صور الصفحة
PDF

the same which are elsewhere called the Monument of Herod, and, from the character of their decorations, may very well be ascribed to theHerodian period. M. de Saulcy has lately added to our previous information concerning 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 traditionary site is still guarded by the Moslems. ( Voyage en Syrie, torn. ». pp. 228—281.)

(4) The Fuller's monument is the last-mentioned point on the new wall, and, as an angular tower occupied this site, the monument must have been at the north-cast 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. {Jerusalem, pp. 38, 64.) The Monument of the Fullei probably gave its name to- the Fuller's field, which is mentioned by the prophet Isaiah as tho spot near which the Assyrian army under Rabshakeh encamped (xxxvi. 2, vii. 3); 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 Jehoshaphat 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 numerous topographical 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 stadia, or 4 Roman miles plus 1 stadium, the specification of the measure of the wall of Agrippa alone gives, on the lowest computation, an excess of 12 stadia, 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 Mount.

The Temple Mount, called in Scripture the Mountain of the Lord's House, and Moriah (2 Chron, iii. 1), is situated at the south-east 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 tho Old City, over against Acra, but separated from it by a broad ravine, which, however, was filled up by the Asmouaean princes, so that these two hills became one, and are generally so reckoned by the historian {B. J. v. 4.)

1. The Outer Court.—The Temple, in the widest signification of the word (to ifpoV), consisted of two courts, one within tho 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 cloisters, was gradually increased by mechanical expedients. This extension was com

menced by Solomon, who raised from the depth of the eastern valley a wall of enormous stones, bound together with lead, within which he raised a bank 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." (cnoa SoAop&yos, St. John, x. 23; Acts, iii. 11, v. 12.) This process of enlarging the court by artificial embankments was continued by successive kings; but particularly by Herod the Great, who, when ho reconstructed the Temple Proper (yewis), enlarged the Outer Court to double its former size, and adorned it with stately cloisters. {Ant. XT. 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 cloisters 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 (fcpoV) was separated from the Outer by a stone wall (<ppayfj.6s, see Ephes. ii. 14) 3 cubits in height, on which stood pillars at equal distances, with inscriptions, in Greek and Latin, prohibiting aliens from access. To this court there was an ascent of fourteen steps, then a level space of 10 cubits, and then a further ascent of five steps to the gates, of which there were four on the north and south sides, and two on the east, but none on the west, where stood the Sanctuary (va6s).

The place of the Altar, in front of the va6s, is determined with the utmost precision by the existence in the Sacred Rock of the Moslems, under their venerated dome, of the very cesspool and drain of the Jewish altar, which furnishes a key to the restoration 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 Mishna. The drain communicating with this cesspool, through which the blood ran off into the Kedron, was at the south-west angle of the Altar; and there was A trap connected with this cave, 1 cubit square (commonly closed with a marble slab), through which a man occasionally descended to cleanse it and to clear obstructions. Both the drain and the trap are to be seen in the rock at this day.

The Altor was 32 cubits square at its base, but gradually contracted, so that its hearth was only 24 cubits square. It was 15 cubits high, and had an ascent by an inclined plane on the south side, 32 cubits 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 steps to the vestibule, the door of which was 40 cubits high and 20 wide. The total length of tho Holy House itself was only 100 cubits, and this was subdivided into three parts: the Pronaus 11, the Sanctuary 40, the Holy of Holies 20, allowing 29 cubits for the partition walls and a small chamber behind (i. e. we»t of) the Most Holy place. The total width of tho building was 70 cubits; of which the Sanctuary only occupied 20, the remainder being distributed into side chambers, in three stories, assigned to various use*. The Pronaus was, however, 30 cubits wider, 15 on the north, and 15 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 iuterior 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 da///, ling effect; and, where it was not encrusted with gold, it was exceedingly white. Some of the stones of which it was constructed were 45 cubits long, 5 deep, and 6 wide.

Kast of the Altar was the Court of the Priests, .35 cubits lung 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 cnbits in height, with doors of 40 cubits, so ponderous that they could with difficulty be shut by 20 men, the spontaneous opening of which was one of the portents of the approaching destruction of the Temple, mentioned by Josephus {Bell. Jud. vi. 5. § 3), and repeated by Tacitus {Hist v. 13).

