Appendix I: Notes on the Topography of Jerusalem
The “stranger from a far country,’’ looking upon Jerusalem from any of its heights, would not be struck with it as a city built on hills. It is so set, but at first sight it does not seem so. Age, war, peace, friends, foes, builders, spoilers, have so done their work of levelling and filling up, that a nice eye is needed to mark, in the slight undulations which the city presents, the ancient hills of which Scripture and Josephus speak.* But a more careful scrutiny shews us the four hills, with perhaps Ophel, the spur of Moriah, as the fifth. “Its foundations are on the holy mountains,” (Ps. lxxxvii. 1). We had opportunity of ascertaining this somewhat accurately, as we did not, like the “Beatus Hilarion,” Jerome’s friend, remain only one day in the city, but spent three busy and inquiring weeks, inside and outside its walls.f
* These were at first two, Sion and Akra; afterwards four, Moriah and Bezetha being taken in; these two last connected more with Akra than with Sion, which stood alone and above the others, though viewed either from Scopus or Olivet it seemed the summit of the one ridge, which appeared to slope gradually upward from the Kedron. Some old writers, both Jewish and Christian, have tried to make Jerusalem a seven-hilled city; (See Tanchuma, cited by Lightfoot; Cent. Chor., p. 45; Wolfii Curae Philol., vol. iv. p. 577; and especially the treatise of LaJcemacher de Hierosolyma Septicolli. Observ. Phil,, Part iii. p. 285); but in trying to do so they take in the three tops of Olivet, resting on a Rabbinical statement that Jerusalem extended to Bethphnge. The matter is not an important one, but’ some Apocalyptic interpreters, having thus got seven hills, apply Rev. xvii. 9, to Jerusalem, as others do to Constantinople, and others to Babylon. But the “Urbs Septicollis” had but one reference both in classical and Patristic usage, — “Septem urbs alta jugis, toti quse praesidit orbi.” — Properiius.
t “Beatus Hilarion cum Palaestinus esset, et in Palrestina viveret, uno tantum die vidit Hiersolymam, ut nec contemnere loca sancta propter viciniam, nec rursus Deum loco claudere videretur.” Jerome’s Ep. to Paulinus. It is in this episstle that the following memorable sentences occur: — “Non Hierosolymis fuisse, sed 1-5 ierosolymis bene vixisse laudandum est; et de Hierosolymis et de Britannia aiqualiter patet aula coelestis.”
H h
4S2
NOTES OX THE
But as to the “mountains being round about Jerusalem,” there could not be a moment’s doubt, for one cast of the eye from Scopus to “the Hill of Evil Counsel,” or from the Mount of Olives to the western heights which slope up beyond the city walls, shews the whole girdle of enclosing hills, the only slack, or flattening, being where Rephaim forms a plain for itself towards the south-western region of the city. Few cities in the world, if any, are so firmly hemmed in by natural bulwarks. Hence, toward the east and south, increase was i Jipossible, unless the city should grow large enough to take in the entire mountains beyond the girdling valley. On the north it could swell out a considerable way, and did so, as Josepkus tells us, occupying Bezetha, which at first, in the days of the Maccabees, was a village out.ide the walls,* from which the hill took its name. On the west it might have crept up the slopes, and planted itself on the undulations there to some extent; but this it does not seem to have done, or at least but in a limited degree.
Should “the stranger from the far country” walk round this circle of hills, keeping along the inner descent, that which slopes down to the city-walls, he will be struck with the numerous tombs that strew its surface. Beginning on the east, at the foot of the Mount of Offence, he will pass through the Jewish burying-ground with its thickstrewn monuments; then he will come to the tombs of Zacharias, James, Absalom, and Jehoshaphat, above which, farther up the hill, and between its southern and middle peak, are “the tombs of the prophets.” Then crossing the Kedron, before reaching Scopus, he comes to several old ruins of tombs; then to the tombs of the Kings, then to those of the Judges; then passing southward, he sees several tomb-like excavations here and there, till he reaches the modern Moslem grave-yard above the Birket Mamilla. Striking eastward, by what is called the valley of Hinnom, he soon finds himself on the rocky shelf of Akeldama, that strange hill of deep-hewn sepulchres. Thus, is the city of the living girdled with the tombs of the dead!
Within this circle of sepulchres, the stranger observes another, a
* “And Bacchides removed from Jerusalem and encamped in Bezeth: and be sent and took many of the men who had deserted from him, and some of the people, and slaughtered them at the great pit,” (1 Mace. vii. 19). This was AC 162. The pit seems the same as that mentioned Jer. xli.9. It was made by Asa, and used afterwards by Ishmael for casting the slain into. It would thus” seem that Bezeth, Mizpah, and the great pit were hard by each other. It is clear that Mizpah could not be at Neby Samwil,but much nearer Jerusalem, a little way beyond Bezeth. The incidents are mentioned by Josephus, (Ant b. xii. ch. 10. §2; b. xii. ch. 11. § 1); but the brief statement in the Book of the Maccabees shews the position of Bezeth, which Josephus’ account does not. natural trench, or scries of trenches, which, in the shape of valleys or ravines, nearly endasp Jerusalem. If he takes his stand to the north-west of the city, about the hill of Ashes, or a little farther south, on the road to Lifta, he will find that he occupies the centre of the only plain or slope which is not thus trenched. Looking northward he sees the bed of the Kedron sweeping round the whole north of the city, then bending southward, and forming the deep trench between Olivet and the eastern wall, till it terminates in the steeps above Bir Eyub. Looking round to the right, or southward, he sees the bed of the Gihon, as it is called, beginning not far from him, then taking a long bend that sends it quite round the southern walls of the city, where it deepens into the valley of Hinnoin and terminates in Bir Eyub. These two ravines, or river-beds, Kedron and Gihon, or as some prefer to call them, the u valley of Jehoshaphat” and the “valley of Gehinnom,’’ so bend themselves as to encompass nearly five-sixths of the city with a natural entrenchment.
The fourth circle is the walls themselves, with their four open gates, the Bab el-Khulil (Hebron, or YaiTa gate), on the south-west; the Bab el-Amud (Damascus gate), to the north-west; the Bab el-Hotta (St Stephen’s gate), to the east; the Bab el Nebi-Daud (Sion gate), to the south. * These walls are strong and well-built, thirty or forty feet high, with ledges, battlements, and towers. The stones, in most places, as their size and polish shew, are of Jewish extraction, belonging, probably, on the west side to the ancient towers of Herod, and on the south-east to the still more ancient temple. They have undergone great changes, especially in their position, as the city gradually contracted itself to its present dimensions. On the east side there has been little change in their site, as, from the nature of the ridge, they could at no time have been projected much farther than they now are. Hence the fallacy of the old ecclesiastical statements as to the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which all assume that the city, on contracting itself, has shifted westward, and so embraced spots which were anciently without the walls. If the western wall was drawn in so very far at the supposed site, as to allow the sepulchre to be even twenty yards without the gate, it would give to the city as awkward and misshapen a contour as any city, either of east or west, ever presented, bringing it into the form of a sand-glass, with a middle so small and tight-laced as not to afford room for its inhabitants to breathe. What object could be thus served it passes one’s compre-
* Not far from the last is the Bab el-Moharbe7i, near the south west angle of the mosque. This we never saw open. It may coi*respond with the ancient Dunggate.
NOTES OX THE
hension to conceive. There was ample space to build on; there was no hindrance in the shape of rock or precipice; the builders of the modern town have occupied all this ground: yet we are asked to believe that the original planners of the city, without reason or object, at this point, cut into the regular curvature of the city with a long and unmeaning indentation or angle, the only effect of which would be to disfigure the city.
Without attempting to construct a map of the city, or to establish any complete theory as to all its localities, we may be allowed to offer some suggestions upon the several parts which present themselves to the notice of the student or the traveller. Till extensive excavations have been made in various parts, both within and without; till more complete examination has been carried out by men who have resided in Jerusalem for months or years, small advances will be made in fixing the topography of Jerusalem. Ecclesiastical tradition must be laid aside; the Bible, Josephus, and the books of the Maccabees, must be more thoroughly examined and trusted. Eusebius and Jerome, as gleaners of the last relics of the true geography of Palestine, must be listened to, — yet not always quite implicitly; the rubbish of Rabbinism must be carefully sifted, as containing much true information; all this must be done, ere we can have any prospect of reaching certainty in the topography of Jerusalem. In most pjiaces of the land we can have recourse to native tradition, which is more trust-worthy than ecclesiastical. But for Jerusalem, we have almost nothing of this kind to resort to, so completely has the legendary nomenclature of the church overlaid and supplanted that of genuine antiquity. The names of places in the city or its neighbourhood, with one or two exceptions, such as Silwan for Siloam, are either monkish or Mahommedan.
We may try, however, to get at some truth, and to correct some error. Our hints may help others in a fuller investigation, which, we trust, is not far off.
T. Rephaim.*
The people that gave name to this plain were the original possessors of the land, before the Canaanites occupied it.f Shalem, or
* The modern name of this is simply el-Baka. the plain.
t See the articles on the Rephaim in Dr Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Literature, especially that in No. IV. for July 1S52, p. 311-315. “The alteration in the ancient name of Shalem (into Jebus) is as strong an indication of its having passed over to the power of the Jebusite children of Heth, as its geographical position, in the very middle of the line along which the domains of the Rephnini are traceable, is, per se, strong evidence that the metropolis of Palestine originally claimed them as its masters.”
Salem, was the metropolis, and the plain in the neighbourhood of their capital took and retained their name. The Rephaim were not giants, though some of them may have been, and our translation should have given the Hebrew name as it stands; — valley, or plain of “Rephaim,” instead of valley of “giants.” Salem and Rephaim are thus the two oldest names in connection with the city, the two remaining fragments of the original owners.
