The Holy City of Jerusalem
in the Madaba Map

by Yoram Tzafrir

Since its discovery some hundred years ago, the depiction of Jerusalem has become the most discussed individual item in the Madaba Map. (1) Already in the very first stage of research scholars agreed that Jerusalem, as it appears in the map, reflects in large part the actual state of sixth-century Jerusalem. For example, the depiction of the column in the square inside the northern gate (today Damascus Gate) immediately solved one of the riddles of nomenclature in Jerusalem, that is the origin and sense of the name of the gate in Arabic: Bab el-'Amud (the Gate of the Column).
Since then all great researchers of the map, among them Lagrange, (2) Guthe, (3) Gisler, (4) Vincent and Abel, (5) Thomsen, (6) Avi-Yonah, (7) O'Callaghan, (8) Milik, (9) Donner (10) and many others, (11) have agreed that the portrayal of Jerusalem not only reflects a convention of describing cities in Late Antique art but is based on a strong core of reality. Pauline Donceel-Voûte diminishes the documentary aspects of the depiction of Jerusalem in the map. She prefers to interpret the depiction of Jerusalem with its colonnaded streets not only as an artistic description of the real face of Jerusalem (with the inevitable artistic limitations and theological preferences, as mentioned below) but "as a complex combination of the iconography of Antioch, the only capital city for the whole Near East until the creation of the patriarchate of Jerusalem and the precise landmarks of Jerusalem". (12) I believe that those scholars who have some acquaintance with the real topography of Jerusalem were right in looking for interpretations within Jerusalem itself. The colonnades, monuments and churches did exist in Jerusalem and there is no need to recall Antioch or any other city as a model for depicting a lavish city. On the other hand, we must admit that we sometimes tend to interpret every small structure or even a single row of tesserae as actual buildings without solid topographical or archaeological grounds. It may well be that many of the small buildings were designed merely to fill the inhabited quarters of the city and were not intended to represent actual structures. Such a criticism may be made of the interpretation of the depiction of the city in our drawing.

A. The northern gate (Porta Neapolitana; Porta sancti Stephani, today Damascus Gate; B. The Column square; C. The main colonnaded street (cardo maximus), today aligned with Olive Press Street, continued by the Jewish Quarter Street and Habad Street; D. The secondary colonnaded street, today Valley Street; E. The street leading to the eastern gate, today Via Dolorosa Street; F. The eastern gate, on the site of today Lions Gate; G. The western gate (Porta David) inside today’s Jaffa Gate; H. The lateral street (decumanus), today in line with David Street and its continuation (not shown on the map) Chain Street; I. The street leading from the decumanus to Mount Zion (originally, perhaps, on the line of the via praetoria of the Roman legionary camp; J. A gate at the end of the cardo, originally in the wall of Aelia before the expansion of the city southwards; K. Section of the wall of Aelia, east of the Nea church; L. Section of the wall of Aelia, west of the Nea with the two gates of the compound of Zion church. a - q. Towers in the wall of Jerusalem. 1. The column within the northern gate; 2. Arch leading from the square to the secondary cardo; 3. The facade and propylon of the church of the Holy Sepulcher; 4. The basilica of the Holy Sepulcher (the martyrium); 5. The inner courtyard, in front of the Rotunda; 6. The rotunda of the Holy Sepulcher (Anastasis); 7. The roof of the baptistery of the Holy Sepulcher?); 9. The baptistery? 10-16. Various buildings north of the Holy Sepulcher (patriarchate, monasteries, hostels?); 17. The “Tower of David”?; 18. The headquarters of the legionary camp (principia) ? 19 - 21. Buildings (monasteries?); in the area of today’s Armenian Quarter; 22. The Holy Zion Church; 23. Building attached to Zion church (today Tomb of David?); 24. Domed building above Siloam Pool, or Church of Siloam?); 25. The church of Siloam or the Church of Peter’s Repent? 26. A pit where Jesus was arrested? The Pit of Jeremiah? 27. The Nea Church; 28. Steps leading to Siloam? 29 - 32. Buildings near the gate of the former wall of Aelia, or annexes of the Nea church. 33. The Church of the Holy Wisdom (St. Sophia) also the Praetorium (with two columns to which Jesus was bound); 34-38. Buildings, and churches, between the two main streets; 3 9. Building east of the secondary cardo (today Valley Street); 40. Church south of the Temple Mount; 41. A building with gate south of the temple Mount? 42. Open esplanade, marking the place of the temple Mount? 43. The Church of St. Mary near the Probatica Pool; 44. Building near the Probatica? 45. Building to the east of the northern gate (palace of the governor?)