Thus much must suffice for this most venerated seat of the Hebrew worship from the age of Solomon until the final 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, says the historian, the fortress of the Temple, as the Temple was of the city. Its original name was Bans, until Herod the Great, having greatly enlarged and beautified it, changed its name to Antonia, in honour of his friend Mark Antony. It combined the strength of a castle with the magnificence of a palace, and was like a city in extent,—comprehending within its walls not only spacious apartments, but courts and camping ground for soldiers. It was situated on an elevated ruck, which was faced with slabs of smooth stone, upon which was raised a breastwork 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 high, but that at the south-east angle was 70 cubits, and commanded a view of the whole Temple. It communicated with the northern and western cloisters of the Temple at the angle of the area, by nights of steps for the convenience of the garrison which usually occupied this commanding position; and it is a remarkable and interesting coincidence, tliat the site of the official residence of the Roman procurator and his guard is now occupied by the Seraiyah, or official residence of the Turkish Pasha and his guard: for tliere can be no question of the identity of the site, since the native rock here, as atHippicus,stiIl remains to attest the fidelity of the Jewish historian. The rock is here u cut perpendicularly to an extent of 20 feet in some parts; while within the area also, in the direction of the Mosk, a considerable portion of the rock has been cut away" to the general level of the enclosure (Itartlett, Walks about Jerusalem, \>\>. 156, 174, 175); so that the Seraiyah, or government house, actually "rests upon a j>recipice of

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

The fortress was protected towards Bczctha by an artificial fosse, so as to prevent its foundations from being assailed from that quarter. This fosse lias 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 tins wall could not have coincided with the modern wall at the north-east quarter of the modern 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, Holy City, vol ii. pp. 348—353.)

V. History.

The ancient history of Jerusalem may be conveniently divided into four periods. 1. The Canaanitish, or Amorite. 2. The Hebrew, or AnteBabylonian. 8. 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 concerning 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 opinion as to the identity of the Salem of Mekhizedek 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 arc alluded to; and has further shown it to be highly probable that this patriarch was identical, not with Shem, as has been sometimes supposed, but with Hebcr, the son of Peleg, from whom the land of Canaan had obtained the name of the " land of the Hebrews" or Ueberites, as early as the days of Joseph's deportation to Egypt. (Gen. xl. 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 the>o notices are well collected and arranged in the review referred to, being borrowed from Mr. Osbum's very interesting work entitled Egypt, her Testimony to the Truth. After citing some monuments of Selhos, and Sesostris his son, relating to the Jebusites, 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. {Holy City, vol. i. p. 3, note.) But there is a city which stands forth with a very marked and peculiar prominence in these wars of the kings of Egypt with the Jebusites, Amoritcs, and neighbouring nations. We meet with it first as a fortress of the Anionics. Sethos II. is engaged in besieging it. It is situated on a hill, and strengthened with two tiers of ram* parts. The inscription sets forth that it is in the land of Amor, or the Amorite; and tli&t the conqueror 1 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 Ammonites had laid siege to the city, and a joint embassy of the Jebusites and Hittites, who were then tributary to Sesostris, 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 mountain to the south of the city of Chadash. The inscription further describes Chadash as being in the land of Heth. What, then, do we gather from these combined notice.-)? Plainly this, that Chadash 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 Canaanitish nations; in a word, their metropolis. We find it moreover placed, by one inscription, in the territory of the Anionics, by another in that of the Hittites, while it is obviously inhabited, at the same 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-zodek, it is reckoned among the Amorite possessions, it is no less distinctly called Jebus (Josh. xv. 8, xviii. 28; Judg. i. 21,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 thenceforth obtained the ascendency in the city which the two nations inhabited in common. Nor is there any difficulty in accounting, from Scripture, fur the share assigned by the monuments to the Hittites in the possession of the city; for, as Mr. Osburn has observed, the tribes of the Amorites and Hittites 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 Chadash of the hieroglyphics with the KaSurw of Herodotus, the El-Kuds of the Arabs, the Kadatha of the Syrians, the 1 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 Kadash. 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 difference between and p is, after all, but small, it is not too much to suppose that Kadesh is what is really intended to bo represented. That Jerusalem should be known to the Canaanites by such a name as this, denoting it1 the Holy,' will not seem unreasonable, if we bear in mind what hits been noticed above with reference to the title Adonizedek; and the fact forms an interesting link, con

