Localities in Jerusalem that are certain. Valley of Kedron. Mount
Moriah. Valley of the Cheesemongers. Mount Zion, its ancient limits.
Present remains of its northern boundary. Line of the “Old wall.”
Acra. Gate of the Gardens. Limits of the city at the time of the
crucifixion. Bezetha and the wall of Agrippa. Monument of John.
Whither our judgment, unassisted by tradition, leads us as regards
the place of the crucifixion. Rocky Knoll. Not called _Mount_ Calvary
in the Scriptures. Tradition. Conclusion to which all this leads us.
Circumstances and scene of the crucifixion. The question with regard
to the spot of Our Saviour’s burial.
There are a few places in and about Jerusalem, in respect to which
there can be no possible mistake. These are, the Mount of Olives; the
Valley of Kedron, sometimes called the valley of Jehoshaphat; the brook
Kedron; the Valley of Hinnom; Mount Moriah; Mount Zion; and the hill
called Bezetha. The Mount of Olives speaks at once for itself, and has
never been doubted by any one: it descends by a rapid slope down to
the brook Kedron, in summer a dry water-course about nine feet wide,
and in the wet season an irregular torrent: with regard to this brook,
also, no one has ever had any doubt. This valley of Kedron formed the
eastern boundary of the ancient,[18] as it does now also of the modern
city. Immediately after crossing the brook Kedron towards the west,
the ground at present commences ascending so rapidly, as to require a
zigzag path: at the height of about eighty feet we come to the wall,
and to the general level of the present city. This slope is made up of
debris, or loose stuff, composed of earth mixed with pottery, fragments
of bricks, &c.; and it seems probable that the ancient wall of Bezetha,
standing on the line of the present rampart, had without it a much more
precipitous descent.
Mount Moriah is at present a piece of level ground, of the same
elevation as those portions of the city immediately adjoining it on the
north and west, and is not in any way to be distinguished from them.
It is occupied by an open court, about 1500 feet long and 1000 feet in
width, surrounded by a wall and planted with trees. In the centre is
a large oblong platform, paved, I believe, with marble, and reached
by two or three steps running all around; on this platform stands the
mosque of Omar, which is said by the Turks to occupy the exact site of
the Temple of Solomon, and is considered by them to be next in sanctity
to the venerated Caaba, or holy house at Mecca. So sacred is this place
in their eyes, that no Christian is allowed to place his foot within
even the large enclosure. There is thus no mountain at present here,
and if any one should question whether this was the situation of Mount
Moriah, I answer that it is the only place where we can look for it.
Mount Moriah was on the eastern side of the city, and adjoining the
valley of Kedron;[19] the valley of the Cheesemongers, which still
remains, formed its boundary on the south;[20] and as the court of the
temple, occupying the whole enlarged mountain, was 729 feet[21] on
each side, we thus get both the northern and the western boundaries,
and thus have the exact position and limits of Mount Moriah. It is
probable that the Turks are quite correct in saying that their mosque
occupies the site of the ancient temple, except that the latter was at
a much greater elevation; Mount Moriah having, by artificial means,
been raised to a height of about 700 feet. This mountain was at first a
rocky precipice, irregular both in shape and surface; it was inclosed
by Solomon with a square wall of the dimensions just described,
beginning at the bottom of the valleys that bounded it on three sides,
and rising on the east and south to the stupendous elevation of 729[22]
feet; on the west, from the nature of the ground below, its elevation
was nearly 200 feet less; the interval within this was filled with
earth, or formed into extensive suites of vaults; and the surface
being brought nearly to a level, formed an area for the temple and its
various courts.[23] At the north-western[24] angle of the temple was
a tower or castle, commenced by the kings of the Asmonean race, but
enlarged and strengthened by Herod, who gave it the name of Antonia, in
honor of Mark Antony, his friend and patron. It was built on a lofty
precipice 1450 feet in circuit, and consisted of a heavy castle in the
centre, with a tower at each angle, that on the south-east being of
sufficient height to overlook the courts of the temple.[25]
The opening or outlet of the valley of Tyropœon, or the Cheesemongers,
still remains, and is very distinct. The ground begins to decline into
