western side of the area, not only from the present appearance of the rock, which extends, I believe, much farther on the North than on the West side of the angle, but also from the language of Josephus, who generally speaks of its situation as at the North', although in some passages he is more definite". I imagine then that the Antonia extended about as far East as the present Seraîyah, about 400 feet further West than the western boundary of the Haram, and covered a hill which rises in this quarter, and is probably part of the same rock; while northward it crossed the present Via Dolorosa, embracing the "Arch of the Ecce Homo," and the Church of the Flagellation," and, perhaps, reached even so far as the "Palace of Herod";" and it Ant. xv. xi. 4: Karà Tηy Boρεῖον πλευράν. J. W. I. xxi. 1: τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ τὸ βορεῖον ἐπ' αὐτῷ φρούριον. The Reviewer in the Neues Repertorium, vi. i. p. 2, who adopts my argument as conclusive against Dr Robinson's theory, thinks me wrong in placing any part of the fortress on the North wall of the Temple. He places the S.E. turret of Antonia at the N.W. angle of the Temple, and represents Josephus as saying that the communication with the cloisters was at this S.E. turret. I do not so read that passage. * Κατὰ γωνίαν μὲν δύο στοῶν ἔκειτο τὸ τοῦ πρώτου ἱεροῦ, τὸ τε πρὸς ἑσπέραν, καὶ τὸ πρὸς ἄρκτον. J. W. v. v. 8. If at the house of S. Veronica, on the Via Dolorosa, coming from the West, you take a small street which continues nearly in the same line towards the area of the Mosk, you rise by a very steep ascent to the hill men tioned in the text. 7 I have before said (sup. pp. 50, 51), that I take the filling up of the Valley between Moriah and Acra to be part of the same work with the demolition of the fortress and the reduction of the hill which it occupied. The Valley was filled up, I imagine, about the Via Dolorosa, and thus the Hill of the Temple was united to the Hill to the Northwest, which now came to be called from the fortress, "Acra." Hence arose the confusion between Acra the fortress, and Acra the hill; which has so much embarrassed the subject. For example, Dr Schultz and Herr Krafft perplex themselves with looking for traces of a Valley filled up between the Temple and the fortress (Acra), which they both identify with the later Baris. But the filling up was between the Hill of the Temple (which the Acra also occupied), and the Hill which came to be called Acra only after the union. It is an interesting fact that, without any thought whatever of these traditionary sites in laying out my plan, having regard simply and solely to the language of the Jewish historian, I was compelled to include them. With regard to the fosse, I fear that it cannot now be discovered; but when I come to speak of the waters of Jerusalem, we shall find that part of it existed until within a short period. I shall have done with Antonia when I have merely noticed one remark of Josephus, which is to me wholly unintelligible on every hypothesis, but which doubtless has some satisfactory meaning. In speaking of the prodigies which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, he mentions that the "Jews, by demolishing the tower Antonia, had made their Temple four-square; while they had it written in their sacred oracles, that then should their city be taken, as well as their holy House, when once their Temple should become four-square1." To what oracle or to what act of the Jews this most perplexing observation relates, I am entirely at a loss to imagine; for we read nothing of their demolishing the tower of Antonia during the siege, nor can I comprehend how this could have made the Temple four-square. One remark suggests itself, which may serve as a solution, unless some future writer should be more successful in finding a satisfactory explanation of this mysterious passage. This portent is introduced by the historian after the is curious that the native rock still exists where they imagine the Valley to have been. It is noticed by Catherwood, between the N. W. angle and the platform; and by Mejr ed-din, on the description of the burning of the cloisters connected with the Antonia; which however did not completely break off the fortress from the Temple; the Jews still continued for some longer time the work of burning and demolition, until this was effected. From this it would appear to have been a work of difficulty to disconnect the two, as it would if part of the fortress was built into the temple-square at the angle where they were joined. The stairs descending into the cloisters must necessarily have been projected into the enclosure, and possibly guard-rooms and other chambers for the troops. If this were so, the destruction of that portion of the fortress would have the effect described by Josephus of making the area a complete square, which had been before interrupted by this projection; and this is the only possible method I can imagine for the elucidation of his language, which does appear in general most remarkably accurate. And this will, I think, be further seen, if before taking leave of the subject which has been discussed in this Chapter, we consider another expression which has sometimes been much misunderstood. After his account of the western gates of the temple-enclosure, with which the reader will be by this time familiar, he remarks "that the city lay over against the Temple in the man 2 Dr Robinson does not notice the explanation, but only the naïveté of the foregoing admission (Theol. Rev. p. 625, n. 1). His theory is that the "Temple and Antonia together formed a parallelogram which by the destruction of the latter was reduced to a square." A very odd notion, which certainly requires proof as much as mine. Herr Krafft acquiesces with me, except that he makes the fortress occupy a much larger part of the angle than I can allow it. The cutting of the rock he ascribes to a later period, of which history is silent. pp. 76–78. ner of a theatre!." Now if we suppose that he spoke of the general appearance of the city and Temple as they existed in his time rather than in Herod's, no comparison could possibly be more happy, as a glance at the plan will shew. Let the form of an ancient theatre be remembered, let the Temple-area be regarded as the scene the city surrounding it on three sides as the tiers of seats for spectators, sloping down from all quarters (except the South) in the direction of the Temple; Bezetha on the North-Acra on the Northwest-then the eastern declivity of the Tyropœon to the West-separating between Acra and the Upper City or Sion on the South-west, and the space filled up by the ridge of Ophel to the South. The exactness of the language in this as in other passages is to me perfectly astonishing; and I do think that this author, to whom the Christian Church is perhaps more largely indebted than to any unbelieving historian, has not been appreciated as he deserves; I am convinced that, in almost every case where he has been charged with mis-statement, our ignorance rather than his knowledge is in fault. With fair allowance for Oriental hyperbole in his descriptive accounts (of works of art rather than of nature,) he is, as far as my experience goes, a most invaluable guide. Before concluding this chapter, I would remark on an objection which some devout minds may possibly feel to a theory which would go to prove that any part of the ancient Temple can still be identified. Such an hypothesis may be thought to militate against the pre 1 Αντικρὺ γὰρ ἡ πόλις ἔκειτο τοῦ ἱεροῦ θεατροειδής οὖσα. Ant. xv. xi. 5. dictions of our Blessed Lord, which have been already referred to, and therefore the objection deserves, as do all objections prompted by reverence, the most tender consideration; and I would hope that the following beautiful passage from Eusebius on this very subject, will serve to allay any undue apprehensions, and to set the matter in its true light. Having discoursed on the words "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate," on which he remarks that "it is right that we should wonder at the fulfilment of this prediction, since at no time did this place undergo such an entire desolation" as shortly followed this denunciation; and that "to those who visit these places the sight itself affords the most complete fulfilment of the predictions;" he thus proceeds to notice another prophecy of our Lord: "Walking by the side of the Temple, and His disciples pointing out to Him the greatness and beauty of the same, He answered and said, Behold, see ye not all these things? I say unto you, stone shall not be left here upon stone which shall not be thrown down3.' The Scriptures do moreover shew that the whole building and the extreme ornamenting of the Temple were indeed thus worthy of being considered miraculous; and for proof of this there are preserved to this time some remaining vestiges of these its ancient decorations. But of these ancient things the greatest miracle of all is the Divine Word, declaring the foreknowledge of our Saviour which fully announced to those who were wondering at the buildings the judgment that 'there should not be left,' 2 Luke xiii. 35. 3 Matth. xxiv. 2. |