The Onomastikon of Eusebius
and the Madaba Map

by Leah Di Segni

It is the commonly accepted view among scholars that the Madaba map depends heavily on Eusebius' gazetteer of biblical places, the Onomastikon. 1 The point was clearly made by Michael Avi-Yonah in his edition of the Madaba map, and in fact it would be difficult, nay impossible, to give an account of the map's sources without continuously referring to the Onomastikon. One might even take the view that the Madaba map is but a 'revised edition' of the Onomastikon, illustrated and brought up to date by the addition of churches and pilgrim places that did not exist in Eusebius' time, and by the juxtaposition of additional sources for areas not covered by Eusebius, e.g. a map of the Egyptian Delta or a road map. Avi-Yonah's commentary in fact underlines Eusebius' contribution and minimizes divergences from his text, although he did recognize that in some instances the map followed an independent line.
On the other hand, it is perhaps legitimate to ask ourselves, if the apparent dependence of the Madaba map on Eusebius may not be due to the fact that these two are the only extant monuments of biblical geography, or at least the only ones that present a complete view of the Holy Land in late antiquity. Most of the entries found in both can be traced directly to Scripture, often through the mediation of Josephus, and they may refer to a background of Jewish and early Christian interpretation of biblical geography. We know very little about the actual contents of such interpretation, or which form it may have taken, but we do know that pilgrims relied on local guides, 2 and as pilgrimage became more and more common, itineraries, guidebooks and probably pilgrim maps began to be available. All this oral and written stream of information reflected the contemporary landscape of the Holy Land as seen through the eyes of local tradition. 3 So it is al least conceivable that, rather than the Madaba map mechanically depending on the Onomastikon, both the Onomastikon and the prototype of the map may have derived from a common cultural lore. It is therefore necessary to reassess the relationship between the two monuments of biblical geography on all levels: that is, considering not only the textual aspects - I mean 'textual' in a wider sense: identification of sites, their location, form of the toponyms and wording of the attached captions - but also the choice of entries and the general conception. Such a reassessment can hardly be made within the limits of this presentation, and I shall be content with indicating some possible directions of research.

As to general conception, at first sight one would say that the Onomastikon and the Madaba map have nothing in common but the subject of sacred geography. The Onomastikon was created to serve the scholarly reader of the bible, and especially of the Old Testament, and although Eusebius located many sites along roads or in relation to roads, this is for the sake of identification, rather than to guide a curious visitor. On the other hand the Madaba map, though given an educational significance by its exhibition in a church, is primarily conceived for Christian travelers, presumably for those pilgrims who desired to gain spiritual benefit by visiting churches and holy tombs. The Onomastikon is in encyclopedic form, the map in a pictorial one. However, the Onomastikon also shows marks of early pilgrimage, in spite of the fact that when it was composed Christian pilgrimage was still in its infancy - especially if we accept the early date proposed by Barnes. 4 The sites that were visited by the first Christian pilgrims who left written testimonies - the pilgrim of Bordeaux, Egeria and Jerome's group - are not only identified and located by Eusebius with the formula kai deiknutai eis eti nun and a reference to a road or other topographical data, but in some instances they are also given a visual commentary, e.g. in the case of Bethany (tomb of Lazarus), Bethabara (where many believers went for baptism), Bezetha (with a description of the twin pools), Beth Zur (where the presumed spring of Philip is described) and others. As to the literary versus pictorial conception of the Onomastikon, it is a debated point whether the text was or was not accompanied by a map. In his preface Eusebius mentions some earlier works of his, a katagrafe of the Holy Land, a distinction of the boundaries of the twelve tribes, a tracing of Jerusalem in graphic form (en grafes tupo), and a picture (eikon) of the Temple. The term katagrafe is translated by Jerome with chorographia, meaning either 'map' or 'geographical description', 5 while the 'tracing' (Eusebius uses the verb diacharassein) is described outright as pictura. Scholars have disagreed on the interpretation of this katagrafe/chorographia, some believing it to be a pictorial map, others denying it. 6 In a recent article, Benjamin Isaac has vehemently opposed the view, not only that Eusebius ever produced a map, but also that he used or even saw earlier maps: this on the grounds that he had no conception of coordinates and was therefore unable to draw or use a 'proper' map. 7 If so, we should conclude that also the artist of Madaba did not produce a map or had knowledge of such a thing. But 'improper' maps, without coordinates or scale, were the rule rather than the exception in ancient cartography: a mention of the Peutinger map and the topographical sketches attached to the Notitia Dignitatum will suffice to prove the point. 8 Eusebius' katagrafe included a division of the tribal boundaries - something that could best be done by pictorial means - and was closely linked to his pictura Ierusalem templique, in Jerome's words - so closely that we can well imagine a map of the Holy Land with an enlarged vignette of Jerusalem and the Temple in its middle, exactly as in the Madaba map. Therefore, I believe it is legitimate to conclude that the Onomastikon was based on a pictorial map, and some at least of its MSS may have circulated together with this map. If this is the case, the Onomastikon was more adapted for the use of pilgrims and a much nearer forerunner of the Madaba map - in conception - than would appear from its encyclopedic form. Moreover, Eusebius' division of the lots of the twelve tribes may have included the blessings of the patriarchs, that appear as a prominent feature in the Madaba map but are not included in the text of the Onomastikon.

