[13] 2 Chron. xxi. 16, 17.
[14] 2 Chron. xxv. 23, 24.
[15] 2 Kings xix. 35.
[16] 2 Chron. x.x.xiii. 14.
[17] 2 Kings xxv. 9, 10.
[18] Note I.
[19] See the Chronology in Appendix.
[20] Plates II., IV.
[21] Note II.
[22] Note III.
[23] Note IV.
[24] Plate V.
[25] Plate VI.
[26] Note V.
[27] Plate VII.
[28] Images of animals are not forbidden to Mohammedans; see for example the Court of Lions in the Alhambra.
[29] Plate XVIII.
[30] Plate XX.
[31] Plate V.
[32] Plate I.
[33] Note VI.
[34] Psalm xlviii. 2.
[35] The Great Synagogue and the Polish are the only two worth mention.
CHAPTER II.
ANCIENT TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM--IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOUNTAINS, HILLS AND VALLEYS--JERUSALEM IN THE TIME OF THE JEBUSITES, DAVID, SOLOMON, JOTHAM, HEZEKIAH, MANa.s.sEH, NEHEMIAH, HEROD--THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS EXAMINED--THE SIEGE BY t.i.tUS--FORMER EXTENT OF THE CITY--JERUSALEM IN THE TIME OF HADRIAN, THE CRUSADERS AND SOLYMAN.
Having thus described the existing city, let us pa.s.s on to consider the ancient, and endeavour to recognise in its mountains and hills, its valleys and other landmarks, points corresponding to the allusions of the Bible and the writings of Josephus. We will suppose the reader to be standing with us on the summit of the Mount of Olives, and will point out the chief features of the view before him[36]. At the first glance we see that the city is built upon two nearly parallel ranges of hills, separated by a central valley. These we proceed to examine in detail.
The summit of the western part forms a kind of plateau, extending from the north-west to the south, whose highest points are at the southern extremity, at the Armenian convent, at the castle of David, and at the north-west corner; but on closer examination we see that the plateau, which commences at the castle and terminates at the south, forms a hill sloping sensibly on the west, east, south, and slightly on the north as far as the street of David, where there is nothing to be seen which would induce us to suppose that a valley had once existed there. I believe that the fortress of the Jebusites, and afterwards that of Sion, used to stand on the upper part of this hill, and that the city of David[37] extended over the whole of its irregular quadrilateral area.
This opinion is confirmed by Josephus, who says[38] it was defended by precipices on every side, except the north, which, being the weakest, was guarded by a triple wall. This hill then has on the west the valley of Gihon[39], on the south the valley of Hinnom[40], on the east the continuation of the central valley, while on the north it is open to attack, and consequently in former time was fortified there more strongly than on the other sides, which were inaccessible. Sion is then the spot on which the _upper city_ of Josephus was situated.
A street, rising from the Gate of S. Mary and running in a westerly direction to meet the central valley, distinctly divides the eastern range. North of this division is the highest ground; on the south there is the great plateau of the _Haram-es-Sherif_. Outside the west wall of the _Haram_ a gentle slope leads towards the central valley, which is covered by houses. The testimony of Josephus[41] is consequently verified, that "the city was built on two hills, which are opposite one to another, and have a valley to divide them asunder; at which valley the corresponding rows of houses on both hills end."
Having thus pointed out the western hill, Sion, and the valley indicated by Josephus, which we call the central valley, let us examine that part of the eastern range, which is to the south of the dividing street, in order to identify Moriah and Acra. Josephus[42] states that "the other hill which was called Acra, and sustains the lower city, slopes[43] on all sides; over against this there was a third hill, but naturally lower than Acra, and parted formerly from the other by a broad valley.
However, in those times when the Asamoneans reigned, they filled up that valley with earth, and had a mind to join the city to the Temple. They then took off part of the height of Acra, and reduced it to be of less elevation than it was before, that the Temple might be superior to it."
Hence it appears why we no longer see the broad valley and the two separate hills, but an area in which the site of the ancient Temple overtops the rest. We consider Moriah to be the third hill, and Acra the part lying between the west side of Moriah and the central valley.
The identification of Moriah does not admit of any doubt. The name and its probable equivalent Jehovah-jireh, are found in the story of Abraham"s sacrifice[44]; there Solomon[45] built the Temple, whose precious remains still indicate its position: of these we will speak at length in a future chapter. The name Moriah is not used by Josephus, but the place can be identified with certainty from his description. We are told by him[46] that the platform of the temple was defended on the north-west by the tower Antonia, which was itself protected by a ditch.
