صور الصفحة
PDF

the same “hich are elsewhere called the Monument of Herod, and, from the character of their decorations,may very well be ascribed to the Herodiau period. M. de Saulcy has lately added to our previous information conveming them, and, by a kind of exhausting process, he endeavours to prove that they could have been no other than the tombs of David and the early kings of Judah, which have always hitherto been placed on Mount Sion, where the traditiouary site is still guarded by the Moslcms. (Voyage en Syrr'e, tom. ii. pp. 228—281.)

(4) The Fuller‘s monument is the lust-mentioned point on the new wall, and, as an angular tower occupied this site, the monument must have been at the north-east angle of the New City; probably one of the many rock graves cut in the perpendicular face of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, near one of which Dr. Schultz has described the foundations of a tower. (Jenzsalem. pp. 38, 64.) The Monument of the Fuller probably gave its name to the Fuller’s field, which is mentioned by the prophet Isaiah as the spot near which the Assyrian army under Rabshskeh encamped (xxxvi. 2, vii. 8),- and the traditionary site of the camp of the Assyrians, which we shall find mentioned by Josephus, in his account of the siege, was certainly situated in this quarter. From this north-east angle the third wall followed the brow of the Valley of Jehoehaphat until it reached the wall of the Outer Temple at its north-east angle.

Having thus completed the circuit of the walls, as described by Josephus, and endeavoured to fix the various points mentioned in his description (which furnishes the most numcrons topographiurl notices now extant of ancient Jerusalem), we shall be in a condition to understand the most important, historical facts of its interesting and chequered history, when we have further taken a brief survey of the Temple. But, first, a singular and perplexing discrepancy must be noticed between the general and the detailed statements of the historian, as to the extent of the ancient city; for, while he states the circuit of the entire city to be no more than 33 studio, or 4 Roman miles plus 1 stadium, the specification of the measure of the wall of Agripps alone gives, on the lowest computation, an excess of 12 studio, or 1; mile, over that of the entire city !—for it had 90 towers, 20 cubits wide, at intervals of 200 cubits. No satisfactory solution of this difficulty has yet been discovered.

IV. THE TEMPLE Mocsr.

The Temple Mount, called in Scripture the Mountain of the Lord's House, and Morialr (2 Citron. iii. 1), is situated at the southeast of the city, and is easily identified with the site of the Dome of the Mosk- in modern Jerusalem. It was originally a third hill of the Old City, over against Acro, but separated from it by a broad ravine, which, however, was filled up by the Asmonaean princes, so that thcse two hills became one, and are generally so reckoned by the historinn. (B. J. v. 4.)

l. The Outer Court.--The Temple, in the widest signification of the word (12) kph), consisted of two coults, one within the other. though the inner one is sometimes subdivided, and distributed into four other courts. The area of the Outer Court was in great part artificial, for the natural level space on the summit of the mount being found too confined for the Temple, with its surrounding chambers, courts, and r-loistcrs, was gradually increased by mechanical QXpuliQDlS. This extension was corn

[graphic]

menccd by Solomon, who raised from the depthof the eastern valley :1 wall of enormous stones, bound together with lead, within which he raised shank of earth to a level with the native rock. On this was erected a cloister, which, with its successors, always retained the name. of “ Solomon's Porch." (Wad Iohaydwor, St. Jolm, x. 23; Acts, iii. ll, v. 12.) This precise of enlarging the court by artificial embankments was continued by successive kings; but particularly by Herod the Great, who, when he reconstnrcted the Temple Proper (mos), enlarged the Outer Court to double its former size, and adorned it with stately cloisters. (Anl. xv. 11. § 5.) Of these, the Royal Porch, on the south, was the most remarkable of all his magnificent works. It consisted of four rows of Corinthian columns, distributed into a central nave and lateral aisles; the aisles being 30 feet in width and 50 in height, and the nave half as wide again as the aisles, and double their height, rising into a clerestory of unusually large proportions. The other cloistcrs were double, and their total width only 30 cubits. To this Outer Court there were four gates on the west, towards the city, and one on each of the other sides; of which that on the east is still remaining, commonly called the Golden Gate.

2. The Inner Court—The Inner Temple (icpdy) was separated from the Outer by a stone wall (ppo‘rpds, sec Ephes. ii. 14) 3 cnbits in height, on which stood pillars at equal distances, with inscriptions, in Greek and Latin, prohibiting aliens from access. To this court there was on ascent of fourteen steps, then a level space of 10 cubits, and then a further ascent of five st ps to the gates,“ which there were four on the north and south sides, and two on the cast, but none on the west, where stood the Sanctuary (rods).

