1

The Byzantine Presence on the Temple Mount

by Marilyn Sams

October, 2014

The Byzantine Presence on the Temple Mount

2

In an article in the Jerusalem Post, Lefkovits (2008, Nov. 17) reports on the Byzantine

mosaic found under a pier of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in excavations carried out there by R. W.

Hamilton, then Director of the British Mandate Antiquities Department. In the wake of recent

earthquakes which had damaged the mosque, Hamilton seized the opportunity to explore its

underground, with the permission of the Waqf. At some point between 1938 and 1942, he found

a mosaic under the Umayyad level, and under it, a mikveh of the Second Temple period. His

report of the excavation, entitled “The Structural History of the Aqsa Mosque,” failed to mention

these important finds, and they were unknown until 2008, when Zachi Zweig, while researching

at the Jerusalem Antiquities Authority, found them in a file related to the excavations. At a

conference sponsored by Bar Ilan University, Dr. Rina Talgam from the Hebrew University

dated the mosaic to the Byzantine era and it was assumed to be the remains of a church or

monastery. Zweig commented that "The existence of a public building from the Byzantine

period on the Temple Mount is very surprising in light of the fact that we do not have records of

such constructions in historical texts” (as cited in Lefkovits, 2008). As the co-creator of the

Temple Mount Sift Project, Zweig knew first-hand all of the finds which had witnessed to

himself and Gabriel Barkay the existence of a Byzantine presence on the temple mount, despite

scholarly agreement on its lengthy abandonment (Hammer, 2011). Barkay has stated that “The

people writing the history of the Temple Mount definitely have to reassess their work on this

particular era” (Shragai, 2012, June 29). The purpose of this article is to reassess the history of

this era to demonstrate there are “records of such constructions in historical texts,” which have

been passed over, because scholars have been subject to what F. E. Peters described as

“envisioning backward” (Peters, 1985, p. 14). This anti-historical practice involves the creation

of narrative paradigms derived from an untested tradition and the subsequent interpretation of all

3

related data according to those paradigms, sometimes resulting in an erroneous perspective. To

recognize the Byzantine presence on the temple mount, scholars must disengage from

envisioning backward with respect to the temple mount tradition and recognize the Byzantines

identified the 36-acre walled edifice of their time quite differently from today’s perception.

Ancient accounts reveal they called it the Praetorium or the Hall of Pilate. There are descriptions

of at least two churches having been built there--the Church of Our Blessed Lady (or the Blessed

Mary) and the Church of Saint Sophia (or the Church of Holy Wisdom), both of which were on

the pilgrimage tour circuit. This article will consider the details of these accounts to show the

Byzantine differentiation between the site of the temple ruins and the site of the Praetorium,

today known as the temple mount.

The Byzantine tradition of identifying the temple mount as the Praetorium or Hall of

Pilate presumably begins with the reference in John 19:13, which notes that Pilate judged Jesus

in a place called lithostroton in Greek and gabbatha in Hebrew. Murphy-O’Connor (1996) notes

there were two praetoria at the time of Jesus and selects Herod’s palace as the most likely place

for Jesus’s judgment, rather than the Antonia Fortress (the Roman camp), the location of the

other praetorium. He notes that lithostroton means “a paved area,” while the underlying Aramaic

root of gabbatha means “to be high, to protrude.” Hence, he believes the reference to height is to

Herod’s palace, because it occupied the highest position on the western hill. While the palace of

Herod does seem the more logical of the two choices for several reasons, the Byzantine pilgrims

apparently felt otherwise, as the descriptions will make apparent.

Chronologically, the account which first mentions the Praetorium or the Hall of Pilate is

that of the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.):

4

From there, [inside the wall of Sion] so that you may go out of the wall of Sion,

as you go towards the gate of Neapolis, to the right side, below in the valley, are

some walls, where was the house, or praetorium, of Pontius Pilate. Here the Lord

was tried before his suffering.

The most notable walls in the valley from this perspective would have been those of the temple

mount. He does not mention any church in association with it and doesn’t seem to have visited

it; however, he did visit the temple ruins before he reached the western hill:

There is there a crypt, in which Solomon used to torture demons. There is there

the corner of a most high tower, where the Lord ascended, and he spoke to him

who was tempting him, and the Lord stated to him: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord

thy God, but him only shalt thou serve. And a great corner stone is there, of

which it is said: The stone which the builders rejected, this is become the head of

the corner. And under the pinnacle of the tower itself are many chambers where

Solomon had the palace. There is even the chamber in which he sat and wrote

the book of Wisdom. This chamber is actually covered with a single stone.

And there are large cisterns for subterranean water and pools constructed with

great labor.

