Jerusalem
Jeru'salem. (the habitation of peace). Jerusalem stands in latitude 31
degrees 46' 35" north and longitude 35 degrees 18' 30" east of
Greenwich. It is 32 miles distant from the sea and 18 from the Jordan, 20 from
Hebron and 36 from Samaria.
"In several respects," says Dean Stanley, "its situation
is singular among the cities of Palestine. Its elevation is remarkable;
occasioned not from its being on the summit of one of the numerous hills of
Judea, like most of the towns and villages, but because it is on the edge of
one of the highest table-lands of the country. Hebron indeed is higher still by
some hundred feet, and from the south, accordingly (even from Bethlehem).
The approach to Jerusalem is by a slight descent. But from any other
side the ascent is perpetual; and to the traveller approaching the city from
the east or west, it must always have presented the appearance beyond any other
capital of the then known world -- we may say beyond any important city that
has ever existed on the earth -- of a mountain city; breathing, as compared
with the sultry plains of Jordan, a mountain air; enthroned, as compared with
Jericho or Damascus, Gaza or Tyre, on a mountain fastness." -- S. & P.
170,
Jerusalem, if not actually in the centre of Palestine, was yet virtually
so. "It was on the ridge, the broadest and most strongly-marked ridge, of
the backbone of the complicated hills which extend through the whole country
from the plain of Esdraelon to the desert."
Roads. -- There appear to have been but two main approaches to the city: --
i. From the Jordan valley by Jericho and the Mount of Olives. This was
the route commonly taken from the north and east of the country.
ii. From the great maritime plain of Philistia and Sharon. This road led
by the two Beth-horons up to the high ground at Gibeon, whence it turned south,
and came to Jerusalem by Ramah and Gibeah, and over the ridge north of the
city.
Topography. -- To convey an idea of the position of Jerusalem, we may say, roughly,
that the city occupies the southern termination of the table-land, which is cut
off from the country round it on its west, south and east sides by ravines more
than usually deep and precipitous. These ravines leave the level of the
table-land, the one on the west and the other on the northeast of the city, and
fall rapidly until they form a junction below its southeast corner.
The eastern one -- the Valley of the Kedron, commonly called the Valley
of Jehoshaphat -- runs nearly straight from north by south.
But the western one -- the Valley of Hinnom -- runs south for a
time, and then takes a sudden bend to the east until it meets the Valley of
Jehoshaphat, after which the two rush off as one to the Dead Sea.
How sudden is their descent may be gathered from the fact that the level
at the point of junction -- about a mile and a quarter from the starting-point
of each -- is more than 600 feet below that of the upper plateau from which
they began their descent.
So steep is the fall of the ravines, so trench-like their character, and
so close do they keep to the promontory at whose feet they run, as to leave on
the beholder almost the impression of the ditch at the foot of a fortress
rather than of valleys formed by nature.
The promontory thus encircled is itself divided by a longitudinal ravine
running up it from south to north, called the Valley of the Tyropoeon,
rising gradually from the south, like the external ones, till at last it
arrives at the level of the upper plateau, dividing the central mass into two
unequal portions.
Of these two, that on the west is the higher and more massive, on which
the city of Jerusalem now stands, and in fact always stood. The hill on the
east is considerably lower and smaller, so that to a spectator from the south
the city appears to slope sharply toward the east.
Here was the Temple, and here stands now the great Mohammedan sanctuary
with its mosques and domes. The name of Mount Zion has been applied to
the western hill from the time of Constantine to the present day. The eastern
hill, called Mount Moriah in 2Ch_3:1
was, as already remarked, the site of the Temple. It was situated in the
southwest angle of the area, now known as the Haram area, and was, as we
learn from Josephus, an exact square of a stadium, or 600 Greek feet, on each
side.
(Conder, "Bible Handbook," 1879) states that, by the latest
surveys, the Haram area is a quadrangle with unequal sides. The west
wall measures 1601 feet, the south 922, the east 1530, the north 1042. It is
thus nearly a mile in circumference, and contains 35 acres. -- Editor).
Attached to the northwest angle of the Temple was the Antonia, a
tower or fortress. North of the side of the Temple is the building now known to
Christians as the Mosque of Omar, but by Moslems called the Dome of
the Rock. The southern continuation of the eastern hill was named Ophel,
which gradually came to a point at the junction of the Valleys of Tyropoeon
and Jehoshaphat; and the northern Bezetha, "the new
city," first noticed by Josephus, which was separated from Moriah by an
artificial ditch, and overlooked the valley of Kedron on the east; this hill
was enclosed within the walls of Herod Agrippa. Lastly, Acra lay
westward of Moriah and northward of Zion, and formed the "lower city"
in the time of Josephus.
Walls. -- These are described by Josephus. The first or old wall
was built by David and Solomon, and enclosed Zion and part of Mount Moriah.
(The second wall enclosed a portion of the city called Acra or Millo,
on the north of the city, from the Tower of Mariamne to the Tower of Antonia. It was built
as the city enlarged in size; begun by Uzziah 140 years after the first wall
was finished, continued by Jotham 50 years later, and by Manasseh 100 years
later still. It was restored by Nehemiah. Even the latest explorations have
failed to decide exactly what was its course. (See Conder's Handbook of the
Bible, art. Jerusalem).
The third wall was built by King Herod Agrippa, and was intended to enclose
the suburbs which had grown out on the northern sides of the city, which before
this had been left exposed. After describing these walls, Josephus adds that
the whole circumference of the city was 33 stadia, or nearly four English
miles, which is as near as may be the extent indicated by the localities. He
then adds that the number of towers in the old wall was 60, the middle wall 40,
and the new wall 99.
Water Supply. -- (Jerusalem had no natural water supply, unless we so consider the
"Fountain of the Virgin," which wells up with an intermittent action
from under Ophel. The private citizens had cisterns, which were supplied
by the rain from the roofs; and the city had a water supply "perhaps the
most complete and extensive ever undertaken by a city," and which would
enable it to endure a long siege.
There were three aqueducts, a number of pools and fountains, and the
Temple area was honeycombed with great reservoirs, whose total capacity is
estimated at 10,000,000 gallons. Thirty of these reservoirs are described,
varying from 25 to 50 feet in depth; and one, called the great Sea,
would hold 2,000,000 gallons. These reservoirs and the pools were supplied with
water by the rainfall and by the aqueducts. One of these, constructed by
Pilate, has been traced for 40 miles, though in a straight line the distance is
but 13 miles. It brought water from the spring Elam, on the south,
beyond Bethlehem, into the reservoirs under the Temple enclosure. -- Editor).
Pools and fountains. -- A part of the system of water supply. Outside the walls, on the west
side, were the Upper and Lower Pools of Gihon, the latter close
under Zion, the former more to the northwest on the Jaffa road. At the junction
of the Valleys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat was Enrogel, the "Well
of Job", in the midst of the king's gardens. Within the walls,
immediately north of Zion, was the "Pool of Hezekiah." A large pool
existing beneath the Temple (referred to in Sir_1:3
was probably supplied by some subterranean aqueduct.
The "King's Pool" was probably identical with the
"Fountain of the Virgin," at the southern angle of Moriah. It
possesses the peculiarity that it rises and falls at irregular periods; it is
supposed to be fed form the cistern below the Temple. From this a subterranean
channel cut through solid rock leads the water to The Pool of Siloah, or
Siloam, which has also acquired the character of being an intermittent
fountain. The pool of which tradition has assigned the name of Bethesda
is situated on the north side of Moriah; it is now named Birket Israil.
Burial-grounds. -- The main cemetery of the city seems from an early date to have been
where it is still -- on the steep slopes of the valley of the Kedron. The tombs
of the kings were in the city of David, that is, Mount Zion. The royal sepulchres
were probably chambers containing separate recesses for the successive kings.
