JSAI 17
143
The tower of David
THE TOWER OF DAVJD/MJHRAB DAWUD
Remarks on the history of a sanctuary in Jerusa1e
in Christian and Islamic times
Heribert Busse
1. Introduction
In Jerusalem, two sanctuaries have been of primary
importance to the
Muslims almost from the beginning of the Islamic period:
the Temple
Mount/Hararn al-sharif and the Tower of David/Mihrab Dawüd
in the
Citadel, next to the Bab al-Khalil/Jaffa Gate. Whereas the
Haram al
sharif was left unoccupied from the destruction of the
Temple by the
Romans until the arrival of the Arabs, the Tower of David was
estab
lished as a Christian sanctuary at the end of the
fifth/beginning of the
sixth century. Not long after the Arab conquest of the
city in 635, it
was taken over by the Muslims, who named it Mihrab
DhwGd, David’s
palace or place of prayer. The tower was built by Herod
the Great.
Its original function was military, but, as we shall see
later, it was
also intended to reflect the king’s might and glory. That
early Jew
ish tradition, probably referring to the “Tower of David”
mentioned in
the Bible (Song of Songs, 4.4), identified the tower as
part of David’s
palace may be concluded from the assertion in Genesis Rabbah
and other
sources. Consequently, the building was shown on the
reverse of David’s
coins, the obverse showing the king with the attributes of
a shepherd.’
This identification continued when Jerusalem was
transformed, begin
ning with Constantine the Great, into a Christian city.
In the sixth
century Christian monks and pilgrims believed the tower to
be the site
where David composed the Psalms, committed the sin
with Bathsheba
and repented after Nathan’s penitential sermon (2 Samuel
11.12). The
Muslims made this tradition their own, identifying the tower as
the site
where David’s sin and repentance occurred, as told in the
Qur’an in a
manner slightly diverging from the Biblical story (SHra
38:21—24). Since
the word mihrab, indicating the site of the occurrence,
is used in the
Qur’an, the Christian Tower of David (Turns David)
became the Mus
lim Mihräb DEwud.
The Tower of David/Mihrãb DHwüd is mentioned
in Muslim and
‘See Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
Philadelphia (Reprint) 5728—1968,
IV, p. 102.
142
2 Fresh information was added when
Christian descriptions of Jerusalem.
the citadel was examined in connection with the ordnance survey carried
pt in 1864; a detailed description of the Tower of David was published
0
, 1878 by C. Schick, to whose endeavours we owe so much information on
4 The Arabic inscriptions
the architecture and archaeology of Jerusalem.
f the Citadel were published and analyzed by Max van Berchemn in
0
1922; new findings have been published by Archibald G. Walls and
6 Recent excavations at the site have revealed remains
Amal Abu’l-Hajj.
7 Muslim building
from the First Temple period down to Herodian times.
8
tivity goes back to the Umayyad period, as excavations have shown.
Nothing significant has been noted, apart from occasional remarks, on
he history of the Tower of David from Christian times down to the
9
Ottoman period.
There is another Milnrab DEwEd on the F.Iaram al-sharif, which was
built when the Temple Mount was occupied by the Muslims. This I shall
deal with in another article.
Before going into detail about the history of the building, it is nec
essary to give a short account of the development of Jewish, Christian
and Muslim traditions concerning David’s character and personality.
2. David in Judaism, Christianity and Islam
David is depicted in the Bible as a hero who, when still a boy, killed
wild animals that attacked his father’s flock (2 Samuel 17.34 36) and
defeated Goliath with a sling, five smooth stones and a staff (2 Samuel
17.40). As king he ruled for thirty-three years; he expanded his territory,
conquered Jerusalem, made preparations for building the Temple and
2 See Guy he Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, London 1890,
p. 213; J. Gilde
meister, “Beitráge zur PalIstinakunde aus arabischen Quellen”, in: Zeitschrjft des
Deutschen Paliistinavereines 6 (1883), pp. 3f. For the time after the Crusades see
Nathan Schur, Jerusalem in Pilgrims and Travellers’ Accounts. A Thematic Bibli
ography of Western Christian Itineraries 1300—1917, Jerusalem 1980, pp. 15ff.
See Charles W. Wilson and henry James, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, Lon
3
don, 1865, pp. 46 48.
C. Schick, Der Davidsthurm in Jerusalem, in: ZDPV 1(1878), pp. 226 237.
4
Max van Berchem, Matdrseux pour uiz Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum,
Deuxiime partie—Sys-ze de Sud, Jerusalem “1/she”, Le Caire 1922, pp. 129 168.
Archibald C. Walls and Amal Abu’l-Hajj, Arabic Inscriptions in Jerusalem:
6
A Handlist and Maps, London 1980 (World of Islam Festival), p. 9.
See R. Arniram and A. Eitan, “Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel”, in: Yigael
Yadin (ed.) Jerusalem Revealed, New Haven-London 1976, pp. 52 54.
H. Geva, “Early Arabic Period”, in: Tower of David
Jerusalem City Museum,
Jerusalem 1983, pp. 26 -29.
See, for instance, John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades,
Jerusalem 1977, p. 155, s.v. David, Tower of; Herbert Donner, Pilgerfahrt ins Heilige
Land, Stuttgart (1979), pp. 57ff., 281.
—
144
a
a
Heribert Busse
composed the Psalms. He was also, according to the Bible, a
sinner
Firstly, he committed the sin with Bathsheba, at the same time
taking
measures to rid himself of her husband; secondly, he ordered a
census of
Israel to be carried out, the result of which was that God punish
ed the
people (2 Samuel 24 and parallel passages).” Nevertheless, he has
been
depicted in Jewish tradition as a king whom God elected, who
followed
the ways of God by doing what is right, and who kept the divine
laws
and ordinances (1 Kings 11.33—34). In addition, the Jews believe
that
the Messiah will be the son of David.
In Jewish literature David’s godliness has been extolled, and his
Si
with Bathsheba judged mildly. He used to rise at midnight in order
to
study the Torah. Nathan’s sermon was given on the night David
decided
to build the Temple. He was not forbidden to build it because he
was
guilty of bloodshed, but because the Temple, had he built it, would
have
been indestructible. This would have resulted in God’s wrath over
the
sins of the Israelites harming the people, not the Temple, as it was said
to
have done when Jerusalem was conquered, first by the Babylonians,
then
the Romans. Jewish tradition holds that David’s sin with Bathsheba
was
committed under extenuating circumstances, since she, a Jewish woman,
had married the Hittite Uriah. Uriah, on the other hand, deserved death,
because he disobeyed the king’s orders to spend the night in his
wife’s
house after he was summoned to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 11.8—9). David’s
sin was not primarily adultery or murder, but his ambition to become
the equal of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in glory and prestige. He was
convinced of his ability to withstand God’s visitation, thereby winning
the reputation that the patriarchs had acquired by their deeds. He failed,
but his repentance was in keeping with the graveness of his transgression
.
He continued weeping one hour every day for twenty-two years, ate
his
bread mixed with ashes and endured the punishment of leprosy for
six
months. His repentance was such that people used to say: “Go to David
to learn how to 1
repent!”
’
The Jewish expectation of the Messiah was fulfilled, according to
Christian belief, in Jesus, the son of David)
2 In the New Testament,
David is frequently mentioned as a pious man whose emulation was con
sidered meritorious (Luke 1.69; Acts 4.25, etc.). Apart from this, he was
a model of kingship. From Constantine the Great onward, recourse to
the great figures of the Bible served to Christianize the idea of the Ro
man emperorship. King David played an important part in this. It was
certainly not by mere coincidence that the emperor Heraclius, who intro
David’s dialogue with the angel of death took place on the Temple
Mount, which
is one of the reasons Islamic tradition shows David’s mihrãb in the
Haram al-sharif
also.
“See Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, IV,
pp. 101—104.
12
See Matthew 927, and parallel passages in the New Testament.