The valley of Rephaim, while extending considerably to the south of the city, seems to have gone farther north than is generally supposed, stretching, I believe, to the entrance of the Tyropcean valley, and arrested by the hill of Akra, which, in the original state of the country, when there was no citadel on Mount Sion, must have formed a very conspicuous object, not hidden by Sion, but coming out to the west, and terminating the great plain. Indeed, from the point of Ophel up to the north-western extremity of the Kedron, under Scopus, there was a curving succession of heights, — Ophel, Moriah, Akra, — which originally, before their summits were levelled, must have formed the obvious termination of the undulating plain which lay to the west and south.* It was along this line that the border-line went, between Judah and Benjamin. “The border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of Rephaim, northward” (Josh. xv. 8).f The border-line thus carried along by the top of Moriah and Akra, would divide the city into two paits, giving the upper city to Judah, and the lower to Benjamin. This would explain the otherwise inexplicable tradition of the Jews, that part of the temple belonged to the one tribe, and part to the other; nay, it would shew us why they affirm so uniformly that all the altar, save its south-western angle, was in Benjamin. The border-line running over the top of Moriah, — that is. over the es-Sakhrah, where we suppose was the altar, — would divide the altar into two. Eusebius and Jerome affirm that the valley of Rephaim was north of the city, — not meaning to confine it to this; but shewing us that they believed it to extend farther north than we suppose.
* To one coming from Bethlehem, the eastern end of Akra would be hdden; but the western extremity (nearly as high as Zion, till levelled by the Asmolieeans) would stand out as the termination of the great plain. Whether it were called Akra from its being the hill “behind.” or “beyond,” may be a question.
Understanding before as east, I take this difficult passage to mean, “the line went up to that top of the range which lies eastward of the tuest end of Hinnom, — that range where the valley of Rephaim terminates on the north.” So in the parallel passage where the line i traced in the opposite direction: — “The border came down to that end of the mountain, that is eastward of Hinnom, which is in the northern pait of the valley of Rephaim.” (Josh, xviii. 16).
NOTES ON THE
II. HlNNOM.
This has gone by various names. — such as Ennom, Gi-hinnon, Geenna. Gi-Ben-Hinnom (valley of the son of Hinnom;. This last is the full and Scriptural one. Jerome, referring to Jeremiah, speaks of it as “amcenus atque nemorosus.“‘Here were” nemus ac Incus,” watered “by Siloe. “Ipsa an tern vallis juxta portam est qua: HebraiceharasitJi, hoc est fictilis appellator,” on Jer. xix. 2.
If the statements which I am shortly to make be correct, then the mouth of the Tyropceon would be the centre of the valley of Hinnom; and it may be asked, whether Gi-Ben-Hinnom is not the ancient name of the Tyropceon. It is curious that Josephus never mentions Hinnom, and it is as curious that the Rabbies never mention the Tyropceon. According to Josephus, the Tyropceon must have been originally the most remarkable valley about Jerusalem. Strange that not a Rabbi speaks of it, and that not a J ewish tradition has preserved the name! According to Scripture and the Rabbies, Hinnom was the most noted valley about Jerusalem. Strange that Josephus should not refer to it, either in his Antiquities or in his Jewish War! If Hinnom and Tyropceon were the same, this is accounted for. The word Tyropceon is utterly unknown to the Jews, ancient or modern; and how Josephus came by it, is not easy to say. Can he have blundered a Hebrew word? Quite possible; for it is a curious fact, that the Seventy Alexandrians, as good Hebrew scholars as he, have blundered on this very word. They translate Q^m n ^sa- btviii. 16 (heights), which is almost identical with □^HjH^ (valley of son of Hinnom), by tbtvjj/msvov cheese-made, or montem coagulatum, according to the Vulgate. If seventy learned Jews mistook the former of these two words for “the hill of cheeses” (or “curdled hill”) because of its likeness to the word gibeon, to curdle, or gubna cheese, why should not one less learned Jew mistake the latter (Gibeninnom) for the same, and render it rvpcroio;? It certainly would be strange that the most important valley in Jerusalem should take its name from the cheese-trade.* TVe should have less reluctance to connect it with Nehemiah’s goldsmiths, Tsiireplrim, of whose energy in building the wall he makes mention three times over, in conjunction with the Racnolim, or merchants.!
* The Rabbies, though they are particular in giving directions about cheesemaking and cheese-eating, as to the exact pressure to be applied, and as to whether Gentile cheese may be eaten, make no reference to a valley of checsemakers, which is unaccountable if there were really such a valley.
f The ‘/surephim were properly the smelters (Jer. vi. 29; Neh. ill- 8, 31, 32> The Of late years, this name has beer, affixed to the deep hollow or glen south of the city, extending westward from Bir-Eyub. But this restriction is modern, countenanced neither by Scripture nor antiquity. If our version be correct, then Jeremiah xix. 2 indicates that the valley of Hinnom lay to the east of the city, — “Go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate,” (Margin, sun-gate). Eusebius and Jerome are quite explicit in their affirmation of this. The latter frequently alludes to the place as being “close by the walls of Jerusalem, towards the east f as being at the foot of Moriah; as being watered by Siloam,* and near the fuller’s pool. The old Arabic historians are equally decided in their statements that Gehinnom is not south, but east of the city.f Full of Moslem fable as is Jalal-Addin’s History of the Temple, it shews us quite as distinctly, as docs the Journal of Ibn-Batutah, that in the middle ages as in the earlier centuries, Hinnom was reckoned east of the city, close under the temple wall. u Abadat-ibn-al-Samat once stood leaning his breast upon the eastern wall of the mosque, looking down into the valley of Hinnom, and weeping. Being asked the reason, he said that the prophet once told him that he saw hell there. Over this valley, is the bridge of Sirat. The bridge at Sirat, over Gehenna, forms the path to paradise.” % The ecclesiastical travellers are equally distinct; only some of them, like Felix Fabri, while giving as its commencement the bed of the Kedron, at the valley of Jehoshaphat, affirm that it extends away down past the Mountain of Offence (which was especially the mountain of Hinnom, “suus mons”), through the Wady en-Ilar to the Dead Sea, or “Sea of the Devil,” as he calls it.§ The Spanish ecclesiastic, two centuries later, is very precise in his statements as to its being east of Jerusalem, just under the Mount of Offence, near the pool where clothes are washed, and the
Charasim were the craftsman, who formed the molten metals into vessels, &c. (Exod.xxviii. 11; 2 Chron. xxiv. 12.) The Rachalhn were the merchants who sold the goods (Neh. iii. 31. 32; xiii. 20; Ezek. xxvii. 3, 13).
* De locis Hebraicis; also, Comment, on Matthew x. 28; Jer. vii. 31, and several other places. Tophet they make to be in Hinnom, between the potter’s field on the one hand, and fuller’s pool on the other.
t Ibn Batutali, p. 123-4. “On the side of a valley, called Gehennah, to the east of the city,” &c.
X Jalal-Addin, p. 7- “This is the wall of the Eaitu-l-Mukaddas. within which is the gate of Mercy, and without the valley of Hinnom.” The name given by this writer to the church over the tomb of the Virgin, is “the church in the valley of Gehenna;“’ p. 143. When Omar ibn-al-Khattab was having the filth cleared away from the Sakhra, he soiled his garments, and went out as far as the two fountains, which are in the valley called the valley of Hinnom,” p. 180.
5 Fabri Evagatorium, v..l. i. p. 39l-?>94; vol ii p. 135, 133.
NOTES OX THE
King’s gardens.* The Jews are equally unanimous as to the eastern position of Hinnom, making it to be the lower part of the bed of Kedron, commencing with the eastern gate of the city.f The travellers in the seventeenth century, such as Sandys, and in the eighteenth, such as Thomson, are not very distinct in their statements, but had. apparently altered the side of this valley to the place where is generally pointed out now.J They give no reasons for altering the old topography. Nor does Dr Robinson enter into any statement on this point, though he gives a full description of the general locality. He follows the travellers of the last two centuries, merely noticing that some Arabic writers apply the name of Hinnom to the valley of Jehoshaphat.g
It is, however, I think obvious enough, both from Scripture itself and from all early sources of information, Christian, Arabic, and Jewish, that part at least of Hinnom lay to the east of Jerusalem. It did not consist, however, of the narrow ravine of the Kedron, extending from Absalom’s pillar, or thereabouts, to the village of Siloain, or Nehemiah’s well. It took in the low spur of Ophel, with the mouth of the Tyropceon, on the west of Ophel, up to the walls. All this seems originally to have been called the valley of the son of Hinnom. Whether it included also the southern ravine, now called Hinnom, is uncertain. It is more likely that this was the potter’s field, at the termination of Gihon, where were the King’s gardens, and the potter’s field, and the fuller’s field, and above which, on the shelving cliffs, was Akeldama, the field of blood (Acts i. 19).
The hill which Josephus calls Eroge, must have been somewhere
* Antonio del Castillo, p. 71,72, 171, 172, 173. See also Brocardus, Adrichomius and Heidmann. This last places it near Absalom’s pillar. — Palestina, p. 4G.
t Lightfoot’s Centuria Chorographica, p. 77. Rabbi Petachia (twelfth century), speaking of Olivet and the Jewish burying-ground, says, 4i the ground is cleft. and is called the valley of the son of Hinnom, where their burial place is.” — Travels, edited by Benisch, p. 61.
I Sandys, p. 188; Thomson, vol. iii. 172, 173. Cotovieus places it on the south, but then he sets it beside the Mount of Offence, which shews that he meant east, or at least south-east, especially as he adds, that some place it about Gihon. — Jtin. b. ii. last chap.
g Vol. i. pp. 239, 269, 273.