it as soon as we leave the court of the mosque of Omar, advancing
southward; and at the distance of about 400 feet we come to its lowest
part, and the spot where it is lost in the valley of Kedron. This
opening is opposite a mountain, called now the Mount of Offence, but
styled by Josephus “that other hill,” and described by him as just
south of the Mount of Olives. A short distance up this valley we come
to an oblong pool sunk partly in the ground, and walled on three sides,
the fourth being broken down; it is called the Pool of Siloam, and very
probably occupies the site of the ancient pool of that name noticed in
the Scriptures. A few hundred feet above this pool the valley enters
the modern city, and I believe cannot be traced any further. There can
be no doubt that it is the ancient Tyropœon, and we thus get a portion
of the northern boundary of Mount _Zion_.[26]
Mount Zion had on the east the valley of Kedron, and on the south and
west the valley of Hinnom,[27] or Gehenna, and these boundaries are now
just as described by Josephus, except that the sides of the valleys
towards the city are now rendered sloping by the vast quantities
of debris or loose stuff from the ancient city, instead of being
perpendicular as they were in ancient times. That of Hinnom, on its
southern and western sides, still presents that appearance, a bold
perpendicular precipice, which it would be impossible to scale. This
valley is described by Strabo (lib. xvi.) as having a depth of 60 feet
and a width of 250, which are pretty nearly its present dimensions. The
wall of the ancient city was built on the edge of the precipice, and,
according to Tacitus, was, in the parts thus guarded by nature, 60 feet
in height; on the northern side of Jerusalem, where the ground offered
fewer advantages, it had the prodigious elevation of 120 feet.[28] It
was built in a crooked or zigzag line, “so that they might flank the
besiegers and cast darts on them sideways.”[29]
We have thus far had what sailors call plain sailing, for no one can
easily be at a loss as regards the eastern, southern, and a portion of
the western boundaries of the ancient Jerusalem. The northern limits
offer a subject of greater difficulty, and it is one also of greater
importance, for on this depends the question whether the spot pointed
out as Mount Calvary be really the place of the crucifixion or not. The
objectors, including almost all Protestant visitors, say it is not and
cannot be, since this spot was evidently within the ancient city; and
both from the Scriptures, and from the well-known custom of the Jews
on such occasions, we know that this event occurred without the walls.
This subject we will now examine.
The valley of Cheesemongers, commencing, as we have seen, just south
of the temple, took a course to the north-westward, and formed the
boundary of Mount Zion on the north, separating this hill from another
on the eastward, called Acra,[30] probably from the Greek word _αχρος_,
_high_. Acra was originally a flat[31] on the summit, except at one
part, where it rose to a peak of sufficient height to overlook the
temple. On this Antiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 168.) erected a citadel,
strengthened with high walls and towers, which proved such serious
annoyance to the citizens, that, under the rule of Simon Maccabeus,
(B. C. 143.) not only was the citadel demolished, but, to prevent its
being rebuilt, the hill or peak itself was cut down to the level of the
adjoining ground. In this way the whole of Acra got to be comparatively
low ground,[32] and, to facilitate intercourse between the Temple and
the “Upper City,” or Mount Zion, a bridge[33] was carried from a gate
near the S. W. corner of the Temple quite across to the neighborhood of
the palace of David.
Of the valley of the Cheesemongers after it enters the modern city,
there are at present no traces, it having doubtless been filled up
at the time when Jerusalem was levelled with the ground by order of
Titus; but as Mount Zion was much higher than Acra, we may expect to
find some remains of the steep ascent by which they passed from this
valley up to Zion, or, as it was called by them, “The Upper City.” And
of this there are considerable remains. Mr. Nicholayson’s house stands
about three hundred feet a little east of south from the Jaffa gate,
which is designated on this map by the figure 1, at the place where
the roads from Bethlehem and Jaffa meet. Sixty feet eastward from his
house is a slope, about twenty-five feet high, and so steep as to
make it difficult even for donkeys to ascend. Standing on its edge, we
are still able to overlook a large part of the city to the east of it.
