for the Temple, rather than any position on the slope. The rock called
the Sakhrah and the Foundation-stone of the World has been sacred
from time immemorial. It seems to be referred to in Isaiah xxviii.
16--“Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone,
a precious corner (stone), of sure foundation.” Ezekiel also, with
Josephus and the Talmud, all agree in placing the temple on the summit
of the mountain (Ezek. xliii. 12).
As remarked by Dr Chaplin,[26] the question whether the “stone of
foundation” was a portion of the solid rock or a movable stone is one
of considerable interest in connection with the topography of the
Temple. If the former, it will be easy to fix with all but absolute
certainty its position, and from it as a starting-point, to lay down
the sites of the temple, altar, and courts with no more uncertainty
than the uncertain value of the cubit renders inevitable. The use
of the word _Eben_ would imply that it was a movable stone, but its
(supposed) history, as given by the Rabbis, quite removes it from the
category of ordinary stones, and represents it as the centre or nucleus
from which the world was founded. The _Toldoth Yesu_ represents it as a
movable stone, and states that King David, when digging the foundation
of the temple, found it “over the mouth of the abyss” with THE
NAME engraved upon it, and that he brought it up and placed it in
the Holy of Holies. “On the whole” (says Dr Chaplin) “it is difficult
to come to any other conclusion than that the stone which the Rabbis
write about was a portion of rock projecting three finger-breadths
upwards from the floor of the Holy of Holies, covering a cavity which
was regarded as the mouth of the abyss, reverenced as the centre and
foundation of the world, and having the ineffable name of God inscribed
upon it.”
The statements made in the Talmud and repeated over and over again
with great accuracy by Rabbinic writers, supply us with the following
precise information: (1) The stone of foundation (in other words, the
solid rock) was the highest point within the Holy of Holies, projecting
slightly above the floor, and from it the rock sloped downwards on
all sides. (2) A “solid and closed foundation,” 6 cubits high, was
made all round the house in order to raise the floor to (within
three finger-breadths of) its summit. On the eastern side this solid
foundation was covered by steps leading down to the court, 22 cubits
below the summit on that side. We must agree with Dr Chaplin that the
summit of the Sakhrah under the great Dome of the Rock is the only spot
in the whole enclosure which answers to these data.
The Holy House, with its courts, was not in the centre of the
enclosure, but had a position north-west of the centre. The altar
court was at a lower level than the Holy House; and lower still, by
successive descents, were the court of Israel, the court of the women,
and the court of the Gentiles. The courts being in terraces one above
another, and the Holy House at the summit, the temple was a far more
conspicuous object than is the Dome of the Rock at the present day.
The Talmud describes the Temple area as 500 cubits square. The prophet
Ezekiel says “it had a wall round about, the length five hundred and
the breadth five hundred, to make a separation between that which
was holy and that which was common” (xlii. 20). Then we are told by
Maimonides, the learned Jewish writer, that “the men who built the
second temple, when they built it in the days of Ezra, they built it
like Solomon’s, and in some things according to the explanation in
Ezekiel.”
Taking then the centre of the Sakhrah as the centre of the Holy of
Holies, and allowing ourselves to be guided by the Talmud measurements,
which are given with great exactitude, we shall not be far wrong if we
draw the boundaries as follows:--On the north, the northern limit of
the present platform, the line of which if continued eastward would
cut the east wall of the Haram a little north of the Golden Gate.
The platform is raised 12 feet above the present general surface of
the Haram enclosure. One day when the rain had loosened a stone near
the north-eastern corner of the platform and revealed the existence
of vaults, Warren went down and took measurements; and it appears
that the northern end of the platform consists of rock which has been
scarped away perpendicularly. On the south the boundary would come to
within a few feet of the entrance of El Aksa mosque, and would fall
short of the south wall of the Haram by 300 feet. On the east and west
the boundaries would fall a little way within the present walls of the
Haram. We may reasonably conclude that the present east and west walls
of the Haram either represent walls of the Temple enclosure, or else
were built a little without them, as retaining walls for gradually
accumulating _debris_.
When the Temple of Solomon was destroyed, with all the buildings that
surrounded it, the _debris_ would be piled up in the courts. Probably
it would never be thought worth while to remove it all from the lower
courts, but rather to cover it over and lay a neat pavement on the
surface. Spaces and corners where the rubbish was less gathered would
be filled in or built up to complete the levelling; and as the rubbish
increased, both within and without the walls, after successive sieges,
the walls themselves were further built up, to keep them of sufficient
height. It never was intended in the first instance, to build walls
up from the foundation and make them 150 feet high. By successive
changes, the result of calamities as much as the fruit of improvement,
the terraced mountain grew to be an elevated plateau, such as the
Haram enclosure is at the present day. Josephus says that when Herod
rebuilt the Temple he extended the area of the courts and made it twice
as large as it was before. With that, however, we need not concern
ourselves while we are seeking to restore the city of Old Testament
times.
_Solomon’s Palace_ we find reasons for placing south of Solomon’s
Temple, on the slope of the terraced mountain, with its south-eastern
angle coinciding with the present south-eastern corner of the Haram.
Those deep-buried stones with the Phœnician masons’ marks upon them
may be the very foundation stones of the palace. The palace was a
great work, and occupied thirteen years in building. It was necessary
to build up at this corner, but as soon as a level was reached that
permitted the work to be carried through from east to west, the
six-feet course was laid as the true base for the more splendid
superstructure. This six-feet course extends for 600 feet westward
from the south-east angle, and gives us the limit in that direction.
Northward we are limited by the courts of the temple to 300 feet. This,
then, is where Sir Charles Warren places Solomon’s palace, and these
are the dimensions he assigns to it. Mr James Fergusson had already
been led, from architectural reasons, to consider it an oblong of 550
feet by 300. The level of the six-feet course is 60 feet below the
summit of the mountain. A patient examination of the wall led Warren
to the conclusion that all below this great course is old work, and
that the walls of the Haram generally correspond to the description of
Josephus, in whose day the great wall of Solomon still existed.
The Temple and the palace being thus located, there is left, beyond
the west end of the palace, a plot of ground, 300 feet square, not
enclosed at the time we are speaking of, although at the present day
it forms the south-western corner of the Sanctuary and has the mosque
El Aksa covering it. But the great depression of the Tyropœon Valley
falls just there, and it would not be raised and enclosed until a late
day. Warren says, in the “Recovery of Jerusalem”: “Our researches show
that the portion of the wall to the west of the Double Gate is of a
different construction to, and more recent than that to the east. This
is a matter of very great importance, and, combined with other results,
appears to show the impossibility of the Temple having existed at the
south-west angle, as restored by Mr Fergusson and others. The only
solution of the question I can see, is by supposing the portion to the
east of the Double Gate to have formed the south wall of Solomon’s
palace, and that to the west to have been added by Herod when he
enlarged the courts of the Temple.”
Before this addition was made the south wall was but 600 feet in
length. The Triple Gate stood in the middle of it, and as we have seen,
it is exactly on the ridge of the hill. The sill is 38 feet below the
present level of the Sanctuary, and from the gate three avenues ascend
gently to the Sanctuary floor. May they not represent “the way by which
Solomon went up to the House of the Lord”?
_The Wall of Ophel_, as already described, has been discovered by
Warren, and abuts against the south-eastern angle of what we are now
prepared to regard as Solomon’s palace.
_The Tower of Antonia._--Josephus tells us that the tower which
Herod built and named in honour of Antony stood on a rock 50 cubits
high, at the north-west corner of the Temple. The rock was separated
from Bezetha by a cutting made on purpose, yet the tower was so near
to Bezetha that it adjoined the New City. At the same time it was
so near to the Temple that the south-eastern turret overlooked the
Temple courts, while passages from the tower led to the west and north
cloisters. This description is precise enough. As Conder says, there is
just such a rock fortress in the north-west part of the Haram. It is a
great scarp, with vertical faces on the south and north, standing up
40 feet above the interior court, and separated from the north-eastern
hill of Jerusalem by a ditch 50 yards broad, in which are now the Twin
Pools--the Bethesda of St. Jerome. This block of rock is “the top of
the hill” spoken of by Josephus, and occupies a length of 100 yards
along the course of the north wall of the Haram. No other such scarp
exists in or near the enclosure of the High Sanctuary. Can we then
hesitate to place Antonia here?
Herod, after all, only repaired and strengthened this tower, for it had
been built by Hyrcanus and passed under the name of Baris before being
renamed Antonia, and even Hyrcanus was not the first at this work (page
265).
[_Authorities and Sources_:--“Quarterly Statements of P. E.
Fund.” “The Recovery of Jerusalem.” Sir C. Warren. “The Works
of Josephus.”]
5. _The Walls and Gates of the City._
“Even stone walls,” says Mr Lewin, “cannot fail to awaken some degree
of interest, when it is remembered that upon the result of the inquiry
depends the question, Where was Calvary? and where the Holy Sepulchre?”
If we desire to understand Old Testament events as well as those of the
Gospels we shall take some interest in the question of the correct line
of the walls. The walls were perambulated by Nehemiah’s two companies
on the Thanksgiving Day; certain of the gates are mentioned by name
in connection with events of the history; and our reading of the
narrative will gain in vividness if we can follow the events like those
acquainted with the ground.
