Google Scholar

43. See the comments of Hunt, E. D., Holy Land Pilgrimage, 19Google Scholar ff. An excellent discussion of the development of stational liturgy in Jerusalem is available in John, Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 228 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987), 45–102, esp. 45–48, 83–104.Google Scholar

44. On the alterations to the tomb and the Anastasis's construction, see Biddle, M., The Tomb of Christ, 65–69Google Scholar. Cf. Walker, P., Holy City, 235–81, regarding the relationship between the tomb's construction and Eusebius's resurrection theology.Google Scholar

45. Oleg, Grabar, The Mediation of Ornament (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Pierre, Maraval, Lieux Saints et pèlerinages d'Orient: Histoire et géographie des origins à la conauête arabe (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1985), 199–202Google Scholar. On the Martyrium, in particular, see the descriptions of Eusebius, Vita Const. 3.33–40 and Egeria, Itin. 25.9. For an excellent and comprehensive short study of the architectural spectacle of holiness in the fourth and fifth centuries, see Cynthia, Hahn, “Seeing and Believing: The Construction of Sanctity in Early-Medieval Saints' Shrines,” Speculum 72 (1997): 1079–1106.Google Scholar

46. Eusebius, Vita Const. 3.3440.

47. Cat. 14.9.

48. The Constantinian movement led to an identity crisis for many later fourth-century Christians. The cult of martyrs, to a great extent, developed in answer to the ideological dilemmas generated by Christianity's drastic move from a persecuted to a highly public and celebrated religion. See the general observations or Markus, R., The End of Ancient Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), esp. 21–24, 141–53Google Scholar. Kötting, B., Der frühchristliche Reliquienkult und die Bestattung im Kirchengebäude (Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Brown, Peter L., The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), esp. 69–85Google Scholar. Regarding the bishop's role in this development, see Sabine, MacCormack, “The Organization of Sacred Topography,” in The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Ousterhout, R. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 18–20Google Scholar. On the particular role of Christian literature in the creation of this aesthetic surround, see the intriguing article by Patricia Cox, Miller, “‘The Little Blue Flower is Red’: Relics and the Poetizing of the Body,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 (2000): 213–36Google Scholar; cf. Miller, , “‘Differential Networks’: Relics and Other Fragments in Late Antiquity,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998): 113–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. Miller, P., “The Little Blue Flower,” 222.Google Scholar

51. Frank, G., Memory of the Eyes, 18Google Scholar; cf. Frank, , “‘Taste and See’: The Eucharist and the Eyes of Faith in the Fourth Century,” Church History 70:4 (2001): 619–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. For a full discussion regarding the place of ekphrasis in late antiquity, see Michael, Roberts, The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989), 38–57Google Scholar; Roberts, , Poetry and the Cult of Martyrs: The Liber Peristephanon of Prudentius (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Martha, Malamud, A Poetics of Transformation: Prudentius and Classical Mythology (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989)Google Scholar. Cf. Georgia, Nugent, “Ausonius' ‘Late Antique’ Poetics and ‘Post-Modern’ Literary theory,” Ramus 19 (1990): 30–35Google Scholar. Indispensable is the consideration of ekphrasis in the spiritualization of Christian art and architecture by Liz, James and Ruth, Webb, “‘To Understand Ultimate Things and Enter Secret Places’: Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium,” Art History 14:1 (1992): 1–17.Google Scholar

53. In fact, the Byzantine rhetor, Doxopatres categorizes ekphrasis as an elaborate narrative [Rhetores Graeci, ed. Walz, C. (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1835), 2:509]Google Scholar. Regarding the close ties between narrative and ekphrasis in the description of art, see James, and Webb, , “‘To Understand Ultimate Things,’” 6–9.Google Scholar

54. James, L. and Webb, R., “‘To Understand Ultimate Things,’” 7.Google Scholar

55. Ibid.Nikolas, Rhetor (fifth century), Progymnasmata, Rhetores Graeci, ed. Felten, J. (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913), 2:69–70.Google Scholar

56. Quintillian, , Institutio Oratio 8.3.62.Google Scholar

57. Wilken, R., The Land Called Holy, 90–92Google Scholar, declares that after the discovery of Christ's tomb “sight becomes a component of Christian faith.” Cf. Asterius of Amasea, Hom. 9.2 [Datema, C., ed., Asterius of Amasea Homiles 1–14 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 116–17], and Christians become “spectators of history.”Google Scholar

58. Jerome, Ep. 46.5.

59. On Christian Rhetoric in general, Cameron, A., Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), esp., 47–88, 189–221.Google Scholar

60. Frank, G., “‘Taste and See,’” 621.Google Scholar

61. Jerome, C.Vigilant. 5Google Scholar; Miller, P., “‘Differential Networks,’” 129Google Scholar, who observes “those material bits came alive in the literary and artistic appeals that were made to the sensuous imaginations of the participants in this form of Christian ritual”; Miller, P., “‘Little Blue Flower,’” 216Google Scholar; Cf. Frank, G., Memory of the Eyes, 176Google Scholar. Markus, R., The End of Ancient Christianity, 94, notes that Augustine echoes Jerome's remarks.Google Scholar

62. A helpful discussion of the development of martyria, as well as the advance of a wider sacred topography, is Markus, R., The End of Ancient Christianity, 142–50. Also, Sabine MacCormack, “The Organization of Sacred Topography,” passim.Google Scholar