The place of the Altar, in front of the wads, is determined with the utmost precision by the existence in the Sacred Rock of the Moslems, under their venerated dome, of the very ccsspwl and drain of the Jewish altar, which furnishes a key to the

restomtion of the whole Temple, the dimensions of'

which, in all its parts, are given in minute detail in the treatise called Middoth (i. e. measures). one Of the very ancient documents contained in the hlishna. The drain communicating. with this cesspool, liming“ which the blood ran 05' into the Kedron, was all the south-wast angle of the Altar; and there was A trap connech with this cave, l cubit square (winmonly closed with a marble slab), through which a man occasionally descended to cleanse it and to clear obstructions. Both the drain and the trnp are to be seen in the rock at this day.

The Altar was 32 cubits square at its base. but gradually contracted, so than its hearth was only 24 cubits square. It was 15 cubits high, and had on ascent by an inclined plane on the south side, 32 cnhits long and 16 wide.

Between the Altar and the porch of the Temple was a space of 22 cubits, rising in a. gentle ascent by Stops to the vestibule, the door of which was 40 cubits high and 20 wide. The total length the Holy House itself was only 100 cubits, and this was subdivided into three parts: the l’ronaus ii. the Sanctuary 40, the Holy of Holies 20, allOWIHg 29 cubita for the partition walls and a small chamber behind (i. e. west of) the Most Holy place. 'ljllfl total width of the building was 70 cubits; of wind! the Sanctuary only occupied 20, the rcrnnindur being distributaal into side chambers, in three stories, D‘

[graphic]

signed to various uses. The Pronaus was, however, 30 cubits wider, 15 on the north, and IS on the south, giving it a total length of 100 cubits, which, with a width of only 11 cubits, must have presented the proportions of a Narthex in a Byzantine church. Its interior height. was 90 cubits, and, while the chambers on the sides of the Temple rose only to the height of 60 cubits, there was an additional story of 40 cubits above the Sanctuary, also occupied by chambers, rising into a clerestory of the same elevation as the vestibule.

The front of the Temple was plated with gold, and reflected back the beams of the rising sun with dazzling etfcct; and, where it was not encrusted with gold. it was exceedingly white. Some of the stones of which it was constructed were 45 cuhits long, 5 deep, and 6 wide.

East of the Altar was the Court of the Priests, 135 cubits long and 11 wide; and, east of that again, was the Court of Israel, of the same dimensions. East of this was the Court of the Women, 135 cubits square, considerably below the level of the former, to which there was an ascent of 15 semicircular steps to the magnificent gates of Corinthian brass, 50 cnhits in height, with doors of 40 cubits, so pondemus that they could with difficulty be shut by 20 men, the spontaneous opening of which was one of the portents of the appunching destruction of the Temple, mentioned by Josepr (Bell. Jud. vi. 5. § 3), and repeated by Tacitus (llist. v. 13).

Thus much must suffice for this most venerated seat of the Hebrew worship from the age of Solomon until thefinal destruction of the Jewish polity. But, in order to complete the survey, it will be necessary to notice the Acropolis, which occupied the northWest angle of the Temple enclosure, and which was, lays the historian, the fortress of the Temple, as the Temple was of the city. Its original name was Bali-1, until Herod the Great, having greatly eu_ lsrged and heautitied it, changed its name to Antonia, in honour of his friend Mark Antony. 1t combined the strength of a castle with the magnificence of a Film. and was like a city in eatent,—comprehending within its walls not only spacious apartments, hntmurts and camping ground for soldiers. It was situated on an elevated rock, which was faced with slabs of smooth stone, upon which was raised a hrurstwork of 3 cubits high, within which was the building, rising to a height of 40 cubits. It had turrets at its four corners, three of them 50 cubits ll'lgl1,but that at the south-east angle was 70 cubits, Md conunanded a view of the whole Temple. It ornmunicatod with the northern and western cloisters 0f the Temple at the angle of the area, by flights of Steps for the convenience of the garrison which usually wcnpicd this commanding position; and it is a remlrkablc and interesting coincidence, that the site of We official residence of the Roman procurator and his Ward is now occupied by the Serm'yall, or official residence of the Turkish Pasha and his guard: for lime an be no question of the identity of the site, since the native rock here, in; atHippieus, still remains lonttist the fidelity of the Jewish historian. The Mk is here “out perpendicularly to an extent of 20 feet in some parts; while within the area also, in the direction of the Mosh, a considerable portion of "1'? Wk has been cut away“ to the general level of M enclosure (Bartlett, ll'alks about Jerusalem, pp. 56,174, US); so that the Seraiyah, or guvurnmutt house, actually “rests upon a precipice of

[graphic]

rock which formerly swept down abruptly, and has obviously been cut away to form the level below, which also bears marks of having been sutrped."