Gardens. -- The king's gardens of David and Solomon seem to have been in the
bottom formed by the confluence of the Kedron and Himmon. Neh_3:15. The Mount of Olives, as its
name, and the names of various places upon it seem to imply, was a fruitful
spot. At its foot was situated the Garden of Gethsemane. At the time of
the final siege, the space north of the wall of Agrippa was covered with
gardens, groves and plantations of fruit trees, enclosed by hedges and walls;
and to level these was one of Titus' first operations. We know that the Gennath
(that is, "of gardens") opened on this side of the city.
Gates. -- The following is a complete list of the gates named in the Bible and
by Josephus, with the reference to their occurrence: --
Gate of Ephraim. 2Ch_25:23; Neh_8:16; Neh_12:39.
This is probably the same as the... --
Gate of Benjamin. Jer_20:2; Jer_37:13; Zec_14:10.
If so, it was 400 cubits distant from the... --
Corner Gate. 2Ch_25:23; 2Ch_26:9; Jer_31:38;
Zec_14:10.
Gate of Joshua, governor of the city. 2Ki_23:8.
Gate between the two walls. 2Ki_25:4; Jer_39:4.
Horse Gate. Neh_3:28; 2Ch_23:15; Jer_31:40.
Ravine Gate, (that is, opening on ravine of Hinnom). 2Ch_26:9;
Neh_2:13; Neh_2:15;
Neh_3:13.
Fish Gate. 2Ch_33:14; Neh_3:13; Zep_1:10.
Dung Gate. Neh_2:13; Neh_3:13.
Sheep Gate. Neh_3:1; Neh_3:32; Neh_12:39.
East Gate. Neh_3:29.
Miphkad Gate or Inspection Gate or Muster Gate Neh_3:31.
Fountain Gate, (Siloam?) Neh_12:37.
Water Gate. Neh_12:37.
Old Gate. Neh_12:39.
Prison Gate. Neh_12:39.
Gate Harsith, (perhaps the Sun Gate; Authorized Version, East Gate). Jer_19:2.
First Gate. Zec_14:10.
Gate Gennath (gardens). Jos B.J. V. 4, - 4.
Essenes' Gate. Jos. B.J. 4, - 2.
To these should be added the following gates to the Temple: --
Gate Sur, 2Ki_11:6 called also Gate of
Foundation. 2Ch_23:5.
Gate of the Guard, or Gate Behind the Guard, 2Ki_11:6;
2Ki_11:19;
called the High Gate. 2Ki_15:35;
2Ch_23:20; 2Ch_27:3.
Gate Shallecheth. 1Ch_26:16.
At present, the chief gates are --
The Zion's Gate and
the Dung Gate, in the south wall;
St. Stephen's Gate and
the Golden Gate (now walled up), in the east wall;
The Damascus Gate and
Herod's Gate, in the north wall; and
The Jaffa Gate, in the west wall.
Population. -- Taking the area of the city enclosed by the two old walls at 750,000
yards, and that enclosed by the wall of Agrippa at 1,500,000 yards, we have
2,250,000 yards for the whole. Taking the population of the Old City at the
probable number of the one person to 50 yards, we have 15,000 and at the
extreme limit of 30 yards, we should have 25,000 inhabitants for the Old City,
and at 100 yards to each individual in the New City, about 15,000 more; so that
the population of Jerusalem, in its days of greatest prosperity, may have
amounted to from 30,000 to 45,000 souls, but could hardly ever have reached
50,000; and assuming that in times of festival one-half was added to this
amount, which is an extreme estimate, there may have been 60,000 or 70,000 in
the city when Titus came up against it.
(Josephus says that at the siege of Jerusalem the population was
3,000,000; but Tacitus' statement that it was 600,000 is nearer the truth. This
last is certainly within the limits of possibility.)
Streets, houses, etc. -- Of the nature of these in the ancient city, we
have only the most scattered notices. The "east street," 2Ch_29:4, the "street of the city,"
that is, the city of David, 2Ch_32:6,
the "street facing the water gate," Neh_8:1,
Neh_8:3, or, according to the parallel
account in 1Es_9:38, the "broad
place of the Temple towards the east;" the "street of the house of
God," Ezr_10:9, the "street
of the gate of Ephraim," Neh_8:16,
and the "open place of the first gate toward the east," must have
been not "streets," in our sense of the word, so much as the open
spaces found in easter towns round the inside of the gates.
Streets, properly so called, there were, Jer_5:1;
Jer_11:13; etc.; but the name of only
one, "the bakers' street," Jer_37:21,
is preserved to us. The Via Dolorosa, or street of sorrows, is a
part of the street thorough which Christ is supposed to have been led on
his way to his crucifixion.
To the houses, we have even less clue; but there is no reason to suppose
that, in either houses or streets, the ancient Jerusalem differed very
materially from the modern. No doubt the ancient city did not exhibit that air
of mouldering dilapidation which is now so prominent there. The whole of the
slopes south of the Haram area (the ancient Ophel), and the
modern Zion, and the west side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, presents
the appearance of gigantic mounds of rubbish. In this point at least, the
ancient city stood in favorable contrast with the modern, but in many others,
the resemblance must have been strong.
Annals of the City. -- If, as is possible, Salem is the same with Jerusalem, the
first mention of Jerusalem is in Gen_14:18
about B.C. 2080. It is next mentioned in Jos_10:1
B.C. 1451. The first siege appears to have taken place almost immediately after
the death of Joshua -- circa 1400 B.C. Judah and Simeon "fought against it
and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on
fire." Jdg_1:8. In the fifteen
centuries which elapsed between this siege and the siege and destruction of the
city by Titus, A.D. 70, the city was besieged no fewer than seventeen times;
twice, it was razed to the ground, on two other occasions, its walls were
levelled. In this respect, it stands without a parallel in any city, ancient or
modern.
David captured the city B.C. 1046, and made it his capital, fortified
and enlarged it. Solomon adorned the city with beautiful buildings, including
the Temple, but made no additions to its walls. The city was taken by the
Philistines and Arabians, in the reign of Jehoram, B.C. 886, and by the
Israelites, in the reign of Amaziah, B.C. 826. It was thrice taken by
Nebuchadnezzar, in the years B.C. 607, 597 and 586, in the last of which, it was
utterly destroyed. Its restoration commenced under Cyrus, B.C. 538, and was
completed under Artaxerxes I, who issued commissions for this purpose to Ezra,
B.C. 457, and Nehemiah, B.C. 445.
In B.C. 332, it was captured by Alexander the Great. Under the Ptolemies
and the Seleucidae, the town was prosperous, until Antiochus Epiphanes sacked
it, B.C. 170. In consequence of his tyranny, the Jews rose under the Maccabees,
and Jerusalem became again independent, and retained its position until its
capture by the Romans under Pompey, B.C. 63. The Temple was subsequently
plundered by Crassus, B.C. 545, and the city by the Parthians, B.C. 40.
Herod took up his residence there as soon as he was appointed sovereign,
and restored the Temple with great magnificence. On the death of Herod, it
became the residence of the Roman procurators, who occupied the fortress of
Antonia. The greatest siege that it sustained, however, was at the hands of the
Romans under Titus, when it held out nearly five months, and when the town was
completely destroyed, A.D. 70. Hadrian restored it as a Roman colony, A.D. 135,
and among other buildings, erected a temple of Jupiter Capitolinus on the site
of the Temple. He gave to it the name of Aelia Capitolina, thus
combining his own family name with that of the Capitoline Jupiter.
The emperor Constantine established the Christian character by the
erection of a church on the supposed site of the Holy Sepulchre, A.D. 336. Justinian added several churches and
hospitals about A.D. 532. It was taken by the Persians, under Chosroes II, in
A.D. 614. The dominion of the Christians in the Holy City was now rapidly
drawing to a close. In A.D. 637, the patriarch Sophronius surrendered to the
khalif Omar in person.
With the fall of the Abassides, the Holy City passed into the hands of
the Fatimite dynasty, under whom, the sufferings of the Christians in Jerusalem
reached their height. About the year 1084, it was bestowed upon Ortok, chief of
a Turkman horde. It was taken by the Crusaders in 1099, and for eighty-eight
years, Jerusalem remained in the hand of the Christians. In 1187, it was
retaken by Saladin after a siege of several weeks. In 1277, Jerusalem was
nominally annexed to the kingdom of Sicily. In 1517, it passed under the sway
of the Ottoman sultan Selim I, whose successor, Suliman, built the present
walls of the city in 1542. Mohammed Aly, the pasha of Egypt, took possession of
it in 1832; and in 1840, after the bombardment of Acre, it was again restored
to the sultan.
