صور الصفحة

attached, perhaps, to two neighbouring sites afterwards incorporated into one. The sacred narrative, by implication, and Josephus, explicitly, recognise from the first a distinction between the Upper and the Lower city, the memorial ofwhich is supposed to be retained in the dual form of the Hebrew name njbiy'hf. The terms are divided in opinion as to whether the Salem of Molchizedek is identical with Jerusalem. St. Jerome. who cites Josephus and a host of Christian authorities in favour of their identity, himself maintaining the opposite conclusion, says that extensive ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were shown in his day in the neighbourth of Scythopolis, and makes the Salem of that patriarch identical with “ Shalem, a city of Shechem" (Gen. miii. 18); the same, no doubt, with the Salim near to Aenon (St. John, iii. 23), where a village of the same name still exists in the mountains east of Nana. Certain, however, it is that Jerusalem is intended by this name in Psalm lxxvi. ‘2, and the almost universal agreement of Jews and Christians in its identity with the city of Melchizedek is still further confirmed by the religious character which seems to have attached to its governor at the time of the coming in of the children of Israel, when we find it under the rule of Adonizedek, the exact equivalent to hlelchizedek (“righteous Lord"). Regarding, then, the latter half of the name as representing the ancient Salem, we have to inquire into the origin of the former half, concerning which there is considerable diversity of opinion. Josephus has been understood to derive it from the Greek word 'lcpou, prefixed to Salem. In the obscure passage (Ant. 3. §2) he is so understood by St. Jerome; but Isaac Vossius defends him from this imputation, which certainly would not raise his character as an etymologist. Lightfoot, after the Rabbies, and followed by Whiston, ftgln‘ls the former half of the name as an abbreviation of the latter part of the title Jehovah-jireh, which this place seems to have received on occasion 0f Abraham ofi'ering up his son on one of the mountains of“ the land of Moriah." (Gen. xxii. 8, l4.) Mend. followed by Raumer, adopts the root WW‘,

yonuli, and supposes the name to be compounded of PM and DW, which would give a very good Boise, “ hereditas," or “ possessio hereditaria pacis.” Lastly, Dr. Wells, followed by Dr. Lee, regards the former part of the compound name as a modification 01' the name Jebus, Wil‘, one of the earlier names Of the city, from which its Canaanitish inhabitants 'cre designated J ebusitm. Dr. Wells imagines that 11191 was changed into 1, for the sake of euphony; Dr- Lee, for euphemy, as Jebusalem would mean “the trampling down of peace"—a name of ill "hen- Of these various interpretations, it may be llid that Lightfwt's appears to have the highest authority; but that Relund‘s is otherwise the most chhcwry. Its other Scripture name, Sizm, is merely an extension of the name of one particular (lune? 0f the city to the whole. There is a further qwfion among critics as to whether by the city Cldytia, mentioned in Herodotus, Jenisalem is inlwded. It is twice alluded to by the historian .- once u a city of the Syrians of Palaestine, not much smaller than Sardis (iii. 5); again, as having been t{lien by Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, after his “clef! in hlagdolum (ii. 159). The main objections argrd against the identity of Cadytin and Jerusalem In these 1116353883, are, that in the former passage VOL 1:.


Herodotus is apparently confining his snrvay to the sea-border of Palaestinc, 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 Cady‘tis in respect to its size: and the capture of Jerusalem by Nacho after the battle of Megiddo, — which is evidently corrupted by Herodotus into blagdolum, the name of a city on the frontier of Egypt towards Palacstine, with which he was more for miliar,— though not expressly mentioned, is implied in Holy Scripture; for the deposition and deportation of Jehoahaz, and the substitution and subjugation of Jehoiakim, could not have been effected, unless Necho 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 name is nearly equivalent to the modem name by which alone it is now known to its native inhabitants. El-Klmds signifies “the Hon (city)," and this title appears to have been attached to it as early as the period of Isaiah (xlviii. 2, hi. I), and is of frequent recurrence after the Captivity. (Nehem. xi. 1, 18; St. Mall/1. iv. 5, xxvii. 53.) Its pagan name Colonia Aelin. Capitolina, like those imposed on many other ancient cities in Palaestinc, never took any hold on the native population of the country, nor, 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.)


