Herodotus is apparently confining his survey to the sea-border of Palaestine, and that the fact narrated in the second is not alluded to in the sacred narrative. But, on the other hand, there is no mention in sacred or profane history of any other city, maritime or inland, that could at all answer to the description of Cadytis in respect to its size: and the capture of Jerusalem by Necho after the battle of Megiddo, which is evidently corrupted by Herodotus into Magdolum, the name of a city on the frontier of Egypt towards Palaestine, with which he was more familiar, though not expressly mentioned, is implied in Holy Scripture; for the deposition and deportation Jehoiakim, could not have been effected, unless Necho of Jehoahaz, and the substitution and subjugation of had held possession of the capital. (2 Kings, xxiv. 29-35; comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3.) It may, then, safely be concluded that Cadytis is Jerusalem; and it is remarkable that this earliest form of its classical which alone it is now known to its native inhabitname is nearly equivalent to the modern name by ants. attached, perhaps, to two neighbouring sites after- : TT and D, which would give a very good sense," hereditas," or possessio hereditaria pacis." Lastly, Dr. Wells, followed by Dr. Lee, regards the former part of the compound name as a modification of the name Jebus, a, one of the earlier names of the city, from which its Canaanitish inhabitants were designated Jebusites. Dr. Wells imagines that the was changed into 7, for the sake of euphony; Dr. Lee, for euphemy, as Jebusalem would mean the trampling down of peace". '-a name of ill emen. Of these various interpretations, it may be said that Lightfoot's appears to have the highest authority; but that Reland's is otherwise the most satisfactory. Its other Scripture name, Sion, is merely an extension of the name of one particular quarter of the city to the whole. There is a further question among critics as to whether by the city Calytis, mentioned in Herodotus, Jerusalem is intended. It is twice alluded to by the historian once as a city of the Syrians of Palaestine, not much smaller than Sardis (iii. 5); again, as having been taken by Pharoah- Necho, king of Egypt, after his victory in Magdolum (ii. 159). The main objections urged against the identity of Cadytis and Jerusalem in these passages, are, that in the former passage this title appears to have been attached to it as early indeed, on the classical historians or ecclesiastical writers. It probably existed only in state papers, and on coins, many of which are preserved to this day. (See the end of the article.) II. GENERAL SITE. tain district which commences at the south of the Jerusalem was situated in the heart of the moungreat plain of Esdraelon and is continued throughout southern extremity of the Promised Land. It is the whole of Samaria and Judaea quite to the almost equidistant from the Mediterranean and from and situated at an elevation of 2000 feet above the the river Jordan, being about thirty miles from each, level of the Mediterranean. Its site is well defined by its circumjacent valleys. city is a shallow depression, occupied by an ancient Valleys.(1) In the north-west quarter of the pool. This is the head of the Valley of Hinnom, which from this point takes a southern course, confining the city on the western side, until it makes a sharp angle to the east, and forms the southern boundary of the city to its south-east quarter, where it is met by another considerable valley from the north, which must next be described. (2) At the distance of somewhat less than 1500 yards from the "upper pool" at the head of the Valley of Hinnom, are the "Tombs of the Kings," situated at the head of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which runs at first in an eastern course at some distance north of the modern city, until, turning sharply to the south, it skirts the eastern side of the town, and meets the Valley of Hinnom at the southeast angle, as already described, from whence they run off together in a southerly direction to the Dead Sea. Through this valley the brook Kedron is supposed once to have run; and, although no water has been known to flow through the valley within the annals of history, it is unquestionably entitled to the alias of the Valley of the Kedron. The space between the basin at the head of the Valley of Hinnom and the head of the Valley of town. Jehoshaphat is occupied by a high rocky ridge or swell of land, which attains its highest elevation a little without the north-west angle of the present The city, then, occupied the termination of this broad swell of land, being isolated, except on the north, by the two great valleys already described, towards which the ground declined rapidly from all parts of the city. This rocky promontory is, however, broken by one or two subordinate valleys, and the declivity is not uniform. (3) There is, for example, another valley, very inferior in magnitude to those which encircle the city, but of great importance in a topographical view, as being the main geographical feature mentioned by Josephus in his description of the city. This valley of the Tyropoeon (cheese-makers) meets the Valley of Hinnom at the Pool of Siloam, very near its junction with the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and can be distinctly traced through the city, along the west side of the Temple enclosure, to the Damascus gate, where it opens into a small plain. The level of this valley, running as it does through the