Bethnoble was the first site in the region of Judaea to which pilgrims travelling from Jaffa to Jerusalem came. Descriptions of it are usually short, and rarely include any reasons for holiness, although the settlement was sometimes identified with the Old Testament city of Nobe, and described as the ‘village of priests’.2 The village was not noted in the twelfth-century pilgrim text tradition, and its appearance in the thirteenth
1 See the discussion of truces in chapter III, pp. 58–59.
century was undoubtedly as a result of it becoming a prominent rest-stop or waymarker for pilgrims. This new prominence indicates a change in the route taken by pilgrims between Jaffa and Jerusalem (see discussion on Emmaus below). The casale was inhabited by Saracens for most of the thirteenth century, and was unfortified. 3 Travellers on the route between Ramla and Bethnoble were prone to banditry from the local Bedouin, who killed those going to Jerusalem, making it a risky journey for pilgrims.4 The new inclusion of this settlement however, supports the view that pilgrimage to Judaea continued to develop throughout the thirteenth century.
Emmaus, the place where Jesus appeared to two of his disciples after his Resurrection, was identified with mainly two sites during the Crusader period.5 The first was Abu Ghosh, located eight miles from Jerusalem on the road to Ramla, close to ‘Ain Karim, and owned for a time by the Hospitallers; the second was al-Qubaiba (known as Parva Mahomeria in the twelfth century) located on the Bethnoble-Montjoie road.6 Abu Ghosh was identified with Emmaus in the twelfth century.7 Al-Quabiba itself was created as a new village by the Franks in the twelfth century, and became the primary location associated with the biblical Emmaus from the fifteenth century, as a result of an alteration in the main route used by travellers to Jerusalem.8 The new route went through Bethnoble, al-Qubaiba and Montjoie, rather than going through Ramla, and Abu Ghosh before Jerusalem.
This new route to Jerusalem began to be used in the thirteenth century, as indicated by the appearance of Bethnoble in the pilgrim text tradition. However, Abu Ghosh remained the site of Emmaus in most of the pilgrim texts where it is possible to identify
3 Wilbrand A (1211-12), p. 184. Thietmar A (1217-18), p. 24.
4 ‘le quel chemin est mult dutus pur les bucement de bedeuins, ke ocient la gent ke vunt en
Ierusalem.’ Chemins B (1254-68), p. 192.
5 Luke 24:13-27. Several of the pilgrim texts identify these disciples as St Cleophas and St
Luke. Pelerinaiges en Iherusalem (1260s), p. 99; Chemins A (1261-65), p. 186; Chemins B (1254-68), p. 196.
6 Pringle, Churches, I, p. 7.
7 Pringle, Churches, I, pp. 7–8.
to which Emmaus was being referred.9 This separation between the route to Jerusalem and the location of Emmaus is reflected in the pilgrim texts which, rather than describe Emmaus as part of the route to Jerusalem, describe it as a separate trip out from Jerusalem or ‘Ain Karim.10 LCTS, Filippo and Thietmar seem to have located to Emmaus at ‘Amwas, the location for Roman Nicopolis and where Latin Christian pilgrims placed Emmaus prior to the Crusader period. ‘Amwas was between fifteen and twenty miles west of Jerusalem, close to Latrun; this distance led later pilgrims to favour closer sites such as Abu Ghosh, which more accurately fitted the depiction of the settlement in the New Testament.11 The unexpected thirteenth-century identification of Emmaus at ‘Amwas may be as a result of those authors retaining descriptions or information from earlier guides.
Evidence from the archaeology and material culture suggests that there was a shrine church at Abu Ghosh by c. 1140, which was associated with a travellers’ hostel or pilgrims’ hospice. Both the shrine church and the hospice are likely to have been run by a single religious community (probably the Hospitallers) during the twelfth century.12 The 1187 conquest would have led to the expulsion of this community and it is not clear who was responsible for the site afterwards. The church was built over a Roman cistern and spring (identified as the spring of Emmaus), which would have made the site an attractive place to stop for travellers, so the church and hostel may still have served in a pilgrimage function during the thirteenth century. Very little description of the site survives from the thirteenth century; Riccoldo noted that the church at Emmaus was
9 When a text described Emmaus between Montjoie and Bethnoble it indicated al-Qubaiba;
when it described it near ‘Ain Karim (see below), it indicated Abu Ghosh. Several texts were unidentifiable.
10 ‘Illeq fu nés Saint Iohan Babtiste, & Zaquarias sson pére. A .ii. lieuas d’aqui est .i. Chastel
que l’on apela Hemaüs’, Chemins A (1261-65), p. 186.
11 Thietmar A (1217-18), p. 25; Thietmar B (1218-91), p. 33; LCTS (1244-60), p. 356; Filippo
(1244-91), p. 246. These three pilgrim texts describe Emmaus at a greater distance from Jerusalem, and close to Modi’in, which indicates Emmaus at ‘Amwas.
12 Pringle, Churches, I, pp. 16–17; Denys Pringle, ‘The Planning of Some Pilgrimage Churches
beautiful, but it is difficult to say with certainty which Emmaus he visited.13.
Montjoie was the place where pilgrims saw Jerusalem for the first time, and where they traditionally gave thanks for their journey.14 The site had been associated with the prophet Samuel since the early sixth century, and this link was maintained into the thirteenth century. The site was identified by pilgrims with the city of Ramatha Sophym, the traditional place of Samuel’s birth, house and burial.15 Pilgrims could see Samuel’s house and tomb here, and there was a church on the site.16 As with many of the churches in the Holy Land, pilgrims who wanted to see the shrine were directed to the crypt where the tomb of the prophet Samuel was located.17 In the early twelfth-century the Franks had established the Premonstratensian abbey of St Samuel on Montjoie, although the site’s fortifications were never completed.18 Like most of the ecclesiastical institutions of the area, the monks of St Samuel were expelled following the capture of the abbey site in 1187, and moved to Acre. The canons probably never returned from Acre.19 However, although Montjoie itself was mentioned regularly throughout the twelfth-century pilgrim texts, it is not until the thirteenth century that the church of St Samuel begins to be noted in the pilgrim text tradition. It is odd, therefore that a monastery flourishing in the early twelfth century was not mentioned in contemporary pilgrim texts, but that the abandoned site was mentioned and visited in the thirteenth century. It seems likely therefore, that St Samuel’s was taken over by non-Latin Christians, who retained the pre-Crusader traditional links to St Samuel, and passed these on to pilgrims.
13 Riccoldo (1288-89), p. 72.
14 Itinerarium Ricardi, p. 435.
15 Riccoldo (1288-89), p. 48; Burchard (1274-85), p. 76. See 1 Kings throughout, although in
particular 1 Kings 1:1; 1 Kings 1:1, 1 Kings 2:11, 1 Kings 16:13.
16 LCTS (1244-60), p. 364; Chemins A (1261-65), p. 181.
17 Pringle, ‘Some Pilgrimage Churches’, p. 348.
18 Boas, Jerusalem, p. 15.