This slope continues thence to the south-eastward, keeping parallel to
some extensive ruins now to be seen there, the remains of a hospital
belonging to the time of the Crusades; the slope being separated from
them by a narrow bazaar. This slope is undoubtedly the north-eastern
edge of Mount Zion, and I have so expressed it in the map which we are
endeavoring to form. I have not been able to trace it further than to
the end of this bazaar; but as it passes in the direction of Siloam,
or the opening of the valley of Cheesemongers, I have marked it in the
map as continuing down to that place, as I have no doubt that it does.
This gives us the northern boundary of Mount Zion exactly as described
by Josephus, who says that “this city laid over against the temple in
the manner of a theatre.”[34] At the place where this slope approaches
the nearest to the valley of Hinnom, or near Mr. Nicholayson’s, I have
placed the tower of Hippicus, which stood at the northern angle of the
city of Zion.[35]
The “old wall,” as it is called by Josephus, first erected by David and
Solomon, and strengthened by succeeding kings, commences at the tower
of Hippicus, and had its course on the west and south, directly along
the edge of the valley of Hinnom. On reaching the valley of Kedron, it
bent to the northward, and curving again to the east just below the
pool of Siloam, joined the temple wall nearly at its south-eastern
angle. On the northern side, starting again at the tower of Hippicus,
it kept along the edge of the bank above the valley of Cheesemongers,
until curving opposite the Xistus, it here crossed the valley, and
passing by the Xistus and the council-house, joined soon after the
western wall of the temple, probably at the south-western angle.[36]
He does not tell us what is meant by “the Xistus,” but it is probably
from the Greek word _Χιστος_, “a division” or “separation;” and I
suppose refers to the branching of the valley of the Cheesemongers,
one part keeping along by Mount Zion, and the other just on the west
of Mount Moriah; the latter branch, as I have already said, was filled
up by the Maccabees. Just south of the temple, on the ground sloping
down to the pool of Siloam, was a small section of the city called
Ophlas.[37]
It is probable that a wall separated also Mount Zion from Ophlas; for
we find, that when Titus had possession of Acra and the Temple, he had
still to bring his engines against the northern wall of Zion;[38]
which would not have been necessary if he could have passed at once
through Ophlas into that city.
Mount Zion was called by David “The Citadel;” it afterwards frequently
went by the name of “The Upper City,” in contradistinction to Acra, the
latter being frequently styled “The Lower City.”[39]
Acra, we are informed by Josephus, was “in the shape of a moon when
she is horned;”[40] and though he gives no intimation to that effect,
I suppose the horns must have been to the northward, for I do not
see how it is possible that they could have been otherwise. On the
west they certainly could not have been, nor on the south, nor on the
east; and there remains only the position which I have given them. The
northern wall of Acra, sometimes called “the second wall,” commenced
at the gate Gennath, (i. e. “gate of the gardens,”) and then making
a curve,[41] terminated at the castle of Antonia.[42] I have placed
the gate Gennath about five hundred feet from the tower Hippicus, and
have carried the wall, in the first place at right angles across the
valley of the Cheesemongers, and then placing a tower at the angle,
have there commenced the course over towards Antonia. My reasons for
this arrangement are as follows. When Titus had set down with his
army before Jerusalem, and came to select a spot for his assaults, he
determined to commence at the tomb of John the High Priest, because
the outer wall (marked here by the zigzag lines) was weakest at that
place; and here, too, he could pass at once to the “old” or “third
wall,” without the necessity of first taking the second;[43] which
expectation “of an easy passage to the third wall” would not have been
reasonable, had the gate Gennath and the branching of the northern wall
of Acra been nearer to the tower of Hippicus than I have placed them.
And when the Romans had taken this outer wall, and the Jews were driven
to their next line of defences, they immediately commenced a line of
fortification, which seems to have been from the second wall to the
tower of Hippicus; for which reason, as well as because it is a more
rational way of carrying a wall across a valley, I have made this angle
in the outer wall of Acra.