The fortress wrm protected towards Bezetha by an artificial fosse, so as to prevent its foundations from being assailed from that quarter. This fosse has only lately been filled in.

It is certain, from several passages, that the fortress Antonia did not cover the whole of the northern front. of the Temple area; and, as the second wall, that encircled the Lower City, ended at the fortress, it is clear that this wall could not have coincided with the modern wall at the north-east quarter of the modem city. it is demonstrable, from several allusions and historical notices, that there must. have been a considerable space between the second and third wall on the northern front of the Temple area. (Williams, 11on City, vol. ii. pp. 348—353.)

[ocr errors]

The ancient history of Jerusalem may be com veniently divided into four periods. 1. The Canaanitish, or Amorite. 2. The Hebrew, or Ante~ Babylonian. 3. The Jewish, or Post-Babylonian. 4. The Roman, or classical.

1. Of these, the first may claim the fullest notice here, as the sources of information concenting it are much less generally known or read than those of the later periods, and anything that relates to the remote history of that venerable city cannot but be full of interest to the antiquarian, no less than to the Christian student.

It has been said that the learned are divided in opininn as to the identity of the Salem of Melchizedck with the Jerusalem of Sacred History. The writer of a very learned and interesting Review of the Second Edition of the Holy City, which appeared in the Christian Remembrancer (vol. xviii. October, 1849), may be said to have demonstrated that identity by a close critical analysis of all the passages in which the circumstances are alluded to; and has further shown it to be highly probable that this pattiarch was identical, not with Shem, as has been sometimes supposed, but with Heber, the son of Peleg, from whom the land of Canaan had obtained the name of the “ land of the Hebrews" or Heberites, as early as the days of Joseph's deportation to Egypt. (Gm. al. 15.)