While dealing with the presentation of Jerusalem in the map we have to examine not only the actual-topographical situation of Jerusalem as portrayed in the map (which we will do in the later part of this article) but also the conception and perception of Jerusalem in the eyes and mind of the artist (or his sponsors). I will start with the second point.
The inscription above the picture of Jerusalem reveals the artist's attitude. The city is called by its old-new name: The Holy City Jerusalem, and not by its official name Aelia (no longer Capitolina, as this pagan part of the name was eliminated probably during the fourth century). Aelia remained the official name of the city throughout the Byzantine period and into the early Islamic period. By calling the city Jerusalem the artist locates himself in the realm of Christian topography and ideology.
The Madaba Map reveals how the artist (and his sponsors) perceived the image of Jerusalem. Two features are most explicit. The first is the location of the gates of the propylon of the complex of the church of the Holy Sepulcher in the exact center of the oval-shaped city. Although the limits of the map are not universally agreed, it seems clear that the depiction of the city of Jerusalem was planned to be located in the center of the map, showing that the Holy City was conceived as the very center of the Holy Land. This is a Christian interpretation of the concept of Jerusalem as the navel of the earth. (13) The omphalos which stands at present in the Greek Catholicon at the Church in the Holy Sepulcher shows that this tradition still exists in our days. In order to arrive at such a central position for the church (which is in reality located considerably to the north of the city center), the artist had to distort the geographical layout and condense the part of the city which is south of the Holy Sepulcher into a smaller space than it occupies in reality. The real question is whether the artist was conscious of this fact and deliberately distorted the city map while giving priority to his ideas about the church, or believed that the church is indeed in the very center and was not aware that the actual topography is in fact very different. In the absence of accurate topographical survey and maps it is not impossible that he did believe that the Holy Sepulcher was located at the very center of Jerusalem.
Such an interpretation goes well with the depiction of Jerusalem as an oval city. (14) This convention is echoed in texts. The description of Jerusalem by Eucherius, probably in the mid-fifth century, says: "The shape of the city is almost circular, and is enclosed by a lengthy wall" while the sixth-century Short Description (Breviarius) continues: " the center of the city is the basilica..."). (15) By portraying Jerusalem as a perfect oval the artist gives Jerusalem some of the qualities of an "ideal city".
Another striking feature is the absence of the Temple Mount from the depiction of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map. The Temple Mount, which even in its ruined state was the largest structure in Jerusalem, is not shown on the map (or at the most shown as a line of tessera or a small square south of the eastern gate). (16) The disappearance of the Temple Mount from the city's topography probably occurred in the later part of the fourth century. The Bordeaux pilgrim visited the area in 333 and described the monuments built on and around it (17); parts of the description reflect the situation of the Temple Mount at the time of the visit (the statues of Hadrian, the perforated stone anointed by the lamenting Jews, the pools etc.), while others refer to objects venerated by Christians, depend on the scriptures and in part, most probably, derive from Jewish traditions. (18) Later sources, starting with Egeria in the 380s, do not mention the esplanade of the Temple Mount at all. Only the marginal vestiges, the walls and "pinnacle" that bordered it, are noted several times. (19)
Jerome, writing at the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth century, is the only source to mention the Temple Mount as a whole when he recorded that the Jews had to buy with money even the right of lamenting on the place of their ruined temple. (20) It is very likely that the Christian change of attitude towards the Temple Mount took place after the reign of Julian in 363. The Christians, who had been alarmed by the Jewish attempt to rebuild the temple under Imperial initiative and support, preferred to abandon the area and made it an empty and unvisited area, or even, as later traditions say, a place for dumping refuse. (21) Eliminating the Temple Mount from the Madaba Map reflects its elimination from Christian memory, although such an act was in total contradiction with the actual topographical situation. (22)
The problem of the origins of the Madaba Map is perhaps the most discussed question of modern research during this century. Numerous articles and many scholars dedicated thought to this problem by juxtaposing the map with the literary sources, especially the pilgrims' reports. However, I must emphasize a few of the immediate sources of knowledge and influence which had a strong impact on the map as made in Madaba (in addition to the accumulated information reflected in the various literary sources). One which is frequently mentioned is the personal knowledge of the artist (or his topographic advisor) of the region of Madaba; the depiction of the town is not preserved, but there is no doubt that it was located just east of Jerusalem, between the Holy City and the altar of the church. (23) Second is the personal acquaintance of the artist (or his advisor) with the region of Gaza, where several small villages of no special importance are depicted, pointing to the origin of one of the people involved in the making of the map. Third is the close connection of the map to the description of the Holy Land and of Jerusalem in the pilgrims' guidebook of Theodosius De Situ Terrae Sanctae, in the early sixth century. (24) In another place I have suggested that the entire Madaba Map is based on a map of Palestine, used by pilgrims, their guides or sold to pilgrims as a souvenir, which included practical information about sites and road stations but paid particular attention to the holy sites and pilgrims' destinations. (25) If we take the verbal references to some of the Loca Sancta in Theodosius' Latin description and translate them into Greek, we come close to some of the references which accompany the sites in the Madaba Map. Not only was the whole map of Palestine derived from a Greek exemplar of a real map, but also the depiction of Jerusalem was based on a city map. I am convinced that this city map too can be partly restored from the description of Jerusalem by Theodosius, particularly the enigmatic distances he gives between one holy place and another. (26)
After considering the above-mentioned ideological and theological interventions in the topographical depiction, we find that the depiction is remarkably accurate. Needless to say, one has to take into account the practical limitations of the artist and the difficult decisions he had to make in portraying each part of the city. For example, the decision to emphasize the main street (the "cardo") by showing the colonnades on both sides of the street inevitably distorted the representation of other important architectural features.
The discovery of the Madaba Map proved that the architectural history of Jerusalem continues from the foundation of Aelia by Hadrian to the present day. Some sixty years passed between the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the decision of Hadrian, the neoclassicist Roman emperor, to rebuild Jerusalem. The imperial initiative was probably a major factor in the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The new foundation materialized only after the suppression of the revolt in 135 CE. The builders of the new Roman city reused the stones of Second Temple Jerusalem for building their own town. The new city was called Aelia Capitolina - no longer Jerusalem - while the province became Palaestina instead of Judaea. (27) These two changes had a symbolic anti-Jewish effect and they were accompanied by a third severe act of humiliation: those Jews who survived the massacre and exile were not permitted to settle in the new city or even in its close vicinity. Although we have information about a small Jewish congregation in Jerusalem, the city became pagan. (28)

