Jeru'salem (Heb. ירוּשָׁלִם, Yerushala'im, fully [in 1Ch 3:5; 2Ch 25:1; Es 2:6; Jer 26:18] ירוּשָׁלִים,
Yerushala'yim [with final ה directive, ירוּשָׁלֵמָה, 1Ki 10:2; fully ירוּשָׁלִימָה, 2Ch 32:9]; Chald. ירוּשׁלֵם or ירוּשׁלֶם, Yerushelem'; Syr. Urishlem; Gr. Ι᾿ερουσαλήμ (τὰ) ῾Ιεροσόλυμα [Gen. ύμων]; Latin Hierosolymna), poetically also SALEM (שָׁלֵם, Shalenz'), and once ARIEL SEE ARIEL (q.v.); originally JEBUS SEE JEBUS (q.v.); in sacred themes the "City of God," or the "Holy City" (Ne 11:1,16; Mt 4:5), as in the modern Arab. name el-Khuds, the Holy (comp. ἱερόπολις, Philo, Opp. 2:524); once (2Ch 25:28) the "city of Judah." The Hebrew name is a dual form (see Gesenius, Lehrg. p. 539 sq.; Ewald, Krit. Gramm. 332), and is of disputed etymology (see Gesenius, Thes. Heb. p. 628; Rosenmüller, Altflerth. 2, 2, 202; Ewald, Isr. Gesch. 2, 584), but probably signifies possession of peace (q.d. יֵרוּשׁאּשָׁלֵם [rather than ירוּ שָׁלֵם, i.e. foundation of peace, as preferred by Gesenius and Fürst]), the dual referring to the two chief mountains (Zion and Moriah) on which it was built, or the two main parts (the Upper and the Lower City, i.e. Zion and Acra). It has been known under the above titles in all ages as the Jewish capital of Palestine.
I. History. — This is so largely made up of the history of Palestine itself in different ages, and of its successive rulers, that for minute details we refer to these, SEE JUDEA; we here present only a general survey, but with references to sources of more detailed information.
1. This city is mentioned very early in Scripture, being usually supposed to be the Salem of which Melchizedek was king (Ge 14:18). B.C. cir. 2080. Such was the opinion of the Jews themselves; for Josephus, who calls Melchizedek king of Solyma (Σόλυμα), observes that this name was afterwards changed into Hierosolyma (Ant. 1, 10, 3). All the fathers of the Church, Jerome excepted, agree with Josephus, and understand Jerusalem and Salem to indicate the same place. The Psalmist also says (Ps 76:2), "In Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion." SEE SALEM.
The mountain of the land of Moriah, which Abraham (Ge 22:2) reached on the third day from Beersheba, there to offer Isaac (B.C. cir. 2047), is, according to Josephus (Ant. 1, 13, 2), the mountain on which Solomon afterwards built the Temple (2Ch 3:1). SEE MORIAH.
The question of the identity of Jerusalem with "Cadytis, a large city of Syria," "almost as large as Sardis," which is mentioned by Herodotus (2, 159; 3, 5) as having been taken by Pharaoh-Necho, need not be investigated in this place. It is interesting, and, if decided in the affirmative, so far important as confirming the Scripture narrative, but does not in any way add to our knowledge of the history of the city. The reader will find it fully examined in Rawlinson's Herodotus, 2, 246; Blakesley's Herodotus Excursus on Bk. 3, ch. 5 (both against identification); and in Kenrick's Egypt, 2, 406, and Dict. of Gk. and Rom. Geogr. 2, 17 (both for it).
Nor need we do more than refer to the tradition — of traditions they are, and not mere individual speculation — of Tacitus (Hist. 5, 2) and Plutarch (Is. et Osir. ch. 31) of the foundation of the city by a certain Hierosolymus, a son of the Typhon (see Winer's note, 1, 545). All the certain information to be obtained as to the early history of Jerusalem must be gathered from the books of the Jewish historians alone.
2. The name Jerusalem first occurs in Jos 10:1, where Adonizedek (q.v.), king of Jerusalem, is mentioned as having entered into an alliance with other kings against Joshua, by whom they were all overcome (comp. Jos 12:10). B.C. 1618. SEE JOSHUA.
In drawing the northern border of Judah, we find Jerusalem again mentioned (Jos 15:8; compare Jos 18:16). This border ran through the valley of Ben-Hinnom; the country on the south of it, as Bethlehem, belonged to Judah; but the mountain of Zion, forming the northern wall of the valley, and occupied by the Jebusites, appertained to Benjamin. Among the cities of Benjamin, therefore, is also mentioned (Jos 18:28) "Jebus, which is Jerusalem" (comp. Jg 19:10; 1Ch 11:4). At a later date, however, owing to the conquest of Jebus by David, the line ran on the northern side of Zion, leaving the city equally divided between the two tribes. SEE TRIBE. There is a rabbinical tradition that part of the Temple was in the lot of Judah, and part of it in that of Benjamin (Lightfoot, 1, 1050, Lond. 1684). SEE TEMPLE.
After the death of Joshua, when there remained for the children of Israel much to conquer in Canaan, the Lord directed Judah to fight against the Canaanites; and they took Jerusalem, smote it with the edge of the sword, and set it on fire (Jg 1:1-8), B.C. cir. 1590. After that, the Judahites and the Benjamites dwelt with the Jebusites at Jerusalem; for it is recorded (Jos 15:63) that the children of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites inhabiting Jerusalem; and we are farther informed (Jg 1:21) that the children of Benjamin did not expel them from Jerusalem (comp. Jg 19:10-12). Probably the Jebusites were removed by Judah only from the lower city, but kept possession of the mountain of Zion, which David conquered at a later period. This is the explanation of Josephus (Ant. 5, 2, 2). SEE JEBUS. Jerusalem is not again mentioned till the time of Saul, when it is stated (1Sa 17:54) that David took the head of Goliath and brought it to Jerusalem, B.C. cir. 1063. When David, who had previously reigned over Judah alone in Hebron, was called to rule over all Israel, he led his forces against the Jebusites, and conquered the castle of Zion which Joab first scaled (1Sa 5:5-9; 1Ch 12:4-8). He then fixed his abode on this mountain, and called it "the city of David," B.C. cir. 1044. He strengthened its fortifications, SEE MILLO, but does not appear to have enlarged it.
Thither he carried the ark of the covenant; and there he built to the Lord an altar in the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, on the place where the angel stood who threatened Jerusalem with pestilence (2Sa 24:15-25). But David could not build a house for the name of the Lord his God on account of the wars which were about him on every side (2Sa 7:13; 1Ki 5:3-5). Still the Lord announced to him, through the prophet Nathan. (2Sa 7:10), "I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more," B.C. cir, 1043. From this it would seem that even David had, then at least, no assurance that Jerusalem in particular was to be the place which had so often been spoken of as that which God would choose for the central seat of the theocratical monarchy, and which it became after Solomon's Temple had been built. SEE TEMPLE.
3. The reasons which led David to fix upon Jerusalem as the metropolis of his kingdom are noticed elsewhere, SEE DAVID, being, chiefly, that it was in his own tribe of Judah, in which his influence was the strongest, while it was the nearest to the other tribes of any site he could have chosen in Judah. The peculiar strength also of the situation, enclosed on three sides by a natural trench of valleys, could not be without weight. Its great strength, according to the military notions of that age, is shown by the length of time the Jebusites were able to keep possession of it against the force of all Israel. David was doubtless the best judge of his own interests in this matter; but if those interests had not come into play, and if he had only considered the best situation for a metropolis of the whole kingdom, it is doubtful whether a more central situation with respect to all the tribes would not have been far preferable, especially as the law required all the adult males of Israel to repair three times in the year to the place of the divine presence. Indeed, the burdensome character of this obligation to the more distant tribes seems to heave been one of the excuses for the revolt of the ten tribes, as it certainly was for the establishment of schismatic altars in Dan and Beth-el (1Ki 12:28). Many travelers have suggested that Samaria, which afterwards became the metropolis of the separated kingdom, was far preferable to Jerusalem for the site of a capital city; and its central situation would also have been in its favor as a metropolis for all the tribes. But as the choice of David was subsequently confirmed by the divine appointment, which made Mount Moriah the site of the Temple, we are bound to consider the choice as having been providentially ordered with reference to the contingencies that afterwards arose, by which Jerusalem was made the capital of the separate kingdom of Judah, for which it was well adapted. SEE JUDAH.
The promise made to David received its accomplishment when Solomon built his Temple upon Mount Moriah, B.C. 1010. He also added towers to the walls, and otherwise greatly adorned the city. By him and his father Jerusalem had been made the imperial residence of the king of all Israel; and the Temple, often called "the house of Jehovah," constituted at the same time the residence of the King of kings, the supreme head of the theocratical state, whose vice regents the human kings were taught to regard themselves. It now belonged, even less than a town of the Levites, to a particular tribe: it was the center of all civil and religious affairs, the very place of which Moses spoke, De 12:5: "The place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come" (comp. 9:6; 13:14; 14:23; 16:11-16; Psalm 122). SEE SOLOMON.
Jerusalem was not, indeed, politically important: it was not the capital of a powerful empire directing the affairs of other states, but it stood high in the bright prospects foretold by David when declaring his faith in the coming of a Messiah (Ps 2:6; Ps 1; Ps 2; Ps 37; Ps 102:16-22; Ps 110:2). In all these passages the name Zion is used, which, although properly applied to the southernmost part of the site of Jerusalem, is often in Scripture put poetically for Jerusalem generally, and sometimes for Mount Moriah and its Temple. SEE ZION.
The importance and splendor of Jerusalem were considerably lessened after the death of Solomon, under whose son Rehoboam ten of the tribes rebelled, Judah and Benjamin only remaining in their allegiance, B.C. 973. Jerusalem was then only the capital of the very small state of Judah. When Jeroboam instituted the worship of golden calves in Beth-el and Dan, the ten tribes went no longer up to Jerusalem to worship and sacrifice in the house of the Lord (1Ki 12:26-30). SEE ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF.
After this time the history of Jerusalem is continued in the history of Judah, for which the second book of the Kings and of the Chronicles are the principal sources of information. After the time of Solomon, the kingdom of Judah was almost alternately ruled by good kings, "who did that which was right in the sight of the Lord," and by such as were idolatrous and evil disposed; and the reign of the same king often varied, and was by turns good or evil. The condition of the kingdom, and of Jerusalem in particular as its metropolis, was very much affected by these mutations. Under good kings the city flourished, and under bad kings it suffered greatly. Under Rehoboam (q.v.) it was conquered by Shishak (q.v.), king of Egypt, who pillaged the treasures of the Temple (2Ch 12:9), B.C. 970. Under Amaziah (q.v.) it was taken by Jehoash, king of Israel, who broke down four hundred cubits of the wall of the city, and took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the Temple (2Ki 14:13-14), B.C. cir. 830. Uzziah (q.v.), son of Amaziah, who at first reigned well, built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate, at the valley gate, and at the turning of the wall, and fortified them (2Ch 26:9), B.C. cir. 807. His son, Jotham (q.v.), built the high gate of the Temple, and reared up many other structures (2Ch 27:3-4), B.C. cir. 755. Hezekiah (q.v.) added to the other honors of his reign that of an improver of Jerusalem (2Ch 29:3), B.C. 726. At a later date, however, he despoiled the Temple in some degree in order to pay the levy imposed by the king of Assyria (2Ki 18:15-16), B.C. 713. But in the latter part of the same year he performed his most eminent service for the city by stopping the upper course of Gihon, and bringing its waters by a subterraneous aqueduct to the west side of the city (2Ch 32:30). This work is inferred, from 2 Kings 20, to have been of great importance to Jerusalem, as it cut off a supply of water from any besieging enemy, and bestowed it upon the inhabitants of the city. The immediate occasion was the threatened invasion by the Assyrians. SEE SENNACHERIB. Hezekiah's son, Manasseh (q.v.), was punished by a capture of the city in consequence of his idolatrous desecration of the Temple (2Ch 33:11), B.C. cir. 690; but in his later and best years he built a strong and very high wall on the west side of Jerusalem (2Ch 33:14). The works in the city connected with the names of the succeeding kings of Judah were, so far as recorded, confined to the defilement of the house of the Lord by bad kings, and its purgation by good kings, the most important of the latter being the repairing of the Temple by Josiah (2Ki 20:21), B.C. 623, till for the abounding iniquities of the nation the city and Temple were abandoned to destruction, after several preliminary spoliations by the Egyptians (2Ki 23:33-35), B.C. 609, and Babylonians (2Ki 24:14), B. C. 606, and again (2Ki 24:13), B.C. 598. Finally, after a siege of three years, Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, who razed its walls, and destroyed its Temple and palaces with fire (2Ki 25; 2Ch 36; Jer 39), B.C. 588. Thus was Jerusalem smitten with the calamity which Moses had prophesied would befall it if the people would not keep the commandments of the Lord, but broke his covenant (Le 26:14; De 28). The finishing stroke to this desolation was put by the retreat of the principal Jews, on the massacre of Gedaliah, into Egypt, B.C. 587, where they were eventually involved in the conquest of that country by the Babylonians (Jeremiah 40-44). Meanwhile the feeble remnant of the lower classes, who had clung to their native soil amid all these reverses, were swept away by a final deportation to Babylon, which left the land literally without an inhabitant (Jer 52:30). B.C. 582. SEE NEBUCHADNEZZAR.
Moses had long before predicted that if, in the land of their captivity, his afflicted countrymen repented of their evil, they should be brought back again to the land out of which they had been cast (De 30:1-5; comp. 1Ki 8:46-53; Ne 1:8-9). The Lord also, through Isaiah, condescended to point out the agency through which the restoration of the holy city was to be accomplished, and even named, long before his birth, the very person, Cyrus, under whose orders this was to be effected (Isa 44:28; comp. Jer 3:2,7-8; Jer 23:3; Jer 31:10; Jer 32:36-37). Among the remarkably precise indications should be mentioned that in which Jer 25:9-12 limits the duration of Judah's captivity to seventy years. SEE CAPTIVITY. These encouragements were continued through the prophets, who themselves shared the captivity. Of this number was Daniel, to whom it was revealed, while yet praying for the restoration of his people (Da 9:16,19), that the streets and the walls of Jerusalem should be built again, even in troublous times (ver. 25). SEE SEVENTY WEEKS.
4. Daniel lived to see the reign of Cyrus, king of Persia (Da 10:1), and the fulfilment of his prayer. It was in the year B.C. 536, "in the first year of Cyrus," that, in accomplishment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of this prince, who made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, expressed in these remarkable words: "The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel" (Ezr 1:2-3). This important call was answered by a considerable number of persons, particularly priests and Levites; and the many who declined to quit their houses and possessions in Babylonia committed valuable gifts to the hands of their more zealous brethren. Cyrus also caused the sacred vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the Temple to be restored to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, who took them to Jerusalem, followed by 42,360 people, besides their servants, of whom there were 7337 (Ezr 1:5-11).