But the elucidation which the early history of Jerusalem receives from the monuments of Egypt is extremely important and valuable, as relating to a period which is passed over in silence by the sacred historian; and these notices are well collected and arranged in the review referred to, being borrowed from Mr. Osbum's very interesting work entitled Email, her Testimony to the Truth. After citing some monuments of Sethos, and Sesostris his son, relating to the Jcbusites, the writer proceeds:— “ What glimpses, then, do we obtain, if any, of the existence of such a city as Jerusalem during the recorded period? Under that name, of course, we must not expect to find it; since even in the days of Joshua and the Judges it is so called by anticipation. (11on City, vol. i. p. 3, note.) But there is a city which stands forth with a very marked and peculiar prominence in time wars of the kings of Egypt with the Jebusites, Amorites, and neighbouring notions. We meet with it first as a. fortress of the Amoritcs. Sethos II. is engaged in besieging it. It is situated on a hill, and strengthened with two tiers of ramparts. The inscription sets forth that it is in the land of Amer, or the Amorite; and that the conqueror ‘had made bare his right arm to overcome the chiefs of many walled cities.‘ This implies that the fort in question, the name of which is inscribed upon it, was the chief stronghold of the nation. That name, when translated from the hieroglyphics into Coptic, and thence into Hebrew, is Chadash. The next notice of Chadash belongs to the reign of Sesostris, and connects it. with the Jebusite nation. The Ammouitcs had laid siege to the city, and a joint embassy of the Jebusites and Hittites, who were then tributary to Sesostn's, entreat him to come to their aid. The Egyptians having accordingly sailed over the Dead Sea, met with another embassy, from the Zuzims, which gave further particulars of the siege. The enemy had seized on the fortified camps erected by the Egyptians to secure their hold over the country, and spread terror to the very walls of Chadash. A great battle is fought on a menutain to the south of the city of Chadash. The inscription further describes Chsdash as being in the land of Beth. What,then, do we gather from these combined noricu? Plainly this, that Chadosh was a city of the first importance, both in a military and civil point of view; the centre of interest to three or four of the most powerful of the Cannanitish nations ; in a word, their metropolis. We find it moreover placed, by one inscription, in the territory of the Amorites, by another in that of the Hittites, while it is obviously inhabited, at the some time, by ' the Jebusites. Now, omitting for the present the consideration of the Hittites,this is the exact character and condition in which Jerusalem appears in Scripture at the time of Joshua's invasion. Its metropolitan character is evinced by the lead which Adoni-zedek, its king, takes in the confederacy of the Five Kings; its strength as a fortress, by the fact that it was not then even attempted by Joshua, nor ever taken for 400 years after. And while, as the royal city of Adoni-zedek, it is reckoned among the Amorite possessions, it is no less distinctly called Jebus (Josh. xv. 8, xviii. 28; Judy. i. 2l,xix. 10) down to the days of David; the truth being, apparently, that the Amorite power having been extinguished in the person of Adoni-zedek, the Jebusite thencci‘orth obtained the ascendency in the city which the two nations inhabited in common. Nor is there any diliiculty in accounting, from Scripture, for the share assigned by the monuments to the l-littites in the possession of the oily; for, as Mr. Osburn has observed, the tribes of the Amorites and Hittith appear, from Scripture, to have bordered upon each other. The city was probably, therefore, situated at a point where the possessions of the three tribes met. Can we, then, hesitate to identify the Cbadash of the hieroglyphics with the Kddlrm of Herodotus, the El-Kuds of the Arabs, the Kadatha of the Syrians, the ‘ Holy‘ City? The only shadow of an objection that appears to lie against it is, that, strictly speaking, the name should be not Chadash, but Kndnsh. But when it is considered that the name is a translation out of Canaanitish into hieroglyphics, thence into Coptic, and thence again into Hebrew, and that the ditl'erence between H and p is, after all, but small, it is not too much to suppose that Kadesh is what is really intended to be represented. That Jerusalem should be known to the Cansanites by such a name as this, denoting it ‘the Holy,’ will not seem unreasonable, if we bear in mind what has been uotiunl above with reference to the title Adonizedck; and the (not forms an interesting link, con

necting the Arabian and Syrian name for the city with its earlier nomenclature, and confirming the identity of Hemdotus‘s Cadytis with Jerusalem. limos-burn has only very doubtingly propounded (p. 66, note) the view we have undertaken to defend. lie inclines to identify Chadash with the Hadashuh, or Addasa, enumemtcd among the southernth cities towards the border of Edom, given to Judah (Josh. xv. 21) from among' the Amorites' possessions. But it seems incredible that we should never hear again, in the history of Joshua's conquest, of so important a city as Chsdash evidently was: besides, Hadashah seems to lie too far south. We presume Mr. Osburn will not be otherwise than pleased to find the more interesting view supported by any arguments which had not occurred to him. And we have reserved one which we think Aristotle himself would allow to be of the nature of a fiK/Jfiplal or ‘clinching argument.’ It is a geographical one. The paintings represent Chadnsh as surrounded by a river or brook .on three sides; and this river or brook runs into the Dead Sea, toward the northern part of it. Surely, nothing could more accurately describe the very remarkable conformation of Jerusalem; its environment on the east, south, and west, by the waters of the valleys of Jehoshaphat and Hinnom, and their united course, after their junction,through the Wady En-Niir into the north-west part of theDesd Sea. And there are some diiiivoultics or peculiarities in the Scripture narrative i, respecting Jerusalem, which the monuments, thus interpreted, will be found to explain or illustrate. We have already alluded to its being in one place spoken of as an Amorite city, in another as the chief seat of the Jebusites. with this difiiculty, that they adopted the rendering ‘Jcbnsile‘ for ‘Amorite’ in the passage which makes Adoni-zedck an Amorite king. (Josh. x. 5.)

[graphic]

the change of reading unnecessary. Again, there is a well-known ambiguity as to whether Jerusrlein was situated in the tribe of Judah or Benjamin; and the view commonly acquiesced in is, that, being i“ the borders of the two tribes, it was considered common to both. Pcrnaps the right of possession, or the apportionment, was never fully settled; though the Rnbbies draw you the exact line through the very court of the Temple. But how, it may be asked, came such an element of confusion to be introduced into the original distribution of the Holy Land among the tribes? The answer seems to be, that territory was, for convenience' sake, msigned, in some measure, according to existing divisions: thus, the Amorite and Hittite possessions, as a whole, is“ to Judah; the Jebusite to Benjamin; and then all the uncertainty resulting from that joint occuhoney of the city by the three nations, which 15 testified to by the monuments, was necessarilyintroduced into the rival claims of the two tribes." (Christian Remembrancer, vol. xviii. pp. 457-459.)

