« السابقةمتابعة »
land of Amor, or the Amoritc; and that the conqueror ‘hud made hare 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 Chudash. The next- notice of Chadash belongs to the reign of Sesostl'is, and connects it with the Jebusite nation. The Ammonitcs had laid siege to the city, and a joint emba<sy of the Jebusitm and Hittites, who were then tributary to Sesmtris, 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 lleth. What, then, do we gather from these combined notices? 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 potVerful of the Canaanitish 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 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 Aduni-zcdek, its king, takrs in the confederacy of the Five Rings; 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, apparcntly, that the Amorite power having been extinguished in the person of Adoni-Zedek, the Jebusitc thenceforth obtained the ascendency in the city which the two nations inhabited in common. Nor is there any dificulty in accounting, from Scripture, for the share assigned by the monuments to the Hittites in the possession of the city; for, as Mr. Osborn 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 Kdou-rrs 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 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 diti‘erence between H and 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 Canaanites by such a name as this, denoting it ‘the Holy,’ will not seem unreasonable, if we bear in mind what has been noticed above with reference to the title Adoni‘ Zedek; and the fact forms an interesting link, cou
necting the Arabian and Syrian name for the city with its earlier nomenclature, and confirming the identity of Herodotus's Cadytis with Jerusalem. MnOsbum has only very doubtingly propounded (p. 66, note) the view we have undertaken to defend. He inclines to identify Chadash with the Hadashah, or Addnsa, enumerated among the southernmost cities towards the border of Edom, given to Judah (Josh. xv. 21) from among the Arnoritm' possessions. But it seems incredible that we should never hear again, in the history of Joshua's conquest, ofso important a city as Chadash evidently was: besides, Hadashah seems to lie too far south. We presume Mr. Osbura 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 rexufipwv 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 Jehoehaphat and Hinnom, and their united course, after their junction, through the \Vady En-Ndr 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 air Amorite city, in another as the chief seat of the Jebnsites. 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. is. 5.) Tire hieroglyphics clear up the difficulty, and render the change of reading unnecessary. Again, there is swell-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. Pcrnaps the right of possession, orthe apportionment, was never fully settled; though the Rabbies 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." (Christian Remmbrancer, vol. xviii. pp. 457—459.)
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 gurments of Babylouish texture,-depicted in the hieroglyphics,—and musical instruments, and warlike accoutrements, testify to a higher degree of culture and civilisation than was found among the neighbouring tribes, with many of whom they 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. n. c. 1585); during which period, according to Josephus, they held uninterrupted and exclusive mission 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—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 (eir. n. c. 1049) and tho Jcbusite 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. (l Cimm. xi. 8; comp. Joseph. Ant. vii. 3.
Under his son Solomon it became also the ecclesiastin head of the nation, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the Tabernacle of the Congregation, after having been long,r dissevered, met on the threshing-floor of Araunab the Jebusite, on Mount Moriah. (l Citron. xxi. 15; 2 Citron. iii. 1.) Besides erecting the Temple, king Solomon further adorned the city with palaces and public buildings. (1 Kiws, vi. viii. 1—8.) The notices of the city from this period are very scanty. Threatened by Shishak, king of Egypt (1;. 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 Bethshcmesh (cir. 3.0. 808). In the invasion of the confederate armies of Pckah 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 Citron. xaviii. 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 (n. 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 Citron. xxaiii.) From this period its disasters thickened apacc. After the battle of Megiddo it was taken by Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt (is. (1. 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 on the part of Jehoiakirn to regain his independence after his restoration, resulted in his death; and his son had only been seated on his tottering throne three months when Nebuchadnczzar again besieged and took the city (593), and the king, with .tho royal family and principal ofiicers of state, were carried to Babylon, Zedckiah having been appointed by the conqueror to the nominal dignity of king. Haring held it nearly ten years, he revolted, when the city was a third time besieged by Nebuchadnezzar (n. 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 does 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 (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 (11.0. 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 (a. c. 385). It was only in virtue of tho 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 sufiiciently 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, lll—l2l.) Only fifly years after its restoration Jerusalem passed into the power of a new master (n.(:. 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). 0n the death of Alexander, and the division of his conquests among his generals, it was the ill»fortunc 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 (B. 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 be granted to their high priest, Simon the son of Onias, do not bear out this representation (Ecciuc. l. l, 2.) But his successor, Ptolemy I’hiladelpbus, 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 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, covered immense reservoirs containing large supplies of water, which gushed out by mechanical contrivance to wash away the blood of the numerous sacrifices ofi'ered there on tho 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 ‘ou the sloping side of a hill, and the streets were furnished with raised pavements, along which some of the pawngers 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 fumishcd with all such articles as are imported by sea, since it had commodious harbours—as Ascalon, Joppa, Gaza, and l’tolcmnis, from none of which it was far distant." (Aristeas, up. Gallandit' Bibliolh. Vet. Pat. tom. ii. pp. 805, &c.) The truthfulness of this description is not affected by the authorship; them 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 l’tolcmies (cir. 13.0. 250).