In trying to assess the second issue, that of the choice of entries, we are confronted with three difficulties. One is the obvious fact that the space of the map could not possibly accommodate all the toponyms listed by Eusebius, not even those which were identified with extant sites and were therefore the best candidates to feature in a map intended for the use of contemporary pilgrims. The second difficulty is caused by the fragmentary state of the map and the consequent loss of many place names. The third derives by its being what we have somewhat irreverently called an 'improper' map: the lack of coordinates and scale causes the misplacement of several sites, so that the absence of a toponym from its rightful place does not necessarily mean that it was not included in the map: it may merely have shifted into one of the many destroyed zones. However, if we examine two of the preserved areas - the region north of Jerusalem and the triangle between Jerusalem, Lod and Eleutheropolis - some notable differences leap to the eye. The area north of Jerusalem is among the most crowded in the entire map, so it may seem quite natural for the artist to skip villages like Eduma and Machmas, especially as they were not on a main road, but it is odd that he should leave out Anathoth, birthplace of Jeremiah, celebrated by Epiphanius and Jerome, visited by Byzantine pilgrims and mentioned as a cult-site in both the Armenian and the Georgian Lectionaries, 9 as well as Thamna, the traditional place of Joshua's tomb, visited by Egeria, Paula and Arculf, and mentioned as a cult-site in the Georgian Lectionary. 10 At least, the map does depict a Thamna, located due west of Jerusalem, between Nicopolis and Modiin, and described as the place 'where Judah sheared his sheep', with no mention of Joshua's tomb. Both the location and the lack of identification of Thamna of Genesis with Thamnathsara of the Book of Joshua run against Eusebius' views. 11
Instead of the two holy places, Jeremiah's Anathoth and Joshua's tomb, the artist preferred to crowd in this area, besides the blessings of Joseph and Benjamin, which may possibly derive from Eusebius' mapping of the lots of the tribes, also a second representation of the mounts Ebal and Gerizim, called 'Tur' (transliterated Tour), 'mountain' in Aramaic, and located beside Neapolis, according to Samaritan tradition and in explicit disregard of Eusebius' statement. These mountains are already depicted in the map near Jericho, in the place assigned to them by Eusebius and Epiphanius, following the rabbinical tradition. 12 Nor can we invoke Christian contemporary realities as a motive for the double mention - namely, the presence of the church of Mary Theotokos built by Zeno and fortified by Justinian on the 'real' Mount Gerizim near Shechem - for there is no representation of a church on the mountain top. 13 On the other hand, the artist faithfully followed Eusebius both in distinguishing between Neapolis and Sychem, 14 and in locating Aialon, 'where the moon stood one day in the time of Joshua son of Nun', near Bethel, ignoring the correction by Jerome, who replaced it with Aialon near Nicopolis, in accordance with Jewish tradition. 15 By the way, in spite of his fidelity to Eusebius' identification, the artist caught the name wrong, writing Ailamon instead of Eusebius' Ailon (Jerome's Aialon) - or possibly he took both the location and the name from an unknown source, which agreed with the Onomastikon on the former but not on the latter. Aialon is located near Bethel also by Epiphanius in his Treatise on Weights and Measures, and possibly other sources followed this tradition. 16