midst of a city that has undergone such constant vicissitudes and such repeated destruction, has of course been greatly raised by the desolations of so many generations, but is so marked a feature in modern as in former times, that it is singular it was not at once recognised in the attempt to re-distribute the ancient Jerusalem from the descriptions of Josephus. It would be out of place to enter into the arguments for this and other identifications in the topography of ancient Jerusalem; the conclusions only can be stated, and the various hypotheses must be sought in the works referred to at the end of the article. Hills. Ancient Jerusalem, according to Josephus, occupied "two eminences, which fronted each other, and were divided by an intervening ravine, at the brink of which the closely-built houses terminated." This ravine is the Tyropoeon, already referred to, and this division of the city, which the historian observes from the earliest period, is of the utmost importance in the topography of Jerusalem. The two hills and the intermediate valley are more minutely described as follows: (2) The Lower City.-"The other eminence, which was called Acra, and which supported the Lower City, was in shape gibbous (άupikUPTOS). (3) The Temple Mount.-"Opposite to this latter was a third eminence, which was naturally lower than Acra, and was once separated from it by another broad ravine: but afterwards, in the times when the Asmonaeans reigned, they filled up the ravine, wishing to join the city to the Temple; and having levelled the summit of Acra, they made it lower, so that in this quarter also the Temple might be seen rising above other objects. "But the ravine called the Tyropoeon (cheesemakers), which we mentioned as dividing the eminences of the Upper City and the Lower, reaches to Siloam; for so we call the spring, both sweet and abundant. But on their outer sides the two eminences of the city were hemmed in within deep ravines, and, by reason of the precipices on either side, there was no approach to them from any quarter." (B. Jud. v. 4, 5.) This, then, was the disposition of the ancient city, on which a few remarks must be made before we proceed to the new city. The two-fold division, which, as has been said, is recognised by Josephus from the first, is implied also in the sacred narrative, not only in the account of its capture by the Israelites, and subsequently by David, but in all such passages as mention the city of David or Mount Sion as distinct from Salem and Jerusalem. (Comp. Josh. xv. 63; Judges, i. 8, 21; 2 Sam. v. 6-9; Psalms, lxxvi. 2, &c.) The account given by Josephus of the taking of the city is this: that the Israelites, having besieged it, after a time took the Lower City, but the Upper City was hard to be taken by reason of the strength of its walls, and the nature of its position" (Ant. v. 2. § 2); and, subsequently, that "David laid siege to Jerusalem, and took the Lower City by assault, while the citadel still held out" (vii. 3. § 1). Having at length got possession of the Upper City also, "he encircled the two within one wall, so as to form one body" (§ 2). This could only be effected by taking in the interjacent valley, which is apparently the part called Millo. (4) But when in process of time the city overflowed its old boundaries, the hill Bezetha, or New City, was added to the ancient hills, as is thus described by Josephus: "The city, being overabundant in population, began gradually to creep beyond its old walls, and the people joining to the city the region which lay to the north of the temple and close to the hill (of Acra), advanced considerably, so that even a fourth eminence was surrounded with habitations, viz. that which is called Bezetha, situated opposite to the Antonia, and divided from it by a deep ditch; for the ground had been cut through on purpose, that the foundations of the Antonia might not, by joining the eminence, be easy of approach, and of inferior height." The Antonia, it is necessary here to add, in anticipation of a more detailed description, was a castle situated at the north-western angle of the outer enclosure of the Temple, occupying a precipitous rock 50 cubits high. It is an interesting fact, and a convenient one to facilitate a description of the city, that the several parts of the ancient city are precisely coincident with the distinct quarters of modern Jerusalem: for that, 1st, the Armenian and Jewish quarters, with the remainder of Mount Sion, now excluded from the walls, composed the Upper City; 2dly, the Mahommedan quarter corresponds exactly with the Lower City 3dly, that the Haram-es-Sherif, or Noble Sanctuary, of the Moslems, occupies the Temple Mount; and 4thly, that the Haret (quarter) Bab-elHitta is the declivity of the hill Bezetha, which attains its greatest elevation to the north of the modern city wall, but was entirely included within the wall of Agrippa, together with a considerable space to the north and west of the Lower City, including all the Christian quarter. The several parts of the ancient city were enclosed by distinct walls, of which Josephus gives a minute description, which must be noticed in detail, as furnishing the fullest account we have of the city as it existed during the Roman period; a description which, as far as it relates to the Old city, will serve for the elucidation of the ante-Babylonish capital,—as it is clear, from the account of the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah (iii., vi.), that the new fortifications followed the course of the ancient enceinte. |