_The First Wall, or Wall of the Upper City._--Josephus says there were
three walls; but as the third or most northerly was not built until
A.D. 43, we will leave it out of account for the present. We
shall endeavour to fix the lines of the walls and the positions of the
gates as they were in Nehemiah’s time, and then we shall have those of
still earlier date, for Nehemiah only repaired walls and gates which
had been thrown down, and did not build afresh.
Beginning at the remarkable neck of land near the present Jaffa Gate a
wall ran eastward along the northern brow of the hill, and in the line
of the Causeway, and ended at the west cloister of the Temple. This
was the north wall of the Upper City. That city had a wall all round
it; and on the west, south, and east the wall simply followed the brow
of the hill. From the Jaffa Gate it ran southward (facing westward)
along the brink of the Valley of Hinnom, by Bethso (the Hebrew term
for Dung place) to the Gate of the Essenes. At the south-west corner
of the hill an escarpment of the rock was noticed by Robinson; was
further traced by Mr Maudslay, who in 1872 found there a tower, reached
by rock-cut steps; and is clearly marked in Conder’s plan. From this
corner the wall faced the south for a while, and then, according to
Josephus, made a bend above Siloam; and this must have been, as Mr
Lewin points out, a bend up the Tyropœon Valley, along the edge of the
High Town (to the Causeway), and then back again along the edge of the
Low Town on Ophel (until it joined the Wall of Ophel discovered by
Warren). The wall from Siloam, we learn from Josephus, bending there,
faced to the east at Solomon’s Pool, and holding on as far as the
place called Ophla, joined the eastern cloister of the Temple.[27] The
eastern cloister of the Temple--_i.e._, the south-eastern angle of the
enclosure--was, in Josephus’s day, coincident with the south-east angle
of Solomon’s palace of earlier time; and the city wall which joined it
was the Wall of Ophel itself.
According to this description Solomon’s Pool was in the Tyropœon
Valley, between the two walls of the High Town and the Low Town.
Probably at a very early period many houses were built in this valley,
and it became an intramural suburb. In view of war it would be deemed
necessary to protect it; and for its defence the most obvious plan
would be to build a dam or a wall athwart the valley. Such a work would
greatly strengthen the city itself, by preventing all access up the
valley, especially if the mound or wall was aided by a castle at the
Ophel end of it. We shall see reason to believe that the dam and the
castle were built and were called Millo and the House of Millo. The
suburb thus became immured in the city, but continued to be called the
Suburb; and we read that the west wall of the Temple enclosure had
two gates leading to the Suburb (Josephus, “Antiquities” xv. 11, 5; 1
Chron. xxvi. 16, the gate Shallecheth).
The course of the first wall as thus described by Josephus does not
appear to differ much from its course in Nehemiah’s time; and in all
essentials it seems to be the wall of David’s day, preserved upon
the old foundations. Josephus indeed states as much in the following
passage:--“Now of these three walls, the old one was hard to be taken,
both by reason of the valleys and of that hill on which it was built,
and which was above them. But besides that great advantage as to the
place where they were situated, it was also built very strong; because
David and Solomon and the following kings were very zealous about this
work.”
[Illustration: SCHICK’S LINE OF SECOND WALL.]
_The Second Wall._--The description of the second wall, given by
Josephus, is short, and may be quoted entire: “It took its beginning
from that gate which they called Gennath, which belonged to the first
wall; it only encompassed the northern quarter of the city, and reached
as far as the tower Antonia.”
The necessity for this wall arose as follows. Through the increase of
the population a suburb had sprung up, not only in the upper reach of
the Tyropœon Valley, but on the hill beyond it. On the spur of this
hill, which projected toward the Temple, stood the Akra fortress,
but north-west of the fortress the ground was high and open, and
unprotected by any deep valley. To protect this suburb it was necessary
to carry a wall across the saddleback, sweeping round from the corner
of the High Town to the north-west corner of the eastern hill; and
this was probably done as early as David’s day.
There is not now much difficulty in finding approximately the position
of the gate Gennath, the starting point of this wall. We observe on
Conder’s plan of the rock site that a narrow ridge runs north and
south, immediately east of the Tower of David, and separates as a
shed the broad head of the Tyropœon from the western valley. The
Tyropœon deepens very suddenly, and any wall carried across it would
of necessity be commanded by the ridge to the west of it. The only
sensible course for the builders was to carry the wall along the ridge
itself, on ground commanding all without it. Exactly along this ridge,
at its western side, a wall was discovered in the year 1885, during the
rebuilding of the Greek Bazaar. At a depth 15 feet below the present
street Dr Merrill found two layers of stone, and at some points three,
still in position; and the stones were of the same size and character
as the largest of the stones in the Tower of David opposite. Broken
Roman pottery was found in these excavations, and a stone ball, such
as the Romans used in warfare. The discovery of these foundations
enables us to lay down the second wall for a distance of 40 or 50
yards, with accuracy.[28] Thus we know where the wall began, and where
it ended. Its intermediate course can only be ascertained by arguments
of probability, and by mapping every bit of ancient wall uncovered in
connection with building operations and the making of drains. Upon the
true course of this wall depends the answer to the question whether
the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was without the city or
within. We are contented here to adopt the line of wall arrived at by
Herr Conrad Schick, who has studied the question on the ground, who
is acquainted with every bit of ancient wall that has come to light,
and has a reason for every twist and turn and every gate and tower
here represented. It will be seen by his plan that he does not stop at
the Tower of Antonia, but continues his line of wall so as to defend
the northern and eastern sides of the Temple. This is required by
Nehemiah’s descriptions. But when Herod enlarged the Temple courts, if
not before, these portions of the wall would be interfered with--the
northern portion would be removed, the eastern portion had perhaps
become buried--and so Josephus is silent about them.
With the course of the walls thus definitely marked out, it becomes
possible to follow the descriptions in the Book of Nehemiah, and to
identify the towers and gates and places there mentioned.
_Nehemiah’s Night Ride to Survey the Ruins._--Jerusalem had been
destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s general, and although the Chaldeans
entered by a breach on the north side, they afterwards burnt the palace
and every great house, and brake down the walls of Jerusalem round
about (2 Kings xxv. 4). Nehemiah returned from the captivity to rebuild
the city of his fathers, and prudently decided to make first a quiet
survey of the extent of the destruction.
In chapter ii. 13, we read, “I went out by night by the Valley Gate,
even towards the dragon’s well, and to the Dung Gate.” This Valley
Gate was at or near the Gennath Gate, at the head of the Tyropœon
Valley, and at the same time close to the Valley of Hinnom. It could
not be far from the present Jaffa Gate. The Dung Gate--Josephus’s
“Bethso”--comes between the Jaffa Gate and the south-west corner of the
city; a position also required by chap. iii. 13. “Then I went on to
the Fountain Gate and to the King’s Pool.” The Fountain Gate would be
a convenient exit from the city to a path leading down to Siloam Pool;
The King’s Pool (_el-Berekath_) was probably Solomon’s Pool, mentioned
by Josephus as being by the east face of the old wall. In after
times it would be called in Scripture the King’s Pool, because it was
appropriated and used by Solomon’s successors, just as Solomon’s Palace
is called the king’s house in Neh. iii. 25. This pool would be within
the protected suburb. Nehemiah continues, “But there was no place for
the beast that was under me to pass.” Why? Because here we have two
walls in a narrow space, and the destruction of both of them had filled
the valley with _debris_. “Then I went up by the brook (_nachal_, the
Kedron) and viewed the wall: and I turned back and entered by the
Valley Gate, and so returned.”
_The Rebuilding of the Walls and Gates._--Nehemiah decides that the
walls can be and shall be rebuilt; and he parcels out the work among
forty-six of the principal people, who each have their retainers.
The work is sacred, and is appropriately begun by the high priest,
who naturally selects a spot near the Temple--the Sheep Gate of the
city wall, which would seem to have been about midway between the
north-eastern and north-western corners of the temple area of that
time. The description of the repairs takes us westward, or to the
left, and carries us all round the city to the same point again. “Then
Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brethren the priests, and
they builded the Sheep Gate; they sanctified it, and set up the doors
of it; even unto the tower of Hammeah[29] they sanctified it, unto the
tower of Hananel.” These two towers, we may suppose, with Mr Lewin and
Herr Schick, already occupied the site of the future Antonia. In fact
they were parts of the Baris or Castle where Nehemiah himself intends
to reside (Neh. ii. 8, where the Hebrew word is the _Birah_).
After these towers of the Baris the various gates and places come
before us in the following order:--
The Fish Gate, placed in Herr Schick’s plan where the first main line
of street ran out into the country.
The Old Gate, where the next main line of street ran out. It is where
these two roads cross one another that we get, at a later period, the
Damascus Gate set up. Streets running direct towards a city wall seem
to demand a gate in that wall to complete their usefulness.
Next we have the Throne of the Governor-beyond-the-River. This, like
the preceding, is some structure occurring in the course of the wall.