The Seleneidae of Asia were not behind the Ptolcmies in their favours to the Jews; and the peace and prosperity of the city suffered 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 Epiphanes, whose tyranny crushed for a time the civil and ecclesiastical polity of the nation (a. 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, wlrich 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 pmvince, of the Roman empire. Once again before this the city was recaptured by Antiochus Sidetes, during the reign of John Hyrcauus (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 Strnbo, and was the first considerable event. that fixed the attention of the classical writers on the city (3.0. 63). He ascribes the intervention of Pompey to the disputes of the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, the sons of Alexander Jaunaeus, who first assumed regal power. He states that the conqueror levelled the fortifications whcu he had taken the city, which he did by filling up an enormous fossc which defended the Temple on the north side. The particulars of the siege are more fully given by Josephus, who states that l’ompey entered the Holy of Holics, but abstained from the sacred treasures of the Temple, which were plundered by Crassus on his way to l’nrthia (u. c. 54). The stniggle for power between Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, and Herod, the son of Antipater, led to the sacking of the city by the Parthiaus, whose aid had been sought by the former (n. c. 40). Herod, having been appointed king by the senate, only
secured possession of his capital aficr along siege, in which he was assisted by Sosius, Antouy's licutenant, 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 the banishment of his son Archelaus,Judaca was reduced to a Roman province, within the praet'ecture 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. Coponius was the first procurator (A. l). 7), under the praefect Cyrenius. The only permanent monument left by the procurators is the aqueduct of Pontiua Pilate (A. D. 26—36), constructed with the sacred Corban, which be seized for that purpose. This aqueduct still exists, and conveys the water from the l’mls of Solomon to the Musk at Jerusalem (IIon City, vol. ii. pp. 498—50l ). 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 l-‘orlrms and Temple, require to be taken in detail, so that the operations involved fivo distinct sieges. The general's camp was established close to the Pscphine 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 Pscphinus, 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 miscd,—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 furloncs in circuit, with thirteen redoubts equal to an additional 10 fut-longs, 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 mouth elapsed before they could succeed in gaining the 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 the Temple. This occupied eighteen days; and the Upper City was at length carried, a month after the Inner Sanctuary
This memorable siege has been thought Worthy of special mention by Tacitus, and his lively abridginent, as it would appear, of Josephus's detailed narrative, must have served to raise his countrymen‘s ideas, both of the military prowess and of the powers of endurance of the Jews.
The city was wholly demolished except the three towers Hippicns, Phasaelus, and Mariamne, and so much of the western wall as would serve to protect the legion left there to garrison the place, and prevent any fresh insurrectionary movements among the Jews, who soon returned and occupied the ruins. The palace of Herod on Mount Sion was probably converted into a barrack for their accommodation, as it had been before used for the same purpose. (Bell. Jud. rii. 1.§ 1, ii. 15.§ 5, 17. §§ 8,9.)
