1. Jerusalem in the Time of Emperor Justinian (527-565 CE)
Background photograph by Carl Pace, © 2006
Carl Pace, Jan. 2008

2. Introduction
Byzantine Jerusalem held the unique quality of being both on the periphery of the Empire and ideologically at the center of the world.
Profound economic, social, and political changes accompanied Imperial interests in Jerusalem as a sacred site.
Because of Jerusalem’s sacred character, the political and social importance the city had lost after the Roman was slowly being regained.
The development of Byzantine Jerusalem reached its zenith under the reign of Justinian I.
Background image: Madaba map, after Piccirillo & Alliata 1998: 198 (used throughout)
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of the World and Savior of Mankind, appeared in this land, and there He thought fit to take upon Himself our sins,” (Justinian, Novel 103; Maas 1986: 23).

3. Emperor Justinian Reigned 527-565 CE.
Engaged the Sassanid Persian Empire in military combat.
Published many legal works and collections, some of which dealt severe blows to the rights of non-Christians in the Empire.
Urged the persecution of pagans and Samaritans, and the suppression of Jews in Palestine.
Made a lasting impression on Jerusalem through building projects and imperial patronage of the Church of Jerusalem and its institutions.
Background photography after Piccirillo & Alliata 1998:198
Center: Emperor Justinian, according to the floor mosaic from the Basilica of San Vitale, Ravenna, Italy, after
Justinian’s political career began under the hegemony of Justin I. During Justin’s reign, Justinian was put in charge of many Imperial affairs, eventually being named co-Emperor in 527 (Justinian I, EB). By the time Justinian came to power, it was an established custom that the Emperor be involved in the affairs of governing the Church, not just the Empire. As Emperor during the Monophysite/Dyophysite schism in the church, Justinian would have been responsible for dealing with the arising ecclesiastical disputes and the enforcement of ecclesiastical decisions throughout the empire. Justinian is known to have set about the abolishment of sects of Christianity deemed heretical.
The growing threat of the Sassanid Persian Empire in the East dominated Justinian’s military concerns, as well as his policies of governance in the eastern provinces. In a move demonstrating the intensity of the threat, in 532, Justinian signed a peace treaty (the so-called “Treaty of Eternal Peace”) with the Sassanid king, Khosrau I, agreeing to pay an annual tribute to the Persian king (Justinian I, EB).
Justinian I is well known in general for his investment in the development of legislation in the Empire. He was responsible for (sponsoring) the publication of many legal collections, some of which dealt severe blows to the rights of Christian heretics, pagans, Samaritans, and Jews throughout the Empire (Justinian I, EB). One suspects that Justinian’s persecution of non-Christians might be likened to the harsh persecution of Christians under Emperor Diocletian in the third century CE. This persecution of the Samaritans likely led to their rebellion in 529, a disastrous affair that caused much damage and economic loss in Palestine.
Justinian’s major contributions to the development of Jerusalem happened the in the wake of the Samaritan rebellion. His rebuilding of the city and his sponsorship of new projects brought the city of Jerusalem to the pinnacle of its growth and splendor in the Byzantine Period. Justinian’s building campaign in Jerusalem made a lasting impact that is still observable today.

4. Previous construction
First major period of Byzantine construction in Jerusalem began under Constantine the Great and his mother Helena. They are responsible for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher inside the city and the Eleona Church on the Mount of Olives.
The second period of Byzantine construction occurred under the Empress Eudocia, who had taken up residence and rule in Jerusalem in the fifth century CE. She is responsible for the construction of several churches, and perhaps also the new southern wall of the city.
All of the sites established by previous generations were incorporated into sixth-century CE Jerusalem, some even being renovated and replanned by Justinian.
Major construction efforts in Jerusalem began with Constantine the Great and his mother Helena. Helena, a Christian, traveled throughout Palestine, selecting sacred sites which would be enhanced through imperial construction. In Jerusalem, she and her son are responsible for the construction of the Eleona Church in the Garden of Gethsemane and the famous Church of the Holy Sepulcher. These efforts, though impressive, were only the beginning of Byzantine improvements of Jerusalem, and constituted only the first of three periods of major development in the city.
Later, in the fourth century, the Empress Eudocia, who had become alienated from her husband in 444 CE after dispute with the emperor’s sister, was exiled to Jerusalem, where she took over rule of the city (Wilkinson 2000: 98). During her long tenure in the city, Eudocia is said to have been responsible for the construction of many public works, such as churches and hospitals. The most noteworthy among them are the Church of Holy Zion, the Church of St. Peter in Gallicantu (on the site of the house of Caiaphas the high priest), the Siloam Church (Church of the Virgin by the Pool of Siloam), and the Church of St. Stephen, outside of the city to the north. Eudocia may also have been responsible for the construction of the new southern wall of Jerusalem, which brought both the eastern and western hills within the city proper, as well as the valley passing between them (Tyropoean; Gray 1969: 202).
Both of these periods of growth and development were incorporated into and magnified by Justinian’s rebuilding of Jerusalem.

5. Development of Jerusalem Under Justinian
Repair and renovation of the city following the Samaritan revolt of 529 CE.
Construction of the Nea Church.
Extension of the Cardo Maximus into the southern portion of the city.
Establishment of hospices, hostels, and a home for the aged.
Under Justinian, Jerusalem experienced its third period of growth, building, and development (Ben-Dov 1977: 32). What caused this period of invigoration under Justinian? It seems certainly to have been prompted by the difficulties, both political and economic, surrounding the revolt of the Samaritans in Palestine (Justinian built and renovated church structures, but also was responsible for the construction of humanitarian works, such as a hostel for pilgrims and a hospital for the ill, both addended to the structure of the Nea Church, his most famous contribution to the architecture and building up of Jerusalem.
If the record of Cyril of Scythopolis is to be counted, the hospital alone was an impressive work. Cyril indicated that the hospital held 200 beds, and that it received an annual Imperial endowment of 3700 gold solidi (Downey 1950: 265), the equivalent of nearly 51.5 pounds of gold (figuring after Mayerson 1988: 68). Justinian may also have built a home for the aged in Jerusalem (Bahat 1990: 74). Archaeological evidence also suggests that it was Justinian, and not Hadrian, who constructed the southern half of the Cardo Maximus, the portion running from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to the Nea Church (Bahat 1990: 74).
An interesting snapshot of the state of Jerusalem in the time of Justinian can be found in the Madaba map, from Jordan.