In the triangle between Jerusalem, Lod and Eleutheropolis again the Madaba map notably diverges from Eusebius' list. The northern route from Jerusalem to Diospolis, the Bethoron road, is described in much fuller detail in the map, through a number of toponyms along or near it: The Fourth Mile, The Ninth Mile, Bethoron, Caphar Ruta, Modiin, Aditha: of these, Eusebius only mentions Bethoron, Modiin and Aditha. 17 The map also differs from Eusebius in giving the form Adiathim he nun Aditha instead of Adiaqthaim, Adithaim in Jerome, now Aditha, and Modeeim he nun Moditha, with the Aramaic form of the name, Modiith, found in the Mishna, but unknown to Eusebius. 18 We may note, on the other hand, that the map follows the Onomastikon in locating Gabaon not on the Bethoron road, like Josephus and Jerome, but near Rama, on the Neapolis road. 19
Lod or Lydda itself is never mentioned under this name by Eusebius, though he used Diospolis as a point of reference for various places. It is a curious oversight, since Lod, besides being an important centre and crossroads, appears in the Old Testament as well as in Acts 9:32-35, where St. Peter's healing of the paralytic, Aeneas, is narrated; the miracle was commemorated by Paula and Jerome in passing through the town. 20 The map remedies Eusebius' omission.
The rest of the road down to Jaffa is mostly missing, but seemingly it was also well illustrated in the map, judging by the remains of two village names, Sapharea and Betodegana, and of a sanctuary of Saint Jonas, associated with Jaffa where the prophet embarked on the Tarshish ship. 21 Of the two villages, Sapharea may be identical to Serifin of the Mishna; 22 as to Betodegana, the map reverts to an Aramaic form Beth Dagan which occurs in the Tosefta, ignoring both the form Beth Dagon of the Septuaginta and Maccabees, and Eusebius' Keparadagon. 23
Along the southern road to Diospolis, which passed through Nicopolis, the Madaba map ignores Kiriath Yearim, located by the Onomastikon at the ninth or tenth milestone from Jerusalem, visited by Egeria who associated it with the Ark of the Lord - an association celebrated also in the Armenian and Georgian Lectionaries. 24 The distance is sharply foreshortened, and Nicopolis appears as the first place on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. Curiously enough, and contrary to the consistent use of double names on the Madaba map - X which is Y - in this case the issue of identification is evaded. Nicopolis, former Emmaus, was identified by Eusebius and by all the Christian commentators after him with Emmaus of the Gospel, where Jesus broke the bread with Cleophas after the Resurrection (Luke 24:13, where its distance from Jerusalem is given as 60 or 160 stadia: the former, ca. 11 km, would fit Moza or Emmaus, later called Colonia, while the latter, ca. 30 km, would fit Emmaus-Nicopolis). 25 The silence of the map seems pointed: apparently its source preferred the reading 60 stadia and thus rejected the location of the meeting at Nicopolis. It is worth mentioning that one author, Hesychius of Jerusalem in the fifth century, discussed the question, whether Nicopolis was not too far away to be identified with Emmaus of the Gospel. Although Hesychius rejected the objection that the journey to Nicopolis was too long to be made in one day from Jerusalem and back again, 'because in their joy they went back running to announce the miracle', nevertheless the fact that the question was raised indicated that in Jerusalem at least not everybody was satisfied with the identification of Emmaus with Nicopolis. 26