_These walls, namely, those of Mount Zion and Acra, are all that were
standing in the time of our Saviour._ The outer wall, marked here by
the zigzag lines, was erected by Agrippa, not till eight years or more
after the crucifixion; a circumstance that seems to have escaped the
attention of those who maintain that the spot now marked as Calvary was
then within the city. At the time of our Saviour, a very large suburb
extended northward from the temple and the tower of Antonia, occupying
a hill called Bezetha, but _it was not yet walled in_. Speaking of this
outer wall, Josephus says, “It was Agrippa (Agrippa ruled over Judea
from A. D. 41 to 43.) who encompassed the parts added to the old city
with this wall, which had been all naked before; for as the city grew
more populous, it gradually crept beyond its old limits; and those
parts of it that stood northward of the temple, and joined that hill
to the city, made it considerably larger, and occasioned that hill,
which is in number the fourth, and is called Bezetha, to be inhabited.
It lies over against the tower Antonia, but is divided from it by a
deep valley, which was dug on purpose.... This new built part of the
city was called _Bezetha_, in our language, which, if interpreted in
the Grecian language, may be called _The New City_. Since, therefore,
its inhabitants stood in need of a covering, the father of the present
king, and of the same name with him, Agrippa, began that wall we spoke
of; but he left off building it when he had only laid the foundations,
out of the fear he was in of Claudius Cæsar, lest he should suspect
that so strong a wall was built in order to make some innovation in
public affairs; for the city could no way have been taken if that wall
had been finished in the manner it had been begun; as its parts were
connected together by stones twenty cubits (thirty-six feet) long and
ten cubits broad, which could never have been either easily undermined
by any iron tools, or shaken by any engines. The wall was, however, ten
cubits wide, and it would probably have had a height greater than that,
had not his zeal who began it been hindered from exerting itself. After
this it was erected with great diligence by the Jews as high as twenty
cubits, above which it had battlements of two cubits, and turrets of
three cubits altitude; insomuch that the entire altitude extended as
far as twenty-five cubits.”[44] De Bel. lib. v. cap. 4. § 2.
The slope which I have noticed as near Mr. Nicholayson’s house, and
as showing, southward from that, the outline of Mount Zion, does not
however terminate at the site of the tower Hippicus. It there bends
to the eastward, and again, near the present Latin convent, turns to
the northward, but is at that place reduced to an elevation of only
five or six feet. For a reason to be seen in Josephus, de Bel. lib. v.
c. 7. § 3, as well as on account of the ground, I have made Agrippa’s
wall, which started from the tower Hippicus,[45] keep along the upper
edge of this slope, and have placed the tomb of John at the angle; the
reasons for which may be found also in the above reference. Thence the
course of this wall is uncertain; we only know that it proceeded far
to the northward, and enclosed the suburb of Bezetha; but, though the
course which I have drawn corresponds, as far as I can judge, with the
data given us in Josephus, those data are too few to furnish us with
any thing positive. I think, however, the outline cannot be far from
the truth.
But, as I have just remarked, this wall was not existing at the time
of our Saviour’s crucifixion. If I am correct in the conclusions which
have just been laid before the reader, the castellated walls on the
map, together with the temple, were the only portions then enclosed.
This would make a small city; but the extensive suburbs around would
make up for the deficiency of room. Vienna is an example in our own
times, similar to this, where “the city” or fortified portion is of
very limited extent compared with the vast stretch of suburb attached
to it; these castellated parts of this map have, indeed, just about the
extent of the _Burg_, or city proper of Vienna.
The suburb of Bezetha at that time, though stretching a considerable
distance to the north, seems not to have extended much to the west of
Antonia, for, in addition to the intimation to that effect in Jos. de
Bel. lib. v. cap. 4. § 2, we are informed that the wall of Agrippa,
when erected afterwards, was left weaker at its south-western extremity
than in the other portions, “the builders neglecting to build the wall
strong where the new city was not inhabited.”[46] The dense portions of
this appendage to Jerusalem were on the higher ground lying directly
northward from the temple, the ground over towards the spot which I
have marked as Calvary having a few scattered dwellings, and those of
the meanest order. The ground west of this suburb was probably taken up
with great roads, and such thoroughfares as are usually to be seen in
the neighborhood of a populous city.