Jerusalem was situated in the heart of the mountain district which commences at the south of tho grout plain of Esdraelon and is continued throughout the whole of Samaria and Judaea quite to the southern extremity of the Promised Land. It is almost equidistant from the Mediterranean and from the n'ver Jordan, being about thirty miles from each, and situated at an elevation of 2000 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. Its site is well defined by its circumjacent valleys.

Valleys—(1)111 the north-west quarter of the city is a shallow depression, occupied by an ancient 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-cast 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 ofJelwshaphat, 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 Hiunom 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 llinnoin and the head of the Valley of


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 town. The city, then, occupied the termination of this broad well of land, being isolated, except on the north, by the two great valleys almdy 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-distributo 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 conclusiomi only can be stated, and the various hypotheses must be sought in the works referred to at the end of the articlev

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:—

(l) The Upper City.—“ Of these eminences, that which had upon it the Upper City was by much the lofticr, and in its length the straiter. This eminence, then, for its strength, used to be called the stronghold by king David, . . . . but by us it was called the Upper Agora.

(2) The Lower Cily.-—“ The other eminence, which was called Acra, and which supported the Lower City, was in shape gibbous (Wimp-or).

(3) The Temple Mount.—-“ Opposite to this latter was a third eminence, which Was naturally lower than Acre, and was once separated from it by another broad ravine: but afterwards, in the times when the Asmonoeans 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 (chemo makers), 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 trio 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 fcw 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 pusages 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; Psalm, 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 elTected by taking in the inter,iaccnt valley, which is apparently the part called


(4) But when in process of time the city overflowed its old boundaries, the hill Bezetha, or New City, was added to the ancient bills, 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 anilcipation of a more detailed description, was a castle situated at the north-westem 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 thaiv let, 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 Hamm-ee-Sherif, 01‘ Noble Sanctuary, of the Moslems, occupies the Temple Mount; and 4thly, that the Harct (quarter) Bab-el— Hitta 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 Agrippu, 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 relatcs'to the Old city, will serve for the elucidation of the anteliabylonish capital,——ns it is clear, from the account of the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah (iii., vi.), that the new fortifications follow-ed the course of the ancient enceiute.


Ill. Wants.

1. Upper City and Old WalL— “ 0f thc three walls, the old one was diflicnlt to be taken, both on account of the rsvinm, and of the eminence above them on which it was situated. But, in addition to the advantage of the position, it was also stroneg huilt,as David and Solomon, and the kings after them, were very zealous about the work. Beginning towards the north, from the tower called Hippicus, and passing through the place called Xystns, then joining the council chamber, it was united to the western cloister of the Temple. In the other direction, towards the west, commencing from the same place, and extending through a place called Bethso to the gate of the Essence, and then turning towards the south above the fountain Siloam, thence again bending toward the east to the Pool of Solomon, and running through a place which they called Ophla, it was joined to the eastern cloister of the Temple.” To understand this description, it is only necessary to remark, that the walls are described, not by the direction in which they run, but by the quarter which they fncq i. c. the wall“ turning towards the south " is the south wall, and so with the others; so that the llippic Tower evidently lay at the NW. angle of the Upper City; and, as the position of this tower is of the first importance in the description of the city walls, it is a fortunate circumstance that we are able to fix its exact site.

(i) The llippr'c Tower is mentioned in connection With two neighbouring towers on the same north wall. all built by Herod the Great, and connected with his splendid palace that occupied the northwest angle of the Upper City. " These towers," says the historian, “ snrpwsed all in the world in extent, Mary, and strength, and were dedicated to the century of his brother, his friend, and his best loved wife

“The Hirqrz'cru, named from his friend, was a square of 25 cubits, and thirty high, entirely solid. Above the part which was solid, and constructed with nnssive stones, was a reservoir for the rain-water, 20 cubits in depth; and above this a house of two stories, 25 cubits high, divided into dificrent apartments; above which were battlements of 2 cnhits, on s parapet of 3 cubits, making the whole height 80 on its.