6. Government of Byzantine Jerusalem
Under Justinian, Jerusalem was governed by the Proconsul of Palaestina Prima. The Proconsul held judicial and military power, and was charged with maintaining the peace in Palestine, which was often beset with problems of religious dissent.
It is likely that some measure of political power was in the hands of Jerusalem’s clergy, who were in leadership over the faithful at the spiritual heart of the Byzantine Empire.
Jerusalem was under the governance of the governor of Palaestina Prima (one of three Palestinian provinces, including, Secunda and Salutaris[Mayerson 1988: 66]), the capital of which was Caesarea (Mayerson 1988: 65). Although the political role of the Proconsul had disappeared from Palestine earlier in the Byzantine period, it was renewed by Justinian (Mayerson 1988: 65-66). This proconsul was to oversee the rule of Palaestina Prima, delivering rulings on public and private litigation, and enforcing the collection of public taxes (Mayerson 1988: 66). A special problem in the government of Palestine was the tension caused by religious dissent and the presence of religious revolutionaries in the land (Mayerson 1988: 70). Unrest in the provinces was handled by the Proconsul of Palaestina Prima, who was invested not only with political power, but also military might (Mayerson 1988: 70). The Proconsul Stephanus under Justinian was responsible for the dispersal of public funds to bishops for repairs to churches in the wake of the destructive Samaritan revolt (Mayerson 1988: 69). Amongst all of these political roles in the Imperial system, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem must also have had some power and influence, especially among the faithful (Tsafrir 1999: 143).

7. Economy of Byzantine Jerusalem
The economy of Jerusalem experienced a dramatic boost during much of the Byzantine period.
Imperial building campaigns and state funding, as well as private donations, made Jerusalem a wealthy city, as is reflected in the high standard of living attested in the archaeological record.
Because of Christian pilgrimage to sacred sites in and around Jerusalem, tourism and related industries became an essential part of Jerusalem’s economy.
Due to the increased wealth of the city, and the foundation of many charitable organizations, Jerusalem was soon flooded with many poor individuals.
After a devastating Samaritan revolt in 529 CE, Justinian attempted to revive the economy by enacting a building campaign, through which many buildings were renovated, the Cardo Maximus was extended, and the Nea Church was built.
Throughout the Byzantine period, Jerusalem increasingly benefited in many ways from the attention it drew as the site of events in the life of Jesus and the early church. This attention affected the economy of the city just as surely as it did the demographics and religious life of the populace.
The economic revolution of Byzantine Jerusalem began under Constantine the Great, and can immediately be differentiated from the normal economic situation of other cities of Jerusalem’s size. Rather than having an economy driven mostly by the sale of normal goods and produce, Jerusalem’s economy was marked by its character as a sacred site in the eyes of the Empire. With an economy probably reminiscent of the temple or cult cities in the older Near East, Jerusalem became the focus of many special building efforts, which no doubt brought work for local laborers (Avi-Yonah 1958: 42), as well as becoming a thriving center of tourism; for that must have been the sort of impact that pilgrimage had upon the city (Avi-Yonah 1958: 45).
The Byzantine period is marked by an influx of capital into Palestine, and Jerusalem in particular, in and after the time of Constantine (Avi-Yonah 1958: 41). This investment came in many forms. For example, there were the imperial construction projects, funded by public revenues from the state treasury, noting especially Constantine’s construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Eleona Church on the Mount of Olives (Avi-Yonah 1958: 42). In addition to imperial investment, which went beyond the building of churches to the construction of hostels, hospitals, and poor houses, there were also private donors who helped to develop Jerusalem (Avi-Yonah 1958: 43). Fleeing from the invading Goths and Vandals in Rome, some of the Roman elite came to Jerusalem with their wealth in tow. So too did Jerusalem become the home of figures seeking political asylum (Avi-Yonah 1958: 45).
As for the industry of tourism stemming from the phenomenon of pilgrimage, much revenue must have been gained by the city in general and by its citizens in particular for providing for the physical needs of pilgrims, as well as supplying them with guides to holy sites and through the sale of souvenirs and relics (Avi-Yonah 1958: 45). Pilgrims were able to find free or low-cost housing while in Jerusalem through the Imperial sponsorship of hostels (Avi-Yonah 1958: 45). The festival celebrating the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was an event of great commercial and social significance throughout the Byzantine Period (Tsafrir 1999:135).
Some pilgrims came to Jerusalem seeking more than just a spiritual experience, and would come to depend on the charity of the wealthy who made the spiritual center of the empire their home (Avi-Yonah 1958: 45). This, perhaps, was the darker side of the economic situation in Palestine. Because of the great wealth pooled in the city, and due to the charitable constructions of and donations to foundations designed to care for the poor, the number of Jerusalem’s poor steadily grew (Avi-Yonah 1958:47). This situation would not have improved during periods of waning Imperial investment in the city. The presence of so many charitable institutions also likely discouraged many from seeking gainful employment, since they could be well taken care of at the expense of the wealthy. In addition to this, imperial building efforts were directed into “unproductive building”, the construction of edifices that would not produce economic goods, but would pool wealth around the clergy by means of tenets of religious donation (Avi-Yonah 1958:46-48).
Still, the increase in the size and population of Jerusalem had its own stimulating effect on the economy of the city. Where many people live, much food must be provided. Also, when there were building projects, they would have been excellent sources of employment over long periods of time. As such, the economic life of the city went on (Avi-Yonah 1958:48-49).
During the days of Justinian, Jerusalem experienced its third economic and developmental renaissance (Ben-Dov 1977: 32). Avigad has referred to this period as “the flowering of Byzantine Jerusalem,” (Avigad 1983: 208), the very pinnacle of the development of the city in the period (Gray 1969: 202). In addition to imperial projects, the city was enhanced by further private investment in the construction of sacred buildings (Avi-Yonah 1958:51).
However, in 529 CE, perhaps due to imperial persecution of non-Christians in the Empire (Meyendorff 1968: 45), in particular Justinian’s order to destroy Samaritan synagogues in Palestine (Parker 1999: 137), the Samaritan communities of Palestine erupted in revolt, causing great damage to Jerusalem, as well as other sites (Wilkinson 2000:99). The chaos of the revolt was followed by a two-year term of tax relief, which helped to offset the economic crisis caused by massive damage in the city (Avi-Yonah 1958:51; Mayerson 1988:68). This revolt had a major impact on the economy of the Jerusalem and the subsequent development of the city. In response to it, Justinian commissioned a group of Bishops to evaluate the total economic loss due to damage incurred during the revolt. These Bishops were then entrusted with funds from the state treasury, enough to equal a substantial loss to the Empire, to make arrangements for repairs (Mayerson 1988:68-69). It is in the wake of this crisis that Justinian ordered the construction of his most ambitious Jerusalem project, the Nea Church, or New Church of St. Mary Theotokos (Mother of God) (Avi-Yonah 1958:51).
The material culture uncovered in archaeological excavations in Jerusalem indicates that throughout much of the Byzantine period, there was a relatively high standard of living (Ben-Dov 1977: 33; Parker 1999: 169). It seems that many citizens were able to afford luxury goods, such as glass vessels or fine pottery, and that many houses were more artfully appointed with mosaic floors and through the use of marble as construction material (NEAEHL 2: ).
The end of Justinian’s days also witnessed the decline of the last economic boom of Byzantine Jerusalem (Avi-Yonah 1958:51).