Map of Byzantine Jerusalem

The map of Roman Aelia (see figure) shows a reconstruction of the city plan at the end of the third or the very early fourth century. The Roman city had reached its maturity. The main streets, in particular the two cardines, divide the city, which is already encircled by a wall. (29) The reconstructed plan of the camp of the Tenth Legion on the southwestern hill shows how the location of the camp (if indeed the hypothetical reconstruction is correct) influenced the development of the city. (30) It should be mentioned that at that final stage of Roman rule, before the triumph of Christianity, the camp was in large part empty and the Tenth Legion had moved to the south. This explains why this area was available, more than other parts of the city, for the accumulation of churches, monasteries and monastic hostels. (31) The map also shows the suggested plan of the forum and its two main monuments: the civic basilica, later to become the basilical church of the Holy Sepulcher, and the temple of Aphrodite, concealing Jesus' tomb underneath its pavers. Other monuments were discovered by archaeologists or reconstructed according to the sources, among them the rather obscure description of the Roman city's monuments inserted into the later, seventh-century, Chronicon Paschale. (32)
On today's Mount Zion, south of the southern wall of Aelia, were probably the centers of the two minorities, the Jews and the Christians. (33) These communities of Jews and Christians existed, as mentioned above, during the long period of pagan rule in Aelia Capitolina from the second century to the early fourth century. The city whose destruction they were mourning, or celebrating, was the former Jewish city, that is the city of David, Solomon and the prophets, the city of the Hasmoneans and the First and Second Temples. For Christians Mount Zion, for example, had a double meaning; it was conceived as both the Citadel of David, the historical founder of Zion, and the Seat of James the Less, Jesus' brother, the founder of the first church of Jerusalem and Mater Omnium Ecclesiarum. They were commemorated together in Zion on the same day, the 26th of December. (34)
The great change occurred after the conquest of the East by Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, in 324 CE. The pilgrimage of Helena, Constantine's mother, marked the beginning of the project of the discovery of Jesus' Tomb and the building of the lavish basilica of the Holy Sepulcher. Subsequently, the Christian community of Jerusalem started an accelerated pace of growth until it reached its peak in the sixth century. (35) A new Christian Jerusalem was designed, Byzantine Jerusalem. In terms of theology, ideology and sentiments the Christians, as verus Israel, related to historical Jerusalem. In reality, however, the architecture and topography of Christian Jerusalem depended on the town planning of Roman Aelia Capitolina. Indeed, some monuments of Second Temple Jerusalem survived, like the wall and the towers in the western part of the city which were spared by Titus to become part of the legionary camp, and the temenos of the Temple Mount. In all other aspects, as mentioned above, the topography and architecture of the Christian city of the fourth-seventh centuries was based on the topography and architecture of Roman Aelia Capitolina. The monuments of Roman Aelia created the armature on which the later Christian city was built. The most important Roman elements which shaped Byzantine Jerusalem are the main colonnaded streets running through the city. The influence of the map of Aelia Capitolina on the development of Jerusalem up to the present day can easily be detected when we compare the map of Aelia to the maps of the present Old City. Looking from north to south, one can see the Damascus Gate, above the Roman Neapolis Gate, the remains of the square inside the gate and the two main streets, the street of the Olive Press (Tariq Khan ez-Zeit) and Valley Street (Tariq el-Wad). These modern streets, although narrow and repaved, retain the line of the Roman main colonnaded streets or cardines that ran through the city from north to south. Other clear examples are the monumental arches: the Roman Porta Neapolitana (Neapolis Gate - Damascus Gate), (36) the arch in the entrance to the supposed forum from the main street (cardo), now in the compound of the Russian Hospice, (37) later integrated with the propylon to the Holy Sepulcher, and the Ecce Homo arch, now in the compound of the Sisters of Zion, adorning the transversal street of today's Via Dolorosa. (38) The depiction of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map shows clearly that the city falls within the range of time between the building of Roman Aelia and the Turkish city. (39)
