The Virgin Mary in Ephesus

The following is an excerpt from the author's master's thesis on the religious history of ancient Ephesus, submitted in June 2007 at the University of Oxford. The history of devotion to the Virgin Mary and the building of the Church of Mary was central to my thesis, which is based on the latest excavations and conclusions published by the Austrian Archaeological Institute. Subtitles and links have been added. The text does not include discussion of the House of the Virgin because it was outside the scope of my paper. If the following is too daunting, you can just skip to the Conclusion!

I. Literary Evidence for the Virgin Mary in Ephesus

Another saint [besides John] who came to have historical associations with Ephesus is the Virgin Mary. This was a consequence of John’s accepted presence in Ephesus combined with Jesus’ explicit instructions to John to take care of Mary after his death (John 19:26-27).

Early Traditions of Mary's Life and Death in Ephesus

The first record of Mary’s association with Ephesus dates from 375, with a remark of Epiphanius of Salamis. Epiphanius was concerned to point out that although the Bible says John was leaving for Asia, it does not say that Mary went with him.[1] Since associations of John with Asia invariably have him coming to Ephesus, this brief mention ‘provides a rare and valuable clue’ that a legend of Mary’s life in Ephesus was circulating by the middle of the fourth century.[2]

This tradition also seems to be reflected in a letter written from the Council of Ephesus (431) to the Christians of Constantinople, which speaks of the arrival of Nestorius

in the city of the Ephesians, wherein John the Theologian and Holy Mary the Theotokos.[3]

The meaning is not entirely clear (the lack of a verb is unfortunate), but it seems to imply either that John and Mary both lived in Ephesus or were the chief saints of Ephesus, or both. Clive Foss regards the statement as confirmation of the former: that the legend of Mary’s death in Ephesus existed in the city by that time.[4] And we know from another source – the reference by Epiphanius in 375 discussed above – that it did.

However, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia readily admits, ‘the opinion that the Blessed Virgin died there [in Ephesus] rests on no ancient testimony’.[5] Indeed, these two references, from Epiphanius and the Council, ‘are the sum of the ancient contemporaneous evidence for Mary in Ephesos’[6] and both are indirect. Aside from these, there are no literary references to a legend, cult or church of Mary in Ephesus prior to 431.

Evidence Regarding Tomb or Relics of Mary

There is also no literary or archaeological evidence for either a tomb or relics associated with Mary in Ephesus, despite the fact that from the fourth century onwards, Christian pilgrims were shown every holy site that could be thought of (or invented).[7] And yet there are references to the tombs of John, Mary Magdalene, Timothy and others in Ephesus from a relatively early date. The lack of evidence for the Virgin Mary’s tomb is therefore probably not due to accident of survival but instead shows that the legend associating Mary with Ephesus was not the dominant legend.

Indeed, all early surviving legends state that Mary lived out her life and ‘fell asleep’ in Jerusalem. The Transitus Mariae, an elaborate and miraculous description of her passing, dates from the fourth century and there are eight extant versions.[8] All set her death in Jerusalem, including those that specifically mention John leaving for Ephesus.[9] The Euthymiac History contains an account of Mary’s death that may date from the later fifth century, and it also places her passing in Jerusalem.[10]

And the Empress Pulcheria, arguably the most ardent devotee of the Virgin in the empire, went to Jerusalem, not Ephesus, in search of relics. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, she approached Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem about the matter. He complied with her request for Mary’s belongings and the relics were transferred to the church built in the Virgin’s honour in Constantinople.[11]

Evidence from the Council of Ephesus

In the summer of 431, the Third Ecumenical Council was held in Ephesus. Among other matters, it discussed and confirmed the popular title ‘Mother of God’ as an orthodox description of Mary. This important council provides the earliest and strongest literary evidence for an association of Mary with Ephesus and is thus highly significant for the present study. A number of interpreters have regarded the Acts of the Council as containing evidence for the Ephesian population’s great reverence for Mary and their concern that she retain the title that gave her the most honor.