8. Demographics of Byzantine Jerusalem
During the Byzantine period, Jerusalem was a truly cosmopolitan town, being home to by Arabs, Greeks, Cappadocians, Armenians, Latins, and Egyptians, among others.
Regardless of ethnicity, the majority of Jerusalem’s inhabitants were Christians. Some chose to live within the walls and to participate in the civic life of Christianity’s first Metropolis. Others eschewed the city, and chose to dwell as monks in the monasteries on the Mount of Olives.
Pilgrims, both those who made Jerusalem their temporary home and those who visited only to stay forever, constituted a major part of the populace of the city.
During the time of Justinian, Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem except on the 9th of Av, when they would visit the site of Herod’s Temple in mourning. This was intended, no doubt, to serve as a reminder that the Jews had been replaced by the Christian as Verus Israel ‘True Israel’.
Judging by the texts at our disposal, Jerusalem in the Byzantine period seems to have been a truly cosmopolitan city. Jerusalem was home to people of a variety of ethnicities: Arabs, Greeks, Cappadocians, Armenians, Latins, Egyptians, and others (Tsafrir 1999:145). But it was also home to a variety of movements as well (Stroumsa 1989: 19). According to one scholar, this pluralistic society served to slow the development of exlusionary attitudes among different religious groups in Jerusalem (Stroumsa 1989: 24). While this conclusion might be questioned, there is no doubting the fact that people of many ideological backgrounds found refuge in Jerusalem.
Jerusalem did have its own local community, which did not speak Latin, but rather Greek or Aramaic (Stroumsa 1989:18;, 20). Of course, many who were not native to the country would in time find it to be their first home, for as Cyril of Jerusalem pointed out, for the Christian, living in Jerusalem was a privilege of the first order, since “others merely hear [the gospel], but we see and touch,” (Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catecheses XIII:22,” in The Works of Saint Cyril of JerusalemI [ed. L. McCauley: Washington, D. C., 1986] 2.19; Rubin 1999: 165).
A large contigent of the population of Jerusalem in the time of Justinian no doubt would have been pilgrims. The sixth century saw an increase in pilgrimage to the city, probably due to the renovations and projects of Justinian, along with the revenue attracted by it (Bahat 1990: 74). Some of these would have been poor, people looking for charity from the venerable and wealthy Christians of Jerusalem, but others would have been paying guests. They might pay for room and board, rent local guides to show them the holy sites, and they might seek to purchase some souvenir of their visit, maybe even a relic to take back home (Tsafrir 1999: ). This influx of tourists, probably at its peak during festivals and holidays, must have made Jerusalem’s streets bustle with activity, both social and economic. Still another group of travellers sought to make their home in Jerusalem, but not within the walls of the city. Christian pilgrims seeking to practice monastic virtues were known to take up residence in any of several monasteries in the area, mostly on the Mount of Olives.
But what of the Jewish element of the society? Though the Jewish community had remained quite strong and entrenched in the Galilee throughout the Roman-Byzantine period, Jerusalem had become forbidden territory. After Emperor Hadrian’s expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem following the Second Jewish Revolt, most Byzantine Emperors reaffirmed the decision to ban the Jews from entering Jerusalem. An exception was made for Jews who wished to visit the site of the remains of the Herodian Temple on the ninth of Av (Bahat 1990: 68). According to the Bordeaux Pilgrim, in the fourth century, Jews came to the Temple Mount once a year to anoint a stone with holes in some sort of commemoration of the Temple (Tsafrir 1999: 135). Jerome, in the fifth century, goes as far as to say that the Jewish community had to purchase the right to visit the site of the Temple (Tsafrir 1999: 144).
The fact that the Jews were permitted to enter Jerusalem at least on this occasion was not so much a function of the generosity of the government or the local church as it was an opportunity to humilate the Jews and to remind them of the loss of their Temple. This is quite clear from Jerome’s description of the visiting Jewish community, “A piteous crowd…woebegone women and old men weighed down with rags and years, all of them showing forth in their clothes and their bodies the wrath of God. That mob of wretches congregates, and while the manger of the Lord sparkles, the Church of His Resurrection glows, and the banner of His Cross shines forth from the Mount of Olives, those miserable people groan over the ruins of their Temple,” (Jerome, On Zephania 1, 15-16; Rubin 1999:180).
The fortunes of the Jewish community in Jerusalem were lifted at least on two occasions in the history of Byzantine Jerusalem. The first occurred in the fourth century under Emperor Julian, called “the Apostate”. Julian, who was no friend of Christianity, sought to turn all of Rome (the Byzantine Empire) to his own cult of the sun. The Emperor at the very least was interested in reestablishing the cults of other religions in opposition to Christianity. To this end, Julian swore support to the Jewish community, promising them that he would rebuild the Temple and permit them to once again offer sacrifices. Julian’s plans did not last long; the Emperor died not long after, and whatever work might have begun in Jerusalem ceased.
The second time the Jewish community saw a reprieve from the limiting and oppressive policies of the government and the church in Jerusalem was under the reign of Empress Eudocia in the fifth century. Eudocia had prevailed upon the authorities to lift the ban and permit the Jewish community greater access to Jerusalem, during which time it is quite possible that Jewish families took up residence in Jerusalem (Bahat 1990:73). Even though Christian Byzantine Jerusalem, patterned after its Roman predecessor, was no longer the Jerusalem of Herod’s days, “no imperial edict could erase the Jewish dimension of Jerusalem, the city of David and the locus of Solomon’s temple,” (Stroumsa 1989: 26). Ultimately the freedoms that the Jews of Jerusalem enjoyed did not last, for the ban was reinstated after Eudocia’s death in 460 CE (Bahat 1990:73).
Outside of the Jewish and Christian populations in, around, and passing through Jerusalem, there must also have been pagan elements. However, due to the nature of the records at hand, mostly ecclesiatical, it is difficult to discern how large a community of non-Christians and non-Jews might have taken up residence and trade in the city. The discovery of a mosaic containing Orpheus and other pagan imagery in a chapel north of the Damascus gate might raise some questions about the existence of pagan elements in Christian Jerusalem (Tsafrir 1999:144). Alternatively, the scenes of Pan, Orpheus, and the centaur might simply have belonged to the standard repertoire of the mosaic artist hired for the task, or there was less concern over the use of such scenes. In this regard, one thinks of the zodiac mosaics that decorated some of the synagogues of the period as well.