(Modern Jerusalem, called by the Arabs, el-Khuds, is built
upon the ruins of ancient Jerusalem. The accumulated rubbish of centuries is
very great, being 100 feet deep on the hill of Zion. The modern wall, built in
1542, forms an irregular quadrangle about 2 1/2 miles in circuit, with seven
gates and 34 towers. It varies in height from 20 to 60 feet. The streets within
are narrow, ungraded, crooked, and often filthy. The houses are of hewn stone,
with flat roofs and frequent domes. There are few windows toward the street.
The most beautiful part of modern Jerusalem is the former Temple area
(Mount Moriah), "with its lawns and cypress tress, and its noble dome
rising high above the wall." This enclosure, now called Haram
esh-Sherif, is 35 acres in extent, and is nearly a mile in circuit. On the
site of the ancient Temple stands the Mosque of Omar, "perhaps the
very noblest specimen of building-art in Asia." "It is the most
prominent as well as the most beautiful building in the whole city."
The mosque is an octagonal building, each side measuring 66 feet. It is
surmounted by a dome, whose top is 170 feet from the ground. The Church of
the Holy Sepulchre, which is claimed, but without sufficient reason, to be
upon the site of Calvary, is "a collection of chapels and altars of
different ages and a unique museum of religious curiosities from Adam to Christ."
The present number of inhabitants in Jerusalem is variously estimated. Probably
Pierotti's estimate is very near the truth, -- 20,330; of whom 5068 are
Christians, 7556 Mohammedans (Arabs and Turks), and 7706 Jews. -- Editor).
Source:
Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Jerusalem
je-roo´sa-lem:
I. The Name
1. In Cuneiform
2. In Hebrew
3. In Greek and Latin
4. The Meaning of Jerusalem
5. Other Names
II. Geology, Climate and Springs
1. Geology
2. Climate and Rainfall
3. The Natural Springs
III. The Natural Site
1. The Mountains Around
2. The Valleys
3. The Hills
IV. General Topography of Jerusalem
1. Description of Josephus
2. Summary of the Names of the
Five Hills
3. The Akra
4. The Lower City
5. City of David and Zion
V. Excavations and Antiquities
1. Robinson
2. Wilson and the Palestine
Exploration Fund (1865)
3. Warren and Conder
4. Maudslay
5. Schick
6. Clermont-Ganneau
7. Bliss and Dickie
8. Jerusalem Archaeological
Societies
VI. The City's Walls and Gates
1. The Existing Walls
2. Wilson's Theory
3. The Existing Gates
4. Buried Remains of Earlier
Walls
5. The Great Dam of the Tyropoeon
6. Ruins of Ancient Gates
7. Josephus' Description of the
Walls
8. First Wall
9. Second Wall
10. Third Wall
11. Date of Second Wall
12. Nehemiah's Account of the Walls
13. Valley Gate
14. Dung Gate
15. Fountain Gate
16. Water Gate
17. Horse Gate
18. Sheep Gate
19. Fish Gate
20. The “Old Gate”
21. Gate of Ephraim
22. Tower of the Furnaces
23. The Gate of Benjamin
24. Upper Gate of the Temple
25. The Earlier Walls
VII. Antiquarian Remains Connected with the Water
Supply
1. Gihon: The Natural Spring
2. The Aqueduct of the Canaanites
3. Warren's Shaft
4. Hezekiah's “Siloam” Aqueduct
5. Other Aqueducts at Gihon
6. Bir Eyyub
7. Varieties of Cisterns
8. Birket Israel
9. Pool of Bethesda
10. The Twin Pools
11. Birket Hammam El Batrak
12. Birket Mamilla
13. Birket es Sultan
14. “Solomon's Pools”
15. Low-Level Aqueduct
16. High-Level Aqueduct
17. Dates of Construction of these
Aqueducts
VIII. Tombs, Antiquarian Remains and Ecclesiastical
Sites
1. “The Tombs of the Kings”
2. “Herod's Tomb”
3. “Absalom's Tomb”
4. The “Egyptian Tomb”
5. The “Garden Tomb”
6. Tomb of “Simon the Just”
7. Other Antiquities
8. Ecclesiastical Sites
IX. History
1. Tell el-Amarna Correspondence
2. Joshua's Conquest
3. Site of the Jebusite City
4. David
5. Expansion of the City
6. Solomon
7. Solomon's City Wall
8. The Disruption (933 bc)
9. Invasion of Shishak (928 bc)
10. City Plundered by Arabs
11. Hazael King of Syria Bought Off
(797 bc)
12. Capture of the City by Jehoash
of Israel
13. Uzziah's Refortification
(779-740 bc)
14. Ahaz Allies with Assyria
(736-728 bc)
15. Hezekiah's Great Works
16. Hezekiah's Religious Reforms
17. Manasseh's Alliance with
Assyria
18. His Repair of the Walls
19. Josiah and Religious Reforms
(640-609 bc)
20. Jeremiah Prophesies the
Approaching Doom
21. Nebuchadnezzar Twice Takes
Jerusalem (586 bc)
22. Cyrus and the First Return (538
bc)
23. Nehemiah Rebuilds the Walls
24. Bagohi Governor
25. Alexander the Great
26. The Ptolemaic Rule
27. Antiochus the Great
28. Hellenization of the City under
Antiochus Epiphanes
29. Capture of the City (170 bc)
30. Capture of 168 bc
31. Attempted Suppression of
Judaism
32. The Maccabean Rebellion
33. The Dedication of the Temple
(165 bc)
34. Defeat of Judas and Capture of
the City
35. Judas' Death (161 bc)
36. Jonathan's Restorations
37. Surrender of City to Antiochus
Sidetes (134 bc)
38. Hasmonean Buildings
39. Rome's Intervention
40. Pompey Takes the City by Storm
41. Julius Caesar Appoints
Antipater Procurator (47 bc)
42. Parthian Invasion
43. Reign of Herod the Great (37-4
bc)
44. Herod's Great Buildings
45. Herod Archelaus (4 bc-6 ad)
46. Pontius Pilate
47. King Agrippa
48. Rising against Florus and
Defeat of Gallus
49. The City Besieged by Titus (70
ad)
50. Party Divisions within the
Besieged Walls
51. Capture and Utter Destruction
of the City
52. Rebellion of Bar-Cochba
53. Hadrian Builds Aelia Capitolina
54. Constantine Builds the Church
of the Anastasis
55. The Empress Eudoxia Rebuilds
the Walls
56. Justinian
57. Chosroes II Captures the City
58. Heracleus Enters It in Triumph
59. Clemency of Omar
60. The Seljuk Turks and Their
Cruelties
61. Crusaders Capture the City in
1099
62. The Kharizimians
63. Ottoman Turks Obtain the City
(1517 ad)
X. Modern Jerusalem
1. Jews and “Zionism”
2. Christian Buildings and
Institutions
Literature
I.the Name
1.
In Cuneiform
The earliest mention of Jerusalem is in the Tell
el-Amarna Letters (1450 bc), where it appears in the form Uru-sa-lim;
allied with this we have Ur-sa-li-immu on the Assyrian monuments of the 8th
century bc.
The most ancient Biblical form is ירוּשׁלם, yerūshālēm,
shortened in Psa_76:2 (compare Gen_14:18) to Salem, but in Massoretic Text we
have it vocalized ירוּשׁלם, yerūshālaim.
In Jer_26:18; Est_2:6; 2Ch_25:1;
2Ch_32:9 we have ירוּשׁלים, yerūshālayim,
a form which occurs on the Jewish coins of the Revolt and also in Jewish
literature; it is commonly used by modern Talmudic Jews.