In his book on Cyril of Alexandria, John McGuckin argues that local devotion to Mary in Ephesus was a primary reason for the choice of that venue for the Council. John McGuckin declares that the real reason was that

Ephesus was the greatest Christian shrine dedicated to Mary then in existence. A place more likely to be antagonistic to Nestorius could not have been thought of.[12]

Similarly, archaeologist Stephen Karweise speculates that the Bishop of Ephesus and the Ephesian Christians offered their city to the emperor as a venue since they wished to secure Mary as patroness of the city to replace Artemis.[13]

Popular though they may be, such claims for extraordinary Marian devotion at Ephesus before and during the Council of 431 are simply speculation without any strong evidence. First, the notion that Ephesus was chosen as a venue in order to bias the outcome of the council fails to take into account Theodosius’ tendency to support Nestorius. In a document preserved as part of the Acts of the Council, Emperor Theodosius states his reason for choosing the Asian capital was its accessibility and abundant supplies:

We have chosen Ephesus as a city easily accessible to those who come by land or sea, bounteously providing all useful local and imported products to its inhabitants.[14]

This pragmatic explanation leaves plenty of room for speculation regarding possible other motives, but its simplicity should not disqualify it from being regarded as a truly significant factor. Another theory as to unspoken motives, offered by Vasiliki Limberis, is that the emperor’s sister Pulcheria chose Ephesus as the venue and talked the emperor into it. Limberis suggests that Ephesus would have been attractive choice to both of them. For Pulcheria, Ephesus was closely allied with Alexandria and therefore agreeably hostile to Nestorius, her enemy. For the emperor, Ephesus would be a see that could easily be subordinated to the effort at increasing Constantinople’s status over Alexandria.[15] This hypothesis is based in political motives that are well-known from literary evidence[16] and thus seems likely.

Speculations about Ephesus’ Marian devotion, on the other hand, have no real basis in evidence. We have already seen that evidence for a cult of Mary in Ephesus prior to 431 is almost entirely lacking. And in the council itself, not even the members of the pro-Theotokos party at the council record anything about the importance of Mary to the people of Ephesus. All that survive are brief and unclear mentions of Ephesus as a city ‘wherein John and Mary’ (discussed above), a description of the church that hosted the council as ‘called by some after Mary’ (discussed below) and reports that the Ephesian people enthusiastically supported the Theotokos party, to which we now turn. A letter written by Cyril of Alexandria to his home church describes with great joy the reaction of the Ephesian people on the day of the first session of the council, which lasted from early morning until late at night on 22 June. Karl von Hefele summarises Cyril’s narrative as follows:

The assembled population of Ephesus waited the whole day to hear the decision. When this was at last known, there arose an universal rejoicing; they commended the Synod and solemnly accompanied the members, particularly Cyril, with torches and censers to their houses. The city was also illuminated in many places.[17]

Other documents indicate that the Ephesians even formed a mob that treated Nestorius, John of Antioch, and other members of the anti-Cyrilline party with outright hostility and physical violence. Their houses came under attack, they were barred from all the churches and locked in their homes. Nestorius later described the scene in complaints written to the emperor and others:

They were taking bells round the city and were kindling fire in many places and handing round documents of various kinds; and all those things which were taking place were [matters] of astonishment and of fear, so that they blocked all the ways and made every one flee and not be seen, and were behaving arbitrarily, giving way to drunkenness and to intoxication and to a disgraceful outcry.[18]

Nestorius pointed out that this frightening mob was aided by none other than Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, and Cyril of Alexandria.[19]
This popular support of Cyril and the Theotokos title against Nestorius has been seen as yet further evidence for popular Marian devotion in Ephesus. Foss comments, for instance, that the city ‘rioted as enthusiastically for the Virgin as it had for her predecessor, the virgin goddess Artemis’.[20] Stephen Karweise states that the Council concerned ‘an issue which must have had great local importance for the Ephesian Christians’.[21] McGuckin goes much further, arguing:

The popular celebrations following the announcement of the deposition of Nestorius after the council’s first session cannot wholly be explained by the orchestration of the events by pro-Cyrilline clerics, for the citizens of Ephesus were wholeheartedly behind the propagation of the Theotokos title. For them the defence of the Mother of God was synonymous with upholding the honour of their own city whose Christian identity and prestige was inextricably linked with her cult… The Mother of God as patronesswould ensure that Ephesus had as glorious a future in the Christian oecumene as once it had in its now overshadowed past when it was dedicated to the Mother Goddess, Ephesian Artemis.[22]

But such an interpretation is not suggested anywhere in the Acts of the Council, nor in other contemporary evidence. Indeed, an examination of other literary sources related to Ephesus in this period yields a very different and far more likely explanation of the Ephesians’ actions during the council. First, it is significant that similar scenes of violence accompanied the Council of Ephesus in 449, which came to be dubbed the ‘Robber Synod.’ As in 431, the council was held in the ‘Great Church’ and the Ephesian people were highly interested bystanders who participated as best they could in support of Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria:

