صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

beyond belief that he should, neither in his account of the first wall, nor in any mention of the bridge, relate the wonderful fact of the wall being carried across it for 360 feet, or down such a precipice, such had been really the case. The same remark will apply, with almost equal force, to the aqueduct. For why should it be brought so far North, and a mound be erected expressly for it, when it might have reached its destination by the arched bridge to the South 2

The old wall must have crossed the Tyropoeon, even according to Dr Robinson's idea of the direction of the latter". What can be more likely than that it was carried along the Causeway? But how then could the passage be cut off? Is it not conceivable that, with a view to the fortification of the Temple, the Jews might contrive to cut a deep trench in the embankment, passable in peaceful times by what would answer the purpose of a drawbridge in modern warfare, or at least by some contrivance short of Cyclopean architecture, and that the wall was carried by a single arch over this chasm 2 This would reconcile all the passages in which the bridge is mentioned, and satisfy the strictest sense of the word in our language; but I consider it much more likely that there was no arched bridge at all, but that the communication was “cut off,” or “interrupted,” for the occasion, by a detachment of Jewish engineers".

* “It ran eastward along the north- || Dr Robinson. And I should have

ern brow of Sion, and so across the
talley to the western side of the Tem-
ple area.” Bib. Res. 1. p. 459.
* "Exxo‘! av, atrokólavores, divare-
roautuévns ll. cc. I am sorry that this
explanation appears “very lame” to

been glad to have had a more satisfac-
tory solution of the difficulty which his
theory involves: but I find none at-
tempted. Theol. Rev. p. 612, note 4.
How could the North wall of Sion
reach the Temple *

I apprehend then that none but such as have prejudged the question, will hesitate to admit that the claims of the Causeway to be regarded as the Bridge, are superior to those of the Arch: and it is a satisfaction to find, that the argument as above stated approved itself to archaeologists before the discovery of another fact, which must determine the point beyond all doubt, at least as regards the ruined arch; for it now appears that this fragment is not in the same line with the remainder of the West wall of the Haram, but that there are two distinct breaks in the continuity of that line towards its southern part, one immediately South of the Causeway, the other South of the Jews' Wailing Place; so that this last-named fragment is 90 feet, and the ruined arch 250 feet East of the Gate of the Chain".

As this discovery will seem to jeopardy the authenticity of the Jews' tradition relating to the Wall, which I should be sorry to disturb, I will endeavour, for their sakes, to bring the Wailing Place within the boundary of the Temple. And though it is quite possible, (considering how long they were prohibited access to the City,) that they may be mistaken in ascribing to these stones, in their present position, such high antiquity, yet I think it not improbable that they do water with their tears the stones that formed the south-west angle of their fathers' temple.

It does not clearly appear indeed when this wall became an object of veneration to the mourners of Sion,

1 This will shew the value of Dr of the valley, at the arch and at the Robinson's remark quoted in p. 392, Causeway. And see above, pp. 322, 3, n. 1, on the relative distance between for the authority for this part of the the brow of Sion and the opposite side wall.

or what is their precise notion as to its place in the ancient temple *: they apparently regard the Gate of the Chain as an ancient gate of the Temple, identical with the Gate of Cephemus", which, according to Lightfoot, was the later name of the Gate Shallecheth *; and it is curious that a Jewish writer of the 13th century has remarked in the foundation of this Western Wall a kind of large Porch at the base of the Temple", probably the head of the identical subterranean gateway near the Gate of the Moghrebins, which we noticed from Ali Bey, in the interior survey of the Haram ". It would be presumptuous to attempt to determine anything with reference to this Gate without more light than can be obtained from the scanty and obscure notices of such an inaccurate writer as Ali Bey: and it is clear that the Gate must closely affect the question of the neighbouring wall. I would only suggest, in general, whether this ancient wall may not be the western termination of the Royal Porch of Herod, erected probably without the bounds of the ancient Temple, and so forming in the South an extension of its old limits, as Josephus describes: for the rapid convergence of the Tyropoeon and the Valley of Jehoshaphat, would be a sufficient reason for not extending the cloister the full width of the ancient area. Thus will a satisfactory account be given of both the angles that break the continuity of the Western Wall; for that nearest the Causeway will mark the limit of the old area before its extension by Herod the Great; and the angle South of the Wailing Place will determine the line of the South Wall of the Royal Cloister; while all South of this will belong to the Church and Hospitals of Justinian, built in great measure on an artificial foundation, supported on arches, as described by Procopius; the continued convergence of the two valleys having so narrowed the intervening hill as to render such an expedient necessary in order to procure a requisite space for the given dimensions of the buildings. Here, then, it will be well briefly to recapitulate the various points which I have thus far attempted to establish; for it is time to bring this long disquisition to a close. The correspondence between the great drain of the Jewish altar and the present sacred Cave of the Moslems, having fixed with a great degree of certainty the position of the brazen altar, and by consequence of the holy House and the sacred precinct, the agreement that was found between the proportions and measures of that Inner Temple and the present raised platform of the Haram, was a strong argument for their