And now, if we had no tradition whatever as regards the spot of our
Saviour’s suffering, and were left simply to the guidance of our own
judgment, I think I should look for it somewhere in this angle between
Hippicus and Bezetha. Public places are usually selected for such
occurrences, and in this instance the enemies of the sufferer would be
apt to seek for every circumstance that would add to his humiliation.
We are told by the Scriptures (John xix. 20.) that the place was
_near_ the city; and as it is not probable that they would select a
spot on the other side of the valley of Hinnom or of Kedron, and the
hill Bezetha was covered with houses, we have left only this angle
immediately north of Acra; and in Matthew xxvii. 39, we are informed
that “they that _passed by_ reviled him,” which seems to intimate that
the cross was adjoining some public roads or thoroughfares.
Our search then is restricted to a narrow compass; and now, if upon
this ground we should find a rocky knoll about twenty feet or more in
height, it would appear to us that this would be, in all probability,
the spot selected for such an occasion. It would elevate the sufferers
to a height sufficient to expose them to the eyes of all the multitude,
and would in all respects be adapted to a spectacle like this. Just
such a rock is existing at this day, and _is the one built into the
present church of the Crucifixion_. The place is in Scripture no where
called _Mount_ Calvary; but simply Calvary, or “Golgotha, that is, a
place of a skull,” and we have no reason given us there to look for
a larger eminence. Indeed this seems just such an one as would be
selected for such a purpose, and corresponds, both in elevation and
extent, to its ignominious title.
In these remarks it will be observed, I have been guided entirely by
the judgment, and have endeavored to see whither it would lead us,
without any reference to traditions on this subject. As we have seen,
it conducts us exactly to the spot that tradition _has always pointed
out as the place of the crucifixion_. This tradition I will now proceed
also to notice.
It is not probable that the early Christians would soon forget a
spot of such tender and deep interest to them; for, as I observed
at the beginning of this chapter, the subject is also one of some
practical character. It was rather to be feared that they would attach
to it a reverence that would degenerate into superstition, than that
they would entirely forget it. If at our day the idea of the bare
possibility of visiting Mount Calvary sends a thrill through the whole
system, with what feelings must they have regarded the place when the
memory of this event was fresh among the Christians, and when they
were able to converse with those who had themselves witnessed the
ignominious death of their Lord and Saviour. It does not appear to me
at all probable that such a place would be forgotten; and we have a
proof of the respect in which it was held, in the fact that Hadrian
erected on the sepulchre a statue to Jupiter, and one to Venus on
Mount Calvary. This could have been done only to mock their feelings
and distress them, by desecrating places held by them in high regard.
The fact that he placed these statues on these spots, at all events
shows that they were at this time (about one hundred years after the
events themselves) considered as the places of the crucifixion and the
sepulture of Christ. Helena, the mother of Constantine, two hundred
years subsequently to this, erected on the spot a Christian church,
which, with some changes not affecting the locality, has continued ever
since. There is, therefore, a chain of evidence with regard to these
localities of a very satisfactory kind; and as the judgment finds no
difficulty in the case, but, independently of tradition, is led to the
same conclusion, my own convictions are clearly and decidedly in their
favor.
Let us then examine into the circumstances of this affecting event. The
place of the crucifixion was about six hundred feet from the city wall,
to which the ground from this place had a gentle descent; on the east
were the low and straggling outskirts of the large suburb of Bezetha;
on the west, the ground, at the distance of a few hundred feet, sloped
upward rapidly for a short space, and then stretched off in a long
ascending plain; on the northward it also ascends gently for the
distance of more than a mile. The rock of Golgotha or Calvary is now
about sixteen feet in height, though as the ground around it has been
elevated by the ruins of the old city, it was probably at that time a
few feet higher. It was of sufficient altitude to bring the sufferer
into distinct view before all the crowds that probably at this time
covered the walls and houses and the upward slopes of the hills, and to
make him visible to those “afar off.”[47] A few gardens were near; but
most of the space around this rocky knoll was open, and traversed by
the dusty thoroughfares to the populous city.