Armed soldiers had even been introduced into the church, the monks of Barsumas too, and the Parabolani (inferior deacons), and a great crowd of people stood around. In this way Dioscurus frightened them all.[23]

The Robber Synod thus provides another glimpse into the behavior of the Ephesian people, which can help to interpret their actions in the Council of 431. If the Ephesians supported Dioscurus and readily took up arms against the other bishops in 449 – which the text certainly implies – then their motives for enthusiastically supporting Cyril’s cause in 431 was not necessarily their concern for Mary. For the subject of the 449 council had no implications for the Marian cult, nor any theological issue that might be made readily understandable to the masses. It should also be noted that similar scenes ensued on at least three other occasions:

1. when the patriarch of Constantinople imposed his choice of bishop on Ephesus[24];
2. when, in 443, an Ephesian mob forced the ordination of Bassianus as bishop[25]; and
3. when John arrived in the city after being chosen bishop of Ephesus over the deposed Bassianus at Chalcedon in 451.[26]

In these cases, the motive seems to be pride in the city and support for particular factions. Similar motivations led to riots and sedition associated with the two main circus factions in Ephesus, the Blues and the Greens.[27] It seems clear from these narratives that, as Foss comment, Ephesus had ‘a population quick to indulge in acts of violence’.[28]

Furthermore, in determining possible motivations for the Ephesians’ support of the Theotokos party, we must not overlook the personal and social reasons they would have had for doing so. How exciting it must have been for the people of Ephesus to come face to face with eminent bishops, with their fine clothes, processions and attendants, who had traveled to the Ephesians’ beloved city from all over the Roman world. Even more, one can imagine the eagerness and excitement to participate in some small way in the solemn and important events taking place. The theological issue at hand need not have been personally important to the local people for them to want to get involved. And when it came to choosing a side, that of Cyril and Memnon was the natural choice, regardless of theology. Memnon was their bishop and one of the most impressive personages in their city, and his victory at the council would be a victory for Ephesus. Cyril of Alexandria was even more famous and impressive a figure. Furthermore, although not a local figure, he came from a city with long-established connections to Ephesus. Thus McGuckin is likely to be correct when he speculates as to the reason for the Ephesians’ hostility towards vacillating bishops among the council:

…this was taken with some umbrage by the Ephesian populace who, like all provincials in ancient cities, had little love for visitors who did not respect their local prestige, especially as it was epitomised in the wishes of their bishop, form them the authentic voice of ‘Ephesian’ Christianity. The vacillating brethren among the neutral group of bishops were certainly shaken by the hostility they soon began to encounter from the local people, for whom Memnon and Cyril were the heroes of the day.[29]

When we examine the matter in this broader context, taking note of both social considerations and other violent incidents in Ephesus, it becomes clear that the popular enthusiasm for the Cyrilline party is better explained in light of understandable excitement at the events and civic pride than as evidence of popular devotion to Mary.

II. Archaeological Evidence for the Virgin Mary in Ephesus

Archaeological evidence for devotion to Mary in Ephesus is also scant.

Ephesian Artifacts Featuring the Virgin Mary

A great many invocations to saints have been found scrawled on the walls of the ‘Grotto of St Paul’, ranging in date from the fifth to twentieth century; among these, the apostle Paul is the most frequent after prayers to Christ. Mary’s name appears in some invocations, but no more than other saints.[30] Among the wealth of fourth- and fifth-century terracotta lamps discovered in the Cave of the Seven Sleepers, there are many crosses and some images of Old Testament scenes, but none bears the image of any saint.[31]

A small, sixth-century relief found in the Church of St John is among the earliest images of Mary from Ephesus: it shows her holding the baby Jesus in her arms and bears the inscriptions ‘Theotokos’ and ‘Jesus’.[31] Other artifacts found so far in Ephesus bear images of Michael, Peter, Paul, John, and especially Christ.[32]  

The Church of Mary

The first certain identification of any church dedicated to Mary has been dated to the 530s based on a dedicatory inscription by Bishop Hypatius. It has long been assumed, and for good reason, that the ‘church so-called after Mary’ that hosted the council of 431 is this Marienkirche, which includes a bishop’s palace and was built in the south portico of the Olympeion near the Harbour Gymnasium.

