Bishop of Jerusalem as Primate

Two questions:

1. What sort of events would have to take place for the Bishop of Jerusalem to hold primacy over the other major churches, due to being the spot of Jesus of Nazareth's death?

2. What effects does this have on the development of Christianity, the Church, etc?
 

Philip

Donor
First, the OTL Bishop of Jerusalem is a primate, the Patriarch of the Church of Jerusalem.

1. What sort of events would have to take place for the Bishop of Jerusalem to hold primacy over the other major churches, due to being the spot of Jesus of Nazareth's death?

The Church of Jerusalem was the foremost Church initially. It lost that position towards the end of the First Century, most likely due to the Romans sacking Jerusalem. Avoid that, and you have a start.

Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (and later, Constantinople) rose in prominence due to their secular importance as principle cities of the empire. For Jerusalem to take this path, it will require Jerusalem to be the most important city (in a secular sense) within Christendom. I think this will require a much smaller spread of Christianity.

I suppose it could become the first of equals through a compromise between the other churches, but that seems unlikely. Maybe extending the Crisis of the Third Century could accomplish this.

2. What effects does this have on the development of Christianity, the Church, etc?
The obvious answer is that damages Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction. To answer more than that requires you to first establish the POD (or at least the timeframe of the POD).
 
It would likely take a pretty biug POD, unless the primacy is supposed to be mostly ceremonial. The command structure of the church emerghed more or less in keeping with the Empire's administrative system. Jerusalem really didn't play a major role in that structure for the good reason that the city was comparatively small, had a bad history and a contexted present. Yes, the bishopric of Jerusalem would always become an important one on the strength of its apostolic foundation, its control of major pilgrimage centers and its length of tradition, but in an era when decisions on dogma and church policy were made in officialdom and around the emperor, it is hard to see how it can keep up with the likes of Antioch or Alexandria, let alone Constantinople.

That said, itz is entirely plausible for the See of Jerusalem (The Throne of James?) to claim that supremacy. Rome, too, developed the habit of doing so, on much less convincing grounds, and Rome had the historical good luck of being able to make it stick regionally. Perhaps if you hae Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate along with Antioch and Alexandria at Nicaea rather than later? I can't quite see Jerusalem pulling its own papacy, but a more important role for the Patriarch is certainly possible.
 
Here are 2 possible POD's:
--Emperor Constintine returns the bones of the apostle Peter to Jerusalem and builds a shrine upon the burial site.
--The prophet Muhammed is driven away from Jerusalem.
 
Here are 2 possible POD's:
--Emperor Constintine returns the bones of the apostle Peter to Jerusalem and builds a shrine upon the burial site.

I don't see how that makes suich a big difference. The theology of petrine succession is a big deal largely because Rome was so successful, not the other way around. Jerusalem has the Holy Sepulchre and Golgotha, it doesn't get any better in terms of prestige.

--The prophet Muhammed is driven away from Jerusalem.

hmmm. I think it would help more if thinfgs went the other way around. If the Muslim Conquest happens and Jerusalem falls, but Egypt doesn't, the caliphs may be inclined to support the claims of their patriarch over the other guys'.
 
Top