!| The “highway of the fuller’s field”(2 Kings, xviii. 17; Is. vii. 3), was the way leading down to that field from the south-western part of the city; just as “the way of Ephratah” (Gen. xxxv. 19, in our version, the way to Ephratah) means the way which leads to that city. De Saulcy places the fuller’s field to the west of the city, opposite to Damascus gate. His strong asseverations do not satisfy the reader: and there is no proof that the “fuller’s monument” mentioned by Josephus stood in the “fuller’s field.” A manufacturer does not usually erect his tomb in the midst of his warehouses. westward ot Aceldama; for he describes it as being split by an earthquake, in the days of Uzziah, and rolling towards the eastern hill (Mount of Offence) and choking up the King’s gardens with its debris.* As none of the Hebrew names of places adjoining Jerusalem resembles this (Eroge), either in sound or meaning, it is impossible to say exactly where Eroge was. It might be a name afterwards given to the hill in consequence of the earthquake, — “the clift;” and if we knew whether Josephus were translating, or merely clothing a Hebrew word with Greek letters, we might be able to say whether or not it was his rendering of the Hebrew, Bikhah (cleft), or a corruption of Har-Gai (hill of the valley). f
III. GlHON.
There are two passages of Scripture that indicate pretty nearly the position of Gihon. The first is, 2 Chron. xxxii. 30: — “The same Hezekiah stopped the upper water-course of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David.” This statement requires that Gihon should be near the present Birket-Mamilla; and this would be clearer were the words translated literally thus: — “Hezekiah stopped up the going out of the waters of Gihon the Higher, and made them to come straight down,”]: &c. Were excavations made in this direction, it is likely that we should find Hezekiah’s conduit for bringing the upper waters of Gihon into the city by the west, just as Solomon brought in the water from his pools by the south. Whether the sound of underground water, said to be heard near the Damascus gate, be real, or whether, if real, it indicates the course of the conduit, I cannot say.g But if a line be drawn from the Birket-Mamilla to the above gate, it would intersect the road leading down to the fuller’s field (that is, the “highway of the fuller’s field”), very near the place where the south-western angle of the wall
* Antiquities, ix. 10, 4. For the earthquake referred to, see Amos i. 1; Zechxiv. 4. 5. Josephus says, that the western part of Eroge broke off and rolled four furlongs to the eastern hill. Was it a fragment of the hill of Evil Counsel that was split off? See Blayney’s Zechariah, where Eroge is translated cleft. See Adrichomius (p. 174), where it is given as “Mons Meridionalis;” Reland’s Palestina, vol. i. p. 339.
t I do not here speak of the Jewish and New Testament use made of the valley of Hinnom, as the type and designation of hell. See Lightfoot’s Preface to his Harmony of the Evangelists; Wolfi Curse Philologicae, vol. i. p. 99. The spven Jewish names for Gehenna are given in Hackspan’s Cabbala Judaica, p. 437; Bucheri Antiquitates Biblicse, p. 222.
X The word stopped up, means often same as to hide (Psa. li. C; xl. 10), which may refer to the secret or underground conduit, which conveyed the upper waters straight down to the west of Sion.
% See Saulcy, vol. ii- p. 250; Dr Robinson, iii. 197.
NOTES OX THE
must have been, and where the conference must have taken place between Rabshakeh and the Jewish officers. It is said that the Assyrian captains, “stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field “(2 Kings xviii. 17); and it is said that Isaiah was to go forth to meet Ahaz,” at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fuller’s field “(Isa. vii. 3). This conduit, then, was from the upper source of Gihon; so that the waters, instead of taking the deep curve which the course of the valley does, opposite the Jaffa gate, should come straight into the city. Following their natural course, they were of little use to any part of the city but the south of Sion, which was already well supplied. It was of importance, then, to alter their course, and bring them down by a” short cut” to the west of Sion; so that, being thus brought into the Tyropaon, where the body of the people dwelt,* they might water the whole city. No doubt, this was in part devised as a precaution against invaders •, just as, in the case of the Crusaders in after ages, who were left without water in a similar manner by the Saracen possessors of Jerusalem.! For Hezekiah took counsel to stop (conceal, as well as stop) the waters of the fountains which were without the city. So there was gathered much people together (implying the greatness of the work), who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land” + (2 Chron. xxxii. 3, 4). But while Hezekiah’s device was effectual against the enemy, it supplied his own city.
In 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14, we have another statement which helps to fix the position of Gihon; “he (Manasseh) built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish-gate.” The fish-gate is the Jaffa-gate, as Jerome tells us, and as we might naturally suppose; and a wall which should be outside the city of David, at the west end of Gihon, in the valley, up to the fish-gate, indicates Gihon to have been just where it is now pointed out.
The Jews say, that Gihon and Siloam were the same. And it is quite possible that the former was the beginning, and the latter the end of the water-course, which might thus be called either by the one name or the other, the two names denoting these peculiarities — Gihon, the breaking forth, Siloam, the reception of the water thus sent from
“Inhabitants of the Valley.” Jer. xxi. 13. is a name for Jerusalem.
t Bohadin’s Life of Saladin, p. 231; Benedicti Accolti, De bello Sacro, p. 193; William of Tyre, b. viii. p. 7. Purchas mentions their digging holes, putting the wet turf to their lips, and licking the dewy stone: vol. i. b. 8, chap. 1.
I This last brook might be Gihon, or Kedron. or it might be Solomon’s aqueduct.
Gihon. Taking its way down the Tyropoeon, between Zion and Akra, it would fulfil the description which has puzzled Lightfoot, it would be “in the midst of the city.”*
Somewhere at the upper extremity of Gihon must Millo have been, that peculiar outwork of Zion which David began (1 Chron. xi. 8), which Solomon completed (1 Kings ix. 15), and which Hezekiah repaired (2 Chron. xxxii. 5). Perhaps about the place where theBirket Mamilla now is, Millo began, and this pool may have been that which supplied the fort with water, f It was of importance to command the plain of Rephaim; and a series of fortifications, whose foundations were formed by filling up (Millo) the bed of the Gihon, were commenced by David and carried downward by succeeding kings, which, while they commanded the plain, were closely connected with the city and castle of David.
IV. Valley of Jehoshaphat.
How this name originated, no one can tell us. But Jews, Moslems, and Christians, concur in the tradition There is strong probability that the lower part of this, including the whole of what I suppose to be Hinnom and the King’s gardens, was “the King’s dale” or valley mentioned in Genesis. Had it been called the valley of Melchizedek, the reason would have been obvious. % But there is no scriptural or
* Centuria Chorographica, in Evang. Matt. p. 53. The Rabbies asked, where is the distance at which an unclean person must keep from the mountain of the temple, to be measured from? From the wall or from the houses? Rabbi Samuel answers, “from Siloam,” and the Talmudist adds, “Siloam was in the midst of the city.” It passed through it under ground in most places by conduits, (except where its waters were detained by a pool, Isa. xxii. 11, a pond or pool, not a ditch), like a river, from whose banks distances might be accurately measured.
t An Arabic scholar would perhaps smile were I to suggest, that in Mamilla we have the remains of Millo. It is true that Mamilla means “that which is like God;” but a new name is often caught up from an expiring old one, with a different meaning and form, yet not the less suggested originally by the old word which has dropped away. The Survey of Egypt in 1422, mentions a small castle out of repair, “at the distance ot a cannon-shot without the city toward the west,” p. 138. Is this Millo, or one ot Herod’s towers? Felix Fabri brings Millo farther down, and makes it to be the semicircular spur of Zion on which Nebi David now stands. Evagatorium, vol. i. p. 27S.
I Jerome calls it Coelas which Felix Fabri turns into Cele, (Evag. vol.
i., p. 371). Jerome gives it as “inter Hierusalem et mortem Oliveti,” and in his C mmentary on Joel, he tells us, that the Jews referred this prophecy of the scene in the valley of the Jehoshaphat, to the time when Jerusalem is to be restored, “sub mille annorum imperio,” and that then the people are to be judged in the valley of Jehoshaphat, “quae ad orientalem partem templi sita est.” Hence it was called •’ Crinarius,’’ the place of judgment, (Felix Fabri, ib.). Fabri takes the scene in the 14th of Zachariah literally, and somewhat minutely describes the cleaving of the Mount of Olivts, and the changes in the land, (vol. i. p. 393).
NOTES ON THE
traditional narrative connecting Jehoshaphat with this valley at all. He was certainly not buried in the tomb which bears his name, for it is said that he was buried with his fathers in the city of David (2 Chron. xxi. 1), and how the Jews came to assign that tomb to him, is impossible to say.* The only allusion to the mime is in Joel iii. 2, 12, where “the valley of Jehoshaphat” is mentioned as the seat of judgment; and in the 14th verse, it is called “the valley of Decision.” In the days of Cyrill (fifth century), it was placed some furlongs from Jerusalem toward the east, which would carry it to the eastern side of the Mount of Olives. Cyrill tells us that it was bare, and fitted for equestrian exercises, which does not at all agree with its present position, f I suppose that this valley wras understood to extend over the whole length of the Kedron, so that while at its lowest part it was east of the city and close under it, at its north-western bend, it was some furlongs off, and offered a plain for horsemanship. + How it came to be regarded by Jews, Moslems, and Christians, as the place of the judgment, it is not easy to say.§
V. Ex-Kogel.
There is not the slightest evidence that the Bir-Eyub is En-Rogel. The Bir Eyub seems originally to have been a pit or well; possibly, according to Jewish tradition, the well out of which Nehemiah recovered the sacred fire which the priests had hidden there. This pit, Salah-ed-Din, son of Eyub, probably made a well, as it is this day. No tradition, early or late, gives it as En-llogel. This is a pit or well, En-Kogel was & fountain, and so not likely to be here.
There is but one genuine fountain in or near Jerusalem, the Amum-ed-Deraj, or fountain of the Virgin; and this, I have little doubt, is the genuine En-Rogel. f The fact of this being the only fountain
* Some of the early travellers called Absalom’s tomb, Jehoshaphat’s. t R eland’s Palestine, vol. i. p 355.
X “The valley of Jehoshaphat is three miles in length, reaching from the vale of Jehinnom to a place without the city, which they cali the Sepulchres of the Kings,” Travels of two Englishmen, p. 107.
§ Seethe Moslem description of the scene of judgment n Jalal Addin’s History of the Temple, p. 150, 151. It is to be k* in the courts of the holy city,” the “great plain by the side of Mount Olivet, near the oratory of Omar, and known by the name of his appointed spot, the sleepless place-”
1 The priests, it is said, hid the fire in this pit, while Jeremiah carried the vessels beyond Jordan to a cave on Mount Nebo, (1 Mace.ii. 4, 5). Wadi-en-Nar, the valley of fire, perhaps owes its name to this tradition. Eugene Roger calls Bir Eyub, “le-puy de Hieremie,” (La Saincte Terre-, p. 133).