In chap. ii. 7, 9, the phrase “beyond the river” seems to mean westward
of the Jordan, where the district was governed by a viceroy of the
king of Assyria. The viceroy lived or had lived in Jerusalem,[30] and
his castle appears to have come into the line of the second wall, in
the part which is south-east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and
perhaps exactly at the re-entering angle.
The Broad Wall, which is named next, was not necessarily broad in
itself. Open spaces, such as we should name Squares, were in Jerusalem
called Broads. There was one such broad space south of the Temple water
gate, on Ophel, in which the people sometimes assembled (Neh. viii.
1; Ezra x. 9). There seems to have been another near one of the city
gates, where Hezekiah addressed the people, alarmed at the approach of
Sennacherib (2 Chron. xxxii. 6). Sennacherib would approach the city
on the north-west, and the people were very likely gathered by the
Valley Gate discussing the matter, in an open space afterwards utilised
by the construction of the “Pool of Hezekiah.” The “Broad” wall might
be so called from running along one side of this broad space. It
perhaps started from the second wall at the point which Nehemiah’s
description has now reached, and extended southward to the wall of the
high town, and so constituted an inner line of defence. Nothing is said
of repairing it: perhaps it had not been thrown down; or, as an inner
wall, Nehemiah neglects it for the present, as he does also the north
wall of the Upper City. At any rate the description carries us beyond
it. At the north-west angle of the second wall there was a Corner Gate
(2 Kings xiv. 13; 2 Chron. xxv. 23), which is called also the Gate that
Looketh. A gate here would command a view of the city walls as far as
the Fish Gate on the one hand and the Valley Gate on the other. But
this gate also is passed over in the present description.
We have next the Tower of the Furnaces, probably west of the “Pool of
Hezekiah.” The word may mean hearths furnaces, ovens, or altars; but we
cannot say to what it related.
And then we come to the Valley Gate, which we have already seen must
have been near the present Jaffa Gate, and probably was exactly where
the present David Street passes the end of the wall discovered, by the
Greek Bazaar, in 1885. Unless a gate existed there, the street would
lose half its use. Yet there is Herr Schick’s alternative, that the
name was given to a gate south-west of the Citadel, and opening on to
the Valley of Hinnom.
In verse 13, from the Valley Gate it is “1000 cubits on the wall to the
Dung Gate.” This forbids any identification with the present dung gate,
in the Tyropœon, and fixes within a little the position of _Bethso_.
In verse 15, Shallun, who repairs the Fountain Gate, repairs also “the
wall of the Pool of Shelah by the king’s garden.” Allow that Shelah is
Siloam, yet this need not be a wall running down to Siloam--if we were
to take that line we should go wrong all the rest of the way--it is
the transverse wall in the same valley above. Through a gate in this
wall the Pool of Siloam would be conveniently reached from the Suburb;
and this would be the “Gate between two walls,” through which Zedekiah
fled away (2 Kings, xxv. 4; Jer. xxxix. 4; lii. 7). The wall was by
the king’s garden (_le_ = by or near). Shallun pursues his work along
the transverse wall eastward “unto (_ad_) the Stairs (_maaloth_) that
go down from the City of David.” So the City of David includes Ophel,
and the Stairs descend the Ophel slope westward into the bed of the
Tyropœon.
[Illustration: NEHEMIAH’S SOUTH WALL, ACCORDING TO GEORGE ST CLAIR.
⁂ The contour lines represent successive steps of ten feet. The
height at the Triple Gate is 2379 feet.
REFERENCE.
Suggested line of wall -- -- --
1 Valley gate.
2 Dung gate.
3 Fountain gate.
4 King’s pool.
5 Wall of Pool of Shelah.
6 King’s Gardens.
7 Stairs of the City of David.
8 Sepulchres of David.
9 The Pool that was made.
10 House of the mighty.
11 Turning of the wall.
12 The Armoury.
13 Turning of the wall.
14 House of Eliashib.
15 Turning of the wall.
16 The Corner.
17 Turning of the wall.
18 Tower at King’s house. (Tower that standeth out.)
19 Water gate.
20 Tower that lieth out.
21 Great Tower that lieth out.
22 Wall of Ophel.
23 Horse gate.
24 Houses of priests.
25 Gate Miphkad.
26 Ascent of the corner.
27 Going up of the wall.
28 House of David.
29 Gate between two walls.
30 Gate of the Guard (2 Kings, xi. 19).
31 Gate of the Guard (Neh. xii. 39).]
Verse 16, “After him repaired Nehemiah, the son of Azbuk, unto the
place over against (_neged_ = in front of) the sepulchres of David.”
The wall of the Pool of Shelah was an offshoot from the wall of the
High Town, so the writer returns and continues his description of
the wall of the High Town. Nehemiah, the son of Azbuk, takes up the
repairs at the Fountain Gate and works northward. He comes over against
the royal sepulchres, which are therefore on the Ophel side of the
Tyropœon, a little north of the Stairs. The entrance would have to be
low down in the valley bed to be outside the wall which protects Ophel
on the west; but there is no reason why it should not be low down. The
only doubt we need have is whether the spot marked in the plan is quite
far enough north. In either case the excavations for royal tombs were
so extensive as at length to approach the south wall of the Temple,
perhaps even to touch the wall (at a point now under the mosque El
Aksa). This is complained of by the prophet Ezekiel as a desecration.
“The house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, neither they,
nor their kings, by their whoredom, and by the carcases of their kings
in their death; in their setting of their threshold by my threshold,
and their door-post beside my door-post, and there was but the wall
between me and them” (Ezek. xliii. 7, 8).
Nehemiah, the son of Azbuk, continues working northward “unto the
pool that was made” (_berekah_, probably the “king’s pool” of ii. 14,
and the “reservoir between two walls” of Isaiah xxii.). He goes on
“unto the house of the mighty men.” If this is the house of the king’s
bodyguard, the men of war mentioned in 2 Kings xxv. 4, we shall find
that they are conveniently placed about midway between the armoury and
the king’s house.
In the remaining short space on the west side of the Tyropœon we have
no less than four bands of workers, indicating that the destruction
had been very great, as indeed Nehemiah found it to be when there was
no possibility of his beast getting along; and the next indication of
locality is in
Verse 19, “the turning” of the wall, “over against the ascent to the
armoury.” The armoury, therefore, was in or near the north-eastern
angle of the suburb.
Verse 20. We are now carried from “the turning” of the wall by the
armoury, southward, “unto the door of the house of Eliashib, the high
priest;” and we are not surprised to find his house here, for we are
close alongside the Temple courts. The workers come _unto_ the door of
Eliashib’s house, which thus seems to project westward, so as to be
quite near to the line of wall; but they only come _over against_ the
less important houses which follow.
Verse 24. The sixth worker down this side comes to “the turning” of
the wall and “unto the corner.” The turning is not the same as the
corner; the Hebrew language uses different words for a re-entering and
a salient angle. Each of the two turnings at the causeway (vv. 19, 20)
is called a _miqtzoa_ (= a re-entering angle); but now, in v. 24, they
come to a _miqtzoa_ and to a _pinneh_ (= a projecting angle). It is to
be observed that we should not have such angles at this part but for
the vacant square which Warren’s examination of the masonry compelled
him to leave--the wall for 300 feet each way from the south-west
corner of the Haram being more recent than the rest.
The first salient angle is passed over because the worker who begins
north of it continues his labours till he comes south of it, and so its
mention is not necessary in defining the work done. (In like manner, in
vv. 6-8, the Gate of Ephraim is passed by without mention, although,
according to xii. 38, 39, it existed between the Broad Wall and the Old
Gate; and the Corner Gate, which we know existed, is passed over by
Nehemiah.)
Verse 25. The mention now of another re-entering angle might perplex
us, only that the same verse speaks of a “tower standing out from the
king’s upper house,” and this may easily afford the angle.
Verse 26. We are now fairly on the Hill of Ophel, and accordingly the
workers who have been set to labour here are “the Nethinim dwelling
in Ophel.” There is also mention in v. 31 of a house of the Nethinim
near the northern end of the east wall--still outside the Temple
precincts.[31]
As soon as the Nethinim of Ophel get far enough south to look beyond
the projecting tower and see the Triple Gate, they are stated to be
over against the Water Gate. Lewin says that “the Water Gate proper was
that of the inner Temple, to the south of the altar, and led down to
the great southern gate of the outer Temple, which was probably also
called the Water Gate.” The Nethinim find themselves at the same time
looking eastward, or their wall facing toward the sun-rising. They are
also over against the tower that standeth out. This is not the tower
mentioned in the previous verse as projecting from the king’s house,
but may perhaps be the one at the bend of the Ophel wall, discovered by
Warren.
Verse 27. Where the Nethinim cease their work it is taken up by the
Tekoites, who presently come “over against the great tower that
standeth out,” namely, the large tower which Warren found. This
identification struck Warren himself, and he mentions it in the
“Recovery of Jerusalem,” p. 295. It now wanted but a little extension
of the work to complete the junction with the Wall of Ophel, at the
point where Warren found that wall to end abruptly, and the narrative
tells us that the Tekoites effected the junction.
