EZRA AND NEHEMIAH
[Sidenote: SANBALLAT]
The seventy years of Babylonian oppression reckon from the accession of
Nebuchadnezzar to the first year of Cyrus in 538 B. C., when the cruel
policy of transplanting the population of the empire was abandoned, and
the Jews were permitted to return to Jerusalem. We do not as yet know
what the religious beliefs of Cyrus may have been. A Babylonian text
represents him to have been a worshipper of Babylonian gods. The first
known monumental notice of Ahuramazda, the Persian “All-wise Being,”
occurs in the famous texts of Darius I. This deity was regarded by him
as the maker of heaven and earth, and the Hebrews--speaking to Persian
kings--made use of the title “god of heaven,” which would be understood
by Persians as referring to the deity they themselves adored.[150] The
first Persian kings were famed for their justice and tolerance, and
Darius I. not only permitted the building of the Jerusalem Temple, but
equally permitted the restoration of the temple of the goddess Neith,
which Cambyses had respected, but which had fallen into ruin. He sent
an Egyptian priest from Persia to carry out this work, just as his
descendant sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem. It has also quite
recently been discovered that Darius II. was memorialised, by Jewish
priests in Egypt, to permit the restoration of a house of Jehovah at
Elephantine, which was built before Cambyses conquered Egypt in 529
B. C. In this Aramaic petition the title “god of heaven” is used as
meaning Jehovah, just as in the Bible, and the ancient spelling of the
divine name as _Iahu_ is preserved just as it occurs in the text of
Sennacherib, and on early Hebrew signet-rings. The letter, moreover,
mentions Delaya and Shelemya, the sons of Sanballat, “governor of
Samaria,” side by side with the Persian officials Bagohi and Arshama,
thus serving to show that Ezra and Nehemiah lived in the time of
Artaxerxes I.[151] We see from such records that the restoration of the
Jews was part of the settled policy of the Persian kings in dealing
with their foreign subjects.
Zerubbabel began the rebuilding of the Temple in 536 B. C. The old men
“that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was
laid before their eyes wept with a loud voice, and many shouted for
joy.” Haggai the prophet, who urged on this work, says, “Who is left
among you that saw this house in her first glory, and how do ye see
it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison to it as nothing?”[152]
We may conclude that it was but an humble edifice, without any of
the adornment with precious metals and carvings that had existed in
Solomon’s Temple. But it stood on the old site, and probably followed
the old dimensions. The building was suspended in the time of Cambyses,
and resumed in 520 B. C., after the accession of Darius I., being
completed four years later. Ezra arrived in 459 B. C.--the seventh year
of Artaxerxes I.--and brought with him vessels and treasures granted by
the king. But it appears that the city walls still remained in ruins,
till Nehemiah was made governor of Jerusalem fifteen years later. On
his departure, in 433 B. C., the enemies of the Jews renewed their
activity.[153] They had already obstructed the building of the Temple
in the time of Xerxes, and had given much trouble to the patriotic
Nehemiah. Rehum the “master of edicts” and Shimshai the scribe complain
to Artaxerxes I. that the Jews have come to Jerusalem, “building the
rebellious and bad city, and have set up the walls and joined the
foundations.” They obtained a decree “that this city be not builded,”
which remained in force for nine years. All work on the Temple was also
suspended for the same period, or to the second year of Darius II.,
which was 423 B. C. This monarch was apparently a degenerate descendant
of his great ancestors, and his reign was troubled by many intrigues,
assassinations, and rebellions. But the Persians had by this time
intermarried with the Babylonians and other Semitic races,[154] and
he appears to have been regarded as a friend by the Jews in Palestine
and in Egypt alike. The great satraps of the western provinces were,
however, almost independent rulers, and the letter of Yedonya--the
Jewish priest in Egypt above noticed--was addressed to “my Lord Bagohi
of Judah,” the Persian governor of Judea a generation later than
Sanballat, the Babylonian “governor of Samaria.” Darius II. may have
desired to control the power of such Persian satraps by his protection
of Semitic subjects, and the power of the Semitic race in his age
is witnessed by the coins of the satraps in Asia Minor inscribed in