On their arrival at Jerusalem they contributed, according to their ability, to rebuild the Temple; Jeshua the priest, and Zerubbabel, reared up an altar to offer burnt offerings thereon; and when, in the following year, the foundation was laid of the new house of God, "the people shouted for joy, but many of the Levites who had seen the first Temple wept with a loud voice" (Ezr 3:2,12). When the Samaritans expressed a wish to share in the pious labor, Zerubbabel declined the offer, and in revenge, the Samaritans sent a deputation to king Artaxerxes of Persia, carrying a presentment in which Jerusalem was described as a rebellious city of old time which, if rebuilt, and its walls set up again, would not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and would thus endamage the public revenue. The deputation succeeded, and Artaxerxes ordered that the building of the Temple should cease. The interruption thus caused lasted to the second year of the reign of Darius (Ezr 4:24), when Zerubbabel and Jeshua, supported by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, again resumed the work, and would not cease though cautioned by the Persian governor of Judaea, B.C. 520. On the matter coming before Darius Hystaspis, and the Jews reminding him of the permission given by Cyrus, he decided in their favor, and also ordered that the expenses of the work should be defrayed out of the public revenue (Ezr 6:8). In the sixth year of the reign of Darius the Temple was finished, when they kept the dedicatory festival with great joy, and next celebrated the Passover (Ezr 6:15-16,19), B.C. 516. Afterwards, in the seventh year of the second Artaxerxes (Longimanus), Ezra, a descendant of Aaron, came up to Jerusalem, accompanied by a large number of Jews who had remained in Babylon, B.C. 459. He was highly patronized by the king, who not only made him a large present in gold and silver, but published a decree enjoining all treasurers of Judaea speedily to do whatever Ezra should require of them; allowing him to collect money throughout the whole province of Babylon for the wants of the Temple at Jerusalem, and also giving him full power to appoint magistrates in his country to judge the people (Ezr 7; Ezr 8). At a later period, in the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, who was his cupbearer, obtained permission to proceed to Jerusalem, and to complete the rebuilding of the city and its wall, which he happily accomplished, in spite of all the opposition which he received from the enemies of Israel (Ne 1; Ne 2:4,6), B.C. 446. The city was then capacious and large, but the people in it were few, and many houses still lay in ruins (Ne 7:4). At Jerusalem dwelt the rulers of the people and "certain of the children of Judah and of the children of Benjamin;" but it was now determined that the rest of the people should cast lots to bring one of ten to the capital (Ne 11:1-4), B.C. cir. 440. On Nehemiah's return, after several years' absence to court, all strangers, Samaritans, Ammonites, Moabites, etc., were removed, to keep the chosen people, from pollution; ministers were appointed to the Temple, and the service was performed according to the law of Moses (Ezr 10; Ne 8; Ne 10; Ne 12; Ne 13), B.C. cir. 410. Of the Jerusalem thus by such great and long-continued exertions restored, very splendid prophecies were uttered by those prophets who flourished after the exile; the general purport of which was to describe the Temple and city as destined to be glorified far beyond the former, by the advent of the long and eagerly-expected Messiah, "the desire of all nations" (Zec 9:9; Zec 12:10; Zec 13:3; Hag 2:6-7; Mal 3:11). SEE EZRA; SEE NEHEMIAH.
5. For the subsequent history of Jerusalem (which is closely connected with that of Palestine in general), down to its destruction by the Romans, we must draw chiefly upon Josephus and the books of the Maccabees, It is said by Josephus (Ant. 11, 8) that when the dominion of this part of the world passed from the Persians to the Greeks, Alexander the Great advanced against Jerusalem to punish it for the fidelity to the Persians which it had manifested while he was engaged in the siege of Tyre. His hostile purposes, however, were averted by the appearance of the high priest Jaddua at the head of a train of priests in their sacred vestments. Alexander recognized in him the figure which in a dream had encouraged him to undertake the conquest of Asia. He therefore treated him with respect and reverence, spared the city against which his wrath had been kindled, and granted to the Jews high and important privileges. The historian adds that the high priest failed not to apprise the conqueror of those prophecies in Daniel by which his successes had been predicted. The whole of this story is, however, liable to suspicion, from the absence of any notice of the circumstance in the histories of this campaign which we possess. SEE ALEXANDER THE GREAT.
After the death of Alexander at Babylon (B.C. 324), Ptolemy surprised Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, when the Jews would not fight, plundered the city, and carried away a great number of the inhabitants to Egypt, where, however, from the estimation in which the Jews of this period were held as citizens, important privileges were bestowed upon them (Joseph. Ant. 12, 1). In the contests which afterwards followed for the possession of Syria (including Palestine), Jerusalem does not appear to have been directly injured, and was even spared when Ptolemy gave up Samaria, Acco, Joppa, and Gaza to pillage. The contest was ended by the treaty in B.C. 302, which annexed the whole of Palestine, together with Arabia Petraea and Coele-Syria to Egypt. Under easy subjection to the Ptolemies, the Jews remained in much tranquillity for more than a hundred years, in which the principal incident, as regards Jerusalem itself, was the visit which was paid to it, in B.C. 245, by Ptolemy Euergetes, on his return from his victories in the East. He offered many sacrifices, and made magnificent presents to the Temple. In the wars between Antiochus the Great and the kings of Egypt, from B.C. 221 to 197, Judaea could not fail to suffer severely; but we are not acquainted with any incident in which Jerusalem was principally concerned till the alleged visit of Ptolemy Philopator in B.C. 211. He offered sacrifices, and gave rich, gifts to the Temple, but, venturing to enter the sanctuary in spite of the remonstrances of the high priest, he was seized with a supernatural dread, and fled in terror from the place. It is said that on his return to Egypt he vented his rage on the Jews of Alexandria in a very barbarous manner. SEE ALEXANDRIA. But the whole story of his visit and its results rests upon the sole authority of the third book of Maccabees (chaps. 1 and 3), and is therefore not entitled to implicit credit. Towards the end of this war the Jews seemed to favor the cause of Antiochus; and after he had subdued the neighboring country, they voluntarily tendered their submission, and rendered their assistance in expelling the Egyptian garrison from Mount Zion. For this conduct they were rewarded by many important privileges by Antiochus. He issued decrees directing, among other things, that the outworks of the Temple should be completed, and that all the materials for needful repairs should be exempted from taxes. The peculiar sanctity of the Temple was also to be respected. No foreigner was to pass the sacred walls, and the city itself was to be protected from pollution; it being strictly forbidden that the flesh or skins of any beasts which the Jews accounted unclean should be brought into it (Joseph. Ant. 12, 3, 3). These were very liberal concessions to what the king himself must have regarded as the prejudices of the Jewish people.
Under their new masters the Jews enjoyed for a time nearly as much tranquillity as under the generally benign and liberal government of the Ptolemies. But in B.C. 176, Seleucus Philopator, hearing that great treasures were hoarded up in the Temple, and being distressed for money to carry on his wars, sent his treasurer, Heliodorus, to bring away these treasures. But this personage is reported to have been so frightened and stricken by an apparition that he relinquished the attempt, and Seleucus left the Jews in the undisturbed enjoyment of their rights (2 Macc. 3:4-40; Joseph. Ant. 12, 3, 3). His brother and successor, Antiochus Epiphanes, however, was of another mind. He took up the design of reducing them to a conformity of manners and religion with other nations; or, in other words, of abolishing those distinctive features which made the Jews a peculiar people, socially separated from all others. This design was odious to the great body of the people, although there were many among the higher classes who regarded it with favor. Of this way of thinking was Menelaus, whom Antiochus had made high priest, and who was expelled by the orthodox Jews with ignominy, in B.C. 169, when they heard the joyful news that Antiochus had been slain in Egypt. The rumor proved untrue, and Antiochus, on his return, punished them by plundering and profaning the Temple. Worse evils befell them two years after; for Antiochus, out of humor at being compelled by the Romans to abandon his designs upon Egypt, sent his chief collector of tribute, Apollonius, with a detachment of 22,000 men, to vent his rage on Jerusalem. This person plundered the city and razed its walls, with the stones of which he built a citadel that commanded the Temple Mount. A statue of Jupiter was set up in the Temple; the peculiar observances of the Jewish law were abolished, and a persecution was commenced against all who adhered to these observances, and refused to sacrifice to idols. Jerusalem was deserted by priests and people, and the daily sacrifice at the altar was entirely discontinued (1 Macc. 1, 29-40; 2 Macc. 5, 24-26; Joseph. Ant. 12, 5, 4). SEE ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES.
This led to the celebrated revolt of the Maccabees who, after an arduous and sanguinary struggle, obtained possession of Jerusalem (B.C. 163), and repaired and purified the Temple, which was then dilapidated and deserted. New utensils were provided for the sacred services: the old altar, which had been polluted by heathen abominations, was taken away, and a new one erected. The sacrifices were then recommenced, exactly three years after the Temple had been dedicated to Jupiter Olympius. The castle, however, remained in the hands of the Syrians, and long proved a sore annoyance to the Jews, although Judas Maccabaeus surrounded the Temple with a high and strong wall, furnished with towers, in which soldiers were stationed to protect the worshippers from the Syrian garrison (1 Macc. 1, 36, 37; Joseph. Ant. 7, 7). Eventually the annoyance grew so intolerable that Judas laid siege to the castle. This attempt brought a powerful army into the country under the command of the regent Lysias, who, however, being constrained to turn his arms elsewhere, made peace with the Jews; but when he was admitted into the city, and observed the strength of the place, he threw down the walls in violation of the treaty (1 Macc. 6:48-65). In the ensuing war with Bacchides, the general of Demetrius Soter, in which Judas was slain, the Syrians strengthened their citadel, and placed in it the sons of the principal Jewish families as hostages (1 Macc. 9:52, 53; Joseph. Ant. 13, 1, 3). The year after (B.C. 159) the temporizing high priest Alcimus directed the wall which separated the court of Israel from that of the Gentiles to be cast down, to afford the latter free access to the Temple; but he was seized with palsy as soon as the work commenced, and died in great agony (1 Macc. 9:51-57). When, a few years after, Demetrius and Alexander Balas sought to outbid each other for the support of Jonathan, the hostages in the castle were released; and subsequently all the Syrian garrisons in Judaea were evacuated, excepting those of Jerusalem and Bethzur, which were chiefly occupied by apostate Jews, who were afraid to leave their places of refuge. Jonathan then rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and repaired the buildings of the city, besides erecting a palace for his own residence (1 Macc. 10, 2-4; Joseph. Ant. 13, 2, 1). The particular history of Jerusalem for several years following is little more than an account of the efforts of the Maccabaean princes to obtain possession of the castle, and of the Syrian kings to retain it in their hands. At length, in B.C. 142, the garrison was forced to surrender by Simon, who demolished it altogether, that it might not again be used against the Jews by their enemies. Simon then strengthened the fortifications of the mountain on which the Temple stood, and built there a palace for himself (1 Macc. 13:43-52; Joseph. Ant. 13, 6, 6). This building was afterwards turned into a regular fortress by John Hyrcanus (q.v.), and was ever after the residence of the Maccabean princes (Joseph. Ant. 15, 11, 4). It is called by Josephus "the castle of Baris," in his history of the Jews; till it was strengthened and enlarged by Herod the Great, who called it the castle of Antonia, under which name it makes a conspicuous figure in the Jewish wars of the Romans. SEE MACCABEES.
6. Of Jerusalem itself we find no notice of consequence in the next period till it was taken by Pompey (q.v.) in the summer of B.C. 63, and on the very day observed by the Jews as one of lamentation and fasting, in commemoration of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Twelve thousand Jews were massacred in the Temple courts, including many priests, who died at the very altar rather than suspend the sacred rites (Joseph. Ant. 14, 1-4). On this occasion, Pompey, attended by his generals, went into the Temple and viewed the sanctuary; but he left untouched all its treasures and sacred things, while the walls of the city itself were demolished. From this time the Jews are to be considered as under the dominion of the Romans (Joseph. Ant. 14, 4, 5). The treasures which Pompey had spared were seized a few years after (B.C. 51) by Crassus. In the year B.C. 43, the walls of the city, which Pompey had demolished, were rebuilt by Antipater, the father of that Herod the Great under whom Jerusalem was destined to assume the new and more magnificent aspect which it bore in the time of Christ, and which constituted the Jerusalem which Josephus describes. SEE HEROD. Under the following reign the city was improved with magnificent taste and profuse expenditure; and even the Temple, which always formed the great architectural glory of Jerusalem, was taken down and rebuilt by Herod the Great, with a splendor exceeding that of Solomon's (Mr 13:1; Joh 2:20). SEE TEMPLE. It was in the courts of the Temple as thus rebuilt, and in the streets of the city as thus improved, that the Savior of men walked up and down. Here he taught, here he wrought miracles, here he suffered; and this was the Temple whose "goodly stones" the apostle admired (Mr 13:1), and of which he foretold that ere the existing generation had passed away not one stone should be left upon another. Nor was the city in this state admired by Jews only. Pliny calls it "longe clarissimam urbium orientis, non Judsee modo" (Hist. Nat. 5, 16).
Jerusalem seems to have been raised to this greatness as if to enhance the misery of its overthrow. As soon as the Jews had set the seal to their formal rejection of Christ by putting him to death, and invoking the responsibility of his blood upon the heads of themselves and of their children (Mt 27:25), its doom went forth. After having been the scene of horrors without example, during a memorable siege, the process of which is narrated by Josephus in full detail, it was, in A.D. 70, captured to the Romans, who razed the city and Temple to the ground, leaving only three of the towers and a part of the western wall to show how strong a place the Roman arms had overthrown (Joseph. War, 7, 1, 1). Since then the holy city has lain at the mercy of the Gentiles, and will so remain "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did not cause the site to be utterly forsaken. Titus (q.v.) left there in garrison the whole of the tenth legion, besides several squadrons of cavalry and cohorts of foot. For these troops, and for those who ministered to their wants, there must have been dwellings; and there is no reason to suppose that such Jews or Christians as appeared to have taken no part in the war were forbidden to make their abode among the ruins, and building them up so far as their necessities might require. But nothing like a restoration of the city could have arisen from this, as it was not likely that any but poor people, who found an interest in supplying the wants of the garrison, were likely to resort to the ruins under such circumstances. H0owever, we learn from Jerome that for fifty years after its destruction, until the time of Hadrian, there still existed remnants of the city. But during all this period there is no mention of it in history.
Up to A.D. 131 the Jews remained tolerably quiet, although apparently awaiting any favorable opportunity of shaking off the Roman yoke. The then emperor, Hadrian (q.v.), seems to have been aware of this state of feeling, and, among other measures of precaution, ordered Jerusalem to be rebuilt as a fortified place wherewith to keep in check the whole Jewish population. The work had made some progress when the Jews, unable in endure the idea that their holy city should be occupied by foreigners, and that strange gods should be set up within it, broke out into open rebellion under the notorious Barchochebas (q.v.), who claimed to be the Messiah. His success was at first very great, but he was crushed before the tremendous power of the Romans, so soon as it could be brought to bear upon him; and a war scarcely inferior in horror to that under Vespasian and Titus was, like it, brought to a close by the capture of Jerusalem, of which the Jews had obtained possession. This was in A.D. 135, from which period the final dispersion of the Jews has often been dated. The Romans then finished the city according to their first intention. It was made a Roman colony, inhabited wholly by foreigners, the Jews being forbidden to approach it on pain of death: a temple to Jupiter Calitolinus was erected on Mount Moriah, and the old name of Jerusalem was sought to be supplanted by that of Elia Capitolina, conferred upon it in honor of the emperor AElius Hadrianus and Jupiter Capitolinus. By this name was the city known till the time of Constantine, when that of Jerusalem again became current, although Elia was still its public designation, and remained such so late as A.D. 536, when it appears in the acts of a synod held there. This name even passed to the Mohammedans, by whom it was long retained; and it was not till after they recovered the city from the Crusaders that it became generally known among them by the name of El-Khud — "the holy" — which it still bears.
7. From the rebuilding by Hadrian the history of Jerusalem is almost a blank till the time of Constantine, when its history, as a place of extreme solicitude and interest to the Christian Church, properly begins. Pilgrimages to the Holy City now became common and popular. Such a pilgrimage was undertaken in A.D. 326 by the emperor's mother Helena, then in the eightieth year of her age, who built churches on the alleged site of the nativity at Bethlehem, and of the resurrection on the Mount of Olives. This example may probably have excited her son to the discovery of the site of the holy sepulchre, and to the erection of a church thereon. He removed the temple of Venus, with which, in studied insult, the site had been encumbered. The holy sepulchre was then purified, and a magnificent church was, by his order, built over and around the sacred spot. This temple was completed and dedicated with great solemnity in A.D. 335. There is no doubt that the spot thus singled out is the same that has ever since been regarded as the place in which Christ was entombed; but the correctness of the identification then made has of late years been much disputed, on grounds which have been examined in the article GOLGOTHA SEE GOLGOTHA. The very cross on which our Lord suffered was also, in the course of these explorations, believed to have been discovered, under the circumstances which have elsewhere been described. SEE CROSS.