Verse 28. The Ophel Wall being in good repair, is no more referred
to; but the next thing mentioned is the Horse Gate. As Warren could
not find any gate in the Ophel Wall, the Horse Gate must have been
north of it; and here it would be at a point convenient for entrance
to Solomon’s Stables, which would be under the palace, and perhaps
under the present vaults known as Solomon’s Stables. There is a depth
of about 100 feet of unexplored rubbish between the floor of Solomon’s
Stables and the rock at the south-eastern angle. The true stables may
lie buried in this rubbish.
“Above the Horse Gate repaired the priests, every one over against
his own house.” These houses of priests are in a position exactly
corresponding with the house of Eliashib and others on the west side.
The expression “over against,” implies that the city wall which is
being repaired stands removed from the priests’ houses, which border
the Temple courts, and it would be eastward of the present Haram wall.
Herr Schick draws it so.
Verse 29. An East Gate is referred to (_Mizrach_), not to be confounded
with the Gate Harsith, the so-called East Gate of Jeremiah xix. 2 in
the Authorised Version. It may be the Shushan Gate, which, according to
the Talmud, stood over against the east front of the Temple.
When we come over against the Golden Gate--which Nehemiah calls the
Gate Miphkad--we are just where Warren’s tunnelling work was arrested
by a massive masonry barrier--probably a part of the ancient city
wall--50 feet east of the Haram wall. The wall was built of large
quarry-dressed stones, and was so thick that a hole made into it for
5 feet 6 inches did not go right through. A few feet north of the
Golden Gate the wall began bending north-west, as though following
the contour of the hill; and Warren was also led to suspect that the
wall is a high one, extending upward through the _debris_ to near the
surface, since immediately above it, in the road, there are some large
roughly-bevelled stones lying in the same line.[32]
In Nehemiah’s description we are now immediately at “the ascent of the
corner” (_pinneh_, a projecting angle). There is no corner now visible
at the surface immediately north of the Golden Gate, and no ascent from
a depth. But we have seen already that the northern cloister of the
Temple would strike the east wall of the Haram a little north of the
Golden Gate, and consequently here would be the _corner_ of the Temple
courts. We have also seen that the rock now shelves down to the north,
for the valley from Herod’s Gate came out here, and at 300 feet north
of Golden Gate the rubbish is 125 feet in depth, so that from this low
ground there would be an _ascent_ in turning west. The wall itself
would go up, ascending toward the ridge of the hill. There is no more
likely spot for the elbow of the wall than that marked by the little
building called the Throne of Solomon. The great depth of the valley
here gave fearful height to the corner tower; and eastern imagination
would be not unlikely to suggest that only Solomon or the demons could
have built it.
Having reached “the ascent of the corner,” one more band of workers
brings us to the Sheep Gate, where the description began.
_The Route of the Processionists._--Chapter xii. affords striking
confirmation of the foregoing positions. At the dedication of the
walls two companies start from the Valley Gate and go opposite ways to
meet in the Temple. Presumably the Valley Gate was chosen to afford
journeys of about equal length; and this is another indication that the
wall did not go down to Siloam. The party going south pass the Dung
Gate, and reach the Fountain Gate. And now which way will they go? The
wall has been repaired right ahead of them, and also the wall turning
north, and they will have to choose between two routes. The Revised
Version says they went “by (_ad_) the Fountain Gate and straight
before them,” and ascended _by_ the Stairs of the City of David at
the going up of the wall (not _by_ this time, nor really “at,” but
“_in_”--_ba-maaleth le-chomah_, _i.e._, _in_ the stairway of the wall
_by_ the Stairs of David--a different stairway from the Stairs of the
City of David, which descended into the valley bed).
Their way up these stairs and beyond carried them “above the house of
David, even unto the Water Gate.” The house of David here is close by
the king’s garden of iii. 15; and its position on the slope of the hill
suggests a reason for calling Solomon’s palace the king’s upper house
(or high house, iii. 25). Some say “the house of David” means David’s
tomb; but if that be so, it only confirms the position which I am led
to assign to the tomb. Observe also that the position required for the
Water Gate here is again that of the present Triple Gate, the same as
in iii. 26.
It deserves particular attention that the processionists pass quickly
from the Stairs of David to the Water Gate, whereas in the rebuilding,
these two places are very wide apart, because the bend of the wall
is followed. In iii. 15, we have the Sepulchres, the Pool, the House
of the Mighty, four more bands of workers, the turning of the wall,
the armoury, the house of Eliashib, the turning, the corner, and the
outstanding tower--all between the point over against the Stairs of
David and the Water Gate; but none of these things come in the route
of the processionists. This is easy to understand if the wall makes a
bay up the Tyropœon, for then the short cut in the text corresponds
with the short cut in the plan; but it can hardly be made intelligible
on any plan which omits this bay and carries the wall down to Siloam.
A superficial objection may be raised that the detour up the valley and
_viâ_ the causeway, avoided by the processionists, would be avoided
by Nehemiah in repairing the walls, for why should he do more than
repair the short transverse wall, when his object was speed? My reply
would be that his object was strength and safety as well as speed. The
transverse wall was no sufficient protection by itself, there being
an easy approach up the valley, but it was valuable as an addition to
the inner walls. Besides, Nehemiah had workers enough to be engaged at
all these parts at once, so that the completion of the work was not
at all delayed by repairing the two north-and-south walls of the bend
simultaneously with the cross wall, and indeed with the walls all round
the city.
The second company, with whom was Nehemiah, started from the Gate of
the Valley simultaneously with the first; and the earliest note of
their progress is that they pass the Tower of the Furnaces and reach
the Broad Wall. We now, of course, meet with the places in the reverse
order to that in which we made their acquaintance, in following the
builders from east to west. The order then was--
Sheep-Gate.
Tower of the Meah.
Tower of Hananel.
Fish Gate.
Old Gate.
Broad Wall.
Tower of the Furnaces.
Passing these now, in reverse order, we find the Gate of Ephraim
noticed, between the Broad Wall and the Old Gate. I incline to place
the Gate of Ephraim at the junction of several streets near the
north-east corner of the Muristan, and I will give two reasons. (1)
Taking the wall as drawn by Schick, a principal street of the city
going west abuts upon the wall at that point and requires a gate.
(2) A Corner Gate existed, apparently at the north-western angle of
the second wall, west of the Broad Wall; the distance between the
Corner Gate and the Gate of Ephraim was 400 cubits (2 Kings xiv. 13;
2 Chron. xxv. 23); and the place now proposed for the Gate of Ephraim
corresponds to that distance. It may be that the tower of this gate was
the throne of the governor, the viceroy of the Assyrian king.
Nehemiah’s company having at length reached the Sheep Gate entered the
Temple courts and stood still in the Gate of the Guard.
Thus the two companies stood on the north and south sides of the altar,
and rendered thanksgiving to God, for that an unbroken wall once more
protected Jerusalem.
The line of wall being established, with the positions of David’s
house, the gate between two walls, &c., we are confirmed in our
conclusion that the City of David was the eastern hill and included
Ophel. We see whereabouts the royal sepulchres are likely to be found
by future excavation. We gain something immediately by being able to
follow step by step the work of Nehemiah. And this is not all, for we
obtain fresh light upon the history of the house of David at various
points.
[_Authorities and Sources_:--The author himself is responsible
for the views of Jerusalem topography set forth in this
volume. The reader who wishes to consult other writers may
find the following references useful:--“Jerusalem, a
Sketch.” By Thomas Lewin. “Siege of Jerusalem.” Thomas Lewin.
“Antient Jerusalem.” Joseph Francis Thrupp. “The Recovery of
Jerusalem.” Sir Charles Warren. Trans. Soc. Bib. Archæol.,
vol. vii. (“Site of the Temple.” By Sir C. Warren). “The Holy
City.” Rev. George Williams. “The Holy Sepulchre and the
Temple.” James Fergusson, F.R.S. “Murray’s Handbook of Syria
and Palestine.” (Dr Porter). “Quarterly Statements of the
P.E. Fund” (numerous papers).]
6. _Incidents of the History better realised._
_The Taking of Jerusalem by David_:--The king and his men went to
Jerusalem against the Jebusites, who felt so secure in their stronghold
that they mocked David by putting the lame and the blind upon the
walls as defenders. Nevertheless, “David took the stronghold of Zion;
the same is the City of David ... and David dwelt in the stronghold
and called it the City of David” (2 Sam. v.). The stronghold here
spoken of is not that which is now called the tower of David, near the
Jaffa Gate, nor is the Zion here spoken of the south-western hill.
The parallel statement in Josephus is that David “took the Lower City
by force, but the Akra held out still.” Joab, however, scaled the
fortress, the Jebusites were cast out of the Akra, and then David
rebuilt Jerusalem, renamed it the City of David, and dwelt there
(Antiq. vii. 3. 1 & 2). It is not the High Town which is here spoken
of but the Akra; and in the place where Josephus gives a general
description of the city he tells us that Akra was the hill of the Lower
City, while the Upper City was called by King David the _Phrourion_,
that is, the _hill-fort_ or _watch-post_.