9. Madaba Map
Bottom Left: Jerusalem vignette from the Madaba map, after Piccirillo & Alliata 1998:198.
Top Right: Largest portion of the Madaba map, after Piccirillo & Alliata 1998, with labels by Carl Pace.
During the construction of a new Orthodox church in the city of Madaba, Jordan (a site with a long history, mentioned already in the 9th century BCE inscription of Mesha, King of Moab), workers uncovered a remarkable fragmentary mosaic floor in part of the old church that contained a sixth-century map showing portions of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Because of its detailed, albeit idealized, depiction, this so-called Madaba map has been essential to our understanding of the layout of Palestine, and in particular Jerusalem, since its discovery (Bahat 1990: 68).
The map of Jerusalem clearly indicates the used of columned main streets as was common in Roman city planning. Jerusalem had two cardines (plural of cardo), the cardo maximus, the central, columned main street of Roman and Byzantine Jerusalem, and the smaller, eastern cardo. Both cardines begin in a public plaza in front of what is today the Damascus Gate. A black pillar is shown standing in the center of the plaza, which was a typical architectural element decorating such public squares or areas from Roman times. The pillar has not found today, but the memory of this device has probably survived in the Arabic name for the gate, Bab el-Amud ‘Gate of the Pillar’.
These roads, the public plaza, and the gate structure were all major elements in the Roman city plan of Aelia Capitolina, which was constructed by Emperor Hadrian on top of the Jerusalem of the Second Temple Period after the Roman conquests of the city from 70 to 135 CE. The Gate structure was originally an open system of arches rather than a fortified gate, and only later was it walled up to create a true gate in a city wall. Presumably, this was a measure by Hadrian to prevent the citizens from defending themselves in a siege in event of further civil unrest.
Also plainly visible on the Madaba vignette of Jerusalem are three or four large monumental buildings, one possibly on the upper left-hand side, close to the main plaza, one in the center, below the cardo maximus, and two on the right-hand side of the image. These have all been identified as major churches of the Byzantine period. The building on the upper left could be the Church of St. Mary of the Probatica, which was constructed in the mid-fifth century CE on the site of the Sheep Pools or the Pool of Bethesda. The central building can easily be identified with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, originally constructed by Emperor Constantine in the fourth century CE to commemorate and preserve the site of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.
The two buildings on the right are more difficult, but the lower most likely represents the Church of Holy Zion, also called The Mother of All Churches (due to its association with the site of the apostles’ experience at Pentacost, often viewed as the incipit of the church), constructed under the patronage of Empress Eudocia in the fifth century CE. The upper building likely represents the famed New Church of St. Mary Theotokos (Mother of God), or Nea Church, which was built by Emperor Justinian in the sixth century, and which Procopius, the sixth-century CE historian, called “a shrine with which no other can be compared,” (Procopius, De Aedificiis, V, 6, 1). The identification of this building as the Nea Church would mean that the Madaba map dates to or after the mid-sixth century CE. Consequently, it is very important for an understanding of Justinian’s Jerusalem in particular.
Beyond its value in this regard, the map also gives us a unique perspective on how the map-maker conceptualized his world. Note especially that in the mosaic, the primary orientation of the map is facing East, as opposed to modern North-oriented maps. For a discussion on the topic at large, see S. Meier, “Orienting the Mappa Mundi in Judaism's Earliest Traditions," Shofar 17 (1998)

10. Jerusalem in the Madaba Map
Background and foreground: Madaba map, after Piccarillo & Alliata 1999: 198, with alterations

11. The Walls of Byzantine Jerusalem
According to the Madaba map, the walls of Jerusalem formed a formidable protective circuit around the city, puctuated by many defensive towers.
In the Byzantine Period, the Damascus/Neapolis gate was once again fortified and filled in, abolishing Hadrian’s free-standing open gate for good.
To the south of the city, possibly under the direction of Empress Eudocia, the southern city wall was extended to bring the southern hills and the valley between them into the city proper.
Madaba map, with walls highlighted, after Piccarillo & Alliata 1999: 198, with alterations.

12. The Cardines
The cardines, main, columned streets, one passing through the center of Jerusalem and the other passing through the city’s eastern side, were not only the main thoroughfares. They were also centers of economy and social interaction.
Madaba map, with Cardo Maximus, Holy Sepulcher, and Nea Church highlighted, after Piccarillo & Alliata 1999: 198, with alterations

13. Probatica Church of St. Mary of the Probatica
The Church of St. Mary of the Probatica (Church of the Sheep) was built in the mid-fifth century CE to commemorate Jesus’ healing of a man at the nearby Pool of Bethesda.
Excavation in the area indicates that the site was previously occupied by a pagan religious center, possibly a shrine of healing.
Madaba map, with the Church of the Probatica highlighted, after Piccarillo & Alliata 1999: 198, with alterations.

