suburbs; and the other into the other city, having many steps down into the valley, and many up again to the pitch or coming up1."

Now if we can determine the situation of the firstmentioned of these four gates it will throw considerable light upon the question under discussion; for that the suburbs lay between the first and fourth gate, is sufficiently evident from Holy Scripture. Nor can any reason be assigned for their being taken by Josephus in any other than the order in which they stood.

In the account of the placing of the porters under the first Temple, we read that "To Shuppim and Hozah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up;" and again, “at Parbar westward four at the causeway, and two at Parbar?" Now this causeway, without all doubt, could be none other than that mentioned among the great works of Solomon, as "the ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord3."

1 Ant. xv. xi. 5. Ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐσπερίοις μέρεσι τοῦ περιβόλου πύλαι τέσο σαρες ἐφέστασαν. ἢ μὲν εἰς τὰ βασίλεια τείνουσα, τῆς ἐν μέσῳ φάραγγος εἰς δίοδον ἀπειλημμένης, αἱ δὲ δύο εἰς τὸ προάστειον, ἣ λοιπὴ δὲ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν. κ.τ.λ. I follow Lightfoot's translation. Is Dr Robinson serious when he charges me with "seeking to change the relative position of these western gates"? Theol. Rev. p. 424.

21 Chron. xxvi. 16, 18.

31 Kings x. 5, and 2 Chron. ix. 4. Again I appeal from Dr Robinson to scholars who wrote before controversy, and had no theory to support, for

the interpretation of the words

nabw, nbi nbpa in the Bible,

and роaσTetov in Josephus. A full investigation of the various passages elucidating the subject will be given in the Appendix. Lightfoot says: "The word 'Shallecheth,' by which name this gate was first called in the time of Solomon, doth signify a casting up.'...... Now this gate is said, in 1 Chron. xxvi. 16, to have been by the causeway going up,' which going up is that renowned ascent that Solomon made for his own passage up to the temple. And the causeway is that that Josephus meaneth, when

Such a causeway, connecting the N. E. brow of Sion with the Temple Mount, is distinctly to be seen at this day, and is traversed by the Street of the Temple, leading down from the bazaars to the principal gate of the western wall of the Mosk, immediately without which is the Cadi's office, or Mekhemé; and it is a singular fact, that the very street, which Dr Robinson represents as following the bed of the valley of the Tyropoons, is carried along the ridge of an artificial mound; for the mound is clearly artificial, and not accidental, as he imagines. About half-way between the bazaar and the Haram there is a path southward, by a very steep descent to the bed of the valley, down which it leads between prickly pears, to a small gate in the city-wall seldom opened, and so to the Pool of Siloam; while nearer to the Mosk there is an equally steep descent to the North, into a street which follows the same valley up to the Damascus Gate.

By this causeway the aqueduct from the pools of Solomon, after skirting the eastern brow of Sion, crosses the bed of the Tyropoon to the Mosks; while deeper

he saith, a gate led to the king's house from the temple, the valley betwixt being filled up for the passage,' which was a very great work, for the valley

was large and deep." Vol. 1. p. 1055, fol. ed.

* See above, Vol. 1. p. 24. 鏖 See above, pp. 29, 30.

Bib. Res. Vol. 1. p. 393. The existence of a valley running into Mill Valley from the west, just south of the causeway, is purely imaginary. The west extremity of the causeway joins the North-east angle of Sion, which is a rock. Besides, how could the aque

duct cross such a valley here, so as to reach the causeway? But in Bib. Sac. p. 33, note 1, he acknowledges that he "had only imperfect notes of an imperfect observation" of this mound.

7 Towards the latter end of the long summer of 1842 it was opened, and a guard stationed there; but merely for the purpose of facilitating the introduction of water to the city from the Bîr Eyûb. When the rains came it was again built up. It is marked in many plans as the Dung-gate.

How then can Dr Robinson call it a low mound? and say that it "runs

still is a large sewer which traverses the whole of Sion, and discharges itself into an immense chamber beneath the bed of the valley, near the covered arcade which conducts to the baths'. The upper part of this sewer was discovered near the Castle of David by Mr Johns, architect of the Jews' Society, in digging for the foundations of their Church 2. It was 40 feet below the surface of the ground, (rubbish intervening,) partly cut through the rock and partly built, broken in in several places. In its course it is joined by several branches, and from the bazaars it is still used as a sewer. It is mentioned by Mejr-ed-dîn as a gallery solidly vaulted, which he ascribes to David, and which gave its name to the street above. An exaggerated tradition of the passage as "a large street" is still current among the Moslem inhabitants, and parts of it are still occasionally uncovered.