Below the vignette of Nicopolis, that is, to its west, there are some place names that seem not to fit in with Eusebius' statements and may indicate the dependence of the map on other sources. Enetaba is not in the Onomastikon: Avi-Yonah left it unidentified, but it is very likely 'En Taba, according to Jewish sources a place near Lod, where the New Moon was announced after the destruction of Jerusalem: the modern toponym 'Ein Taba occurs to the east of the Nicopolis-Diospolis road. 27 Gedour he kai Gidirtha may perhaps be the same as Gedour, Gedrous, a village 10 miles from Diospolis on the way to Eleutheropolis according to Eusebius: in this case, the Aramaic form Gidirtha comes to the map from another source. 28 But Avi-Yonah wonders at the absence of Gezer from the Madaba map, and suggests that Gidirtha, possibly confused in name with Gedrus of the Onomastikon, was meant to represent Gezer, Gazara in Eusebius, Gazaris, Gadara in other Byzantine sources. 29 Its location in the map, on the hills just west of Nicopolis, would be exactly right; moreover, Avi-Yonah points out that the confusion of Gedor and Gezer has a parallel in Josephus. 30
West of Nicopolis the map marks Iabnel he kai Iamnia. The Septuaginta version (Jos. 15:11; 19:33) has Iabnel for both Yabneh in the Shephelah and Yabneh, Yabnith in the lot of Naphthali; Eusebius recognizes the form Iamnel (Iabnel in Jerome's translation) only for the town of Naphthali, 31 while Jerome uses Iamnel for the city in the Shephelah. 32 Again, the combination of names does not come from Eusebius. And a last divergence from Eusebius in the same area: Geth he nun Gitta, 'one of the five satrapies (of the Philistines)' is located in the map at the site of Gittham, described by Eusebius as 'a large village between Antipatris and Azotus' which represented ancient Gettha 'where the Ark of God was brought around from Ashdod' (I Sam. 5:8). 33 This presumes an independent unification of the two Gath of the Philistines in the map, against Eusebius' distinction of two different cities, and contrary to his statement that at his time Gath, one of the five city-states, was a village, 5 miles from Eleutheropolis in the direction of Diospolis. 34
Since Geth of the Philistines is now identified with Tell es-Safi, the Byzantine village that took its place, according to Eusebius, may have been the one called by the Madaba map Safitha - again an Aramaic toponym - and located northwest of the village called Bethzachar with the attached sanctuary of St. Zacharias, near Eleutheropolis. 35 Beth Zacharia is called Caphar Zacharia by Sozomen, who reported the discovery of the tomb of Zacharias the prophet there in his time, and Kefar Dikhria in the Jerusalem Talmud; so the map depends on neither one for the name. Eusebius does not mention the place. 36
When we follow the third side of the triangle, from Eleutheropolis northeastward to Jerusalem, along the Roman road that was the main route between the Holy City and the southern coast, we are somewhat surprised by the discovery that the whole territory of Eleutheropolis between the Eleutheropolis-Nicopolis and the Jerusalem-Hebron roads - a region thoroughly familiar to Eusebius and full of biblical memories - has completely disappeared. The only remainder is Socho, the double village of Sochoth on the ninth milestone from Eleutheropolis on the road to Jerusalem, traditional place of the battle between David and Goliath according to Peter the Deacon, probably quoting Egeria. 37 The foreshortening of the perspective in this area is so sharp that Socho is misplaced next to Rama, near Bethlehem. However, even if we could bring ourselves to consider the mention of Socho as a symbolic reminder of the important thoroughfare on which this village was located, the omission of almost the entire Eleutheropolis region seriously challenges the belief that Eusebius could have been the source of the map for this part of the country. And the foreshortened perspective is not a real reason, for there was space enough to include at least some token memories of this well known and well populated area. Instead, the artist chose to fill the vacuum with the large caption IOUDA.