An examination of the Pool of Bethesda and the excavations, which I made by the foundations of the barracks of the _Haram_, have convinced me of the historian"s accuracy. In his description of the Temple[47] it is stated that the hill-side to the east of it was precipitous, and that Solomon was obliged to build a wall to support the made ground. The ancient wall and the valley of Kidron still exist, in confirmation of this statement. It is also implied that the south side was precipitous, which is proved by the remains of buildings still to be seen and the actual declivity of Ophel. That there was once a large valley on the west side, is proved by the following fact: on the west of the area of the _Haram-es-Sherif_ the rock runs up to the inside of the boundary wall, but on the outside it disappears, and is replaced by made ground of very great depth. I have inspected several excavations in the neighbourhood, and examined the tanks which are just outside the _Haram_, usually not less than 50 or 56 feet deep, the shaft (pa.s.sing through the earth) being generally from 30 to 36 feet, and built with masonry. Hence I infer that a valley once existed on this spot, and that the made ground was obtained by the demolition of Acra; by this means Moriah was thrown open to every part of the city, which surrounded it like a theatre[48], and so was made "superior to Acra." But on examining the tanks nearer to the Tyropoeon valley, I found the shafts not more than 12 feet deep: here then was Acra in former times. These few feet of made ground were probably formed by the destruction of the city by t.i.tus. Acra was said to "slope on all sides," because it had on the east the "broad valley," on the south the descent to the central valley, on the west the central valley itself, and on the north the valley, which, starting from the central valley, went in an easterly direction to that of Kidron. How this last has been filled up I will presently explain. In the time of Josephus these hills were already united, and so, speaking generally, the city appeared to be "built on two hills opposite to one another."
In the northern part of the eastern range we find _Bezetha_, or the "New city" of Josephus, which was entirely surrounded by valleys or ditches[49] artificially made. This position is elevated and opposite to the north[50] side of the _Haram_, and must therefore be identical with _Bezetha_, which had the central valley on the west, ditches on the north and east, and on the south the valley dividing it from the Tower of Antonia: all which characteristics may still be recognised on the spot.
There is yet another hill in Jerusalem, called _Gareb_. The only instance we have of the use of the name in former times is in Jer. x.x.xi.
39. Josephus does not mention it, either considering it as part of Mount Sion, with which it was continuous, or, more probably, comprehending it in the "New city." It bears the name _Gareb_ among the Arabs at the present day. When I speak of the walls of the city, the Temple, and the tower Antonia, I will bring forward other arguments to confirm my a.s.sertions about the hills; for the present I reserve them, and pa.s.s on to the valleys.
The central valley has already been mentioned several times. It agrees in every respect with the Tyropoeon of Josephus[51], which "distinguished the hill of the upper city from that of the lower, (and) extended as far as Siloam." Many who have written on the topography of ancient Jerusalem, especially Dr Robinson, a.s.sert that the Tyropoeon valley ran eastwards from the Jaffa Gate till it joined the central valley, at the point where the latter bends to the south-east, in its course to the Pool of Siloam. In opposition to this opinion, and in confirmation of my own, I have certain facts to bring forward. The valley which I consider the Tyropoeon still drains the whole city; all along it runs a sewer receiving those from the eastern and western divisions. I have had frequent opportunities of ascertaining this, while repairs were being carried on[52]. I found that the central sewer, although 12, 16, and sometimes even 18 feet below the surface, was not based upon rock, but upon made ground. During the repairs I searched for the rock in the upper part of the valley, and found it at a depth of 18 feet, near the Damascus Gate, of 26 feet near the Temple Bazaar, of 22 feet at a few paces to the north of the Dung Gate. These facts shew that there was formerly a valley in this part of Jerusalem. Now we cannot adopt the position a.s.signed to the Tyropoeon by Dr Robinson, for the following reasons: (1) In the north ditch of the Castle of David we find the rock, which extends thence in a north-west direction. I came upon it in 1860, when a building (now used as a custom-house) was erected by the Greek convent outside the wall adjoining the Jaffa Gate. (2) The rock, found under the new buildings belonging to the Latin Patriarch a little to the north of the castle, under the English church and under a new building to the north of it, plainly shews that the head of the valley could not be at this spot. On the south side of the Christian Bazaar is the Greek Convent of S. John, and a few paces to the south of this the Prussian hospital. While this was being built in 1858, I examined its foundations, and ascertained the shelving stratum on which they rest to be a continuation of the rock beneath the convent. Where then could the valley be? (3) A similar state of things is found on descending about 350 feet to the east. (4) From west to east along the course of the supposed valley runs a sewer, 6 feet below the ground, cut in some parts in the rock. This I helped to repair at several points in 1856, and was able to ascertain that there was but very little made ground anywhere near it; I cannot therefore allow that there ever was a valley at this place. Brocardus about A.D. 1283, Adrichomius and Villalpandus near the close of the sixteenth century, a.s.sert that this valley existed, but to prove their statement they ought to have made excavations. They must have seen Jerusalem in a condition very like its present, especially as regards its valleys, which must have been already filled up, either at the time of the destruction by t.i.tus or of the rebuilding by Hadrian; for since these periods the city cannot have undergone any material change. The above authors inferred the existence of a valley from seeing that the south side of the street of David was considerably upraised, while the north was nearly level. Had they searched for the rock, they would have found the higher ground to the south to be nothing but a ma.s.s of rubbish, while the south front of the Convent of S. John, and the rest of the buildings on the same side, rest upon rock a few feet below the surface.