(2) “ The Tower Pkamelus, which was named from his brother, was 40 cubits square, and solid to the height of 40 cubits; but above it was erocbed a cloister 10 cubits high, fortified with brmrstworks "Kl ramparts; in the middle of the cloistcr was wried up another tower, divided into wstly chainl'm and a bath-room, so that the tower was in nothing inferior to a l Ls summit was adorned with para-pets and battlements, more than the pre

' It was in all 90 cubits high, and resembled 11lower of Pharus near Alexandria, but was of much larger circumference.

(3) “ The Tower Mariamne was solid to the height 0f 30 white, and 20 cubits square, having above a "Cher and more exquisitely ornamented dwelling. its entire height was 55 cuhits.

" Such in size were the three towers; but they MK! much larger through the site which they “WM; for both the old wall itself, in the range of which they stood, was built upon a lofty eminence, {mil likewise a kind of crest of this eminence reared "Sflf to the height of 30 cubits, on which the towers bang siwated received much additional elevation.


The towcrs were constructed of white marble, in blocks of 20 cubits long, ll) wide, and 5 deep. so exactly joined together that each tower appeared to be one mass of rock."

Now, the modern citadel of Jerusalem occupies the NW. angle of Mount Sion, and its northcrn wull rises from a deep fosse, having towers at either angle, the bases of which are protected on the outside by massive masonry sloping upward from the fosse. The NW. tower, divided only by the trench from the Jaflh gate, is a square of 45 feet. The NH, commonly known as the Tower of David, is 70 feet 3 inches long, by 56 feet 4 inches broad. The sloping bulwark is 40 feet high from the bottom of the trench; but this is much choked up with rubbish. To the towor part there is no known or visible entrance, either from above or below, and no one knows of any room or space in it. The lower part of this platform is, indeed, the solid rock merely cut into shape, and faced with massive masonry, which rock rises to the height of 42 feet. This rock is doubtless the crest of the hill described by Josephus as 30 cubits or 45 feet high. Now, if the dimensions of Hippicus and Phasaelus, as already given, are compared with those of the modern towers on the north side of the citadel, we find that the dimensions of that at the NW. angle—three of whose sides are determined by the scarped rock on which it is based— so nearly agree with those of Hippicus, and the uidthof the NE. tower—also determined by the cut rock—so nearly with the square of Phasaclus. that there can be no dilficulty in deciding upon their identity of position. Mariamne has entirely disappeared.

“ To these towers, situated on the north, was joined within—

(4) “ The Royal Palace, surpassing all powers of description. It was entirely surrounded by a wall 30 cubits high, with decorated towers at equal intervals, and contained enormous banqnctting halls, besides numerous chambers richly adorned. T here were also many porticoes encircling one another, with ditl‘ercnt columns to each, surrounding green courts, planted with a variety of trees, having long avenues through them; and deep channels and rescrvoirs everywhere around, filled with bronze statues, through which the water flowed; and many towers of tame pidqeons about the fountains.”

This magnificent palace, unless the description is exaggerated beyond all licence, must have occupied a larger space than the present fortress, and most probably its gardens extended along the western edge of Mount Sion as far as the pment garden of the Armenian Convent; and the decorated towers of this port of the wall, which was spurred by the Hoinans when they levelled the remainder of the city, seem to have transmitted their name to modem times, as the west front of the city wall at this part is called Abrulh Ghazzeh, i.c. The Towers QfGazu.

(5) As the Xystus is mentioned next. to the Hippicua by Josephus, in his description of the north wall of the Upper City, it may be well to proceed at once to that; deferring the consideration of the Gate Gennath, which obviously occurred bctwvcn the two, until we come to the Second Wall. The Xystus is properly a covered portico attached to the Greek Gymnasium, which commonly had uncovered walks connected with it. (Did. Ant. p. 580.) As the Jerusalem Xystus was a place where public meetings were occasionally convened (Bell. Jud. ii. 6. § 3), it must be understood to be a wide public promenade, though not necessarily connected with a gymnasium, but perhaps rather with another palace which occupied “ this extremity of the Upper City ;" for the name was given also to a terraced walk with colonnades attached to Roman villas. (Vitruv. v.11.)