Aramaic.[155]
[Sidenote: NEHEMIAH’S RIDE]
The book of Nehemiah contains the fullest account of Jerusalem
topography to be found in the Bible, and casts light on the condition
of the city in earlier times, since his work consisted in rebuilding
the walls which appear to have stood in ruins, for nearly a century and
a half, since their destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. On arrival, in 444
B. C., Nehemiah’s abode was established in the “seat of the governor
on this side the river” (Euphrates),[156] which seems to have been a
house on the west side of the lower city. Thence he went out by night
to view the walls[157]; and, leaving the city by the “Gate of the
_Gai_,” somewhere near the present Jaffa Gate, he found the walls of
the upper city broken down as far as the Dung Gate at the south-west
corner, and the gates burned with fire. Thence he crossed over the
hill eastwards,[158] and reached the “Gate of the Spring” near the
“King’s Pool.” There is no doubt that the latter is the Pool of Siloam,
which--though only a tank--is called a “spring” by Josephus also,
because it was fed by spring water through the aqueduct. The “Gate of
the Spring” appears to have been at the point where the wall of the
upper city formed a re-entering angle, crossing the Tyropœon Valley
above the Siloam Pool. Here Nehemiah found masses of ruins, among which
“the beast that was under” him could not find footing. He viewed the
east wall by going up the _naḥal_ or Kidron Valley, and then returned
by the same way to the Gate of the _Gai_ and to his house.
[Sidenote: THE WALLS]
The whole account of the walls is twice repeated in describing their
building and their consecration.[159] For the right understanding
of these passages it is necessary to keep in mind certain practical
considerations. In the first place, the lines of streets in a city
are usually preserved from age to age by the fact that the ground on
each side of the way is private property which can only be acquired at
great cost, or by seizure in cases when a foreign power attempts the
rebuilding of a town. Thus the modern streets are the same which we
find described in the twelfth century; the same shown on the old mosaic
map of the fifth century; the same which existed in Hadrian’s city;
and very probably the same as in the days of Nehemiah. The west road
approached Jerusalem at the point where the narrow neck of high ground
was on the same level with that of this road outside the town. A street
went straight down the Tyropœon, from the west gate to the Temple. The
north road divided just outside the town of Nehemiah’s time into two
lines. One of these, towards the east, led down the valley west of the
Temple, and descended by steps to Siloam. These steps seem even to be
shown on the fifth-century map, and the old pavements on this line--40
feet underground--have already been noticed. A gate must have existed
in the south wall on this line. The western branch of the north road
formed a street running due south through the middle of the city; and,
ascending the steep slope of the upper city on the present line, it led
probably to the gate near the south-west angle above the Hinnom Valley.
Another line of street led east from a gate near the north-west side of
the northern quarter, and passed north of the Temple to a gate in the
east wall of the city. These are still the main streets of Jerusalem,
and they lead us to suppose that the city had at least six gates, not
counting those on Ophel and on the east wall of the Temple enclosure.
[Illustration: JERUSALEM IN 600 B. C.
REFERENCES
1 _The Sheep Gate_
2 _The Tower Hananeel_
3 _The Tower Meah_
4 _The Fish Gate_
5 _The Old Gate_
6 _The Ephraim Gate_
7 _The Tomb of David_
8 _The Lower Pool_
9 _The Valley Gate_
10 _The Corner Gate_
11 _The Upper Pool_
12 _The Dung Gate_
13 _The Spring Gate_
14 _The Gate between Two Walls_
15 _The Water Gate_
16 _The Outlying Tower_
17 _The Horse Gate_
18 _The Healing Bath_
]
In the second place, we must remember that the walls must have run
on the highest available ground, in order to give advantage to
the defenders over their enemies outside. This is invariably the
arrangement of a fortified town in any age, and it is impossible
to suppose that ancient engineers--any more than those of our own
time--would build walls in valleys, leaving high ground immediately
outside, where the towers and engines of the besiegers could be placed
in positions commanding the town within. At Jerusalem the wall had
to be carried across the head of a narrow valley on the north side,
down which valley ran the street west of the Temple leading to Siloam.