The supposed existence of this valley has led some to think that the ground, now occupied by the Church of the Resurrection, was the hill Acra; but this locality does not correspond with any of the topographical _data_ of Josephus. How could the citadel[53] of Antiochus Epiphanes be built in this position to command the Temple? How could the Macedonian garrison from this place hara.s.s and even kill the Jews who were going to the Temple? Could this be Acra "sloping on all sides"
which was "levelled that the temple might be higher than it[54]"? None of these conditions are satisfied, therefore this theory must be rejected. In the Tyropoeon of Dr Robinson I place the Quarter of _Millo_: my reasons for doing so I will give at the proper place.
A valley has already been mentioned as dividing Moriah from Bezetha; only the eastern extremity of this is now visible, at the Pool of Bethesda, at which place we will examine it. The north and south side walls of the pool are founded upon and rest against the rock, while on the east, as the valley once extended down to Kidron, a solid sloping wall has been built solely to confine the water. There is also a wall on the west, and all the observations that I have made in this direction, as far as the Tyropoeon, have convinced me of the existence of a valley; and on questioning the old masons who in the time of Ibrahim Pasha, A.D. 1836, laid the foundations of the Barrack of the _Haram-es-Sherif_, I was a.s.sured that on the north side they had gone down not less than 26 or 30 feet before they came to the rock. On the south side of the Latin Chapel of the Flagellation, which lies directly north of the Barrack, the Franciscans had to dig 16 or 18 feet for the same purpose. In laying the foundations of the Austrian Hospice above the eastern verge of the Tyropoeon, A.D. 1856, I clearly ascertained the existence of the valley on the south side, and have done the same on the property of the Armenian Catholics, called "the first fall of Christ." Hence I conclude that there was a valley in this part of the city, which divided Bezetha from Moriah and the north-west corner of Acra.
A small valley, commencing on the north near Herod"s Gate, runs into the city, and terminates at the Pool of Bethesda, thus dividing Bezetha into two parts. Inside the city it can hardly be distinguished, owing to the quant.i.ty of rubbish by which it has been filled up. Its existence however is proved by the water-courses that descend from the east slope of the western part of Bezetha.
Let us now proceed to examine the exterior of the city. Ophel or Ophlas is to the south of the _Haram-es-Sherif_. Its position corresponds exactly with the statement of Josephus[55], that it adjoins the Temple on the south. Its form is that of a triangle with the base resting against the south side of the _Haram_ and the vertex directed towards the Pool of Siloam. It is bounded on the east by the sloping sides of the valley of Kidron, on the west by those of the Tyropoeon valley.
Its defences were carefully attended to by different kings of Judah, because its fortifications greatly increased the strength of the Temple, which otherwise would have been exposed to an attack from the south. The position is a sufficient argument for its ident.i.ty.
The positions of Mount Olivet and the Mount of Offence are indisputable.