T Rogel means foot, also fuller, hence it is supposed to be the fuller’s fountain. Learned readers may smile when I suggest, that in the Arabic Deraj, we have the in the locality, and the other fact that Rogel is the only fountain mentioned in Scripture, is certainly a presumption. It is not likely that in the accurate language of Scripture that should he called a fountain, which is not so; and that on the other hand, there should be no mention made of that which is always so notable in the east, the existence of a real Ain, or fountain, under the walls of a city.* The “Well of the Virgin,” is so evidently an original spring, that it would be strange indeed were it the only fountain or pool unnamed in Scripture.
En-Kogel was the point where the border-line between Judah and Benjamin u came out.” The “goings out were at En Rogel,” (Josh, xv. 7, xviii. 16). Now as this line came up from Beih-hoglah (now Hajla), a little south of Jericho, it could not have come up the Wadien-N&r, as it must have done, if Bir-Eyub be En-Kogel. A glance at a good map will shew that this was, if not impossible, at least improbable. The line came up by Adummim and Enshemesh, and though we do not knew the exact sites of these, we know that they were on the usual road between Jericho and Jerusalem. This brings it down, perhaps, by Bethany, between Olivet and the mountain of Corruption, right upon Um-ed-Deraj.
Again, when David fled from Absalom, he went first to Bahurim (2 Sam. xvi. 5), meaning to cross Jordan at the fords. He took “the way of the wilderness “(/. e., the way leading to the wilderness, 2 Sam. xv. 23), intending to “lodge for a night in the plains of the wilderness,” and then to upass over” (2 Sam. xvii. 16). He crosses, first of all, the Mount of Olives, as the direct road to the fords, and a little past the top of the hill (2 Sam. xvi. 1); he meets Ziba (a Benjamite) with the provisions, probably coming from Bahurim. At that place David refreshes himself, and then proceeds to Jordan (2 Sam. xvi. 14). Now as Bahurim belonged to Benjamin (as is evident from its being inhabited by that powerful family of Benjamites, of which Shimei was the head, (2 Sam. xvi. 5), it could not be farther south than Enshemesh, or Adummum, or Beth-Hoglah, which were on the border-line. So that David wras evidently taking the well-known road from Jerusalem to Jordan, along the border-line between the two tribes, and as he set out from Olivet, one would conclude that
relic of Rogel. But the roots of both are precisely the same (see Gesenius), from the biliteral y rag.
* Josephus’ statement that it was at the King’s garden, does not throw light upon the site, save that the gardens stretched up in this direction, and being watered by Siloam, which was supplied out of Dcraj, were more connected with the latter than with the tpot where the Eir-Elub new is.
KOTES OX THE
the line was drawn from that mountain to Bethoglah. If so, it could not have come up Wady-en-Nar, nor even Wady-Debir, but must have kept farther north by Wady-el-Haud and Wady-Sidr, coming down at last upon the fountain of the Virgin. This comes cut more clearly from the subsequent narrative regarding the movements of Jonathan and Ahimaaz. They staid at En-Rogel (2 Sam. xvii. 17), a place where the women came to draw water, and where they would be invisible from the city. This concealment could be admirably effected at the Virgin’s fountain, but not at Bir-Eyub. They start from En-Rogel, over the hill, or at least over the Bethany-road, for Josephus tells us, that at two furlongs from the city, they were met by horsemen (so that they were likely upon the public road), and in 2 Sam. xvii. 18, we are informed that a lad saw them, perhaps just as they were ascending the steep road. Thus En-Rogel, Olivet, Bahurim, lay on the road to Jordan, and were all probably in a line with Bethoglah and Adummam. It ought to be noticed, that the reason why the young men staid at En-Rogel (beside the concealment), was the nearness of the fountain both to the city and to the Mount of Olives, over which David had gone. Bir-Eyub was far out of their way; and had they started from it, they would have had a difficult and circuitous road indeed, up and down and across several hills and valleys, before they cauld reach David. It would be a work of some difficulty to reach Bahurim from Bir-Eyub, unless by doing the very thing which they wanted to avoid, coming up the valley and exposing themselves to the observation of the city.
Another proof there is still in favour of Um-ed-Deraj. The unanimous and unvarying tradition of the Jews is, that part of the’ altar and temple was in Judah, and part in Benjamin. According to the usual course of the border-line, up Gihon, this was impossible: but if En-Rogel be where I think it is. and if Hinnom occupy the whole valley between Zion and the Mount of Olives, as I believe it does, then the run of the line would just divide Moriah, as I have already noticed when speaking of Hinnom. “The border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom” (Josh. xv. 8); i. e., it went up the ridge of Ophel, above the fountain; “to the south side of Jebusi or Jerusalem not to the south of Zion, but to the south of the city, i. e., north of Zion.* ‘”It went to the top of the mountain that is before
$ Josephus shews very clearly the distinction between the fort or Zion, and the city, w hich was Jebusi or Jerusalem, and was situated on Akra. “David took the lower city (built on Akra, see Jewish War, b. v. 4, 1); but the citadel remained “(Ant. b- vii. 3. 1). Jtbusp or Jebus was the name of the city, and Zion of the citadel; and ii was south of the city (not of Zion) that the line went. It may be well the valley of Hinnom, westward,” t. e. which is before* (or east of) the branch of Hinnom running westward (the mouth of the Tyropoeon). This mountain, continues the narrative, is “at the end of the valley of Rephaim, northwards;” which must mean Akra, or rather Moriah and Akra, considered as one ridge, extending from Ophel, westward to the grotto of Jeremiah. The first part of the line was drawn from Eethoglah, along the Jericho road to Um-cd-Deraj. There were its goings out. The second part, where it took a bend, was from Um-ed-Deraj to beyond Jeremiah’s grotto, in the northern extremity of Rephaim.
In the account of the martyrdom of James the Just (a.d. 64), we have some light cast upon the site of En-Rogel. He was taken to one of the towers on the temple wall and cast down into the valley below; that is, into the valley of the Kedron. He was, however, only maimed, not killed, so that his enemies betook themselves to stoning. This not being speedy enough, one of the fullers, who was on the spot, took his club with which the clothes were beaten and slew him.f The place where the Martyr was cast down must have been the eastern wall; and as this is very near the “fuller’s fountain” (En-Rogel), it accounts for the presence of a fuller with his club at the moment. If the fullers were at Bir-Eyub, they would have been far out of the way. If tradition has erred in ascribing the second of the four tombs, which lie so conspicuously at the foot of Olivet, X to James, it has, in this case at least, consulted history, and fixed upon a tomb just opposite the place where he was slain. But this is of no consequence. It is, however, of some importance to observe the implied proximity of the Fuller’s Fountain to the eastern wall.
Ecclesiastical tradition, in so far as it takes up this point, indicates that En-Rogel must have lain farther up than Bir-Eyub. For the” oak Roger’ (though not the fountain) is often referred to by the old
to keep in mind the difference between Akra, the citadel (Zion), and Akra. the hill.
* I think the word before means east, as elsewhere; but this is of no consequence to the above statement.
t Eusebius simply says that he was killed with a club, a stick (£uXoy) ’ but he gives an extract from Hegesippus, which not only tell us that it was a fuller’s club; but that it was one of the fullers who used it in this way; (!/- TOJV yva- (£201!/), Euseb., b. ii. 23. See also Olshausen’s Historic Ecclesiastics Monumenta praecipua, prefaced by Neander, p. 1-1.
X The four tombs are (1 ) Zechariah’?. to the south, said to be called Kebur-Zujet-Faraun, the tomb of Pharaoh’s wife. (2) Tomb of St James, said to be called Diwan-Faraun, Pharaoh’s sofa or divan. (3) Absalom’s, called Tantura Faraun, Pharoah’s horn. (4) Jehoshaphat’s, immediately behind that of Absalom’s. Right above these, on the hill, perhaps 300 feet up, are the Kebur el-Anbia, the tombs of tlu Prophets, formerly noticed in our ascent of Olivet.
NOTES ON THE
writers. This was the tree where Isaiah was said to be sawn asunder by Manasseh, and took its name from the fountain Rogel. This oak is placed in the valley of Jehoshaphat, not far from Siloam, two hundred paces up the Kedron from Nehemiah’s well.* This traditional argument, however, is of little weight. Yet it is evident that the oldest traditions have fixed the place of the prophet’s death near the subterranean canal which they assert Hezekiah formed.
There is thus no trace of evidence to shew that Bir-Eyub is En-Rogel. There are strong presumptions shewing that it is not. There are stronger presumptions still, shewing that the present fountain of the Virgin is the real old En-Rogel.
IV. The Tyropceon.
I meant to have gone at some length into the question as to the site of this valley; but it is too wide for a few pages; and the right settlement of it is one of the most important things in constituting a true topography of Jerusalem. Its termination, ail are agreed, was at the pool of Siloam: but its commencement is disputed. That it began at the Jaffa gate seems to be impossible. + There is no appearance of a valley there at all, whereas at the Damascus gate there is. The depression at the latter gate strikes everyone, a depression which runs through the city, down to Siloam. Look from the walls of the city, look from Olivet, look from where you will, this depression is remarkable. Look at any of the models which have been made of the city, you observe the same thing. Even Dr Robinson admits this; but he thinks it proves nothing. This depression is not what it once was, for it has been filled up with ages of rubbish. When we were in Jerusalem, the Austrians were about to build a Hospice,
* Eugene Roger, p. 134. Laffi sets it eighteen paces from the Well of the Virgin, which he affirms to be the Dragon Well. Viaggio.p. 171, 172. “A stone’s cast” from Siloe, is the distance given by the Spanish traveller, Antonio del Castillo. El Devoto Peregrino, p. 172.
t I have said nothing as to the stone of Zoheleth, mentioned in connection with En-Rogel (1 Kings i. 9). It means the serpent’s stone, and might be connected with the Dragon-well (Neh. ii. 13). It was in the King’s Gardens according to Josephus. See Tanchum’s Arabic Comment on Samuel and Kings, p. 64. He makes it the same with Eben-Ezel, the stone of Ezel, or “stone of the travellers,” or stone that shews the way, according to him but stone of Separation according to others, on account of the separation of David and Jonathan. It be would striking if it was at En-Rogel that David hid himself. But there is no proof of this.
y Josephus describes Akra a.’ oc/JbfilltVOTQg, not concave, as most of his translators make it. but convex, as Stephen, in his Thesaurus; shews it means. Beginning north ol the Damascus gate, it bulged out as it were, or took a sweep round, till it approached Zion at one part and Moriah at another. a little way from the Damascus gate, just down what I conceive to be the valley of the Tyropceon. We saw the digging for the foundations, and there was an enormous amount of excavated rubbish which was carried out in baskets on the backs of a hundred donkeys. When we left, there was quite a hill rising outside the Damascus gate, where it was deposited. This depression was broad as well as deep, for a large part of the city was down here, and hence Jerusalem is called the “inhabitant of the valley” by Jeremiah. A glance at the locality, or at a model,* will shew that this valley was no mere ravine or gulley, but a spacious hollow, with Zion on the one side and Akra on the other, f The chief reason for making this valley begin at the Jaffa gate seems to be, the hypothesis that the present citadel is Hippicus; a point to the consideration of which we now pass.