Sixty years after its destruction, Jerusalem was visited by the emperor Hadrian, who then conceived the idea of rebuilding the city, and left his friend and kinsman Aquila there to superintend the work, A. 1). 130. (Epiphunius, dc Pond. et Mm. 14, 15.) He had intended to colonise it with Roman veterans, but his project was defeated or suspended by the outbreak of the revolt headed by Barmchebss, his son Rufus, and his grandson Romulus. The insurgents first occupied the capital, and attempted to rebuild the Temple : they were speedily dislodged, and then held out in Bethor for nearly three years. [BETHAtL] On the suppression of the revolt, the building of the city was proceeded with, and luxurious palaces, a theatre, and temples, with other public buildings, fitted it for a Roman population. The Chronicon Alexandrininn mentions 16. 660 Myriam xal Tb fie’crrpov no.) To Tptmihepov Kai rh re'rpdvuhtpav Kai 'rb dwomdrrukov 'ro rrplv dvohag'ouwov a'vagaeuol Kai rip! Kddpay. A temple of Jupiter Cnpitolinus, from whom the city derived its new name, occupied the site of the Temple, and n tetrastyle fane of Venus was raised over the site of the Holy Sepnlchrc. The ruined Temple and city furnished materials for these buildings. The city was divided into seven quarters (dupofim), each of which had its own warden (ti/upobdpxns). Part of Mount Sion was excluded from the city, as at present, and, was “ ploughed as a field.” (Micah, iii. 12; St. Jerome, Comment. in loot; [tinerarium IIierosol. p. 592, ed. Wesscling.) The history of Aelin. Capitolina. has been made the subject of distinct treatises by C. E. Deyling, “Aeliue Copitolinnc Origines ct Historiu" (appended to his father’s Observations: Sacrac, vol. v. p. 433, &c.), and by Dr. Mijnter, late Bishop of Copenhagen (translated by W. Wadden Turner, and published in Dr. Robinson's Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 393, 810.), who have collected all the scattered notices of it as a pagan city. its coins also belong to this period, and extend from the reign of Hadrian to Severus. One of the former emperor (IMP. cans. TRATAN. nanruanvs. avc., which exhibits Jupiter in a tetrustyle temple, with the legend 001.. AEL. can.) confirms the account of Dion Cassius (lxix. 12), that a temple to Jupiter was erected on the site of God's temple (Eckhel, Duct. Nam. Vet. pars i. tom. iii. p. 443); while one of Antoninus (ANTOXINVS. ave. PITS. I’- P. 'ru. P. cos. 111., representing Venus in a similar temple, with the legend c. a. c. or COL AEL. CAP.) no less distinctly confirms the Christian tradition that a shrine of Venus was erected over the Sepulchre of our Lord. (Vaillnnt, Nomi-mam Aer-ea lmperat. in Col. pt. i. p. 239; Eckhcl, l. c. p. 442.)
Under the emperor Constantine, Jerusalem, which
had already become a favourite place of pilgrimage to the Christians, was furnished with new attractions by that emperor and his mother, and the erection of the Martyry of the Resurrection inaugurated a. new aera of the Holy City, which now recovered its ancient name. after it had apparently fallen into complete oblivion among the government oflicers in l’alaestino itself. (Euseb. de film-t. Palaed. cap. The erection of his church was commenced the year after the Council of Niches, and occupied ten years. lt was dedicated on the tricennaliu of the emperor, A. 1). 336. (Euseb. Vita Constantim', iii. 30—40, iv. 40—47.) Under the emperor Julian, the city again become an object of interest to the pagans, and the account of the defeat of Julian's attempt to rebuild the Temple is preserved by Amminnus Marcellinus, an unexceptional witness (xxiii. 1: all the historical notices are collected by Bishop Wurburton, in his work on the subject, entitled Julian.) In 451, the see of Jerusalem was erected into a petriarchate; and its subsequent history is chiefly occupied with the cunflicting opinions of its incumbents on the subject of the heresies which troubled the church at that period. In the following century (cir. 532) the emperor Justinian emulated the zeal of his predecessor Constantine by the erection of churches and hospitals at Jerusalem, a complete account of which has been left by Procopius. (Do Acdificiis Justin am', v. 6.) In A. D. 61-4, the city with all its sacred places was desolated by the Persians under Chosroes II., when, according to the contemporary records, 90.000 Christians, of both sexes and of all ages, fell victims to the relentless fury of the Jews, who, to the number of 26,000, had followed the Persians from Galilee to Jerusalem to gratify their hereditary malice by the massacre of the Christians. The churches were immediately restored by Modestna; and the city was visited by Heraclius (A. 1). 629) after his defeat of the Persians. Five years later (A. D. 634) it was invested by the Saracens, and, after a defence of four months, capitulated to the khalif Omar in person: since which time it has followed the vicissitudes of the various dynasties that have swayed the destinies of Western Asia.
