« السابقةمتابعة »
when the tower was rebuilt, and the citadel assumed its present form; at which time also the trench would be continued round the rampart, so detaching the third tower, Mariamne, whose base, with the continuation of the cliff, might probably be recovered to the East of the Tower of David, under the accumulation of soil,— the débris of former desolations.
This removal of the Hippie Tower to the N.W. angle of the citadel from the N.E., where it was fixed by Dr Robinson, will not materially affect the questions at issue between us, as we should agree in drawing the North wall of Sion from this last Tower Eastward to the Haram, along a line South of the Street of David, and almost parallel to it". The next question is, Where, in this line, was the Gate Gennath ?
II. Dr Robinson, assuming the Street of David to follow the bed of the ancient Tyropoeon, and the Christian quarter to occupy the hill Acra, consistently places the Gate Gennath near the Hippic Tower”. “It must have been to the East of Hippicus,” as he justly remarks, “for the third wall began at that tower";” and I agree with him in thinking that “it was probably not included within the second wall, in order to allow a direct passage between the Upper City and the country.” But I cannot appreciate the only argument adduced in proof
that it could not be far distant from Hippicus, to wit, “because that part of Sion was then high and steep.” Indeed, it seems to me to disprove the very point which it is adduced to prove; for how a city-gate could have an exit where the wall was carried along a rocky eminence thirty cubits high, I cannot comprehend ; and such we have just heard from Josephus was the case with this North wall of Sion, on which stood those three imposing towers of Hippicus, Phasačlus, and Mariamne. Connected with these within was the royal castle or palace of the first Herod, which was enclosed by the said wall on the North ; so that the Gate of Gennath must have been East, not of the Hippie Tower only, but of both the others, and of the whole space on the North wall of Sion, occupied within by the palace of Herod, which was very extensive, comprehending not only “two immense chambers, so large and splendid that the temple itself could not be compared with them',” “large bed-chambers, each of which would contain beds for one hundred guests,” and a vast number of other apartments, but “many porticoes one beyond another, round about; and green courts, and groves of trees and long walks through them, with fountains supplied by deep canals and cisterns”;” and abundant space for the encampment of soldiers". The absurdity of supposing an exit for a city-gate through such a royal palace, and down a precipice of thirty cubits, is obvious, and need not be insisted on. Again. After the taking of the outer and second wall, which gave possession of the New and Lower City,
! Ibid. 1. xxi. 1. * Ibid. v. iv. 4. * Ibid. 11. xv. 5, and xvii. 7, 8.
Titus made his advances towards the fortress Antonia in one quarter, and towards the Upper City in another. We have only now to do with the latter. A bank was raised against the Northern wall of Sion by the tenth legion, “at the pool called Amygdalon, as was done by the fifteenth legion about thirty cubits from it, at the high priest's monument".” Now the former of these two banks must have been somewhere East of the three towers, which “the Romans could not assail with their machines and towers” on account of their great strength, aided as it was by the steep cliff", which would probably continue some distance eastward, and present an obstacle to the erection of the engines; while the latter was also West of the second wall; for not only would the existence of a sepulchral monument within the old city be unaccountable, whereas it would be quite natural within that which had been lately enclosed ; but while the crowded buildings of the old city would have obstructed the operations of the soldiers, had the bank been raised within that wall, there would be no such impediment in this part, where the new city was thinly inhabited, and the outer wall once taken, “afforded an easy passage to the third or inner wall, through which Titus had hoped to take the Upper City.”
And this statement is very remarkable, as proving the fallacy of the oft-repeated assertion of “the existence of populous suburbs in this part, which must already have existed before the time of our Lord';” for this part is expressly excepted by Josephus, directly here, as elsewhere incidentally: here directly, in that he states that the first or outer wall was lower in this quarter, owing to the scanty population—(for the enemy's missiles from without would fall harmless in a space void of buildings); incidentally, in the passage where he relates how Cestius encamped his army within the outer wall, opposite to the royal palace”. From both which remarks it is moreover clear that there was a considerable space between the outer and second wall. But if the Gate Gennath was near the Hippic Tower, this could not well be the case; since the second and the outer walls, (running Northward from these points respectively,) must have continued almost parallel for some considerable distance, within a few yards one of another”. The divergence must have been very gradual, if the second wall passed West of the Pool of the Bath, “across the higher and more level part of the broad ridge or swell of land between the Jaffa and Damascus Gates,” which rises somewhat higher than the N.W. part of the modern city"; and the outer wall “perhaps a little within the line of the present wall, along the brow of the upper part of the Valley of Hinnom *.” And if such had been the disposition of the walls, I cannot imagine that Josephus would have mentioned it as a peculiarity of the second wall, that it was not joined to the inner wall at this part, for it evidently was ; nor that Titus would have chosen for his first assault this particular part of the outer wall, where he would be within easy reach of the missiles discharged from the second wall also ; and, the breach effected, would have to march his soldiers through it, in face of a fire from the same rampart". But to this it is answered, that on the building of the wall of Agrippa, the second wall had been allowed to fall to decay in this part?: and the proof is, that when Titus had taken the outer wall, the Jews forthwith commenced repairing the second. But then it is very strange that Titus not only did not at once avail himself of this breach to take the second rampart, but that he allowed the Jews to proceed with their building undisturbed. It would have been much more to his purpose to prevent the erection of this new work, than to de
* Ibid. v. xi. 4. " J. W. v. iv. 1, v 1. viii. 4, and ix. 1.
* Bib. Res. 1. 412; but Dr Robin- 7 Josephus says: raú7m Yap ré Te son confounds these two banks, which trparov jv čovua x0aua Nairepov, xat were destroyed by the Jews, (J. W. v. rô desirepov ou avvmtratev, dueMnardvxi. 6), with those raised by four legions tww kat' & Ali Atav i kauni tróAts against the west wall, much later in avvorua to reuxseuv. dAA' &ti Tô rptthe siege. Ibid. vi. viii. 2. Theol. row riv eitréteva, K. r. A. J. W. v. Rev. p. 447. vi. 2.
B. R. 11.69. B. S. p. 195, note 4. * This I conceive Dr R. would adThe populous part of the New City was mit, to judge at least by his descripon the north, not on the west, as is else- | tions; for he has never yet aided the where admitted by Dr Robinson. B. S. description with a plan of the ancient p. 193. See Josephus, J. W. v. iv. 2. city-walls.
* J. W. 11. xix. 5. comp. Vol. 1. * See B. R. 1. 462, 351,391. p. 166. * Theol. Rev. p. 447.
* Dr Robinson, ibid., supposes the place of Titus's first attack 200 or 300
qpdagrew. Conf. AEsch. Sept. Cont.
feet south of the present N.W. corner
rarapart.” I may adopt the words of
argument, if valid, would not be con-
Having found “strong
is astonished to find directly opposite, on p. 447, that this portion of the second line of fortification “was in a state of neglect or dilapidation,” but, “Diruit, aedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis” . See Bell. Jud. v. vii. 3, and Vol. 1. p. 179.