The Lower of David
145
duced administrative reforms enabling him to fight the Iranians, named
David.’ At the same time, Christian theology began to
his youngest son 3
accentuate David’s repentance. When Christianity became the state reli
gion, Christian authors could no longer denounce a Biblical king. A good
example of the new attitude is given by Ambrose, the famous bishop of
Milan (d. 397) and teacher of St. Augustine, who wrote a book entitled,
sApologia prophetae David”
The same phenomenon occurred in the
contem
Jerusal
Cyril
a
of
porary of Ambrose, presented David
em,
East.
jn his Catechesis as a model of penance.” John Chrysostomos (d. 407)
emphasized that David spared Saul’s life although he could easily have
killed him (1 Samuel 24); Saul, for his part, had tried several times to kill
David (1 Samuel 18.6—11). Another example of David’s clemency is that
he prevented his followers from taking measures against Shimi, who had
cursed him (2 Samuel 16.5—14). John Chrysostomos came to the conclu
sion that David went beyond the law of the Torah, coming near to the
charity.’ The king’s soul was Christian
Apostolic laws of pardon and 6
by nature (auima naturaliter Christiana), as Western medieval theology
would have put it. Basilcios of Seleukia (a. 468) compared David with
famous sinners mentioned in the gospels, and depicted him as an athlete
who was struck to the ground for committing a grave sin, but was able to
rise again because God stretched out his helping hand. His repentance
7 It would be easy to make a
was as heroic as was his bravery in battle.’
long list of Christian authors dealing with the same subject.
In the Qur’Sn, David is described as the hero who defeated Goliath
(Sara 2:246—251); he was a king (Ichalifa) (Sara 38:25), and as a prophet
he was given the Psalms (zabur) (Sara 17:55). For our subject it is
significant that the story of David and Bathsheba (Sara 38:21—24) is
more detailed than other stories in the Dhwad-Sulaimhn cycle. It differs
from the Biblical story in that Nathan’s parable (2 Samuel 12.1—13) has
been reduced to an allusion. Even this has been altered, and the parable
transformed into the story of two plaintiffs who appeared before DhwCd,
one rich, the owner of many sheep, the other poor, having lost his only
sheep to the rich man. The rest of the story is the same as that told
13
See Eugen Ewig, “Das Bild Constantins des Groflen in den ersten Jahrhunderten
des abendlándischen Mittelalters”, in: Historssches Jahrbsch 75 (1956), pp. 1—46.
Silver plates found in Cyprus with scenes of David’s heroic deeds probably belong to
the court of Heraclius or its surroundings, see James Trilling, “Myth and Metaphor
at the Byzantine Court”, in: Byzantion 48 (1978), pp. 249 263.
14 Sancti Asnbrosi: Opera, Pars altera, ed.
C. Schenki, Prag-Wien-Leipzig 1897
(Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 32), pp. 297—355. Id., Apologia
David Alters, 1. c., pp. 357—408. It is worth mentioning that Ambrosius dedicated
this treatise to Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379—395).
“Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat echesis, 1111—12.
16 John Chrysostomo
s, Commentarius in Matthaeum, Homihia no. 3.
17
Basilius of Seleukia, Screw, no. 7, Migne, Patrologia Graeca 85, cols. 215 226.
r
146
Heribert Busse
in the Bible. Dwüd, understanding that he himself was the unjust rich
man who had oppressed the poor, “fell down, bowing (in prostration),
and turned (to God in repentance)” (Süra 38:24).
The story of Däwud’s sin and repentance has received extensive treat
ment in taf8ir literature. The commentators supplemented from the
Bible what is lacking in the Qur’an, and they drew largely on Jewish
and Christian sources. According to Muqatil b. Sulaiman (d. 150/767),
whose tafsir has come down to us in a recension from the beginning of
the third/ninth century,’
8 Dawüd envied the patriarchs arid prophets of
Israel because of their much-cited piety, and because God bestowed great
honour upon them: Abraham was made his friend (khal,l) (Süra 4:125),
and Moses was addressed by word of mouth (Sara 4:164). To become
their equal, Dawud asked God to visit him (bala’a VIII), which would
have enabled him to gain merit similar to that of the patriarchs and
prophets. When this was accorded him, a golden pigeon appeared in his
rnihr1b. Trying to grasp the bird, the king caught sight of Uriah’s wife
and was inflamed with love for her.
19
Tabari has in his afsir a similar story with some divergencies and a
number of additions. According to him, Däwud’s models of piety were
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham was tested when God ordered him
to slaughter his son in sacrifice; Isaac was deprived of his eyesight, but
did not lose his hope of being reunited with Joseph with God’s help.
Tabari tells the same story about the cause of Dawdd’s trial, making an
addition according to which the king believed that he was able to spend
a day, from morning to night, without committing a sin. He wanted to
prove this, and retreated to his rnihrab, where he passed the day reciting
Psalms and performing other acts of worship (‘ibaddt). Then the same
events occurred as in the story told by Muqatil b. Sulaimãn.
Tabari describes Dawud’s penance. He kept weeping for forty days,
casting himself down prostrate (sadjidan). He remained in this position
until grass grew on the spot where his tears soaked the ground. Then
God ordered him to rise to his feet, telling him that his sin was for
given. Another version holds that DawOd wrote his sin on the palms of
his hands, in order to remind himself of his transgression when eating
or drinking. His weeping is compared with Adam’s weeping when the
latter was expelled from Paradise.
° Sitting in ashes forms a part of
2
atonement (see Job 2.8). Abü’l-Faradj Ibn al-Djauzi (d. 597/1200) says
in his commentary on Sara 38:24: Däwüd took seven mattresses made
of hair, stuffed them with ashes, then wept so much that he soaked them
with his tears. Wahb b. Munabbih says: ‘Dawud was called: Diiwud!
‘ Sezgin, GAS, I, pp. 36ff. I received a copy of the Ms. Istanbul Saray Ahmet III
from Prof. M.J. Kister, to whom I wish to express my thanks.
‘ Muqatil
b. Sulairn9.n, Tafsr aL-Qur’an, Sura 38:21 24.
20 Tabar,,
Thfsir, al-Qahira 1373/1954 (2nd ed), XXIII, pp. 141 151.
The tower of David
147
Lift your head, for we have forgiven you!’ He lifted his head, but it
turned out that it had grown roots into the ground, while Dãwgd was
’
2
trembling with weakness”.
Theological discussion on Dh.wud’s sin and repentance continued
through the following centuries. Ibn al-Djauzi added further reasons
for Dwud’s visitation to the list of reasons given by his predecessors.
Because Däwud was pious, he was able to see his guardian angels and to
converse with them. When he learned that they were ordered to protect
him from evil, he wanted to be left alone so as to find out whether he
was able to refrain from sinning on his own. Therefore God, wanting to
show him that he would not be able to avoid sinning without divine help,
ordered the angels to leave him. The king multiplied his acts of piety un
til he was convinced that he had control of himself. God, however, who
wanted to show him his weakness, let Dawud fail, and so happened what
is told in the Bible and the Qur’an. A fourth reason for DawUd’s visi
tation was his conviction that he was able to administer justice among
the Israelites without God’s assistance. Fifthly, Ibn al-Djauzi states that
Dgwud was tested because he admired the great number of his own good
deeds, without acknowledging that God had given him the strength to
22
do them.
Now we come to the problem of the true character of Diiwüd’s trans
gression. According to the Bible, he committed adultery, to which he
added another sin, the murder of Bathsheba’s husband. The Muslim
commentators took a milder view of Däwud’s sin. Tabari tells the story
with more consideration for Däwud than the Bible does. Tile King saw
the woman, called her to him, asked her whether she was married, then
wrote the famous letter to Uriah’s commander. He did not marry her be
fore Urial, was killed in battle.
23 Ibn al-Djauzi states that Diwucl abode
by (Islamic) law in the strictest manner: He married Bathsheba after
her time of probation (‘idda) had ended.
24 The same author provides a
list of four different opinions concerning the character of DKwüd’s sin,
all of which avoid accusing him of adultery:
(1) Dwãd desired the woman so he wanted to ask her husband
to cede her to him. It was for this purpose that he called Uriah to
Jerusalem. When the latter refused to divorce his wife, he was sent back
into battle.
(2) Uriah was killed in battle fortuitously. Dalvãd incurred God’s
21
Abü’l-Faradj Djamal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Au b. Muhammad aI-Djauzl
al-Qurashi alBaghdacli, Zad aI-masir fi ‘ilm aI-tafsir, IV, p. 123.
Ahü’l-Faradj Ibri al-Djauzi, Zdd aL.maoor, IV, pp. 113 114.
22
23
Tabari, 1afsr, XXIII, pp. 146ff.
24
Abü’l-Faradj Ibn al-Djauzi, Zäd al-masir, IV, p. 115. FlaviusJosepliusstates that
David married the woman when the time of mourning was completed, AntqintaLes
VII 7,2. This is in keeping with the Biblical account, see 2 Samuel 11.27.
