صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

molish the wall which he had taken. But the truth is, the second wall was not in this state of decay; and the objections to the proximity of the two walls are therefore valid. Indeed, if the words of Josephus are to be allowed any intelligible signification, they must be taken to declare that for which I am contending, viz. that there was a considerable interval between the outer and second rampart, and a large piece of the Sion wall unmasked by the second, within the line first assailed by Titus, between the Hippic and Psephine Towers. “The second wall,” he says, “did not join, but there was a clear passage to the third or inner wall.” It is admitted by Dr Robinson, that “the want of junction spoken of in the second wall seems necessarily to refer to its junction with the first, or old wall on Sion;” for “the phrase cannot, of course, refer to any junction of the second with the outer wall, since the outer wall began at Hippicus, and the second at the gate Gennath, on the East of that tower":” and as the assumption of dilapidation cannot be admitted without, or rather against authority”, I conclude that the reason why “there was in this quarter an easy approach” . . . . to the inner wall of Sion,” is, that this same inner wall was not here covered by the second wall". I come to the last and most remarkable proof of all, that the Gate Gennath was near the Hippie Tower. On the taking of the outer wall, “the party of Simon, we are told, manned the wall from the monument of John quite to the gate by which water was brought into the tower Hippicus".” The position of the monument is not determined; but “the gate must of course have been quite near to Hippicus.” “It follows decisively and conclusively, that there was a gate in the first wall adjacent to Hippicus:” but does it follow that “the second wall had its junction with the first or old wall on Sion at that gate”? and must we necessarily admit the sequence of the “direct corollary, that this gate, by which water was brought into Hippicus, was the gate Gennath "2 Let us consider the circumstances. Simon held the Upper and Lower City"; and would no doubt man so much of the second and first wall as was now exposed to the attack of the Romans. I see no reason why his line of defence may not have extended along the Sion Wall, from the Hippic Tower to the junction of the second wall,—however far to the East; and then along the second wall to the monument in question, whence the party of John would continue the line; for it is certain that, at this stage of the siege, his faction was in possession of the part of the second wall opposite the monuments of King Alexander, whereever they were. Besides, as the Gate Gennath had a distinguishing name, it needed no periphrasis to describe it; and there is no necessary connexion between a watergate and a garden-gate. It happens also that we do know of another anonymous gate, hard by the Hippic Tower; and I could much rather believe the identity of the water-gate with that obscure gate through which the Jews made a sally upon the Romans while

Theol. Rev. p. 446. have expressed himself, had he known

* J. W. 11. xx. Vol. 1. p. 167. of a gap in the second wall.

* The unauthorised insertion of Dr * So Dr Schultz understands and Robinson, “to the Lower City and " | translates the phrase +6 3.e4+spot, ow

shows exactly how Josephus would avvitrev. Jerusalem, p. 68.

J. W. v. vii. 3. Dr Robinson, * J. W. v. vii. 2, 3, and see the acT. R. p. 447–449. count in Vol. 1. p. 179.

attacking the outer wall"; (a gate, therefore, on the South of Hippicus, in the West wall of Sion, conducting probably to the aqueduct or pool in the Valley of Hinnom ;) and that from this point Simon's line of defence was continued along the North wall of Sion to the part over against the monument of John, which I cannot hesitate to assign to a position thirty cubits East of the Almond Pool, identical with the modern Pool of the Bath?.

That Josephus “assumed the tower Hippicus as the starting point in his description of all the city-walls,” is not a correct assertion; for he says expressly that the second wall “had its beginning near the gate Gennath,” the position of which he leaves undetermined; yet the assumption that it was “doubtless near the tower of Hippicus,” so far from being supported by any evidence from this author, is negatived by those incidental passages which have been now adduced ; and had it been near he would probably have said so, as it is quite true that this is “assumed as the starting point of all the walls except the second.”

1 J. W. V. vi. 6.

* This identity is acknowledged by Dr Robinson, T. R. p. 448, and by Dr Schultz, p. 30. It would be a matter of great importance to determine the position of John's monument. The arguments and deductions of Dr Robinson, (T. R. p. 448) appear to me equally unsound. He places it west of the Pool, not more than 200 or 250 feet distant from it. But the tower of David (the Hippicus of Dr Robinson) is somewhat less than 200 feet distant from this same Pool, and the Water-gate, (according to his theory,

identical with the gate Gennath), was between the two : so that the gate must have been very close both to John's monument and the tower. I do not then see what space there was for Simon to build—much less to defend; nor how the gate Gennath could have been east of the Hippic tower, as is admitted. The position assigned to John's monument by Dr Schultz, is free from these objections, but does not entirely fall in with the statement of Josephus, referred to in the text. Dr Schultz would place it near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. p. 68.