By Constantine the edict excluding the Jews from the city of their fathers' sepulchres was so far repealed that they were allowed to enter it once a year to wail over the desolation of "the holy and beautiful house" in which their fathers worshipped God. When the nephew of Constantine, the emperor Julian (q.v.), abandoned Christianity for the old Paganism, he endeavored, as a matter of policy, to conciliate the Jews. He allowed them free access to the city, and permitted them to rebuild their Temple. They accordingly began to lay the foundations in A.D. 362; but the speedy death of the emperor probably occasioned that abandonment of the attempt which contemporary writers ascribe to supernatural hindrances. The edicts seem then to have been renewed which excluded the Jews from the city, except on the anniversary of its capture, when they were allowed to enter the city and weep over it. Their appointed wailing place remains, and their practice of wailing there continues to the present day. From St. James, the first bishop, to Jude II, who died A.D. 136, there had been a series of fifteen bishops of Jewish descent; and from Marcus, who succeeded Simeon, to Macarius, who presided over the Church of Jerusalem under Constantine, there was a series of twenty-three bishops of Gentile descent, but, beyond a bare list of their names, little is known of the Church or of the city of Jerusalem during the whole of this latter period.
In the centuries ensuing the conversion of Constantine, the roads to Zion were thronged with pilgrims from all parts of Christendom, and the land abounded in monasteries, occupied by persons who wished to lead a religious life amid the scenes which had been sanctified by the Savior's presence. After much struggle of conflicting dignities, Jerusalem was, in A.D. 451, declared a patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon. SEE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM. In the theological controversies which followed the decision of that council with regard to the two natures of Christ, Jerusalem bore its share with other Oriental churches, and two of its bishops were, deposed by Monophysite fanatics. The Synod of Jerusalem in A.D. 536 confirmed the decree of the Synod of Constantinople against the Monophysites. SEE JERUSALEM, COUNCILS OF. In the same century it found a second Constantine in Justinian, who ascended the throne A.D. 527. He repaired and enriched the former structures, and built upon Mount Moriah a magnificent church to the Virgin, as a memorial of the persecution of Jesus in the Temple. He also founded ten or eleven convents in and about Jerusalem and Jericho, and established a hospital for pilgrims in each of those cities.
In the following century, the Persians, who had long harassed the empire of the East, penetrated into Syria, and in A.D. 614, under Chosroes II, after defeating the forces of the emperor Heraclius, took Jerusalem by storm. Many thousands of the inhabitants were slain, and much of the city, including the finest churches that of the Holy Sepulchre among them was destroyed. When the conquerors withdrew they took away the principal inhabitants, the patriarch, and the true cross; but when, the year after, peace was concluded, these were restored, and the emperor Heraclius entered Jerusalem in solemn state, bearing the cross upon his shoulders.
The damage occasioned by the Persians was speedily repaired. But Arabia soon furnished a more formidable enemy in the khalif Omar, whose troops appeared before the city in A.D. 636, Arabia, Syria, and Egypt having already been brought under the Moslem yoke. After a long siege the austere khalif himself came to the camp, and the city was at length surrendered to him in A.D. 637. The conqueror of mighty kings entered the holy city in his garment of camel's hair, and conducted himself with much discretion and generous forbearance. By his orders the magnificent mosque which still bears his name was built upon Mount Moriah, upon the site of the Jewish Temple.
8. Jerusalem remained in possession of the Arabians, and was occasionally visited by Christian pilgrims from Europe till towards the year 1000, when a general belief that the second coming of the Savior was near at hand drew pilgrims in unwonted crowds to the Holy Land, and created an impulse for pilgrimages thither which ceased not to act after the first exciting cause had been I forgotten. The Moslem government, in order to derive some profit from this enthusiasm, imposed the tribute of a piece of gold as the price of entrance into the holy city. The sight, by such large numbers, of the holy place in the hands of infidels, the exaction of tribute, and the insults to which the pilgrims, often of the highest rank, were exposed from the Moslem rabble, excited an extraordinary ferment in Europe, and led to those remarkable expeditions for recovering the Holy Sepulchre from the Mohammedans which, under the name of the Crusades, will always fill a most important and curious chapter in the history of the world. (See Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) SEE CRUSADES.
The dominion over Palestine had passed in A.D. 960 from the khalifs of Baghdad to the Fatimite khalifs of Egypt, and these in their turn were dispossessed in A.D. 1073 by the Turkomans, who had usurped the powers of the Eastern khalifat. The severities exercised by these more fierce and uncivilized Moslems upon both the native Christians and the European pilgrims supplied the immediate impulse to the first Eastern expedition. But by the time the Crusaders, under Godfrey of Bouillon, appeared before Jerusalem, on the 17th of June, 1099, the Egyptian khalifs had recovered possession of Palestine, and driven the Turkomans beyond the Euphrates.
After a siege of forty days, the holy city was taken by storm on the 15th day of July, and a dreadful massacre of the Moslem inhabitants followed, without distinction of age or sex. As soon as order was restored, and the city cleared of the dead, a regular government was established by the election of Godfrey as king of Jerusalem. One of the first cares of the new monarch was to dedicate anew to the Lord the place where his presence had once abode, and the Mosque of Omar be came a Christian cathedral, which the historians of the time distinguish as "the Temple of the Lord" (Templum Domini). The Christians kept possession of Jerusalem eighty- eight years. SEE JERUSALEM, KNIGHTS OF. During this long period they appear to have erected several churches and many convents. Of the latter, few, if any, traces remain; and of the former, save one or two ruins, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which they rebuilt, is the only memorial that attests the existence of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem. In A.D. 1187 the holy city was wrested from the hands of the Christians by the sultan Saladin, and the order of things was then reversed. The cross was removed with ignominy from the sacred dome, the holy places were purified from Christian stain with rose water brought from Damascus, and the call to prayer by the muezzin once more sounded over the city. From that time to the present day the holy city has remained, with slight interruption, in the hands of the Moslems. On the threatened siege by Richard of England in 1192, Saladin took great pains in strengthening its defenses. New walls and bulwarks were erected, and deep trenches cut, and in six months the town was stronger than it ever had been, and the works had the firmness and solidity of a rock. But in A.D. 1219, the sultan Melek el-Moaddin of Damascus, who then had possession of Jerusalem, ordered all the walls and towers to be demolished, except the citadel and the inclosure of the mosque, lest the Franks should again become masters of the city and find it a place of strength. In this defenseless state Jerusalem continued till it was delivered over to the Christians in consequence of a treaty with the emperor Frederick II, in A.D. 1229, with the understanding that the walls should not be rebuilt. Yet ten years later (A.D. 1239) the barons and knights of Jerusalem began to build the walls anew, and to erect a strong fortress on the west of the city. But the works were interrupted by the emir David of Kerek, who seized the city, strangled the Christian inhabitants, and cast down the newly erected walls and fortress. Four years after, however (A.D. 1243), Jerusalem was again made over to the Christians without any restriction, and the works appear to have been restored and completed; for they are mentioned as existing when the city was stormed by the wild Kharismian hordes in the following year, shortly after which the city reverted for the last time into the hands of its Mohammedan masters, who have substantially kept it to the present day, although in 1277 Jerusalem was nominally annexed to the kingdom of Sicily.
9. From this time Jerusalem appears to have sunk very much in political and military importance, and it is scarcely named in the history of the Mameluke sultans who reigned over Egypt and the greater part of Syria in the 14th and 15th centuries. At length, with the rest of Syria and Egypt, it passed under the sway of the Turkish sultan Selim I in 1517, who paid a hasty visit to the holy city from Damascus after his return from Egypt. From that time Jerusalem has formed a part of the Ottoman Empire, and during this period has been subject to few vicissitudes; its history is accordingly barren of incident. The present walls of the city were erected by Suleiman the Magnificent, the successor of Selim, in A.D. 1542, as is attested by an inscription over the Jaffa gate. As lately as A.D. 1808, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was partially consumed by fire; but the damage was repaired with great labor and expense by September, 1810, and the traveler now finds in this imposing fabric no traces of that calamity.
In A.D. 1832 Jerusalem became subject to Mohammed Ali, the pasha of Egypt, the holy city opening its gates to him without a siege. During the great insurrection in the districts of Jerusalem and Nabllis in 1834, the insurgents seized upon Jerusalem, and held possession of it for a time; but by the vigorous operations of the government order was soon restored, and the. city reverted quietly to its allegiance on the approach of Ibrahim Pasha with his troops. In 1841 Mohammed Ali was deprived of all his Syrian possessions by European interference, and Jerusalem was again subjected to the Turkish government, under which it now remains.
In the same year took place the establishment of a Protestant bishopric at Jerusalem by the English and Prussian governments, and the erection upon Mount Zion of a church calculated to hold 500 persons, for the celebration of divine worship according to the ritual of the English Church. SEE JERUSALEM, SEE OF (below).
In 1850 a dispute about the guardianship of the holy places between the monks of the Greek and Latin churches, in which Nicholas, emperor of Russia, sided with the Greeks, and Louis Napoleon, emperor of the French, with the Latins, led to a decision of the question by the Porte, which was unsatisfactory to Russia, and which resulted in a war of considerable magnitude, known as "the Crimean War," between that country on the one side, and the allied forces of England and France on the other. This war has led to greater liberties of all classes of citizens in the enjoyment of their religious faith, and to a partial adjustment of the rival claims of the Greek and Latin monks to certain portions of the holy places; it has also resulted in much more freedom towards Frank travelers in visiting the city, so that even ladies have been allowed to enter the mosque inclosure; but it has caused no material alteration in the city or in its political relations.
For details, see Witsius, Hist. Hierosolymoe, in his Miscell. Sacr. 2, 187 sq.; Spalding, Gesch. d. Christl. Konigsreichs Jerusalem (Berlin, 1803); Devling, AElioe Capitolinoe Origg. et Historia (Lips. 1743); Wagnitz, Ueb. d. Phanomane vor d. Zerstörung Jeremiah (Halle, 1780); R. Bessoie, Storia della Basilica di P. Croce in Gerus. (Rome, 1750); C. Cellarius, De AElia Capitolina, etc., in his Programmata, p. 441 sq.; Poujoulat, Histoire
de Jerusalem (Brux. 1842); F. Minter's treatise on the Jewish War under Hadrian, transl. in the Biblioth. Sacra for 1843 p. 393 sq.; Raumer's Palastina; Robinson's Bib. Res. in Palestine; and especially Williams, Holy City, vol. 1.
II. Ancient Topography. — This has been a subject of no little dispute among antiquarian geographers. We prefer here briefly to state our own independent conclusions, with the authority on which each point rests, and we shall therefore but incidentally notice the controversies, which will be found discussed under the several heads elsewhere in this Cyclopaedia.
1. Natural Features. — These, of course, are mostly the same in all ages, as the surface of the region where Jerusalem is situated is generally limestone rock. Yet the wear of the elements has no doubt caused some minor changes, and the demolition of large buildings successively has effected very considerable differences of level by the accumulation of rubbish in the hollows, and even on some of the hills; while in some cases high spots were anciently cut away, valleys partially filled, and artificial platforms and terraces formed, and in others deep trenches or massive structures have left their traces to this day.
(A.) Hills. —
(1.) Mount Zion, frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, only once in the New (Re 14:1), called by Josephus "the Upper City" (War, 5, 4, 1), was divided by a valley (Tyropoeon) from another hill opposite (Acra), than which it was "higher, and in length more direct (ibid.). It is almost universally assigned, in modern times, as the southwestern hill of the city. SEE ZION.
(2.) Mount Moriah, mentioned in 2Ch 3:1, as the site of the Temple, is unmistakable in all ages. Originally, according to Josephus (War, 5, 5, 1), the summit was small, and then platform was enlarged by Solomon, who built up a high stone terrace wall on three sides (east, south, and west), leaving a tremendous precipice at the (southeastern) corner (Ant. 15:11, 3 and 5). Some of the lower courses of these stones are still standing. SEE MORIAH.
(3.) The hill Acra is so called by Josephus, who says it "sustained the Lower City, and was of the shape of a moon when she is horned," or a crescent (War, 5, 4, 1). It was separated from another hill (Bezetha) by a broad valley, which the Asmonleans partly filled up with earth taken from the top of Acra, so that it might be made lower than the Temple. (ibid.). Concerning the position of this hill there is much dispute, which can only be settled by the location of the valleys on either side of it (see Caspari, in the Stud. und Krit. 2, 1864). SEE ACRA.
(4.) The hill Bezetha, interpreted by Josephus as meaning "New City," placed by him opposite Acra, and stated to be originally lower than it, is said by him also to lie over against the tower Antonia, from which it was separated by a deep fosse (War, 5, 4, 1 and 2). SEE BEZETHA.
(5.) Ophel is referred to by Ne 3:26-27, as well as by Josephus. (War, 5, 4, 2), in such connection with the walls as to show that none other can be intended than the ridge of ground sloping to a point southward from the Temple area. SEE OPHEL.
(6.) Calvary, or more properly Golgotha, was a small eminence, mentioned by the evangelists as the place of the crucifixion. Modern tradition assigns it to the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but this is greatly contested; the question turns chiefly upon the course of the second wall, outside of which the crucifixion undoubtedly took place (Joh 19:17). SEE CALVARY.
(7.) The Mount of Olives is so often referred to by Josephus, as well as in the Bible, that it can be taken for no other than that which now passes under the same name. SEE OLIVET.
(8.) Scopus is the name assigned by Josephus to an elevated plain about seven furlongs distant from the city wall in a northerly direction (War, 2, 19, 4; 5, 2, 3), an interval that was leveled by Titus on his approach from Samaria (ibid. 3, 2). By this can therefore be meant neither the rocky prominences on the southern, nor those on the northern edge of that part of the valley of Jehoshaphat which sweeps around the city on the north, for the former are too near, and the latter intercepted by the valley; but rather the gentle slope on the northwest of the city.
Besides these, there is mentioned in Jer 31:39, "the hill Gareb," apparently somewhere on the northwest of the city, and Goath, possibly an eminence on the west. "Mount Gihon," so confidently laid down on certain maps of the ancient city, is a modern invention.
(B.) Valleys. —
(1.) The principal of these was the one termed by Josephus that of the Tyropoeon, or Cheese makers, running between Zion and Acra, down as far as Siloam (War, 5, 4, 1). The southern part of this is still clearly to be traced, although much choked up by the accumulated rubbish of ages; but as to the northern part there is considerable discrepancy. Some (as Dr. Robinson) make it bend around the northern brow of Zion, and so end in the shallow depression between that hill and the eminence of the Holy Sepulchre; while others (Williams, with whose views in this particular we coincide) carry it directly north, through the depression along the western side of the mosque area, and eastward of the church, in the direction of the Damascus Gate. SEE TYROPEON.
(2.) The only other considerable valley within, the city was that above referred to as lying between Acra and Bezetha. The language of Josephus, in the passage where he mentions this valley (War, 5, 4, 1), has been understood by some as only applicable to the upper portion of that which is above regarded as the Tyropoeon, because he calls it "a broad valley," and this is the broadest in that vicinity. But the Jewish historian only says that the hills Acra and Bezetha "were formerly divided by a broad valley; but in those times when the Asmonaeans reigned, they filled up that valley with earth, and had a mind to join the city to the Temple: they then took off a part of the height of Acra, and reduced it to a less elevation than it was before, that the Temple might be superior to it." From this it is clear that in the times of Josephus this valley was not so distinct as formerly, so that we must not look for it in the plain and apparently unchanged depression west of the Temple, but rather in the choked and obscure one running northward from the middle of the northern side of the present mosque inclosure. The union of the city and Temple across this valley is also more explicable on this ground, because it not only implies a nearly level passage effected between the Temple area and that part of the city there intended — which is true only on the northern side, but it also intimates that there had previously been no special passageway there — whereas on the west the Temple was connected with Zion by a bridge or causeway, besides at least two other easy avenues to the parts of the city in that direction.
