Talk:Antonia Fortress

What bridges ?

The article leaves the impression that Josephus mentions some bridges "Josephus' description of the siege of Jerusalem suggests that it was separated from the temple enclosure itself and probably connected by two colonnades with a narrow space between them. Josephus' measurements suggest about a 600-foot separation between the two complexes" and "there are ten references in Josephus to these bridges" I was not able to find one !?--Brkic (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

They're called collonades. He was very profuse. The Jewish rebels set them on fire before the war broke out. 2601:194:381:7C0:31F0:B447:9522:FD14 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

How many towers

The article leaves the impression that gives no hint of more than one tower. In fact, in B.J. v. 238, Josephus wrote, "The general appearance of the whole was that of a tower with other towers at each of the four corners; three of these turrets were fifty cubits high, while that at the south-east angle rose to seventy cubits and so commanded a view of the whole area of the temple." It's been so long since I've edited anything in wikipedia or made comments on a discussion page that I've forgotten how to sign a comment. I see that I should put 4 tildes, but then what? My initials in the parentheses? I'll try it. (96.245.10.33 (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)js)

St. Paul

The book of Acts says that when Paul was arrested at Jerusalem he was taken into a castle. Could it have been talking about Antonia?Leo-Isaurus-Rex (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Which version are you using?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this look big enough to house 10000 soldiers + 6000 support personnel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.213.31 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should it, anon? The legion was split up into various garrisons throughout the country - not all in a single location. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Antonia Fortress

Cyberbot II has detected links on Antonia Fortress which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/antonia-fortress/

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Fringe theory

The fringe theory of the Base Institute is under discussion at WP:FTN. Zero^talk 14:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Concur. This also fails quite simply the WP:RS test as http://www.baseinstitute.org would not qualify as a RS for history or archaeology. If one would want to add this theory - one should find a reputable book or journal article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh, the history of the man behind the Base Institute, Bob Cornuke is.....colourful, to say the least..Huldra (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This picture:

A tower of the Antonia Fortress in 1906

is actually the minaret of Muazzamiyya Madrasa.

Yes, many fanciful writers in the late 19th century wrote that it was a tower of the Antonia Fortress...but it was actually a Mamluk minaret, at least according to Burgoyne, "Mamluk Jerusalem", p. 127, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huldra: To be exact, it was Ermete Pierotti who merely surmised that the stone masonry used in the tower shown here are stones that have originally come from the Antonia fortress but which have been reused to build these later structures.Davidbena (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Davidbena: thanks, that is interesting. When we (finally) get around to writing an article about the Muazzamiyya Madrasa that should be included (with the source), cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

PS: Burgoyne also found possibly remains of the Antonia Fortress further south of the Muazzamiyya minaret, inside two other Mamluk madrasas, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is a lot of confusion when it comes to the "Antonia Fortress." When I lived in Jerusalem in the late 1970s, I remember visiting the "Sisters of Zion Ecce Homo Convent," on Via Dolorosa Street, in Jerusalem's Old City. There, the nuns were teaching the visiting tourists that their site rests on the old "Antonia Fortress," which, later, has shown to be inaccurate. The Hebrew Wikipedia points out this fact, that it could not have been there at all. The Antonia Fortress was actually closer to the unseen extension of the Western Wall, as it continues to run in the general northern direction, opposite to (if we were to draw a straight line towards the east) the Golden Gate which is now closed.Davidbena (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Burgoyne said he found remains of what he thinks was from the Antonia Fortress inside two of the Mamluk madrassas (mentioned here: User:Huldra/Mamluk Jerusalem) just north of the Dome of the Rock. I'm getting to it.....eventually.......Huldra (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, about the the minaret of Muazzamiyya Madrasa, newer pictures show that the wall on the right is more or less rebuilt, Huldra (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Huldra. I trust Burgoyne's findings 100%. The reasons for this is because of what Josephus states (Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 5.5.8 [5.238]): "Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the Temple; of that on the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein he demonstrated his natural magnanimity."