necting the Arabian and Syrian name for the city with its earlier nomenclature, and confirming the identity of Herodotus's Cadytis with Jerusalem. Mr. Osburn has only very doubtingly propounded (p. 66, note) the view we have undertaken to defend. He inclines to identify Chadash with the Hadashah, or Addasa, enumerated among the southernmost cities towards the border of EUom, given to Judah (Josh. xv. 21) from among the Amorites1 possessions. But it seems incredible that we should never hear again, in the history of Joshua's conquest, of so important a city as Chadash evidently was: besides, Hadashah seems to He 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 rfKnijpiov or 'clinching argument.' It is a geographical one. The paintings represent Chadash 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-Nar into the north-west part of the Dead Sea. And there are some difficulties or peculiarities in the Scripture narrative 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. The LXX were so pressed with this difficulty, that they adopted the rendering 'Jebusite' for 'Amorite* in the passage which makes Adoni-zedek an Amorite king. (Josh, x. 5.) The hieroglyphics clear up the difficulty, and render the change of reading unnecessary. Again, there is a well-known ambiguity as to whether Jerusalem was situated in the tribe of Judah or Benjamin; and the view commonly acquiesced in is, that, being in the borders of the two tribes, it was considered common to both. Pernaps the right of possession, or the apportionment, was never fully settled; though the Rabbles 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, assigned, in some measure, according to existing divisions; thus, the Amorite and Hittite possessions, as a whole, fell to Judah; the Jebusite to Benjamin; and then all the uncertainty resulting from that joint occupancy of the city by the three nations, which is testified to by the monuments, was necessarily introduced into the rival claims of the two tribes." (ChristianRemembrancer, vol. xviii. pp.457—*59.)

The importance of the powerful Jebusite 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 in the neighbourhood of its shores;" whose rich garments of Babylonish texture,—depicted in the hieroglyphics,— and musical instruments, and warli.ee accoutrements, testify to a higher degree of culture and civilisation than was found among the neighImuring tribes, with many of whuin Ihey were on terms of offensive and defensive alliance: — all this 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. D. c 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. Judgei, i. 8, 21, xix. 10—12.)

2. It was not until after David, having reigned seven years in Hebron, came into undisputed possession of the kingdom of Israel, that Jerusalem was finally subjugated (cir. B. c. 1049) and the Jebusite garrison expelled. It was then promoted to the dignity of the capital of his kingdom, and the Upper ami Lower City were united and encircled by one wall. (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, alter having been long dissevered, met on the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, on Mount Moriah. (1 Chron. xxi. 15; 2 Chron. iii. 1.) Besides erecting the Temple, king Solomon further adorned the city with palaces and public buildings. (1 Kings, vi. viii. 1—8.) The notices of the city from this period are very scanty. Threatened by Shishak, king of Egypt (b. C. 972), and again by the Arabians under Zerati (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 Rethshemesh (cir. B. c. 808). In the invasion of the confederate armies of Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Syria, during the reign of Ahaz, the capital barely escaped (cir. 730; comp. Isaiah, vii. 1—9, and 2 Kings, xvi. 5, with 2 Chron. xxviii. 5); as it did in a still more remarkable manner in the following reign, when invested twice, as it would seem, by the generals of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (b. 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 fact is not recorded expressly in the sacred narrative. (2 Chron. xxxiii.) From this period its disasters thickened apace. After the battle of Megiddo it was taken by Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt (b. O. 609), who held it only about two years, when it passed, together with the whole country under the sway of the Chaldeans, and Jehoiakim and some of the princes of the blood royal were carried to Babylon, with part of the sacred vessels of the Temple. A futile attempt ou the part of Jehoiakim to regain his independence after his restoration, resulted in his death; and his sou liad only been seated on his tottering throne three months when Nebuchadnezzar again besieged and U>ok the city (598), and the king, with the royal family and principal officers of state, were carried to Babylon, Zedekiah having been appointed by the conqueror to the nominal dignity of king. Having held it nearly ten years, he revolted, when the city was a third time besieged by Nebuchadnezzar (it. c. 587). The Temple and all the buildings of Jerusalem were destroyed by fire, and its walls completely demolished.