I believe, therefore, that there are grounds for suspecting that in the triangle between Jerusalem, Diospolis and Eleutheropolis, and in lesser measure in the area north of Jerusalem - that is to say, in most of biblical Judah - the Onomastikon is not the direct source of the Madaba map, although the map follows Eusebius in many details. There is no need to add that the Onomastikon is not the source of the map as far as the area south and east of Gaza is concerned, as well as for what is left of Transjordan and the 'Aravah. In other areas we can point out yet other divergences between entries in the map and Eusebius' text as to throw a shadow of doubt on the derivation of such entries from it. Sometimes the divergence is minimal, possibly only a question of a different textual tradition: for instance, the Dead Sea is called thalassa he haluke, he kaloumene nekra kai asfaltitis by Eusebius, 38 while on the map it is styled Haluke he kai Asfaltitis limne, he kai Nekra thalassa the word limne, lacus, is preferred by Josephus and Plinius. 39 Again, Zoora, Segor is called by Eusebius Bala, 40 on the map Balak, with different treatment of the final 'ayn in Hebrew; Beth Zur is called Bethsour, nun Bethsworo in Eusebius, 41 while on the map it takes on an Aramaic ending, Beqthsoura, a phenomenon we have noticed for several other toponyms and which possibly indicates the use of an Aramaic source. The entry pertaining to Beth Zur also shows another difference: near the village, the map pictures a church with a round pool in front, accompanied by the caption: '(Sanctuary) of St. Philip, where they say the eunuch Candaces was baptized'. This formula refers to the story told in Acts 8:27-39 and is apparently derived from Eusebius: 'Here a spring is shown, flowing out of a mountain, in which they say the eunuch of Candaces was baptized by Philip'. Jerome adds the missing word 'queen' (eunuchum Candacis reginae). 42 Avi-Yonah explains the transfer of the name Candace from the queen to the eunuch with the need for abridgment, but this is hardly acceptable. 43 Apparently the artist or his source misunderstood the genitive Kandakes for a nominative accompanying ho eunouchos. This cannot have happened with the text of Acts, which clearly says 'a eunuch of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians', and does not give the name of the place. In this case, the mistake itself seems to point to Eusebius as the (misunderstood) source of the artist or of his source.
I have already cited cases in which Eusebius' location of a site is not followed by the Madaba map. This is hard to prove, because as we have seen, the map lacks coordinates and scale, and exactness in location leaves much to be desired. In some instances, however, the displacement seems intentional. This is obvious in the case of Bethabara, the place where St. John baptized, which Eusebius put on the east bank of the Jordan, according to the Gospel of John - although the name Bethabara is a correction suggested by Origen of the reading Bethania found in most MSS. The Pilgrim of Bordeaux also located the place somewhere east of the river, for he mentioned it together with the site of the ascension of Elijah. Egeria passed the Jordan without even mentioning the place of the baptism; apparently she had no clear idea where it was; and Paula remembered Jesus' baptism while looking upon the Jordan stream, but she too had no fixed spot to commemorate the event. 44 By the sixth century, however, a place on the western bank was identified as the place of baptism and a church and monastery dedicated to St. John were built there by Anastasius, as we are told by Theodosius. The pilgrim of Piacenza had the tradition already split into two: the place of the baptism on the west bank, near St. John's church, where the Theophania was celebrated on January 6, and the spring of St. John, two miles from the eastern bank of the Jordan, a centre of hermits. This is Sapsas, where a monastery dedicated to St. John was founded under the Patriarch Elias, and which is pictured on the Madaba map under the name of Safsafa. 45 Like Theodosius, the pilgrim of Piacenza and many other sources, the map put Bethabara on the west bank, disregarding Eusebius' tradition which was no longer accepted.
Another intentional change of the Onomastikon tradition perhaps occurs in the case of Iethira. Eusebius mistakenly identified two different biblical places, Ether of Simeon (Jos 19:7) and Yathir of Judah (Jos 15: 48) with Iethira in the inner Daroma, near Malatha. 46 The map shows Iethor he kai Iethera between Elusa and Gerara, namely, in the western Negev, suggesting a possible relocation of the Byzantine village and its alternative identification with Ether of Simeon; 47 but since Arad is pictured between Elusa and Beersheba, only slightly to the east, we are brought to despair of ever locating anything in the map of the Negev as portrayed by the Madaba artist.
Summing up, even when the contents of the Madaba map can derive from the Onomastikon without involving additional sources, an impartial checking of both the parallels and the divergences in given areas suggests that even when the map follows Eusebius in single entries, the whole picture it produces does not directly derive from the Onomastikon. We would postulate more than one stage of elaboration and adaptation, probably partly through written works (guidebooks and/or commentaries of Scripture), partly through pictorial maps, most likely maps created for pilgrims or for pilgrim guides. The existence of such a map has been suggested by Yoram Tsafrir as a basis of the De locis sanctis of Theodosius. 48