V. The Citadel.
This great oblong tower has been, m former times, considered the representative of the ancient castle of David. In crusading times it was known as the castle of the Pisans, and travellers subsequent to this age, retain this latter name. It is now called the Kalat, or Castle, or Citadel. Occupying the highest point of Mount Zion, it is the most elevated building in the city, and from its position, may well be the relic of David’s tower, or rather of the Jebusite stronghold which David took. It would be impossible to demonstrate this; but the probability is great Of late, however, it has been supposed to be the
$r I ‘would recommend the neat and very correct model of Jerusalem, lately published by Mr Green of Paternoster Row,
t A countryman of Dr Robinson’s, Mr Prime, takes a similar view to ourselves of the site of the Tyropceon and of Akra. (See Tent Life in the Holy Land, p. 267-269). I would notice also that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been always considered as on Mount Zion, not on Akra, which shews that immemorial tradition has drawn the Tyropceon from the Damascus gate. William of Tyre thus writes, “the city is built on two mountains, which are divided by a moderately deep valley. Of these the western is called Zion, and the eastern Moriah (he includes Akra in Moriah). On the western mountain (Zion), but on the eastern declivity, is the Church of the Holy Resurrection.”
X I suppose it is to this that Rabbi Petachia refers when he says, “the tower of David still exists,” (Benisch’s edition, p, 64). The tower of David is frequently mentioned by Jalal Addin, and by crusading- annalists. Felix Fabri describes the arx David, from the top of which he surveyed Jerusalem. His description corresponds with the modern citadel, (vol. i. 269)- All the old maps sufficiently shew that the modern citadel, the castle of the Pisans, and the tower of David, were considered the same. See map in Adrichomius, and two curious maps of ancient and modern Jerusalem in the old Italian folio of Bernardino (1620). Traltato delle Piante et imagini de sacri edificii, &c.
I i
NOTES ON THE
Hippicus built by Herod; and as this point is of importance in settling the topography of Jerusalem, it is worth a little sifting; not the less so because the decision of travellers and topographers in favour of this identity is nearly unanimous, and because, with the right adjustment of this point, the whole topography of Jerusalem is connected. It is to Josephus, of course, that we have to go back for the description of the tower in Its original state; and with this description the present castle is to be compared.
(1.) As to its site. The tower Psephinus, right against which Titus encamped (two furlongs off), stood at the extreme north-west angle of the third or outermost wall, not, far from the present tombs of the Kings. * Hippicus was next, and against it the rest of the army encamped (also two furlongs off). Titus’ reason for assailing these two towers, was because they were the keys of Bezetha, which lay entirely to the north of the city, and which, for obvious strategical reasons, he was desirous of taking nrst.f It is not easy to understand why, for the purpose of attacking Bezetha, he should plant his main force opposite a southern tower on Mount Sion, nearly a mile from that part of the city which he wished to force. To attack the city from that part which lies at the head of the valley of Gihon (where Hippicus is supposed to have been), would be to do the very thing which he had seen to be impracticable, and which he had determined not to do. Besides, where could he encamp, in order to attack this Hippicus? Not westward; for a large part of the city, even at present, runs out in that direction, and must have done so much farther formerly. He must have placed his troops south, or south-west of the wall; that is to say, on the present Bethlehem road, extending backwards upon the plain of Rephaim, with the valley of Gihon, between them and the city. No general would surely attack a city at its very strongest point; nay, select as the point of attack a tower overhanging a valley. Titus’ object was to take advantage of the level ground on the north-west, there to erect his towers, and to push them forward against the towers of the city at a point where there was no valley to give the besieged an advantage; whereas, if Hippicus be identical with the “castle of David,” he must have reversed his policy. He must have raised his towers
¥r Josephus, Jewish “War, v. 3, 5- “Titus himself encamped about two furlongs from the wall, at the corner-part of it {xatOL TO ywtOJO’J f&’sgog), opposite (uvri/CPi ), the tower called Psephinus, where the circumference of the northern wall bends to the west.”
t Titus took up his position along the north-west wall, judging it impracticable to force the city in any other direction ;M B.irtlett’s Works, p. 41.
in a spot where, by reason of the intervening valley, they would be useless. Only ocular inspection of the present tower and the adjacent ground can give the reader a right idea of the position of matters. But this may be added by way. of illustration, that, as no general among the many who have besieged Edinburgh castle, in the past days of Scottish story, would have thought of planting his army where the present New Town stands, with the “North Loch” between him and its frowning towers, so no ancient king or captain, either Sennacherib or Titus, ever thought of assailing Jerusalem by planting his army opposite Mount Sion, with Hinnom or Gihon between. Though Mr Bartlett is one of the supporters of the identity which we are questioning, yet his own map of Jerusalem is quite sufficient to shew the truth of the above remarks.*
Again, when speaking of the old wall, Josephus tells us that Hippicus was situated at its north extremity. “That wall beginning at the north, t from the tower called Hippicus, and stretching to the place called Xystus, and joining to the Council House, finished at the western porch of the temple.” It is not easy to imagine any topography of ancient Jerusalem in which Mount Sion shall be north of the city, and the “Castle of David” the northern commencement of the city wall. Had Josephus been a writer of the age of David, when the city had not spread far to the north, or had he been speaking of Sion only, he might have said that the present castle lay to the north, or, at least, the north-west of the city; but writing, as he did, after the city had developed itself fully to the north and west, he could not have said that Hippicus was towards the north of Jerusalem, if it were at the head of the valley of Gihon, as the present castle is.
Farther, Josephus speaks of Hippicus as being, in a certain sense, adjacent to Psephinus; at least, his description implies that they were so situated with regard to each other, that there was no tower between, and that so by securing both or either, he might enter Bezetha and attack the second wall. “Hippicus was opposite this.”J And, farther, he mentions that there were two other towers adjoining.g
Walks, p. 54. See also his beautiful, though incorrect, View of Jerusalem, at the beginning of his volume. In looking at the position of his towers, one feels inclined to ask, Of what use were they? They look well in the picture; but towers in the centre of a city will make poor defences.
t ZOCTa (Boooav, Jewish War. v. 4, 2.
t civr,”/love,, Jewish War, v. 4, 3.
% MsysOog rs %ai xoXhog rav zcci ovgorrircc rwv %ara ryjv ot- ‘/-GUu’svrjV hiaCpooQl, ib. ib. These expressions apply to the whole of the towers.
nut U> the two alone.
NOTES ON THE
These could not be between Psephinus and Hippieus, but must be on the other side (£. e. the south or east) of the latter. Yet it is not easy to find room for such towers on the south or east of the modern citadel; and even though room were found for them, of what use could they be, so far within the city? If these towers extended along the range of the western or northern wall, they were truly defences; if placed anywhere else, they were useless.
(2.) As to the construction of Hippieus. Josephus tells us that it was solid within, up to the height of “thirty cubits,” or upwards of fifty feet. Now the present tower is not solid, nor does it bear marks of having been so, which it would certainly have done had it been the tower which Josephus describes. This is the more remarkable, because, as Dr Robinson and others have remarked, the lower part of the present structure, in height forty feet, is the ancient tower itself, just as it was built, f How a solid tower could be hollowed out for more than forty feet, and converted into its present condition without disturbing the original stones, or leaving in any part, either outside or inside, one trace of its transformation, is a puzzle which no one has tried to solve.
(3.) As to its size. Here we have very explicit testimony. Josephus, after telling us that Psephinus was an octagon, mentions that Hippieus was a tetragon, or square; and, lest it might be supposed that he merely meant a four-sided building, not a mathematical square, he adds, that its breadth and length were each twenty-five cubits,+ or somewhere above forty-three feet. Now, as this gives by no means a large tower, Josephus cannot be charged with exaggeration here. What, then, are the measurements of the present castle? First of all, it is not a square, the southern side exceeding the eastern by about fourteen feet. Next, the sides are respectively fifty-six feet and seventy feet, instead of Josephus’ forty-three feet.
(4.) As to the stones themselves. Josephus is very particular as to the size of these. He does not, indeed, single out Hippieus; but he is quite explicit as to the stones of the three towers, Hippieus, Phasae-The first says, 6’jdotftQV bldxzvcc, and again he speaks of its TO fl”X?Jg£S, Jewish War, v. 4, 3.
t “The large stones of which this part is built, have evidently never been disturbed. They have neither been thrown down nor relaid: and the general impression which they make upon the beholder is precisely like that of the remains of the ancient walls around the temple;” Robinson, vol. i. 308.