At Siloam also the wall had to be carried across a wider valley--the
south part of the Tyropœon; but, unless it was desired to enclose that
pool, it would here be kept as high as possible on the ground above
the pool to the north. It is certain--at all events in the time of
Josephus--that the Pool of Siloam was outside the wall; but, since it
was flanked by scarps within easy bowshot, it would be sufficiently
defended if the wall was built on these scarps. The same consideration
makes it certain that the wall defending Jerusalem on the north-west
and west must have stood on the higher ground which defends the lower
city on two sides. It would therefore join the wall of the upper
city near the north-west corner of the latter, and would run on the
narrow saddle, or neck of high land, which separates the heads of the
Tyropœon and Hinnom Valleys. No other position can be conceived, since
if it began east of this saddle, it would have stretched through the
Tyropœon, leaving the saddle outside with a command of at least 50
feet above the base of the wall. Farther to the north-west the wall
must also have enclosed, or run over, the high knoll of rock which
was shown later as the site of Calvary--a rock which is nearly as high
as the level ground of the upper city, and which formed the natural
defence of the lower city which lay in the Tyropœon Valley. The wall
might have run farther to the west and north, where the rock is close
to the present surface, but it could not run farther east or south
without leaving high ground immediately outside the fortress; for the
north slope of the broad Tyropœon hollow sinks very rapidly south of
the knoll now shown as Calvary, while not far to the east of this knoll
it also fell about 50 feet to the confluent valley coming from the
present Damascus Gate.
[Sidenote: THE GATES]
The natural lines of defence, and the position of the streets and
gates, have thus been considered without any reference to literary
statements. As to the upper city there is a general consensus of
opinion, and the scarps on which the ancient walls stood have been
examined, both here and on the Ophel spur farther east. It is on the
north that differences of opinion arise, according as the writer
accepts the traditional site of Calvary, and endeavours to show that
it might have been outside the city, or, on the other hand, disregards
this hampering condition, and relies on the ascertained levels of the
hills and valleys. The present writer feels no hesitation in concluding
that rocks on which he has so often set his feet, whether on the
surface or deep down in the great tanks of the Hospice of St. John,
cannot be removed, nor valleys which--though much shallower than of
old--are still traceable inside the city be exalted, on account of the
mistake which Bishop Macarius made as to Calvary in the fourth century.
If there were any indication that Christians preserved the traditional
site in earlier times, due respect should be paid to such indication.
But we do not even know for certain that there were any Christians at
Jerusalem till the third century, or about 170 years after the great
destruction by Titus, and none of the Christian Fathers before about
330 A. D. show any acquaintance with Jerusalem topography, or mention
any tradition as to the situation of Calvary. Fortresses are built on
hills, not under them, unless when a citadel is occupied, with outer
walls on the slopes. Ancient walls do not run in deep ravines, leaving
a commanding ridge just outside. It is on these principles that we may
most safely rest in considering the walls of Jerusalem.
A fortress (_birah_) defending the temple is said to have existed even
in the time of Solomon, and it is incidentally noticed by Nehemiah.
It seems to be the same as the later Baris, which Herod renamed
Antonia.[160] To this fortress the tower of Hananeel and the tower of
Meah (perhaps “the place of observation”) seem to have belonged.[161]
The former is noticed as marking the north-east corner of the city,
which did not extend north of the Birah in Nehemiah’s time. The “Sheep
Gate”[162] thus seems to have been a gate, in the north wall of the
Temple enclosure, by which no doubt the sacrifices were brought in.
The description of the walls begins from this point, and runs west and
south, returning to the same gate by the east and northwards. This
description is easily understood, and agrees with what has been said
above as to the natural sites for the fortifications. The first gate
west of the Temple fortress was the “Fish Gate,” which we may place
on the east branch of the north road; the fish were no doubt brought
to Jerusalem by the old Beth-horon road from the seaside plain,
and we learn that the fishermen were Tyrians.[163] The “Old Gate,”
or more correctly the “Gate of the Old” (quarter), may be placed at
the point where the wall crossed the line of the west branch of the
north road. This term seems to show that part at least of the north
quarter belonged to the oldest city, whereas a “second” district--which
the English version calls “the college”--is noticed with the Fish
Gate.[164] The next gate is called “the Gate of Ephraim,” and it may be
placed on the north-west, at the end of the street that ran east to the
north side of the Temple. This gate was some 400 cubits from the Corner
Gate.[165] The measurement brings us to about the requisite position
if the corner was that near which the wall of the north quarter joined
that of the upper city. Near the Gate of Ephraim, a little farther
south perhaps, was the “Seat of the Governor.” We thus reach the “Wall
of the Broad Place”[166] and the “Tower of the Furnaces”--or perhaps
of the “Cressets.” The “broad place” was no doubt a square on the flat
ground near to where the rock isthmus, already often noticed, leads to
the hill of the upper city.