And on the temple mount itself, where the temple was which Solomon

built, the blood of Zacharias on the marble pavement before the altar is poured

there, you would say, even today. There are also visible the marks of the shoe

nails of the soldiers who slew him, throughout the whole area, so that you would

think they were made in wax. There are here two statues of Hadrian, and not far

from the statues there is a bored-through stone, to which the Jews come every

5

year and anoint it, and lament themselves with moans and tear their clothes, and

thus depart. There is there the house of Hezekiah, King of Judah.

After visiting these ruins, his next stop is Mount Sion (the one so-called to the south of the

western hill):

Also, going out of Jerusalem, so that you may go up Mount Sion, on the left side,

and below in the valley, next to the wall, is a pool which is called Siloe. It has

four porticoes, and there is another large pool outside it. This spring runs for six

days and nights, but on the seventh day it is the Sabbath, and it does not run at all,

either by day or by night.

The Bordeaux Pilgrim’s point of departure from the temple ruins to reach his next goal of Mount

Zion appears to be on the southeastern hill. This is ascertained from his viewpoint crossing over

the lower Tyropoeon Valley, where, to his left (south), he notices the Pool of Siloam next to a

wall. He then describes a spring, ostensibly feeding the pool of Siloe, which would be the Gihon

Spring, located at the center of the southeastern hill.

The features of the temple ruins include a crypt; chambers under a tower/pinnacle,

including one covered by a single stone; a corner stone; and large cisterns for subterranean water

and pools. These features are associated with, but described separately from the “temple

mount,” and seem to be “under” the temple mount, which includes the features of a marble

pavement in front of an altar; marks of the Roman soldiers’ shoe nails throughout the whole area;

two statues of Hadrian, a bored-through stone which the Jews come to anoint and where they

moan and lament; and the house of Hezekiah.

Scholars have traditionally attributed these features to today’s traditional temple mount

and several corresponding descriptions apply, including the crypt, underground chambers, a

6

tower, the corner stone, large cisterns and pools, and a bored-through stone. However, to avoid

envisioning backward, other sources need to be compared, disclosing the Byzantines did not

associate these features with the 36-acre walled edifice of their time. One of these sources

comes from Eucherius (5th Century C.E.), the Bishop of Lyons, in his Letter to Faustus:

The Temple, which was situated in the lower city near the eastern wall, was once

a world’s wonder, but of its ruins there stands today only the pinnacle of one wall,

and the rest are destroyed down to their foundations.

A few water cisterns can be seen on the northern side of the city near the Temple.

The Pool of Bethsaida is there, distinguished by its twin pools. One is usually

filled with winter rains, while the other is filled with red-colored water. On the

steep rocky side of Mount Sion which faces east, below the city walls and at the

bottom of the hill, gushes forth the fountain of Siloam. It does not flow

continuously, but only on certain days and at certain hours, and it flows with an

intermittent stream toward the south.

Beside the east wall of Jerusalem, which is also the wall of the Temple, is

Gehenna, the Valley of Jehoshaphat. It runs from north to south, and a torrent

runs through it whenever there has been rain to provide it with water. (as cited

in Peters, 1985, p. 154)

Interpreting the account of Eucherius initially presents problems with respect to his mention of

the Pool of Bethsaida, whose traditional location is now near St. Anne’s, north of today’s

traditional temple mount. However, if we confine all of his descriptions to the “lower city near

the eastern wall,” the Bethsaida Pool migrates to (1) the northern area of the southeastern hill,

near the eastern wall built by Eudocia, around 450 C.E., or (2) interpreting “there” to mean the

7

southeastern hill rather than “the northern side of the city,” the Bethsaida Pool could be the two

pools of Siloam, the lower one of which must have had reddish waters, because the Muslims

later called it Birkat al-Hamra (meaning “red”). In addition, the temple site of Eucherius is at

Mount Zion (the actual one on the southeastern hill), below which the fountain of Siloam, with

its karstic descriptors, ties the temple ruins site to the center of the southeastern hill. Two other

features match those of the Bordeaux Pilgrim--a pinnacle and a few cisterns. The Valley of

Gehenna is mentioned and erroneously refers to the Kidron Valley.

Although the Bordeaux Pilgrim did not mention visiting the Praetorium, in about 350

C.E., Cyril of Jerusalem, in his famous catechetical lectures, speaks of “the hall of Pilate, now

laid waste by the power of Him who was then crucified” (13:39). Cyril’s comment probably

refers to a structure or structures on the temple mount, possibly indicating, along with the

Bordeaux Pilgrim’s account, that the site was not yet on the pilgrimage route or that some ruins

had been maintained as a witness of Christ’s triumph over the cruelty inflicted on him. Etheria

(Egeria), who visited Jerusalem in 380 C.E. and participated in the Veneration of the Cross

ambulatories, omits any mention of the Praetorium when the passages from John 18:28-19:16 are

read by the Lector. However, the Old Armenian Lectionary notes that some time later, these

verses were read at “the palace of the Judge,” which appears to re-characterize the former ruins

mentioned by Cyril and may refer to a new edifice or edifices constructed on the temple mount.