It was now the Passover, and more than two millions of people had come
up to Jerusalem;[48] the city, the suburbs, were crowded, the country
around was covered with the dense multitude; and the ceaseless hum
of men, even in their calmer moments, was like the deep hollow roar
of the ocean.--And now the multitudes are agitated, and the stormy
passions are at work amid the countless throng.--He who had excited the
wonder of the Jewish nation, and the rage of the priests and of the
stately Pharisees, had been brought forward before the judgment-seat
of the high-priest and the governor of Judea, and had been condemned
for blasphemy.--He, for blasphemy! The good, the benevolent, the
Godlike! who had given sight to the blind, and had caused the lame
to walk, and had healed the sick, and had brought the dead to life;
who had led their thoughts to heaven, and taught them pure and holy
doctrines; and had been among them in his miracles with the power
of the Divinity himself. He, for blasphemy? Yes, he had publicly,
before their council, declared himself to be the Christ, the Son of
God, and that they should see him sitting on the right hand of power,
and coming from heaven in majesty; and he had foretold that of their
glorious temple, the object almost of their idolatry, not one stone
should be left upon another; and had been accused of saying that he
himself would destroy it. The passions of the dense multitudes rise;
and rumor, with her exaggerations, excites them to phrensy.--And now
comes forth the sufferer, bearing his cross; his back lacerated with
thongs, his brow dropping blood from the crown placed on it in mockery.
Though sinking under fatigue and pain, he meets no commiseration but
is driven on with tauntings and scorn; and they come to the place of
public execution, and the victim is nailed to the cross, and between
two malefactors is raised up to be a spectacle to man; and wherever he
turns his agonized eyes he sees only rage and scorn; and his ears hear
only bitter tauntings;--“he saved others; himself he cannot save.” “If
he be the king of Israel let him come down now from the cross, and we
will believe him.” “He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he
will have him; for he said, I am the Son of God.”
There is a punishment somewhat similar to this of crucifixion, that
until lately was practised in Algiers and in various parts of Turkey.
The criminal was thrown from the top of a wall and caught by large
hooks projecting from its side, and there left to perish. His torments
were frightful. A fever seized on the body, and excruciating pains
coursed through the whole system; the eyes became bloodshot and
glaring, and starting from their sockets; the sufferer was burnt up
by a scorching thirst, and begged piteously for drink, and after many
hours died in frightful agonies.
Death upon the cross was probably similar to this, for the nails were
driven through the hands and feet, where are congregated an unusual
number of delicate nerves; and by them the whole weight of the body was
suspended. The agonies were probably even greater than those I have
been describing.
Such was the price of our redemption. “He hath borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows; he was bruised for our iniquities; the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are
healed.”
The question with regard to the place of our Saviour’s burial is in a
measure dependent on that into which we have just been examining, and
will therefore not require more than a few minutes’ attention. St. John
(xix. 41, 42.) tells us that “_in the place_ where he was crucified,
there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein never
man was yet laid. There laid they Jesus, therefore, because of the
Jews’ preparation day, for the sepulchre was _nigh at hand_.” We are
therefore to look for this spot close in the neighborhood of Calvary;
and I think that the merriment in which Protestant visitors sometimes
have indulged on finding the spot pointed out for the sepulchre, so
near that of the crucifixion, to be quite out of place. It certainly
is in bad taste; for whatever these places may be, they bear sad and
solemn names, and have been regarded by Christians from time immemorial
as really the places of our Saviour’s bloody death and burial, and
glorious resurrection. However, then, we may be disposed to regard
their genuineness, we should approach them with solemn feelings; and
levity or sarcasm in such a place becomes us very ill.
For myself, I believe that as regards the place of our Saviour’s
crucifixion, there is no just ground for disbelief, nor can I see
much as regards also that pointed out as the place for burial. It is
about 110 feet from the rocky knoll, and is not at all too near to
have a garden wall intervene, and make this a proper place for Joseph
of Arimathea to hew out a sepulchre. _Gennath_, the name of the gate
opening from the Upper City to this place, means gardens,[49] and it is
probable that much of this space was originally occupied with gardens.