63. Basil of Caesarea, Horn. 19.5 (In sanctos quadraginta martyres) (PG 31.516) [Maguire, Henry, trans., Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981), 40Google Scholar]. See the discussion of this passage in Miller's, P. “‘The Little Blue Flower.’”Google Scholar

64. Miller, P., “‘The Little Blue Flower,’” 215, 217.Google Scholar

65. Helpful here is Frank, G., Memory of the Eyes, 160–70, who discusses the connection between biblical types and the physiognomic scrutiny of ascetics in great depth.Google Scholar

66. Ibid., 174.

67. The first-century author Longinus, de. Sub. 15.1–2, describes the visual relationship forged between poet and listener through language: “the design of the poetical image is enthrallment”—through language, the poet “almost compels his audience to behold” the image described. Hence the writing finds completion in the reader or listener's visual imagination. See Miller, P., “‘Differential Networks,’” 126Google Scholar, who describes the audience as “active pictorial imaginers.” On the corresponding creative visualization practices in the pilgrimage literature, see Frank, G., Memory of the Eyes, 19.Google Scholar

68. Asterius of Amasea, Ekphrasis on Saint Euphemia 4 [François, Halkin, ed., Euphemie de Chalcedoine: Legendes Byzantines (Brussels: Societe des Bollandistes, 1965), 5Google Scholar; Miller, P., trans., “‘The Little Blue Flower,’” 221].Google Scholar

69. All translations of Cyril are my own, unless otherwise noted.

70. On Cyril's catechetics, details of syllabus, date, development, and so forth, Doval, A., Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue, 29–57.Google Scholar

71. Cat. 13.38–39.

72. Cat. 13.22.

73. Cat. 13.8.

74. Ibid.

75. Cat. 13.35.

76. Cat. 13.15.

77. Cat. 13.35. Isa. 51:1.

78. Matt. 27:60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53.

79. Cat. 13.35.

80. Walker, P., Holy City, 272.Google Scholar

81. Pamela, Jackson addresses this vocabulary and its relation to Cyril's pedagogy and preaching: “Cyril of Jerusalem's Use of Scripture in Catechesis,” Theological Studies 52 (1991): 431–50Google Scholar; Jackson, , “Cyril of Jerusalem's Treatment of Scriptural Texts Concerning the Holy Spirit,” Traditio 36 (1991): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82. Cat. 13.17–21.

83. In Cat. 15–17, Cyril takes this a step further by reading New Testament eschatological prophecy into the present baptismal season. Baptizands quite literally become “Christian Soldiers” and are initiated into the battles against the Antichrist. For a thorough discussion of this point, see the dissertation by Kalleres, Dayna S., “Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ's Enemies: Ritualized Speech Practices in Late Antique Christianity” (Ph.D. diss, Brown University, 05 2002).Google Scholar

84. Cat. 13.28; Ps. 74:12.

85. Frank, G., Memory of the Eyes, 72Google Scholar. Cf. Jás, Elsner, “From the Pyramids to Pausanias and Piglet: Monuments, Travel and Writing,” in Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture, ed. Simon, Goldhill and Robin, Osborne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 224–54.Google Scholar

86. Ibid., 74.

87. Cat. 13.9.

88. Cat. 13.9; Ps. 59:6.

89. Cat. 13.25; Amos 8:9.

90. Cat. 13.12.

91. Ibid.

92. Ibid; Ps. 2:3.

93. Ibid; Isa. 3:14.

94. Cat. 13.13.

95. Ibid; Deut. 32:6.

96. Ibid; Isa. 50:6; Matt. 27:26.

97. Cat. 13.13.

98. Of course Cyril did not intend to dismantle ecclesial mediation altogether. He viewed his own role as Jerusalem's bishop as essential, particularly in his ability to teach initiates how to access the true power of Jerusalem's holy sites.

99. Cat. 13.14; Hosea 10:6

100. Cat. 13.15.

101. Ibid.; Cf. Jer. 12:7.

102. Col. 1:15–18.

103. 1 Cor. 11:3.

104. Col. 2:10.

105. Cat. 13.23.

106. Cat. 13.29; Ps. 69:21.

107. Cat. 13.29; Isa. 5:1–2.

108. Cat. 13.35.

109. Lam. 3:53.

110. 1 Pet. 2:6; Isa. 28:16.

111. Cat. 13.35.

112. Egeria, Itin. 37.

113. Cat. 14.10.

114. Song of Songs 11.12.

115. Gen. 1:2.

116. Cat. 14.10.

117. Cat. 14.5; Song of Songs 4.12.

118. Luke 24:37; John 19:39.

119. Cat. 14.12; Song of Songs 3.1; Matt. 27:52.

120. Hunt, E. D., Holy Land Pilgrimage, 19.Google Scholar

121. Egeria, , Itin. 37.Google Scholar

122. Most recently, Drijvers, J. W., Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and CityGoogle Scholar; Telfer, W., Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemensius of Emesa (Philadelphia, Penn.: Westminster, 1955), 24–29Google Scholar; Socrates, , H.E. 2.40Google Scholar; Sozomen, , H.E. 4.25.1–4Google Scholar; Theodoret, , H.E. 2.25.Google Scholar