1 M.J. Lagrange, La mosaïque géographique de Mâdaba, RB 6 (1897), 181; A. Schulten, Die Mosaikkarte von Madaba (Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil,-hist. Klasse, NF IV, 2, Berlin 1900), 5-41, 45-51; R.T. O'Callaghan, Madaba, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Suppl. V (Paris 1953), 635; M. Avi-Yonah, The Madaba Mosaic Map (Jerusalem 1954: hereafter MMM), 31-32. Passages from Eusebius' Onomastikon, as well as Jerome's translation of the same, will be cited below by page and line, according to E. Klostermann, Das Onomastikon der Biblischen Ortsnamen, mit der lateinischen Übersetzung des Hieronymus, Eusebius Werke III, 1, GCS 11, 1 (Leipzig 1904).

2 Some of the information reported by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux seems to derive from local informants: e.g. It. Burd. 585, 7, 591 (CCSL 175, 13, 15-16). The guides were monks, members of the clergy or simply Christian natives: cf. Egeria, It. 10, 8-9; 11, 3; 12, 3-4; 13, 4; 14-15 (CCSL 175, 51, 52, 54, 55-56); Jerome, Comm. in Esaiam XI, 38, 4-8 (CCSL 73, 445); Comm. in Matheum IV, 23, 35 (CCSL 77, 219-220); Adamnanus, De locis sanctis II, 26, 5 (CCSL 175, 219). It cannot be excluded that Jewish guides were at work too, at least in places sacred also to the Jews. Jerome mentions several times geographical traditions of Jewish origin, although in most cases these did not derive 'from the field', but from his Hebrew teacher and his learned commentary of the Bible (e.g. On. 19, 16-17; 21, 6-9; 43, 4-8). On the Tiberian rabbi who taught Jerome, see Jerome, Comm. ad Paralip., Praefatio (PL 29, 401). For local Jewish and Jewish-Christian traditions, see below, n. 3.

3 Jews in the Second Temple period and in the Mishnah period had their own topographical traditions about tombs of prophets and holy men: see S. Klein, On the Vitae Prophetarum, Sefer Klausner (Tel Aviv 1937), 189-209 (Hebrew); J. Jeremias, Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Göttingen 1958); A.M. Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden I-II (Texte und Studien zum Antike Judentum 49-50, Tübingen 1995-1996). In 351, the tomb of James, brother of the Lord, was discovered in the Kedron Valley, and a chapel was built to focus the pilgrims' attention on the new holy place (see F.M. Abel, La sépulture de Saint Jacques le Mineur, RB 28 [1919], 480-499; and for later pilgrimage on the site, see Theodosius, De locis sanctis 9 [CCSL 175, 142]). This contrasted the earlier, (Jewish-Christian?) tradition that located James' martyrdom near the south-eastern corner of the Temple: cf. It. Burd. 591, 2-3 (CCSL 175, 15-16). Therefore St. Jerome forcibly rejected the inventio and the new topographical tradition: De viris ill. 2 (PL 23, 613).

4 E. Klostermann (Das Onomastikon, IX-X) dated the work ca. 330, but T. Barnes ('The Composition of Eusebius' Onomasticon, JTS, N.S. 26 [1975], 412-415; Constantine and Eusebius [Cambridge, MA 1981], 110-111) argued that it was written around AD 293.

5 The term katagrafe is used in the sense of 'drawing a terrestrial or astronomical map' by Ptolemy (Geogr. I, 2, 5; I, 4, 1; I, 20, 1, 3; I, 22, 5; VII, 6, 5, 15; VII, 7, 1), Diodorus of Sicily (Bibl. III, 60 2), Geminus Astronomicus (5, 45, ed. C, Manitius, Leipzig 1898), Clemens of Alexandria (Strom. 5, 7 [PG 9, 277]), Cosmas Indicopleustes (Top. christ. , Proem. 1 [PG 88, 53]). For chorographia in the sense of map, see W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, II, 3rd ed. (Leipzig 1917), no. 685, 71; Vitruvius VIII, 2, 6.

6 Schulten (Die Mosaikkarte von Madaba [above, n. 1], 41-45) maintained that katagrafhv here means 'list', and that no reference to a map was intended. Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, Archaeological and Epigraphical Notes on Palestine, PEFQSt 1901, 235-236, opposed this view and argued that katagrafe means 'drawing' and in this context - 'map'. O'Callaghan (Madaba [above, n. 1], 637) pointed out that the term used by Jerome is ambiguous and may mean either 'map' or 'topographical description' or 'list'. E. Z. Melamed (The Onomasticon of Eusebius, Tarbiz 3, 3 [1932], 314-316 [Hebrew]) showed that grafe is consistently used by Eusebius in the sense of 'drawing', and consequently katagrafe can only mean 'map'. This view was adopted by Avi-Yonah, MMM, 30-31, and by Y. Tsafrir, The Maps Used by Theodosius: On the Pilgrim Maps of the Holy Land and Jerusalem in the Sixth Century C.E., DOP 40 (1986), 136.