III. To proceed now to Acra, and the Lower City. The simplest plan will be to compare the language of Josephus with the topographical notices of Dr Robinson, and see how far they are consistent.

In the language of Josephus, the ancient city “lay upon two hills, over against each other, separated by an intervening valley, at which the houses terminated”.” And his language throughout plainly implies that the city comprehended the whole of the two hills, Acra as well as Sion—that Acra was in fact a distinct hill. But Dr Robinson's Acra is “the continuation, or rather the termination of the broad ridge or swell of land which lies North of the basin at the head of the Valley of Hinnom, and extends down into the city, forming its N.W. part. Indeed the N.W. corner of the city-wall is directly on this ridge; from which spot the wall descends immediately towards the N.E., and also, though less rapidly, towards the S.E. To the whole ridge, both without and within the city, a comparatively modern tradition has given the name of Mount Gihon".” The principal part of this high rocky ridge is without the city, on the right of the Jaffa road, which traverses its Southern edge, so that Dr Robinson's Acra is not a distinct and isolated hill, as Josephus has ever been understood to declare, but the termination or declivity of a swell of land".

* Joseph. J. W. v. vi. 1, quoted by Dr Robinson, B. R. Vol. 1. pp. 4:3, 10.

* B. R. i. p. 391. In a note here he says: “The name of Gihon, as applied to this ridge, seems to be first mentioned by Brocardus about A. D. 1283'' (cap. ix. in p. 391). In p. 351, he had thus spoken of this same ridge :

“The whole interval between this gate
[the Damascus] and Gihon, [called by
him more correctly Hinnom, in the
passage quoted above], is occupied by
a broad hill or swell of land rising
somewhat higher than the N.W. part
of the city itself.”
* “Instead of being isolated, Acra
is merely the South-Eastern end, or
point of the long swell, which forms
the high ground on the North-west of
Jerusalem, and sinks down gradually
towards the Temple as it enters the
city.” Bib. Sac. p. 189, note 1.
* J. W. v. iv. l. “The only topo-
graphical notice of Josephus,” says
Dr Robinson, “as to which I have
doubts,” the language of which “is
not literally exact.” B. R. p. 414.
* Yet in another passage he seems
to bring it lower down ; p. 392, note 1,
and so lays his second wall open to the
same objection that he urges against
mine, in the Th. Rev. p. 450.
* See Dr Robinson's Plan of Je-
rusalem, Vol. 11., and Bib. Res. as

Again, Josephus asserts that the two hills on which the City stood, “were everywhere enclosed from without by deep valleys';” but the wall enclosing Dr Robinson's Acra “ran from near Hippicus northwards, across the higher and more level part of Acra”,” leaving without towards the north-west, not a deep valley, but a broad ridge or swell of land, which is continued to a considerable distance”. Further, Josephus invariably speaks of Sion as higher than Acra*. “Of these two hills that which contains the Upper City is much higher. It was called the citadel by king David; by us, the Upper Market-place. But the other hill, which was called Acra, sustained the Lower City,” and occupied “the lower hill’.” But Dr Robinson's Acra is considerably higher than Sion". The Jaffa Gate, it will be remembered, is at that Tower which was proved to occupy the site of Hippicus, and its situation at the north-west angle of Mount Sion is as high as any on this hill; but “when one enters the Jaffa Gate, and takes the first street leading North”

* Dr Robinson cavils at the word
“invariably,” and says Josephus men-
tions the fact once. I ask, do not the
terms of constant occurrence of divu,
tróAis, or dyopai, and ri kata, tróAus,
K. A. imply the same *
* J. W. v. iv. 1, &c.
* This is now universally admitted.
Dr Robinson, B. R. I. p. 458, says:
that “the highest part of this ridge is
higher than Sion.” Mr Wolcott, Bib.
Sac. p. 30, “the site [of Tancred's
tower in the N.W. angle] is perhaps,
the highest in the city.” Bartlett's
Walks, p. 13, “the highest part of the
city;” and Krafft, p. 6.

« السابقةمتابعة »