(3.) The longest and deepest of the valleys outside the walls was the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which ran along the entire eastern and northeastern side, forming the bed of the brook Kedron. Respecting the identity of this, the modern name leaves no room for dispute. SEE JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF.
(4.) On the south side ran the Valley ben-Hinnom (i.e. "son of Hinnom"), corrupted in our Savior's time into Gehenna, and anciently styled Tophet. Of this also the modern name is still the same. SEE GEHENNA.
(5.) On the west, forming the northern continuation of the last, was what has acquired the appellation of the Valley of Gihon, from the pools of that name situated in it. SEE GIHON.
(C.) Streams. — Of these none were perennial, but only brooks formed by the winter rains that collected in the valleys and ran off at the southeastern corner towards the Dead Sea. The brook Kedron was the principal of these, and is mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments (2Sa 15:23; Joh 18:1), and by Josephus (War, 5, 2, 3), as lying between the city and the Mount of Olives. SEE KERON.
(D.) Fountains. —
(1.) En-roegel, first mentioned in Jos 15:7-8, as a point in the boundary line of Judah, on the south side of the hill Zion. It is generally identified with the deep well still found at the junction of the valleys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat, and currently known as the well of Joab or Nehemiah. It is evidently the same as that called by Josephus "the fountain in the king's garden" (Ant. 7, 14, 4). Its water is peculiar, but no underground connection has been traced with any other of the fountains. SEE EN-ROGEL.
(2.) Siloamn or Shiloah is mentioned in the Old and New Testaments; as well as by Josephus, and the last indicates its site at the mouth of the Valley of Tyropoeon (War, 5, 4, 1). It is identical with the modem fount of Selwan. SEE SILOAM.
(3.) The only remaining one of the three natural springs about Jerusalem is that now known as the Fountain of the Virgin (Um ed-Deraj, "the mother of steps"), above the Pool of Siloam. It is intermittent, the overflow apparently of the Temple supply; and it is connected by a passage through the rock with the Pool of Siloam (Robinson, Researches, 1, 502 sq.). It is apparently the same with the "king's pool" (Ne 2:14; comp. 3:16) and "'Solomon's Pool" (Josephus, War, 5, 4, 2). This we are inclined (with Lightfoot and Robinson) to identify with the "Pool of Bethesda" in Joh 5:2. SEE BETHESDA.
There are several other wells adjoining the Temple area which have the peculiar taste of Siloam, but whether they proceed from a living spring under Moriah, or are conducted thither by the aqueduct from Bethlehem, or come from some distant source, future explorations can alone determine. Some such well has, however, lately been discovered, but how far it supplies these various fountains has not yet been fully determined (Jour. Sac. Lit. April, 1864). SEE SOLOMONS POOL.
(E.) Reservoirs, Tanks, etc. —
(1.) The Upper Pool of Gihon, mentioned in Isa 7:3; 2Ch 32:30, etc., can be no other than that now found in the northern part of the valley at the west of the city. This is probably what is called the "Dragon Well" by Ne 2:11, lying in that direction. Josephus also incidentally mentions a "Serpent's Pool" as lying on the northwestern side of the city (I, War, 5, 3, 2), which the similarity of name and position seems to identify with this. SEE GIHON.
(2.) The Lower Pool (of Gihon), referred to in Isa 22:9, is also probably that situated in the southern part of the same valley. SEE POOL.
(3.) There still exists on the western side of the city another pool, which is frequently termed the Pool of Hezekiah, on the supposition that it is the one intended to hold the water which that king is said (2Ki 20:20; 2Ch 22:12) to have brought down to the city by a conduit from the upper pool. It is to this day so connected by an aqueduct, which renders the identification probable. But it does not follow (as some argue) that this pool was within the second wall in the time of Christ, if, indeed, it ever lay strictly within the city; the statements above referred to only show that it was designed as a reservoir for supplying the inhabitants, especially on Mount Zion, within the bounds of which it could never have been embraced. This pool is perhaps also the same as one mentioned by Josephus, under the title of Amagdalon, as opposite the third of the "banks" raised by Titus (War, 5, 11, 4). He there locates it "a great way off" from Antonia yet "on the north quarter" of the city; and a more suitable place for an assault could not have been selected, as it was in the corner where the three walls joined, being evidently within the outer one, and in front of the inner one (yet to be taken), but not necessarily within the middle wall (which had been taken and demolished). SEE HEZEKIAHS POOL.
(4.) Josephus also mentions a deep trench which was dug on the north of the tower Antonia for its defense (War, 5, 4, 2). The western part of this seems to have been filled up during the siege, in order to prepare a way for the approach of the Roman engines first to the tower and afterwards to the Temple wall (War, 5, 11, 4; 7, 2, 7). The eastern portion still exists, and appears to have been wider and deeper than elsewhere (being unenclosed by the wall), forming, indeed, quite a receptacle for rainwater. This pit we are inclined to identify with the pool Struthius, which Josephus locates at this spot (War, 5, 11, 4). In modern times it has often been assigned as the site of the Pool of Bethesda, but this can hardly be correct. What is now known as the pool of Bethesda is perhaps a reservoir built in the pit from which Herod quarried the stone for reconstructing the Temple,
(5.) Of aqueducts, besides the two already mentioned as supplying respectively the pools of Siloam and Hezekiah, there still exists a long subterranean conduit that brings water from the pools of Bethlehem (attributed to Solomon); which, passing along the southwestern side of the Valley of Hinnom, then crossing it above the lower pool, and winding around the northern brow of Zion, at last supplies one or more wells in the western side of the mosque inclosure. This is undoubtedly an ancient work, and can be no other than the aqueduct which the Talmud speaks of (as we shall see) as furnishing the Temple with an abundance of water. It was probably reconstructed by Pilate, as Josephus speaks of "aqueducts whereby he brought water from the distance of 400 [other editions read 300, and even 200] furlongs" (War, 2, 9, 4). (See below, water supply of modern Jerusalem.)
2. Respecting the ancient walls, with their gates and towers, our principal authority must be the description of ancient Jerusalem furnished by Josephus (War, 5, 4, 2), to which allusion has so often been made. The only other account of any considerable fullness is contained in Nehemiah's statement of the portions repaired under his superintendence (ch. 3).
Besides these, and some incidental notices scattered in other parts of these authors and in the Bible generally, there are left us a few ruins in particular places, which we may combine with the natural points determined above in making out the circuit and fortifications of the city. (See below, fortifications of the city.)
(F.) The First or Old Wall. — Josephus' account of this is as follows: "Beginning on the north from the tower Hippicus (so called), and extending to the Xystus (so called), thence touching the council [house], it joined the western cloister of the Temple; but in the other direction, on the west, beginning from the same tower, and extending through the place Bethso (so called) to the gate of the Essenes, and thence on the south turning above the fountain Siloam, and thence again being on the east to the Pool of Solomon, and reaching as far as a certain place which they call Ophla, it joined the eastward cloister of the Temple." It was defended by sixty towers (ibid. § 3), probably at equal distances, and of the same average dimensions (but probably somewhat smaller than those of the outer wall), exclusive of the three towers specially described.
(1.) On the north side it began at the Tower of Hippicus. This has been with great probability identified with the site of the present citadel or Castle of David, at the northwestern corner of Zion. This tower is stated by Josephus to have been 25 cubits (about 45 feet square), and solid to the height of 30 cubits (War, 5, 4, 3). At the northwestern corner of the modern citadel is a tower 45 feet square, cut on three sides to a great height out of the solid rock, which (with Mr. Williams) we think can be no other than Hippicus. This is probably the tower at the Valley Gate mentioned in 2Ch 26:9. SEE HIPPICUS.
(2.) Not far from Hippicus, on the same wall, Josephus places the Tower of Phasaelys, with a solid base of 40 cubits (about 73 feet) square as well as high (ibid.). To this the tower on the northeastern corner of the modern citadel so nearly corresponds (its length being 70 feet, and its breadth now shortened to 56 feet, the rest having probably been masonry), that they cannot well be regarded as other than identical.
(3.) Not far from this again, Josephus locates the Tower of Mariamne, 20 cubits (about 36 feet) square and high (ibid.). This we incline (with Mr. Williams) to place about the same distance east of Phasaelus.
(4.) The Gate Gennath (i.e. "garden"), distinctly stated by Josephus as belonging to the first wall (War, 5, 4, 2), apparently not far east of Mariamne. The arch now known by this name, near the south end of the bazaars, evidently is comparatively recent. SEE GENNATH.
(5.) There is another "obscure gate" referred to by Josephus, as lying near Hippicus, through which the Jews made a sally upon the Romans (War, 5, 6; 6, 5). This could not have been on the north side, owing to the precipice. It must be the same as that through which he says elsewhere (ibid. 7:3) water was brought to the tower Hippicus, evidently from the Upper and Lower Pools, or from Siloam. It can therefore only be located just south of Hippicus. It appears to be identical with that mentioned in the Old Testament as the Valley Gate (Ne 3:13; compare 2Ch 26:9; 2Ch 32:14).
(6.) On the southern side of this wall we next come (omitting "Bethso" for the present) to Josephus's "Gate of the Essenes." This we should naturally expect to find opposite the modern Zion Gate; but as the ancient city took in more of this hill than the modem (for the Tomb of David is now outside), we must look for it along the brow of Zion at the southwest corner. Here, accordingly, the Dung gate is mentioned in Ne 2:13; Ne 3:13, as lying next to the Valley gate; and in this latter passage it is placed at 1000 cubits (1820 feet) from it the accordance of the modern distance with which may be considered as a strong verification of the correctness of the position of both these gates. The Dung gate is also referred to in Ne 12:31, as the first (after the Valley gate, out of which the company appear to have emerged) toward the right (i.e. south) from the northwest corner of the city (i.e. facing the wall on the outside).
From this point, the escarpments still found in the rock indicate the line of the wall as passing along the southern brow of Zion, as Josephus evidently means. Beyond this he says it passed above the fountain Siloam, as indeed the turn in the edge of Zion here requires.
(7.) At this southeast corner of Zion probably stood the Pottery gate, mentioned (Jer 19:2, where it is mistranslated "east gate") as leading into the Valley of Hinnom; and it apparently derived its name from the "Potter's Field," lying opposite. SEE POTTERS FIELD.
Beyond this, it becomes more difficult to trace the line indicated by Josephus. His language plainly implies that in skirting the southern brow of Zion it curved sufficiently to exclude the Pool of Siloam, although it has been strongly contended by some that this fountain must have been within the city.
(8.) At the mouth of the Tyropoeon we should naturally look for a gate, and accordingly we find mention of a Fountain gate along the Valley of Hinnom beyond the Dung gate (Ne 2:14; Ne 12:37), and adjoining the Pool of Siloah (Ne 3:15), which seems to fix its position with great certainty. The next bend beyond Siloam would naturally be at the termination of the ridge coming down from the Temple. From this point, according to Josephus, it curved so as to face the east and extended to the Fountain of the Virgin (Solomon's Pool), thus passing along the verge of Ophel. If this fountain really be the Pool of Bethesda, we must locate here
(9.) The Sheep gate, which, on the whole, we are inclined to fix in this vicinity (Ne 12:39; Ne 3:1,32; Joh 5:2).
The line of the wall, after this, according to Josephus, ran more definitely upon the edge of Ophel (thus implying a slight bend to the east), and continued along it till it reached the Temple. We are not compelled, by his language, to carry it out to the extreme southeastern corner of the Temple area, because of the deep precipice which lay there (Ant. 15, 11, 4). Just. so, the modern wall comes up nearly in the middle of the south side of this area. The ancient point of intersection has been discovered by the recent excavations of the English engineers. (See the sketch of Ophel above.)
From this account of the first wall, we should naturally conclude that Josephus's Upper City included the Tyropoeon as well as Ophel; but from other passages it is certain that Zion had a separate wall of its own on its eastern brow, and that Josephus here only means to speak of the outer wall around the west, south, and east. Thus he states (War, 6, 7, 2) that, after the destruction of the Temple, the Romans, having seized and burned the whole Lower City as far as Siloam, were still compelled to make special efforts to dislodge the Jews from the Upper City; and from his account of the banks raised for this purpose between the Xystus and the bridge (ibid. 8, 1), it is even clear that this wall extended around the northeastern brow of Zion quite to the north part of the old walls leaving a space between the Upper City and the Temple. He also speaks (ibid. 6, 2) of the bridge as parting the tyrants in the Upper City from Titus in the western cloister of the Temple. This part of the Tyropoeon was therefore enclosed by barriers on all its four sides, namely, by the wall on the west and north, by the Temple on the east, and by the bridge on the south. The same conclusion of a branch from the outer wall, running up the western side of the Tyropoeon, results from a careful inspection of the account of the repairs in Nehemiah 3. The historian there states that adjoining ("after him") the part repaired around the Fountain gate at Siloah (verse 15) lay a portion extending opposite the "sepulchres of David" (verse 16). By these can only be meant the tomb of David, still extant on the crown of Zion, to which Peter alludes (Ac 2:29) as existing in his day within the city. But we cannot suppose Nehemiah to be here returning along the wall in a westerly direction, and describing repairs which he had just attributed to others (verses 14 and 15); nor call he be speaking of the wall eastward of Siloam, which would in no sense be opposite David's tomb, but actually intercepted from it by the termination of Ophel: the only conclusion therefore is, that he is now proceeding along this branch wall northward, lying opposite David's tomb on the east. By "the pool that was made," mentioned as situated here (verse 16), cannot therefore be meant either Siloam, or the Lower Pool, or even the Virgin's Fountain, but some tank in the valley, since filled up, probably the same with the "ditch made between the two walls for the water of the old pool" (Isa 22:11), which might easily be conducted (from either of the pools of Gihon) to this spot, along the line of the present aqueduct from Bethlehem. Moreover, it was evidently along this branch wall ("the going up of the wall") that one party of the priests in Ne 12:37 ascended to meet the other. This double line of wall is also confirmed, not only by this passage, but likewise by the escape of Zedekiah "by the way of the [Fountain ] Gate between the two walls, which is by the king's garden" (i.e. around Siloam), in the direction of the plain leading to Jericho (2Ki 25:4-5; Jer 29:4; Jer 52:7). From 2Ch 27:3; 2Ch 23:14, it is also evident that Ophel was enclosed by a separate wall. We will now endeavor to trace this branch wall around to the Temple and to the gate Gennath as definitely as the intricate account in Nehemiah, together with other scattered notices, will allow.
We may take it for granted that this part of the wall would leave the other at the southeastern corner of Zion, near the Pottery gate, where the hill is steep, and keep along the declivity throughout its whole extent, for the sake of more perfect defense. There were stairs in this wall just above the wall that continued to the Fountain gate (Ne 12:37; Ne 3:15), which imply at least a small gate there, as they led into the Upper City. They would naturally be placed within the outer wall for the sake of security, and at the eastern side of this corner of Zion, where the rock is still precipitous (although the stairs have disappeared), so that they afford additional confirmation to the wall in question.
(10.) Above the Sepulchre of David, and beyond "the pool that was made," Nehemiah (chap. 3:16) places "the house of the mighty," apparently a Giants' Tower, to defend the wall. Immediately north of this we may conjecture would be a gate, occurring opposite the modern Zion gate, and over against the ancient Sheep gate, although the steepness of the hill would prevent its general use.
Farther north is apparently mentioned (Ne 3:19) another minor entrance, "the going up to the armory at the turning of the wall," meaning probably the bend in the brow of Zion opposite the southwestern corner of the Temple, near where the bridge connected them.
Farther on, another "turning of the wall, even unto the corner," is mentioned (Ne 3:24), but in what direction, and how far off, cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. It may mean the junction with the wall of the bridge.
