« السابقةمتابعة »
ultimately do; and 4thly, if Acra lay wholly West of the Temple, so that its western gates were opposite to Acra, then it would be equally true of all the three gates that they led into “the other;” i.e. “the Lower City.” If then we adopt this, his third hypothesis, never formally withdrawn, (which it is no part of my duty to reconcile with the others,) and assume that the three gates led into the Lower City", then it will be necessary to suppose that the historian here calls some part of that Lower City by the distinct name of “the suburb,” which is the very point which I am maintaining; and it is then clear that the part so distinguished must have been next to Sion, on the North, not only from the order in which the gates are mentioned, but for the foregoing consideration, that the fortress Acra, identical with Antonia", which lay Northward of the Temple, was undoubtedly included in the other city which it designated”. We must then look for “the suburb." West of the Temple, and for the two gates leading to the suburb, in the intermediate space between the fortress Antonia and the causeway. And in this conclusion we are again confirmed by the language of Holy Scripture, with reference to the porters. The gate next Shallecheth is the Parbar gate, i.e. “the gate of an outer place,” or “the gate of the suburb";” and there is an incidental allusion to this same gate in the book of Kings, where the suburbs are again mentioned. It is said of Josiah that “he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the suburbs".” The other gate into the suburb, and that into the Lower City, would appear to have a common name in Scripture, derived from the “house of Asuppim,” or treasure-houses of the temple, which extended between them, and united them; and therefore although that next to Parbar “ did lead also into the suburbs as well as this, as is apparent from Josephus, yet is it not called by the same name Parbar: the reason of this may be given, because it bare a name peculiar and proper, suitable to that singular use to which it was designed, or to that place where it was set, rather than suitable to that place whither it gave passage”.” But the observation, that the street which led to the “other city’ descended by a flight of stairs from the gate of the temple, and then ascended to the other city, may suggest the objection that the valley that separated Acra from the Temple had been filled up". I answer, it was the hill of Acra that had been united to the Mount of the Temple, and not the part of the Lower City opposite to the Northernmost gate on the Western side of the area; for that side was bounded, as it still is, by a deep valley, except at the North-West angle, where I presume that the junction was effected. And when to all this it is added, that in the passage in question Josephus is describing the Temple as it stood in Herod's time, when the New City did not exist, (as certainly it did not in the time of the kings, though the gate Parbar did.) I think it will be clear that the conclusion above arrived at is correct: viz. that the hill Acra was not the ridge immediately West of Moriah"; for that here lay “the suburbs,” sometimes indeed comprehended with Acra under the common appellation of the Lower City, but sometimes distinguished from it by a peculiar name". The real point at issue is, whether the hill Acra were to the West or to the North-West of Moriah ; for, as in the parallel case of Bezetha or the New City, the town about the hill Acra—in short all the space included in its wall—was reckoned to the hill. Now, that the high ground of Acra lay North of the Temple, appears from the language of Josephus, in his account of the New City". “This third wall,” he writes, “Agrippa drew round the superadded city, which was all exposed; for [the city], overflowing with inhabitants, gradually crept beyond its bounds; and the people joining to the city the region which lay to the North of the Temple close to the hill (of Acra), advanced considerably; so that even a fourth eminence was surrounded with habitations, that which is called Bezetha, situated opposite to the Antonia, but separated from it by a deep-dug trench, that the foundations of the Antonia might not, by joining the eminence, be easy of approach and of inferior height.” And this last observation is alone sufficient to prove that the hill to the North-West of the Haram cannot in any case be Bezetha ; because, so far from being separated by a trench from the Temple-Mount, (on which the tower Antonia was situated,) it is actually joined to it; and this junction, while it is decisive against its being Bezetha, is a confirmation of the evidence for its being Acra, which was artificially connected with the Temple, as has been fully shewn. The filling up of this valley, by which the junction was effected, would seem to have been part of the same work as the demolition of the fortress and the lowering of the height of Acra; and it was a work of immense labour, and occupied a long space of time". I think that the traces of it remain to this day plainly visible, in a ridge which slopes down from the traditionary site of the house of Herod to the outer inclosure of the Mosk, and which is crossed by the “Via Dolorosa,” as it approaches the Seraiyā, or House of Pilate*: the
* So Bib. Res. 11. p. 69. and Bib. Sac. p. 188.
* This identity will be proved below, cap. iv. when I speak of Antonia.
* I would suggest whether the division between Acra proper and Millo,
or the suburbs, may not have been
a source of endless confusion with him.
* See above, p. 42, and notes. The words of Josephus are, Batuial troAAaic carte re eis rviv qaipayya óletArauern, kai drö Tatorms diva tra Xuv tri row rpgapaauw. Who can doubt that this is the same q/4pay: mentioned in the earlier part of the same passage, which see at p. 42, note l; i.e. the Tyroporon
* As maintained by Dr Robinson,
Bib. Res. Vol. 1. p. 393. Theol. Rev. p. 417, et seq.
* Jewish War, vi. vi. 3, compared with vii. 2, presents a remarkable example of this: in the former passage Acra is distinguished from dipxelov, the Bouxevriptov, and 'OpX: ; but in the latter, the Lower City is reckoned as far as Siloam.
* Bell. Jud. v. iv. 2.
* Ant. Lib. x111. cap. vi. sect. 7. these operations, I will be more explicit * As Dr Robinson complains (Th. when I come to speak of Antonia. See Rev. p. 420) of this slight allusion to also above, pp. 27, 28.
Arch of the “Ecce Homo” stands directly on this ridge. I presume then that the rock thrown down from Acra is the substratum of this sloping ridge, which is certainly a remarkable feature, and that it is here that “the broad valley which formerly separated between Acra and Moriah was filled up by the Asmoneans, with a view to join the Temple to the city.” Further, the description of this hill, as given by Dr Robinson himself, exactly answers in other respects to the account of the hill Acra given by Josephus; for it is still surrounded on all sides by deep valleys, though they are, of course, greatly filled up with rubbish. “Its Western side, near the gate of Damascus, is very steep; as are also the Northern and Southern sides in this quarter’.” But more of this, when I come to describe this part of the second wall. The last consideration that I shall urge against Dr Robinson's theory, and in favour of my own, is this, that if my hill Acra were the true Bezetha", as he holds, then was Josephus greatly mistaken in his account of the City; for, while great part of Acra was excluded from the second wall, about half Bezetha must have been included in it, as may thus be proved. The second wall, which “encircled the Northern quarter of the City, reached as far as Antonia":” but Antonia was on the North of Moriah", and the second city-wall joined the East wall of the fort; for it was not until he had taken the second wall that Titus could bring his engines against the tower itself". That the second wall
* Bib. Res. 1. p. 392. * Ant. xv. xi. 3. Bell. Jud. 1. iii. • B. R. ibid. This position is de- || 3: v.4, and v. v. 8. fended, Theol. Rev. p. 438. 7 Bell. Jud. v. xi.
* Bell. Jud. v. iv. 2.