14. Holy Sepulcher Church of the Holy Sepulcher
The Church of the Holy Sepucher was originally constructed under Constantine the Great in the fourth century CE. It commemorated and preserved the site of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.
As is suggested from the ideological placement of the church in the center of Jerusalem in the Madaba map, the Holy Sepulcher was at the heart of the Christian image of Jerusalem.
Madaba map, with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher highlighted, after Piccarillo & Alliata 1999: 198, with alterations.

15. Holy Zion Church of Holy Zion
The Church of Holy Zion, also called “The Mother of all Churches,” was built by Empress Eudocia in the fifth century CE to commemorate the beginning of the church on the day of Pentecost.
The church that stood before Holy Zion was the seat of Jerusalemite Christianity until it was eventually overshadowed by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
Madaba map, with the Church of Holy Zion highlighted, after Piccarillo & Alliata 1999: 198, with alterations.

16. The New Church of St. Mary Theotokos
Nea Church
The New Church of St. Mary Theotokos
(The Nea Church)
Constructed in the sixth century under Emperor Justinian, the Nea was viewed as the crowning achievement of Imperial building in Jerusalem.
The structure, standing as it does on the verge of a downward slope, was a feat of engineering in its day. In order to create a flat area for construction, a massive, many-chambered vault was built on the slope-side.
This vault supported the southern side of the massive church, along with several other structures related to the church, most likely Justinian’s hospices for pilgrims and the infirm.
Madaba map, with the Nea Church highlighted, after Piccarillo & Alliata 1999: 198, with alterations.

17. Size and Extent of Jerusalem
Above: Cast metal model of 6th century CE (Byzantine) Jerusalem from the Tower of David Museum in Jerusalem (Photo, with labeling, by Carl Pace, 2006).
During the Byzantine period, Jerusalem’s population swelled dramatically, resulting in the expansion of the city south to the southwestern hill, which, together with the City of David and the Tyropoean Valley, would eventually be taken within the city walls with the construction of a new southern wall (Avigad 1983: 209). The area southwest of the Temple Mount saw considerable building activity in this period, as did the southern end of Jerusalem in general (Mare 1987: ). In addition to the expansion of the city southward, the population of the city no doubt also expanded beyond the walls to settle north of the city and especially east, on the slopes of the Mount of Olives. This latter location was favored by many seeking the monastic life.
In the picture above, one can see the layout of Jerusalem at the time of Justinian I (sixth century CE). Many major public works, especially religious centers, gave the city a particular character, as did the main streets of Jerusalem, the Cardines and the Decumanus (the east-west road intersecting the Cardines). Note that, as in the model pictured here, the Temple Mount was left in ruins throughout the Byzantine period (Bahat 1990: 78). This was intended to serve as a reminder to the Jewish community of their loss and replacement by Christianity. By Justinian’s day, the valley south of the Roman city had already been taken within the bounds of the walled city in what was probably the largest extension of Jerusalem in the city’s history.

18. City plan and housing
Upper left: A mosaic floor in a Byzantine period residence just south of the Temple Mount (Photo by Carl Pace, 2006).
Upper right: View along the Cardo Maximus in a Model of 6th century CE Jerusalem under Justinian on the grounds of the Church of St. Peter in Gallicantu (photo courtesy of with labeling by Carl Pace, 2008).
Lower left: Cast metal model of 6th century CE (Byzantine) Jerusalem from the Tower of David Museum in Jerusalem (Photo, with labeling, by Carl Pace, 2006).
Lower right: Model of Jerusalem from the Church of St. Peter in Gallicantu, view of Jerusalem from the east (photo courtesy of with labeling by Carl Pace, 2008).
In terms of city planning, Byzantine Jerusalem in general followed the layout of Roman Jerusalem, with its two Cardines, the Decumanus, and its Forum, among other features (Tsafrir 1999:135). With the intensification of building, the old city plan was made to conform to the needs of the residents and builders. It is likely that this forced accommodation of the old plan that leads Tsafrir to suggest that Byzantine architecture and city-planning is typified by “comfortable disorder” (Tsafrir 1999:142).
By the time of Justinian, Christians had probably completely abandoned the older fashion on meeting in a members’ house (the so-called domus ecclesia), preferring instead the larger, more monumental churches of imperial patronage. Jerusalem in the Byzantine period was a city with truly Christian monuments. In addition to churches, other public works were constructed to serve the Jerusalem community, such as hospitals, hostels, poor shelters, and homes for the elderly (Tsafrir 1999:142).
On the domestic level, some remains of houses have been discovered. A lavish dwelling from the Byzantine Period was uncovered during construction work on the Sephardi Hospital in the Old City (Ben-Dov 1977: 33). In his excavations south of the Temple Mount, B. Mazar uncovered a whole Byzantine neighborhood. These were remains of Byzantine dwellings from the 6th century CE, part of a dense occupation level in the city. In fact, much of the area of the modern day Jewish Quarter was densely populated in the Byzantine Period (NEAEHL 2:774). The number of houses that have been discovered preserved has allowed scholars to make some description of both house architecture and city planning (NEAEHL 2:733).
The Byzantine house of the 6th c. CE was typically a series of rooms arranged around a central courtyard, equipped with centrally oriented windows and doors. The buildings would usually be two stories tall, with cellars cut into the rock beneath (NEAEHL 2:773). Many houses were tiled, and the tiles were often inscribed with the names of their manufacturers (NEAEHL 2:774).
Floor mosaics were a common feature in the houses of this period, a fact pointing to the relatively high standards of living in Byzantine Jerusalem, especially during the prosperous time of Justinian I (NEAEHL 2:773; Ben-Dov 1977: 33). Judging by the number of fragments recovered from the ruins of the Byzantine houses at the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount, marble seems to have been a common construction material, adding to the impression that wealth was characteristic of this period (NEAEHL 2:774).
On the other hand, these discoveries could be the accident of the spade, and could be skewing the picture of what life was like for all the populace of sixth century Jerusalem. Perhaps only the wealthy could afford to have houses, and the less fortunate were homeless or lived in the many hostels. Or perhaps the southern region of Jerusalem was a more prestigious community, being that it was closer to the new Justinianic constructions of the Nea and the southern Cardo.