Elsewhere (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 15.424) we read: "There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner Temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the Temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings."

Assuming that the "eastern gate" mentioned here is where the Golden Gate now stands, and is mentioned in Mishnah (Middot), and that its position was at the corner of the colonnade on the Temple precincts' far northeastern side (before its expansion by King Herod to accommodate the pilgrims), we can assume then that the colonnade ran in a straight line from east to west with the peristyle (cloisters) concluding at Antonia on its northwestern corner. This would make today's identification misleading. Indeed, according to the Heb. Wikipedia, the claim of the Sisters of Zion Convent being the place of Antonia is an erroneous claim.Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Davidbena, do you have access to the Burgoyne book? Huldra (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No, but I would LOVE to see it! By the way, to further explain my rationale: According to Mishnah Middot 2:1, the original Temple Mount was 500 cubits x 500 cubits square (or 1 stadion x 1 stadion), which dimensions would lead us to the Golden Gate area at its furthest distance. The place of the northern-most colonnade of the Temple courts would have given a square shape to the Temple Mount, 500 x 500 cubits, with the Temple precincts enclosed by a wall in its center. In Josephus' Wars, he says that it was King Herod the Great who, in the 15th [18th] year of his reign, rebuilt the Temple sanctuary and expanded the Temple Mount at its north side around the older Temple courts, and "enclosed an area double the former size" (Wars 1.21.1). This explains why now the Temple Mount does not appear to be 500 x 500 cubits square.Davidbena (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Davidbena, Email me. And to be specific, Burgoyne says he found traces of the Antonia in User:Huldra/Mamluk Jerusalem in no. 14 Al-Jawiliyya 201 → Umariya Elementary School and no. 33 Al-Is‘ardiyya Commons cat, Huldra (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow! That's amazing! I'll send you a private message with my e-mail address.Davidbena (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia server says that you have requested not to receive incoming mail. Still, my e-mail address is listed in my UserPage, under "Personal".Davidbena (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I have just emailed you my email address (due to heavy abuse: please dont make it public. Some editors (like Bolter) know it, though), Huldra (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, please tell me when/if it has arrived ok, Huldra (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I just now received your mail. I'll download it and take a look at it. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if you ever are in Jerusalem, but if you are, I would very much appreciate a picture of how that Muazzamiyya Minaret looks today. It is located at the street leading from the Lions' Gate; on the north side of the street. Hint, hint! (There might be some on commons already, but the pictures there are one big mess: people just take pictures of what they don't know what is, and put it into the "Jerusalem" category, etc. I have been trying to sort them into their proper commons cat for ages.) Huldra (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I do occasionally visit Jerusalem. The next time I'm in the city, and if I'm in the Old City area, I'll try taking a photo/photos of the Muazzamiyya Minaret. Gosh! I used to go thru that gate all the time. Lol.Davidbena (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

the same arch, in the distance

It looks as if the arch (above the street) looks pretty much the same as for a 100 years ago, (if you zoom in on the picture) Huldra (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong arch, IMHO. Look closer at the modern photo, zoom in, and behind the first tunnel-like vault in the foreground there's a 2nd one: that's the one! Right behind that one the Lions Gate Street (not being called yet Via Dolorosa at that point) starts ascending a bit steeper. I'm quite sure it's also where the King Faisal lane branches off to the south (left) and leads onto the Haram/Temple Mount. Arminden (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Arminden: Actually, that was the one I meant: I did write “zoom in” -sorry if I wasn’t clear, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Huldra:, I haven't forgotten your request to take a photograph of the minaret where this arch is located. Hopefully, the next time that I'm in Jerusalem, I can do this for you.Davidbena (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry Huldra, I misunderstood what you wrote. I looked it up a bit, as I was surprised to hear of a large minaret outside the Haram but so close to it, in a place with shops and a playground, but no obvious mosque. I found this: " The Mamluks tended to build the new minarets not only on mosques but also on madrasas (such as the Muazzamiyya Minaret)..." (from this excellent source you might know) and this: "Today, al-Muazzamiyya is known as Masjid al-Mujahidin" etc., with a very good description of what you can see today (here). All of Muslim Jerusalem apart from the Haram looks so dilapidated... Arminden (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That was two great sources you brought there, I have mostly used Burgoyne (do you have the book?), I intend to start an article on each of the places mentioned there, see this: Muazzamiyya Minaret is no.4, ......eventually! Huldra (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC) PS: feel free to add to the "Mamluk Jerusalem" :)