* Benjamin of Tudela (A.D. 1160) speaks of the “Western Wall” “in front of the Templum Domini,” as one of the walls which formed the Holy of Holies of the ancient Temple. It is called the Gate of Mercy, and all Jews resort thither to say their prayers near the wall of the Court-yard. Asher, Vol. 1. pp. 36 and 70. If he spoke of the present Wailing Place he was strangely out in his reckoning. He probably does not intend to say that there was any gate here: for the Jews of the present day regard the wall itself, or the spaces between the stones, as the gate through which all prayers ascend to heaven. So again, Ishak Khelo, (A.D.1334) in the Chemins de Jérusalem, (Carmoly, p. 237,) calls the wall the Gate of Mercy. In the Ykhus-Haaboth (A.D. 1564), by Uri ben-Biel

(Ibid. p. 439. Hottinger's Cippi Heb.
p. 41) it is simply the Western Wall.
* So Esthori Parchi (cited by Dr
Zunz, in Asher, Vol. 11. p. 397,) A. D.
1322, writes, “We further recognise
the Gate of Chulda South, and the
Gate of Kephinus Westwards.”
* See Lightfoot's Prospect of the
Temple, Chap. v. sect. i. Vol. Ix.
p. 226.
* Samuel Bar Simson (A. D. 1210).
He speaks of the Gate of the Chain as
the Gate Shacambo, without which is
the road that leads to the fountain
Etham, the bath of the priests: and
afternoticing the great porch (Portique),
he remarks that it was by a subterranean
passage that the priests went to Etham,
where was formerly a bath. Carmoly,
p. 127. All this is very obscure.
* See above, p. 308.

general identity. Next arose the perplexing question concerning the extent of the outer area; in examining which I shewed reason to believe that the North boundary of the Temple is the same with that of the present Haram, arguing chiefly from the scarped rock in the N.W. corner, the angle of massive masonry at the N.E. corner, the deep fosse on the North, and the ancient gateway in the Eastern Wall. I then accounted for the remains at the South of the Haram, independently of the Temple, shewing that the S.E. angular tower must have belonged to the first wall of the city, and that the coincidence between the description given by Procopius of the erections of Justinian and the existing buildings and substructions in this quarter, must lead us to assign these great works to that Emperor's mechanical architect, Theodore; and in further confirmation of this view, I adduced the architecture of the Mosk el-Aksa, and an inscription of Antoninus Pius, on an inverted stone, in the original wall of the subterranean gateway. The ruined arch at the S. W. angle then invited more particular notice, and I endeavoured to prove that it could not have belonged to the bridge mentioned by Josephus, which bridge I have identified with the causeway which still exists, and is traversed by the Street of the Temple. Thus then I have reduced the area of the Temple to the proportions of a square, as the consistent statement of the Jewish authorities demanded, and have brought the southern portico of the outer Court near to the inner platform, as the language of Josephus requires; but I do not and I cannot reduce the outer Court to the dimensions specified by the same authorities, nor does any other hypothesis do so, always Vol. II. 26

« السابقةمتابعة »