From this point it becomes impossible to trace the order pursued by Nehemiah in the rest of the third chapter, as he does not describe the wall from point to point, but mostly refers to certain objects opposite which they lay, and frequently omits the sign of continuity ("after him"). All that can be definitely gathered as to the consecutive course of the wall is that, by various turns on different sides, its respective parts faced certain fixed points, especially "the tower lying out" (verses 25, 26, 27); that it contained three gates (the "Water gate," verse 26; the "Horse gate," verse 28; and the gate "Miphkad," verse 31); that it adjoined Ophel (verse 27); and that it completed the circuit of walls in this direction (verse 32). It needs but a glance to see that all this strikingly agrees, in general, with the above-mentioned inclosure in the valley of the Tyropoeon just above the bridge, which certainly embraced all the objects referred to by Nehemiah, as we shall see; and this fact of the quadrilateral form of these portions of the wall will best account for the apparent confusion of this part of his statement (as our total ignorance of many of the elements of elucidation makes it now seem), as well as his repeated use of the peculiar mode of description, "over against." Our best course is to follow the presumed line, which the nature of the ground seems to require, and identify the points as they occur, trusting to the naturalness with which they may fall in with our scheme for its vindication.
After leaving the bend at the junction with the bridge, we should therefore indicate the course of the wall as following the natural declivity on the northeast edge of Zion in a gentle curve, till it joined the northern line of the old wall, about half way between the gate Gennath and the Temple. Indeed, the language of Ne 12:37 implies that "the going up of the [branch] wall" extended "above the house of David" (i.e. the "king's house"), and thence bent "even unto the Water gate eastward."
(11.) On this part of the wall, at its junction with the bridge, we think must be placed the Horse gate (2Ki 11:16; 2Ch 23:15; Ne 3:28; Jer 31:400).
(12.) Not far to the north of this must be placed "the Tower lying out" (Ne 3:25-27).
(13.) On the north side of the space included by the parts of this wall we place the Water gate (Ne 3:26; Ne 12:37; comp. Ne 8:1,3,16); probably the same with the Middle gate (Jer 39:3; compare 2, 4, 5).
(14.) The only remaining gate in this part of the walls is the Prison gate, in the middle of the bridge opposite the Water gate (Ne 12:30-40); probably the same with the gate Miphkad, referred to by Nehemiah as lying between the Horse gate and the Sheep gate (chap. 3:28, 31, 32), an identity which the name favors — being literally Gate of reviewing, perhaps from the census being taken at this place of concourse, or (with the Vulgate) Gate of judgment, from its proximity to the prison.
(G.) The Second or Middle Wall. — Josephus' statement of the course of this wall is in these words: "But the second [wall] had (first) its beginning from the gate which they called Gennath, belonging to the first wall, and then, encircling the northern slope only, went up [or, returned] as far as Antonia" (War, 5, 4, 2). It had fourteen towers (ibid. 3), probably of the same general size as those of the outer wall. If we have correctly identified Acra, it must be this hill that Josephus calls "the northern slope;" and the direction of this will require that the wall, after leaving Gennath, should skirt the lowest edge of Golgotha in nearly a straight line till it reached the upper end of the Tyropoeon, opposite the western edge of Acra. This direct course agrees with the absence of any special remark in Josephus respecting its line between these two points. Neither is there mention of any gate or tower along it, near Gennath nor opposite Golgotha; so that,
(1.) The first point of note in this direction is the Tower of Furnaces, which may be located on the northeastern slope of the elevation assumed to be that of Golgotha (Ne 3:8,11,13; Ne 12:38; comp. 2Ch 26:9); and
(2.) on the western bank of this entrance of the Tyropoeon would be situated the Corner gate (compare Jer 31:38).
From this point the wall would run directly across the broad beginning of the Tyropoeon, to meet the northwestern brow of Acra, which Josephus intimates it only served to include. This part spanning the valley must be the Broad Wall, referred to in Ne 3:8; Ne 12:38, as lying here. A stronger wall would be needed here, as there was no natural breastwork of rock, and it was on this side that invaders always approached the city. Accordingly, this strengthening of the wall in this part by an additional thickness was first effected by Manasseh (2Ch 33:14); and having been broken down in Hezekiah's time, it was rebuilt by him as a defense against the Assyrians (2Ch 32:5), and again broken down by the rival Jehoash, on his capture of the city (2Ki 14:13).
(3.) On the eastern slope of this depression, we think, must be placed the Ephraim gate (Ne 3:32,32; 2Ki 14:13; comp Ne 8:16), corresponding to the modern "Damascus gate," and probably identical with the Benjamin gate (Jer 37:12-13; comp. 38:7; see Zec 14:10), but different from the "High gate of Benjamin, that was by the house of the Lord" (Jer 20:2). The character of the masonry at the present Damascus gate, and the rooms on each side of it, indicate this as one of the ancient entrances (Robinson, Researches, 1, 463, 464).
From this point the wall probably ran in a circular northeast course along the northern declivity of Acra, about where the modern wall does, until it reached,
(4.) The Old gate, which appears to have stood at the northeast corner of Acra (Ne 3:3,6,8; Ne 12:39); apparently the same as the First-gate (Zec 14:10).
Here, we conceive, the wall took a bend to the south, following the steep eastern ridge of Acra; for Josephus states that it "only enclosed" this hill, and then joined the tower Antonia. For this latter reason, also, it must lave passed along the edge of the valley which connects this point with the western end of the pseudo-Bethesda (evidently the valley separating Acra and Bezetha); and this will give one horn of the "crescent-shape" attributed by him to the Upper City, including the Temple in the middle, and Ophel as the other horn. We should therefore indicate for the line of the rest of this wall a very slight outward curve from near Herod's Gate to about the middle of the northern side of the mosque area.
(5.) The only remaining gate expressly referred to as lying in this wall is the Fish gate, which stood not very far from the junction with Antonia (Ne 3:1,3,6; Ne 12:39; comp. 2Ch 33:14; Zep 1:10).
(6.) The Tower Antonia, at which we thus arrive, was situated (according to Josephus, War, 5, 5, 8) at the corner of the Temple court where the northern and western cloisters met. This shows that it did not cover the whole of the platform north of the Temple, but only had "courts and broad spaces" occupying this entire area, with a tower at each of the four corners (ibid.). Of these latter the proper Antonia seems to have been one, and they were all doubtless connected by porticoes and passages. They were all on a precipitous rock, fifty cubits high, the proper tower Antonia being forty cubits above this, the southeastern tower seventy, and the others fifty cubits (ibid.). It was originally built by the Asmonaean princes for the safe keeping of the high priest's vestments, and called by them Baris (ibid., Ant. 15, 11, 4). It was "the castle" into which Paul was taken from the mob (Ac 21:34,37). SEE ANTONIA.
(7.) That one of these four towers which occupied the northeast corner of the court of Antonia we are inclined to identify with the ancient Tower of Ishmael, between the tower of Meah and the Fish gate (Ne 3:1,3; Ne 12:39), and at the most northeastern point of the city (Jer 31:38, compared with Zec 14:10).
(8.) The southeast one of these towers, again, we take to be the ancient Tower of Meah, referred to in the above passages of Nehemiah.
Pierotti has found a subterraneous passage extending from the Golden gate in a northwesterly direction (Jerusalem Explored, 1, 64). He cannot trace it completely, only in two unconnected fragments, one 130 feet long, and another 150 feet. This may be the secret passage (κρυπτὴ διώπυξ) which Herod excavated from Antonia to the eastern gate, where he raised a tower, from which he might watch any seditious movement of the people; thus establishing a private communication with Antonia, through which he might pour soldiers into the heart of the Temple area as need required (Josephus, Ant. 15, 11, 7).
This will make out the circuit of the general tower of Antonia, the proper castle standing on the southwest corner, and thence extending a wing to reach the tower on the northwest corner; and the two towers on the east side being built up on the basis of the ancient ones. It had gates doubtless on all sides, but, besides that on the south (which will be considered under the Temple), there is distinct evidence of none except,
(9.) The Golden gate, so called in modern times. It is a double-arched passage in the outer wall of the Haram, now closed up, but evidently a work of antiquity, from its Roman style of architecture, which would naturally refer it to this time of Herod's enlargement of Antonia. Its position, as we shall see, is such as to make it a convenient entrance to this inclosure. SEE FENCED CITY.
The eastern wall of the Temple area, which evidently served for that of the city, and connects Josephus' first and second walls on this part, we reserve for consideration under the head TEMPLE SEE TEMPLE .
(H.) The Third or Outer Wall. — This was not yet built in the time of Christ, having been begun by Herod Agrippa I about A.D. 43. Josephus's account of its course is in the following words (War, 5, 4, 2): "The starting point of the third [wall], however, was the tower Hippicus, whence stretching as far as the northern slope to the tower Psephinos, thence reaching opposite the monuments of Hellina,... and prolonged through [the] royal vaults, it bent in the first place with a corner tower to the (so- styled) Fuller's monument, and then joining the old circuit [i.e. the former wall], ended at the (so-called) valley Kedron." It enclosed that part of the town called Bezetha, or the "New City," and was (in parts at least) ten cubits thick and twenty-five high (ibid.). It was defended by ninety towers twenty cubits square and high, two hundred cubits apart (ibid. 3).
(1.) The first mark, then, after leaving Hippicus, was the Tower Psephinos, described (ibid.) as being an octagon, seventy cubits high, at the northwest corner of the city, opposite Hippicus. It was situated quite off the direct road by which Titus approached the city from the north (ibid. 2, 2), and lay at a bend in the northern wall at its western limit (ibid. 3, 5). All these particulars agree in identifying it with the foundations of some ancient structure still clearly traceable on the northwestern side of the modern city, opposite the Upper Pool. Indeed, the ruins scattered along the whole distance between this point and the present Jaffa gate suffice to indicate the course of this, part of the third wall along the rocky edge of the Valley of Gihon. We therefore locate Psephinos opposite the southernmost two of four square foundations (apparently the towers at intervals) which we find marked on Mr. Williams' Plan, and indicating a salient point in the wall here, which is traceable on either side by a line of old foundations. These we take to be remnants of that part of this outer wall which Josephus says was begun with enormous stones, but was finished in an inferior manner on account of the emperor's jealousy (War, ut sup.). Although no gate is referred to along this part of the wall, yet there probably was one not far below Psephinos, where the path comes down at the northwest corner of the present city wall.
(2.) Between the tower Psephinos and the gate leading to the northwest were the Women's Towers, where a sallying party came near intercepting Titus (Joseph. War, 5, 2; compare 3, 3). They appear to have issued from the gate and followed him to the towers.
(3.) Not very far beyond this, therefore, was the gate through which the above party emerged. This could have been none other than one along the present public road in this direction, a continuation of that leading through the Ephraim gate up the head of the Tyropoeon. It appears that the gates in this outer wall had no specific names.
(4.) The language of Josephus implies that after the sweep of the wall (in its general northern course) at the tower Psephinos, it took, on the whole, a pretty direct line till it passed east of the Monuments of Helena. It should therefore be drawn with a slight curve from the old foundations above referred to (northeast of Psephinos) to the base of a rock eminence just to the north of the present northwest road, upon which, we think, must be placed the monuments in question (Josephus, Ant. 20, 4, 3.
(5.) The next point referred to by Josephus is the Royal Vaults, which have been with most probability identified with the ruins still found on the north of the city at and around the "Tombs of the Kings."
(6.) Next in Josephus's description comes the Corner Tower, at which the wall bent in a very marked manner (hence doubtless the name), evidently on meeting the Valley of Jehoshaphat.
For the rest of the way the wall therefore must have followed the ridge of the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and our only task is to identify points of interest along it.
(7.) A little to the east of this corner tower, in the retreating angle of the wall, which accommodates a small ravine setting up southward from the Valley of Jehoshaphat, we locate the gate which Titus was approaching when he met the above-mentioned sally.
(8.) The last point mentioned by Josephus is the Fuller's Monument, which we locate on the eminence not very far east of the above gate, and it would thus be the northeast corner of the outer wall. Amid the numerous sepulchral caves, however, with which the whole face of the hill is perforated, it is impossible to identify any one in particular.
From this point the wall naturally returned in a distinctly southern course, along the edge of the valley, until it joined the ramparts of the court of Antonia, at the tower of Hananeël. Although there is no allusion to any gate along this part, yet there could scarcely have failed to be one at the notch opposite the northeast corner of the present city. Below this spot the ancient and modern walls would coincide in position.
3. As to the internal subdivisions of the city, few data remain beyond the arrangement necessarily resulting from the position of the hills and the course of the walls. Little is positively known respecting the streets of ancient Jerusalem. Josephus says: (War, 5, 4, 1) that the corresponding rows of houses on Zion and Acra terminated at the Tyropoeon, which implies that there were streets running across it; but we must not think here of wide thoroughfares like those of our cities, but of covered alleys, which constitute the streets of Oriental cities, and this is the general character of those of modern Jerusalem. The same remark will apply to the "narrow streets leading obliquely to the [second] wall" on the inside, several times referred to in the account of the capture of the city (War, 5, 8, 1). The principal thoroughfares must be gathered from the position of the gates and the nature of the ground, with what few hints are supplied in ancient authors. In determining their position, the course of the modern roads or paths around the city is of great assistance, as even a mule track in the East is remarkably permanent.
We must not, however, in this connection, fail to notice the famous bridge mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 14, 4, 2; War 1, 7, 2; 2, 16, 3; 4, 6, 2; 6, 8, 1) as being anciently connected the hill Zion with the Temple near its southwest angle. Dr. Robinson (who was in Palestine in 1838, and published his book in 1841) claims to have discovered this (Researches, 1, 425 sq.) in the three ranges of immense stones still jutting out from the Haram wall at this point; whereas Dr. Olin (who visited Palestine in 1840, and published in 1843) asserts that this relic had hitherto been unmentioned by any traveler, although well known to the citizens of Jerusalem (Travels, 2, 26). The controversy which arose on the subject was closed by a letter from the Rev. H.A. Homes, of Constantinople stating that the existence and probable character of the remains in question were suggested in his presence to Dr. Robinson by the missionaries then resident at Jerusalem. The excavations of the English engineers on the spot have demonstrated the truth of the identification thus proposed. SEE TEMPLE.
Doubtless Jerusalem anciently, like all other cities, had definite quarters or districts where particular classes of citizens especially resided, but there was not the same difference in religion which constitute such marked divisions within the bounds of the modern city. It is clear, however, as well from the great antiquity of the Upper City as from its being occupied in part by, palaces, that it was the special abode of the nobility (so to speak), including perhaps the higher order of the priesthood. Ophel appears (from Ne 3:26; Ne 10:21) to have been the general residence of the Levites and lower officers connected with the Temple. The Lower City, or Acra, would there constitute the chief seat of business, and consequently of tradesmen's and mechanics' residence, while Bezetha would be inhabited by a miscellaneous population. There are, besides these general sections, but three particular districts, the names of which have come down to us; these are:
(1.) Bethso, which is named by Josephus as lying along the western side of the first wall; but we are ignorant of its extent or special appropriation.
(2.) Millo is mentioned in several places in the Old Testament (2Sa 5:9; 1Ki 9:15,24; 1Ki 11:27; 2Ki 12:20) in such connections as to imply that it was the name of some tract adjoining on in the interior of the city, and we have therefore ventured to identify it with the space so singularly enclosed by the walls on the north side of the bridge. — See Millo.
(3.) The Suburbs mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 15, 16, 5) as the quarter to which the middle two of the four western Temple gates led, we think, must be not simply Bezetha in general (which was separated from the Temple by the interwoven Lower City), but rather the low ground (naturally, therefore; indifferently inhabited) lying immediately north of Zion and in the upper expansion of the Tyropoeon, including a tract on both sides of the beginning of the second wall.
4. It remains to indicate the location of other public buildings and objects of note connected with the ancient city. The topography of the TEMPLE will be considered in detail under that article.