2. In Hebrew
The form Hebrew with the
ending -aim or -ayim is interpreted by some as being a dual,
referring to the upper and lower Jerusalem, but such forms occur in other names
as implying special solemnity; such a pronunciation is both local and late.
3. In Greek and Latin
In the Septuagint we get (Ἰερουσαλήμ,
Ierousalḗm), constantly reflecting the earliest and the
common Hebrew pronunciation, the initial letter being probably unaspirated;
soon, however, we meet with (Ἱερουσαλήμ,
Hierousalḗm) - with the aspirate - the common form in Josep
hus, and (Ἱεροσόλυμα,
Hierosóluma) in Macc (Books II through IV), and in Strabo. This
last form has been carried over into the Latin writers, Cicero, Pliny, Tacitus
and Suetonius. It was replaced in official use for some centuries by Hadrian's Aelia
Capitolina, which occurs as late as Jerome, but it again comes into common
use in the documents of the Crusades, while Solyma occurs at various periods as
a poetic abbreviation.
In the New Testament we
have (Ἱερουσαλήμ,
Hierousalḗm), particularly in the writings of Luke and Paul,
and (τὰ
Ἱεροσόλυμα,
tá Hierosóluma) elsewhere. The King James Version of 1611
has Ierosalem in the Old Testament and Hierusalem in the New Testament. The
form Jerusalem first occurs in French writings of the 12th century.
4. The Meaning of Jerusalem
With regard to the meaning
of the original name there is no concurrence of opinion. The oldest known form,
Uru-sa-lim, has been considered by many to mean either the “City of Peace” or
the “City of (the god) Salem,” but other interpreters, considering the name as
of Hebrew origin, interpret it as the “possession of peace” or “foundation of
peace.” It is one of the ironies of history that a city which in all its long
history has seen so little peace and for whose possession such rivers of blood
have been shed should have such a possible meaning for its name.
5. Other Names
Other names for the city
occur. For the name Jebus see JESUS. In Isa_29:1,
occurs the name אריאל, 'ărī'ēl
probably “the hearth of God,” and in Isa_1:26
the “city of righteousness.” In Psa_72:16;
Jer_32:24 f; Eze_7:23, we have the term העיר, hā‛īr,
“the city” in contrast to “the land.” A whole group of names is connected with
the idea of the sanctity of the site; ‛īr ha-ḳōdhesh,
the “holy city” occurs in Isa_48:2; Isa_52:1; Neh_11:1,
and yerūshālayim ha-ḳedhōshāh,
“Jerusalem the holy” is inscribed on Simon's coins. In Mat_4:5; Mat_27:53
we have ἡ
ἁγία πόλις,
hē hagía pólis, “the holy city,” and in Philo, Ἱερόπολις,
Hierópolis, with the same meaning.
In Arabic the common name
is Beit el Maḳdis, “the holy house,” or el Muḳaddas,
“the holy,” or the common name, used by the Moslems everywhere today, el
Ḳūds, a shortened form of el Ḳūds esh
Sherēf, “the noble sanctuary.”
Non-Moslems usually use the
Arabic form Yerusalēm.
II. Geology, Climate, and
Springs
1. Geology
The geology of the site and
environs of Jerusalem is comparatively simple, when studied in connection with
that of the land of Palestine as a whole (see GEOLOGY OF PALESTINE). The
outstanding feature is that the rocks consist entirely of various forms of
limestone, with strata containing flints; there are no primary rocks, no
sandstone (such as comes to the surface on the east of the Jordan) and no
volcanic rocks. The lime stone formations are in regular strata dipping toward
the Southeast, with an angle of about 10 degrees.
On the high hills
overlooking Jerusalem on the East, Southeast and Southwest there still remain
strata of considerable thickness of those chalky limestones of the
post-Tertiary period which crown so many hilltops of Palestine, and once
covered the whole land. On the “Mount of Olives,” for example, occurs a layer
of conglomerate limestone known as Nāri, or “firestone,” and
another thicker deposit, known as Ka‛kūli, of which two
distinct strata can be distinguished. In these layers, especially the latter,
occur pockets containing marl or haur, and in both there are bands of
flint.
Over the actual city's site
all this has been denuded long ages ago. Here we have three layers of limestone
of varying density very clearly distinguished by all the native builders and
masons:
(1) Mizzeh helu,
literally, “sweet mizzeh,” a hard, reddish-grey layer capable of polish, and
reaching in places to a depth of 70 ft. or more. The “holy rock” in the
temple-area belongs to this layer, and much of the ancient building stone was
of this nature.
(2) Below this is the Melekeh
or “royal” layer, which, though not very thick - 35 ft. or so - has been of
great importance in the history of the city. This rock is peculiar in that when
first exposed to the air it is often so soft that it can be cut with a knife,
but under the influence of the atmosphere it hardens to make a stone of
considerable durability, useful for ordinary buildings. The great importance of
this layer, however, lies in the fact that in it have been excavated the
hundreds of caverns, cisterns, tombs and aqueducts which honeycomb the city's
site.
(3) Under the Melekeh
is a Cenomanian limestone of great durability, known as Mizzeh Yehudeh,
or “Jewish mizzeh.” It is a highly valued building stone, though hard to work.
Geologically it is distinguished from Mizzeh helu by its containing ammonites.
Characteristically, it is a yellowish-grey stone, sometimes slightly reddish. A
variety of a distinctly reddish appearance, known as Mizzeh ahmar, or
“red mizzeh,” makes a very ornamental stone for columns, tombstones, etc.; it
takes a high polish and is sometimes locally known as “marble.”
This deep layer, which
underlies the whole city, comes to the surface in the Kidron valley, and its
impermeability is probably the explanation of the appearance there of the one
true spring, the “Virgin's Fount.” The water over the site and environs of
Jerusalem percolates with ease the upper layer, but is conducted to the surface
by this hard layer; the comparatively superficial source of the water of this
spring accounts for the poorness of its quality.
2. Climate and Rainfall
The broad features of the
climate of Jerusalem have probably remained the same throughout history,
although there is plenty of evidence that there have been cycles of greater and
lesser abundance of rain. The almost countless cisterns belonging to all ages
upon the site and the long and complicated conduits for bringing water from a
distance, testify that over the greater part of history the rainfall must have
been, as at present, only seasonal.
As a whole, the climate of
Jerusalem may be considered healthy. The common diseases should be largely
preventable - under an enlightened government; even the malaria which is so
prevalent is to a large extent an importation from the low-lying country, and
could be stopped at once, were efficient means taken for destroying the
carriers of infection, the abundant Anopheles mosquitoes. On account of its
altitude and its exposed position, almost upon the watershed, wind, rain and
cold are all more excessive than in the maritime plains or the Jordan valley.
Although the winter's cold is severely felt, on account of its coinciding with
the days of heaviest rainfall (compare Ezr_10:9),
and also because of the dwellings and clothes of the inhabitants being suited
for enduring heat more than cold, the actual lowest cold recorded is only 25
degrees F., and frost occurs only on perhaps a dozen nights in an average year.
During the rainless summer months the mean temperature rises steadily until
August, when it reaches 73, 1 degrees F., but the days of greatest heat, with
temperature over 100 degrees F. in the shade at times, occur commonly in
September. In midsummer the cool northwest breezes, which generally blow during
the afternoons and early night, do much to make life healthy. The most
unpleasant days occur in May and from the middle of September until the end of
October, when the dry southeast winds - the sirocco - blow hot and stifling
from over the deserts, carrying with them at times fine dust sufficient in
quantity to produce a marked haze in the atmosphere. At such times all
vegetation droops, and most human beings, especially residents not brought up
under such conditions, suffer more or less from depression and physical
discomfort; malarial, “sandfly,” and other fevers are apt to be peculiarly prevalent.
“At that time shall it be said ... to Jerusalem, A hot wind from the bare
heights in the wilderness toward the daughter of my people, not to winnow, nor
to cleanse” (Jer_4:11).