(6) The Home qftlte Amonaeam was above the Xystus, and was apparently occupied as a palace by the Younger Agrippa; for, when he addressed the multitude assembled in the Xystus, he placed his sister Berenice in the house of the Asmonaeaus, that she might be visible to them. (B. J. l. c.)

(7) The Gamay. At the Xystus we are told a causeway ('yétpupa) joined the Temple to the Upper City, and one of the Temple gates opened on to this causeway. That the 'yc'cpvpa was a causeway and not a bridge, is evident from the expression of Josephus in another passage, where he says that the valley was interrupted or filled up, for the pwsage (-rfis cpdpayyos m diodov dretA‘ryp-pslvqr, Ant. xv. ll. As the Tyropoeon divided the Upper from the Lower City, and the Temple Mount was attached to the Lower, it is obvious that the Tyropoeon is the valley here mentioned. This earthwall or embankment, was the work of Solomon, and is the only monument of that great king in Jerusalem that can he certainly said to have escaped the ravages of time; for it exists to the preqent day, serving the same purpose to the Mahometans as forlnerly to the Jews: the approach to the Mosh enclosure from the Bamars passes over this causeway, which is therefore the most frequented thoroughfare in the city. (Williams, [Ion City, vol. ii. pp. 392 ~ 897, and note, pp. SOL—607.)

It is highly probable that the Xystus was nothing else than the wide promenade over this mound, adonied with a covered cloistcr between the trees, with which the Rabbinical traditions assure us that Solomon's causeway was shaded. It is clear that the north wall of the Upper City must have crossed the valley by this causeway to the Gate Shallec/ictll, which is explained to mean the Gate of the Embankment. (1 Chron. xxvi. 16.)

(8) The Council-Chamber (Bonk/y, Bauhcrrrnpwv) is the next place mentioned on the northern line of wall, as the point where it joined the western portico of the Temple. And it is remarkable that the corresponding office in the modern town occupies the same site; the Mehkemeh, or Council-Chamber of the Judicial Divan, being now found immediately outside the Gate of the Chain, at the end of the causeway, corresponding in position to the Shallecheth of the Scriptures.

We have now to trace the wall of the Upper City in the opposite direction from the same point, viz. the Hippie Tower at the NW. angle. The points noticed are comparatively few. “ It first ran southward (i.e. with a weatem twpect), through a place called Bethso, to the. Gate of the Essence; then, turning E., it ran (with a southern aspect) above the fountain of Siloam; thence it bent northward, and ran (with an eastern aspect) to the Pool of Solomon, and extending as far as a place called Ophla, was joined to the eastern cloister of the Temple.”

ii. 0n the West Front neither of the names which occur are found again in the notices of the city: but Bethso may safely be assigned to the site of the garden of the Armenian Cement, and the Gate of the Essencs may be fixed to a spot not very far from the SW. corner of the modern city, a little to the W. of the Tomb of David, near which a re.


marknblc ridge some still to indicate the foundations of the ancient city wall.

iii. Along the south face of the Upper City the old wall may still be traced, partly by scarped rock and partly by foundations of the ancient wall, which have nen't'd as a quarry for the repairs of the neighbouring buildings for many ages. Its course from this point to the Temple is very difiicult to determine, as the steep declivity to the Tyropoeon would make it extremely inconvenient to many the wall in a straight line, while, on the contrary, the absence of all notice of any deviation from a direct line in a description in which the angles are uniformly noted, would seem to imply that there was no such deflection in its course. As it is clear, however, that the Upper City was entirely encompassed with a wall of its own, nowhere noticed by Josephus, except so far as it was coincident with the outer wall, it may be safely conjectured that this east wall of the Upper City followed the brow of the ridge from the southeast angle of the Hill Sion, along a line nearly coincident with the aqueduct; while the main wallcontinned its easterly course down the steep slope of Sion, across the valley of the Tyropocon, not for from its inouth.—a little above the Pool of Siloam,— and then up the ridge Ophe], until it reached the brow of the eastern valley. It may serve to countenance this theory to observe, that in the account of this wall in Nehemiah there is mention of “ the stairs that go down from the city of David,” by which stairs also the procession went up when encompassing the city wall. (iii. 15, xii. 37.)