148
Heribert Busse
The tower of David
rebuke because he mourned less over Uriah’s death than he did over the
death of Israelites. People could have got the impression that the King
considered the death of Bathsheba’s husband opportune. “The Sins of
comments extensively upon SOra 38:21_24.32 His explanation is divided
jto three parts:
(1) DhwDd did not commit a major sin. Al-Rhzi gives a long list of
pbwDd’s attributes (sifit) that are mentioned in the Qur’an passages
framing the story of his sin and repentance in the Mihrhb (38:17—20,
25—26). These attributes are positive without exception, which proves,
according to al-Rhzi, that the story of Dhwüd’s adultery with Bathsheba
and of his murder of Uriah is nothing but a blatant lie. ‘All b. Abi Talib
is reported as saying: “I shall allot 160 lashes with a whip to anyone who
tells the story of DvDd in the way the storytellers do”. The number
of lashes is double that which ‘Umar b. al-Khatthb allotted to those
companions of the prophet who falsely accused one of their group of
adultery.
(2) Dgwud did not commit a minor sin. Here, al-Rhzi examines
DhwDd’s alleged transgressions: In asking for Bathsheba’s hand, he
was competing with Uriah. Bathsheba’s family preferred him to Uriah.
DhwDd glimpsed the woman accidentally, not intentionally. He is not to
be charged with the murder of Uriah (lam yaquq ‘alaihi qatlu dlika’l
radjuli). It was quite common among Dwud’s contemporaries, al-RazI
adds, for a man to ask another man to divorce his wife because he wanted
to marry her. Pondering these facts, one comes to the conclusion, ac
iording to al-RäzI, that the worst Dhwüd could be blamed for was that
he did not do what would have been more virtuous (afdai) or more fitting
(auhl).
(3) The story of Sara 38:21 24 must be understood, according to
al-Razi, in a way that not only excludes the possibility of a minor or ma
jor sin, but also attributes the most praiseworthy behaviour to Dhwud.
The commentators who interpreted the Qur’anic story in the light of the
Biblical account of Nathan’s admonition said that the two disputants
who intruded into Dhwüd’s privacy were two angels going to submit a
fictitious lawsuit to the king for judgement.
33 Dhwüd complied with
their demand and repented when he realized that he had censured his
own behaviour. Al-Räzi rejects this interpretation on the strength of the
alleged sinlessness of the prophets, and on the assumption that angels do
Dot lie, that is, do not submit a fictitious lawsuit, the more so when liti
gation of the kind described could not take place among the inhabitants
of Paradise. Accordingly, al-Rãzi puts forward the hypothesis that the
intruders were human beings, enemies of Dwãd, who climbed over the
wall at the wrong moment in order to murder the King. Realizing that
their design was bound to fail since Dawud was surrounded by people
the prophets”, however, “are grave in God’s eyes, even their minor sins”
(3) Dhwüd fixed his eyes upon the woman, and in consequence fell in
love with her. It seems that in this version of the story the sin consisted
in staring at the woman, whereas falling in love was considered a natural
consequence for which the king was not personally responsible.
(4) Dgwud and Uriah were competitors, both asking for Bathsheba’s
hand, which Dawad won. Being a mighty king, he should have left her
to Uriah. This interpretation is based on the word ic4itab, which occurs
in the text (Sara 38:23), meaning “to ask in marriage”.
25
Other theologians went further than Ibn al-Djauzi. They exonerated
Dawqd from any transgression, explaining the story told in the Qur’gn
in a way totally different from what we have so far encountered. They
based their interpretation on the dogma of the sinlessness (‘i.mtL) of the
prophets, which was first taught in Shi’i circles with reference to the
Imam. Later on it was extended to the prophets.
26 The first attribution
of sinlessness to Däwud is found in the tafsir of Abã’l-Hasan ‘Abdallgh b.
Ibrähim al-Qummi, who lived in the fourth/tenth century, not long after
27 He quotes a tradition in the name of 28
Tabari.
AbD’l-Djärud: “Dhwud
wrote his companion (Uriah’s commander) a letter to the following effect:
‘Do not place Uriah in front of the Ark of the Covenant. Send him back!’
Uriah proceeded to his family and stayed with them for eight days. Then
he died”.
29
Outside SloTh theology the dogma of the sinlessness of the prophets
was maintained first by the Mu’tazila, and then by the Ah’ariyya as well.
In due course it became a common teaching of Muslim theology, and
included a number of variations. Fakhr al-Din al-Rgzi (b. 543/1149 at
Raiy, d. 606/1290 at Herbt), the renowned Sunni theologian,
30 discussed
the problem in his treatise al-A rba’:n fi ushl al-dIn. He admitted that
the prophets had committed major sins before their missions, and minor,
unintentional sins after them.
31 In his commentary al-Tafsir al-kabir, he
Aba’l-Faradj Ibn al-Djauzi, Zdd al-masir, IV, pp. 115—117. The true meaning
25
of wa-’azzani fi’t-khitab is, “The rich man prevailed against me (the poor man) in
the discourse” which they had over the sheep; see the translation by Sale, Paret
translates: “Und er setzte mir mit (diesem) seinem Ansinnen stark zu”.
See Wilferd Madelung, ‘Isma, in: El
26
, IV, cols. 182—184.
2
27 Brockelmann
, GAL I 192, S 1 336. Sezgin, GAS I 45 (no. 29).
AbO’l-Djarad Ziyad b. al-Mundhir was the teacher of the “Djarudiyya”, a group
28
of the early Shi’a. See M.G.S. Hodgson, “Djarudiyya”, in: El
, II, col. 485 a.
2
Abü’l-Hasan ‘AbdallSh b. Ibrahim b. HSshim al-Qummi, Tafsir al-Qur’Sn,
29
Tehran 1313, p. 565.
30 See the
excellent article by G.C. Anawati, “Fakhr al-Din al-Razi”, in: El
, II,
2
cols, 751—755.
31
See W. Madelung, ‘Isma (see above, note 26), col. 183 b.
149
Fakhr al-Din al-Raza, al-Tafs:r al-kab:r, al-Qahira nd., XXV, Pp. 188—198.
Michael and Gabriel, according to Abu ‘l-Faradj Ibn al-Djauzi, Zad a1-masr, IV,
p. 118.
150
Heribert Busse
to protect him, they took it into their heads to submit a false lawsuit.
Däwãd, of course, understood what was happening. His first reactio
0
was to take revenge on them, which was only too natural. His second
thought, however, was to ask forgiveness of his Lord (V. 24), not
for
himself, but for his enemies who had sinned by plotting evil against him,
Dhwüd did not repent iii his own behalf, but in behalf of his enemies.
We may add to al-Razi’s exposition that Dtwud’s attitude is Christian,
and is the same as the attitude ascribed to David by John Chrysostomos,
as seen above. According to al Räzi, the story is told in the Qur’an as
an admonition addressed to Muhammad. He was in the same situation
as Dawüd had been. His enemies were planning his destruction. God
showed Dawüd to be a model of patience and forgiveness.
3. The building and its history as a holy place until the Crusades
I
The Tower of David/Mihrab DiwCd has been identified as the Tower
of Phasael, built by Herod the Great. According to Flavius Josephus,
the tower was erected in honour of Herod’s brother Phasael, who was
killed in the Parthian wars.
34 It was the highest building in the de
fences of the city,
35 resembling in height and bulk the famous tower of
Pharos in Alexandria, one of the seven wonders of the world.
36 Accord
ingly, as Flavius Josephus states, its function was twofold, military and
monumental-m
3
7
emorial. The famous author gives a detailed descrip
tion of the architecture of this remarkable building: it consisted of two
parts, a cubical structure of forty cubits, each side serving as a base,
and an upper portion which was fifty cubits high, the total height of
the tower amounting to ninety cubits. The upper part was apportioned
into suniptuous apartments, including a bath. The top of the tower was
crowned with battlements and turrets. The building had the appear
ance of a royal palace, as Flavius Josephus 38
emphasizes. This and the
two neighbouring towers, which were named after Mariamne, the King’s
wife, and Hippikos, the King’s friend, formed a group called the royal
towers because they had been built by Herod the Great. After the con
quest of Jerusalem by the Romnans in 70 C.E., the Tower of Phasael was
not levelled to the ground as were the other parts of the ramparts of
Jerusalem, “in order to provide posterity with evidence of the glory and
the strength of the defences of the city which had succumbed to the Ro
man 39
bravery”. It seems, however, that at least one of the neighbouring
Josephus,
‘ Josephus,
Josephus,
Josephus,
37
Josephus,
38
°
Josephus,
36
Bellum 1 21,9.
Anttquztates XVII 10,2.
Anitquztates XVI 5,2.
Antiquitates XVI 5,2.
Bellum V 4,3.
BeUum Vii 1,1.