The importance of the powerful Jehusile tribe, who are represented as having “ more than one city or stronghold near the Dead Sea, and are engaged in a succession of wars with the kings of Egypt 1" the neighbourhood of its shores;" whosev rich 2““ merits of Babylonish texture,—depicted in the hieroglypliics,_— and musical instruments, and warlike areontrements, testify to a higher degree of culture and civilisation than was found among the neigh'

[graphic]

bouring tribes, with many of whom they were on terms of oilensive and defensive alliancea—lli a!"

The LXX. were so pressed '

The hieroglyphics clear up the difliculty, and tender

[merged small][graphic]

accounts for the firm hold with which they maintained their possession of their stronghold, the capital of their tribe, for upwards of five centuries after the coming in of the children of Israel under Joshua (cir. no. 1585); during which period, according to Josephus, they held uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the Upper City, while the Israelites (whether of the tribe of Judah or of Benjamin is uncertain) seem only to have occupied the Lower City for a time, and then to have been expelled by the garrison of the Upper City. (Joseph. Ant. v. 2. 2, 5, 7; comp. Judges, i. 8, 21, xix. 10—~l2.)

2. It was not until after David, having reigned seven years in Hebnon, came into undisputed possession of the kingdom of Israel, that Jerusalem was finally subjugated (cir. n. c. 1049) and the Jebusite garrison expelled. It was then promoted to the dignity of the capital of his kingdom, and the Upper and Lower City were united and encircled by one gall. (1 Chron. xi. 8; comp. Joseph. Ant. vii. 3.

2-)

Under his son Solomon it became also the ecclesiastical head of the nation, and the Ark of the Covenant. and the Tabernacle of the Congregation, after having been long disscvered, met on the threshing—floor ofAmunsh the Jebusite,on Mount Morinh. (1 Chron. xxi. l5; 2 Chron. iii. 1.) Beelst erecting the Temple, king Solomon further adorned the city with palaces: and public buildings. (1 Kings, vi. viii. l—8.) The notices of the city from this period are very scanty. Threatened by Shishak, king of Egypt(n. c. 972), and again by the Arabians under Zerah (cir. 950), it was sacked by the combined Philistines and Arabs during the disastrous reign of Jehoram (884), and subsequently by the Israelites, after their victory over Amaziah at llethshemesh (cir. 12.0. 808). In the invasion of the confederate armies of Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Syria, during the reign of Ahaz, the capital lowly escaped (cir. 730; comp. Isaiah, vii. l—9. and 2 Kingo, xvi. 5, with 2 Chron. xaviii. 5); as it didin a still more remarkable manner in the following reign, when invated twice, as it would seem, by the generals of Sennacherib, king of Assyrian (u. c. 713) The deportation of Manasseh to Babylon would seem to intimate that the city was captured by the Chaldeans as early as 650; but the

is not recorded expressly in the sacred narrative. (2 Chron. xxxiii.) From this period its disasters thickened apace. After the battle of hiegiddo it was taken by Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt (B. G. 609), who held it only about two you, when it passed, together with the whole mun"! under the sway of the Chaldcans, and Jehoiakim and some of the princes of the blood mlfll were carried to Babylon, with part. of the Wred vessels of the Temple. A futile attempt on "M Part of Jehoiakim to regain his independence In“ his restoration, malted in his death; and his “m had only been seated on his tottering throne three months when Nebuchadnezzar again besieged "ll look the city (598), and the king, with the mhl family and principal otficers of state, were carried to Babylon, Yelekiah having been appointed bllhe conqueror to the nominal dignity of king. having held it nearly ten years, he revolted, when lhe city was a third time besieged by Nebuchndfilm (is. c. 587). The Temple and all the build"153 Of Jerusalem were destroyed by fire, and its ""8 Completely demolished. 3- A: the entire desolation of the city does not