During the late summer -
except at spells of sirocco - heavy “dews” occur at night, and at the end of
September or beginning of October the “former” rains fall - not uncommonly in
tropical downpours accompanied by thunder. After this there is frequently a dry
spell of several weeks, and then the winter's rain falls in December, January
and February. In some seasons an abundant rainfall in March gives peculiar
satisfaction to the inhabitants by filling up the cisterns late in the season
and by producing an abundant harvest. The average rainfall is about 26 inches,
the maximum recorded in the city being 42, 95 inches in the season 1877-78, and
the minimum being 12, 5 inches in 1869-70. An abundant rainfall is not only
important for storage, for replenishment of the springs and for the crops, but
as the city's sewage largely accumulates in the very primitive drains all
through the dry season, it requires a considerable force of water to remove it.
Snow falls heavily in some seasons, causing considerable destruction to the
badly built roofs and to the trees; in the winter of 1910-11 a fall of 9 inches
occurred.
3. The Natural Springs
There is only one actual
spring in the Jerusalem area, and even to this some authorities would deny the
name of true spring on account of the comparatively shallow source of its
origin; this is the intermittent spring known today as ‛Ain Umm ed
deraj (literally, “spring of the mother of the steps”), called by the
native Christians ‛Ain Sitti Miriam (the “spring of the Lady
Mary”), and by Europeans commonly called “The Virgin's Fount.” All the archaeological
evidence points to this as the original source of attraction of earliest
occupants of the site; in the Old Testament this spring is known as GIHON
(which see). The water arises in the actual bottom, though apparent west side,
of the Kidron valley some 300 yards due South of the south wall of the Ḥaram̌.
The approach to the spring is down two flights of steps, an upper of 16 leading
to a small level platform, covered by a modern arch, and a lower, narrower
flight of 14 steps, which ends at the mouth of a small cave. The water has its
actual source in a long cleft (perhaps 16 ft. long) running East and West in
the rocky bottom of the Kidron valley, now many feet below the present surface.
The western or higher end of the cleft is at the very entrance of the cave, but
most of the water gushes forth from the lower and wider part which lies
underneath the steps. When the water is scanty, the women of Siloam creep down
into the cavity under the steps and fill their water-skins there; at such times
no water at all finds its way into the cave. At the far end of the cave is the
opening of that system of ancient tunnel-aqueducts which is described in VI,
below. This spring is “intermittent,” the water rising rapidly and gushing
forth with considerable force, several times in the 24 hours after the rainy
season, and only once or twice in the dry. This “intermittent” condition of
springs is not uncommon in Palestine, and is explained by the accumulation of
the underground water in certain cavities or cracks in the rock, which together
make up a reservoir which empties itself by siphon action. Where the
accumulated water reaches the bend of the siphon, the overflow commences and
continues to run until the reservoir is emptied. Such a phenomenon is naturally
attributed to supernatural agency by the ignorant - in this case, among the
modern fellahin, to a dragon - and natives, specially Jews, visit the
source, even today, at times of its overflow, for healing. Whether this
intermittent condition of the fountain is very ancient it is impossible to say,
but, as Jerome (Comm. in Esa, 86) speaks of it, it was probably present
in New Testament times, and if so we have a strong argument for finding here
the “Pool of Bethesda.” See BETHESDA.
In ancient times all the
water flowed down the open, rocky valley, but at an early period a wall was
constructed to bank up the water and convert the source into a pool. Without
such an arrangement no water could find its way into the cave and the tunnels.
The tunnels, described below (VI), were constructed for the purpose (1) of
reaching the water supply from within the city walls, and (2) of preventing the
enemies of the Jews from getting at the water (2Ch_32:4).
The water of this source, though used for all purposes by the people of Siloam,
is brackish to the taste, and contains a considerable percentage of sewage; it
is quite unfit for drinking. This condition is doubtless due to the wide
distribution of sewage, both intentionally (for irrigation of the gardens) and
unintentionally (through leaking sewers, etc.), over the soil overlying the
rocks from which the water flows. In earlier times the water was certainly
purer, and it is probable, too, that the fountain was more copious, as now
hundreds of cisterns imprison the waters which once found their way through the
soil to the deep sources of the spring.
The waters of the Virgin's
Fount find their way through the Siloam tunnel and out at ‛Ain
Silwân (the “spring” of Siloam), into the Pool of Siloam, and from
this source descend into the Kidron valley to water the numerous vegetable
gardens belonging to the village of Siloam (see SILOAM).
The second source of water
in Jerusalem is the deep well known as Bîr Eyyûb, “Job's
well,” which is situated a little below the point where the Kidron valley and
Hinnom meet. In all probability it derives its modern name from a legend in the
Ḳorân (Sura 38 5, 40-41) which narrates that God commanded
Job to stamp with his foot, whereupon a spring miraculously burst up. The well,
which had been quite lost sight of, was rediscovered by the Crusaders in 1184
ad, and was by them cleaned out. It is 125 ft. deep. The supply of water in
this well is practically inexhaustible, although the quality is no better than
that of the “Virgin's Fount”; after several days of heavy rain the water
overflows underground and bursts out a few yards lower down the valley as a
little stream. It continues to run for a few days after a heavy fall of rain is
over, and this “flowing Kidron” is a great source of attraction to the native
residents of Jerusalem, who pour forth from the city to enjoy the rare sight of
running water. Somewhere in the neighborhood of Bîr Eyyûb
must have lain ‛En-Rogel, but if that were once an actual
spring, its source is now buried under the great mass of rubbish accumulated
here (see EN-ROGEL).
Nearly 600 yards South of Bîr
Eyyûb is a small gravelly basin where, when the Bîr
Eyyûb overflows, a small spring called ‛Ain el Lozêh
(the “spring of the almond”) bursts forth. It is not a true spring, but is due
to some of the water of Job's well which finds its way along an ancient
rock-cut aqueduct on the west side of the Wâdy en Nâr,
bursting up here.
The only other possible
site of a spring in the Jerusalem area is the Ḥammâm esh
Shefâ, “the bath of healing.” This is an underground rock-basin in
the Tyropoeon valley, within the city walls, in which water collects by
percolation through the débris of the city. Though once a reservoir with
probably rock-cut channels conducting water to it, it is now a deep well with
arches erected over it at various periods, as the rubbish of the city gradually
accumulated through the centuries. There is no evidence whatever of there being
any natural fountain, and the water is, in the dry season, practically pure
sewage, though used in a neighboring Turkish bath.
G.A. Smith thinks that the
JACKAL'S WELL (which see) mentioned by Nehemiah (Neh_2:13),
which must have been situated in the Valley of Hinnom, may possibly have been a
temporary spring arising there for a few years in consequence of an earthquake,
but it is extremely likely that any well sunk then would tap water flowing a
long the bed of the valley. There is no such “spring” or “well” there today.
III. The Natural Site
Modern Jerusalem occupies a situation defined
geographically as 31 degrees 46 feet 45 inches North latitude., by 35 degrees
13 feet 25 inches East longitude. It lies in the midst of a bare and rocky
plateau, the environs being one of the most stony and least fruitful districts
in the habitable parts of Palestine, with shallow, gray or reddish soil and
many outcrops of bare limestone. Like all the hill slopes with a southeasterly
aspect, it is so thoroughly exposed to the full blaze of the summer sun that in
its natural condition the site would be more or less barren. Today, however, as
a result of diligent cultivation and frequent watering, a considerable growth
of trees and shrubs has been produced in the rapidly extending suburbs. The
only fruit tree which reaches perfection around Jerusalem is the olive.
1. The
Mountains Around
The site of Jerusalem is shut in by a rough
triangle of higher mountain ridges: to the West runs the main ridge, or water
parting, of Judea, which here makes a sweep to the westward. From this ridge a
spur runs Southeast and East, culminating due East of the city in the MOUNT OF
OLIVES (which see), nearly 2,700 ft. above sea-level and about 300 ft. above
the mean level of the ancient city. Another spur, known as Jebel Deir abu
Tōr, 2,550 ft. high, runs East from the plateau of el
Buḳei‛a and lies Southwest of the city; it is the traditional
“Hill of Evil Counsel.” The city site is thus dominated on all sides by these
higher ranges - “the mountains (that) are round about Jerus” (Psa_125:2) - so that while on the one hand the
ancient city was hidden, at any considerable distance, from any direction
except the Southeast, it is only through this open gap toward the desert and
the mountains of Moab that any wide outlook is obtainable. This strange vision
of wilderness and distant mountain wall - often of exquisite loveliness in the
light of the setting sun - must all through the ages have been the most
familiar and the most potent of scenic influences to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem.