Huldra, hi. That's a great idea! I'm looking forward to see that page. My advice: a majority of the buildings surrounding the Haram and many on it are Mamluk. I would first concentrate on the important ones, which are better preserved and can maybe also be visited. Eliahu Wager has a selection, good (not just) from the tourist's point of view. Here a few suggestions.

• The Tankiziyya: Tankiz#Architectural legacy and here.
• The Ashrafiyya: Madrasa Al-Ashrafiyya, here.
• Khalidi Library
• Sebil Qayt Bay at Fountain of Qayt Bay.

Whereas this minaret is just a matter of inventory, it seems to me.
I don't think I have the Burgoyne book, so thanks, if you could... Cheeres,

PS: The sebil on Tariq el-Wad is not Mamluk. Suleiman the Magnificent has built quite a few around Jerusalem, so C16 Ottoman, this one with a trough made out of a Herodian sarcophagus, taken feom the Tomb of Kings if I remember well. You have some Ayyubid architecture left, and a lot of Mamluk and Ottoman, too. Don't know about Early Islamic other than the Domes and Al-Aqsa, that would be interesting - anything Abbasid or Fatimid? Cheers Arminden (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

second temple

No discussion of the possible location of the Second Temple or Wailing Wall being at Antonia Fortress? This has been discussed in Academia, although a minority opinion and I wanted to know more about this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F4:5081:FD00:A022:3A0E:8B33:9FE9 (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fringe, but if you bring a reliable source we can consider it. Zero^talk 11:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

183-metre long "aerial bridges"? What's next, flying temples?

Friends, we need to keep an eye on this article. I've studied together with a very nice guy, who really knew a lot about archaeology and from time to time made some some very, VERY weird statements - presenting them as fact, not even theory. Then it came out that he's paranoid-schizophrenic and had stopped taking his meds. It's not his kind of topic, otherwise I could have sworn he's taken to Wikipedia to save the world from ignorance and started with this article. Be vigilant, the end is nigh (of the Age of Ration, at least). PS: With him, it's a tragedy. This here though is more of a bad joke. Arminden (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

They were called collonades, when the Jewish rebels destroyed them the Romans lost access to the Temple.

 2601:194:381:7C0:31F0:B447:9522:FD14 (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

One-tower theory: inplausible quotations

We have a mess: "Some archaeologists are also of the opinion that the fortress consisted only of a single tower, located at the south-east corner of the site."

The sentence is nonsensical. If there was only one tower to Antonia (which is indeed a theory, based on ONE possible reading of Josephus), then the tower was SE of WHAT site? SE of itself? And it's supposedly based on Benoit (1976) p. 89, which is also dubious - see below why.

"For example, Pierre Benoit writes that there is absolutely no archaeological support for there having been four towers."