David[56] went up Mount Olivet, weeping, after crossing the torrent Kidron, and the Mount of Offence[57] is "before Jerusalem." Olivet is frequently mentioned in the New Testament, especially in the Acts of the Apostles, where its distance from the city is fixed by the words "Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath-day"s journey[58]," that is, a little more than 2000 cubits, according to the rabbinical writers; and so we find it to be. We may also cite in confirmation the testimony of Josephus, who says that it "lies over against the city on the east side, and is parted from it by a deep valley interposed between them, which is named Kidron[59]."
Authors differ about the site of Mount Gihon[60], or Guihon, but I place it on the west, because we find that Hezekiah "stopped the upper water-course of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David[61]," and Mana.s.seh "built a wall without the city of David on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the Fish-gate[62]." This gate was probably the same as that of Jaffa, which might very likely bear this name, because through it the produce of the sea would be brought into Jerusalem. If Gihon does not correspond with the hill on the west, outside the city, I cannot understand the two verses cited above; especially since Hezekiah could not have brought water into the city from any other point, without either cutting through the hills with great trouble and expense, or making an aqueduct over a valley.
The Hill of Evil Counsel is probably the same as Tophet[63]. We find from the prophet Jeremiah that it was a place of sepulture, and indeed it was only there that room could be found for the purpose. Even now the Arabs call it the _Mount of the Sepulchres_, from the number of graves there. They call Hinnom the _Valley of the Fire_; in Syriac it is _Gehenna_ (h.e.l.l). This nearly corresponds with the _Valley of Slaughter_, as it is called by Jeremiah[64]. It is not impossible that the fortress of Bethsura[65] stood on this mount, which was distant from the city about five[66] stadia, towards the south. Mount Shafat, or Scopus, is the northern part of the range of Olivet, which runs in a north-west direction; the account of it given by Josephus, the distance from the city of seven stadia, the use made of it in the strategic operations of t.i.tus[67], all correspond exactly with this position.
Having thus gone through the chief points of topographic interest, let us glance at the condition of the city during the different epochs of its existence. First, then, in the time of the Jebusites. On this subject the Bible only tells us, that it was defended on the south by the valley of Hinnom[68], that it was on high ground, and, in the then state of the art of war, nearly impregnable, so that its inhabitants thought it could be defended against the army of David by the blind and the lame[69]. Jerusalem was then divided into two parts, the Fortress and the Lower City[70]. Hence we can understand how it was that the descendants of Benjamin[71] dwelt at Jerusalem with the Jebusites; the former dwelling in the Lower City, the latter in the Fortress. This we find confirmed by the statement of Josephus[72]. It is very probable that the fortress of the Jebusites covered the platform of Sion, which reaches from its southern extremity to the castle still existing on the north, and is bounded on the east by the Tomb of David, the Armenian convent[73], and the English church. This opinion is confirmed by the remains of an old wall, which the Armenians found on building a seminary and rooms for pilgrims, and by the discovery of an ancient pool. Both these appear to be the work of a very early age, and anterior to the introduction of Phoenician art into Jerusalem. The lower city must have occupied the eastern slope of Sion near the western side of the Tyropoeon. Owing to the scanty materials that have come down to us, we cannot add anything more about the city of the Jebusites.
The form and size of the City of David have already been mentioned in the account of Mount Sion. It is stated in the Bible, that David, directly after his conquest, began to strengthen not only the fortress but the whole city, that he dwelt in the fortress[74], that the King of Tyre sent labourers to build his house[75], which was certainly the whole fortress, that "David built round about from Millo and inward[76]," and that "Joab repaired the rest of the city[77]." We are not told that David enlarged the city, but unquestionably he fortified it; possibly however he may have made its form more regular by bringing the houses up to the edge of the declivities of the valleys on the west, south, and east. To test this opinion I examined the part of Mount Sion which is outside the present wall, and found in the Protestant cemetery the vertical hewn rock, and a flight of steps close by cut out of it, which were discovered by the workmen employed by the Mission; at the same time large stones were also dug up in the ground, such as are frequently thrown out by the spades of the husbandmen. On questioning some of them, more particularly the older men, I heard that, for a long time past, large stones had been found in considerable quant.i.ties, and sold by the landowners to the builders in the city, who, in order to remove them more easily, broke them up on the spot. I was able to satisfy myself of the truth of this statement at the place itself[78]. I then asked them about the shape of the stones, and inquired whether those found near the surface corresponded with those found at a greater depth, and was told that the former were usually rusticated, and also almost calcined, while the latter were large irregular blocks in excellent preservation. I satisfied myself of the truth of this by examining the two kinds of stone. I then inquired about the direction in which the greatest number of stones were discovered, but their answers on this point were so vague, that I determined to make some excavations on my own account. With some difficulty permission was obtained from the owners of the land, under the condition that I should use their workmen, give them all that might be found, and make them a present in addition.