The Pilgrim of Bordeaux, who visited Jerusalem around 333 CE, provides a description of Aelia in the very first stages of its conversion to a Christian city. Among the city's monuments he lists the Temple Mount and its surroundings, the pool of Siloam, the Praetorium of Pontius Pilate, the Bethesda pools, the gates of Jerusalem, Mount Zion etc. Of particular interest is the description of the Temple Mount, mentioned above, which was rich in monuments.
The pilgrim mentions that during his visit to the site of the newly discovered Holy Sepulcehr and the hill of Golgotha he saw a basilica of remarkable beauty (which was built by the Emperor Constantine together with the church of Eleona on the Mount of Olives, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the church of Mamre, near Hebron). He distinguishes this basilica from other civic basilicas which were common in Roman cities by defining it as the "basilica of the Lord": "basilica... id est Dominicum".
The depiction of the church of the Holy Sepulcher in the Madaba Map resembles the actual arrangement of the Christian compound. The mosaicist emphasizes the front stairway, the basilical shape of the church of the Martyrium and the gilded roof of the Rotunda; in order to be able to depict these elements he was forced to show the architectural elements upside down. One cannot exaggerate the importance of the building of the first churches in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Mamre. Constantine himself speaks about his zeal to embellish the tomb of Christ. Eusebius , in the Vita Constantini, quotes the letter to Macarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem, in which the Emperor writes: "...I have no greater care than how I may best adorn with a splendid structure that sacred spot, which, under Divine direction, I have disencumbered..." (40) The destruction of the temple of Aphrodite and the building of the church marked the major initial stage of the triumph of Christianity over paganism. It became possible after the erasing of the "dreadful grave of souls, and the gloomy shrine of lifeless idols to the impure spirit they call Venus". Only at that stage, says Eusebius, was the New Jerusalem built on the site. (41)
The construction of the Holy Sepulcher was followed by intensive building of churches and monasteries. Constantine himself founded, as mentioned above, the church of Eleona on the Mount of Olives. North of the Eleona, on the site of the Ascension, on the highest peak of the Mount of Olives, a round church was built in the later part of the fourth century. (42) During the fourth and fifth centuries the entire area of the Mount of Olives and the valley of Jehoshaphat between the Mount of Olives and Jerusalem became crowded with churches and monasteries. Most famous among them were the monasteries of Melania and Gerontius, which became a center for Latins who settled or visited Jerusalem. Similar building activity took place all over Jerusalem within and without the walls. A concentration of Armenian buildings and monasteries was recently found in the northern suburb. (43) The foundation of churches was followed by the invention of relics which were venerated by citizens and pilgrims, and their cult became an integral part of the liturgy in Jerusalem.
The foundation of the new Christian center around the church of the Holy Sepulcher reduced the status and importance of the earlier center on Mount Zion. Here, south of the walled town of Aelia were, as mentioned above, the centers of the small Jewish congregation and the small Christian congregation with the Church of the Apostles. Both were situated in the same vicinity, today in the area of the German Church of the Dormition.
The Roman wall and niche in the present Tomb of David were identified by Pinkerfeld and Avi-Yonah as parts of the ancient Jewish synagogue. (44) No vestiges have been found of the primitive Church of the Apostles, but some remains were detected of the large Church of Zion which replaced the small church. The new church was built by Archbishop John II in the late fourth century. The fame of the church of Zion derived from its antique origin and its status as Mother of All Churches. These virtues became the main argument of Juvenal, the patriarch of Jerusalem in the Council of Chalcedon, for nominating Jerusalem as the fifth patriarchate of the Christian world. The Madaba Map shows clearly the large basilica with gilded doors. The third large church shown in the map is the New Church of Mary, or in short the Nea. The appearance of this church, which was inaugurated in 543, is very important for establishing a terminus post quem for the creation of the map in the mid sixth century. It was the largest church in Jerusalem. Its remains, which were highly praised by Procopius, were partially discovered in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City by Nahman Avigad and proved that its length was some 100 m. (45)