2. The
Valleys
Within the enfolding hills the city's proper site
is demarked by two main valleys. That on the West and Southwest commences in a
hollow occupied by the Moslem cemetery around the pool Birket Mamilla.
The valley runs due East toward the modern Jaffa Gate, and there bends South,
being known in this upper part of its course as the Wâdy el Mês.
In this southern course it is traversed by a great dam, along which the modern
Bethlehem road runs, which converts a large area of the valley bed into a great
pool, the Birket es Sultân. Below this the valley - under the name
of Wâdy er Râbâbi - bends Southeast, then East, and
finally Southeast again, until near Bîr Eyyûb it joins the
western valley to form the Wâdy en Nâr, 670 ft. below its
origin. This valley has been very generally identified as the Valley of Hinnom
(see HINNOM.)
The eastern valley takes a wider sweep. Commencing
high up in the plateau to the North of the city, near the great water-parting,
it descends as a wide and open valley in a southeasterly direction until, where
it is crossed by the Great North Road, being here known as Wâdy el
Jôz (the “Valley of the Walnuts”), it turns more directly East. It
gradually curves to the South, and as it runs East of the city walls, it
receives the name of Wâdy Sitti Miriam (the “Valley of the Lady
Mary”). Below the Southeast corner of the temple-area, near the traditional
“Tomb of Absalom,” the valley rapidly deepens and takes a direction slightly to
the West of South. It passes the “Virgin's Fount,” and a quarter of a mile
lower it is joined by el Wād from the North, and a little farther
on by the Wâdy er Râbâbi from the West. South of Bîr
Eyyûb, the valley formed by their union is continued under the name
of Wâdy en Nâr to the Dead Sea. This western valley is that
commonly known as the Brook Kidron, or, more shortly, the “Brook” (naḥal),
or ravine (see KIDRON), but named from the 5th century onward by Christians the
VALLEY OF JEHOSHAPHAT (which see). The rocky tongue of land enclosed between
these deep ravines, an area, roughly speaking, a little over one mile long by
half a mile wide, is further subdivided into a number of distinct hills by some
shallower valleys. The most prominent of these - indeed the only one noticeable
to the superficial observer today - is the great central valley known to modern
times by the single name el Wād, “the valley.” It commences in a
slight depression of the ground a little North of the modern “Damascus Gate,”
and after entering the city at this gate it rapidly deepens - a fact largely
disguised today by the great accumulation of rubbish in its course. It
traverses the city with the Ḥaram to its east, and the Christian
and Moslem quarters on rapidly rising ground to its west. Its course is
observed near the Bâb es Silseleh, where it is crossed by an
ancient causeway, but farther South the valley reappears, having the walls of
the Ḥaram (near the “wailing place” and “Robinson's arch”) on the
East, and steep cliffs crossed by houses of the Jewish quarter on the West. It
leaves the city at the “Dung Gate,” and passes with an open curve to the East,
until it reaches the Pool of Siloam, below' which it merges in the Wâdy
Sitti Miriam. This is the course of the main valley, but a branch of great
importance in the ancient topography of the city starts some 50 yards to the
West of the modern Jaffa Gate and runs down the Suwaikat Allûn
generally known to travelers as “David's Street,” and thus easterly, along the Tarîk
bâb es Silseleh, until it merges in the main valley. The main valley
is usually considered to be the Tyropoeon, or “Cheesemongers' Valley” of
Josephus, but some writers have attempted to confine the name especially to
this western arm of it.
Another interior valley, which is known rather by
the rock contours, than by surface observations, being largely filled up today,
cuts diagonally across the Northeast corner of the modern city. It has no
modern name, though it is sometimes called “St. Anne's Valley.” It arises in
the plateau near “Herod's Gate,” known as es Ṣahra, and entering
the city about 100 yards to the East of that gate, runs South-Southeast., and
leaves the city between the Northeast angle of the Ḥaram and the
Golden Gate, joining the Kidron valley farther Southeast. The Birket Israel
runs across the width of this valley, which had far more influence in determining
the ancient topography of the city than has been popularly recognized. There is
an artificially made valley between the Ḥaram and the buildings to
its north, and there is thought by many to be a valley between the Southeast
hill, commonly called “Ophel” and the temple-area. Such, then, are the valleys,
great and small, by which the historic hills on which the city stood are
defined. All of them, particularly in their southern parts, were considerably
deeper in ancient times, and in places the accumulated débris is 80 ft. or
more. All of them were originally torrent beds, dry except immediately after
heavy rain. The only perennial outflow of water is the scanty and intermittent
stream which overflows from the Pool of Siloam, and is used to irrigate the
gardens in the Wâdy Sitti Miriam.
3. The
Hills
The East and West valleys isolate a roughly
quadrilateral tongue of land running from Northwest-West to South-Southeast,
and tilted so as to face Southeast. This tongue is further subdivided by el
Wād into two long ridges, which merge into each other in the plateau
to the North. The western ridge has its actual origin considerably North of the
modern wall, being part of the high ground lying between the modern Jaffa road
to the West, and the commencement of the Kidron valley to the East. Within the
city walls it rises as high as 2, 581 ft. near the northwestern corner. It is
divided by the west branch of the Tyropoeon valley into two parts: a northern
part - the northwestern hill - on which is situated today the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre and the greater part of the “Christian quarter” of the city, and
a southern hill - the southwestern - which is connected with the northwestern
hill by but a narrow saddle - 50 yards wide - near the Jaffa Gate. This hill sustains
the citadel (the so-called “Tower of David”), the barracks and the Armenian
quarter within the walls, and the Coenaculum and adjacent buildings outside the
walls. This hill is from 2,500 to 2,350 ft. high along its summit, but drops
rapidly on its southwestern, southern and southeastern sides. In its central
part it falls much more gently toward the eastern hill across the now largely
filled valley el Wad.
The eastern ridge may be reckoned as beginning at
the rocky hill el-Edhemîyeh - popularly known as Gordon's
Calvary - but the wide trench made here by quarrying somewhat obscures this
fact. The ridge may for convenience be regarded as presenting three parts, the
northeastern, central or central-eastern, and southeastern summits. The
northeastern hill within the modern wall supports the Moslem quarter, and rises
in places to a height of over 2,500 ft.; it narrows to a mere neck near the
“Ecce Homo” arch, where it is joined to the barracks, on the site of the
ancient Antonia. Under the present surface it is here separated from the temple
summit by a deep rocky trench.
The central, or central-eastern, summit is that
appearing as es Sakhra, the sacred temple rock, which is 2,404 ft. high.
This is the highest point from which the ground rapidly falls East, West, and
South, but the natural contours of the adjacent ground are much obscured by the
great substructures which have been made to sustain the temple platform.
The sloping, southeastern, hill, South of the
temple area appears today, at any rate, to have a steady fall of from 2,350 ft.
just South of the Ḥaram southern wall to a little over 2,100 ft.
near the Pool of Siloam. It is a narrow ridge running in a somewhat curved
direction, with a summit near 200 ft. above the Kidron and 100 ft. above the
bed of the Tyropoeon. In length it is not more than 600 yards, in width, at its
widest, only 150 yards, but its chief feature, its natural strength, is today
greatly obscured on account of the rubbish which slopes down its sides and
largely fills up its surrounding valleys. In earlier times, at least three of
its sides were protected by deep valleys, and probably on quite two-thirds of
its circumference its summit was surrounded by natural rocky scarps. According
to Professor Guthe, this hill is divided from the higher ground to the North by
a depression 12 ft. deep and 30-50 yards wide, but this has not been confirmed
by other observers. The city covering so hilly a site as this must ever have
consisted, as it does today, of houses terraced on steep slopes' with stairways
for streets.