The tower of David
151
towers also survived destruction, since on the Madaba Map two towers
are discernable at the western gate of the city, the larger of which may
40
be the Tower of David.
Herod’s palace was situated south of the Tower of Phasael, as Flaviu
s
’ Recent excavations have revealed traces of a large
4
Josephus states.
building which may have formed part of that 42
palace. Rather early
Christian tradition identified the palace of Herod the Great with the
palace of David. Apparently the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (ca. 333 C.E.) had
the same building in mind when he wrote: “Intus autem intra murum
Sion paret locus, ubi palatiuni habuit David” (Inside Zion, within the
wall, you can see where David had his 43
palace). It was, however, not
before the end of the fifth/first half of the sixth century that the Tower
of David was mentioned in Christian sources in relation to ecclesiastical
institutions: Cyril of Scythopolis (d. Ca. 558) gives an account which
states that monks of the Anastasis settled near the tower. St. Sabas,
the famous founder of the monastery near Bethlehem, who died in 538,
is said to have bought the cells of those monks, which he transformed
into a hospice for his laura. Cyril is undoubtedly a reliable witness in
this context, since he spent the last years of his life in the monastery
of St. Sabas, where he died twenty years after the death of its founde
r.
The same author mentions a Georgian monastery, which may be the
monastery founded by Peter the Iberiaxi (d. 488) “on a site above
holy
Zion in the place called the Tower of 44
David”.
That the Tower of David was visited by Christian pilgrim
s is first
mentioned by the anonymous Pilgrim of Piacenza, who came to Jerusa
lem between 570 and 614, i.e., before the Persian conquest of the
city.
Re gives the building the name “Turns David”, the exact Latin
trans
lation of the Greek “piirgos David”, mentioned by Cyril of Scytho
polis.
The Pilgrim’s description of the tower reminds one in many
details of
what Flavius Josephus says: it is an enormous building (turns
magria
est valde), square (quadrarcgula). There are sculptures
(opus scuiptum),
perhaps a reference to the façade, which was subdivided
by pilasters
with sculpted capitals. It has no roof (non habeas tecturn
), which may
mean that it had a fiat roof. Inside are cells irs the banque
t rooms
(in qua sunt monasenia in cenacu
hs singulis). The banquet rooms
(cenacula) may be the sumptuous apartments (okoi
polyteleis) men4011. Donner and II. Chppers, Die
Mosaikkarte von Madeba, Ted I: Tafelband
(1977).
‘
Josephus, Bellurn 1117; V 4 5.
R. Arnirain and A. Ettan, “Excavations in the Jerusalem
Citadel”, in: Yigael
Yadin (ed.) Jei-usalern Revealed, pp. 52 54.
43
Donatus Bald,, Ench,rzd,on locorurn santorurn. Document,,
S. Evangelii loca
re$p,cjenj,a Jerusaje,,, (Reprint) 1982,
p. 474 (no. 729). 11, Donner, Pilgerfahrt,
pp. 57ff.
Quoted from John W,lkinson, Jee-usalern l’ilgri,ns,
p. 155 (Tower of David).
r
152
Heribert Busse
tioned by Flavius Josephus which had been subdivided into cells for the
monks.
It seems that in the Pilgrim of Piacenza’s time, i.e., the end of the
sixth/beginning of the seventh century, the upper part of the tower which
Flavius Josephus describes was still fairly well preserved. More impor
tant, however, for our subject is its function as a Christian holy place
The Pilgrim of Piacenza says: “We climbed the Tower of David, the
place where he recited the Psalms (mdc ajcendimus in turrim David,
ubi psalterium decantavit)”. Having described the architectural details,
the author continues: “Christians climb this tower to spend the night
(ad mansionem ascendunt). If they rise about midnight, they hear a
sound of murmuring (voces murrnurantium) down in the Valley of Je
hoshaphat in the direction of the Jordan, Sodom and Gomorrha”.
45 As
H. Donner has pointed out, the sound of murmuring may refer to the
voices of the condemned in Gehenna, since Kiclron Valley was confused
with the Biblical Hinnon Valley.
46 The mention of Sodoin and Gomorrha
provides us with additional evidence that the pilgrims were shown the
punishments of hell as the just retribution for crime and transgression in
this world. The Pilgrim of Piacenza does not explicitly mention David’s
sin and repentance. There can, however, hardly be any doubt that this
was implied: David heard the voces murmuranium of the condemned
in hell when he became aware of his sin, and asked God to forgive him.
Earlier Jewish tradition claimed that Nathan pronounced his penitential
sermon at night, as we have seen above. David committed his sin in the
evening or at night: “It happened towards evening when David had risen
from his couch and was strolling on the palace roof, that he saw from
the roof a woman bathing” (2 Samuel 11.2). He recited the Psalms at
night, too: the Talrnudim and Midrashim recommend the night as the
proper time for prayer and study.
47
Although the Tower of David was a Christian holy place of some im
portance as attested by our sources, it remained a minor sanctuary as
far as official acknowledgement by the church authorities was concerned.
The main churches of Jerusalem in6ra et ez6ra maros were included in
the liturgy of the high holidays throughout the year, as we know from the
oft-cited report delivered by Egeria, and from the Armenian lectionary
of the beginning of the fifth century, to mention only the main sources.
48
‘ IL:rzera
Hierosolym:Lana e descriptiones Terrae Sanctae bellis sacris auterwra,
ed. Titus Tobler and Augustus Molinier, Osnabrück (Reprint) 1966, I, p. 103. See
also H. Donner, Pzlgerfahrt, pp. 24R-314, and Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, p. 83.
H. Donner, Pzlgerfahrt, P. 281, no. 98. That the Christian anchorites had strange
visions (and auditions) is attested in the sources, see lgnaz Peña, Leo reclus Syr,ens,
Milano 1980, p. 63.
See Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, VI, p. 262, no. 83.
48
See Athanase Renoux, Le codex Armdnien J,-iesalem 121, 2 vols., Turnhot 1969—
1971 (Patrologia Orientalis 35, 1/36,2).
The tower of David
153
floly services were celebrated in different churches according to the oc
casion, for instance, on Ascension Day in the Church of the Nativity in
Bethlehem, on Maundy Thursday in the Church of St. Mary on Mount
Zion and on Good Friday in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. As far as
I know, the Tower of David is not mentioned in the sources that refer to
iturgicaJ functions in Jerusalem. This may be because the tower became
an acknowledged holy place at a later date, when the liturgical functions
of the different churches had already been determined, and because there
was no high holiday specially dedicated to the memory of David. He was
commemorated in other places and on other occasions, as for instance at
Christmas in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where his tomb
49
was shown in the Grotto.
The Tower of David is mentioned in narrative sources dealing with
the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614. It seems to have had a
military function again, as can be concluded from the report delivered by
the monk Strategikds. Apparently many inhabitants of the city sought
shelter in the tower or nearby. At the end of his report, Strategikós
gives an account of the massacre by the Persians after the capture of
the city. He enumerates the bodies found in different places: 2,210 of
an alleged total of 66,509 bodies were found in the Tower of David.
50
The building is, however, not mentioned in the poetical description of
Jerusalem which Patriarch Sophronius left us.
51
After the Arab conquest of Jerusalem the Tower of David disap
peared from the reports of Christian pilgrims for a while. Arculf visited
Jerusalem about forty years after the arrival of the Arabs. He describes,
as is well known, the makeshift mosque on the Temple Mount, and gives
a full account of the Christian holy places in the city. However, he
does not mention the Tower of David at all, which is the more surpris
ing as he mentions the Jaffa Gate: “When one goes westwards out of
the city one passes through David’s Gate, which is on a gentle slope
of Mount Zion”.
52 Yet he does not utter a word about the adjacent
tower!
The last Christian report we have on the Tower of David before the
Crusades was transmitted by the monk Epiphanius. He allegedly com
posed his description of the Holy Land between 750 and 800; however,
this is still under discussion.
53 His report is especially important for our
°Baldi, Enchiridion, 84 (no. 91). See also Donner, Ptlgerfahrt, pp. 62, 291, 375ff.
Gerard Garitte, La prose de Jerusalem par leo Perses en 61.6, Louvain 1960
(Corpus Scriptorum Christianoruin Orientalium 203, Scriptores ibenici 12), pp. 52
53.
See II. Donner, Die anachreontischen Gedichte Nr. 19 und Nr. 20 des Patr:
archen Sophronius von Jerusalem, Heidelberg 1981 (Sitz,ings-Berichte der Heiel
berger Akademie der Wissencliaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Jahrg. 1981, Bericht 10).