I svgcg be xai {Jbr/xog hxotfi %ai mwi Triyfiv sxaffrog, Jewish War v. 4,8. lus, and Mariarane, which stood not far from each other.* He tells us that these stones were twenty cubits, or above thirty feet, in length, ten cubits, or above fifteen feet, in breadth, and five cubits, or above eight feet, in depth. Now, let allowance be made for exaggeration, if it ii thought needful, and let it be granted that Josephus was only speaking of the largest stones, yet these stones are nearly three times the size of those now seen in the castle at the Jaffa gate, t
How, with all this before him, Dr Eobinson could say that the present tower “tallied well enough with the description of Hippicus” (vol. i. p. 309), I do not understand. It seems to me that there is not one point in which modern topographers do not here contradict Josephus, and this without attempting either to justify their disbelief of his statements, or to account for the difficulties of the case.*
That the present citadel is Hippicus has certainly not been proved. There is no tradition to the effect, Jewish, Christian, or Moslem. There is no resemblance between the rough building now existing, and the finely jointed tower of Herod. A square tower, and an oblong one, a solid tower, and a hollow one; a tower seventy feet in breadth, and a tower forty feet in breadth, a tower at the north of a city, and a tower at the south, these surely are very different things. The proof against the identity of these two buildings, amounts as nearly to demonstration as any such historical question can admit of.§
VIII. Tombs or the Kings.
De Saulcy’s attempt to prove these to be the tombs of David, Solomon, &c, referred to so often in Scripture, is an utter failure. The
-H- srac OO’JTOV duo, says the historian, speaking of Hippicus; Jewish War, v. 4, t “One of these stones measured 91 feet long, 4| broad, and 3 feet 10 inches hiy;h; another, 10 feet 2 inches long, 4 feet 1 inch high; a third, 12| feet long. 3 feet 5 inches broad;” Robinson, vol. i. p. 303.
I” All these circumstances, compared with the account of Josephus, and taking into view the conjectural and exaggerated nature of his statements, tally well enough with the description of Hippicus; while the position of the tower, and the apparent solidity of the antique part, leave little room to doubt of its identity ;* Robinson, vol. i. p 309. I remark (1.), there is nothing conjectural about Josephus’statements. They are evidently made upon thorough knowledge. (2.) He certainly does not exagerate here, else he would not have given twenty-five cubits a side for this tower. (3.) There is no apparent solidity in the tower, except the thick walls. Josephus writes so carefully and minutely about Jerusalem, that he must have had before him a plan of the city, with all its measurements; beside — , he knew the city well, -every tower, stone, and hollow.
§ Mr Prime has recorded his opinion of some of Dr Robinson’s statements on the topography of the city, at p. 297, 298 of his “Tent Life.” He speaks rather severely.
NOTES ON THE
oft-recurring expression “buried with his fathers in the city of David” is far too explicit to refer to tombs, which at the time when the sacred historians used it, were a long way outside the walls of Jerusalem, if, indeed, they then existed at all. The “city of David” has in sacred history but one meaning, — the city on Mount Sion, — which got the name of David’s city, when that king wrested its castle from the Jebusites. But even though the term could be shewn to include allJerusalem, it certainly did not include places half a mile or a mile outside its walls. The Mount of Olives might be more truly said to be “in the city of David” than a spot to which its walls did not nearly reach till the last days of Jerusalem. Even though his fanciful calculations as to the number of niches were correct, there would be only a curious coincidence, which, though it might be a presumption, could be no proof, especially when all legitimate topography founded on history, is entirely in the face of his hypothesis.
That they are the monuments of Helena, queen of Adiabene, mentioned by Josephus, is a mere conjecture — a conjecture inconsistent with the statements cf Josephus. That historian frequently refers to the tombs of Helena and those of the kings; but always as at separate places, at some distance from each other. If Josephus be correct, there were two well-known objects or places on the north side of the city. The one was “the monuments of Helena, queen of Adiabene and mother of King Izates.” The other was “the royal caverns.” How far distant they were from each other, he does not say; but one might conjecture from his narrative, that the former lay considerably farther from the city than the other, for he mentions that the Jews sallying out at one of the towers in that direction, drove back the Romans, and pursued them as far as the monuments of Queen Helena.* The present “tombs of the Kings” could nor have been a stone-cast from the wall; nay, many suppose that they were within it. It could not have been to them that the Jews chased the Romans. The most careless reader of Josephus could not suppose this. The sortie from the towers, the fight before the walls, the retreat of the Romans, and the pursuit of the Jews, indicate a very considerable space between the wall and the tomb of Helena, such a space as could not have existed between the wall and the present tombs of the Kings.
The statement of Josephus as to the course of the third wall, shews
* The old travellers mention two separate places as existing in their day. The tomb of Helena which was a monument above ground, and that of the kings which they call spelunca, as being underground.
t Jewish War 5, 3, 3. He mentions elsewhere that Helena’s monuments were three stadia from the city. Antiq. 20, 4, 3. the same thing. He speaks of it thus: “It extended opposite to the monuments of Helena, and stretching through the royal caves, it bent again at the tower of the corner, along by the monument called the Fuller’s, and joined on to the old wall at the valley of the Kedron.”* This statement shews the distance between the tombs of Helena and the royal caves. It also gives great probability to the hypothesis, that the present tombs of the Kings are the “royal caves” of Josephus; and if so, it completely subverts the opinion, that the present tombs are to be identified with the monuments of Helena. If these tombs are not what their name imports, it is difficult to say what they are. We can only say this, that if Josephus be correct, they cannot be the tomb of Helena, whatever else they may be found to be. The ridiculous fable of Pausanias about her monument can establish nothing, and one wonders that Dr Robinson should have cited it as proof of anything. Jerome’s statement as to the journey of Paula, and her seeing the tomb of Helena on her left, is too vague to settle the point. One is surprised to see the stress which Dr Robinson lays upon the road passing westward of the tomb. We ourselves sometimes took the east and sometimes the west, in spite of Dr Robinson’s statement, that “the very nature of the ground does not admit of any material variation,” (vol. i. p. 362). Paula might easily pass either to the right or left of the tombs of the Kings, as she might be inclined. Josephus’ narrative is most explicit, and agrees admirably with the present position of the tombs of the Kings. So that there seems no reason why we should not accept the native tradition, and believe that these excavations really are the Kebur es-Selathin, or Kebur el-Moluk, the tombs of the Kings. To reject native tradition, when in the teeth of authentic history, is proper; but to reject it when it entirely agrees with history, and to substitute for it a conjecture at variance both with history and tradition, is unreasonable and mischievous.
What kings then were buried here? This is a more difficult question. They were- not the kings of Judah, as De Saulcy so fancifully maintains. Their burying-place was in the city of David, and there is no more reason against our accepting the present Kebur Nebi David,
J. W. 5, 4, 2. Josephus is evidently very particular in his statement. He speaks of “the monument (/XVTJ/xa) of the fuller,” of “the monuments (r&V aVTitUSIb)v) of Helena,” and of “the royal caves” tfcr^Xa/OlV f3(Z(fl’hl%0JV; as if the fuller’s tomb was a pillar or single erection like Absalom’s pillar, Helena’s tomb a more extensive structure, and the royal tombs as excavations. We notice also that he says, that the wall passed “opposite” (aV77%gu) Helena’s monuments, it went “along by*’ (xarct) the fuller’s monument, but it stretched “through” (£/a) the royal caves.
NOTES OX THE
on Sion, as the authentic sepulchre, than there is against our accepting the mosque of Hebron as the cave of Machpelah. But there were several kings of that line who were not buried in the sepulchres, but in tombs of their own. Joash was buried in a garden-tomb, not in the sepulchre of David (2 Chron. xxiv. 25 ), so was Manasseh (2 Kings xxi. 18), so was Amon (2 Kings xxi. 26). But there is no proof that the Kebur el-Moluk is their sepulchre. Then there were the kings of the Asmonaean dynasty; then the kings of the line of Herod. They might be buried here. But though we cannot say explicitly who of all these occupy these curious vaults, we know that Josephus tells us, that at this spot facie were rojal sepulchres in his days, which must have been for some of these. We are sure also, that they were meant not for one person but for many, there being some eighteen or twenty niches for the reception of coffins. Queen Helena might be ambitious perhaps, but one can hardly conceive of ambition or vanity refusing to be satisfied with less than twenty niches! A native king might hew out more tombs than he himself needed, because he wished to provide for his successors; but a foreign princess having no connection with the land, and whose posterity were not likely to visit it, would hardly have been guilty of such folly as to excavate twenty tombs for herself!
VII. The Place of the Crucifixion.
It will be of some service to gather together the brief and few allusions to Golgotha in Scripture. Some light may be cast on the topography of the neighbourhood, which may help us at least in deciding where it was not. Let it be kept in mind that Golgotha is its true name, not Calvary. This last word is a Latin translation of the Hebrew or Greek, and is unknown in Scripture. Let it also be kept in mind that the term mount is nowhere applied to it in Scripture, nor in the early ages, nor indeed till within these few hundred years. The “rock of Calvary” we often meet with in the fathers, and in the old hymns, but not “mount.” It was not likely that any place of execution would be on a mount: nor is it likely that had it been a mount it would simply have been called by the Evangelists “a place.”
1. It was without the city. Matt, xxvii. 32, “As they were coming out” that is, out of the city, for the previous verse mentions their quitting the judgment-hall. Mark xv. 20, “they led him out” that is, out of the city. John xix, 17, “he, bearing his cross, went forth, unto a place called the placef a skull.” Just as it is said of Stephen, 4i they cast him out of the city,” (Acts vii. 5S), so it is written of the Lord, “they led him out.” He was thus “brought as a lamb to the slaughter,” (Isa. liii. 7; Acts viii. 32): or as Jeremiah writes, when the men of Anathoth sought his life, {; he was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter,“* (xi. 19). The fact also that “a great company (sroXi) ftXrjfog) of people” followed him, would imply that he was outside the streets of Jerusalem.
2. It was not far from the city. John xix. 20, “The place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.” The word here used does not infer juxta-position by any means, but, may allow of a considerable interval, as in the case of the Mount of Olivet, which is said to be u nigh to Jerusalem, a Sabbath-day’s journey,” (Acts i. 12. See the Greek). f From the fact of the cross having been taken from Jesus and transferred to Simon, it would seem as if the distance was at least sufficient to exhaust the strength of the sufferer. It was not till they had got beyond the city that this transference took place (Matt, xxvii. 32); so that there must have been some distance to traverse beyond the walls, else there would have been no need of such relief. Had Golgotha been immediately outside the gate, the bearing of the cross would then have been finished. The same inference might be drawn from the expression used respecting the Koman guards, Matt, xxviii. 11, “some of the watch came into the city,” words which could hardly have been employed had Golgotha been just outside the gate, and not at some short distance from it. Each part of the narrative, each scene brought before us, of crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, the running to and fro of disciples and women, all give the impression that there must have been some little distance between the city and Golgotha. This is the more likely to be the case if the place of crucifixion were the statutory place of criminal execution. If so, there would be a difficulty of finding room for it, as some have tried to do, on the south or east of the city, as its walls overhung the valleys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat. At present there would be space, but the line of wall has considerably retreated since the days of Herod. What might be now could not have been then. But no stress can be laid upon the supposition that it was the usual place for the execution of malefactors, as this is quite uncertain, as we shall see. Whether it were the usual place or not, however, it was the place fixed upon at this time, and, therefore, all that could be inferred from its being the usual place, may be inferred from its being the occasional place, as it was at the time spoken of.