[Sidenote: THE STAIRS]
We thus arrive at the west road, where was the “Gate of the _Gai_” at
the head of the Hinnom Valley. Whether this was identical with the
“Corner Gate,” or merely near it, depends on whether we should read (in
2 Chron. xxvi. 9) “the Corner Gate even the Valley Gate”; but Jeremiah
describes the breadth of Jerusalem, east and west, by the expression,
“from the Tower of Hananeel to the Gate of the Corner.” The description
next follows the west wall of the upper city to the Dung Gate, which
was 1,000 cubits from the Valley Gate, or more if the whole of the
wall was not in ruins. To the present day the dung-hills outside the
city are found in this direction. It is generally agreed that the wall
extended south to the great rock scarp by the English school, which
was explored by Mr. Henry Maudeslay in 1874, and which formed the
south-west angle of ancient Jerusalem, where a square tower projected
at the corner.[167] From this angle the scarp runs south-east for about
350 feet, to where a broad entrance between two lower scarps cuts the
line. There was probably a gate at this point, which may have been the
Dung Gate, though it is more than 1,000 cubits from the west road, and
thus from the Gate of the Valley. No other ancient gate is noticed on
the south side of the upper city, nor was one required, as no road led
across the deep Hinnom gorge. The wall ran east--perhaps on the line of
the later Byzantine wall--and the next points mentioned are “the Gate
of the Spring,” “the wall of the Pool of Siloah by the king’s garden,”
and “the stairs that go down from the city of David,”[168] which were
at “the going up of the wall.” An artificial rock scarp runs northwards
on the west side of the Pool of Siloam, about 20 feet above the level
of the flat walk which existed on each side of the pool; and between
this and the pool is a broad flight of rock-cut steps. These steps have
been traced for 700 feet northwards, ascending the Tyropœon Valley in
the direction of the south-west angle of the Ḥaram enclosure. They seem
to be indicated also, near this latter point, on the old fifth-century
mosaic map, and are noticed again in 570 A. D., as will appear later.
We can hardly doubt that they represent the “stairs that go down from
the city of David”--that is, from the quarter immediately west of
the Temple. The “Gate of the Spring” is noticed before the “wall of
Siloah,” which would stand on the scarp to the west of the pool, and
it may best be placed at the angle where the south wall of the upper
city now turned north, and where a path still exists. The term “going
up of the wall” obliges us to suppose that it crossed the Tyropœon
Valley north of the Siloam Pool, where the level was about 100 feet
higher than at the corner; and here, passing the stairs, it ran east
to a scarp visible above the surface, and about 120 feet higher than
the ground round the pool. The wall passed the “King’s Garden” and
the “sepulchres of David,” already noticed,[169] and reached a tower
called “the House of Heroes,” turning again north along the east side
of the Ophel spur, at the “going up of the Armoury,” or otherwise of
the “junction.” For the wall ran up-hill all the way to the Temple from
this point. The line thus traced is the same that Josephus describes
in later times, excluding, but yet defending, the Pool of Siloam. As
regards the stairs, it is possible that we have another allusion to
them where the “going down to Silla” (or “the stairway”) is connected
with the “house of Millo,” probably a building in the lower city. We
also read of a “causeway of going up” (more correctly an “ascent of
steps”) in connection with the west gate of the Temple, but this may
have been a distinct flight.[170]
[Sidenote: THE OPHEL WALL]
On the Ophel spur the east wall, south of the Temple, had another
“turning” close to the palace or “king’s high house,” and a projecting
tower near the “Water Gate” which--as explained already--must have been
above the Kidron spring.[171] It ran north-east, on the line already
noticed as fortified by Manasseh, to the “Horse Gate” which was at a
corner. This part was called especially “the wall of the Ophel,” a term
which does not signify a “tower” but a “mound,” such as ancient cities
were built on, and a “place,” as Josephus calls it later, where were
the houses of the Nethinim.[172] The rest of the course, on the east
side of the Temple, is briefly described from the “Gate of the Muster”
(Miphkad), or “of the Guard” (the “Prison” Gate), to the “going up
of the corner” at the north-east angle of Jerusalem, and thus to the
“Sheep Gate” where the description begins.[173]
Jerusalem thus described was a city of about 200 acres--that is, of the
same size as the modern town within the walls, but extending farther
south and less far to the north. The account above given places each of
the main gates on a main road still existing. The gate on the line of
the stairs from the city of David is not named in the book of Nehemiah,
but it is clearly the “gate between the two walls by the king’s
garden,” which we have already seen to be the one by which Zedekiah
fled down the Kidron Valley to Jericho. The “two walls” were the two
flanks of the city wall, which defended the Pool of Siloah (lying
outside the city) on the west and on the north-east.