We find also that it was a place of tombs; for the monument of the
high-priest John was near this, as were also probably “the monuments
of king Alexander.”[50] The circumstances of the case are, therefore,
in favor of this spot; the Scriptures in some measure give it their
sanction, and tradition from the earliest years has been uniform on the
subject. Hadrian over it erected the statue of Jupiter, and here also
Helena built a church; and among the rival sects of the Greek and Latin
church, which soon after sprung up, and which have been endeavoring to
appropriate, each to itself, as much as possible of the holy places, no
one has ever attempted to designate another spot.
I confess I take pleasure in believing that the spot pointed out to
us as that of our Saviour’s sepulture, is the true one; and that, to
the scene of his deep humiliation and his agony for us is in close
proximity the scene of his triumph over hell and the grave; and though
it can be no argument, I confess there seems to me to be a fitness of
things where we are allowed to stand where stood the cross of Christ,
and look down on the empty tomb, and say through him, “O death, where
is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin;
and the strength of sin is the law; but thanks be to God which giveth
us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
FOOTNOTES:
[18] Josephus, Bell. Jud. lib. v. cap. 4. §5. Also, Antiq. lib. xiv.
cap. 4. §1.
[19] Josephus, passim.
[20] Jos. Antiq. lib. xv. cap. xi. § 5.
[21] Do. § 3.
[22] These dimensions seem incredible; but this is a subject that will
be noticed by and by.
[23] Jos. Antiq. lib. viii. cap. 3. § 9. lib. xv. cap. xi. § 3.
[24] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. 5. § 8.
[25] Antiq. lib. xv. cap. xi. § 4.
[26] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. iv. § 1.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Tacitus Hist. Lib. v. cap. xi.
[29] Ib.
[30] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. iv. § 1.
[31] Josephus informs us, that the Jews under Simon, “all set
themselves to work and levelled this mountain; and in that work spent
both day and night, without any intermission, which cost them three
whole years before it was removed and brought to an entire level with
the plain of the rest of the city; after which the temple was the
highest of all the buildings. Now the citadel, as well as the mountain
on which it stood, was demolished.” Antiq. lib. xiii. cap. vi. § 7.
By the words, “to an entire level with the plain of the rest of the
city,” he cannot mean to a level with the plain of Zion; for in another
place (de Bel. lib. v. cap. iv. § 1.) he says that the upper city, or
Zion, was much higher than this; we must understand him to say, that
the peak was reduced to the general level of the rest of Acra.
[32] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. iv. § 1.
[33] Ibid. lib. vi. cap. vi. § 2, and cap. viii. § 2.
[34] “For the city lay over against the Temple in the manner of a
theatre, and was encompassed with a deep valley along the entire south
quarter.” Antiq. lib. xv. cap. xi. § 5.
[35] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. iv. § 2.
[36] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. iv. § 2.
[37] Ibid. Also cap. vi. § 1.
[38] Ibid. lib. vi. cap. viii. § 1.
[39] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. iv. § 1. et passim.
[40] Ibid.
[41] _Κυκλουμενον_ is the word used by Josephus; Whiston has translated
it “encompassed;” L’Estrange, I think, translates it “passes along;” it
means simply making a curve, either inward or outward, and so I have
used it.
[42] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. iv. § 2.
[43] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. vi. § 2.
[44] In Antiq. lib. xix. cap. vii. § 2. is a short passage that
seems to be opposed to this. It is probable that his predecessors
contemplated such a wall, and made a commencement in one or two places;
both Pompey (B. C. 63) and Herod (B. C. 37), when they came to attack
Jerusalem, found this place quite naked, and made their assaults at
once on the temple and the second wall at Acra. Tacitus, Hist. lib. v.
cap. xii. has a passage bearing on this subject. “Moreover the covetous
temper that prevailed under Claudius gave the Jews an opportunity of
purchasing for money, leave to fortify Jerusalem; so they built walls
in time of peace as if they were going to war, they being augmented in
number by those rude multitudes of people that retired thither on the
ruin of the other cities.” Claudius reigned from A. D. 41 to 54.
[45] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. iv. § 2.
[46] Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. 6. § 2.
[47] See Luke xxiii. 49.
[48] Jos. de Bel. lib. vi. cap. 9. § 3.
[49] גנת Esther i. 5, &c.
[50] Jos. de Bel. lib. 5. cap. 7. § 3.