Again, poor Benoit (1976) is quoted, this time w/o indicating a page (which is weird, but doesn't matter much, as we shall see). The 1976 book is not available online, just tiny snippets, so one can write anything w/o fearing to be checked. Benoit's articles, whether in French or English, have been repeatedly misquoted on this page, so I have good reason to doubt in this instance, too, whether he's been quoted correctly. I did, however, read his 1971 article, and there he never says that there hadn't been 4 towers, period. He quotes different theories by 19th-century researchers, some favouring of one tower with or w/o corner turrets, some presenting more imaginative solutions: that either the Romans or the Umayyads had hewn away a supposed southern part of the outcrop where most researchers have placed the fortress, so that what we see now underneath the Muslim school is only the remainder. Benoit mentions no positive proof for anything, he actually talks of Herodian-looking ashlars right above the existing Haram-side edge of the outcrop (which, if they were part of the external southern wall of Antonia, it would mean that there was nothing south of that). Anyway, Benoit comments on Josephus's description of a larger SE tower (larger that the other 3! So 4 in total) and whether it would have been enough room for them on the outcrop. That's in 1971. Unless he or others have excavated in the area in the 5 years between the 1971 and the 1976 publication (I just checked under Struthion Pool, and it seems that yes, there has been work done there around 1971), which until 1971 he himself had NOT done, since he only used pre-existing research, I doubt that he said what is claimed here. If he did update his comments by 1976, I want to see a quote from his article. Anyway, in 1971 he only wrote that the reconstruction of the Antonia as stretching NORTH of the Flagellation and "Lithostrotos" monasteries has no base, and there is no trace of the supposed two northern towers over there. So no northern towers north of the monasteries along the Via Dolorosa. (Which, btw, seems to be a long-abandoned theory.) What Ritmeyer and those who have worked at the Western Wall tunnel excavations, including the southern part of the Struthion Pool(s), are saying is that Antonia was, in its entirety, on the outcrop, with a SE tower larger than the other 3. That's now more or less the mainstream view.

Please show us the quote from the 1976 text saying that Benoit doesn't think there were 4 towers, or else I'll have to remove him from that section. Thanks. PS: I didn't go to the trouble of checking who has indeed quoted him. Considering my Alzdoerfer's, or whatever it's called, it could have been me. Looong ago, like two years ago. Arminden (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if it was an edit by Anthony_on_Stilts, a bright comet on Wiki's sky, who only edited in 2009. We're left alone with an open question: who has the book, or access to it? Or even better: another good source to replace it with? After 50 years, and considering the topic, I bet many have tried their hand at Antonia, this secretive Roman lady. Arminden (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden:, I think that you misunderstood Pierre Benoit. He does not doubt that Josephus's description of the Antonia Fortress having "four towers" is, indeed, accurate. Rather, what he is actually saying is that in the place where scholars previously thought was the Antonia Fortress, namely, where now stands the Convent of the Sisters of Zion (based on Louis-Hugues Vincent's earlier identification), he (Pierre Bendoit), when excavating that place, could NOT find there four towers, meaning, it could not have been the place of the Antonia Fortress. Rather, the Sisters of Zion Convent was only a forum built during the Roman era of Hadrian. As for the actual place of the Antonia Fortress, scholars widely agree that it was NOT where the Sisters of Zion Convent now stands. P. Bendoit did, however, think that the famous Antonia Fortress was to be located nearby the present-day convent.

The 1st-century historian, Josephus, like the Mishnaic scholars who described the Temple Mount in Mishnah (Middot 2:1), knew that the First and Second Temples were built on the Temple Mount, a mount which, at first, roughly measured 500 x 500 cubits square (mind you, not an exact square), before Herod the Great expanded the Temple Mount on its north side to accomodate pilgrims. Taking the Temple Mount's Southern Wall - from west to east - as the standard 500 cubits, it measures in today's modern standards 922 feet (281 m). Josephus, in Antiquities (15.11.3; XV.415–416), described the dimensions of the Temple Mount in the following terms (apparently not including the extension made to the Temple Mount): “This hill was walled all round, and in compass four furlongs; [the distance of] each angle containing in length a furlong (Gr. stadion).” Compare Mishnah Middot 2:1 which states that the Temple Mount measured five-hundred cubits (Heb. amah) by five-hundred cubits. If it can be ascertained that Josephus' stadion is equivalent to the 500 cubits mentioned in the Mishnah, and being that the Southern Wall measured 281 meters, this would place each cubit (Heb. amah) at 56.205 cm. Rabbi Saadia Gaon, on the other hand, holds that a stadion was equivalent to only 470 cubits (v. Uziel Fuchs, "Millot HaMishnah" by R. Saadia Gaon — the First Commentary to the Mishnah, Sidra: A Journal for the Study of Rabbinic Literature, pub. Bar-Ilan University Press (2014), p. 66), in which case , each cubit was 59.792 cm, close to the 60 cm. cubit espoused by the great rabbinic scholar Chazon-Ish. In short, when these measurements are translated back into English feet (or into the metric system), the rabbinic tradition corroborates with the actual distance of the Temple Mount Wall from west to east. Note this. Now, if we take the same distance going from south to north, we roughly end up where the Golden Gate is fixed.