(a.) Within the Upper City — Zion. —
(1.) Herod's Palace. This, Josephus states (War 5, 4, 4), adjoined the towers Hippicus, etc., on the north side of the old wall, being "entirely walled about to the height of 30 cubits, with towers at equal distances." Its precise dimensions in all are not given, but it must have been covered a large area with its "innumerable rooms," its "many porticoes" and "'courts"' with "several groves of trees, and long walks through them, with deep canals and cisterns." Similar descriptions are also given in Ant. 15, 9, 3; War, 1, 21, 1. We do not regard it, however, as identical with the dining hall built by Herod Agrippa on Zion (Ant. 20, 8, 11), for that was only a wing to the former palace of the Asmonaeans (apparently a reconstruction of the ancient "king's house"), and lay nearer the Temple (War, 2, 16, 3)
the adjoining "portico" or "gallery" mentioned in these passages being probably a covered portion of the Xystus. One of the ground apartments of this building appears to have been the procurator's proetorium, mentioned in the account of Christ's trial before Pilate (Joh 18:28,33; Joh 19:9; Mr 15:16), as Josephus informs us (War 2:14, 8) that the Roman governors took up their quarters in the palace, and set up their tribunal (compare Mt 27:19) in front (i.e. at the eastern entrance) of it (namely, on the "Pavement" of Joh 19:13).
(2.) There is no reason to suppose that David's Tomb occupied any other position than that now shown as his burial place on Mount Zion. It was within the precincts of the old city (1Ki 2:10) Nehemiah mentions it as surviving the first overthrow of the city (Ne 3:16): Peter refers to it as extant at Jerusalem in his time (Ac 2:29); and Josephus alludes to it as a costly and noble vault of sepulture (Ant. 13, 8, 4; 16, 7, 1) The present edifice, however, is doubtless a comparatively modern structure, erected over the site of the ancient monument, now buried by the accumulated rubbish of ages.
(3.) The Armory referred to in Ne 3:19, has already been located at the bend of the branch wall from a northeast to a northwest direction, a little below the bridge. Its place was probably represented in our Savior's time by an improved building for some similar public purpose.
(4.) The King's House, so often mentioned in the Old Testament, has also been sufficiently noticed above, and its probable identity with Herod Agripa's "dining hall" pointed out.
(b.) Within the Lower City — Acra and Ophel. —
(1.) Josephus informs us (War, 6, 6, 3) that "Queen Helena's Palace was in the middle of Acra," apparently upon the summit of that hill, near the modern site of the traditionary "palace of Herod." It is also mentioned as the (northeast) limit of Simon's occupancy in the Lower City (War 6, 1).
(2.) There were doubtless Bazaars in ancient as in modern Jerusalem, but of these we have no account except in two or three instances. Josephus mentions "a place where were the merchants of wool, the braziers, and the market for cloth." just inside the second wall not far from its junction with the first (War 5, 8, 1). It would also seem from Ne 8:1,16, that there was some such place of general record at the head of the Tyropoeon.
A "baker's street" or row of shops is referred to in Jer 37:21, but its position is not indicated, although it appears to have been in some central part of the city. SEE MAKTESH. Perhaps bazaars were stretched along the low tract between the Ephraim gate and the northern brow of Zion.
(3.) The Xystus is frequently mentioned by Josephus as a place of popular assemblage between Zion and the Temple; and between the bridge and the old wall (War, 5, 4, 2; 6, 3, 2; 6, 2; 8, 1). We have therefore thought that it would scarcely be included within the Upper City, the abode of the aristocracy, where, moreover, it would not be so generally accessible.
(4.) The Prison, so often referred to in the Old Testament (Ne 3:24-25; Jer 32:2; Jer 38:6), must have been situated in the northwest corner of the inclosure which we have designated as "Millo," near the "Prison gate" (Ne 12:39), and Peter's "iron gate" (Ac 12:10). SEE PRISON.
(5.) On the ridge of Ophel, not far from the "Fountain of the Virgin," appears to have stood the Palace of Monobazus, otherwise styled that of Grapte (Josephus, War 6, 1; 4, 2; 4, 9, 11; 6, 7, 1).
(6.) Josephus states (Ant. 15, 8, 1) that Herod "built a theater at Jerusalem, as also a very great amphitheater in the plain;" but this notice is too indefinite to enable us to fix the site of these buildings. He also speaks elsewhere (Ant. 17, 10, 2) of a hippodrome somewhere near the Temple, but whether it was the same as the amphitheatre is impossible to determine; the purposes of the three edifices, however, would appear to have been cunerent.
(c.) Within the New City — Bezetha. —
(1.) The Monuments of king Alexander, referred to by Josephus (War, 5, 7, 3) were on the southwest edge of the proper hill Bezetha, nearly opposite the Fish gate, as the circumstances there narrated seem to require. This will also agree with the subsequent erection of the second engine by the Romans (evidently by the same party of besiegers operating on this quarter, ''a great way off" from the other), which was reared at 20 cubits' distance from the pool Struthius (ibid. 11, 4), being just south of this monument.
(2.) The Sepulchre of Christ was not far from the place of the Crucifixion (Joh 19:42); if, therefore, the modern church occupy the true Calvary, we see no good reason to dispute the identity of the site of the tomb still shown in the middle of the west rotunda of that building. SEE GOLGOTHA.
(3.) The Camp of the Assyrians was on the northwest side of the city (Isa 26:2; 2Ki 18:17), identical with the site of Titus's second camp within the outer wall, but sufficiently outside the second wall to be beyond the reach of darts from it (Josephus, War, 5, 7, 3; 12, 2), so that we can well refer it only to the western part of the general swell which terminates in the knoll of Callary.
(4.) The Monument of the high priest Johns is to be located near the bottom of the north edge of Zion, a little east of the tower Mariamne (Josephus, War, 5, 11, 4; 6, 2; 9. 2; 7, 3).
(d.) In the Environs of the city. —
(1.) Herod's Monuments we incline to locate on the brow of the ridge south of the "upper pool of Gihon" (see Josephus, War, 5, 3, 2; 12, 2).
(2.) The Village of the Erebinthi is mentioned by Josephus (ibid.) as lying. along this line of blockade south of Herod's Monuments, and therefore probably on the western edge of Gihon, near the modern hamlet of Abu- Wa'ir.
(3.) The Fellers' Field we take to be the broad Valley of Gihon, especially between the two pools of that name; for not only its designation, but all the notices respecting it (Isa 7:3; Isa 36:2; 2Ki 18:17), indicate its proximity to these waters. SEE FULLERS FIELD.
(4.) Pompey's Camp is placed by Josephus (War, 5, 12. 2) on a mountain, which can be no other than a lower spur of the modern "Hill of Evil Counsel." This must have been that general's preliminary camp, for, when he captured the city, "he pitched his camp within [his own line of circumvallation, the outer wall being then unbuilt], on the north side of the Temple" (Ant. 14, 4, 2).
(5.) There is no good ground to dispute the traditionary site of Aceldama or the Potter's Field (Mt 27:7-8), in the face of the south brow of the Valley of Hinnom. SEE ACELDAMA.
(6.) The Monument of Ananus [i.e. Annas or Hananiah], the high priest, mentioned by Josephus (War, 5, 12, 2), must have been just above the site of Aceldama.
(7.) The King's Garden (Ne 3:15) could have been no other than the well-watered plot of ground around the well of En-ROGEL, where were also the king's winepresses (Zec 14:10).
(8.) The rock Peristereon (literally "pigeon holes") referred to by him in the same connection has been not inaptly identified with the perforated face of the Valley of Jehoshaphat at the foot of the Mount of Olives, where modern tradition assigns the graves of Jehoshaphat, Absalom, James, and Zechariah.
(9.) The second of these ruins from the north is probably the veritable Pillar of Absalom, referred to in the Scriptures (2Sa 18:18), and by Joseph's as if extant in his day ("a marble pillar in the king's dale [the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which led to 'the king's gardens'], two furlongs distant from Jerusalem" (Ant. 7, 10, 3). SEE ABSALOMS TOMB.
(10.) The last and most interesting spot in this survey is the garden of Gethsemane, which tradition has so consistently located that nearly every traveler has acknowledged its general identity. Respecting its size, however, we know very little; but we are unable to perceive the propriety of supposing a village of the same name to have been located near it. SEE GETHSEMANE.
(11.) Finally, we may briefly recapitulate the different points in the Romans' wall of circumvallation, during the siege by Titus; as given by Josephus (War, 5, 12, 2), at the same time indicating their identity as above determined: "Titus began the wall from the camp of the Assyrians, where his own camp was pitched [i.e., near the northwest angle of the modern city wall], and drew it [in a northeast curve] down to the lower parts of the New City [following the general direction of the present north wall]; thence it went [southeasterly] along [the eastern bank of] the Valley of Kedron to the Mount of Olives; it then bent [directly] towards the south, and encompassed the [western slope of that] mountain as far the rock Peristereon [the tombs of Jehoshaphat, etc.], and [of] that other hill [the Mount of Offense] which lies next it [on the south ], and [which] is over i.e. east of] the Valley [of Jehoshaphat] which reaches to Siloam; whence it bent again to the west, and went down [the hill] to the Valley of the Fountain [the wady En-Nar], beyond which it went up again at the start monument of Ananius the high priest [above Aceldama], and circompassing that mountain where Pompey had formerly pitched his camp [the extremity of the Hill of Evil Counsel, it returned to [i.e. towards] the north side of the city, and was carried [along the southwestern bank of Gihon Valley] as far as a certain village called the house of the Erebinthi [at Abu-Wa'ir]; after which it encompassed [the foot of the eminence on which stood] Herod's monument [south of Upper Gihon], and there on the east [end] was joined to Titus's own camp, where it began. Now the length of this wall was forty furlongs less one." Along the line thus indicated it would be precisely this length; it would make no sharp turns nor devious projections, and would keep on commanding eminences, following the walls at a convenient distance so as to be out of the reach of missiles.
For a further discussion of the various points connected with the ancient topography of Jerusalem, see Villalpandi, Apparatus urbis Hierosol. in pt. 3 of Pradi and Villalp. Explanat. in Ezech. (Rome, 1604); Lamy, De Tab. foed. sanct. civ. etc., 7 (Paris, 1720), bk. 4, p 552-687; Reland, Paloest. p. 832 sq.; Offenhaus, Descript. vet. Hierosol. (Daventr. 1714); Faber, Archoeol. 1, 273 sq.; Hamesveld, 2, 2 sq.: Rosenmüller, Alterth. II, 2, 202 sq.; Robinson, Researches, 1, 408-516; Williams, Holy City, 2, 13-64; Bibliotheca Sacra, 1843, p. 154 sq.; 1846, p. 413 sq., 605 sq.; 1848, p. 92 sq.; Reisner, Ierusalem Vetustissima Descripta (Francof. 1563); Olshausen, Zur Topographie d. alten Jerusalem (Kiel, 1833); Adrichomius, Hierusalem sicut Christi tempore floruit (Colon. 1593); Chrysanthi (Beat. Patr. Hierosolymorum) Historia et Descriptio Terroe Sanctoe, Urbisque Santoe Hierusalem (Venet. 1728) [this work is in Greek]; D'Anville, Dissert. sur l'Etendue de l'Ancienne Jerusalem (Paris, 1747); Thrupp, Ancient Jerusalem (Lond. 1855); Strong's Harmony and Expos. of the Gospels, Append. 2; Sepp, Jerusalem (Munich, 1863); Barclay, City of the Great King (Phila. 1858); Fergusson, Ancient Topography of Jerusalem [altogether astray] (Lond. 1847); Lewin, Jerusalem (London, 1861); Pierotti, Jerusalem Explored (London, 1864); Unruh, Das alte Jerusalem (Langens, 1861); Scholz, De Hierosolymoe situ (Bonn, 1835).
III. Modern City. —
1. Situation. — The following able sketch of the general position of Jerusalem is extracted from Dr. Robinson's Researches (1, 380-384):
"Jerusalem lies near the summit of a broad mountain ridge, extending without interruption from the plain of Esdraelon to a line drawn between the south end of the Dead Sea and the southeast corner of the Mediterranean; or, more properly, perhaps, it may be regarded as extending as far south as to Jebel Araif, in the Desert, where it sinks down at once to the level of the great western plateau. This tract, which is everywhere not less than from 20 to 25 geographical miles in breadth, is, in fact, high, uneven table land. It everywhere forms the precipitous western wall of the great valley, of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, while towards the west it sinks down by an offset into a range of lower hills, which lie between it and the great plain along the coast of the Mediterranean. The surface of this upper region is everywhere rocky, uneven, and mountainous, and is, moreover, cut up by deep valleys which run east or west on either side towards the Jordan or the Mediterranean. The line of division, or watershed, between the waters of these valleys a term which here applies almost exclusively to the waters of the rainy season follows for the most part the height of land along the ridge, yet not so but that the heads of the valleys, which run off in different directions, often interlap for a considerable distance. Thus, for example, a valley which descends to the Jordan often has its head a mile or two westward of the commencement of other valleys which run to the western sea.
"From the great plain of Esdraelon onwards towards the south, the mountainous country rises gradually, forming the tract anciently known as the mountains of Ephraim and Judah, until, in the vicinity of Hebron, it attains an elevation of nearly 3000 Paris feet above the level of the Mediterranean Sea. Further north, on a line drawn from the north end of the Dead Sea towards the true west, the ridge has an elevation of only about 2500 Paris feet, and here, close upon the watershed, lies the city of Jerusalem. Its mean geographical position is in lat. 31° 46' 43" N., and long. 350 13' E. from Greenwich.
"Six or seven miles north and northwest of the city is spread out the open plain or basin round about el-Jib (Gibeon), extending also towards el-Bireh (Beeroth), the waters of which flow off at its southeast part through the deep valley here called by the Arabs wady Beit Hanina, but to which the monks and travelers have usually given the name of the 'Valley of Turpentine,' of the Terebinth, on the mistaken supposition that it is the ancient Valley of Elah. This great valley passes along in a southwest direction an hour or more west of Jerusalem, and finally opens out from the mountains into the western plain, at the distance of six or eight hours southwest from the city, under the name of wady es-Surar. The traveler, on his way from Ramleh to Jerusalem, descends into and crosses this deep valley at the village of Kulonieh, on its western side, an hour and a half from the latter city. On again reaching the high ground on its eastern side, he enters upon an open tract sloping gradually downward towards the, east, and sees before him, at the distance of about two miles, the walls and domes of the holy city, and beyond them the higher ridge or summit of the Mount of Olives. The traveler now descends gradually towards the city along a broad swell of ground, having at some distance on his left the shallow northern part of the Valley of Jehoshaphat; close at hand, on his right, the basin which forms the beginning of the Valley of Hinnom. Farther down both these valleys become deep, narrow, and precipitous; that of Hinnom bends south and again east nearly at right angles, and unites with the other, which then continues its course to the Dead Sea. Upon the broad and elevated promontory within the fork of these two valleys lies the holy city. All around are higher hills; on the east, the Mount of Olives; on the south, the Hill of Evil Counsel, so called, rising directly from the Vale of Hinnom; on the west the ground rises gently, as above described, to the borders of the great wady; while on the north, a bend of the ridge, connected with the Mount of Olives, bounds the prospect at the distance of more than a mile. Towards the southwest the view is somewhat more open, for here lies the plain of Rephaim; commencing just at the southern brink of the Valley of Hinnom, and stretching off southwest, where it runs to the western sea. In the northwest, too, the eye reaches up along the upper part of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and from many points can discern the Mosque of Neby Samwil, situated on a lofty ridge beyond the great wady, at the distance of two hours.