Several other churches are displayed in the map. They may be identified by the gabled roof with red roof-tiles typical of a basilica. (46) Among them we can identify with much certainty the Church of the Probatica (because of its location in the northeast) and with less certainty the Church of Hagia-Sophia or Praetorium (identified by the two columnettes to which Jesus was bound), (47) and the Church of Siloam (or St. Peter's Repent) in the south.
The identification of some other churches, or ecclesiastical buildings of central shape, is even more doubtful, but the nature of the architectural development of Jerusalem in the Byzantine period seems clear. The case of the Nea seems most explicit. The church is located in the map along the southern part of the cardo. Archaeology has proved that this was indeed the real position of the church. Avigad's interpretation that the building project of the large and splendid church with its annexed hospitals called for a building of a new street, i.e. the southern part of the cardo (today in the Jewish Quarter) seems very likely. (48) I believe that Avigad was mistaken in assuming that this street was built here for the first time and there was no street on this course during the Roman period. I believe that this southern part of the main street, or cardo, did exist in the Roman period on a higher level, but was demolished and then rebuilt at great expense after cutting the bedrock to a lower level. (49) A similar situation prevailed in other parts of the city: churches, monasteries and other ecclesiastical, public, and welfare institutions were inserted into the framework of the already existing streets and lanes. They sometimes inherited the place of private or public buildings which were demolished or abandoned. (50)
The map of Byzantine Jerusalem as well as the Madaba Map prove this process in the growth of Jerusalem. Not only the status and importance, but also the population, reached a peak in the sixth century. There is no record of the demographic state of the city, but it seems that an estimate at 50-80,000 is not far from reality. Many of the new citizens lived in the extramural suburbs which flourished mostly in the west and the north, but also in the east in the Kidron valley and on the Mount of Olives, and in the south in the area of today's quarter of Abu-Tur. (51)
The depiction of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map helps us to extend our knowledge of the topography and shape of Jerusalem within the walls. The city is clearly divided into two parts: the northern part of the city, which occupies some three quarters of the city 's area, follows the outline of Roman Aelia Capitolina. The network of the streets is Roman in origin. The Byzantine churches were inserted into the existing architectural framework of Jerusalem. On the other hand, we discern another concept of city building in the southern part of the Byzantine town, in the area which was originally south of the limits of the walls of Roman Aelia. This area includes the modern Mount Zion, the Pool of Siloam, the eastern slopes of Mount Zion, the City of David and the area south of the Temple Mount. It was encircled by walls by the donation of the Empress Eudocia around 443. It is clear that in the newly built region a rather loose planning was applied, with a touch of the "comfortable disorder" so typical of Byzantine architecture and town planning. (52)
The portrayal of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map does not show the individual residential buildings. But the lavish character of the city as depicted in the map is in accord with the general impression of a rich and nicely built city. The various archaeological discoveries, which demonstrate the large size of the buildings, sometime built in two levels (or even more if rock-cut basement and cisterns were involved), decorated by colored mosaics pavements demonstrate the high standard of living in Jerusalem. Although the exact date of the execution of the Madaba Map is still under debate, there must be no doubt that the map reflects Jerusalem in its prime, probably in the second half of the sixth century.