According to the dates of the Lectionary’s usage (419-439 C.E.), the Praetorium was part of the

worship circuit (The Pilgrimage of Etheria, 1919; Conybeare, 1905).

In 404 C.E., a

mention of the Praetorium appears in Jerome’s Letter 108, which refers to the pilgrim Paula’s

8

trip to Jerusalem. The letter says the Proconsul of Palestine “sent his chamberlain on ahead to

make the Pretorium ready for her” (as cited in Peters, 1985, p. 152),

indicating the temple mount then served as the Proconsul’s official residence, as well as a site of

Christian veneration.

Empress Eudocia (c. 400- 460 C.E.) retired to Jerusalem shortly after 440 C.E., where she

remained until her death. Among several churches attributed to her bounty is the Church of St.

Sophia, first described by Theodosius (530 C.E.):

From the house of Caiphas to the Pretorium of Pilate it is about 100 paces; the

Church of St. Sophia [or the Holy Wisdom] is there. Beside it St. Jeremiah

was cast into the pit [Jer.38:6]…..The Pool of Siloam is a hundred paces from

the pit where they cast the Prophet Jeremiah; the pool is inside the wall.

(Theodosius, Topography of the Holy Land, 40-45, as cited in Peters, 1985,

p.57; information in brackets is Peters’).

Theodosius describes the Church of St. Sophia at the Praetorium, Jeremiah’s pit next to it, and

the Pool of Siloam at one hundred paces distance. Subsequent descriptions will repeat these

referents with more details. The most important of these is the account of Antoninus Martyr

(a.k.a. the Piacenza Pilgrim), a traveler who visited the holy places in about 560-570 C.E.,

remarking the existence of a second church on the temple mount, named the Basilica of the

Blessed Mary:

At the foot of the mountain itself [Mount Hermon], there ascends a cloud from

the river at the first hour after sunrise, and comes to Jerusalem over the basilica

which is in Sion, and over the basilica of the Sepulchre of our Lord, and over the

9

basilica of the Blessed Mary and St. Sophia, which was the Praetorium where our

Lord was tried. (Wilson, 1896, pp. 8-9)

The account of Antoninus conflates both churches with the Praetorium, probably because they

were both enclosed within the walled temple mount area and seemed to him one entity. His

statement is discussed by Charles Wilson in an 1896 introduction to the account:

The notices of the holy places are interesting, especially those of…the churches

of the blessed Mary and St. Sophia, within the present Haram area. In ch. xxiii,

these churches are alluded to as separate buildings, but in ch. ix they are

mentioned as one ‘super basilicum sanctae Mariae et sanctae Sophiae, quae

fuit praetorium’… There are several interesting coincidences between the

legends attaching to the rock of the Praetorium and those of the Sakhrah in

the Dome of the Rock, to which I have drawn attention in a note to p. 19; and

the subject is discussed more fully by Professor Sepp, in ‘Die Felsenkuppel

eine Justinianische Sophien’ kirche.’ It may be remarked that the only notice of

the Temple is the allusion (ch xxiii) to the water running down from the ruins to

Siloam. (Wilson, 1896, p. vii).

Wilson’s introduction brings up a key point for identifying the temple mount as the Byzantine

Praetorium, by mentioning the “rock of the Praetorium” and its association in legends with the

Sakrah (the rock under the Dome of the Rock). Further, Wilson remarks on the less important,

less detailed allusion to the Temple, which Antoninus identifies only with “water running down

from the ruins to Siloam,” a description noted below in its original context:

From Sion, we came to the Basilica of the Blessed Mary, where is a large

10

congregation of monks, and where are also hospices (for strangers, both) for

men and women. There I was received as a pilgrim; there were countless

tables and more than three thousand beds for sick persons. We prayed in the

Praetorium where the Lord was tried, which is now the Basilica of St. Sophia.