52
Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, p. 100. Donner, Pilgerfahrt, P. 57.
See H. Donner, “Die Palistinabeschreibung des Epiphanus Monachus Ha3
°
-
154
Heribert Busse
The tower of David
subject since he delivers what the Pilgrim of Piacenza withheld, naejy
a clear statement as to the full meaning of that hoiy place: “And
the west gate of the Holy City is the Tower of David, in which he
sat
in the dust and wrote the Psalms” (ubi cons edit super cinere et scrj.
psalterium). This is apparently an allusion only to the Penitential
sit 54
Psalms, and not to the whole body, as we shall see later.
After the Arab conquest the tower became a Muslim holy pla
This must have happened before Arcuif’s visit, because he does not
mention the tower at all, as we have seen. Following the catastrophe
of 614, the monks apparently did not return; otherwise, Arcuif wou1
have mentioned their presence. The tower was not very conspicuous
as
a Muslim place of prayer, or at any rate it was much less conspicuous
than the makeshift mosque on the Temple Mount which Arcuif noted.
The Muslims identified the Tower of David as the mihräb mentioned ii
1
Süra 38:21, renaming it, accordingly, Mihrãb Dwüd. They visited it
at night, as the Christians had done, as will be shown later. Evidence
for this, however, is not to be found until the second/ninth century,
namely in Tabars’s 55
Annales. The Arab geographers of the fourth/tenth
century, Ibn al-Faqih al HarnadljänI and al-Muqaddasi, have short notes
on the building, according to which the adjacent city gate was named
Bb Mihrah 56
Däwüd. Istaichri gives a short description of the building:
it was about thirty cubits wide and fifty cubits high, and on top of
it was a structure resembling a chamber (ghurfa). It was, according
to Istakhrs, “the rnzhrab which God mentions in the Qur’an. It is the
first building that one perceives, coining from Ramla”
Other Arab
authors of the pre-Crusader period added some details concerning the
surroundings of the tower. There was, according to Tabari, a small
garden (djunaina) at the foot of the 58
building. Ibn al-Muradjdjã (end
of the fourth/eleventh century) mentions a pool near the tower which the
women of the Israelites used for washing and 59
bathing. Abu’l-Faradj Ibu
al-Djauzi reports a garden (bustan) with a pool (birka) 6
nearby. This
°
could have been a predecessor to the present Birkat Sulaiman beneath
the Citadel, or to the Birkat al-Batriq (also named the Pool of Hiskia)
inside the city walls, Details of this kind, however, should be assessed
.
giopolita”, in: ZDPV 87 (1971), pp. 42 91, especially
p. 44.
Epiphanius/Donner II 20 21, p. 69. Baldi, Fuchs rsdiou, p. 494 (no. 755). Wilkin
son, Jeri.ssalern Pilgrims, p. 117.
n 1abari, Ta’rskh al-easel wa’l-muluk, ed. M. de Goeje, I,
p. 2408.
Ibn at-Faqsh al-Ilarnadhant, pp. lOlff./Marrnadji, p. 211. Muqaddasi,
pp. 151,
167/Gilderneister, pp. 144, 160.
lstakhri, p. 560, Ibn Haisqal, p. 11Iff./Marmadji, p. 214/Gildemeister,
57
pp. 3-4
58 Tabari, Tafsar,
XXIII, p. 149.
Jbn al-MuradjdjS, Fada’sl bait al-maqdis (IsIs, Tubingen M. a, VI —27), fol. 88
a b.
60 AbC’lFarad) Ibn aI-Djauzi, Zad al-snasir, IV, p. 114.
155
attempts to give the story of David and Bathsheba an appropriate
framework.
The Muslims started visiting the Mihrãb Dkwãd almost immediately
after the occupation of Jerusalem, as Muhammad b. Alinsad al-Wãsim
states in his Fa4a’il al-bait al-mu qaddas, written at the beginning of the
fifth/eleventh century: “When ‘Umar b. al-l.battab occupied (fate/ta)
al-maqdis, he proceeded to the mihrkb and recited the Sura äd
’ This one has to understand as meaning that he recited that
6
inside”.
portion of the SGra Sad in which the story of Dawud’s sin and repentance
s told, i.e., Sara 38:21—24. This report is apparently very early, since the
ward mi,.rab has no qualifier; it is the mihrab in Jerusalem, amid there
exists no other building or part of a building of the same nature. The
Arab lexicographers enumerate several meanings of the word mihräb,
,f which chamber (ghurfa) and palace, house built of stone (qasr), are
context. There can be no doubt that these
of special interest in our 62
meanings are of an earlier date than “place of prayer” or “prayer niche”,
which the word was reduced when the architecture of the mosque
developed more elaborate 63
features. Many miscrabs were established
on the Temple Mount after the Muslim occupation of the site. There
tradition which says that every prophet had his very own mihrab
on the Haram al 8ilarif (or in Jerusalem). Therefore, we find on the
flaramn al-sharif a Mihrab Zakariyya’, a Mihrab ‘Isa, a Mihrh.b Yahya,
and also a MihrEb Dawud.°
4 Consequently, it was necessary to call the
mi4rab in the Citadel “MihrEb Dawud”, as is done in a report quoted
by al-Wäsi1 in the name of ‘Ata’ 65
al-Kburasani, in order to assert
its position and differentiate it from the mzhräbs in the Haram area.
Things became more complicated when the misirdb in the small building
adjacent to the eastern side of the Aqsa mosque, where ‘Umar b. al
baab had allegedly prayed, was also said to be the Mihrab Dawud.
A confusion between the Mihrab DawGd in the Citadel and its namesake
in the Haram al-sharif is attested in a report quoted by 66
Tabari.
There are good reasons to assume that the Mihrãb Dawad in the
Citadel was the first Muslim sanctuary in Jerusalem, visited by the
Muslims before they occupied the Temple Mount, as I have shown else
67 Once the flaram al-shañf with its own Mihrãb Däwud (reduced
where.
61
al-Wasiti, ed. Isaac Ilasson, Jerusalem 1979, p. 48 (no. 72).
See Lisdn aI-’ arab and Tadj at-’ arCs, s.v. mihrab,
For the explanation of the word rnshrab as proposed by RB. Serjeant see below,
p. 161.
64
Ibn al-Muradjdja, FadC’il bait al-maqdis, fol. 54 b.
65
al-Wasiti, FadC’il, p. 66 (no. 104): lemma (i.e., after concluding the peace treaty
with the inhabitants of Jerusalem) ala (‘Uinar) r,nhrab DawCd wa-s aUa
fihi sad.
Tabari, Ta’rifch al-i-use! wa’l-inuluk, I 2408.
6t
See my article “Omar’s image as the conqueror of Jerusalem”, in: Jerusalem
t7
Studies in Arabic and Islam 8 (1986), pp. 1.19 -168, especially pp. 165ff.
62
63
156
Iferibert Basso
The tower of David
to a prayer niche) and Other places of a similar kind were established,
the original MihrEb Dhwãd lost its exclusiveness. Now it was necessary
to adduce evidence of the highest authority to guarantee its existence.
This was done in a hadi.(lt quoted by al-WhsiI in the name of al-Waild
b. Muslim: When Muhammad arrived on his Night Journey above the
Temple Mount, he saw (looking in the direction of Mecca) two flash..
ing lights. Gabriel informed him: “The light on your right hand is the
mihrab of your brother Dawüd, the light on your left is flashing on the
grave of your sister Maryam”
The learned authors of the Crusader period knew from the Latin
translation of the works of Flavius Josephus
76 that the socalled Tower
of David was erected by Herod the Great, and that it could not, thereLore, be the place where David composed the Psalms. The anonymous
author of a description of Jerusalem written in about 1130, realizing
the discrepancy between the name of the tower and its origin, located
avid’s composition of the Psalms in a fortress (arx) which he says
was situated on a very high hill in the direction of Bethlehem (arx vero
quam David sibi construxit, in qua psalterium dictavit, intcr ecciesiam
quo modo Syon munit er decorat, contra Bethlehem in sublimo valde tu
snub situm suum temet). The text seems to be mutilated; there can
be hardly any doubt that the author had the Herodeion in mind.
77 The
fortress was destroyed, he continues, by the younger son of Mattathias.
78
This is an error; it was well known that the Herodeion was not destroyed
by the Maccabees, but in the Roman war. It is important to note that
the Tower of David was deprived of its Davidic character, at least by this
author. Most other authors continued using David’s name in referring to
the tower, as well as the adjacent city gate and the street leading from
this gate to the Bb al-silsila of the Temple Mount (the Porta Speciosa
79 Later a legend emerged that Joseph of Arimathaea,
f the Crusaders).
the man who took care of the burial of Jesus (see Matt. 27.57—61 and
par.), had been iniprisoned in the Tower of David by the Jews, and lib
erated by Titus and Vespasian after the capture of Jerusalem.