1 For the discovery and the earliest publications see Y. Meimaris in this volume. See also Piccirillo 1989, 76-78.

2 Lagrange 1897:165-84.

3 Guthe 1905:120-30.

4 Gisler 1912:214-27.

5 Vincent and Abel 1912-1926, esp. 922-925; Abel 1929:2344-2346.

6 Thomsen 1929.

7 Avi-Yonah 1954, esp. 50-60

8 O'Callaghan 1953:656-67.

9 Milik 1960, esp. 141-42.

10 Donner 1992, esp. 87-94.

11 For example Tsafrir 1975, cols. 525-614 (esp. 575-88); Kühnel 1987, esp. 89-93.

12 Donceel-Voûte 1988:519-42; I thank P. Donceel-Voûte for summing up in writing her opinion as cited above.

13 The Christians here undoubtedly follow the Jewish concept of the Temple ( in particular the "foundation stone" (hytç ba) as the navel of the earth; the change is the identification of the Holy Sepulcher as the new temple and New Jerusalem).

14 It is hard to know if the oval shape of Jerusalem was a matter of mere convention, or whether it was deliberately formed in such a shape. It is clear that some other cities, esp. Gaza, Neapolis and Pelousion, and even Characmoba and Ascalon are also depicted in an elliptical form. However, the image of Jerusalem seems more perfect than those of the other cities (which are only partially preserved).

15 Eucherius, De Situ Hierosolymae 3 (ed. I. Fraipont, CCSL 175, 237); Breviarius de Hierosolyma 1 (ed. R. Weber, CCSL 175, 109).

16 See for example, Avi-Yonah 1954:59; Abel 1929 (note 5) and Milik 1960 (note 9). An unconvincing proposal to identify the tower with a gate shown on the eastern side of Jerusalem (no. 41 in our figure) with the Golden Gate was recently revived by Bahat 1996 (see also his contribution, infra). Bahat suggests that the depiction of the Golden Gate, which according to a common opinion was built after Heraclius' reconquest of Jerusalem (followed by the emperor's visit to the city bringing back the relics of the True Cross from the Persian exile in 630),supports a later date for the Madaba Map in the second half of the seventh century. Bahat's suggestion seems unlikely and depends on a series of unproven hypotheses (the stylistic similarity between the map and the eighth-century topographical borders at Umm al-Rasas; the assumption that Palestine and Jerusalem in the map represent the period after the Persian conquest and the Arab conquest; and the identification of tower 41 with the Golden Gate). I believe that the Golden Gate is one of the Umayyad foundations of the end of the seventh or early eighth century, as already suggested by Watzinger 1935:144-45; supported by Monneret de Villard 1968:209-15; Ben Dov 1982:282-86; Rosen-Ayalon 1989:33-45; Tsafrir 1990:280-86.

17 Itinerarium Burdigalense 589-591 (ed. P. Geyer and O. Cuntz, CCSL 175, 14-16).

18 On this problem see recently, Limor 1998:23-25.

19 For example, the "pinnacle", probably in the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount, was visited by the disciples of the monk Bar Sauma around 438, Nau 1914:118-26 (esp. 122); 1927:184-202; another example is the subterranean monastery of the reclusive nuns on the Temple Mount, near its southern wall under the pinnacle (the vaults of Solomon Stables?), described by Theodosius in the early sixth century, Theodosius 11 (CCSL 175, 119). For the pinnacle of the temple, see also, Breviarius 6 (CCSL 175, 61).