3. There was room for three things, a garden, a tomb, and a place
* It might be that the Sheep-gate took its name from the animals brought in by it for sacrifice. If so, greater point is given to these passages, t In both of these places the word is lyy)^.
NOTES ON THE
of execution. Joseph of Arimathen had here both a garden and a tomb; nor would a rich man, such as he was, be content with a small patch of ground. In all likelihood there was a spacious garden, and an ample as well as a well-hewn sepulchre. It does strike one as incongruous that Joseph should have chosen the place of public execution as his garden and burying-place, more especially as these do not seem to have been inclosed with any wall or fence; for the way in which the disciples and others came and went, implies that there was no inclosure. And this is a strong reason for supposing that, after all, Golgotha may not have been the usual spot of execution, but may have taken its name from its resemblance to a skull, or from some event connected with a skull having taken place there, more likely the former. It is not called the place of skulls, but the place of a skull; and hence seems to have arisen the patristic tradition of Adam having been buried there. If it were a place of execution, or of bones and skulls, it would be accounted “unclean,” for “whosoever touched a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave,” was accounted “unclean,” (Numb. xix. 16, 18). Now the red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke,” was a special type of the great sacrifice. This heifer was to be slain “without the camp” (Numb. xix. 3), and burned to ashes there. Then its ashes were to be collected and deposited without ths camp, by a “clean” person, in a “clean place,” (Numb. xix. 9). And thus, though it was by “wicked hands” that Christ had been crucified and slain (Acts ii. 23), yet it was by the hands of a disciple that he was taken down from the cross and laid in the “clean place,” the “new sepulchre wherein was never man yet laid,” (John xix. 41). I can hardly bring myself to believe that the anti-type was made so to differ from the type, as that while such pains were taken to secure a clean place for the one, the un cleanest place round Jerusalem should be chosen for the other. Nor is it likely that a rich man like Joseph would have chosen such a neighbourhood either for his garden or his tomb.
4. It must have been beyond the suburbs of the city. There was a certain legal distance to which the suburbs of a city were to extend. This is expressly defined in the case of the Levitical cities, and we may conclude that such was the way of reckoning in other cases. First a thousand cubits were to be measured from the walls of the city (Num. xxxv. 4), “for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts.” From this circle an outer one was to be measured off, at a distance of two thousand cubits, which was to be “the field of the suburbs” (Lev. xxv. 34), occupied probably with gardens and orchards, and plantations of various kinds. Adding these two together we find that the suburbs of a city extended a mile beyond its walls, or I should say that “the city” itself was reckoned to extend a mile beyond itself; and the manslayer only needed to set foot within this outer circle, and he was safe. He did not need to enter the gates, (Num. xxxv. 26). It is remarkable that the Jews were not allowed to bury their dead within this circle. Their burying-places, the Rabbles tell us, were required to be beyond it. And though all this specially refers to the forty-eight Levitical cities, yet it is not unlikely that th% rule was to a certain extent applied to all. If so, then the likelihood is, that Golgotha as a burying-place, or a place of execution, would be at least 3000 cubits from the walls of the city. Nor would the great sin-offering be reckoned as properly burned without the camp, unless carried to some such distance without the city.*
5. It must have been near some thoroughfare. Matt, xxvii. 39, “they that passed by reviled him.” Here passers by are a different class from “the chief priests, and scribes, and elders “(verse 41), who were standing there to gaze; for in another Evangelist we read, “The people stood beholding, and the rulers also with them, derided him,” (Luke xxiii. 35); and in another 11 there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother’s sister,” (John xix. 25). The “passers by” of Matthew and Mark are evidently those coming and going on a public thoroughfare. They are not the multitude from the city, but those who were travelling on a road which must have lain very near the scene of crucifixion. The great highways of Jerusalem must have chiefly been on the west and north of the city. On the Gihon or south side, there could have been no thoroughfare; and even on theKedron, or east side, it is not likely that there was one; for though the present road to Anata or Anathoth runs in that direction, between the wall and the valley, yet it may be doubted whether it could have done so formerly, when the battlements overhung the ravine.
It lay near a place of gardens, and yet it is not likely that it was amongst these. It is probable that Joseph’s garden was one of many in some particular part of the country outside the walls; for we find the inhabitants of Jerusalem forming gardens for themselves in the suburbs. This could hardly be in what is eallcd Hinnom, as that was occupied by the king’s gardens; and besides, the excavated tombs (Akeldama) are in the upper part of the southern slopes, where there
* No body wa« allowed to be buried within fifty cubits of a city. (See Lightfoot, Cent. Chorgr. on Matt. p. 173) It will not be easy for the advocates of the genuineness of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to shew that it could ever have been so far from the city walls.
is no room for gardens. The garden and the tomb, and the place of execution, were together. But it is only the bottom of Hinnom that would do for a garden, and the height for a tomb. The place of exetion and the garden might adjoin, or the place of execution and the tomb might adjoin, but the whole three could not be at one spot in that locality. The three might perhaps be brought together in the Kedron valley, if we suppose Joseph’s garden to adjoin Gethsemane; but there are other considerations that render this spot not a likely one as the place of execution. Besides the gardens of the city were all in another direction, extending north-westwards, but more northwards, as the gate Gennath, the gate of the gardens, shews.*
6. It is likely to have been in the direction of the fields; probably those parts to the north-west which are called “the fields of Kedron,” (2 Kings xxiii. 4). For we read that the executioners on going out of the city, met Simon the Cyrenian u coming from the country,” literally “from the field,’’ ayoou), and laid the cross on him. This, however, is presumption rather than a proof. It is at the same time worth noticing that this north part of the suburbs is that which is referred to, not only in the passage above cited, but in Jer. xxxi. 39, 40, as marked by its “fields.” The different parts of the curve given in that passage are these, — (1 ) Gareb; (2.) Goath; (3.) the valley of the dead bodies and ashes; (4.) the fields; (5.) the brook Kidron. Gareb, Goath, &c, are the places to which one would turn in looking for Golgotha; and it is not quite unimportant to notice that Simon was coming from the country or field, probably the very locality referred to by the prophet.
7. It is likely to have been on the north side of the city. Christ suffered without the gate, and of this those offerings were the type, which were offered without the camp. If then the type was so exactly fulfilled in this particular, we have reason to believe that it was also fulfilled in regard to the direction in which this was done. Now the burnt-sacrifice of the sheep and goats was to be killed u on the side of the altar, northward” (Lev. i. 11); so we may conclude that when Christ was led without the gate, “as a lamb to the slaughter,” he was led in this direction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. Again, the sin-offering was to be killed in the same place (Lev. vi. 25); that is, northward. Again the trespass-offering was to be killed in the same place with the burnt-offering and the sin-offering (Lev. vii. 2); that is
* This gate, taking its name from adjoining girdens, could not have been near the present Citadel or Castle of David, as no gardens could have been there; another of the many proofs that this is not Hippicus.
northward. Thus the place where these three great offerings were to be killed is carefully specified. It was the nortli* that was chosen by God, as the place where the life was to be taken; and we may, without straining, conclude that it was the north that was to be the scene of the great sacrifice, — the sacrifice of the Just for the unjust, — the offering of the Lamb of God.
If this be the case, then we arc to look for Golgotha to the north of the city. The builders of the Church of the Sepulchre have taken the right side of the city for the tomb; but they have not gone far enough out. Possibly their church may, after all, indicate so far the true quarter. They may have got hold of the old tradition, but, driven by convenience and danger from the very spot itself, they took the nearest to it that they could get within the shelter of the city. Pladrian, we know, covered the whole place with earth, and built on it temples to Venus; and it is not likely that they would be able to recognise the real spot again. But they may have kept the right direction. The fable of the miraculous cross-finding is the chief thing that makes us doubt as to their following any tradition whatsoever, or being possessed of any information on the matter. It is implied that they got all their knowledge of the locality by a direct revelation, with the superfluous addition of miracles, in confirmation. “VVe should have paid some respect to a genuine tradition of that day; we cannot do the same for a miracle got up for the occasion. f
I have not cited Jeremiah xxxi. 39, where Goath is mentioned. It is somewhat uncertain whether this is realiy the root of Golgotha. It may, however, be so; and I suppose most commentators regard it as such. If it be, there is a very decided confirmation of the remarks
* It was from the north that all Israel’s great judgments came (Jer. i. 12, 14). It was on the north that Assyria, and Babylon, and Rome sat down against Jerusalem. It was to the north that Josiah carried out the vessels of Baal to destroy them (2 Kings xxiii. 4). Rablsi Solomon commenting on Jer. xxxi. 40, thus writes concerning these north parts of the city t — ‘’The valley of dead bodies is the valley where the carcases of the camp of Sennacherib fell (which we know from Josephus was north, J. W. v. 7, 3); and the valley of the ashes is the place whither they carried the ashes forth, which was without Jerusalem,” Lightfoot, Temple, p. 11. This passage is a presumption in favour of the mounds of ashes being temple ashes. Yet the Rabbi does not say these were temple ashes, which other passages lead us to suppose were cast into the Kedron, They might be the ashes of the city.
t In Kitto’s Cyclopaedia, Art. Cross, these miracles are given as history! The miracle as to the wood and nails did not die with the originators. The wood multiplied to such an extent that the whole Christian world got pieces of it. Erasmus says that a ship of burden (nalis oneraria) would be required to carry them: and Swift speaks of Lord Peter’s” old sign-post which had nails and timber enough in it to build sixteen la»-g nu n of war.
already made, as may be gathered from a previous note as to Gareb and Goath.