° After
8
Pilate’s exoneration from the murder of Christ as told in the gospels, this
was another attempt to place the Roman authorities on the Christian
side against the Jews.
The Muslim tradition connected with the Tower of David survived
the vicissitudes of the Christian occupation of Jerusalem. When Sal
adios recaptured the city in 1187, the Muslims reestablished the tower
.
1..
4. The decline of the sanctuary during the Crusades and
afterwards
Because another Mihrhb Dhwãd was built on the Haram al-abarif, and
also for the aforementioned theological reasons, the sanctuary in the
Citadel was already in decline before the arrival of the Crusaders. On
the other hand, the military importance of the tower and the Citadel
remained unchanged. This is proved by the fact that the authors of
the Crusader period describe the tower mainly from a military point of
view. According to William of Malmesbury, who wrote in about 1127,
the tower was built of huge quadrangular stones up to its middle plat
form (? tabulatum); the masonry was consolidated by bolts of lead. The
Muslims took advantage of its strength when the Crusaders laid siege
to the city in 1099. A handful of soldiers sufficed to defend the tower,
“the military key to Jerusalem”,°
9 against the attacks of Raimund IV
of St. Gilles. It was only taken when the defenders were granted free
° According to Albert of Aachen, most of the defenders were
7
retreat.
concentrated around the tower.
’ Fulcher of Chartres gives a similar
7
72 Theodoricus admires the giant ashlars and their incompara
account.
73 The tower loomed over the whole city. It was the first
ble strength.
building the pilgrims saw when approaching the city from the west.
74
Together with the cupola of the Holy Sepulchre and the Dome of the
Rock (the Templum Domini of the Crusaders), it was depicted on the
reverse of the seal of the Latin king of Jerusalem,
’ as one of the land
7
marks of Jerusalem.
68 Fadv’il, p. 49 (no. 73). lbn al-Muradjdja, Fada’il, fol. 87 b.
a1-WSsiti,
See Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, New York and Oxford 1972, p. 62.
William of Malmesbury, De gestis regusn Anglorum, no. 369/Sabino de Sandoli,
lOners Hierosolymitana crucesignatorum, 4 vols. Jerusalem 1978—1984, II, p. 66.
Albertus Aquensis, Hwtoria Hierosolymitana 11 46/Sandoli I, p. 270.
72 Fulcherius
Carnotensis, Historza Hierosolymitana XXIV/Sandoli I, p. 110.
‘
Theodoricus, Do locis sanctis IV/Sandoli II, p. 318.
Anonymous (wrote in 1130), Do situ urbi.s Jerusalem 15/Sandoli II, p. 112.
‘ Sabino
de Sandoli, Corpus :nscrsptionum Terrae Santae (1099 1291), Jerusalem
1974, pp. 129—131 (nos. 175—184).
157
76 Bellum Judaicum,
translation ascribed to Rufinus (end of the fourth century);
Antiquit ales Judaicae, translated by Cassiodorus (sixth century).
‘ Instead
of “decorat” one should perhaps read “Thecuam” “arx ... inter eccie
Siam Syon ... et Thecuarn
situm suuni habet”. Thekua (ar.: Kbirbet Tuqu’) is
situated a few kilometers south of the Herodeion. The same author knows the place:
“Quarto miliaro a Bethlehem Thecua” (Sandoli, II, p. 100). The Crusaslers knew,
of course, the Herodeion described by Josephus, near Thecua: “In quo itinere mons
eat, quem excavavit Erodes, et fecit sibi palatium supra heremum contra Mare Mor
tuum” (Peturs Diaconuus, Do loci.s sancho 12/Sandoli II, p. 184, written in 1137).
At Thekua a wise woman advised David not to kill Absalom, who had murdered his
brother Amnon (2 Samuel 14.2). This may have induced the anonymous author to
identify the hlerodeion as David’s palace.
Anonymous, Do situ urbis Jerusalem 15/Sandoli II, p. 112.
76
70
See, for instance, Saewulfus, Certa relatio do situ Jerusalem III 9/Sandoli II,
p. 12. Anonymus Gallicus (wrote about 1187), L’eslat do 1 cite de IhCrusalem
S/Sandoli II, p. 418. Ernoul, L’estat do la citd de IhCrusalem 5/Sandoli III,
p. 398.
Anonymus saecuhi XIII, Liber do civitatibus Terrae Sanctae 22/Sandohi IV,
p. 356.
...
158
Ileribert Busse
as a holy place withott any alteration This is reported by ‘Imad al
Din al-Katib al Isfah5ni and other contemporary historians: “As far as
mosque is concerned, it is in the
the Mihrab Dwüd outside the Aqs 81
citadel (hisu) by the side of the city gate. It is inaccessible (mani), a
place which is lofty and high. This is the citadel where the governor
(wl3) resides. The sultan provided for its restoration and appointed an
imãm, two mu’adhdhins and servants. It is a station for the pious and
a place visited by the travellers. He renewed and renovated it and re
visitors”. Van Berehem conjectured that the
stored its doorway for the 82
83
mosque which Saladin established was in the upper part of the tower,
on top of the still-existing cube-shaped base described by Flavius Jose
phus. There are good reasons for the assumption that the mosque was
demolished when the Christians reoccupied Jerusalem on the basis of
the ten-year treaty which Frederic II concluded with the Aiyubids. In
637/1239, when the treaty was expiring, al-Malik a1-Nair Dawud, the
ruler of Karak, who hated the Christians, assaulted Jerusalem, took it
by force and destroyed the citadel, which had allegedly been restored by
the Christians in violation of the treaty. The upper part of the tower
demolished. On the other hand, the Aiyubid ruler men
was certainly 84
tioned in a letter to the Caliph in Baghdad his intention to transform
the tower into a mosque, since it had been built by David as a mosque
prayer. Was it by mere coincidence that a ruler
and a private place of 85
named DãwDd was going to restore a Davidie sanctuary?
There are doubts as to whether al-Malik al-NSsir DgwDd translated
his plan into action. Sultan N5.sir al-Din Muhammad QalS.’un (who ruled
with interruptions from 693/1294 to 741/1340) established a mosque on
a totally different site, namely, the southwestern part of the citadel.
This mosque is extant today. In the building inscription of 710/1310—11
(djiimi’). The miabar was endowed by
it is called the Friday mosque 86
the Ottoman Sultan Sulaiman I in about 940/1533—34, as is stated in
87
the inscription. Decorations of the mihräb arc also attributed to him.
A mosque in the tower is not mentioned anymore. As early as 569/1173,
‘Ali al-Harawi, who visited Crusader-ruled Jerusalem, adopted the Latin
81 This has been said to distinguish it from the MilirSb DSwOd in the southern wall
of the Haram al-sbarif, which is called here Aqsa mosque as a whole.
82 ‘lmSd al-Din al-KStib al-1sfahaii,
al-Fat8 al-quss fi’l-faLi al-quds:, ed
C. de Landberg, I, Leyde 1888, P. 68. French trans. by H. Masse, Conqudle do IS
Sync et de Ia Palestine par Saladin, Paris 1972. See also the exhaustive description
of the Citadel by Max van Berchem, Matdriauz, p 129ff., here: p. 163, n. 3.
83 Van Berchem, Mat dcl
aux, P. 163.
84 According to Christian contemporary accounts, tower and citadel were razed to
the ground; see Le continuateiir anonyme de Guillaume de Tyre, La Sainte Gild do
Jerusalem 21/Sandoli IV, P. 52.
81 Van Berchem, Mat dci
aux, p. 139, n. 2, quoted from Ibn SbaddSd.
85 Van Berchem, Matdriaux, p. 160 (inscription no. 51).
87
Van Berchem, Matdriaux, pp. 164ff. (inscription no. 52).
The tower of David
159
name of the tower, calling it “Burdj Dwüd” instead of “Mihräb Dwud”;
this means that he made a distinction between the building as a whole
(burdj) and the mihrab (meaning a prayer niche) forming a part of it.
88
Later authors, such as Mudjir al-Din al-’Ulaimi (end of ninth/fifteenth
century), confused the MihrS.b Dãwad with the Citadel. Mudjir al-Din
states that the Citadel (qal’a) was in former times
(qa4fma.n) known
by the name “Milirhb Dawud”; David’s dwelling was in the Citadel (we
kane manzzltthu bihd).