The church’s eventual dedication to Mary is certain but, after recent excavations, its use for the council is not. When the cathedral of Ephesus was originally built and whether it was dedicated to Mary prior to or even during the council is a highly significant for the question of Mary’s popularity in Ephesus, so the evidence is worth examining in some detail. The earliest mention of a cathedral of Ephesus is in an account by Palladius of events taking place around 400 AD. The account details charges brought against Antoninus, bishop of Ephesus, and incidentally provides some information on both ‘the Church’ of Ephesus and the bishop’s palace.

The charges fell under seven heads; first, that he had melted down Church plate, and placed the proceeds to the account of his son; second, that he had carried away marble from the entrance of the baptistery, and used it for the improvement of his own bathroom; next, that he had set up pillars belonging to the Church, which had been in position for many years, in his own dining-room; fourth, that his servant had committed murder, and that he was still keeping him in his service, without bringing him to trial; fifth, that he had sold some land bequeathed to the Church by Basilina, the mother of King Julian, and kept the money….[34]

This is the only known literary description of the cathedral of Ephesus. Unfortunately, it neither indicates the location nor the dedication of the church.[35] But from it we do learn that it had a baptistery with marble at the entrance and pillars that had already been in position for many years. The narrative also indicates that the bishop’s palace in 400 AD had a richly decorated bathroom and dining room.

The next relevant literary evidence regarding the church comes from the documents of the Council of Ephesus in 431. In Cyril of Alexandria’s report from Ephesus to his home city, he tells his fellow citizens that ‘the holy council met in the city’s great church which some call [ή τις καλείται] Mary Theotokos’.[36] The wording here may well be significant. Stephen Karweise, for instance, suggests that the terms καλουμένη and επίκλην, when taken together, ‘seem to mean “with the second name of” – the terms indicate that Mary would have been merely an additional saint at the episcopal church.’[37]

[...]

The Acts also record that no fewer than 160 bishops were present at the Council from the beginning; 198 were present to sign at the end of the first session.[43] Presumably there were also soldiers, guards and assistants present also. The ‘great church’ would therefore need to be quite a large building. The individual sessions of the council were held variously in the Great Church or in the bishop’s residence: the first in the Great Church, the second and third in the bishop’s residence,[44] the fourth in the Great Church,[45] the fifth in an unknown location, the sixth in the bishop’s residence[46] and the seventh in the Great Church.[47]

The Acts do not say whether the bishop’s palace physically adjoins the Great Church, nor that the Great Church is the cathedral of Ephesus. However, both can be reasonably assumed. The only reference that has some bearing on the proximity of the two is an account in which Count John, who was sent by the emperor to arrest all parties and arrived in early August, had some difficulty locating Memnon. Finally, ‘he had proceeded to the church for prayer, and when he learned that Memnon was still at the episcopal residence, he immediately summoned him’.[48] But in general, the Acts do not provide nearly as many clues as we would like as to the identity of the Council Church.

The council held in Ephesus in 449, a controversial affair that was soon dubbed the ‘Robber Synod’, is also worth brief consideration, for it too was held in the Church of Mary. The Robber Synod opened on 8 August 449, and was very short, perhaps just one eventful day or few days.[49] Presumably this is the same Church of Mary that hosted the 431 council, but this connection is not explicitly made in the records. The Acts give the number of bishops as 135.[50] According to witnesses, those who refused to sign Bishop Dioscurus’ doctrine were ‘shut up in the church until night’.[51]

So in 449, there was still a church named for Mary that was fit to be used for a council and it was built such that a large group of people could be locked into it. In other words, if this Church of Mary was built into a Roman stoa or portico, the walls must have been in place by this time.
The archaeological evidence is more plentiful than the literary record, but it centres entirely around a Church of Mary whose construction now appears to post-date the council. The earliest Austrian excavations of the Marienkirche were reported in 1932 in Forschungen in Ephesos. Josef Keil and F. Knoll theorised that there had been four building phases on the site:[52]

1. Mouseion. A 265-meter-long Roman stoa or basilica was built with three aisles, an apse in both ends, and niches in its outer walls. This was identified as the Mouseion known from inscriptions.
2. Säulenkirche. A church was built into the stoa’s western half with an added great apse in the centre of the stoa. It was a three-aisled basilica on columns with a huge atrium, exonarthex and esonarthex on the west front and an octagonal baptistery on the north. This was dated to the time of Constantine I (ruled in the East 324-337)
3. Kuppelkirche. The basilica was replaced with a shorter building that no longer included the eastern apse, built completely of bricks and with a vaulted roof. This was dated to the seventh century.
4. Pfeilerkirche. After the collapse of the vaulted brick church, the east part with apse was reused, but now with pillars instead of columns.