iv. The further course of the old wall to the eastern cloister of the Temple is equally obscure, as the several points specified in the description are not capable of identification by any other notices. These are the Pool of Solomon and a place called Ophla. in the description already cited, to which may be added, from an incidental notice, the Basilica of Grapte or Monobazus. (B.J. v. 8. § 1.)

The Pool of Solomon has been sometimes identified with the Fountain of the Virgin, from which the Pool of Silonm is supplied, and sometimes with that very pool. Both solutions are unsatisfactory, for Siloam would scarccly be mentioned a second time in the same passage under another name, and the fountain in question cannot, with any propriety, be called a pool.

The place called 012“: —— in Scripture Ophel —is commonly supposed to be the southern spur of the Temple Mount, a narrow rocky ridge extending down to Siloam. But it is more certain that it is used in a restricted sense in this passage, than till!‘ it. is ever extended to the whole ridge. (386 Holy City, vol. ii. p. 365, note 7.) It was apparently in large fortified building, to the south of the Temple, connected with an outlying tower (Nehem. iii. 27. 28), and probably situated near the southern extremity of the present area of the Mmk of Omar. And the massive angle of ancient masonry at the SE. corner of the enclosure, “impending over the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which here actually bends southwest round the corner, having a depth of about 130 feet,“ may possibly have belonged to the “outlying tower," as it presents that appearance with"! (H. C. vol. ii. pp. 31 l, 317). it is clear, in any (Ease. that the wall under consideration must hare joined the eastern cloister of the Temple somewhere to the north of this angle, as the bend in the valley indicated by Dr. Robinson would have precluded thfi possibility of a junction at this angle.


2. The Sech Wall, and the Lower City.—The account of the second wall in Josephus, is Very meagre. He merely says that it began at the Gate (lennath, a place in the old wall; and, after encmnpassing the Lower City, had its termination at the Fortress Antonia.”

There is here no clue to the position of the Gate (irnnath. It is, however, quite certain that it was between the Hippie Tower and the Xystus: and the north-west angle of the Upper City was occupied by the extensive palace of Herod the Great, and its imposing towers stood on the north front of this old wall, wherearoclty crest rose to the height of 30 cubits, which would of course preclude the possibility of an exit from the city for some distance to the east of the tower. Other incidental notices make it clear that there was a considerable space between the third and the second wall at their southern quarter, comparatively free from buildings,and, consequently, a considerable part of the north wall of the Upper City unprotected by the second wall :—e. g. Cestius, having taken the outer wall, encamped within the New City, in front of the Royal Palace (B. J. ii. 19. §5); Titus attacked the outer wall in its southern part, “ both because it was lower there than elsewhere, inasmuch as this part of the New City was thinly inhabited, and afforded an easy passage to the third (or inmost) wall, through which Titus had hoped to take the Upper City" (v. 6. §2). Accordingly, when the legions had carried the outer and the second wall, a bank was raised against the northem wall of Sion at a pool called Amygdalon, and another about thirty cuhits from it, at the highpriest's monument." The Almond Pool is no doubt identical with the tank that still exists at no great distance from the modern fortress; and the monument must, therefore, have been some 50 feet to the east of this, also in the angle formed by the north wall of the Upper City and the southern part of the second wall.