"The surface of the elevated promontory itself, on which the city stands, slopes somewhat steeply towards the east, terminating on the brink of the Valley of Jehoshaphat. From the northern part, near the present Damascus gate, a depression or shallow wady runs in a southern direction, and is joined by another depression or shallow wady (still easy to be traced) coming down from near the Jaffa gate. It then continues obliquely down the slope, but with a deeper bed, in a southern direction, quite to the Pool of Siloam and the Valley of Jehoshaphat. This is the ancient Tyropoeon. West of its lower part Zion rises loftily, lying mostly without the modern city; while on the east of the Tyropoeon lie Bezetha, Moriah, and Ophel, the last a long and comparatively narrow ridge, also outside of the modern city, and terminating in a rocky point over the Pool of Siloam. These last three hills may strictly be taken as only parts of one and the same ridge. The breadth of the whole site of Jerusalem, from the brow of the Valley of Hinnom, near the Jaffa gate, to the brink of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, is about 1020 yards, or nearly half a geographical mile, of which distance 318 yards are occupied by the area of the great mosque el-Haram esh-Sherif. North of the Jaffa gate the city wall sweeps round more to the west, and increases the breadth of the city in that part.
"The country around Jerusalem is all of limestone formation, and not particularly fertile. The rocks everywhere come out above the surface, which in many parts is also thickly strewed with loose stones, and the aspect of the whole region is barren and dreary; yet the olive thrives here abundantly, and fields of grain are seen in the valleys and level places, but they are less productive than in the region of Hebron and Nablus. Neither vineyards nor fig trees flourish on the high ground around the city, though the latter are found in the gardens below Siloam, and very frequently in the vicinity of Bethlehem." "The elevation of Jerusalem is a subject of constant reference and exultation by the Jewish writers. Their fervid poetry abounds with allusions to its height, to the ascent thither of the tribes from all parts of the country. It was the habitation of Jehovah, from which 'he looked upon all the inhabitants of the world' (Ps 33:14): its kings were 'higher than the kings of the earth' (Ps 89:27). In the later Jewish literature of narrative and description this poetry is reduced to prose, and in the most exaggerated form. Jerusalem was so high that the flames of Jamnia were visible from it (2 Macc. 12:9). From the tower of Psephinus, outside the walls, could be discerned on the one hand the Mediterranean Sea, on the other the country of Arabia (Josephus, War, 5, 4, 3). Hebron could be seen from the roofs of the Temple (Lightfoot, Chor. Cent. 49). The same thing can be traced in Josephus' account of the environs of the city, in which he has exaggerated what is, the truth, a remarkable ravine [and has, by late excavations, been proved to have been much greater anciently], to a depth so enormous that the head swam and the eyes failed in gazing into its recesses (Ant. 15, 11, 5)." The heights of the principal points in and round the city, above the Mediterranean Sea, as given by lieutenant Van de Velde, in the Memoir (p. 179, 180) accompanying his Map, 1858, are as follow:
Northwest corner of the city (Kasr Jalud).... 2610 Mount Zion (Coenaculum) ....................... 2537 Mount Moliah (Haram esh-Sherif) .........…. 2429 Bridge over the Kedron, near Gethsemane ....2281 Pool of Siloam ................................………..2114 Bir-Eyub, at the confluence of Hinnom and Kedron. 1996 Mount of Olives, Church of Ascension on summit... 2724
A table of levels differing somewhat from these will be found in Barclay's City of the Great King, p. 103 sq.
2. Respecting the supply of the city with water, we learn from Strabo's account of the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey that the town was well provided with water within the walls, but that there was none in the environs (Geog. 16, 2, 40). Probably the Roman troops then suffered from want of water, as did other armies which laid siege to Jerusalem. In the narratives of all such sieges we never read of the besieged suffering from thirst, although driven to the most dreadful extremities and resources by hunger, while the besiegers are frequently described as suffering greatly from want of water, and as being obliged to fetch it from a great distance. The agonies of thirst sustained by the first Crusaders in their siege of Jerusalem will be remembered by most readers from the vivid picture drawn by Tasso, if not from the account furnished by William of Tyre. Yet when the town was taken plenty of water was found within it. This is a very singular circumstance, and is perhaps only in part explained by reference to the system of preserving water in cisterns, as at this day in Jerusalem. Solomon's aqueduct near Bethlehem to Jerusalem could have been no dependence, as its waters might easily have been cut off by the besiegers. All the wells, also, are now outside the town, and no interior fountain is mentioned save that of Hezekiah, which is scarcely fit for drinking. At the siege by Titus the well of Siloam may have been in possession of the Jews, i.e. within the walls; but at the siege by the Crusaders it was certainly held by the besieging Franks, and yet the latter perished from thirst, while the besieged had "ingentes copias aquae." We cannot here go through the evidence which by combination and comparison might throw some light on this remarkable question. There is, however, good ground to conclude that from very ancient times there has been under the Temple an unfailing source of water, derived by secret and subterraneous channels from springs to the west of the town, and communicating by other subterranean passages with the Pool of Siloam and the Fountain of the Virgin in the east of the town, whether they were within or without the walls of the town.
The existence of a perennial source of water below the Temple has always been admitted. Tacitus knew of it (Hist. 5, 12); and Aristeas, in describing the ancient Temple, informs us that "the supply of water was unfailing, inasmuch as there was an abundant natural fountain flowing in the interior, and reservoirs of admirable construction under ground, extending five stadia round the Temple, with pipes and conduits unknown to all except those to whom the service was intrusted, by which the water was brought to various parts of the Temple and again conducted off." The Moslems also have constantly affirmed the existence of this fountain or cistern; but a reserve has always been kept up as to the means by which it is supplied. This reserve seems to have been maintained by the successive occupants of Jerusalem as a point of civic honor; and this fact alone intimates that there was danger to the town in its becoming known, and points to the fact that the supply came from without the city by secret channels, which it was of importance not to disclose. Yet we are plainly told in the Bible that Hezekiah "stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it down to the west side of the city of David" (1Ki 1:33,38); from 2Ch 32:30, it seems that all the neighboring fountains were thus "stopped" or covered, and the brook which they had formed diverted by subterraneous channels into the town, for the express purpose of preventing besiegers from finding the "much water" which previously existed outside the walls (comp. also Ecclesiastes 48:17). Perhaps, likewise, the prophet Ezekiel (47:11) alludes to this secret fountain under the Temple when he speaks of waters issuing from the threshold of the Temple towards the east, and flowing down towards the desert as an abundant and beautiful stream. This figure may be drawn from the waters of the inner source under the Temple, being at the time of overflow discharged by the outlets at Siloam into the Kidron, which takes the eastward course thus described.
There are certainly wells, or rather shafts, in and near the Temple area, which are said to derive their waters through a passage of masonry four or five feet high, from a chamber or reservoir cut in the solid rock under the grand mosque, in which the water is said to rise from the rock into a basin at the bottom. The existence of this reservoir and source of water is affirmed by the citizens, and coincides with the previous intimations, but it must be left for future explorers to clear up all the obscurities in which the matter is involved. Even Dr. Barclay, who gave great attention to this subject, was unable fully to clear it up (City of the Great King, p. 293).
The pools and tanks of ancient Jerusalem were very abundant, and, each house being provided with what we may call a bottle-necked cistern for rainwater, drought within the city was rare; and history shows us that it was the besiegers, not the besieged, that generally suffered from want of water (Gul. Tyr. bk. 8, p. 7; De Waha, Labores Godfredi, p. 421), though occasionally this was reversed (Josephus, War, 5, 9, 4). Yet neither in ancient nor modern times could the neighborhood of Jerusalem be called "waterless," as Strabo describes it (Geogr. 16, 2, 36). In summer the fields and hills around are verdureless and gray, scorched with months of drought, yet within a radius of seven miles there are some thirty or forty natural springs (Barclay's City of the Great King, p. 295). The artificial provision for a supply of water in Jerusalem in ancient times was perhaps the most complete and extensive ever undertaken for a city. Till lately this was not fully credited; but Barclay's, and, more recently Whitty's and Pierotti's subterraneous excavations have proved it. The aqueduct of Solomon (winding along for twelve miles and a quarter) pours the waters of the three immense pools into the enormous Temple wells, cut out like caverns in the rock; and the pools, which surround the city in all directions, supply to a great extent the want of a river or a lake (Traill's Josephus, vol. 1; Append. p. 57, 60). For a description of these, see Thomson, Land and Book, 2, 523 sq.
The ordinary means taken by the inhabitants to secure a supply of water have been described under the article CISTERN; for interesting details, see Raumer's Pelastina, p. 329-333; Robinson's Researches, 1, 479-516; Olin's Travels, 2, 168-181; and Williams' Holy City, 2, 453-502.
3. We present in this connection some additional remarks on the fortifications of the city. Dr. Robinson thinks that the wall of the new city, the AElia of Hadrian, nearly coincided with that of the present Jerusalem;
and the portion of Mount Zion which now lies outside would seem then also to have been excluded; for Eusebius and Cyril, in the 4th century, speak of the denunciation of the prophet being fulfilled, which describes Zion as "a plowed field" (Mic 3:2).
In the Middle Ages there appear to have been two gates on each side of the city, making eight in all a number not greatly short of that assigned in the above estimate to the ancient Jerusalem, and probably occupying nearly the places of the most important of the ancient ones.
On the west side were two gates, of which the principal was the Porta David, gate of David, often mentioned by the writers on the Crusades. It was called by the Arabs Bab el-Mihrab, and corresponds to the present Jaffa gate, or Bab el-Khulil. The other was the gate of the Fuller's Field (Porta Villoe Fullonis), so called from Isa 7:3. This seems to be the same which others call Porta Judiciaria, and which is described as being in the wall over against the church of the Holy Sepulchre, leading to Silo (Neby Samwil) and Gibeon. This seems to be that which the Arabian writers call Serb. There is no trace of it in the present wall.
On the north there were also two gates, and all the Middle-Age writers speak of the principal of them as the gate of St. Stephen, from the notion that the death of the protomartyr took place near it. This was also called the gate of Ephraim, in reference to its probable ancient name. Arabic writers called it Bab 'Amud el-Ghurab, of which the present name, Bab el- 'Amud, is only a contraction. The present gate of St. Stephen is on the east of the city, and the scene of the martyrdom is now placed near it; but there is no account of the change. Further east was the gate of Benjamin (Porta Benjaminis), corresponding apparently to what is now called the gate of Herod.
On the east there seem to have been at least two gates. The northernmost is described by Adamnanus as a small portal leading down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. It was called the gate of Jehoshaphat from the valley to which it led. It seems to be represented by the present gate of St. Stephen. The Arabian writers call it Bab el-Usbat, gate of the Tribes, being another form of the modern Arabic name Bab es-Subat. The present gate of St. Stephen has four lions sculptured over it on the outside, which, as well as the architecture, show that it existed before the present walls. Dr. Robinson suggests that the original "small portal" was rebuilt on a larger scale by the Franks when they built up the walls of the city, either in A.D. 1178 or 1239. The other gate is the famous Golden Gate (Porta aurea in the eastern wall of the Temple area. It is now called by the Arabs Bab ed- Dalhariyeh, but formerly Bab er-Rameh, "Gate of Mercy." The name Golden Gate appears to have come from a supposed connection with one of the ancient gates of the Temple, which are said to have been covered with gold; but this name cannot be traced back beyond the historians of the Crusades. This gate is, from its architecture, obviously of Roman origin, and is conjectured to have belonged to the inclosure of the temple of Jupiter which was built by Hadrian upon Mount Moriah. The exterior is now walled up; but, being double, the interior forms within the area a recess, which is used for prayer by the Moslem worshipper. Different reasons are given for the closing of this gate. It was probably because it was found inconvenient that a gate to the mosque should be open in the exterior wall. Although not walled up, it was kept closed even when the Crusaders were in possession of the city, and only opened once a year, on Palm Sunday, in celebration of our Lord's supposed triumphal entry through it to the Temple.
Of all the towers with which the city was anciently adorned and defended, the most important is that of Hippicus, which Josephus, as we have already seen, assumed as the starting point in his description of all the walls of the city. Herod gave to it the name of a friend who was slain in battle. It was a quadrangular structure, twenty-five cubits on each side, and built up entirely solid to the height of thirty cubits. Above this solid part was a cistern twenty cubits; and then, for twenty-five cubits more, were chambers of various kinds, with a breastwork of two cubits and battlements of three cubits upon the top. The altitude of the whole tower was consequently eighty cubits. The stones of which it was built were very large, twenty cubits long by ten broad and five high and (probably in the upper part) were of white marble. Dr. Robinson has shown that this tower should be sought at the northwest corner of the upper city, or Mount Zion. This part, a little to the south of the Jaffa gate, is now occupied by the citadel. It is an irregular assemblage of square towers, surrounded on the inner side towards the city by a low wall, and having on the outer or west side a deep fosse. The towers which rise from the brink of the fosse are protected on that side by a low sloping bulwark or buttress, which rises from the bottom of the trench at an angle of forty-five degrees. This part bears evident marks of antiquity, and Dr. Robinson is inclined to ascribe these massive outworks to the time of the rebuilding and fortifying of the city by Hadrian. This fortress is described by the Middle-Age historians as the tower or citadel of David. Within it, as the traveler enters the city by the Jaffa gate, the northeastern tower attracts his notice as bearing evident marks of higher antiquity than any of the others. This upper part is, indeed, modern, but the lower part is built of larger stones, beveled at the edges, and apparently still occupying their original places. This tower has been singled out by the Franks, and bears among them the name of the tower of David, while they sometimes give to the whole fortress the name of the castle of David. Taking all the circumstances into account, Dr. Robinson thinks that the antique lower portion of this tower is in all probability a remnant of the tower of Hippicus, which, as Josephus states, was left standing by Titus when he destroyed the city. This discovery, however, is not new, the identity having been advocated by Raumer and others before Dr. Robinson traveled. This view has been somewhat modified by Mr. Williams, who shows that the northwestern angle of the present citadel exactly corresponds in size and position to the description of Josephus, while other portions of the same general structure have been rebuilt upon the old foundations of the adjoining towers of Mariamne and Phasaelus (Holy City, 2, 14-16).
The present Damascus gate in particular, from its massive style and other circumstances, seems to have occupied a prominent point along the ancient "second wall" of the city. Connected with its structures are the immense underground quarries, on which, as well as out of which, the city may be said to be built. From them have been hewn, in past ages, the massive limestone blocks which appear in the walls and elsewhere. In these dark chambers one may, with the help of torches, wander for hours, scrambling over mounds of rubbish: now climbing into one chamber, now descending into another, noting the various cuttings, grooves, cleavages and hammer marks; and wondering at the different shapes bars here, slices there, boulders there, thrown up together in utter confusion. Only in one corner do we find a few drippings of water and a tiny spring; for these singular excavations, like the great limestone cave at Khureitun (beyond Bethlehem, probably Adullam), are entirely free from damp; and though the only bit of intercourse with the upper air is by the small twenty inch hole at the Damascus gate, through which the enterprising traveler wriggles into them like a serpent, yet the air is fresh and somewhat warm (Stewart's Tent and
Khan. p. 263-266). These are no doubt the subterranean retreats referred to by Josephus as occupied by the despairing Jews in the last days of Jerusalem (War, 6, 7, 3; 6, 8, 4); and to which Tasso alludes when relating the wizard's promise to conduct the "Soldan" through Godfrey's leaguer into the heart of the city (Gerus. Liber. 10, 29). The native name for the quarries is Magharet el-Kotton, the Cotton Cave. For a full description of these caverns, see Barclay, City of the Great King p. 460 sq.; Thomson, Land and Book, 2, 491 sq.; Wilson in the Ordnance Survey (1865, p. 63).
4. The following description of the present city is chiefly abridged from the excellent account of Dr. Olin (Travels, vol. 2, chap. 4). The general view of the city from the Mt. of Olives is mentioned more or less by all travelers as that from which they derive their most distinct and abiding impression of Jerusalem.
The summit of the Mount of Olives is about half a mile east from the city, which it completely overlooks, every considerable edifice and almost every house being visible. The city, seen from this point, appears to be a regular inclined plain, sloping gently and uniformly from west to east, or towards the observer, and indented by a slight depression or shallow vale, running nearly through the center in the same direction. The southeast corner of the quadrangle — or that may be assumed as the figure formed by the rocks — that which is nearest to the observer, is occupied by the mosque of Omar and its extensive and beautiful grounds. This is Mount Moriah, the site of Solomon's Temple; and the ground embraced in this inclosure occupies about an eighth of the whole modern city. It is covered with greensward, and planted sparingly with olive, cypress, and other trees, and it is certainly the most lovely feature of the town, whether we have reference to the splendid structures or the beautiful lawn spread out around them.