20 Hieronymus, In Sophoniam I, 15-16 (ed. M. Adrien, CCSL 76A, 673-74).

21 On Julian's initiative to build the temple see in particular, Geiger 1982:202-17; Rubin (in press).

22 See also Tsafrir (in press).

23 For example, Donceel-Voûte 1988.

24 Theodosius, De Situ Terrae Sanctae (ed. P. Geyer, CCSL 175, 113-125).

25 Tsafrir 1986:129-145.

26 Tsafrir 1986:140-145.

27 See a recent discussion of the various aspects concerning the foundation of the colony with an expanded bibliography, in Isaac 1998:87-111.

28 Safrai 1972:62-78.

29 For the topography and architecture of Aelia Capitolina see Vincent and Abel 1914-1926:1-88; Geva 1993, esp. 758-767; also recently, Tsafrir (in press, a).

30 Ibid.; also Tsafrir 1975, esp. 286-320;

31 For the monastic buildings in the area of the camp (generally known by Christians as Zion) see Tsafrir 1975a, esp. 37-42, 80-88, 320-26 .

32 Chronicon Paschale (ed. Dindorf 1832:474).

33 Bagatti 1970:112-22; For the interpretation of the original building of the Tomb of David as a Jewish synagogue see, Pinkerfeld 1960:41-43, and Avi-Yonah's note, ibid., 43. See also Tsafrir 1975a:91-108, 197-205.

34 Garitte 1958:418.

35 For the topography and archaeology of Jerusalem in the Byzantine period see, among others, Vincent and Abel 1914-1926; Milik 1960-61; Geva 1993:768-785; Also recently Tsafrir (in press, b).

36 For the recent discoveries at Damascus Gate, see Magen 1994: 281-86.

37 Vincent and Abel 1914-1926:70-88.

38 For the Ecce Homo, Vincent and Abel 1914-1926:24-30; Blomme 1979:224-71.

39 It is very instructive to compare the brilliant reconstruction of Jerusalem made by Germer-Durand in 1892 before the discovery of the Madaba Map, which depended on the general topography, the text of the Chronicon Paschale and a comparative study (mostly with Jerash) with the map drawn by Vincent in 1912, after the discovery of the Madaba Map. Germer-Durand 1892:369-87; Vincent in Vincent and Abel 1914-1926: pl. I.

40 Eusebius, Vita Constantini, III 30.

41 The discovery of the tomb and the detailed instructions for building the church are known from Eusebius, Vita Constantini III, 25-54. Among the numerous works dedicated to the exploration and reconstruction of the complex of the Holy Sepulcher see, for example: Vincent and Abel 1914-1926:89-300; Coüasnon 1974; Corbo 1981-1982; Biddle 1994:73-147; Gibson and Taylor 1994.

42 For bibliography of the churches of Jerusalem see Ovadiah 1970; Ovadiah and Gomez De Silva, 1981; 1982; 1984.

43 For the recent discoveries in the northern part of the city see Tzaferis, Feig and Onn 1994:287-92; Amit and Wolff 1994:293-98.

44 For the synagogue on Mt. Zion see above, note 34.

45 Avigad 1980:229-46.

46 Avi-Yonah 1954:23.

47 Milik 1960-61:151-54.

48 Avigad 1980:211-29.

49 See discussion in Tsafrir (in press, b).

50 The most famous example is the building of the complex of the holy Sepulcher on top of the temple of Aphrodite. However, the act of building a church immediately on top of a ruined temple in the fourth-fifth centuries is very uncommon. On this problem see in particular Tsafrir (in press, c):171-92.

51 See above notes 35 and 43. Also for the west: Maeir 1994:299-305.

52 Tsafrir (in press, b). On the loose town planning in other towns in the Early Byzantine period in Palestine see Tsafrir and Foerster, 1997:85-146.

This article was first published in: The Madaba Map Centenary 1897-1997, Jerusalem 1999, 155-163.

logo logo

Created Saturday, December 16, 2000 at 11:32:27
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