As I was only anxious to obtain proof of the position of the wall of David, I willingly agreed to this. The attempt was successful; at certain points on the south and east[79] I found the rock hewn vertical or cut into steps, or else steep and broken; on it fragments of ancient masonry still remained, built of large irregular blocks, fitted together without mortar: in some places other rows of stones, joined with greater skill, were laid upon these, which in turn supported others rudely rusticated in high relief, with the surface rough. I am inclined to think that the lower rows belong to the period of the Jebusites, the next to that of David[80], and the upper to a later date. Near the Pool of Siloam the vertical hewn rock is again plainly seen, and also inside the city, on the west side of the Tyropoeon Valley, and in front of the Mosque _el-Aksa_. I believe therefore that the Wall of David can be traced on the south and east. A careful examination of the western brow of Sion and the configuration of the ground shew that this wall must have followed its present course, and have continued in the same direction as far as the south-west angle. All that I have been able to find at the castle belongs to a much later period, as we shall presently see. North of Sion, on the south side of the Street of David, the ground is covered by houses. I have therefore been unable to examine it, and can only draw inferences; but I am led to think that Millo was on that side for the following reasons.--We have seen that David "built round about from Millo and inward[81];" which must mean that _he began to build from the position of Millo inwards_, i.e. to the south, or round about the city. Now I believe that the quarter of Millo derived its name from the great pool in the neighbourhood, commonly called the Pool of Hezekiah[82]--the original _Millo_ of David. A learned Russian ex-rabbi explained to me that the word _Millo_ generally meant "made ground," but that a large reservoir, which receives water from another, is commonly called _Millo_, while this other is called _Mamillah_, and water-carriers, _Malleah_. We can therefore understand that David began to build from Millo, because, as there is not a valley on that side, it was the weakest part of the city. This explanation, as we shall see, suits all the other pa.s.sages in the Bible in which Millo is mentioned; but it cannot be a place of "made ground," because there is none here.
This is all that is known about the City of David.
The city was undoubtedly enlarged in the reign of Solomon, by the addition of Mount Moriah, on which the Temple was built[83]. David bought the threshingfloor (its site) from Araunah[84], a rich Jebusite, at which time it evidently was outside Jerusalem: but when Solomon built upon it, he joined it to the City of David[85]. Josephus also tells us that Solomon enlarged the city, and built new walls and fortified it with towers[86]. My opinion is that Solomon"s wall began on the north side of David"s, to the east of the Castle, and ran in a northerly direction, till it bent round to the east, so as to include Mount Moriah, which it encompa.s.sed on the east, south, and for a short distance on the west, till it again joined the wall of the City of David, after crossing the Tyropoeon Valley. Thus the fortifications of the Old city were strengthened on the north, while the New was liable to be taken from the north-west and a small part of the north side; but the rest of this, and the other sides, were strongly defended by art or the natural difficulties of the position. In this new part of the city I have found fragments of the age of Solomon in the foundations of houses, in the walls of the Pool of Bethesda, and in the eastern and southern boundary wall of the _Haram_; but will speak of these more particularly in the chapter on the Temple. The remains that I have seen or found inside the city are of the greatest interest, but all belong to a much later period. In the pa.s.sages of the Bible that speak of Solomon, we find frequent mention of _Millo_; for example, "This is the reason of the levy which King Solomon raised, for to build the house of the Lord, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem.... Pharaoh"s daughter came up out of the city of David unto her house which Solomon had built for her: then did he build Millo[87]." And "Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breaches of the city of David his father[88]."
This Millo is not the same as the Millo of David; for I hold with the rabbinical tradition, that Solomon"s house was near the south side of the Temple, to which place he brought Pharaoh"s daughter from the City of David; that this Millo is the immense reservoir still to be seen at the south-east corner of the _Haram-es-Sherif_, and that the materials derived from it were used to fill up the depths of the Tyropoeon Valley, between the New and the Old City. The "House of Millo, which goeth down to Silla[89]," where Joash was murdered, I take to be near the Millo of David, because the _going down to Silla_ must have been a street leading down to Siloam, and therefore corresponding with the street of David. We may observe that this part added to the city is specified at an early period[90].