In front of the ruins of the Temple of Solomon, under the street, water runs

down to the fountain of Siloam. Near the porch of Solomon, in the church itself,

is the seat upon which Pilate sat when he tried our Lord. There also is a square

stone, which used to stand in the midst of the Praetorium, upon which the

accused was placed during his trial, that he might be heard and seen by all the

people. Upon it our Lord was placed when He was tried by Pilate, and there the

marks of His feet still remain. (Wilson, 1896, pp. 19-20)

Antoninus identifies the Basilica of the Blessed Mary as a structure accommodating a very large

congregation of monks, offering hospice quarters for men and women, and providing a hospital

with 3,000 beds for sick persons. This church contrasts with the Basilica of St. Sophia, where

stands a square stone with Pilate’s seat upon it, formerly occupying the middle of the Praetorium,

and which serves mostly as a place of prayer, compared to the utilitarian aspects of the Basilica

of the Blessed Mary. The square stone is purported to be the place of the Lord’s trial, still

bearing the imprints of his feet. This designation implies the Byzantine pilgrims associated

gabbatha with the height of the Sakrah, rather than that of Herod’s palace. After the Muslims

had commandeered the temple mount, Jesus’s footprints on the “rock of the Praetorium”

transmuted into the footprints of Mohammad. Antoninus considers the entire temple mount to be

the Praetorium and the location of St. Sophia in the “middle of the Praetorium” closely

approximates the site of the Dome of the Rock. The Porch of Solomon figures as a frequent

11

feature associated with the Praetorium and the Church of St. Sophia, but its exact identity

remains elusive.

The note on p. 19 mentioned by Wilson provides a continuing commentary on the

Antoninus account:

This description of the church of St. Sophia, on the site of the Praetorium, in close

connection with the Mary Church of Justinian and the Temple, is curious and

interesting; especially on account of the resemblance of some of the traditions to

those attached to the Dome of the Rock. Thus, the Sakhrah represents the square

stone of the Praetorium; the footprints of Mahomet take the place of those of

Christ, and the ‘many virtues’ of the stone are still believed in by the Moslem

pilgrims who purchase the dust of the Sakhrah, as a specific against all diseases.

The Porch of Solomon seems to have become the ‘Tomb of Solomon,’ near the

northern door; and the ‘Stone of Paradise, connected with the coming of

Mohomet to judge the faithful; the ‘Mahkamat en Neby Daud,’ Tribunal of

the Prophet David (Dome of the Chain); and the name ‘Mawazin,’ given to the

screen on the platform, may represent some old tradition that the Praetorium

occupied the ground now covered by the Dome of the Rock. Sepp, indeed

identifies the Church of St. Sophia with the last-named building…(ch. vii.) also

mentions that the Church of St.Sophia occupied the site of the Praetorium. The

‘footprint of Jesus’ is now shown in the Al Aksa Mosque on a stone which is

supposed by some writers to have been taken from the Praetorium. (Wilson,

1896, p. 20; italics mine)

Wilson erroneously identifies the Basilica of the Blessed Mary with the Nea Church of Justinian,

12

or “new” church built in honor of the Virgin. Its remains in the Jewish quarter continued

undiscovered until after the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967. However, his comments affirm

the traditions associating the Sakrah with the Church of St. Sophia and chronicle some of the

mutations of identification which followed the Muslim occupation of the temple mount.

Antoninus provides no other mention of the temple ruins, other than in front of them,

under the street, there are waters that run down to the fountain Siloam. This description is given

more clarity, however, when he leaves the Praetorium and refers to this area of the southeastern

hill again:

Thence we came to an arch, where was the ancient gate of the city. At that place

is the putrid water into which the prophet Jeremias was sent. Descending from

that arch down to the fountain of Siloam by many steps, we saw the round church,

from beneath which Siloe rises. This church has two baths made by the hands of

man, out of marble; between the two baths runs a partition; in the one men, and in

the other women, bathe for a blessing. In these waters many cures are effected,

and even lepers are cleansed. Before the atrium of the church is a large pool

formed by the hands of man, in which the people bathe continually; for at certain

hours the fountain of its own accord pours forth much water, which runs down

through the Valley of Gethsemane, which is also called Josaphat, as far as Jordan,

and enters the Jordan at the place where it runs into the Salt Sea below Sodom

and Gomorrha….The Fountain of Siloa is at the present day within the walls of

the city; because the Empress Eudocia herself added these walls to the city, and

herself built the basilica and tomb of Saint Stephen.

Hence, Antoninus equates the waters at the Church of Siloam, built by Eudocia, with curative

13

effects, just like the Pool of Bethsaida. The associated karstic action of the Gihon Spring is

described. The ancient gate of the city may have been the Dung Gate and the many steps down to

the Church at Siloam, the stepped Tyropoeon street under which the waters near the temple ruins

ran down past the fountain of Siloam. These steps and the drainage channel underneath them

have been excavated by Reich and Shukron, and a large cistern at the southwestern corner of the

temple mount, which has also been uncovered in association with the drainage channel, may be a

possible candidate for Jeremiah’s pit (Reich, 2011, “Massive First Temple-Period Reservoir,”

2012) .