There is the head of an old archway still existing time a heap of ruins, at a point about half way between the Hippic Tower and the north-west angle of Mount Sion, where a. slight depression in that hill brings it nearly to a level with the dcclivity to the north. This would afford a good startingpnint for the second wall, traces of which may still be discovered in a line north of this, quite to the Damascus gate where are two chambers of ancient and very massive masonry, which appear to have flanked an old gate of the second wall at its weakest part, where it crossed the valley of the T yropoeon. From this gate, the second wall probably followed the line of the present city wall to a point near the Gate of Herod, now blocked up; whence it was wried along the brow of the hill to the north-east lngle of the fortress Antonia, which occupied a conliderable space on the-north-west of the Temple area, in connection with which it will be described below.

3. The T/u'rd Wall, and the New Cily.—~The third wall, which enclosed a very considerable space to the north of the old city, was the work of Herod Alfippe the Elder, and was only commenced about thirty years before the destruction of Jenisalem, and never completed according to the original design, in meqoence of the jealousy of the Roan governML The following is Josephus's account:— “ This ihird wall Agrippa drew round the superadded city, which was all exposed. It commenced at the Tower Hippicus, from whence it extended to the northern quarter, as far as the T owcr l’scphinus;


then. passing opposite to the Monuments of Helena, and being produced through the ltoyal Cares, it bent, at the angular tower, by the monument called the Fuller’s, and. joining the old wall, terminated at the valley of the Kedron." It was commenced with stones 20 cubits long and 10 wide, and was raised by the Jews to the height of 25 cubits, with the battlements.

(1) As the site of the Hippie Tower has been already fixed, the first point to be noticed in this third wall is the Pscphine Tower, which, Josephus informs us, was the moat wonderful port of this great Work, situated at its north-west quarter, over against Bippicus, octagonal in form, 70 cubita in height, commanding a view of Arabia towards the east, of the Mediterranean towards the west, and of the utmost limits of the Hebrew possessions. The site of this tower is still marked, by its massive foundations, at the spot indicated in the plan; and considerable remains of the wall that connected it with the Hippie Tower are to be traced along the brow of the ridge that shuts in the upper part of the valley of Hinnom, and almost in a line with the modern wall. At the highest point of that ridge the octagonal ground-plan of the tower may be seen, and a large’cistem in the midst of the ruins further confirms their identity, as we are informed that the towers were furnished with reservoirs for the rain water.

(2) The next point mentioned is the Jfonumenls qf Helena, which, we are elsewhere told, were three pyramids, situated at a distance of 3 stadia from the city. (Ant. xx. 3. §3.) About a century later (A. D. 174) Pausanias speaks of the tomb of Helena, in the city of Solyma, as having a door so con~ structed as to open by mechanical contrivance, at a certain hour, one day in the year. Being thus opened, it closes again of itself after a short interval; and, should you attempt to open it at another time, you would break the door before you could succeed. (Pans. viii. 16.) The pyramids are next mentioned by Eusebius (IIisL Eccler. ii. 12), as remarkable monumental pillars still shown in the suburbs of Jerusalem; and St. Jerome, a century later, toatified that they still stood. (Epist. ad Eustoc/rium, 01). tom. iv. pars ii. p. 673.) The latest notice is that of an Armenian writer in the 5th century, who describes the tomb as a remarkable monument before thegates of Jerusalem. (Hist. Armen. lib. ii. cap. 32.) Notwithstanding these repeated notices of the sepalchral monuments of the queen of Adiabene, it is not now poseible to fix their position with any degree of certainty, some archaeologists assigning them to the Tombs of the Kings (Robinson, Bib. Rea. vol. i. pp. 465, 535—538), others to the 'l'omlm of the Martyrs, about i of a mile to the west of the former. (Schultz, Jerusalem, pp. 63—67 ; De Saulcy, torn. ii. pp. 326, 327.) A point halfway between these two monuments Would seem to answer better to the incidental notices of the monuments, and they may with great probability be fixed to a rocky court on the right of the road to A'ebr'Samwil, where there are several excavated tombs. Opposite the Monuments of Helena was the Gate of the Women in the third wall, which is mentioned more than once, and must have been between the Nablua road and the I‘sephine Tower.

(3) The Royal Cove; is the next point mentioned on the third wall. They are, doubtless, identical with the remarkable and extensive excavations still called the Tombs of the Kings, most probably

« السابقةمتابعة »