It remains to add a few words concerning the modern city and its environs.
V. Tun Mommx Crrr.
El-Kods, the modern representative of its most ancient. name Kodeshah, or Cadytis, “ is surrounded by a high and strong cut-stone wall, built on the solid rock, loop-holed throughout, varying from 25 to 60 feet in height, having no ditch." It was built by the sultan Suliman (A. D. 1542), as is declared by many inscriptions on the wall and gates. It is in circuit about 2} miles, and has four gates facing the four cardinal points. 1. The Jafi'a Gate, on the west, called by the natives Bab-el-l-lallil, i. e. the Hebron Gate. 2. The Damascus Gate, on the north, Bab-cl-‘Amhd, the Gate of the Column. 8. The St. Stephen‘s Gate, on the east, Bab-SittiMiryam, St. Mary’s Gate. 4. The Siou Gate, on the suuth, Bab-en-Nebi Dadd, the Gate of the Prophet David. A fifth gate, on the south, near the month of the 'l‘yropoeon, is sometimes opened to facilitate the introduction of the water from u neighbouring well. A line drawn from the Jafl‘n Gate to the Musk, along the comes of the old wall, and another, cutting this at right angles, drawn from the Sum to tho Damascus Gate, could divido thl city into the four quarters by which it is usually distinguished.
These four quarters arez—(l) The Armenian Quarter at the SW.; (2) the Jew's Quarter at the SE.,—both these being on Mount Sion; (3) the Christian Quarter at the NW.; (4) the Mahomctan Quarter, occupying the remainder of the city on the west and north of the great. Harsm~es~5hcrif, the noble Sanctuary, which represents the ancient Temple area. The Mosh, which occupies the grandest and once most venerated spot in the world, is, in its architectural design and proportions, as it was formerly in its details, worthy of its site. It was built for Abd-el Melik 1bn-Marwan, of the house of Olnmiyah, the tenth khalif. It was commenced in A. 1). 685, and completed in three years, and when the vicissitudes it has undergone within a space of nearly 1200 years are considered, it is perhaps rather a matter of astonishment that the fabric should have been preserved so entire than that the adornment should exhibit in parts marks of ruinous decay.
The Church of Justinian,—now the Mosk ElAksa,—-to the south of the same area, is also a conspicuous object in the modem city; and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, with its appendages, occupies a considerable space to the west. The gicater part of the remaining space is occupied with the Colleges or Hospitals of the liloslcms, in the vicinity of the Mosks, and with the Monasteries of the several Christian communities, of which the Patriarchal Convent of St. Constantine, belonging to the Greeks, near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and that of the Anneniaus, dedicated to St. James, on the highest part of Mount Sion, are the mmt considerable.
The population of the modern city has been variously estimated, some accounts stating it as low as 10,000, others as high as 30,000. It may be safely assumed as about 12,000, of which number nearly half are Moslems, the other half being composed of Jews and Christians in about equal proportions. 1t is govemed by a Turkish pssha, and 15 held by a small garrison. Most of the European nations are there represented by a consul.
A few sites of historical interest remain to be noticed in the environs of Jerusalem: as the valleys which environ the city have been sufiiciently dcscribcd at the commencement of the article, the mountains may here demand a few words.