An additional source which describes the Church of Saint Sophia with reference to the

Praetorium is the Breviarius of Jerusalem, an anonymous tour guide created in the late fifth or

early sixth centuries, which states the following:

5. …From there, you go to the House of Pilate, where he handed the Lord

over to the Jews for scourging. There is a basilica there, and small chamber,

where they stripped him bare and scourged him. It is called [the Church of] Holy

Wisdom.

6. From there, you go to the temple built by Solomon, of which nothing remains

but a crypt. From there you go to that pinnacle, upon which Satan placed the

Lord. As you descend to Siloam, there is the pit where they placed blessed

Jeremiah. (Whalen, 2011, p. 41)

The pilgrim who penned The Breviarius cites the same features as the previously quoted

pilgrims, and the translation substitutes the House of Pilate for the Praetorium and The Church of

Holy Wisdom for the Church of St. Sophia. He also mentions a small chamber, not previously

alluded to by earlier pilgrims, which may refer to the later-named Well of Souls, under the

14

Sakrah. His description of the temple ruins is similar to that of the Bordeaux Pilgrim in that it

divides the ruins of the temple into two areas, one where a crypt is located (probably one of the

caves in the Warren’s Shaft area) and the other where a pinnacle is located (on the ridge). The

descent to Siloam is again associated with the temple ruins, but Jeremiah’s pit seems located

further south, in between the ruins and the pools of Siloam.

Accounts subsequent to the Muslim conquest also illuminate the former presence of the

two churches on the temple mount. A description of the Omar al-Khattab tradition explains that

he built a sanctuary at the southern end of the temple mount, soon after conquering Jerusalem in

638 C.E. This location is attested to by an account in the Muthir al-Ghiram, compiled seven

hundred years after the event, in the 14th century:

It is related as coming from Shadad ibn Aws, who accompanied Umar when he

entered the Noble Sanctuary of the Holy City on the day when God caused it to

be reduced by capitulation, that Umar entered by the Gate of Muhammad,

crawling on his hands and his knees, he and all those who were with him, until

he came up to the court of the Sanctuary. Then looking around to the right and

the left and glorifying God, he said: “By God, in whose hand is my soul, this

must be the sanctuary of David of which the Apostle spoke to us when he said

‘I was conducted there in the Night Journey.’” Then Umar advancing to the front

(or southern) part of the Haram area and to the western part thereof, said: “Let

us make this the place for the sanctuary [masjid].” (as cited in Peters, 1985, p.

188).

The later Byzantine pilgrims referred to the masjid of Omar as a house of prayer for the

15

Saracens. The earliest pilgrimage account alluding to this forerunner of the Al-Aqsa mosque is

mentioned by Arculf, in 680 C.E.:

In that famous place where the Temple once stood, near the (city) wall, on the

east, the Saracens now frequent an oblong house of prayer, which they pieced

together with upright planks and large beams over some ruined remains. It is said

that building can hold three thousand people. (Arculf I, 1, as cited in Peters, 1985,

p. 196; italics mine)

This telling account refers to ruins on the southern end of the temple mount upon which the

Saracens erected a house of prayer. We can logically identify these ruins as those of the Basilica

of the Blessed Mary mentioned by Antoninus as occupying the Praetorium. Notably, the

Saracen’s house of prayer admits 3,000 people, the same number of hospital beds in the Basilica

of the Blessed Mary.

An additional account, echoing that of Arculf, comes from the Christian Venerable Bede

(672-735 C.E..), one of the early chroniclers after the Muslim conquest, who wrote a description

with the usual topographical markers, except for one:

The site of the city Jerusalem, circling around in almost a circle, stands out

by the not small extent of its walls, by which also it holds itself below the

formerly neighboring Mount Sion, which, located to the south, rises above the

city like before an arc….

And in the lower part of the city, where the Temple, located in the vicinity

of the wall from the east, had been connected to the city itself by an access

bridge crossing over the middle, now the Saracens frequent there for prayer

a squared house, crudely constructed with raised planks and great beams over

16

certain remains of ruins, which is thought to hold three thousand men. Few

cisterns are found there that use water.

In the vicinity of the Temple is the Bethsaida pool, it appears distinguished

by a double pool, the one of which is mostly filled by the winter rains, the other

is discolored with reddish waters. Away from there, by the front of mount Sion,

which faces the eastern region with steep rock, and inside the walls, in the roots

of the hill, the Siloam spring bursts forth, which in fact flows in the south inter-

mittently with gusts of waters, that is, not with flowing waters, but in certain

hours of the day it erupts, and through vaults and caves in ground of the hardest

rock, it usually comes with a great sound…. (trans. Arnold vander Nat, 2001)

The Venerable Bede also provides contrasting descriptions for the temple mount (where the

Saracens frequent a prayer house) and the Temple ruins, which are distinguished by the features

of being in the lower part of the city, located near the city’s east wall, near a double pool (one of

which has reddish waters) and near the front of mount Zion, where the Siloam spring bursts

forth. His description of a former “access bridge crossing over the middle” which connected the

city and temple shows part of his description comes from Josephus and is particularly notable,

because it is located in the “lower part of the city,” referring to the southeastern hill. The

Venerable Bede duplicates the account of Arculf in mentioning the Saracens built a house of

prayer on ruins.