99 Elsewhere the sa.rxic author correctly states that
the lofty tower named Burdj DawBd was situated in the Citadel (hisn);
be adds, however, that its origin went back to Solomon (wa-huwa mm
1-bmna’ al-qadim 9
4
al-sulaimani). The last phase of the history of the
°
Sanctuary was reached when the site of the mosque built by Qala’un was
styled “Maqam Dãwãd”, as we can read in the inscription on the minaret
ip which a restoration initiated by Muhammad Pasha in 1065/1654—55 is
commemorate
9
1
d. By the nineteenth century, when people started call
ing the minaret “Mihrab 92
Dawud”, the original sanctuary was totally
forgotten.
It is not possible to fix the date of the transition of the Mihrdb Dãwãd
from the tower to the Maqãm DawBd in the Friday mosque. In Qala’an’s
inscription it is stated that the Sultan built (ans.ma’a) the mosque; van
Berchem assumed on the grounds of architectural details that there
had
been a mosque on the site before. If this is correct, it seems certain that
the hail or the building as a whole was not initially erected to house a
mosque. A look at the plan of the Citadel is sufficient to discover that
the qible of the Friday mosque is far from being exact. The longitu
dinal
axis of the mosque, which cuts the rnihrab, points in a southern directi
on,
slightly deviating to the west, whereas the correct qibta in Jerusalem
is
nearly exactly southeast. It was much easier to keep the exact qibla
in the tower, since there is a southeastern wall suitable for a rnihrab.
Therefore, the mosque in the Citadel was an imperfect substitute
for
the mosque in the tower. Perhaps this was the reason that an
open-air
mosque was established near the main entrance to the Citade
l from the
direction of the city, tile mihrab of whit-h points fairly exactly
in the
direction of the qibla.
93
‘All al-Harawl, Kitab al-isharJt 114 ma’rlfat al-ziyarat.
Guide des hem do
ptlerinage, texte et trad. annotde par Janine Sourdel-Tho
mine, Damas 1952 1957,
s 27 (texte), pp. 66ff. (tract.).
89
Mudjir al-Din al-’UlaImi, at- Un al-djahil bi-ta’rtkh al-Quds
wa’l-Khahil, ‘Amman
1973, I, p. 408.
°°Mudjir al-Din, al-Ums, II, p. 55.
Vail Berchem, Matdriauz, pp. 165ff. (inscription
no. 53).
93
ee Tower of Davsd Jerusalem City Museum, p. 46.
For inscriptions of the Ottoman period see Walls/Abu’l93
Hajj (see above, n. 6),
Arolic Inscriptions in Jerusalem, 31, note 4.
p.
—
160
The tower of David
Heribert Busse
5. David as a Syrian anchorite
The idea of David’s doing penance in a tower must be put into the coi’.
text of Syrian monasticism and asceticism as it developed in the early
Christian period. An instructive account of Syrian hermits living in tow
ers has recently been given by 1. Peña, P. Castellana and R. Fernandez.°4
The authors, travelling in Syria, identified quite a number of towers (Ara
bic: burdj) as dwellings of recluses, mainly in northern and central Syria,
In addition, they made a survey of recluses in other parts of the Near
East and in the Latin West. They caine to the conclusion that this type
of asceticism started in watchtowers and castles on the eastern frontier
of the Roman Empire which lost their function and were abandoned
when the border was given back to the West in the treaty that Joviaz
(r. 363—364) was obliged to conclude with the Sassanids. These towers
and fortifications were occupied by anchorites who found them converi
ient for living in retreat and isolation. Later on this type of asceticism,
together with its specific architecture, spread to other parts of Syria and
Palestine, and further south. The towers were square buildings with up
to five storeys. Sometimes they were situated in isolation, and sometimes
they formed groups of up to five buildings, close to a monastery or to a
settlement. In many cases the towers were surrounded by a wall forming
an enclosure (Creek mandra, literally, “enclosure for cattle”). Some of
them had adjacent buildings, for instance that at Banastour (about 20
km directly northwest of Aleppo), which one may call the prototype of
a hermit’s tower. It had four storeys including the ground floor, appar.
ently a chapel on the top floor and a small monastery and a hospice in
its immediate 95
surroundings.
Towers for recluses existed in Palestine, too. As already pointed
out, St. Sabas himself erected a tower in his great laura near Bethlehem.
From that tower he directed his community.
96 We have shown above that
Sabas bought cells in the vicinity of the Tower of David, establishing a
hospice for his laura, or rather for the visitors to the Davidic sanctuary.
Thus it appears that the Tower of David was visited by pilgrims long
before the Pilgrim of Piacenza delivered his account. The tower itself
was the dwelling of anchorites who adopted the penitent David as their
model. The hospice established by Sabas in the vicinity of the Tower of
David had parallels in other places, for instance at Banastour, as just
Lea reclus Syriens. Recherches sur lea ancenrLes for,nes de vie solitaire en Syrie,
Jerusalem 19Th. Other kinds of Syrian asceticism have been dealt with by the same
authors: Lea stylites Syraens, Milan 1975; Lea ce’nob:tea Syriena, Milan 1983.
Lea reclus Syriens; pp. 79, 199ff., 379 (illustration no, 22), table V (no. 10).
96 A.-J. Festugierre,
Lea Moines d’Orient, Paris 1961—1965, Ill 2, p. 27. Lea reclua
Syriens, p. 51.
161
mentioned. The origin of the tower is in keeping with the general devel
opmnent of this type of monastic architecture in Syria, insofar as it had
military function before it was converted into a dwelling for anchorites.
Qne may also note that its military function was never completely lost,
97 Nor does the Tower of David provide the only cx
we have seen.
ample of a cult that continued from Christian into Islamic times: the
Tower of Koukanaya, about 40 km directly southeast of Antalcya, is lo—
ga.lly known as having been the dwelling of a Christian recluse, but there
Wa rnihrãb in its southern wall. The Arabic name 4abs (prison) shows
that the Muslims considered the anchorite a prisoner rather than a man
98 A similar misunderstanding prevailed,
living in voluntary seclusion.
as mentioned above, in the case of the Tower of David, which, in the
Crusader period or even earlier, was viewed as the prison of Joseph of
99
Atimathaea.
The monastic movement played an important part in the spread of
Christianity amongst the Bedouin population in the border region.’°°
We cannot exclude the possibility that the story of David’s sin and re
pentance in his palace or tower in Jerusalem was known in the Hidjaz.
Perhaps Muhammad had this palace or tower in mind when he told the
story of David’s sin with Bathsheba as it has come down to us in the
Qur’Ln. In the beginning of that story it is stated that the disputants
climbed over the wall (tasawuaru) of DawOd’s rnihrhb (Süra 38:21).
R.B. Serjeant proposes that “the original sense of mihrhb is a row of
columns
erected upon a plinth. As a feature of castles and palaces
came to be applied topically to them”.
101 This makes sense in the
context of Süra 38: las awwari is derived from sur, wall. It may be easy
to climb over the wall of an enclosure, but it is not possible to climb
over the wall of a roofed chamber, not to speak of the wall of a tower,
102
the natural access to a chamber or to a tower being the door or a win
dow. On the other hand, elements of a tower surrounded by a courtyard
(mandra) as the dwelling of hermits may have crept into the story. It is
important to note that the towers of the Syrian recluses normally had
a peephole above the door, by meaiis of wluch the hermit was able to
watch the courtyard and the entrance to the enclosure or the entrance
...
Anchorites at the border occasionally took part in fending off attacks from preda
tory Bedouiris, see Lea reclus Syriens, p. 86. The hermits are metaphorically called
“athletes” because of their heroic ascetic exercises.
98
Lea reclua Syriens, pp. 51, 373 (illustration no. 10), table I (no. 2).
5ee above, p. 157.
99
l00j
Spencer Trimingham, Christianity amongst the Arabs an pre-falam:c tames,
London and New York 1979, pp. 100ff.
101
See R.B. Serjeant, “MihrSb”, in: BSOAS 22 (1959), pp. 439—453, here: p. 453.
102
This was one reason for the Muslim commentators to assume that the intruders
were angels; see, for instance, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Tafsir, XXV, p. 195 (line 7 from
the bottom).
162
Ileribert Busse
The tower of David
163
to the tower itself.’
03 Perhaps Muhammad had these circumstances i
11
mind when he said that Däwüd was afraid when he saw the disputa
8
climbing over the wall of his rnihrãb.