VIII. MlZPEH.
It lias occurred to me that the village of Shaphat, on the north side of Scopus, may represent the ancient Mizpeh. As to the name Shaphat, and its origin, nothing has been hitherto suggested Dr Robinson merely mentions the name and the ruins. It is a short mile north from the brow of Scopus, about half way between that hill and Tuleil el-Ful, the Gibeah of Saul. The level on which it stands is not very much lower than Scopus, for though there is a descent the whole way, it is not so perceptible till after you pass Shaphat.
It does not seem unlikely that Shaphat is the representative of the ancient Mizpeh. We know that Yizpeh means watch-tower, and the Hebrew root has assumed a variety of forms. In Judges i. 17, a town is called Zephath, which both Septuagint and Vulgate give as Sephath; so that the modern name Shaphat is almost identical with Mizpeh or Sephath. But as this place is not the Mizpeh of Samuel, let us turn to those passages where it is mentioned, In Judges xx. 1, Mizpeh is given by the Septuagint as Massepha, and in 1 Sam. vii. 5, as Massephath. This comes very near the modern name. In 1 Mace, iii. 46, we read that the Israelites were gathered togethei*, and came to Massepha, which is over against Jerusalem, for Massepha was formerly the place of prayer to Israel.” The various forms of the ancient name of Mizpeh correspond very closely to the modern one of Shaphat.
This position of Mizpeh quite suits the. historical notices given of it in Scripture. Here Israel could be easily assembled, as we know they often were by Samuel: here Asa could easily transport the stones from JRamah to fortify it; here the seat of government might most conveniently be fixed after the Captivity; and here the Jews might resort for fasting and prayer, when driven out of Jerusalem. The reference to this last fact by the Jewish historian is worth noticing. The circumstances are full of interest, and the scene took place about 166 before Christ. We get first a glimpse of Jerusalem, lying desolate, much as Jeremiah had described her. “Now Jerusalem was uninhabited as a desert; none of her children went in or came out; the sanctuary also was trodden down, and the sons of the strangers were in the citadel; it was a lodging (xardX’j’jbci) to the heathen; and joy was taken from Jacob, and the pipe, with the harp, ceased. And they (Judas Maccabaeus and his brethren) were gathered together and came to Massepha, over against Jerusalem, for in Massepha was formerly the place of prayer for Israel. Then they fasted that day and clothed themselves with sackcloth, and put ashes on their heads, and rent their clothes, and unfolded the book of the law concerning which the Gentiles had made search, to paint the likeness of their idols. They brought also the garments of the priesthood, and the first-fruits, and the tithes, and they set up the Nazarites who had fulfilled their days; and they cried loudly to heaven, saying, What shall we do with these, and whither shall we carry them away; for thy holy things have been trodden down and profaned, and thy priests are in sorrow and heaviness, .... then they sounded with the trumpets, and cried with a mighty voice,” (1 Mace. iii. 45-54.)*
Dr Robinson places Mizpeh at the present Nebi-Samwil. But the mere fact of the hill of Nebi-Samwil forming a good site for a watch-tower, and being within sight of Jerusalem, is not enough. The notices regarding Mizpeh, especially in Jeremiah, are such as to indicate a place very near Jerusalem; still more does the narrative, which has just been cited from the Book of the Maccabees, intimate this, and the expression, u over against Jerusalem “(xarhavri), is hardly one that would have been used regarding a hill so far off as Nebi-Samwil, but just such a one as would apply either to the Mount of Olives on the immediate north, or to its adjoining ridge, on the slope of which the modern Shaphat stands. But there is a passage in Jeremiah which quite sets aside Nebi-Samwil, and greatly confirms the other. It is in chap. xli. 5: — “There came (to Mizpeh) certain from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, fourscore men, having their beards shaven and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves, with offerings and incense in their hands, to bring them to the house of the Lord.” These eighty men were on their way to Jerusalem from three well-known cities in the north, to present gifts to the Lord. Whether they knew that the temple had been burnt, and were going
v Into the question as to the exact reference of this passage, or to the meaning of the passage itself, I do not enter. Probably the Gentiles had tried to tamper with the sacred rolls of the Jews, and to defile them by pictures of their gods. This the Jews revolted from as much as from the erection of statues in the temple. To this last we find Agrippa adverting in the letter of his to Caius, which Philo records, “O my lord and master, this temple has never, from the time of its original foundation until now, admitted any form made by hands; because it has been the abode of God. Pictures and images are only imitations of those gods who are perceptible to the outward senses, but it was not considered by our ancestors to be consistent with the reverence due to God to make any image or representation of the invisible God.” — Philo on the Virtues and Office of Ambassadors, Seer. 3G. Such is the feeling of every Jew to this day; such is no less the feeling of the Moslem. And this is the secret of their prejudice against Christianity, which they see only in the pictures and statues of the Eastern Churches, before which the worshipper bows.
NOTES ON THE
to present their offerings amid its ruined courts; or whether, indeed, the temple had, by this time, been actually burnt (as is disputed): or whether they could have known its destruction (as is also uncertain); these things are of no consequence. They are going up to Jerusalem. The company from Samaria has joined itself to a second company at Sheehem; and these two bands, proceeding southward-, have come up to a third from Shiloh, perhaps near Lebonah. The three bands of worshippers now united, are moving to the holy city; a small company of believing men, who have not bowed the knee, either to Baal or to Jeroboam’s calves, but still own Jerusalem as God’s city, audits temple as the seat of true worship; — they take the straight read to the city, — the great north road, which all coming from Shiloh or Sheehem would naturally take. This brings directly to Tuleil cl-Ful (Gibeah) and Shaphat, from which they take their way, over Scopus, to the city. Why should they make a detour over the hills to Nebi-Samwil, when the usual highway lay before them? Such a circuit would not be taken by any one, unless he had a special reason for going out of his way, and would not surely be thought of by men who were pressing on to “the house, of Jehovah” with their gifts-* Whether Shaphat be Mizpeh may, perhaps, still be questioned; but it would seem, at least that Nebi-Samwil cannot be Mizpeh.
There is a difficulty in arranging the scene which follows: — Ishmael, after the slaughter of his victims, set out for the country of the Ammonites, but was overtaken by Johanan, near the pool of Gibeon. How could this be, seeing Amnion lies nearly due east of this place, where we would place Mizpch, and Gibeon lies west, near Nebi-Samwil? It would appear, however, that the eastern region between Jerusalem and Jordan was not safe for Ishmael to traverse (being probably occupied by Johanan and his men), and he was trying to push his way to A mm on by another route instead of taking the direct one. But, besides, the difficulty is nearly as great in the other way. No doubt, if Nebi-Samwil be Mizpeh, it is easier to account for Ishmael being found at Gibeon, than if Shaphat be
•vf There is a passage in one of Jerome’s Commentaries, which she“Ws that the companies wh;eh came from Sheehem came by Bethel; and having come so far as Bethel, on the main road, they would not diverge westward by Nebi-Samwil; — “Sacerdotes Bethel, imo fanatici Eethaven, temporibus Paschse, et Pentecostes et Scenophigise, quando per Sichem, quse hodie Neapolis appellatur, eundum erat Hierosolymam, ubi solum licebat victimas immolare, ponebant in itinere latrorcs, qui insidiarentur pergentibus, ut magisvitulos aureosinDan et in Bethaven quam in Hierosolymis et in templo adorarent Dcum;” (Comm. on Hos. vi. 9). This remark springs out of a translation of the ninth verse, somewhat different from our English version: but this does not invalidate the statement as to the Known route of travellers between Sheehem and Jerusalem.
Mizpeh; but still Gibeon did not lie in his way to Amnion, and, though not so far out of his road as the other, yet it was not in his route.
Scopus has been named as likely to be Mizpeh. But as I have noticed elsewhere, Scopus is not the translation of Mizpeh, but one of Josephus’ Hellenized Hebraisms, so that it would seem that these were understood to be different places, however near they might be to each other. This is still more evident from the separate mention which Josephus makes of these places. In his Antiquities of the Jews (b. vi. ch. 2, sect. 1), he tells us, that Samuel gathered Israel to “a place called Masphat, which means in the Hebrew tongue, a place for looking fadtro’X’reijofMvov). And in his Jewish War (b. v. ch. 2, sect. 3), he mentions that Titus moved his legions to “a place named Scopusi from which the city began already to be seen.” It is clear that Josephus understood them to be two separate places.
There are other places both outside and inside Jerusalem which would require to be noticed, but the subject would require a volume.
In regard to the names of the localities given by Josephus, we must remember that he sometimes gives the Hebrew name in Greek letters, as in Gennath, Siloam, Bezetha, Bethso, Xystus, Ophlas; and that sometimes he translates it for us, as “the fuller’s monument,” the “upper market-place,” “the citadel.” It may be questioned wdiether he is translating the following: — (1.) Scopus. This may be simple Greek, or it may be the Hebrew Shakaf; or Tsafa (as Lightfoot and Keisner give it), or it may be simply Tsafon, the north hill. (3.) Akra. The name of the hill, is not really the same as that of the citadel on Zion. Whether Akra be simply the Hebrew behind (inK)j I do not determine. If so, it would be “the hill behind Zion,” or more probably “the western hill” (behind is west). (3.) Tyropoeon. Of this I have spoken already. (4.) The Almond-pool. I suspect this is the Towerpool (Migdol), for the Hebrew Migdol and the Greek Amygdalon are very similar. Perhaps also the sparrow’-pool (Strouthios), may be the pool of Ashtaroth. Xystvs is the house or hall built against the temple rests, for ft (ziz) is the Rabbinical word used for the “rests” or chambers, described in such places as 1 Kings vi. 5, (see Levi’s Lingua Sacra on the word. Bethso is “the house of the outgoing” (N^).
T T
or the “house of floors or storeys” (JJ^).
- T
These are suggestions given out in the hope of farther investigation. The topography of Jerusalem is only beginning to be understood. It will be a great evil if it be considered settled, as it is by some. A greater hindrance could hardly be devised in prevention of discovery, than the undiscriminating adoption of Dr Robinson’s topography.
Kk
#