It would seem that in those early days the south-western hill was not
yet inhabited, or at any rate was not yet enclosed by a wall, although
a garrisoned watch-tower stood upon it. The highest hills are not
always deemed the best positions for a citadel or castle. It was not
so at Athens, and it is not so in Edinburgh. The Jebusite population
of Jerusalem was mostly clustered on the eastern hill. In 1879 Sir
Charles Warren said: “The strongest point, to my mind, in favour of
Ophel having been the ancient site of the Jebusite city is the fact
of the one spring of water being found there. I have carefully noted
the manner in which the Kaffirs have located themselves close to water
in their various strongholds, and I think that unless there were very
urgent reasons, the Jebusites would have located themselves near what
is now called the Virgin’s Fountain.”
But while the eastern hill was Zion,[33] the Akra was the stronghold
of its owners and defenders, their castle occupying an advantageous
promontory defended by valleys and ditches. A castle or fort so
situated, could not, however, stand a siege, unless it possessed a
secret supply of water; and Warren has spoken of the Virgin’s Fountain
as the only spring. But there is some mystery about the _Hammam esh
Shefa_, and many, including Warren himself, are inclined to believe
it may be connected with a spring. The water is stated to be clear
and free from the impurities of rain water, and the supply is never
exhausted. The position of this “well” is in the Tyropœon Valley, in
a line between Akra and the Dome of the Rock. The entrance to the
fountain is by a narrow opening, but the shaft soon expands to about
12 feet square. At the bottom is an excavated chamber on one side, and
a passage on the other. The passage expands into a vault, beyond which
the channel becomes crooked and irregular. It appears that an ancient
conduit enters the vault at the extremity of the horizontal passage,
but its direction and source are unknown. May not some conduit have
enabled the besieged garrison of the Akra fort to draw water from this
source?
A few years ago the Rev. F. W. Birch, arguing on the supposition that
it was the city on Ophel which Joab captured for David, suggested that
he found his way into it by the secret tunnels and shafts from the
Virgin’s Fountain. That Ophel might be captured by surprise in that
way seems likely; only it was not Ophel that Joab had to capture, but
Akra. The Lower City had all been taken, except that the Akra held out
still. If its garrison obtained water from the _Hammam esh Shefa_, may
not Joab have effected an entrance from _that_ spring? He did not have
to _get up to_ a “_gutter_,” nor yet to a “water course,” but to “reach
them by the aqueduct” (_B’Tzinnor_).
_David’s flight and exile; the Spies._--David at first dwelt in the
stronghold (the Akra fort), but we afterwards find references to a
house which he had and which was on the Ophel slope. We have had
evidence of this in the Book of Nehemiah, and we find confirmation in
such passages as 1 Kings viii. 1-6, where the ark is _brought up_ out
of the City of David into the temple (and 2 Sam. xxiv. 18; 1 Kings ix.
24). When David decided to flee from Jerusalem because of the rebellion
of Absalom, he would go down the stairs of the City of David, pass out
by the Gate between two walls, and go through his own garden grounds;
and then, as we are told, he passed over the Kedron, ascended Olivet,
and went down to Jericho and over the Jordan.
But he left friends behind him at his house, and it was arranged that
two sons of the priests should act as spies and bring him news (2 Sam.
xvii.). They waited outside the city, at En Rogel, and a wench went and
told them. En Rogel is now identified with the Virgin’s Fountain; and
it would not be a bad place for the spies to hide in, seeing that its
passages were dark, and communicated both with the hill and the valley.
The maid servant, descending the staircases from above, might take a
pitcher or a bucket to draw water, and so escape suspicion; the spies
below on receiving the message, could hie away over the mountain to the
Jericho road and Jordan.
The evidence that the Virgin’s Fountain is En Rogel will increase
upon us as we proceed; but one reason may be stated here. En Rogel is
etymologically the Spring of the Fuller, and was so called, no doubt,
because fullers washed clothes at the place; but it may also be made
to mean the Spring of the Steps, because fullers trode the clothes
with their feet, and hence got their name (from _Regel_, the _foot_,
and metaphorically a _step_). The Virgin’s Fountain is now called by
the Arabs, _Ain Umm ed Deraj_, “Fountain of the Mother of Steps,” a
designation commonly supposed to refer to the two flights of steps
which lead down to it, but which may be derived by tradition from “En
Rogel.” The steps were not always there. The explorers of Jerusalem
say, “The pool seems originally to have been visible in the face of a
cliff, and the vault and steps are modern. Possibly the original exit
of the water was down the Kedron Valley.”
_Adonijah’s Banquet at the Stone of Zoheleth._--After Absalom’s death
David returned to Jerusalem. But by-and-bye he grew old and infirm,
and then there were speculations and plots about the succession to the
throne. Adonijah thought to gain favour by assuming royal state and
showing princely generosity. He set up chariots and horsemen, and fifty
men to run before him; and he slew sheep and oxen and fatlings by the
stone of Zoheleth, which is beside En Rogel. Abiathar the priest was
at the banquet, and Joab the veteran general; all was going merrily,
and the guests shouted, “God save King Adonijah!” (1 Kings i.) But
news of these proceedings was carried to David at his house on Ophel.
Bathsheba came in and told him what was occurring, and reminded him of
his oath that Solomon her son should sit upon the throne. While the
queen was yet speaking, Nathan the prophet was announced, who confirmed
the story, and inquired anxiously who was to reign. Then David called
for Zadok and Nathan, the priests, and Benaiah, the soldier, chief of
the king’s bodyguard, to go with them as the representative of force,
and indeed to take his men, and said, “Cause Solomon my son to ride
upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon (_i.e._, Siloam Pool),
anoint him there, and blow the trumpet, and say, God save King Solomon.
Then ye shall come up after him, and he shall come and sit upon my
throne; for he shall be king in my stead.” This was done, and all the
people said, “God save King Solomon!”
We shall realize these events better when we look at the position of
Zoheleth, the discovery of which was one of the happy results of M.
Clermont Ganneau’s investigations in 1870. Nearly in the centre of
the line along which stretches the village of Siloam there exists a
rocky plateau surrounded by Arab buildings, which mask its true form
and extent: the western face, cut perpendicularly, slightly overhangs
the valley. Steps rudely cut in the rock enable one to climb it, not
without difficulty, and so to penetrate directly from the valley to the
midst of the village. By this road, troublesome, and even dangerous,
pass habitually the women of Siloam, who come to fill their vessels
at the so-called Virgin’s Fountain. Now this passage and this ledge
of rock in which it is cut are called by the fellahin, “Ez Zehweile,”
which means “a slippery place,” or perhaps “the serpent stone.” This
was M. Ganneau’s discovery, and he knew at once the bearings of it, in
helping to fix En Rogel at the Virgin’s Fountain, and the king’s garden
somewhere in its neighbourhood. Perhaps the discovery would have been
made earlier, only that the village of Siloam, owing to the turbulence
of its inhabitants, is almost unvisited by Europeans.
Adonijah’s feast, then, was being held at the foot of this cliff, about
70 yards across the valley from En Rogel. Solomon’s party could not
be seen because the rising ground of Ophel came between. But when the
anointing had taken place at the Pool of Siloam, and the party were
going back up the Tyropœon toward David’s house, the people piped their
music and shouted their joy till the earth rang again. The attention
of Joab was attracted by the sound of the trumpet, and he enquired,
“Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar?” The truth was
learned, and then Adonijah’s guests were afraid, and rose up and went
every man his way.
_Solomon’s Change of Residence._--Solomon would at first live in the
house of his father David, which was near the stairs which went down to
the valley bed. “And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh, king of Egypt,
and took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her into the City of David,
until he had made an end of building his own house,” &c. (1 Kings iii.
1). “And Solomon was building his own house thirteen years.” “He made
also a house for Pharaoh’s daughter” (close to his own house) (1 Kings
vii. 1. 8). “And Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the
City of David unto the house that he had built for her: for he said,
My wife shall not dwell in the house of David, king of Israel, because
the places are holy, whereunto the ark of the Lord hath come” (2 Chron.
viii. 11). This incidental mention that he brought her up accords well
with the relative positions of the two palaces--David’s lower down
the slope of Ophel, the new one higher up. The same remark applies to
bringing up the ark from David’s house to the Temple.
_The Building of Millo._--David having taken the stronghold of Zion
improved his new capital by building “round about, from Millo and
inward” (2 Sam. v. 9). What Millo was, or where it was located, has
been one of the great puzzles of Jerusalem topography. It seems,
however, to have been the great dam athwart the Tyropœon Valley. It
is possible that even the Jebusites had hit upon the device and had
constructed a dam in some rude fashion, and named it by a word of
their own language, which afterwards clung to it. Sir G. Grove, in
the “Dictionary of the Bible,” conjectures that it was the Jebusites
who first built Millo, because it is difficult to assign a meaning to
the word in Hebrew, while the Canaanites of Shechem also had a Millo
(Judges ix. 6, 20), and because David seems to find it existing and not
to build it. The statement that David built from Millo and _inward_
suits very well the identification of Millo with the great dam which
was the outer defence of the Tyropœon, and to a great extent of Zion
itself. It is not unlikely either that the House of Millo was a castle
on the Ophel Hill, close to the eastern end of the dam, and that this
was adopted by David as a residence. He may also have strengthened both
the castle and the dam. This view of mine has now been adopted by Herr
Schick. (See _Quarterly Statement_, January 1892, p. 22.)
