THE
BYZANTINE CHURCH OF KHIRBET EL-MAQATIR

Todd Bolen

The monastery sits on the highest part of Khirbet el-Maqatir, while the Bronze Age fortress was located lower down on the southeastern slope. Was the monastery founded to commorate the Israelite defeat of Ai? Excavations by Master’s College, IBEX, may provide the answer.

While a church at Khirbet el-Maqatir north of Jerusalem has long been identified, only recently did it become known that the site included a full monastery. Todd Bolen of The Master’s College, IBEX (Israel Bible Extension), is one of the supervisors of the excavation of the Late Byzantine complex.

Most scholars today believe the Biblical city of Ai is to be identified with the ruins of et-Tell, 10 mi north of Jerusalem. Even though et-Tell’s most recent excavator, Joseph Callaway (1968: 315), acknowledged no archaeological evidence from the time of Joshua, he still felt compelled to equate et-Tell with Ai because he found no other candidates for Ai in the region.

Unfortunately, Callaway’s conclusion has been used by many scholars to reject the historicity of both the Ai story and Israel’s military invasion of Canaan. Yet, his identification of et-Tell as Ai was based upon the lack of alternative sites that met the criteria. He surveyed dozens of sites in the area but completely missed the only site with a tradition identifying it as Ai—Khirbet el-Maqatir (Robinson and Smith 1841: 126). Because Kh. el-Maqatir has both Late Bronze Age architecture and pottery visible on the surface, only 0.7 mi due west of et-Tell, it is surprising that modern excavators have paid the site almost no attention. The Associates for Biblical Research began excavations here in 1995, under the direction of Dr. Bryant Wood.

The Earliest Tradition

All scholars regard the work of Edward Robinson in 1838 as paramount in historical geography. His travels throughout the Holy Land before the sites were filled with tourists and students in search of anything Biblical, allowed Robinson to learn the local traditions prior to the introduction of outside ideas. Therefore, when Robinson asked the locals about Ai, a Greek priest in the nearby village of Taibye pointed him to Kh. el-Maqatir. Others also held this identification in this village (Robinson and Smith 1841: 126). Thus, the only recorded local tradition for the location of Ai prior to Western influence is at Kh. el-Maqatir!

Yet, Robinson summarily dismissed this equation. He wrote, “There never was anything here but a church; and Ai must have been further off from Bethel” (Robinson and Smith 1841: 126). That only a church occupied this site has been shown incorrect by the abundance of Late Bronze and Hellenistic material found in the ABR excavations just below the summit of the hill. In addition, Robinson’s contention that Ai must be a greater distance from Bethel may still be correct if Bethel is located at El-Bireh and not Beitin (Livingston 1998).

Where did this tradition reported by Robinson originate? What would have given the locals reason to make this identification? The Byzantine church on the summit of Kh. el-Maqatir possibly provides the answer. Perhaps Byzantine Christians recognized this hill as ancient Ai, thus preserving

BSP 12:3 (Summer 1999) p. 92

and passing on the tradition. The persuasion of the locals in Robinson’s day may have stemmed from a 1500 year old Byzantine belief.

The Byzantine structure at Kh. el-Maqatir was a significant complex. Many early explorers visited the site, often taking measurements or drawing plans of the structure. Charles Wilson, W. M. Thomson, S. Anderson, and C. Conder and H. Kitchener of the Survey of Western Palestine all recorded this prominent and well-constructed church.

The Complex

While all early explorers recorded finding a church, it was actually only a chapel and part of a larger monastery complex. A survey of surface remains indicates a number of storage rooms, several cisterns, a well, living quarters, a kitchen and dining area. The chapel itself is the most impressive and well-built part of the complex, but constitutes only 20% of the total area of the monastery.

The Masters’ College, IBEX, has undertaken excavation of the monastery complex under the overall direction of Dr. Bryant Wood. Over the first two years, impressive remains of walls, floors, and thresholds have been found, yet many of the elements known to the 19th century explorers have not been identified. The plan of the church can be understood from these explorers.

Robinson noted that the church was larger than the nearby Burj Beitin church and was on the highest ground in the area. He also recorded sections of many columns lying about. Wilson observed many Corinthian capitals in 1866, but they were apparently removed by the time of Conder and Kitchener’s visit in 1874. Their measurements indicated that the church was 66 ft long and 48 ft wide with 2–3 ft thick walls. The foundation of the apse was perfectly preserved, 18 ft in diameter (Conder and Kitchener 1882: 45; Thomson 1882: 94).