IV. General Topography of
Jerusalem
From the foregoing description of the “natural
site,” it will be seen that we have to deal with 5 natural subdivisions or
hills, two on the western and three on the eastern ridges.
1.
Description of Josephus
In discussing the topography it is useful to
commence with the description of Josephus, wherein he gives to these 5 areas
the names common in his day (BJ, V, iv, 1, 2). He says: “The city was
built upon two hills which are opposite to one another and have a valley to
divide them asunder ... Now the Valley of the Cheesemongers, as it was called,
and was that which distinguished the hill of the upper city from that of the
lower, extended as far as Siloam” (ibid., V, iv, 1). Here we get the first
prominent physical feature, the bisection of the city-site into two main hills.
Farther on, however, in the same passage - one, it must be admitted, of some
obscurity - Josephus distinguishes 5 distinct regions:
(1) The Upper City or Upper
Market Place
(The hill) “which sustains the upper city is much
higher and in length more direct. Accordingly, it was called the citadel (φρούριον,
phroúrion) of King David ... but it is by us called the Upper
Market Place.” This is without dispute the southwestern hill.
(2) Akra and Lower City
“The other hill, which was called Akra, and
sustains the lower city, was double-curved” (ἀμφίκυρτος,
amphíkurtos). The description can apply only to the semicircular
shape of the southeastern hill, as viewed from the “upper city.” These names,
“Akra” and “Lower City,” are, with reservations, therefore, to be applied to
the southeastern hill.
(3) The Temple Hill
Josephus' description here is curious, on account
of its indefiniteness, but there can be no question as to which hill he
intends. He writes: “Over against this is a third hill, but naturally lower
than the Akra and parted formerly from the other by a fiat valley. However, in
those times when the Hasmoneans reigned, they did away with this valley,
wishing to connect the city with the temple; and cutting down the summit of the
Akra, they made it lower, so that the temple might be visible over it.”
Comparison with other passages shows that this “third hill” is the
central-eastern - the “Temple Hill.”
(4) Bezetha
“It was Agrippa who encompassed the parts added to
the old city with this wall (i.e. the third wall) which had been all naked
before; for as the city grew more populous, it gradually crept beyond its old
limits, and those parts of it that stood northward of the Temple, and joined
that hill to the city, made it considerably larger, and occasioned that hill
which is in number the fourth, and is called 'Bezetha,' to be inhabited also.
It lies over against the tower Antonia, but is divided from it by a deep
valley, which was dug on purpose.... This new-built part of the city was called
'Bezetha' in our language, which, if interpreted in the Greek language, may be
called the 'New City.'” This is clearly the northeastern hill.
(5) The Northern Quarter of
the City
From the account of the walls given by Josephus, it
is evident that the northern part of his “first wall” ran along the northern
edge of the southwestern hill; the second wall enclosed the inhabited part of
the northwestern hill. Thus Josephus writes: “The second wall took its
beginning from the gate which they called Gennath in the first wall, and
enclosing, the northern quarter only reached to the Antonia.” This area is not
described as a separate hill, as the inhabited area, except on the South, was
defined by no natural valleys, and besides covering the northwestern hill, must
have extended into the Tyropoeon valley.
2.
Summary of the Names of the Five Hills
Here then we have Josephus' names for these five
districts:
(1) Southwestern Hill
Southwestern Hill, “Upper City” and “Upper Market
Place”; also the Summary, Phrourion, or “fortress of David.” From the
4th century ad, this hill has also been known as “Zion,” and on it today is the
so-called “Tower of David,” built on the foundations of two of Herod's great
towers.
(2) Northwestern Hill
“The northern quarter of the city.” This district
does not appear to have had any other name in Old Testament or New Testament,
though some of the older authorities would place the “Akra” here (see infra).
Today it is the “Christian quarter” of Jerusalem, which centers round the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
(3) Northeastern Hill
“Bezetha” or “New City,” even now a somewhat
sparsely inhabited area, has no name in Biblical literature.
(4) Central-Eastern Hill
The “third hill” of Josephus, clearly the site of
the Temple which, as Josephus says (BJ, V, v), “was built upon a strong
hill.” In earlier times it was the “threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite.”
On the question whether it has any claims to be the Moriah of Gen_22:2, as it is called in 2Ch_3:1, see MORIAH. The temple hill is also in
many of the Hebrew writings called Zion, on which point see ZION.
(5) Southeastern Hill
This Josephus calls “Akra” and “Lower City,” but
while on the one hand these names require some elucidation, there are other
names which have at one period or another come to be applied to this hill,
namely, “City of David,” “Zion” and “Ophel.” These names for this hill we shall
now deal with in order.
3. The
Akra
In spite of the very definite description of
Josephus, there has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the
situation of the “Akra.” Various parts of the northwestern, the northeastern,
the southeastern hills, and even the central-eastern itself, have been suggested
by earlier authorities, but instead of considering the various arguments, now
largely out of date, for other proposed sites, it will be better to deal with
the positive arguments for the southeastern hill. Josephus states that in his
day the term “Akra” was applied to the southeastern hill, but in references to
the earlier history it is clear that the Akra was not a whole hill, but a
definite fortress (ἄκρα,
ákra = “fortress”).
(1) It was situated on the site, or on part of the
site, which was considered in the days of the Maccabees to have been the “City
of David.” Antiochus Epiphanes (168 bc), after destroying Jerusalem, “fortitled
the city of David with a great and strong wall, with strong towers and it
became unto them an Akra” (1 Macc 1:33-36). The formidable fortress - known
henceforth as “the Akra” - became a constant menace to the Jews, until at
length, in 142 bc, it was captured by Simon, who not only razed the whole fortress,
but, according to Josephus (Ant., XIII, vi, 7; BJ, V, iv, 1),
actually cut down the hill on which it stood. He says that “they all, labouring
zealously, demolished the hill, and ceasing not from the work night and day for
three whole years, brought it to a level and even slope, so that the Temple
became the highest of all after the Akra and the hill upon which it was built
had been removed” (Ant., XIII, vi, 7). The fact that at the time of
Josephus this hill was evidently lower than the temple hill is in itself
sufficient argument against any theory which would place the Akra on the
northwestern or southwestern hills. (2) The Akra was close to the temple (1
Macc 13:52), and from its walls the garrison could actually overlook it (1 Macc
14:36). Before the hill was cut down it obscured the temple site (same place) .
(3) It is identified by Josephus as forming part, at least, of the lower city,
which (see below) bordered upon the temple (compare BJ, I, i, 4; V, iv,
1; vi, 1). (4) The Septuagint identifies the Akra with Millo (2Sa_5:9; 1Ki_9:15-24;
2Ch_32:5).
Allowing that the original Akra of the Syrians was
on the southeastern hill, it is still a matter of some difficulty to determine
whereabouts it stood, especially as, if the statements of Josephus are correct,
the natural configuration of the ground has been greatly altered. The most
prominent point upon the southeastern hill, in the neighborhood of Gihon,
appears to have been occupied by the Jebusite fortress of ZION (which see), but
the site of the Akra can hardly be identical with this, for this became the
“City of David,” and here were the venerated tombs of David and the Judean
kings, which must have been destroyed if this hill was, as Josephus states, cut
down. On this and other grounds we must look for a site farther north. Sir
Charles Watson (PEFS, 1906, 1907) has produced strong topographical and
literary arguments for placing it where the al Aḳsa mosque is
today; other writers are more inclined to put it farther south, somewhere in
the neighborhood of the massive tower discovered by Warren on the “Ophel” wall
(see MILLO). If the account of Josephus, written two centuries after the
events, is to be taken as literal, then Watson's view is the more probable.