7 B. Isaac, Eusebius and the Geography of Roman Provinces, in D.L. Kennedy (ed.), The Roman Army in the East, JRA, Suppl. no. 18, 153-167, esp. pp. 156-157.

8 Cf. O.A.W. Dilke, Greek and Roman Maps (Ithaca, NY 1985), 39-54, 112-122.

9 Y. Tsafrir, L. Di Segni and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani. Iudaea-Palaestina (Jerusalem 1994; hereafter TIR), s. vv. Eduma, Machmas.

10 TIR, s.v. Thamna I, Thamnatsare.

11 Eus., On. 96, 24-26; 100, 1-3.

12 The Samaritan tradition is followed by Josephus (Bell. I, 63), the pilgrim of Bordeaux (It. Burd. 587, 3 [CCSL 175, 13]), Jerome in one place (Ep. 108, 13 [PL 22, 888]) and Procopius of Caesarea (Aed. V, 7, 1). Eusebius (On. 64, 9-15, and with him Jerome's translation) follows the rabbinical tradition (Sifre Deut. 56; TJ Sotah 21c: see P. Antoine, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Suppl. III [Paris 1938], 537-541; G. Reeg, Die Ortsnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen Literatur [Wiesbaden 1989],, 222-223), and so did Epiphanius (Haer. 9, 2 [PG 41, 225]; De XII gemmis, PG 43, 362) and Procopius of Gaza (Comm. in Deut. 11, 29 [PG 87, 905-908]).

13 Proc. Caes., Aed. V, 7, 7-17. On this church see Y. Magen, The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim, in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (SBF Collectio Maior 36, Jerusalem 1990), 333-342.

14 The earlier and better tradition, represented by Eusebius (On. 150, 1-3) and by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (It. Burd. 587, 2-588, 2 [CCSL 175, 13-14]), distinguished between ancient Sychem and Roman Neapolis, whereas Epiphanius (Haer. 80, 1 [PG 42, 757]; De XII gemmis, PG 43, 353) and Jerome (Comm. in Hoseam VI, 9 [PL 29, 871]; Ep. 108, 13 [PL 22, 888]) confused the two places. Cf. Avi-Yonah, MMM, 45-46, nos. 32-33..

15 Jerome, On. 19, 16-17; Ep. 108, 8 (PL 22, 883); In Hiezech. XIV, 48, 21-22 (CCSL 75, 739).

16 Epiphanius' Treatise on Weights and Measures: The Syriac Version, 65, ed. J.E. Dean (Chicago 1935), 72.

17 Eus., On. 24, 24; 46, 24-25; 132, 16.

18 M. Hagigah 3:5; M. Pesachim 9:2; cf. Reeg, Ortsnamen (above, n. 12), 400-401.

19 On. 66, 11-16 locates Gabaon near Rama and Bethel, against the better tradition represented by Josephus (Ant. VII, 283; Bell. II, 516) and Jerome (Ep. 108, 8 [PL 22, 883]). Eusebius seems to relinquish this view in On. 48, 9-10, where Gabaon is associated with Beeroth, described as 'a village on the road leading from Jerusalem to Nicopolis' (not the Bethoron road); but Jerome corrected the text into 'leading to Neapolis' (On. 49, 8-9). Indeed, Beeroth was probably el-Bire, near Bethel: TIR, s.v. Beeroth, Berea.

20 Jerome, Ep. 108, 8 (PL 22, 883) However, no church is mentioned by Jerome, and the Pilgrim of Bordeaux did not mention any sacred memory in Lydda: It. Burd. 600, 3 (CCSL 175, 20). Avi-Yonah identifies two churches in the vignette, one the famous martyrium of St. George, the other possibly in commemoration of St. Peter's miracle (MMM, 62, no. 62).