Byzantine Monasteries in the Holy Land

The fourth-sixth centuries AD were a flourishing period in the Holy Land as thousands of pilgrims came to visit the land of their faith. Many of these pilgrims chose to leave their secular way of life and join the growing monastic movement in the Judean Wilderness. Over 65 monasteries were founded in this region alone during the Byzantine period, including the complex at Kh. el-Maqatir.

Plan of the Byzantine church at Khirbet el-Maqatir by Schneider (1934). While early explorers identified the plan of the church, they did not recognize the complete monastery complex. ABR dig architect Leen Ritmeyer is preparing a new plan of the entire complex based on the result of the 1999 excavation.

Byzantine monasteries were of two primary types—laura and coenobia. Laura-type monasteries were communities of recluses. Each monk lived separately and met with other monks only once a week for prayer and replenishing of

BSP 12:3 (Summer 1999) p. 93

The south wall of the main building of the monastery, which included the chapel. The wall has been excavated to a depth of 3 ft below the surface.

supplies. Coenobia-type monasteries were much more common in the Judean Wilderness. In this type monks lived, worked, ate and prayed together. Typically well-built and well-funded, coenobia monasteries are often mistaken for Byzantine villas. Kh. el-Maqatir is the coenobia type.

Typically, Byzantine churches in the Holy Land were built of limestone, roofed with tiles, floored with mosaic tesserae, furnished with glass windows, and decorated with marble (Hirschfeld 1992: 235–36). The Kh. el-Maqatir monastery has all these features. Apses typically faced east and were semi-circular. This season’s excavation began to reveal Maqatir’s single semi-circular east-facing apse. Some churches had baptisteries, and one may be uncovered at Kh. el-Maqatir as well.

Sometimes coenobia monasteries were attached to basilicastyle “memorial churches” which served pilgrims coming to commemorate Biblical events or people (Hirschfeld 1992: 130). Such churches in the Judean Wilderness include St. Peter’s Church on the Mount of Olives, Galgala (Gilgal) near Jericho and St. John the Baptist on the Jordan River (Hirsch-feld 1992: 56). The sanctuary of Kh. el-Maqatir,

The southeastern corner of the monastery’s main structure. This room was auxiliary to the chapel. The floor was paved with large smooth limestone slabs and the walls were plastered. A large lintel stone was found fallen into the center of the room.

BSP 12:3 (Summer 1999) p. 94

of basilica design and associated with a coenobia monastery, may also be a memorial church.

Conclusion

Evidence uncovered thus far suggests the Byzantine complex at Kh. el-Maqatir was an important monastery, possibly with a memorial church, serving visitors coming to commemorate a Biblical event. This connection provides strong motivation to discover if it was constructed to commemorate Joshua’s victory at Ai, as accepted in the local tradition told to Robinson.

Consequently, archaeological evidence connecting this church with the Ai story, or another a Biblical event, is important. Digging continues in hope of finding some conclusive evidence in this regard. If this monastery was typical and if it was constructed to commemorate the battle of Ai, it may have had a mosaic floor with a Greek inscription mentioning Ai or even a depiction of smoke rising from the burning city.

Fragment of a Corinthian capital from the church, found at Kh. el-Maqatir by a local resident. Shown to Gary Byers and Bryant Wood in June 1995.

Bibliography

Anderson, S.

1871 The Survey of Palestine. Pp. 438–71 in The Recovery of Jerusalem, ed. W. Morrison. London: Bentley.

Callaway, J.A.

1968 New Evidence on the Conquest of ‘Ai. Journal of Biblical Literature 87: 312–20.

1985 Was My Excavation of Ai Worthwhile? Biblical Archaeology Review 11.2: 68–69.

Conder, C.R. and Kitchener, H.H.

1882 The Survey of Western Palestine Memoirs, vol. 2, sheets VII-XVI, Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Hirschfeld, Y.

1992 The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period. New Haven: Yale University.

Kelso, J.L. and Albright, W.F.

1968 The Excavation of Bethel 1934–1960. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 39. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Livingston, D.

1998 Locating Biblical Bethel. Bible and Spade 11: 77–84.

Robinson, E. and Smith, E.

1841 Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. 2. Boston: Crocker and Brewster.

Schneider, A.M.

1934 Bethel und seine altchristlichen Heiligtümer. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 57: 186–90.

Thomson, W.M.

1882 The Land and the Book: Central Palestine and Phoenicia. Popular edition. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Wilson, C.W.

1869–70 On the Site of Ai and the Position of the Altar Which Abram Built Between Bethel and Ai. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1: 123–26.

Southern side of the apse of the church. While early explorers identified and even measured the church’s apse in its east wall, the stones of the superstructure were completely removed by the time ABR archaeologists arrived at the site. The first indication of the apse came when the foundation of its southern side was discovered during excavation in 1999.