Josephus, who mentions the "eastern gate" of the Temple Mount in his Antiquities (15.424), makes note of the fact that this gate was considered within the far northeastern extremity of the inner sacred court. According to the Mishnah, there was formerly a causeway which led out of the Temple Mount eastward over the Kidron Valley, extending as far as the Mount of Olives. (See Mishnah (Middot 1:3; Parah 3:6). Rabbi Eliezer, dissenting, says that it was not a causeway, but rather marble pillars over which cedar boards had been laid, used by the High Priest and his entourage (Tosefta, Parah 3:7). This gate was not used by the masses to enter the Temple Mount, but reserved only for the High Priest and all those that aided him when taking out the Red Heifer or the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement.

Josephus writes elsewhere (Antiquities 15.424) the following anecdote: "There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner Temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the Temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings" (End Quote). Assuming that the "eastern gate" mentioned here was fixed where the Golden Gate is now fixed, and is the same gate mentioned in Mishnah (Middot), and that its position was at the corner of the colonnade on the Temple precincts' far northeastern side (before its expansion by King Herod to accommodate the pilgrims), we can assume then that the colonnade ran in a straight line from east to west with the peristyle (cloisters) concluding at Antonia on its northwestern corner. In other words, the Antonia Fortress was actually closer to the unseen extension of the Western Wall, as it continues to run - from south to north - in the general northern direction, opposite to (if we were to draw a straight line towards the east) the Golden Gate which is now closed. In fact, British scholar and academic Michael Hamilton Burgoyne said he found remains of what he thinks was from the Antonia Fortress inside two of the Mamluk madrassas just north of the Dome of the Rock (see: Burgoyne, Michael Hamilton (1989). Mamluk Jerusalem: an architectural study (with additional historical research by D.S. Richards). London: The World of Islam Festival Trust on behalf of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. OCLC 610332915.). Much work still needs to be done here. The Hebrew Wikipedia page on the Antonia Fortress also agrees that the site of this citadel / fortress was NOT where the Sisters of Zion Convent now stands.

References

Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Since all this area is built-up, it's really hard to know exactly the full extent of the Antonia Fortress. From my research on this subject (which amounts to very little), the Antonia Fortress would have been very close to where the Iron Gate is now built on the western façade of the Temple Mount, perhaps even a little towards its north. It is now an urban area with houses built one on top of the other.Davidbena (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

So we all agree - on the talk page. But the article says the opposite: Benoit (1976) is quoted as being the source for the claim that it didn't have 4 towers. That's the only point I care for here. Arminden (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, he that writes this will have to show where he (Benoit) said it. I saw where he (Benoit) spoke about not finding "four towers" in the place traditionally thought to be Antonia Fortress (i.e. The Sisters of Zion Convent), a place which he rejects. If the contributing editor erred, we should correct his edit.Davidbena (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

He cannot, as he only edited in 2009 and then disappeared. Arminden (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This article

This entire article is one big lie and Wikipedia has become nothing but a bad joke for certain people to push their ridiculous mythologies in the place of actual history and archaeological facts. Every serious historian and archeologist knows that Fortress Antonia was the entire Haram al-sharif and that Herod's temple was on a platform to the south where the "City of David" is now located which was then completely destroyed. All the evidence is consistent with that. Even part of the destroyed bridge is still there to the south of Mosque and the windows of the Haram are designed and optimized for archers. That's also besides the fact that the dimensions of the Haram al-Sharif match those of most other Roman military forts and matches with the descriptions of Josephus. The list of evidences goes on... Editors/mods/whoever.. do your jobs. 69.157.142.54 (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for you Original Research and POV fringe approach. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)