The Scopus, which derived its name, as Josephus informs us, from the extensive view which it commanded of the surrounding country, is the high ground to the north of the city, beyond the Tombs of the Kings, 7 studio. from the city (B. J. ii. 19. § 4, v. 2. §3), where both Ccstius and Titus first encamped on their approach to the city (11. cc.): this range is now occupied by a village named SMphég—the Semitic equivalent to the Greek a'rrords. On the east of the city is the Mount of Olivm, extending along the whole length of its eastern wall, conspicuous with its three summits, of which the centre is the highest, and is crowned with a pile of buildings occupying the spot where Helena, the mother of Constantine, built a Basilica in commemoration of the Ascension of our Lord. (Eusebius, Vila Constantim', iii. 12, Lauder, § 9.) A little below the southern summit is a remarkable gallery of aepulchral chambers arranged in a semi
circle concentric with a circular funnel-shaped hall 24 feet in diameter, with which it is connected by three passages. They are popularly called “ the Tombs of the Prophets," but no satisfactory account has been given of these extensive excavations. (Plans are given by Schultz, Krati‘t, and Toblcr, in the works referred to below.) Dr. Schultz was inclined to identify this with the rock “pm-Hipwv, mentioned by Josephus in his account of the Wall of Circumvallation (B. J. v. 12), which he supposes to be a translation of the Latin Columbarium. (See Diet. Ant. art. Funus, p. 561, b.)
In the bed of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, immediately beneath the centre summit of Mount Olivct, where the dry bed of the brook Kedron is spanned by a bridge, is the Garden of Gethsemane, with its eight Venerable olive-trees protected by a stone wall; and close by is a subterranean church, in which is shown the reputed tomb of the Virgin, who, however, according to an ancient tradition, countenanced by the Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431), died and was buried in that city. (Labbe, Concilia, tum. iii. col. 573.)
A little to the south of this, still in the bed of the valley, are two remarkable monolithic sepulchral monuments, ascribed to Absalom and Zechariah, exhibiting in their sculptured ornaments a mixture of Doric, ionic, and perhaps Egyptian architecture, which may possibly indicate a change in the original design in conformity with later taste. Connected with these are two series of sepulchrul chambers, one immediately behind the Pillar of Absalom, called by the name of Jrhoshapltal; the other between the monoliths, named the Cave of St. James, which last is a pure specimen of the Doric order. (See .4 General View in Holy City, vol. ii. p. 449, and detailed plans, 8m. in pp. 157, 158, with Professor Willis's description.)
To the south of Mount Olivet is another rocky eminence, to which tradition has assigned the name of the Mount of Offence, as “ the bill before Jerusalem" where king Solomon erected altars for idolatrous worship (1 Kings, xi. 7). In the rocky base of this mount, overhanging the Kedron, is the rockhewn village of Silonm, chiefly composed of sepulchral excavations, much resembling a Colulnbarium, and most probably the rock Peristcriurn of Josephus. Immediately below this village, on the opposite side of the valley, is the intermitting Fountain of the Virgin, at a considerable depth below the bed of the valley, with a descent of many steps hewn in the rock. 1ts supply of water is very scanty, and what is not drawn off here runs through the rocky ridge of ()phel, by an irregular passage, to the Pool of Siloam in the mouth of the Tyropocon. This pool, which is mentioned in the New Testament (St. John, is. 7, &c.), is now filled with earth and cultivated as a garden, a small tank with columns built into its side serves the purpose of a pool, and represents the “quadriporticum” of the Bordeaux Pilgrim (A.D. 333), who also mentions "Alia piscina grandis foras.” This was probably identical with Hezekish's Pool “between the two walls" (1:. xxii. 11), as it certainly is with the “ Pool of Siloah by the king's garden" in Nehemiah (iii. 15, ii. 14; comp. 2 Kings, xxv. 4. The arguments are fully stated in the [1on City, vol. ii. pp. 474—480. M. de Saulcy accepts the identification.) The king’s gardens are still represented in a verdant spot, where the concurrence of the three valleys, Hinnotn, Jehoshaphat, and Tyropoeon