21 But the location of a sanctuary of St. Jonas here may reflect the tradition explicitly refuted by Jerome (In Ionam, Prologus [CCSL 76, 378]; cf. Avi-Yonah, MMM 63, no. 67), which located Jonas' birthplace near Diospolis. Both Eusebius and Jerome (On. 72, 25; In Ionam, cit.) located Jonas' birthplace and tomb at Geth Hefer, in Lower Galilee (see TIR, s.v.), following the tradition of the Vitae prophetarum: Th. Schermann, Prophetarum vitae fabulosae (Leipzig 1907), 105.

22 M. Menahot 10:2; Reeg, Ortsnamen (above, n. 12), 191-192; Avi-Yonah, MMM 62, no. 63; TIR, s.vv. Seriphin; Sapharea.

23 Tos. Ohaloth 3:9; cf. Reeg, Ortsnamen (above, n. 12), 98-99; Joshua 15:41; I Macc. 10, 83; Eus., On. 50, 15-16. Cf. Avi-Yonah, MMM, 62, no. 64; TIR, s.v. Beth Dagon I..

24 Eus., On. 48, 22-24; 114, 23-27; TIR, s.v. Cariathiarim

25 TIR, s.vv. Emmaus I, Nicopolis; Colonia, Emmaus, Moza.

26 Hesychius, Questiones 57 (PG 93, 1444-1445); on the identification of Emmaus see also D. Baldi, Enchiridion locorum sanctorum (Jerusalem 1982), nos. 960-986.

27 Avi-Yonah, MMM, 63, no. 68; TIR, s.v. Enetaba, 'En Tab.

28 Eus., On. 68, 21-22; Avi-Yonah, MMM, 64-65, no. 75; TIR, s.v. Gedrus, Gidirtha.

29 Eus., On. 66, 19-68, 2; TIR, s.v. Gazara II, Gadaris.

30 Ant. XIV, 91; Bell. I, 170. Cf. E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Revised edition, I (Edinburgh 1973), 268, n. 5.

31 On. 110, 5.

32 On. 107, 19-20.

33 On. 72, 1-3.

34 On. 68, 4-7.

35 See TIR, s.vv. Geth; Saphitha.

36 Soz., HE IX, 17, 1 (GCS 50, 407); TJ Ta'anith 69a; Reeg, Ortsnamen (above, n. 12), 37. TIR, s.v. Caphar Zacharia, Beth Zacharia. It may be identical to Ceperaria (Ceper [Zach]aria?) of the Peutinger map: TIR, s.v. Ceperaria

37 Eus., On. 156, 18; Petrus Diaconus, Liber de locis sanctis V 7 (CCSL 175, 99); TIR, s.v. Socho I.

38 On. 100, 4-5.

39 Jos., Ant. IV, 476; Pl., NH V, 15.

40 On. 42, 1.

41 On. 52, 1-2.

42 Eus., On. 52, 3-5; Hier., On. 53, 2-5.

43 MMM, 66-67, nos. 80-81. The error in the caption could have been avoided by merely substituting N with S.

44 Ev. Jo. I, 28; Orig., In Jo. VI, 40 (GCS 10, 149); It. Burd. 598, 1-2 (CCSL 175, 19); Jerome, Ep. 108, 12 (PL 22, 888).

45 Theodosius, De situ Terrae Sanctae 20 (CCSL 175, 121-122); Antonini Placentini itinerarium 9, 11 (CCSL 175, 133, 135); Joannes Moschus, Pratum 1 (PG 87, 2852-2853); Avi-Yonah, MMM, 37-39, no. 6, cf. no. 7; TIR, s.v. Bethabara. For other sources see Baldi, Enchiridion (above, n. 26), nos. 164-201.

46 On. 88, 3-4; 108, 1-4; 110, 17-18.

47 Avi-Yonah, MMM, 72-73, no. 102.

48 Y. Tsafrir, The Maps Used by Theodosius: On the Pilgrim Maps of the Holy Land and Jerusalem in the Sixth Century C.E., DOP 40 (1986), 129-145.

This contribution was first published in: The Madaba Map Centenary, Jerusalem 1999, 115-120

logo logo

Created Saturday, December 16, 2000 at 11:12:41
by Eugenio Alliata ofm in collaboration with Stefano de Luca ofm
Webmaster: John Abela ofm - Space by courtesy of Christus Rex
copyright - Studium Biblicum Franciscanum - Jerusalem 2000