Another, much later account identifies the ruins spoken of by Arculf and the Venerable

Bede as those of the Church of our Blessed Lady, first named by Antoninus. In 1496 C.E.,

Arnold von Harff, a Christian visitor to Jerusalem, used bribes and a disguise to attain a

dangerous entrance to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque:

17

This Temple of Solomon is a fine round and lofty church roofed with lead….

Formerly the Jews held this tabernacle or chapel in great honor and reverence

and regarded it as a holy place, for on it stood the Ark of God….Beneath this

tabernacle is a small piece of rock enclosed with an iron railing, called the Holy

Rock, on which many wonders and miracles of God have been performed…

We went from this Temple eastwards, some twenty-six paces into a very fine

mosque or church called the Porch of Solomon [the Aqsa Mosque]. When the

Christians possessed Jerusalem it was called the Church of Our Blessed Lady,

where for a long time she went to school. This church, the Porch of Solomon, is

much longer than the Temple of Solomon….Since the heathen have this church

in great reverence, no Christian or Jew may approach it…. (as cited in Peters,

1985, pp. 406-407; information in brackets is Peters’; italics mine)

Hence, the pilgrim accounts point to the Byzantine mosaic found by R. W. Hamilton as

belonging to the Church of Our Blessed Lady or the Church of the Blessed Mary, a Byzantine

church which occupied the Praetorium at the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Concerning the fate of

the Church of St. Sophia, two descriptions provide the details of its demise. The first is an

explanatory citation which comes from another Omar tradition contained in the Muthir al-

Ghiram, where Umar asks Ka’b: “Where do

you think we should put the place of prayer for Muslims in this Holy

Sanctuary?” Ka’b answered: “In the further (northern) part of it, near

the Gate of the Tribes.” But Umar said: “No, since the fore part of the

sanctuary belongs to us.” (Le Strange, 1890, pp. 139-143, as cited in

18

Peters, 1985, p. 189).

This tradition hints that Omar distrusted Ka’b (a Jewish convert to Islam) and rejected the

northern part of the temple mount as a location for his house of prayer, because it “belonged” to

someone else. This circumstance would be consistent with the Church of St. Sophia still

occupying the site of the Dome of the Rock at the beginning of the Umayyad conquest.

However, when Caliph Abd al-Malik rose to leadership, he sought to demonstrate the

ascendancy of Islam over Christianity in Jerusalem and he ordered the construction of the Dome

of the Rock to compete with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on the opposite hill. Gil (1997)

cites a passage originally found in the Annals (Vol. II) of Said ibn Bitriq (Eutychius, Patriarch of

Alexandria, 876-940 C.E.), which was later shortened by Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 C.E.) in the

Kitab al-‘Ibar (Vol. III) to state:

“He [Caliph Abd al-Malik] built the Dome of the Rock on the site of a

Christian Church which he destroyed” (as cited in Gil, p. 92).

Hence, Eutychius and Khaldun are two more sources stating a Christian church had been built

over the “rock of the Praetorium” (the Sakrah), which church can only be the Church of Saint

Sophia, and al-Malik destroyed it to make way for the Dome of the Rock, completed in 692 C.E.

Eutychius also provides an Omar account in which he clarifies the Christian identification

of the temple mount as the Praetorium, which differed from the site of the former temple and its

ruins:

Then Umar said to him [Sophronius]: “You owe me a rightful debt. Give

me a place in which I might build a sanctuary [masjid].” The patriarch said

to him: “I will give to the Commander of the Faithful a place to build a

sanctuary where the kings of Rum were unable to build. It is the rock where

19

God spoke to Jacob and which Jacob called the Gate of Heaven and the Israelites

the Holy of Holies. It is in the center of the world and was a Temple for the

Israelites, who held it in great veneration and wherever they were they turned

their faces toward it during prayer. But on this condition, that you promise in

a written document that no other sanctuary will be built inside Jerusalem.”

Therefore Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote him the document on this matter and

handed it over to him. They were Romans when they embraced the Christian

religion, and Helena, the mother of Constantine, built the churches of Jerusalem.