19. The Cardo/Cardines
Top Left: Section of the eastern Cardo exposed in Jerusalem (photo after
Center : Reconstructed portion of the Cardo Maximus uncovered in the excavations in the Jewish Quarter, photograph by Brian Gault, 2006.
Far Right: Plan of section of the Cardo excavated in the Jewish Quarter under Avigad (photo after Avigad 1983: 223)
Lower Left: Cardo of Gerasa-Jerash, after Piccirillo & Alliata 1999: 202.
Lower Right: Cardo and plaza of Gerasa-Jerash, after Piccirillo & Alliata 1999: 202.
Based on the evidence provided by both the Madaba map and the general style of Roman-Byzantine cities, it was established that at one time, Jerusalem had two major avenues, one which bisected the city and the other which passed through the eastern side of the city following the line of the Tyropoean Valley, close to the Temple Mount and the old Herodian avenue that passed by there (Bahat 1990: 77). Additionally, both avenues merged onto a large plaza on the northern end of the city, which was decorated with a pillar or statue at its center.
These streets were called cardines, or ‘axes’ (one would be called a cardo ‘axis’), and as the name indicates, they were the axes of the city. These streets formed the backbone of the Roman city of Aelia Capitolina, and were adopted into the Byzantine city plan of Jerusalem, no doubt becoming one of the primary features of the city.
In excavations of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, the first remains of the Cardo Maximus, the primary artery of Jerusalem, were uncovered 2.5 meters below the level of the modern street (Avigad 1983: 221). Under the direction of Avigad, the area was cleared and what remained of the Cardo was reconstructed. The street was found to be a massive construction 22.5 meters wide (Avigad 1983: 221), with drainage channels on either side of the road, and a collonade area that at one time supported a roof system. The excavators also discovered that on the western side of the avenue, there were niches or magazines. At one time, these small chambers likely were home to street vendors, who would sell their goods to passers-by, just as they do today in the suq.
In addition to its markets, the Cardo Maximus also connected the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to the Nea Church in what must have been a processional way (Magness 1993: ). The relevance of this is highlighted by the increasing evidence which suggests that the stretch of the Cardo Maximus which traveled from the Holy Sepulcher to the Nea Church did not exist before the time of Justinian I. Studies by both Avigad and Magness have concluded that the pottery finds from beneath the pavement of the Nea Church belong to the same period as the pottery from beneath the pavement of the southern cardo, and that the two construction projects were accomplished in the same period (Avigad 1983: 225-6; Magness 1993: 121, 136). Additionally, according to Geva, the portion of the Cardo Maximus uncovered in the Jewish Quarter excavations can be dated to the time of Justinian on the basis of stratigraphy and the poorer architectural quality typical of Byzantine versus Roman construction (NEAEHL 2:775).
The entire reason for this southern extension of the Cardo Maximus seems to have much to do with the desire to connect the Church of the Holy Sepulcher with the Nea Church. This could have been a move by Justinian I to associate his new edifice with the venerable old shrine from the days of Constantine, both as a political symbol of him as the emperor builder in the footsteps of Constantine the Great, and as an indication of the Emperor’s religiosity in designing a bigger shrine for Christianity and cultivating its cult through association with the Holy Sepulcher.
On the east side of Jerusalem, remains of the eastern Cardo have also been found. Starting in the 1930’s and continuing until today, stretches of the smaller road have yielded an important clue as to the date of the construction of the southern cardo. Due to the fact that the methods and materials used to construct the eastern cardo differ greatly from those employed in the excavated southern cardo, Yuval Baruch and Ronny Reich have posited that the two sections of cardines, the eastern and the southern, could not have been built at the same time (
From the images of the Cardo of Gerasa above, one is able to capture what the full extent of what a Cardo must have looked like. However, unless the reconstructions of the Cardo of Jerusalem are mistaken, the Cardo at Gerasa seems more elegant and elevated, more grand. Nevertheless, the wide lanes, the clean lines of the colonnades, and the large public spaces afforded by it all must have made the city quite impressive to visitors.

20. Cardo/Cardines 2
“[Cardines are] one of the most pleasing things in cities, and…one of the most useful,” (Libanius of Antioch; Pullan 1998: 166).
Upper left: One of the many suqs of Old City Jerusalem, similar to the one that now occupies the rough line of the ancient Cardo 2.5 meters above the pavement of the Byzantine structure (photo by Carl Pace, 2006).
Lower left: The modern Cardo in the Jewish Quarter, rebuilt and conserved, is now a shopping center, just as the Byzantine Cardo would have been (photo courtesy of
Lower right: Reconstruction of the Cardo Maximus in Jerusalem (after Bahat 1990: 76-77, with alterations).
Beyond their functionality in transport, the Cardines also have important socio-economic dimensions, just as the street markets of Jerusalem do to this day. “The porticoes act as a stage set for everyday life, and in doing so they help foster the ordinary aspects of that life which enhance associations and friendships within the city,” (Pullan 1998:166). They were so important, in fact, that Libanius of Antioch in the fourth century CE suggested that it was the presence of cardines with porticoes that defined a city as a good city (Pullan 1998: 166). These main streets were a place for meeting people, and must have been an interesting experience in a city as cosmopolitan as Jerusalem. One was just as likely to hear Latin spoken in the street as he was to hear Arabic, Coptic, Greek, Aramaic, or any number of other languages.
Although many drawn reconstructions (e.g., Bahat 1990:76-77, above) make the Cardo seem like a tranquil lane, one suspects that it was alive and clogged with the business of the very densely populated city that was Byzantine Jerusalem. It was probably here that pilgrims were met by tour guides who promised to show them all the right sacred spots, where souvenirs and relics were passed on to visitors eager to have something sacred of their own to hold on to and take back with them. No doubt some beggars would also have taken up key positions along the way, hoping for a traveler to indulge in some act of charity in his efforts to get closer to the sacred there at the center of the earth.