[graphic]

appear to have continued more than fifty years, the “seventy years" must date from the first deportation; and its restoration was a gradual work, as the desolation had been. The first commission issued in favour of the Jews in the first year of Cyrus (n.c. 538) contemplated only the restoration of the Temple, which was protracted, in consequence of numerous Vexatious interruptions, for 120 years, — i. 9. until the eighth year of Darius Nothus (n.c. 418). According to the most probable chronology it was his successor, Artaxerxes Mnemon, who issued the second commission to Ezra, in the seventh year of his reign, and a third to Nehemiah in his twentieth year (B. c. 385). It was only in virtue of the edict with which he was intrnsted, backed by the authority with which he was armed as the civil governor of Pulaestine, that the restoration of the city was completed; and it has been before remarked that the account of the rebuilding of the walls clearly intimates that the limits of the restored city were identical with that of the preceding period: but the topographical notices are not sufficiently clear to enable us to determine with any degree of accuracy or certainty the exact line of the walls. (See the attempts of Schultz. pp. 82—91; and Williams, Memoir, Ill—I21.) Only fifty years after its restoration Jerusalem passed into the power of a new master (5.0. 332), when, according to Josephus, the conqueror visited Jerusalem, after the subjugation of Gaza, and accorded to its inhabitants several important privileges (Josephus, Ant. xi. 8). On the death of Alexander, and the division of his conquests among his generals, it was the ill-fortune of Judnea to become the frontier province of the rival kingdoms of Egypt and Syria; and it was consequently seldom free from the miseries of war. Ptolemy Soter was the first to seize it,—by treachery, according to Josephus (5.0. 305), who adds that he ruled over it with violence. (Ant. xii. I.) But the distinctions which he conferred upon such of its inhabitants as he carried into Egypt, and the privileges which be granted to their high priest, Simon the son of Ouins, do not bear out this representation (Eccluo. l. l, 2.) But his successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, far outdid him in liberality; and the embassy of his favourite minister Aristcas, in conjunction with Andreas, the chief ol‘ his bodyguard, to the chief priest Eleazar, furnishes as with an apparently authentic, and certainly genuine, account of the city in the middle of the third century before the Christian era, of which an outline may be here given. “ It was situated in the midst of mountains, on a lofty hill, whose crest Was crowned with the magnificent Temple, girt with three walls, seventy cubits high, of proportionate thickness and length corresponding to the extent of the building . . . . . . The Temple had an eastern aspect: its spacious courts, paved throughout with marble, coch immense reservoirs containing large supplies of water, which gushed out by mechanical contrivance to wash away the blood of the numerous sacrifices offered there on the festivals. . . . . The foreigners viewed the Temple from a strong fortress on its north side, and describe the appearance which the city presented. . . . . It was of moderate extent, being about forty furlongs in circuit. . . . . . The disposition of its towers resembled the arrangement of a theatre: some of the streets ran along the brow of the hill; others, lower down, but parallel to these, followed the course of the valley, and they were connected by cross streets. The city was built on the sloping side of a hill, and the streets were furnished with raised pavement-s, along which some of the passengers walked on high, while others kept the lower path,—a precaution adopted to secure those who were purified from the pollution which contact with anything unclean could have occasioned . . . . . . The place, too, was well adapted for mercantile pursuits, and abounded in artificers of various crafts. lta market was supplied with spicery, gold, and precious stones, by the Arabs, in whose neighbouring mountains there had formerly been mines of copper and iron, but the works had been abandoned during the Persian domination, in consequence of a representation to the government that they must prove ruinously expensive to the country. It was also richly furnished with all such articles as are imported by sea, since it had commodious harbours—as Ascalon, Joppa, Gaza, and Ptolemais, from none of which it was far distant." (Aristens, up. Gallandii Biblioth. Vet. Pat. tom. ii. pp. 805, &c.) The truthfulness of this description is not affected by tho authorship; there is abundance of evidence, internal and external, to prove that it Was written by one who had actually visited the Jewish capital during the times of the Ptolemies (cir. 3.0. 250).

The Sclcucidae of Asia were not behind the Ptolcmies in their favours to the Jews; and the peace and prosperity of the city sufi'ered no material diminution, while it was handed about as a marriage dowry, or by the chances of war, between the rivals, until internal factions subjected it to the dominion of Antiochus Epiphunes, whose tyranny crushed for a time the civil and ecclesiastical polity of the nation (3.0. 175). The Temple was stripped of its costly sacred vessels, the palaces burned, the city walls demolished, and an idol'altar raised on the very altar of the Temple, on which daily sacrificm of swine were offered. This tyranny resulted in a vigorous national revolution, which secured to the Jews a greater amount of independence than they had enjoyed subsequently to the captivity. This continued, under the Asmonean princes, until the conquest of the country by the Romans; from which time, though nominally subject to a native prince, it was virtually a mere dependency, and little more than a province, of the Roman empire. Once again before this the city was recaptured by Antiochus Sitletes, during the reign of John Hyrcanus (cir. 135), when the city walls, which had been restored by Judas, were again levelled with the ground.