The place of the rock and the area around it were deserted ruins and they [the

Romans] poured dirt over the rock so that great was the filth above it. The

Byzantines [Rum], however, neglected it because Christ our Lord said in his

Holy Gospel “Not a stone will be left upon a stone which will not be ruined and

devastated.” For this reason the Christians left it as a ruin and did not build a

church over it. So Sophronius took Umar ibn al-Khattab by the hand and stood

him over the filth. Umar, taking hold of his cloak filled it with dirt and threw it

into the Valley of Gehenna. When the Muslims saw Umar ibn al-Khattab carrying

dirt with his own hands, they all immediately began carrying dirt in their cloaks

and shields and what have you until the whole place was cleansed and the rock

was revealed. Then they all said: “Let us build a sanctuary and let us place the

stone at its heart.” “No,” Umar responded. “We will build a sanctuary and

place the stone at the end of the sanctuary.” Therefore, Umar built a sanctuary

and put the stone at the end of it.” (Baldi, 1955, pp. 447-448, as cited in Peters,

1985, p. 190; italics mine).

20

Since Eutychius says of the deserted temple ruins at the time of Omar that (1) the kings of Rum

(the Byzantine kings) had been unable to build there, (2) the Romans had covered them with dirt,

and (3) the Christians had not built a church over them, he cannot simultaneously believe the

Dome of the Rock occupied the site of the former temple ruins. Instead, Eutychius associates the

temple ruins with a rock covered in filth, near the Valley of Gehenna (the Kidron in the

Byzantine era). In addition, the rock covered in filth was portable, so it could not have referred

to the Sakrah. The filth of the site matches Jerome’s late fourth century description of the temple

location as a refuse dump (Commentary on Isaiah 64:11). Concomitantly, the results of several

archaeological excavations on the southeastern hill affirm that parts of it served as a garbage

disposal area (Reich, 2011). Most important, the kings (queens) of Rum had not built a church at

the center of the southeastern hill, which they considered the site of the Jewish temple, but they

had built one at the Dome of the Rock.

Although the identity of the 36-acre walled edifice changed from being the Praetorium to

the Haram esh-Sharif when the Muslims took over, then to the temple mount under the

Crusaders, then back to the Haram, a Christian monk living in Jerusalem in 1283 C.E. agreed

with the former Byzantine identity for the temple mount. An educated German Dominican monk

named Burchard (of Mount Sion), a reader of Josephus, said the following:

Mount Moriah, where the Lord’s Temple and the king’s palace were built, was

somewhat higher than the city, as is clearly seen from the position of the Temple

and its courts as described by Josephus, since each of them is described in his

histories. But all of these places are now utterly levelled, and are almost

lower than any other part of the city, for the mount was pulled down by

the Romans and cast into the brook Kedron, together with the ruins of the

21

Temple and its courts, as may be clearly seen at this day. The Temple is

square, and is more than a bowshot long and wide. The Temple which is

now built on it almost touches the city wall, which the true and ancient

Temple did not, because there were courts between it and the wall; but

now it is not more than about a hundred feet away from the wall and the

brook Kedron.

The Valley of Jehoshaphat also enclosed the city, passing along its

east side at the foot of the Mount of Olives. Though this valley is pretty

deep, yet it is much filled up; for the Romans, as Josephus tells us, when

they were besieging the city on that side, cut down the olives and other

trees, made mounds of them and filled up the valley with the mounds.

Moreover, after the city had been taken, Aelius Adrianus caused all the

ruins of the courts and the Temple to be cast into the brook Kedron, and

Mount Moriah to be levelled, so that the place might not again be fortified,

and he had the city sown with salt….(Burchard of Mount Sion, as cited in

Peters, 1985, pp. 450-451)

Burchard notes the disparity between the city of Josephus and the city he occupies, but he

confuses the actions of Simon the Hasmonean and Hadrian with those of the Romans under

Titus. He wonders at the identity of the so-called temple (apparently the Al-Aqsa Mosque),

which had been leveled and cast into the Kedron according to Josephus, yet is supposedly still

standing and much too close to the eastern wall to permit the courts described by Josephus.

In the Burchard translation published by the Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, a stunning

passage appears as follows:

22

The venerable Lord and Father James of Vitry, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his

book 2 on the conquest of the Holy Land, says, among other matters: ‘This often-

mentioned and often-to-be-mentioned city stands altogether on a lofty mountain;

it is enclosed on all sides by a strong wall and is neither straitened by excess of

smallness nor is it likely to offend by over-greatness. It measures four bow-shots

across from wall to wall, and has also on the west side a fortress of squared stones

cemented together unbreakably with mortar and lead, which on one side serves as

a wall to the city, and is called the Tower of David. This is what some call

Antony’s Tower and has on its south side Mount Sion, whereon David built him

a house, and where also he is buried, together with the other kings. He called

it the City of David. (Burchard of Sion, trans. Aubrey Stewart; italics mine).