But it was Solomon who so strengthened this work as to deserve the
credit of having constructed it. It was one of the great works for the
accomplishment of which he made a levy upon all parts of the kingdom
(1 Kings ix. 15). The nature of the work is indicated in 1 Kings xi.
27--“Solomon built Millo (and so) closed up the fissure (or cleft)
of the city of David his father:” either the two expressions relate
to the same work, or the two works are closely associated together.
Accordingly, before the work can be begun, Pharaoh’s daughter must
vacate the house of Millo. She came up “out of the City of David unto
her house which Solomon had built for her: then did he build Millo” (1
Kings ix. 24). The Israelites employed upon the work were the children
of Joseph, and their superintendent was Jeroboam, an Ephraimite,
probably already acquainted with the similar work at Shechem (1 Kings
xi. 28). It is stated in the Septuagint that Jeroboam completed the
fortifications at Millo, and was long afterwards known as the man
who had “enclosed the City of David.” The work was so well done that
Jerusalem was never again attacked from this side, although previously
this side was found the most vulnerable, both by David and by the
children of Simeon and Judah in earlier time.
If we are to find a Hebrew etymology for the name Millo, it seems to be
a noun formed in the usual way by prefixing the letter M to the Aramæan
verb _l’va_, equivalent to the Hebrew _lavah_,[34] having the meaning
to wind or twist, and used to describe stairways as well as serpents
and garlands. A dam across the Tyropœon would require the construction
of two stairways at least, one from the bed of the Tyropœon to the top
of the dam on the Ophel side, and one from the High Town down to the
dam on the west.
_The Death of Athaliah._--This incident affords indications of locality
in beautiful agreement with Nehemiah. When this queen-mother heard
that her son, the king, had been killed by Jehu, she snatched at the
sovereignty for herself, and her policy was to slay all the seed
royal. But one little child escaped, carried off by its nurse, and
they were secreted in the Temple by Jehoiada, the high priest. In the
seventh year Jehoiada assembled the chiefs of the people in the Temple,
produced the little child Joash, stood him upon the platform (or by
the pillar) appropriated to the kings, and said, This is the rightful
heir! The chiefs shouted their joy, when Athaliah heard the noise and
rushed into the Temple to learn the cause. That she should hear so
readily and find such easy access to the Temple, accords well with the
supposition that she was living in Solomon’s palace, close adjoining
the Temple, as Warren places it. When Athaliah saw the state of things,
she cried--“Treason, treason!” But she found no friends there. The
priest said, “Have her forth--slay her not in the house of the Lord! So
they made way for her; and she went to the entry of the Horse Gate to
the king’s house; and they slew her there” (2 Chron. xviii. 15; 2 Kings
xii. 16). It is implied in this narrative that the Horse Gate was not
only by the king’s house, but that it was also the nearest point which
could be considered fairly beyond the sacred precincts; and this is in
full agreement with the position which we have assigned it.
In the context of the passages just quoted we find that Joash is
carried “by the way of the Gate of the Guard into the king’s house.”
This gate must, of course, have been on that side of the palace
adjoining the Temple courts; it was probably due north of the Water
Gate (_i.e._, the Triple Gate), and it thus again accords with Neh.
iii. 25, where the tower standing out from Solomon’s house is said to
be “by the court of the guard.” The court of the guard may very well
have extended from the Water Gate without to the Gate of the Guard on
the Temple side of the palace. From Neh. xii. 39, it appears that there
was a corresponding Gate of the Guard at the corresponding point on the
north side of the altar.
_The Assassination of Joash._ When Joash grew to man’s estate he made
changes which displeased his people; and the short statement is that
his slaves slew him on his bed, “at the House of Millo, that goeth down
to Silla” (2 Kings xii. 20, combined with 2 Chron. xxiv. 25). This has
been generally regarded as obscure, and some have supposed Silla to
be the same as M’sillah, a stairway at the west gate of the Temple,
north of Wilson’s Arch (1 Chron. xxvi. 16). But it is more naturally
the stairway at Millo itself. Joash was living at Beth Millo, David’s
house, and when he heard of the conspiracy he designed to flee down the
stairs and through the Gate between two walls; but being a sick man he
was being carried on a litter, as Lewin remarks, and while going down
Silla,--not while going down _to_ Silla, for there is no preposition
here in the Hebrew text--the assassins killed him.
_The Wall destroyed by Jehoash_, king of Israel, when he came against
Amaziah of Judah, extended from the Gate of Ephraim unto the Corner
Gate, 400 cubits (2 Kings xiv. 13; 2 Chron. xxv. 23). We can now, by
aid of Herr Schick’s plan of the second wall, and our previous study of
Nehemiah, see exactly this piece of wall, south of the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre, and running east and west.
_The Towers built by Uzziah_ were intended to strengthen the city just
in this part where it had been found to be vulnerable. He “built towers
in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate, at the Valley Gate, and at the turning
of the wall, and fortified them” (2 Chron. xxvi. 9). The “turning”
here spoken of is a re-entering angle, and not improbably that one
south-east of the Church of the Sepulchre, where we find the “Throne of
the Governor” in later time.
In the days of Ahaz, the grandson of Uzziah, Jerusalem was threatened
by the allied forces of Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel.
Ahaz and his people were greatly perturbed, and needed a message of
advice and encouragement The word of the Lord came to Isaiah, in the
Temple, saying, “Go forth now and meet Ahaz, at the end of the conduit
of the upper pool, in the highway of the Fuller’s Field” (Isaiah vii.
3). The upper pool here spoken of is believed to be the Virgin’s
Fountain, where we find one end of a conduit which connects it with the
lower pool at Siloam. But if this is what is meant, why is the spot
not described shortly and plainly as En-Rogel, by which name it was
already known? (1 Kings i. 9). Surely it is not the pool itself which
is meant but the end of a conduit, or channel, or passage belonging to
it--the end of a passage, yet not a termination in any pool. That is
to say, it refers to the top of the shaft and stairway on the Ophel
Hill, which had been lost so long until re-discovered by Warren. This
entrance was of course known to Isaiah, and known to the king, being
close by the king’s gardens. Ahaz would reach it by going out through
the Gate between two walls, and was probably accustomed to walk there
frequently. The place spoken of is not really stated to be “_in_ the
highway of the Fuller’s Field:” in the Hebrew text the word _in_ is not
found, and the passage might be rendered--“The end of the channel of
the upper pool, the staircase of the Fuller’s Field.” This is an exact
description of the top of the shaft on the Ophel Hill.
Here, then, we have another interesting note of locality: it appears
that the Fuller’s Field was on Ophel, and Warren’s shaft was in it. We
cannot but recall the statement of Josephus that St James was martyred
by being thrown over the outer wall of the Temple enclosure, and that
“a fuller took the club with which he pressed the clothes, and brought
it down on the head of the Just one.” It is reasonable to infer that
fullers were at work not far from the spot where St James fell. On the
slope of the Ophel Hill Sir Charles Warren discovered a cavern which
was apparently used by the fullers, for it contained vats or troughs
cut in the rock. In the earth above the cave is a drain, which is of
course more modern; and yet here were found glass and pottery, supposed
to be early Christian.
In the days of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, the stairway shaft in the
Fuller’s Field is spoken of again, and in a way that quite confirms
our previous conclusions. Sennacherib, while besieging Lachish, sent
his Tartan and his Rabshakeh with a strong force against Jerusalem,
as an easy prey. The Assyrian officers pitched their camp at the
north-west of the city, on the high ground, which was ever after known
as the “Camp of the Assyrians.” But, seeing the strength of the city,
they made no assault upon it; they sought a conference with Hezekiah
to induce him to surrender. Learning where his palace was, that is,
David’s house, on the slope of Ophel, they came and “stood at the
passage of the upper pool, which is at the staircase of the Fuller’s
Field” (2 Kings xviii. 17). There they called to the king, and when
Hezekiah, consulting his dignity, deputed his Prime Minister, his
Secretary, and his Recorder to represent him, these officers spoke
from the top of the wall. The circumstances may seem to require that
the wall should extend a little more southward than the wall found
by Warren, but they seem to be good evidence that the Ophel shaft
was outside the wall, and that the king’s house was within shouting
distance of the shaft, or at any rate that the Assyrian generals
thought so.
Jerusalem was not taken at this time; but in expectation of a siege,
Hezekiah had made great defensive preparations. For one thing he
gathered many labourers and choked up all the fountains outside the
city and stopped the flow of the brook (2 Chron. xxxii. 3). He stopped
the upper spring of the waters of Gihon and brought them straight down
on the west side of the City of David (2 Chron. xxxii. 30). He gathered
together the waters of the lower pool; he made a reservoir between the
two walls for the water of the old pool; he made a pool and a conduit
and brought water into the city (Isaiah xxii. 9, 11; 2 Kings xx. 20).