This chronology became the accepted view, although scholarly opinion varied on the identity of the original Roman building and on the dating of the Säulenkirche.[53] The early dating (which ranged across various dates in the fourth century) was based primarily on stylistic similarities with other churches from that era.[54] Deichmann also argued for an early date on the grounds that the church was the cathedral of Ephesus, that such a building would be needed since the early fourth century, and that no other structure has been found which could be identified as the cathedral of that time.[55] Since much of Ephesus remains to be excavated, this latter reasoning is hardly convincing. Because of such uncertainty, in 1984 Hermann Vetters asked Stefan Karweise to begin new archaeological excavations of the site. This was undertaken from 1984 to 1986 and again from 1990 to 1993, and the results have revolutionised the history of the building.[56] Based on stratigraphic evidence, Karweise has concluded that this church cannot have been used for the council of 431:

In a trench outside the church wall, secure evidence was found in the foundation ditch proving that the church was not built as early as the period of Constantine nor even in 431, but several decades later.[57]

Archaeological evidence from sherds and coins has proven beyond doubt that the lateral walls, consisting of huge limestone blocks which might have come from the foundations of the Olympeion, were not erected before about 500. Since these walls closed the open sides of the Roman stoa, they belong to the time when the church was founded. The Constantinian date… must be rejected… and instead a date in the reign of Anastasius I [491-530] must be employed. Similarly, it is clear that the block walls did not replace older church walls, since there is no evidence of this. The dates of the baptistery and narthexes have not yet been verified.[58]

Commenting on this revised dating, Peter Scherrer notes, ‘It is evident that this late date causes numerous problems’ and that ‘the use of various spoils in the building of the church and the dating of the church itself awaits further investigation’.[59] Karweise apparently also dates the adjoining bishop’s palace to after the council, despite the discovery of 56 coins on the floor that from as early as 359 AD. He states that both the Church of Mary and the bishop’s palace mentioned in the Acts of the Council ‘must be buildings we do not yet know, as those excavated are of a clearly later date’.[60]

This new late date obviously raises a new question: Where was the Council of Ephesus held? One possible answer is that it was held in the Roman portico where the Church of Mary was eventually built. According to Karweise, this would have been an open building held up by columns, with no lateral walls and no great apse. The baptistery, narthex and bishop’s palace may have been built by that time. Despite his statement in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia that the council venues ‘must be buildings we do not yet know’,[61] Karweise seems to suggest in Gross ist die Artemis von Ephesos, published the same year, that the portico may indeed have been used for the council and dedicated to Mary for that purpose.[62] He notes that the drafts coming through the open walls would have been awkward, but may explain the complaints of diseases recorded in the Acts – perhaps some members suffered malaria caused by the council’s open venue near the increasingly marshy harbor.[63] Scherrer seems to suspect a similar solution, asking: ‘At the time of the council, had only the episkopeion been built? Did the meetings therefore simply take place in the portico of the Olympieion?’[64]

This hypothesis is problematic for several reasons. First, allowing even for rhetorical exaggeration, it seems hardly likely that Cyril would describe such a building as ‘the Great Church’.[65] It was hardly a church if it had no typical features like an apse and it was hardly ‘great’ if it did not even have walls. Second, as we have seen, the Acts of the ‘Robber’ Council of Ephesus in 449 indicate that dissenting bishops were locked inside the Church of Mary, where they had no fresh air and no means of escaping. This certainly seems to indicate the existence of side walls by then, although it is conceivable that they were locked in by the sheer number of hostile bodies surrounding the place. And finally, the scandal of the bishop in 402 indicates the existence of a fully-constructed cathedral church and episcopal palace at that time. Presumably this was acceptable to use for the council. If not, Bishop Memnon would have had seven months to construct a church for the occasion of the council,[66] and this is at least enough time to build walls.