The commentators embellished the story of David and Bathsheba
using elements which they knew from personal observation or from the
writings or sayings of Jewish or Christian authors. Elements known
from personal observation were the habits of the anchorites and details
of the architecture of their dwellings as well. According to Christian
sources, the ascetic exercises consisted mainly of fasting and keeping
104 and retreating into a tower or a similar type of building aimed
vigils,
at separation from the world. We know from the written sources as
well as from archaeological evidence that there were cells and towers
which had neither door nor window; in most cases the windows were
very small, just big enough to let in fresh air, to allow the hermit to
receive provisions and to communicate, to a limited measure, with the
outside world. The anchorites used to clothe themselves in the most
primitive manner and to renounce elementary care of the body. Their
beds were most Spartan, if they did not prefer to spend the night in a
standing position, leaning against the wall. Leading a life of mortification
and severity, the anchorites were exposed to great sexual temptations.
Living in absolute solitude wa.s the ideal: John Chrysostomos remembers
the times he lived as an anchorite, when his only companions were the
5 The retreat into a tower in a search for solitude was either
birds.’°
temporary or permanent. We know, for instance, that St. Euthymios
(d. 473), one of the fathers of Syrian monaticism, used to spend the
days from Monday to Saturday in solitude; only Sundays were spent in
the monastery, in the company of his monks.’°
6
We find many of these details in the commentaries on the Qur’anic
story of David and Bathshcba. Dwãd divided the week according to
strict regulations; one day out of three or four, he retreated to his mihrãb,
which was inaccessible to visitors.
107 Like the anchorites, he was ex
posed to sexual temptations. The devil appeared to him in the form of a
108 which reminds one of the birds which were the only compan
pigeon,
ions of John Chrysostomos, as just mentioned. The pigeon led Dwud to
the peephole of his rnihrãb, whence he saw Bathsheba. The word Tabari
gses for peephole is kauwun, kuwa, a word of Aramaic origin,’
09 which
is particularly interesting in this context. Dãwãd wept over his sin for
forty days, lying with his face to the ground and fasting. Weeping was,
besides fasting, one of the main ascetic activities of Christian hermits.
Monks who preferred weeping over their sins to any other exercise were
110 The sprouting
called abulë (from Aramaic eblcl, sorrow, affliction).
f grass on the spot that was soaked by Dg.wad’s tears reminds one of
0
the Syrian ascetics called boskoi, monks who crawled on all fours, eating
grass like animals)”
It would not be difficult to draw further parallels between Dãwfld’s
repentance and the ascetic exercises of Syrian monks, and between the
Tower of David/Mihrb Dwüd and the dwellings of Christian anchor
ltes. The examples quoted may be sufficient to show that the model
for Däwüd’s penitence as depicted in the Qur’an were the mortifications
of Christian ascetics to which the Muslim commentators added further
details. It may be taken for granted that they drew mainly on Christian
sources. A striking example is found in one of the commentaries of John
Chrysostomos on the Gospels. Describing David’s repentance, he quotes
Psalm 6.7. David said: “I am worn out with groaning, every night I
drench my pillow and soak my bed with tears”.’
12 Ibn al-Djauz, says, as
mentioned above, that Dawud stuffed seven matresses with ashes, and
soaked them with his tears. The seven matresses can perhaps be ex
plained as an allusion to the seven Penitential Psalms. Theodor of Mop
suestia (d. 428), who is known in the Eastern Church as “the exegete”,
relates Psalm 6, the first of the Penitential Psalms, to David’s repentance
after his sinning with Bathsheba, and also Psalm 38 (37), the third of
these Psalms. There was, however, a continuing theological discusson
as to whether it was permissible to assume that David was alluding in
the Psalms to his own sinful existence.” This is, in Christian theology,
an early attempt at exculpating David, which was considered advisable
after David’s official adoption as the model of Christian rulership.”
4
The Muslims, for other reasons, brought this idea to perfection, declar
ing Dãwüd sinless (ma’sim). Consequently, the commemoration of his
repentance at the Mihrab Dwüd came to an end. Once another Mihrfib
Dwüd was established in the Haram al-sharif, the cult of Däwud in the
Citadel was doomed to fall into oblivion.
103
See, for instance, Burdj ‘Abdallah at Sarmada (about 35 km directly west of
Aleppo), Leo reclus Syrzens, p. 243, table VIII (no. 16).
104
Muhammad practised this too, as is evident from Sura 73:1.
105
Lea reclua Syri ens, pp. 44, 661ff., 93-117.
106
Leo reclus Syriens, p. 73.
107
According to Ibn aI-Muradjdja, FadS’il bait al-maqdis, fol. 88 a b, DSwud spent
one day with his women, one day he administered justice, one day he spent in his
mzhrãb for ‘ibadat, one day he spent conversing with the Israelites,
108
Abu’l-F’aradj Ibn al-Djauzi, Zad al-masir, IV, p. 114.
See Wbrterbuch der ktass:schen arabiochen Sprache, Bd. 1, in Verbindungmit An
ton Spitaler bearbeitet von Manfred Ullmann, Wiesbaden 1970, p. 419 (s.v. kauwun,
kuwatun).
110
Leo rectus Syriens, p. 33.
Leo rectus Syriens, p. 32.
112
John Chrysostomos, Commeniarius in Matthaeum, Honulia no. 26.
113
Robert Devreesse, Le commentaire de Thdodor de Mopsuesie our lea Psaumes
(I-LXXX), Rome 1939, pp. 31ff., 218ff.
See Eugen Ewig, “Dos Bud” (see above, n. 13).
164
Heribert Busse
6. Summary and further developments
The Tower of David originally had a military function; it was an out
wardly inaccessible and easily defensible fortification. At the same time
it was part of the royal palace, and also a type of tower, as mentioned
several times in the Bible, where it is told that a town was built with
a lofty tower in the middle (Gen. 11.4; Judg. 9.51). To this was added
a religious function, which originated probably in Jewish tradition. The
Christians, adding new elements, continued this tradition under the in
fluence of monastic asceticism as practised in Syria in the remnants of the
Roman defences on the eastern border. Christian tradition looked at the
tower in a twofold manner, as David’s dwelling and place of prayer, and
as the site of his sin with Bathsheba and his repentance. The colonies
of monks who settled in and around the tower disappeared when the
Persians sacked Jerusalem in 614. The Muslims at first continued the
Christian veneration at the site, although in a different manner. Under
the impact, however, of the dogma of the sinlessness of the prophets
which developed in the fourth/tenth century, the story of David’s sin
and repentance became meaningless to Muslim theology. The disap
pearance of Muslim veneration at the Mihrab Däwãd was accelerated
by the emergence of a hoiy place of the same name, albeit with a dif
ferent connotation, on the Haram al-sharif. Attempts at revitalizing the
cult after the Crusades were not very successful, and finally failed. In
Muslim tradition David’s repentance continued to be extolled, but it was
separated from the tower, as is attested in a more recent version of the
story, according to which Dhwüd “took off his royal robe and retired
to the desert where he prayed and fasted until the skin flaked from his
face”.”
5
The Crusaders saw the Tower of David in the first place as the central
part of the royal palace of that Israelite king, and then as a fortification
of difficult access. The first aspect was decisive in putting a picture of
the tower on the seal of the Latin kings of Jerusalem. Later on, its vir
In
tual inaccessibility became the symbol of the Virgin Mary’s chastity:
shape
final
its
assumed
which
Loreto,
of
Lady
Dear
the Litany of Our
in the beginning of the sixteenth century, Mary was called “Turns Da
vidica”, along with “Turns eburnea” and “Domus aurea” (the imperial
Rome).” This and the juxtaposition of “Turns Davidica”
palace in 6
the
and “Turns eburnea” have their origins in the Song of Songs, where
Prophets
See Jan Knappert, Islamic Legends. histories of the Heroes, Saints and
Nisaba, vol. 15),
of Islam, vol. 1, Leiden 1985 (Religious Texts Translation Series.
p. 123.
the
116 For the history of this litany and its roots in Greek-Orthodox veneration of
Abendland, 2
:m
Akathistos
Hymnos
Der
n,
Meersseman
CC.
see
Christ,
mother of
vols., Freiburg 1958—60.
The tower of David
165
bride’s neck is compared with the Tower of David (ch. 4.4) and the ivory
tower (ch. 7.4). For Christian exegesis in antiquity and in the Middle
Ages, it was quite natural to interpret the bride in the Song of Songs as
an allegory of the mother of Jesus. It was probably by transfer of the
notion of inaccessibility from the Tower of David to the ivory tower that
the latter became proverbial for remoteness from everyday life.