It is probable that most of these statements relate to the same piece
of work, and that work the making of Siloam Pool and the tunnel to
bring water to it from the Virgin’s Fountain. There had been an “old
pool” of Siloam, which is clearly traceable south-east of the present
one, and this was the “lower pool of Gihon;” while the Virgin’s Fount
was the “upper pool” or the “upper spring of the waters of Gihon.”
The water had previously flowed from the one to the other, by an open
channel down the Tyropœon Valley--a channel which has been struck at
some points--and this was “the brook that flowed through the midst of
the land.” The lower pool and the waters of Siloah were referred to
by Isaiah in the previous reign (that is, he speaks of the waters of
Siloah that go softly, viii. 6, and he implies a lower pool by speaking
of the upper pool). It is reasonably argued by Dr Chaplin[35] that
Siloah and Gihon were identical, and that the terms applied not only to
the spring or pool but to the canal that joined them. We may assent to
this if we keep in mind that the open canal existed before the rock-cut
tunnel. The only difficulty we have is in thinking of the new Siloam
as a reservoir between the two walls, and in understanding the use of
making the tunnel if Siloam was to be outside the city. Some writers,
therefore, suppose that the first wall of the city actually bent round
Siloam on the southward side.
Hezekiah, besides these hydraulic works, built up all the wall that was
broken down, and raised it up to the towers; and the other wall without
(which it is just possible was south of Siloam Pool, only, even in that
case, there is a great dam across the fissure to the north of it);
and being so solicitous about this part of the city, he “strengthened
Millo, the city of David” (2 Chron. xxxii. 5).
In the days of King Josiah we have mention of the prophetess Huldah,
and it is stated that she lived in Jerusalem, in the _Mishneh_ (or
Second Quarter). The word means second in order or in dignity, and in
the case of brothers the younger. It appears to designate that part of
the city which lay in the Asmonean Valley, a part inferior to Zion in
dignity, and younger as an inhabited district, because originally a
suburb outside the walls which encircled the hills.
_The Capture of Jerusalem and Flight of Zedekiah._--Not to multiply
incidents, let us come now to the last king of Judah--Zedekiah. In his
day Nebuchadnezzar came up against the city, and pitched his camp,
as all had done before him, against the northern quarter. The event
to be expected in such a case is described in Zeph. i. 10. There is
first a noise from the Fish Gate at the head of the Asmonean Valley.
Of consequence there is next a howling from the Second Quarter of
Jerusalem, for the forcing of the Fish Gate has brought the invaders
into the northern “suburb.” Next, the alarm having spread, there is
a crashing from the hills on either side. Howl ye inhabitants of
Macktesh--the “Hollow,” the southern Suburb, where dwelt the men of
Tyre which brought in fish and all manner of ware (Neh. xiii. 15), and
after whom the Valley was probably named--howl ye, for all the merchant
people are undone, all they that were laden with silver are cut off.
Nebuchadnezzar’s generals effected an entrance at the middle gate of
the north wall; and Zedekiah, as soon as he knew of it, fled away by
night with his bodyguard. Whether living in Solomon’s house or David’s,
his way would be down the Stairs of the City of David into the bed of
the Tyropœon; and then we are distinctly told that he fled by the way
of the Gate between the two walls, which was by the king’s garden (2
Kings xxv. 4; Jer. xxxix. 4; lii. 7). His plan was to take the route
which David had taken when he fled from Absalom. Josephus says “that he
fled out of the city through the fortified ditch” (Antiq. x. 8, 2)--a
statement which quite supports our idea that the deep hollow “Suburb”
was defended by a transverse wall or dam.
_Jeremiah’s Prophecy._--In order to encourage the people during the
captivity, Jeremiah predicts that Jerusalem shall be again inhabited
and its borders extended. The measuring line is to go forth over
against it upon the hill Gareb (probably the later Bezetha, north-west
of the Temple) and shall compass about to Goath (this seems to be a
sweep round the north-western, western, and south-western parts of
the city); and the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes
(_i.e._, Topheth, the broad junction of the present Hinnom and Tyropœon
Valleys), and all the fields (eastward) unto the Brook Kedron (and then
northward), unto the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east shall be
holy unto the Lord (Jer. xxxi. 28). This reference again confirms the
position we have assigned to the Horse Gate.
Zechariah also describes Jerusalem in its length and breadth. It is
to be lifted up and inhabited from Benjamin’s Gate (the east gate of
the temple in Ezekiel’s plan, Ezek. xlviii. 32), unto the place of the
first gate (the first gate of the city, a gate near the north-east
corner--as the Hebrew language reads from right to left, so goes the
numbering here), unto the Corner Gate. This is from east to west; the
north and south extremes named by Zechariah are the Tower of Hananel
(same position as Antonia) and the king’s wine-presses (which we may
guess to be southward of the king’s garden).
_The Locality of the King’s Garden_ is an important point in Jerusalem
topography. M. Clermont Ganneau inclines to place it on the eastern
side of Ophel; but his reason seems to be insufficient. The great
eastern valley of Jerusalem, so commonly called the Kedron, is
divided by the fellahin of Siloam into three parts, and the middle
part--extending from the south-east angle of the Haram to the junction
of valleys a little north of Joab’s well--they call _Wady Fer’aun_,
or “Pharaoh’s Valley.” M. Ganneau believes that this signifies, in
their minds, simply the _Valley of the King_, and is equivalent
to the King’s Garden.[36] M. Ganneau might claim in his favour the
statement of Josephus that Adonijah’s feast, “by En Rogel,” took place
near the fountain that was in the king’s paradise (or park).[37] But
the paradise or park was something different from the garden, and
Josephus does not use the word paradise to describe the king’s gardens
in which Uzziah was buried, but the word _kepois_.[38] It is worth
notice also that if the Virgin’s Fountain was in the king’s park, it
was almost certainly outside the city. Again, the fact that the royal
park included within it the spring of water makes it probable that the
shaft in connection with it was on the royal property also, for the
kings would hardly allow the free use of a spring which they deemed
their own. And then, if the shaft was on the royal grounds (although
that part was still traditionally called the Fuller’s Field) it would
be natural that Isaiah should find king Ahaz walking there.
Amos prophesied in the days of Uzziah, “two years before the
earthquake” (Amos i. 1). This earthquake, although not noticed in the
history, was of a terrible character, and the people fled before it
(Zech. xiv. 5). As Josephus tells the story, it was just as Uzziah was
entering the Temple that the building suddenly started asunder; the
light flashed through, and at the same moment the leprosy rushed into
the king’s face. The hills around felt the shock, and a memorial of
the crash was long preserved in a large fragment, or landslip, which,
rolling down from the western hill, was brought to rest at the base
of the eastern hill, and there obstructed not only the roads but the
paradises of the kings. Josephus says that this occurred at the place
called Eroge, and Dean Stanley is confident that he means En Rogel;[39]
but here again it is necessary to notice that it is the king’s
paradises which are spoken of and not the king’s gardens.
It is quite clear that the king’s gardens were near the Gate between
two walls, as mentioned in the account of Zedekiah’s flight; and it
seems certain that the Gate between two walls was in the Tyropœon.
_7. Sieges of Jerusalem understood by the topography._--The capture
of Jerusalem by David, the investment of it by Sennacherib, and
the overthrow of it by Nebuchadnezzar have already been described.
Time would fail me to go into detail concerning all the sieges that
followed; and probably a brief treatment of two or three will be
sufficient for the reader. We desire to show how much clearer the
history becomes in the light of modern survey and investigation; and
for this purpose a few examples are enough.
Jerusalem on three sides was protected by deep ravines, and an enemy,
looking up, saw the brow of every hill surmounted by high walls. At
first he might imagine the Tyropœon Valley was accessible from the
south, since the dam or transverse wall was lower in position than
the walls which it joined together; but no doubt the dam or wall was
strongly built. Even if he could get within it, there was the Causeway
in front and walls on either side, and he would only be in what
Josephus calls a fortified ditch. The assailants of Jerusalem--who
doubtless knew their business--always chose to assault it from the high
ground north and north-west. The king’s palace, therefore, on Ophel was
about the last place which an enemy could reach, and not until he had
broken through two or three walls.
When Pompey advanced against Jerusalem (B.C. 64), the population was
divided. The party of Hyrcanus opened the gates to him; but the party
of Aristobulus retired to the Temple, breaking down the bridge which
communicated with the city. This may have been an arch on the site
of the present Wilson’s Arch. Pompey, having sent a garrison into the
city itself, laid siege to the Temple, purposing to assault it from the
north. He “filled up the ditch on the north side of the Temple.” That
would be the artificial cutting at the north-west corner. He filled
up the valley also, Josephus tells us (Wars, i. 7, 3), “and indeed
it was a hard thing to fill up that valley, by reason of its immense
depth, especially as the Jews used all the means possible to repel them
from their superior station.” This is the valley which Warren found,
crossing the present Haram area, falling away from the north side of
the platform to a depth of 200 feet, and passing out into the Kedron
north of the Golden Gate. Probably it was only partially filled up at
this time. Pompey then erected towers upon the bank which he had made,
and brought engines to bear; but it was not until the third month of
the siege that he made himself master of the Temple.