The southwest quarter, embracing that part of Mount Zion which is within the modern town, is to a great extent occupied by the Armenian convent, an enormous edifice, which is the only conspicuous object in this neighborhood. The northwest is largely occupied by the Latin convent, another very extensive establishment. About midway between these two convents is the castle or citadel, close to the Bethlehem gate, already mentioned. The northeast quarter of Jerusalem is but partially built up, and it has more the aspect of a rambling agricultural village than that of a crowded city. The vacant spots here are green with gardens and olive trees. There is another large vacant tract along the southern wall, and west of the Haram, also covered with verdure. Near the center of the city also appear two or three green spots, which are small gardens. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the only conspicuous edifice in this vicinity, and its domes are striking objects. There are no buildings which, either from their size or beauty, are likely to engage the attention. Eight or ten minarets mark the position of so many mosques in different parts of the town, but they are only noticed because of their elevation above the surrounding edifices. Upon the same principle the eye rests for a moment upon a great number of low domes, which form the roofs of the principal dwellings, and relieve the heavy uniformity of the flat plastered roofs which cover the greater mass of more humble habitations. Many ruinous piles and a thousand disgusting objects are concealed or disguised by the distance. Many inequalities of surface, which exist to so great an extent that there is not a level street of any length in Jerusalem, are also unperceived.
From the same commanding point of view a few olive and fig trees are seen in the lower part of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and scattered over the side of Olivet from its base to the summit. They are sprinkled yet more sparingly on the southern side of the city on Mounts Zion and Ophel. North of Jerusalem the olive plantations appear more numerous as well as thriving, and thus offer a grateful contrast to the sunburned fields and bare rocks which predominate in this landscape. The region west of the city appears to be destitute of trees. Fields of stunted wheat, yellow with the drought rather than white for the harvest, are seen on all sides of the town.
Within the gates, however, the city is full of inequalities. The passenger is always ascending or descending. There are no level streets, and little skill or labor has been employed to remove or diminish the inequalities which nature or time has produced. Houses are built upon mountains of rubbish, which are probably twenty, thirty, or fifty feet above the natural level, and the streets are constructed with the same disregard to convenience, with this difference, that some slight attention is paid to the possibility of carrying. off surplus water. The streets are, without exception, narrow, seldom exceeding eight or ten feet in breadth. The houses often meet, and in some instances a building occupies both sides of the street, which runs under a succession of arches barely high enough to permit an equestrian to pass under them. A canopy of old mats or of plank is suspended over the principal streets when not arched. This custom had its origin, no doubt, in the heat of the climate, which is very intense in summer, and it gives a gloomy aspect to all the most thronged and busy parts of the city. These covered ways are often pervaded by currents of air when a perfect calm prevails in other places. The principal streets of Jerusalem run nearly at right angles to each other. Very few, if any of them, bear names among the native population. They are badly paved, being merely laid irregularly with raised stones, with a deep square channel for beasts of burden in the middle; but the steepness of the ground contributes to keep them cleaner than in most Oriental cities.
The houses of Jerusalem are substantially built of the limestone of which the whole of this part of Palestine is composed: not usually hewn, but broken into regular forms, and making a solid wall of very respectable appearance. For the most part, there are no windows next to the street, and the few which exist for the purposes of light or ventilation are completely masked by casements and lattice work. The apartments receive their light from the open courts within. The ground plot is usually surrounded by a high inclosure, commonly forming the walls of the house only, but sometimes embracing a small garden and some vacant ground. The rainwater which falls upon; the pavement is carefully conducted, by means of gutters, into cisterns, where it is preserved for domestic uses. The people of Jerusalem rely chiefly upon these reservoirs for their supply of this indispensable article. Every house has its cistern, and the larger habitations are provided with a considerable number of them, which occupy the ground story or cells formed for the purpose below it. Stone is employed in building for all the purposes to which it can possibly be applied, and Jerusalem is hardly more exposed to accidents by fire than a quarry or subterranean cavern. The floors, stairs, etc., are of stone, and the ceiling is usually formed by a coat of plaster laid upon the stones, which at the same time form the roof and the vaulted top of the room. Doors, sashes, and a few other appurtenances, are all that can usually be afforded of a material so expensive as wood. The little timber which is used is mostly brought from Mount Lebanon, as in the time of Solomon. A rough, crooked stick of the fig tree, or some gnarled, twisted planks made of the olive the growth of Palestine, are occasionally seen. In other respects, the description in the article HOUSE will afford a sufficient notion of those in Jerusalem. A large number of houses in Jerusalem are in a dilapidated and ruinous state. Nobody seems to make repairs so long as his dwelling does not absolutely refuse him shelter and safety. If one room tumbles about his ears he removes into another, and permits rubbish and vermin to accumulate as they will in the deserted halls. Tottering staircases are propped to prevent their fall; and when the edifice becomes untenable, the occupant seeks another a little less ruinous, leaving the wreck to a smaller or more wretched family, or more probably, to a goatherd and his flock. Habitations which have a very respectable appearance as seen from the street, are often found, upon entering them, to be little better than heaps of ruins.
Nothing of this would be suspected from the general appearance of the city as seen from the various commanding points without the walls, nor from anything that meets the eye in the streets. Few towns in the East offer a more imposing spectacle to the view of the approaching stranger. He is struck with the height and massiveness of the walls, which are kept in perfect repair, and naturally produce a favorable opinion of the wealth and comfort which they are designed to protect. Upon entering the gates, he is apt, after all that has been published about the solitude that reigns in the streets, to be surprised at meeting large numbers of people in the chief thoroughfares, almost without exception decently clad. A longer and more intimate acquaintance with Jerusalem, however, does not fail to correct this too favorable impression, and demonstrate the existence and general prevalence of the poverty and even wretchedness which must result in every country from oppression, from the absence of trade, and the utter stagnation of all branches of industry. Considerable activity is displayed in the bazaars, which are supplied scantily, like those of other Eastern towns, with provisions, tobacco, coarse cottons, and other articles of prime necessity. A considerable business is still done in beads, crosses, and other sacred trinkets, which are purchased to a vast amount by the pilgrims who annually throng the holy city. The support and even the existence of the considerable population of Jerusalem depend upon this transient patronage a circumstance to which a great part of the prevailing poverty and degradation is justly ascribed. The worthless articles employed in this pitiful trade are, almost without exception, brought from other places, especially Hebron and Bethlehem the former celebrated for its baubles of glass, the latter chiefly for rosaries, crucifixes, and other toys made of mother-of-pearl, olive wood, black stones from the Dead Sea, etc. These are eagerly bought up by the ignorant pilgrims, sprinkled with holy water by the priests, or consecrated by some other religious mummery, and carried off in triumph and worn as ornaments to charm away disease and misfortune, and probably to be buried with the deluded enthusiast in his coffin, as a sure passport to eternal blessedness. With the departure of the swarms of pilgrims, however, even this poor semblance of active industry and prosperity deserts the city. With the exception of some establishments for soap making, a tannery, and a very few weavers of coarse cottons, there do not appear to be any manufacturers properly belonging to the place. Agriculture is almost equally wretched, and can only give employment to a few hundred people. The masses really seem to be without any regular employment. A considerable number, especially of the Jews, professedly live on charity. Many Christian pilgrims annually find their way hither on similar resources, and the approaches to the holy places are thronged with beggars, who in piteous tones demand alms in the name of Christ and the blessed Virgin. The general condition of the population is that of abject poverty. A few Turkish officials, ecclesiastical, civil, and military; some remains of the old Mohammedan aristocracy once powerful and rich, but now much impoverished and nearly extinct; together with a few tradesmen in easy circumstances, form almost the only exceptions to the prevailing indigence. There is not a single broker among the whole population, and not the smallest sum can he obtained on the best bills of exchange short of Jaffa or Beirut.
5. The population of Jerusalem has been variously estimated by different travelers, some making it as high as 30,000, others as low as 12,000. All average of these estimates would make it somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000; but the Egyptian system of taxation and of military conscription in Syria has lately furnished more accurate data than had previously been obtainable, and on these Dr. Robinson estimates the population at not more than 1l,500, distributed thus:
Mohammedans ........................ 4,500 Jews ..............................…….. 3,000 Christians..…...................…..... 3,500
If to this be added something for possible omissions, and the inmates of the convents, the standing population, exclusive of the garrison, would not exceed 11,500. Dr. Barclay is very minute in regard to the Christian sects, and his details show that Robinson greatly underestimated them when he gave their number as 3500. Barclay shows them to be in all 4518 (p. 588).
The latest estimate of the population is that of Pierotti, who gives the entire sum as 20,330, subdivided as follows: Christian sects, 5068; Moslems (Arabs and Turks), 7556; Jews, 7706. The language most generally spoken among all classes of the inhabitants is the Arabic. Schools are rare, and consequently facility in leading is not often met with. The general condition of the inhabitants has already been indicated. The Turkish governor of the town holds the rank of pasha, but is responsible to the pasha of Beirfit. The government is somewhat milder than before the period of the Egyptian dominion; but it is said that the Jewish and Christian inhabitants at least have ample cause to regret the change of masters, and the American missionaries lament that change without reserve (Am. Bib. Repos. for 1843). Yet the Moslems reverence the same spots which the Jews and Christians account holy, the holy sepulchre only excepted: and this exception arises from their disbelief that Christ was crucified, or buried, or rose again. Formerly there were in Palestine monks of the Benendictine and Augustine orders, and of those of St. Basil and St. Anthony; but since 1304 there have been none but Franciscans, who have charge of the Latin convent and the holy places. They resided on Mount Zion till A.D. 1561, when the Turks allowed them the monastery of St. Salvador, which they now occupy. They had formerly a handsome revenue out of all Roman Catholic countries, but these sources have fallen off since the French Revolution, and the establishment is said to be poor and deeply in debt. The expenses arise from the duty imposed upon the convent of entertaining pilgrims, and the cost of maintaining the twenty convents belonging to the establishment of the Terra Santa is estimated at 40,000 Spanish dollars a year. Formerly it was much higher, in consequence of the heavy exactions of the Turkish government. Burckhardt says that the brotherhood paid annually £12,000 to the pasha of Damascus. But the Egyptian government relieved them from these heavy charges, and imposed instead a regular tax on the property possessed. For the buildings and lands in and around Jerusalem the annual tax was fixed at 7000 piastres, or 350 Spanish dollars. It is probable that the restored Turkish government has not yet, in this respect, recurred to its old oppressions. The convent contains fifty monks, half Italians and half Spaniards. In it resides the intendant or the principal of all the convents, with the rank of abbot, and the title of guardian of Mount Zion and customs of the Holy Land. He is always an Italian, and has charge of all the spiritual affairs of the Roman Catholics in the Holy Land. There is also a president or vicar, who takes the place of the guardian in case of absence or death: he was formerly a Frenchman, but is now either an Italian or Spaniard. The procurator, who manages their temporal affairs, is always a Spaniard. A council, called Discretorium, composed of these officials and three other monks, has the general management of both spiritual and temporal matters. Much of the attention of the order is occupied, and much of its expense incurred, in entertaining pilgrims and in the distribution of alms. The native Roman Catholics live around the convent, on which they are wholly dependant. They are native Arabs, and are said to be descended from converts in the times of the Crusades.
There is a Greek patriarch of Jerusalem, but he usually resides at Constantinople, and is represented in the holy city by one or more vicars, who are bishops residing in the great convent near the church of the Holy Sepulchre. At present the vicars are the bishops of Lydda, Nazareth, and Kerek (Petra), assisted by the other bishops resident in the convent. In addition to thirteen monasteries in Jerusalem, they possess the convent of the Holy Cross, near Jerusalem; that of St. Helena; between Jerusalem and Bethlehem; and that of St. John, between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. All the monks of the convents are foreigners. The Christians of the Greek rite who are not monks are all native Arabs, with their native priests, who are allowed to perform the Church services in their mother tongue the Arabic.
The Armenians in Jerusalem have a patriarch, with three convents and 100 monks. They have also convents at Bethlehem, Ramleh, and Jaffa. Few of the Armenians are natives: they are mostly merchants, and among the wealthiest inhabitants of the place, and their convent in Jerusalem is deemed the richest in the Levant. Their church of St. James, upon Mount Zion, is very showy in its decorations, but void of taste. The Coptic Christians at Jerusalem are only some monks residing in the convent of es- Sultan, on the north side of the pool of Hezekiah. There is also a convent of the Abyssinians, and one belonging to the Jacobite Syrians.
The estimate of the number of the Jews in Jerusalem at 3000 is given by Dr. Robinson on the authority of Mr. Nicolayson, the resident missionary to the Jews; yet in the following year (1839) the Scottish deputation set them down at six or seven thousand on the same authority. (See Dr. Barclay's estimate above.) They inhabit a distinct quarter of the town, between Mount Zion and Mount Moriah. This is the worst and dirtiest part of the holy city, and that in which the plague never fails to make its first appearance. Few of the Jerusalem Jews are natives, and most of them come from foreign parts to die in the city of their fathers' sepulchres. The greater proportion of them are from different parts of the Levant, and appear to be mostly of Spanish and Polish origin. Few are from Germany, or understand the German language. They are, for the most part, wretchedly poor, and depend in a great degree for their subsistence upon the contributions of their brethren in different countries. These contributions vary considerably in amount in different years, and often occasion much dissatisfaction in their distribution (see the Narrative of the Scottish deputation, p. 148). An effort, however, is now making in Europe for the promotion of Jewish agriculture in Palestine, and a society formed for that purpose, under whose auspices several Jewish families have emigrated to their sacred fatherland, and are engaged in the culture of the productions for which the soil was anciently so famous. Prominent among these philanthropic exertions are those of Sir Moses Montefiore, of London, who has established a farm in the vicinity of Jerusalem for the benefit of his Jewish brethren (Benjamin, Eight Years in Asia and Africa, p. 34). Under the reforms and religious toleration introduced by the present sultan an amelioration of the condition of the Jewish and Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem may be expected. It should also be added that European enterprise has projected a railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem as one of the fruits of the alliance during the late war, and on its completion an additional impulse will doubtless be given to this ancient metropolis by the facilities of travel and transportation thus afforded.
6. The most recent and complete works on modern Jerusalem are Dr. Titus Tobler's Zwei Bucher Topographie von Jerusalem und seine Umgebungen (Berl. 1853, et seq.), which contains (vol. 1, p. 11-104) a nearly full list of all works by travelers and others on the subject, with brief criticisms (continued in an appendix to his Dritte Wanderung, Gotha, 1859, and greatly enlarged in his Bibliographia Geographica Paloestinoe, Lpz. 1867), and Prof. Sepp's Jerusalem und das Heilige Land (München, 1864, 2 vols.), which almost exhaustively treats the sacred topography from the Roman Catholic point of view. The city has been more or less described by nearly all who have visited the Holy Land; see especially Bartlett's Walks about Jerusalem (Lond. 1842). The map of Van de Velde (Gotha, 1858), with a memoir by Tobler, has remained the most exact one of the present city till the publication of the English Ordnance Survey (London 1864-5, 1866; N.Y., 1871), which contains minute details. The most perfect pictorial representation is the Panorama of Jerusalem, taken from the
Mount of Olives, in three large aquatint engravings, with a key, published in Germany (Munich, 1850). Many new and interesting details have been furnished by the scientific surveys and subterranean explorations of the engineers lately employed under the auspices of the "Palestine Exploration Fund" of England, the results of which are detailed in their successive Quarterly Statements, and popularly summed up in their volume entitled Jerusalem Recovered (Lond. and N.Y. 1871, 8vo). SEE PALESTINE.