3. As the entire desolation of the city docs not

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 (b.c. 538) contemplated only the restoration of the Temple, which was protracted, in consequence of numerous vexatious interruptions, for 120 years, — i. e. until the eighth year of Darius Nothus (b.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 intrusted, backed by the authority with which he was armed as the civil governor of Palaestine, 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, 111—121.) Only fifty years after its restoration Jerusalem passed into the power of a new master (b. C. 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 Judaea 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 (i>. c. 305), who adds that he ruled over it with violence. {Ant. xii. 1.) But the distinctions which he conferred upon such of its inhabitants as he carried into Egypt, and the privileges which he granted to their high priest, Simon the son of Onias, do not bear out this representation (Ecclus. L 1, 2.) But his successor, Ptolemy Philadclphus, far outdid him in liberality; and the embassy of his favourite minister Aristeas, in conjunction with Andreas, the chief of his bodyguard, to the chief priest Eleazar, furnishes us 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 outlino may he 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, covered 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 tho 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 pavements, 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. Its 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 bad commodious harbours—as Ascalon, Joppa, Gaza, and Ptolemais, fron none of which it was far distant." (Aristeas, ap. Gallandii Biblwth. Vet. Pat. torn. ii. pp. 805, Ac.) The truthfulness of this description is not afFected by the 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. B.C. 250).

The Seleucidae of Asia were not behind the Ptolemies in their favours to the Jews; and the peace and prosperity of the city suffered no material dimimuiun, 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 Epiphanes, whose tyranny crushed for a time the civil and ecclesiastical polity of the nation (b. C. 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 sacrifices 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 Sidetes, 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 Ponipey is recorded by Strabo, and was the first considerable event that fixed the attention of the classical writers on the city (b.c. 63). He ascribes the intervention of Pompey to the disputes of the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, 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 Joseph us, who states that Pompey entered the Holy of Holies, but abstained from the sacred treasures of the Temple, which were plundered by Crass us on his way to Parthia (u. c. 54). The struggle for power between Antigonns, the son of Arstobulns, and Herod, the son of Antipater, led to th-. sacking of the city by the Partisans, whose aid had been sought by the former (u. c. 40). Herod, having been appointed king by the senate, only

secured possession of his capital after a long siege, in which he was assisted by Sosius, Antony's lieutenant, and the Roman legionaries. Mention has been already made of the palace in the Upper City and the fortress Antonia, erected, or enlarged and beautified, 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 historian (Ant. xv. 11.) The erection of a theatre and circus, and the institution of quinquennial games in honour of the emperor, went far to conform his city to a pagan capital. On the death of Herod and th« banishment of his son Archelaus, 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 Gaesarea now shared with Jerusalem the dignity of a metropolis. Coponius was the first procurator (a. D. 7), under the praefect Cyrenius. The only permanent monument left by the procurators is the aqueduct of Pontius Pilate (a. D. 26-—36), constructed with the sacred Corban, which he seized for that purpose. This aqueduct still exists, and conveys the water from the Pools of Solomon to the Mosk at Jerusalem (Holy City, vol.ii.pp. 498—501). The particulars of the siege by Titus, so fully detailed by Josephus, can only 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 accounted 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 sieges. The general's camp was established close to the Psephine Tower, with one legion, the twelfth; the tenth was encamped near the summit of Mount Olivet: the fifth opposite to the Hippie Tower, two stadia 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 Agrippa was immediately demolished, and Titus encamped 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 then raised,—two against Antonia, and two against the northern wall of the Upper City. After seventeen days of incessant toil the Romans discovered that their banks had been undermined, and their engines were destroyed by fire. It was then resolved to surround the city with a wall, so as to form a complete blockade. The line of circumvallation, 39 furlongs in circuit, with thirteen redoubts equal to an additional 10 furlongs, was completed in three days. Four fresh banks were raised in twenty-one days, and the Antonia was carried two months after the occupation of the Lower City. Another month elaj)sed before they could succeed in gaining tho Inner Sanctuary, when the Temple was accidentally fired by the Roman soldiers. The Upper City still held out. Two banks were next raised against its eastern wall over against tho Temple. This occupied eighteen days; and tho Upper City was at length carried, a month after the Inner Sanctuary.

« السابقةمتابعة »