4. The capture of the city by Pompey is recorded by Strabo, and was the first considerable event that fined the attention of the classical writers on the city (5.0. 68). He ascribes the intervention of Pompey to the disputes of the brothers Hyrcanus and Ariswbulus, the sons of Alexander Jannaeus, who first assumed regal power. He states that the conqueror levelled the fortifications when he had taken the city, which he did by filling up an enormous fosse which defended the Temple on the north side. The particulars of the siege are more fully given by Josephus, who states that Pompey entered the Holy of llulics, but abstained from the sacred treasures of the Temple, which were plundered by Crassus on his way to l’arthia (a. c. 54). The struggle for power between Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, and Herod, the son of Antiputer, led to the sacking of the city by the Paithians, whose aid had been sought by tho tbnncr (u. c. 40). Herod, having been appointed king by the senate, only

[graphic]
[graphic]

secured possession of his capital after a long siege, in which he was assisted by Sosius, Antony's lieutenant, and the Roman legionnries. Mention has been already made of the palace in the Upper City and the fortress Antonia, erected, or enlarged and beautifiod, by Herod. He also undertook to restore the Temple to a state of magnificence that should rival the glory of Solomon’s; and a particular description is given of this work by the Jewish his toriau (A nt. xv. 11.) The erection of a theatre and circus, and the institution of quinquennial games in honour of the emperor, went fiar to conform his city to a pagan capital. 0n the death of Herod and tho banishment of his son Amhelans,Judaea was reduced to a Roman province, within the praefecture of Syria, and subject. to a subordinate governor, to whom was intrusted the power of life and death. His ordinary residence at Jerusalem was the fortress Antonia; but Caesarea now shared with Jerusalem the dignity of a metropolis. Coponins was the first procurator (A. D. 7), under the praefect Cyrenins. The only permanent monument lefi by the procurators is the aqueduct of Pontius Pilate (A. 11. 26—86), constructed with the sacred Corban, which be seized for that purpose. This aqueduct still exists, and conveys the water from the Pools of Solomon to the Musk atJemsalcm (Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 498—501). The particulars of the sie e by Titus, so fully detailed by Josephus, can on y be briefly alluded to. It occupied nearly 100,000 men little short of five months, having been commenced on the 14th of Xanthicus (April), and terminated with the capture and conflagration of the Upper City on the 8th of Gorpeius (September). This is to be Mcounted for by the fact that, not only did each of the three walls, but also the Fortress and Temple, require to be taken in detail, so that the operations involved five distinct siegts. The general's camp was established close to the Psephine Tower, with one legion, the twelfth; the tenth was encumpod near the summit of Mount Olivet; the fifth opposite to the Hippie Tower, two stadiu distant from it. The first assault was made apparently between the towers Hippicus and Psephinus, and the outer wall was carried on the fifteenth day of the the siege. This new Wall of Agripptt was immediately demolished, and Titus encampcd within the New City, on the traditional camping-ground of the Assyrians. Five days later, the second wall was carried at its northern quarter, but the Romans were repulsed, and only recaptured it after a stout resistance of three days. Four banks were the" raised—two against Antonin, and two against the northern wall of the Upper City. Aficr seventeen days of incessant toil the Romans discovered UH“ their banks had been undemiined, and their engines were destroyed by fire. It was then resolved to surround the city with a wall, so as to form 8 complete blockade. The line of circumvallotion, 39 furlongs in circuit, with thirteen rodoubt-s equal to an additional 10 furlongs, was completed in three days. Four fresh banks were raised in twenty-01111 days, and the Antonia was carried two months after the occupation of the Lower City. Another month elapsed before they could succeed in gaining the Inner Sanctuary, when the Temple was accidentally fired by the Roman soldiers. The Upper City St!“ held out. Two banks were next raised against tto eastern wall over against the Temple. This occupied eighteen days; and the Upper City w” at length carried, a month after the Inner Sanctuary'

[ocr errors][graphic]
[graphic]
« السابقةمتابعة »