In B.C. 37, Herod, like all preceding generals, pitched his
camp on the north side (Josephus, Wars, i. 17, 9). The Jews in this
warfare made mines--perhaps in the ground banked up by Pompey--and
surprised the Romans by sudden sorties from below. But the first wall
was captured in forty days--(Antiq. xiv. 16, 2. This was of course
the wall which we know as the second)--and the Lower City being thus
taken, the Jews retired into the Upper City and into the Temple. The
Upper City was taken by storm after fifteen days more. But here the
destruction ceased. Herod was going to reign in Jerusalem, and did not
wish to do more damage than was inevitable in the capture of the city.
He sought to save the Temple, and only some of the cloisters about it
got burnt down.
Afterwards, to ingratiate himself with the Jews, Herod rebuilt the
Temple, and enlarged the precincts of it. It would seem that Solomon’s
palace had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s generals and never
rebuilt. Herod’s own palace was in the High Town. The area formerly
occupied by Solomon’s palace was now taken into the Temple precincts,
the south-west corner was raised up from its low level and added also;
and along this southern front was built a royal cloister, 100 feet
high. To make an approach to this cloister from the west, Robinson’s
Arch was erected, and if there was no viaduct from the western hill
there must have been a staircase to ascend from the valley. On the
north side also the Temple precincts were enlarged, by taking in the
ground which Pompey had raised to a higher level. The Baris or castle
in which Nehemiah had lived was reconstructed and strengthened, renamed
Antonia, and connected with the Temple.
In another quarter Herod strengthened the city very much. The reader
will have noticed that while it was a usual thing with assailants to
attack the north wall, and take the Lower City as a preliminary to
assaulting the Upper City, yet there was one spot where the Upper
City might be approached at once from the outside. This was by the
Valley Gate, and was owing to the fact that the second wall started
from the Gennath Gate to go northward, whereas the wall of the Upper
City was prolonged westward. Herod determined to strengthen this part
of the city all the more because his own palace was in this part; so
he built three strong towers, which he named Hippicus, Phasaelus, and
Mariamne. Hippicus was at the outer angle; the base of it remains, and
is the foundation of the north-west tower of the present citadel, which
measures 45 feet square. Phasaelus remains, and is the one conspicuous
object on the right hand as the traveller enters the Jaffa Gate. It is
70 feet by 56 feet, and is solid to the height of 60 feet; the stones
are bevelled, like those round the Haram, and do not appear ever to
have been disturbed. The site of Mariamne is less certain, but it
probably corresponded with the third tower which we see marked in
almost every plan of the so-called Castle of David.
The Jerusalem of Herod’s day was the Jerusalem which Jesus Christ would
be familiar with.
In the year 43 A.D., Agrippa built a third wall, to enclose
the suburban dwellings which had sprung up on the north. This third
wall began at the tower Hippicus, went northward, and had a tower
called Psephinus at its north-west angle, then passed eastward “over
against” the monuments of Helena, queen of Adiabene (the so-called
“Tombs of the Kings,” half a mile out, on the great north road), then
passed by the caverns of the kings, bent southward at the tower of the
north-eastern corner, and finally joined the old wall at the valley
“called the Valley of Kedron” (Josephus, Wars, v. 4, 2). “The city
could no way have been taken if that wall had been finished in the
manner it was begun.” But Agrippa “left off building it when he had
only laid the foundation, out of the fear he was in of Claudius Cæsar.”
The wall was 10 cubits wide, and was afterwards raised as high as 20
cubits, above which it had battlements and turrets. In the course of
the third wall, according to Josephus, there were ninety towers, as
compared with sixty in the first; and the whole compass of the city
was 33 furlongs. He also says that the ninety towers were 200 cubits
apart; but this would make the third wall alone more than 5 miles in
length, and so we judge that some mistake has crept into the text.
Therefore we shall venture to take the present north wall of the
city as representing Agrippa’s wall, notwithstanding that the entire
circumference would then be less than 33 furlongs. There seems to be
no sufficient evidence for going beyond the present wall. It is a wall
which begins at the tower Hippicus, by the Jaffa Gate. The position of
the great corner tower Psephinus seems to be indicated by the ruined
castle called _Kalat Jalud_ (Giant’s Castle), just within the present
north-west angle. The Damascus Gate is “over against” the so-called
Tombs of the Kings, for a spectator standing at the Tombs would look
down directly upon that gate. The “royal caverns” we may identify with
the Cotton Cavern, the quarry whence the kings of Judah obtained the
stone for the great buildings of the city. The entrance to them is in
the face of the scarped rock, about 300 feet east of the Damascus Gate,
and the city wall runs right across the entrance. At the north-east
corner of the present wall we find the tower which Josephus assigns
to that point--“the most colossal ruins after those at the north-west
corner.” A trench cut in the rock at the foot of the eastern wall is
deflected here, passes round the corner, and goes west; it does not go
any further north as we might expect it to do if the wall ever extended
further north. And then the wall from the north-east corner is brought
southward and joins the Haram wall, the junction not being at the
north-east angle of the Haram, but much nearer to the Golden Gate, at
the deep valley which Pompey began to fill up. We have to bear in mind
that this third wall had been built before the siege of Jerusalem by
Titus, in A.D. 70.
Titus began by investing the city on the north and the west. The place
he selected for his attempt on the outer wall was just west of the Pool
of Hezekiah, because there the wall of the High Town was not covered by
the second wall, and he thought to capture the third wall and then at
once assault the first.
When Titus had taken the outer wall he encamped in the north-west
part of the city between the second and third walls; and at the same
time extended his line from the “Camp of the Assyrians” to the Kedron
Valley. His attempt to storm the High Town at the uncovered portion of
the wall failed because of the strength of Herod’s towers. He then made
an attempt on the Temple platform from the north, but failed because
the valley there was deep and the Temple was strongly fortified. He
had hoped, when he took the Wall of Agrippa, to be able to assault
Antonia from the north, without taking the second wall; but it now
appeared to him that that castle might best be assaulted on the west.
These considerations induced him to attack the second wall. After
some effort, a breach was made, and the Romans entered the middle
city. They were once driven out by the Jews, and kept out for a time;
but by-and-bye they gained entrance again, and then, made wise by
experience, they demolished the second wall, or the northern part of
it, and so were able to keep their ground.
Antonia was now assaulted on its western side; but the business was
difficult, and the struggle was long. The mounds which the Romans cast
up were undermined by the Jews and destroyed. The mines, however,
weakened the outer wall of the castle, and that fell also. The Romans
were filled with hope; but the Jews had foreseen the event, and had
run up another wall behind. The courage of the Romans was damped by
the sight of this second wall. But a few days after, they scaled
it by a night surprise, and at the same time forced their way into
Antonia through the mine under the wall. The Jews, in a panic, rushed
away into the Temple, where they were able to defend themselves as in
a fortress. But fighting now took place daily, until at length the
northern cloisters of the Temple were burnt down, the inner Temple was
assaulted, and eventually the whole fabric was reduced to ashes.
The Jews were now crowded in the Upper City, and confined to that.
Titus held a parley with them across the bridge above the Xystus--that
is, at Wilson’s Arch--offering them terms. But they declined his
conditions, and so the siege had to go on. The Ophel quarter was now
plundered and burnt; and then a grand effort was made against the
Upper City. Mounds were thrown up, and the assault was delivered
simultaneously from several points--on the west, by Herod’s palace, on
the north-west part of the town a little east of the tower Phasaelus,
and on the north-east at the Xystus, which extended from Wilson’s Arch
southward. The strong city at last fell, and its walls and buildings
were razed to the ground.
We know that it rose again from its ashes, and has had an eventful
history since; but it is not our purpose to follow its fortunes farther.
In seeking to understand the descriptions given by Josephus, writers
have been much puzzled by his mention of a ravine “called the Kedron
ravine.” It could not well be the Kedron Valley itself, or it would
hardly be spoken of in this way; besides which, we are told that the
eastern portion of Agrippa’s wall joined the old wall at the ravine
called Kedron. This would be too indefinite a note of place if the wall
and the ravine ran parallel with one another. Moreover, the north-east
angle of the Temple cloisters was built over the said ravine, and
the depth was frightful (Wars, vi. 3, 2). The depth was frightful at
the angle, rather than at the eastern side. There could be no right
understanding of the references, until Sir Charles Warren’s labours
showed that a deep valley crosses the Haram north of the Golden Gate,
and contains within it the Birket Israil. It was only a “so-called
ravine” to Josephus, because the western portion had been filled up by
Pompey, and the eastern mouth was cut across by the Wall of Agrippa.
Warren’s discovery of this ravine, and demonstration of its depth, is
a glorious instance of the value of excavation work in questions of
Jerusalem topography.
[_Authorities and Sources_:--The Works of Josephus. “Siege of
Jerusalem.” Thomas Lewin. “Jerusalem, a Sketch.” Thomas Lewin.]