Burchard quotes Jacques de Vitry (c. 1180-1240 C.E.) from his Historia Hiersolymitana, but the

reference to Antony’s tower is his own insertion. Burchard, therefore, expresses the possibility

that the Tower of David, or the temple mount, is the Antonia Fortress, the same identity held by

the Byzantines. Burchard also correctly identifies the Mount Zion of David as the southeastern

hill.

This analysis of ancient sources, particularly from the Byzantine period, indicates the

Byzantine pilgrims and some later historians called the Roman camp the Praetorium, the same

edifice which eyewitness Eleazar, in Josephus, War VII, 8, 376 (Whiston version) described as

the only monument preserved after the siege of Titus. The Byzantines associated that monument

with the site where Christ had been tried by Pilate and where his footprints had been

memorialized on the “rock of the Praetorium.” The Byzantine tour circuit included the Church

of St. Sophia and the Church of the Blessed Mary, both occupying the Praetorium at the sites of

23

the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. On the other hand, the Byzantines described the

temple ruins site with features related to the southeastern hill, especially Eudocia’s east wall of

the city, Mount Zion, and the fountain of Siloam, from where waters ran down to the pool of

Siloam.

References

Burchard of Sion. (n.d./ 1897). (Trans. A. Stewart) In Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society (Vol. 12).

London, Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://books

.google.com/books?id=7q8rAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR2&lpg=PR3&output=text#c_top

Conybeare, F. C. (1905). Rituale Armenorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 507-527. Retrieved

from the Bombaxo website: http://www.bombaxo.com/conybeare.html

Cyril of Jerusalem. (c. 350 C.E.). Catechetical Lectures. Retrieved September 11, 2014 from

Christian Classics Ethereal Library website: thttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff

/npnf207.ii.xvii.html

Etheria. (n.d./1919). The Pilgrimage of Etheria. (Trans. and Eds. M. L. McClure and C. L.

Feltoe. London, UK: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Retrieved

August 28, 2014 from Christian Classics Ethereal Library website: http://www.ccel

.org/m/mcclure/etheria/etheria.htm

Gil, M. (1997). A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Hammer, J. (2011). “What Is Beneath the Temple Mount?” Retrieved January 1, 2013, from

Smithsonian.com website: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-/What-is-

Beneath-the-Temple-Mount.html?c=y&page=6&submitted=y#comments_submitted)

Josephus. F. (1999). The new complete works of Josephus (Trans. W. Whiston). Grand Rapids,

MI: Kregel Publications.

24

Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1996). The geography of faith. Bible Review, 12(6), 32-41, 52-53.

Levkovits, E. (2008, Nov. 17). Was the Aqsa Mosque built over the remains of a Byzantine

Church? Retrieved August 1, 2014, from Jerusalem Post website: http://www

.jpost.com/Israel/Was-the-Aksa-Mosque-built-over-the-remains-of-a-Byzantine-church

Massive First Temple-period reservoir discovered under Western Wall. (2012, Sept.).

Retrieved September 19, 2014, from Jewish Virtual Library website:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/arch0912.html

Peters, F. E. (1985). Jerusalem: The Holy City in the eyes of chroniclers, visitors, pilgrims, and

prophets from the days of Abraham to the beginnings of modern times. Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press.

Reich, R. (2011). Excavating the City of David where Jerusalem’s history began. Jerusalem:

Israel Exploration Society.

Shragai, N. (2012, June 29). Second Temple-era mikveh discovered under Al-Aqsa mosque.

Retrieved August 18, 2014, from Israel Hayom website: http://www.israel.hayom

.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=4890

The Bordeaux Pilgrim. (n.d. /2001). Itinerary of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (A. vander

Nat, Trans.). Retrieved from Early Accounts of the Temple of Jerusalem website:

http://orion.it.luc.edu /~avande1/jerusalem/sources/bordeauxJerus.htm

The Breviary of Jerusalem. (6th Century A.D.). (Trans. B.E. Whalen). In Pilgrimage in

the Middle Ages, A Reader. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

The Venerable Bede. (n.d./2001). De Loctis Sanctis. (Trans. A. vander Nat). Retrieved July 8,

2013, from Loyola University Chicago website: http://orion.it.luc.edu/~avande1

/jerusalem/sources/bede.htm

Wilson, C.W.W. (1896). Of the Holy Places visited by Antoninus Martyr. (Trans. A. Stewart).

London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society. Retrieved June 14, 2013, from http://www.

jerusalem-library.org/resources_new/Antoninus%20Martyr.pdf0.pdf

25