It seems we must look elsewhere for the church that hosted the council, and since none of the dozen other excavated churches fit the descriptions, it must still lie undiscovered. Wherever it is, it is likely that the Council Church was the early cathedral described in 402, 431 and 449. It is highly doubtful that it was dedicated to Mary before the council. The dedication of churches to Mary was unheard of anywhere until the 430s.[67] The cult of Mary, as we have seen, only began to develop after 400 and was then centred at Jerusalem and especially Constantinople. Moreover, the language used to describe the dedication to Mary for the Council in 431 seems to suggest Mary was a secondary saint.[68]

By the turn of the century, the history of the ‘Marienkirche’ near the Harbor Gymnasium is much clearer. In an inscription of the Bishop Hypatius, which dates from the 530s, the building is clearly identified as ‘the most holy church of the famous all saintly and ever virginal Mary’.[69] This almost certainly functioned as the cathedral church used by Hypatius.

Interestingly, however, it appears that by the late sixth century, the bishopric was moved to the Basilica of St John. This is based on the addition of a secreton, where bishop presided as judge, to the Basilica of St John. Foss comments that this ‘apparently illustrates the elevation of the Church of Saint John into the cathedral church of Ephesus’.[70] This move is traditionally thought to have taken place after the Arab raids destroyed the Church of Mary in 654, but Foss comments: ‘the evidence now available, however, suggests that this removal took place much earlier, perhaps in the sixth century.’[71] Also intriguing, and related to the question of the bishopric’s location, are some fragmentary inscriptions of the Emperor Justinian that date from the same period. One of these was found near the Harbour and seems to be some kind of a decision in favour of the Church of St John.[72] Two other inscriptions, both found in the Church of Mary, suggest rivalry between the two churches. Both inscriptions seem to have similar content. In the one that is more intact, Justinian regulates the rank of the two churches, instructs against innovation, and commands Hypatius to pay sufficient reverence to the Church of St Mary.[73] Foss concludes that ‘These inscriptions seem to imply a tendency, possibly already in the time of Hypatius, for the bishop to establish his seat at Saint John’.[74]

Many excavations remain to be done and more literary sources may yet be discovered, but at present there is no compelling evidence that any church in Ephesus was dedicated to Mary before the council of 431. The cathedral was definitely dedicated to Mary by the time of Bishop Hypatius, and yet it seems the bishopric was moved to the Basilica of St John within just a few decades. We have devoted a great deal of attention to the Church of Mary because it has significant implications for the history of the Marian cult at Ephesus. On the basis of the history of the two great churches, it seems Mary was often overshadowed by John, whose relics had so long been revered on Ayasoluk.

III. Conclusion

In sum, this section has shown that there is no evidence for a thriving cult of Mary in Ephesus, either before or after the Council of Ephesus. There was a legend that Mary lived and died in Ephesus, but this was also true of Timothy and Mary Magdalene.[75] Mary appears no more than any other saint in the artifacts and inscriptions uncovered so far. Much remains to be discovered at Ephesus and much will never be known, but the current state of the evidence cannot support a conclusion, made by one recent scholar, that at the time of the 431 council, ‘Ephesus was the greatest Christian shrine dedicated to Mary then in existence’.[76]

Footnotes

Sacred Destinations Home     About     Contact     Using Images     Advertise     Blog     Twitter     Privacy Policy
Stock photos of religious art and architecture available for licensing: Sacred Destinations Images
Except where indicated otherwise, all content and images © 2005-10 Sacred Destinations. All rights reserved.

Sacred Destinations is an online travel guide to sacred sites, pilgrimages, holy places, religious history, sacred places, historical religious sites, archaeological sites,
religious festivals, sacred sites, spiritual retreats, religious travel and spiritual journeys.
Free content for your Google homepage or website! Get the Sacred Destinations Daily Photo Gadget

Travel resources: Spiritual Tour Directory, Sightseeing Tours, Hotels, Travel Insurance
Popular categories: Ancient Mysteries, Biblical Sites, Cathedrals, Catholic Shrines, Footsteps of Jesus, Luther Sites
Popular sacred sites: Easter Island, Lourdes, Notre-Dame Cathedral, Oberammergau Passion Play, Shroud of Turin, Sistine Chapel, St. Mark's Basilica, St. Peter's Basilica, Stonehenge
Popular city guides: Rome, Ravenna, Ephesus, Assisi, Paris, Jerusalem
Popular maps: England Map, Italy Map, Jerusalem Map, London Map, Paris Map, Rome Map