21. Church of St. Mary of the Probatica
Constructed in the fifth century CE, the Church of the Probatica (‘sheep’) was a massive building project commemorating the miraculous healing of a man by Jesus at the pool of Bethesda.
Left: Reconstruction of the Church of the Probatica (after Bahat 1990: 73).
Right: Archaeological remains of the Church of the Probatica, on the grounds of St. Anne’s Monastery (Photo by Carl Pace, 2006).
The Church of St. Mary of the Probatica, or Church of the Sheep, a major structure erected on the site of the Pool of Bethesda, was constructed at the beginning of the fifth century CE (Bahat 1990:72-73; NEAEHL 2:781). The church probably replaced a pagan healing temple to Asclepeion (Tsafrir 1999:141).
According to Tsafrir, the remains of the Church of the Probatica may suggest that it was “one of the boldest architectural projects ever undertaken in Byzantine Jerusalem,” (Tsafrir 1999:141).
Archaeological remains on the grounds of St. Anne’s Monastery attest to the grand design of the church.

22. Church of the Holy Sepulcher
Certainly the crowning achievement of Constantinian Jerusalem, the Holy Sepulcher eventually became, and has remained, the center of Christian Jerusalem.
There can be no doubt about the central role played by the Holy Sepulcher in Byzantine Christian ritual in Justinian’s day. This can be clearly seen in the central position the Holy Sepulcher occupies in the Madaba vignette of Jerusalem, in spite of the real position of the shrine in the city.

23. Church of Holy Zion
Although remains of the Byzantine Church may have been discovered, the Church of Holy Zion from Justinian’s day has been swept up into the ecclesiatical tradition of building and rebuilding.
Today, the Church of the Dormition of Mary lies somewhere near the site of the Church of Holy Zion.
Left: Church of the Dormition. Photo by Carl Pace, 2006.

24. Nea Church The New Church of Mary Theotokos
“In Jerusalem [Justinian] dedicated to the Mother of God a shrine with which no other can be compared. This is called by the natives the "New Church"; and I shall explain of what sort it is…” (Procopius, De Aedificiis, V, 6, 1-2).
Right center: The southern corner of the Nea Church exposed outside of the old city wall (Photo by Carl Pace, 2006).
Bottom left: The northern apse of the Justinian Nea Church (after Avigad 1983: 231).
Center: Plan of the archaeological remains of the Nea found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (after Avigad 1983: 233).
Bottom right: The southern apse of the Nea Church (
Sources from the time of Justinian extol the Byzantine Emperor’s beneficent involvement in the rejuvenation of Jerusalem, especially as a builder. One of the major works of a man named Procopius dealt specifically with the building campaigns of Justinian I, and was aptly entitled “Of Buildings” (De Aedificiis). A very tantalizing section deals with Justinian’s works in Jerusalem, about which Procopius gushes details about one edifice in particular, a church that he says is called “New” by the locals of Jerusalem. This church, Procopius said, was a marvel in the making, and an apt expression of Imperial power. Fantastically decorated with columns “in color like flames of fire,” (Procopius, De Aedificiis, Book V, 6, 22), and demanding the strongest materials to bear the massive load of the structure, the Nea was nothing less than a work of God himself working through Justinian.
While conducting an emergency excavation of a site in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem in advance of the construction of a new hospital, Nahman Avigad came across a large monumental structure. Being familiar with the map of Jerusalem from Madaba, which showed a massive building on the southern end of Jerusalem, as well as Procopius’ text relating Justinian’s construction of a massive church in Jerusalem, Avigad began to suspect that what he had uncovered was in fact the long-lost Nea Church, or New Church of St. Mary Theotokos (Mother of God). When futher excavation uncovered an apse of a church on the north side of the complex, the possibility that this was Justinian’s church became much more concrete. Further portions of the building were uncovered by Meir Ben-Dov outside the Old City wall (Ben-Dov 1977: 34), and finally the southern apse of the church was uncovered in 1982 (NEAEHL 2.776). All of these finds added to the suspicion that this structure was nothing other than the great monument of Justinian Jerusalem, the Nea Church.
Futher excavation of the site by Avigad led to the discovery on the southern side of the monumental building of a massive, many-vaulted cistern (Avigad 1983: 236). The cistern itself was not a new discovery – it had actually been discovered by Charles Warren at the end of the 19th century (Ben-Dov 1977: 35). The truly new discovery came in the form of an inscription that associated this monumental structure with the Emperor Justinian (Ben-Dov 1977: 35):
  “And this is the work which our most pious Emperor Flavius Justinianus carried out wit munificence,
under the care and devotion of the most holy Constantinus, Priest and Hegumen, in the thirteenth
(year of the) indiction,” (Avigad 1983: 245).
This find sealed the identification of the monumental church with the great Nea of Justinian, the crowning glory of Byzantine Jerusalem at its zenith. But what happened to the monument in the intervening years? It suffered the fate of any building with quality stone in Jerusalem. It was torn down and the materials were reused elsewhere, perhaps particularly, as Ben-Dov has suggested, in the construction of the Umayyad palaces on the southern end of the Temple Mount, or in the construction of the Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock (Ben-Dov 1977: 36). This is one of the great ironies of the archaeological record: if you want your building to remain, you should build with good materials, but if you do, your building will eventually be torn down for its good materials!

25. Procopius’ Description of the Nea
“The church is supported on all sides by a number of huge columns from that place, which in colour resemble flames of fire, some standing below and some above and others in the stoas which surround the whole church except on the side facing the east. Two of these columns stand before the door of the church, exceptionally large and probably second to no column in the whole world.  Here is added another colonnaded stoa which is called the narthex…Beyond this is a court with similar columns standing on the four sides. From this there lead doors to the interior which are so stately that they proclaim to those walking outside what kind of sight they will meet within. Beyond there is a wonderful gateway and an arch, carried on two columns, which rises to a very great height.  Then as one advances there are two semi-circles which stand facing each other on one side of the road which leads to the church, while facing each other on the other side are two hospices, built by the Emperor Justinian. One of these is destined for the shelter of visiting strangers, while the other is an infirmary for poor persons suffering from diseases. And the Emperor Justinian endowed this Church of the Mother of God with the income from a large sum of money,” (Procopius, De Aedificiis, V, 6, 22-25).
Left: Artistic rendition, construction of the interior of the Nea Church (photo courtesy of