The Palace of Solomon may have occupied the same site on the north-east angle of Mount Sion, where stood

to the gate of the Haram merely from the base of Sion as it there exists, and never had a connexion with the brow or summit of that hill." Theol. Rev. p. 611, 612. From Mr Wolcott's account of the aqueduct, it is clear that it passes under the foundations of the houses built on the N.W. brow of Sion, and there reaches the causeway. Bib. Sac. pp. 32, 33, and notes.

1 I am indebted for these interesting discoveries to the worthy consulgeneral of Prussia, Herr Von Wildenbruch, who, during his visit to Jerusalem in 1842, was attended by a very intelligent kawass of the Pasha, who communicated to him the fact about

the aqueduct, and shewed him its course down the causeway: I afterwards engaged the services of the same man to conduct me about the city, and give me further information on these points. A full account of the aqueduct from the pools will be given when I come to speak of the waters.

2 See his account in Bartlett's Walks, p. 87, &c. He takes it for an aqueduct; and Dr Robinson is angry with me for calling it a sewer. Th. Rev. p. 637, n. 1. I can only say that I inspected it when it was open, and that inspection and its present use convince me that I am right, as I hope to prove when I return to it below.

the palace erected by the Asmoneans, and afterwards occupied by Agrippa; and the causeway conducted from this palace to that gate of the Temple known by the name of "Shallecheth," "the gate of the casting up, or embankment"."

And now having fixed this gate, as Dr Robinson himself also does, opposite to Sion, we must look for the other three North of this, two leading "to the suburb," and one "into the other city." Dr Robinson's first gloss on this remarkable passage, is this: "two conducting to the suburb (or new city), on the North, and the remaining one leading to the other city. By this 'other city' can be meant only the Lower City, or Acra." Now, not to insist upon the facts that the historian places the two gates leading into the suburbs next to that by the causeway, and that he never in a single passage calls Bezetha the suburb, but always "the new city," and that it had no existence when the Temple was built; it is obvious to remark, that as Bezetha lay upon the North side of the Temple, it could by no possibility be approached from its western gates, which are here in mention: and it was so far from being

3 Joseph. Ant. xx. viii. 11.

"So, saith Kimchi (Michol in ), it is rendered by the Chaldee Paraphrast in the sense of " Lightfoot, Vol. 1. p. 1055. He further says, that in the time of Herod's temple it was called the Gate of Coponius, probably from Coponius, general of the horse and ruler of Judea under Cyrenius governor of Syria, who arrived about the time of the finishing of Herod's temple.

5 Bib. Res. Vol. 1. p. 412. Theol.

Rev. 424. He suggests that this passage was by the bridge, the remains of which he fancied he had discovered: but the language of Josephus implies an embankment, such as that of Solomon clearly was.

6 Bib. Res. Vol. 1. p. 412. Bib. Res. 11. p. 69.

7 J. W. Lib. v. 4. 2. It was properly a suburb before Agrippa enclosed it, although I am not aware that it is ever so called by the historian.

united to the Temple, or having gates leading into it from the Temple, that it was separated from it, as is universally allowed, at least by a deep trench'. Besides; the Tower of Antonia, which lay at the north-west angle of the temple-court, and certainly gave its name to Acra, was without doubt comprehended in the Lower City. Now if "by this other city," in this passage of Josephus, can be meant only the Lower City or Acra, as Dr Robinson himself grants, is it not plain that the northernmost of these western gates must have led into that city, as the order of the historian would lead us to conclude?

Neither does the latest interpretation of this passage proposed by Dr Robinson appear more satisfactory than the first. According to this, the two suburban gates "led probably by a street along or near the valley to the ancient gate now known as that of Damascus ; and so conducted to the suburb beyond, or also to Bezetha on the right," while "the fourth was South of these, and led down into the same valley, and so up the ascent to 'the other city,' which can only mean the Lower City or Acra 2." The objections to this, are that, 1st, the order of Josephus is reversed, who mentions the suburban gates between the other two; 2dly, that in this case none of the western gates led into the suburbs, but only into a street leading to the suburbs; as 3dly, the fourth gate (and indeed all the temple-gates) would

1 Dr Robinson, (B. Res. 1. p. 432), says that Antonia, (which he places between Bezetha and the temple,) was "separated from the hill Bezetha on the north by a deep artificial trench, lest it should be approachable from that hill." Yet here he makes it to be

approached by two gates from the western side of the temple. So again, p. 433, he joins Bezetha to Moriah, and separates Acra from it, contrary to Josephus.

2 Theol. Rev. p. 424.