Such was the Jerusalem not only of Nehemiah but of Nebuchadnezzar’s
time, and with this description we close the account of the Hebrew
city: for after the departure of Nehemiah, in 433 B. C., we have no
further notice of Jerusalem during about two centuries and a half of
Jewish history.
FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV
[150] This term _elah_ (or _elohi_) _hash-shemim_ is distinctive of
the age after the return from the captivity (Ezra v. 11, vi. 9, 10,
vii. 12, 21, 23; Neh. i. 4, 5, ii. 4, 20; Dan. ii. 18, 19, 28, 37, 44);
it never occurs in any of those passages in the Pentateuch which some
critical writers assign to this later age.
[151] Brugsch, “Hist. Egt.,” ii. pp. 294–96; Prof. H. Gunkel, _Deutsche
Rundschau_, January 1908. _Sanballaṭ_ (“Sinu has given life”), _Delaya_
(“set free by Ya”), and _Shelemya_ (“friend of Ya”), are Semitic and
apparently Babylonian names.
[152] Ezra iii. 12; Hag. ii. 3.
[153] Ezra iv. 6, 8, 12, 21, 24.
[154] Hilprecht, in his “Nippur Memoirs” (vol. ix. pp. 27, 28), gives
instances of Persians with Babylonian wives as early as the reign of
Artaxerxes I., together with many names of Hebrews who were residing in
Babylonia.
[155] Taylor, “Alphabet,” vol. i. p. 258.
[156] Neh. iii. 7.
[157] Neh. ii. 13–15.
[158] The Hebrew _’abar_ does not of necessity mean “crossing” any
valley. The word is constantly used in the Old Testament with the more
general meaning to “go on,” as in the English of this passage.
[159] Neh. iii. and xii.
[160] 1 Chron. xxix. 19; Neh. ii. 8. Mishnah, _Zebakhim_, xii. 3;
_Tamid_, i. 1; _Middoth_, i. 9.
[161] Neh. iii. 1, xii. 39; Jer. xxxi. 38; Zech. xiv. 10.
[162] Neh. iii. 1–32.
[163] Neh. iii. 3, xii. 39, xiii. 16.
[164] Neh. iii. 6; 2 Kings xxii. 14; Zeph. i. 10.
[165] Neh. xii. 39; 2 Chron. xxv. 23, xxvi. 9; Jer. xxxi. 38. Josephus
describes the streets in this part as oblique to the wall (“Wars,” V.
viii. 1).
[166] Neh. iii. 8, xii. 38.
[167] “Mem. West Pal. Survey,” Jerusalem vol., pp. 393–7; Bliss,
“Excavations at Jerusalem,” pp. 2–10.
[168] Neh. iii. 16, xii. 37; see 2 Kings xii. 20; 1 Chron. xxvi. 16.
Bliss, “Excavations at Jerusalem,” p. 151.
[169] See back, p. 69.
[170] Neh. iii. 15, xii. 37; 2 Kings xii. 20; 1 Chron xxvi. 16.
[171] Neh. iii. 23–6, xii. 37. See p. 65.
[172] 2 Chron. xxvii. 3, xxxiii. 14; Neh. iii. 26, xi. 21.
[173] Neh. iii. 31–2, xii. 39.