26. The Vaults of the Nea
Top Left: Dedicatory Inscription of Justinian found in the vaulted cistern of the Nea Church (
Bottom Left: Plan of the Vaulted Cistern area of the Nea Church (Avigad 1983: 233).
Center: Looking down upon vaults 3-5 of the Nea (Avigad 1983: 241).
Right: Inside one of the vaults with Avigad (Avigad 1983: 238).
One of the reasons that the Nea Church was such a marvel was the method of its construction. According to Procopius, the great edifice required massive blocks for its constructions, as well as pillars of material strong enough to support the weight of the roof. But these elements we cannot appreciate as readily, since all the pillars are long gone, and the stones buried. But there is one aspect of the construction of the Nea that has survived to bear witness to the ingenuity and determination.
Procopius explains “that the Emperor Justinian gave orders that [the church] be built on the highest of the hills, specifying what the length and breadth of the building should be, as well as the other details. However, the hill did not satisfy the requirements of the project, according to the Emperor's specifications, but a fourth part of the church, facing the south and the east, was left unsupported, that part in which the priests are wont to perform the rites,” (Procopius, De Aedificiis V, 6, 4-5). As so many other builders throughout the history of Jerusalem have discovered, the rough, mountainous terrain can often become an obstacle. But the local craftsment, no doubt familiar with this problem in some fashion or another, took the only route available to them:
“Consequently those in charge of this work hit upon the following plan. They threw the foundations out as far as the limit of the even ground, and then erected a structure which rose as high as the rock. And when they had raised this up level with p345the rock they set vaults upon the supporting walls, and joined this substructure to the other foundation of the church. Thus the church is partly based upon living rock, and partly carried in the air by a great extension artificially added to the hill by the Emperor's power. (Procopius, De Aedificiis, V, 6, 6-8).
Essentially, the site of the Nea church was built up and expanded to accommodate the large building. The builders accomplished this expansion by constructing vaulted chambers upon which the Church was founded (Magness 1993:120), in many ways similar to the approach Herod used when expanding the Temple Mount Platform. The use of vaults to create flat construction space is a feature of the architecture of the region that goes back at least to the time of Herod (Avigad 1983: 236), though some type of leveling architecture likely was probably used in the construction of the Temple in the Pre-Exilic and Persian periods as well. The hilly topography of the Jerusalem area necessitates the use of leveling architecture throughout all periods, as witnessed later in the raising of the Muslim quarter above the Tyropoeon Valley to roughly the level of the Haram esh-Sharif.
In his excavation of the Nea, Avigad encountered this amazing vaulted structure, bearing witness to the magnificence of the Nea and the skill in which it was founded. This feat of engineering was obviously enough to impress Procopius, and it certainly signals the grand quality of Justinian’s crowning achievement in Jerusalem. If the foundations of this structure are so impressive, though never intended for show, one can only wonder what amazement would accompany a vision of the entire structure itself.
The construction of the Nea Church signals the end of Byzantine church building in Jerusalem, and indeed the impending end of the economic boom Jerusalem experienced throughout the Byzantine period. The building itself lasted not more than a century before it was either destroyed by an earthquake or was dismantled by the Muslim conquerors of Jerusalem. The Nea also constituted Justinian’s finishing touch on a Jerusalem that had already seen over 200 years of growth and development, and so it is fitting that the “New Church” should be Jerusalem’s most magnificent structure.
“They threw the foundations out as far as the limit of the even ground, and then erected a structure which rose as high as the rock. And when they had raised this up level with the rock they set vaults upon the supporting walls, and joined this substructure to the other foundation of the church. Thus the church is partly based upon living rock, and partly carried in the air by a great extension artificially added to the hill by the Emperor's power,” (Procopius, De Aedificiis Book V, 6, 6-8;
In order to complete the construction of the Nea Church, workers were required to build massive vaults and a retaining wall, which would support the southern side of the edifice.

27. Bibliography 1 Avigad, Nahman
1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Avi-Yonah, M.
1958 The Economics of Byzantine Palestine. IEJ 8:
Bahat, Dan
1990 The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ben-Dov, Meir
1977 Found After 1400 Years – The Magnificent Nea. BAR 3/4:27-32.
Downey,Glanville
1950 Justinian as a Builder. The Art Bulletin 32/4:
Justinian I, EB
“Justinian I ,” in Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < >.
Geva, Hillel (ed.)
2000 Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, Volume I: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W, and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Gray, John
1969 A History of Jerusalem. London: Robert Hale.
Levine, Lee I. (ed.)
1999 Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York: Continuum.
Maas, Michael
1986 Roman History and Christian Ideology in Justinianic Reform Legislation. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40:17-31.
Magness, Jodi
1993 Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology circa BCE. JSOT/ASOR Monographs 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
Mare, W. Harold
1987 The Archaeology of the Jerusalem Area. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

28. Bibliography 2 Mayerson, Philip
1988 Justinian’s Novel 103 and the Reorganization of Palestine. BASOR 269:65-71.
Meyendorff, John
1968 Justinian, the Empire and the Church. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22:43-60.
Parker, S. Thomas
1999 An Empire’s New Holy Land: The Byzantine Period. NEA 62/3:
Patrich, Joseph
1993 The Early Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Light of Excavations and Restoration. Pp in Ancient Churches Revealed. Ed. Yoram Tsafrir. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Piccirillo, M. & E. Alliata (eds.)
1998 The Madaba Map Centenary : Travelling Through the Byzantine Umayyad Period. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum.
Procopius
De Aedificiis. Trans. H. B. Dewing, Loeb Classical Library Vol. VII. Republished online at
Pullan, Wendy
1998 The Representation of the Late Antique City in The Madaba Map: The Meaning of the Cardo in the Jerusalem Vignette. Pp in Piccirillo & Alliata 1998.
Rubin, Zeev
1999 The Cult of the Holy Places and Christian Politics in Byzantine Jerusalem. Pp in Levine 1999.
Stern, NEAEHL
New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Carta,
Stroumsa, Gedaliahu G.
1989 Religious Contacts in Byzantine Palestine. Numen 36/1:16-42.
Tsafrir, Yoram
1999 Byzantine Jerusalem: The Configuration of a Christian City. Pp in Levine 1999.
Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit
2006 The Fortifications of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period. ARAM 18-19:
Wilkinson, John
2000 Jerusalem under Rome and Byzantium 63 BC-637 AD. Pp in Jerusalem in History. Ed. K. J. Asali. New York: Olive Branch.