4. The
Lower City
Josephus, as we have seen, identified the Akra of
his day with the Lower City. This latter is not a name occurring in the Bible
because, as will be shown, the Old Testament name for this part was “City of
David.” That by Lower City Josephus means the southeastern hill is shown by
many facts. It is actually the lowest part of the city, as compared with the
“Upper City,” Temple Hill and the Bezetha; it is, as Josephus describes, separated
from the Upper City by a deep valley - the Tyropoeon; this southeastern hill is
“double-curved,” as Josephus describes, and lastly several passages in his
writings show that the Lower City was associated with the Temple on the one end
and the Pool of Siloam at the other (compare Ant, XIV, xvi, 2; BJ,
II, xvii, 5; IV, ix, 12; VI, vi, 3; vii, 2).
In the wider sense the “Lower City” must have
included, not only the section of the city covering the southeastern hill up to
the temple precincts, where were the palaces (BJ, V, vi, 1; VI, vi, 3),
and the homes of the well-to-do, but also that in the valley of the Tyropoeon
from Siloam up to the “Council House,” which was near the northern “first wall”
(compare BJ, V, iv, 2), a part doubtless inhabited by the poorest.
5.
City of David and Zion
It is clear (2Sa_5:7;
1Ch_11:5) that the citadel “Zion” of
the Jebusites became the “City of David,” or as G. A. Smith calls it, “David's
Burg,” after its capture by the Hebrews. The arguments for placing “Zion” on
the southeastern hill are given elsewhere (see ZION), but a few acts relevant
especially to the “City of David” may be mentioned here: the capture of the
Jebusite city by means of the gutter (2Sa_5:8),
which is most reasonably explained as “Warren's Shaft” (see VII); the
references to David's halt on his flight (2Sa_15:23),
and his sending Solomon to Gihon to be crowned (1Ki_1:33),
and the common expression “up,” used in describing the transference of the Ark
from the City of David to the Temple Hill (1Ki_8:1;
2Ch_5:2; compare 1Ki_9:24), are all consistent with this view.
More convincing are the references to Hezekiah's aqueduct which brought the
waters of Gihon “down on the west side of the city of David” (2Ch_32:30); the mention of the City of David as
adjacent to the Pool of Shelah (or Shiloah; compare Isa_8:6),
and the “king's garden” in Neh_3:15,
and the position of the Fountain Gate in this passage and Neh_12:37; and the statement that Manasseh built
“an outer wall to the City of David, on the west side of Gihon” in the naḥal,
i.e. the Kidron valley (2Ch_33:14).
The name appears to have had a wider significance
as the city grew. Originally “City of David” was only the name of the Jebusite
fort, but later it became equivalent to the whole southeastern hill. In the
same way, Akra was originally the name of the Syrian fort, but the name became
extended to the whole southeastern hill. Josephus looks upon “City of David”
and “Akra” as synonymous, and applies to both the name “Lower City.” For the
names Ophel and Ophlas see OPHEL.
V. Excavations and
Antiquities
During the last hundred years explorations and
excavations of a succession of engineers and archaeologists have furnished an
enormous mass of observations for the understanding of the condition of ancient
Jerusalem. Some of the more important are as follows:
In 1833 Messrs. Bonorni, Catherwood and Arundale
made a first thorough survey of the Ḥaram (temple-area), a work
which was the foundation of all subsequent maps for over a quarter of a
century.
1.
Robinson
In 1838, and again in 1852, the famous American
traveler and divine, E. Robinson, D.D., visited the land as the representative
of an American society, and made a series of brilliant topographical
investigations of profound importance to all students of the Holy Land, even
today.
In 1849 Jerusalem was surveyed by Lieuts. Aldrich
and Symonds of the Royal Engineers, and the data acquired were used for a map
constructed by Van de Vilde and published by T. Tobler.
In 1857 an American, J.T. Barclay, published another
map of Jerusalem and its environs “from actual and minute survey made on the
spot.”
In 1860-1863 De Vogüé in the course of some
elaborate researches in Syria explored the site of the sanctuary.
2.
Wilson and the Palestine Exploration Fund (1865)
In 1864-65 a committee was formed in London to
consider the sanitary condition of Jerusalem, especially with a view to
furnishing the city with a satisfactory water-supply, and Lady Burdett-Coutts
gave 500 pounds toward a proper survey of Jerusalem and its environs as a
preliminary step. Captain (later Lieutenant-General Sir Charles) Wilson, R.E.,
was lent by the Ordnance Survey Department of Great Britain for the purpose.
The results of this survey, and of certain tentative excavations and
observations made at the same time, were so encouraging that in 1865 “The
Palestine Exploration Fund” was constituted, “for the purpose of investigating
the archaeology, geography, geology, and natural history of the Holy Land.”
3.
Warren and Conder
During 1867-70 Captain (later Lieutenant-General
Sir Charles) Warren, R.E., carried out a series of most exciting and original
excavations all over the site of Jerusalem, especially around the Ḥaram̌.
During 1872-75 Lieutenant (later Lieutenant-Colonel) Conder, R.E., in the
course of the great survey of Western Palestine, made further contributions to
our knowledge of the Holy City.
4.
Maudslay
In 1875 Mr. Henry Maudslay, taking advantage of the
occasion of the rebuilding of “Bishop Gobat's Boys' School,” made a careful
examination of the remarkable rock cuttings which are now more or less
incorporated into the school buildings, and made considerable excavations, the
results being described in PEFS (April, 1875).
In 1881 Professor Guthe made a series of important
excavations on the southeastern hill, commonly called “Ophel,” and also near
the Pool of Siloam; his reports were published in ZDPV, 1882.
5.
Schick
The same year (1881), the famous Siloam inscription
was discovered and was first reported by Herr Baurath Schick, a resident in
Jerusalem who from 1866 until his death in 1901 made a long series of
observations of the highest importance on the topography of Jerusalem. He had
unique opportunities for scientifically examining the buildings in the Ḥaram,
and the results of his study of the details of that locality are incorporated
in his wonderful Temple model. He also made a detailed report of the ancient
aqueducts of the city. Most important of all were the records he so patiently
and faithfully kept of the rock levels in all parts of the city's site whenever
the digging of foundations for buildings or other excavations gave access to
the rock. His contributions to the PEF and ZDPV run into hundreds
of articles.
6.
Clermont-Ganneau
M. Clermont-Ganneau, who was resident in Jerusalem
in the French consular service, made for many years, from 1880 onward, a large
number of acute observations on the archaeology of Jerusalem and its environs,
many of which were published by the PEF. Another name honored in
connection with the careful study of the topography of Jerusalem over somewhat
the same period is that of Selah Merrill, D.D., for many years U.S. consul in
Jerusalem.
7.
Bliss and Dickie
In 1894-97 the Palestine Exploration Fund conducted
an elaborate series of excavations with a view to determining in particular the
course of the ancient southern walls under the direction of Mr. T.J. Bliss (son
of Daniel Bliss, D.D., then president of the Syrian Protestant College,
Beirût), assisted by Mr. A.C. Dickie as architect. After picking up the buried
foundations of walls at the southeastern corner where “Maudslay's scarp” was
exposed in the Protestant cemetery, Bliss and Dickie followed them all the way
to the Pool of Siloam, across the Tyropoeon and on to “Ophel” - and also in
other directions. Discoveries of great interest were also made in the
neighborhood of the Pool of Siloam (see SILOAM).
Following upon these excavations a number of
private investigations have been made by the Augustinians in a large estate
they have acquired on the East side of the traditional hill of Zion.
In 1909-1911 a party of Englishmen, under Captain
the Honorable M. Parker, made a number of explorations with very elaborate
tunnels upon the hill of Ophel, immediately above the Virgin's Fount. In the
course of their work, they cleaned out the whole Siloam aqueduct, finding some
new passages; they reconstructed the Siloam Pool, and they completed Warren's
previous investigation in the neighborhood of what has been known as “Warren's
Shaft.”
8.
Jerusalem Archaeological Societies
There are several societies constantly engaged in
observing new facts connected with the topography of ancient Jerusalem, notably
the School of Archaeology connected with the University of Stephens, under the
Dominicans; the American School of Archaeology; the German School of Biblical
Archaeology under Professor Dalman, and the Palestine Exploration Fund.
VI. The City's Walls and
Gates
1. The Existing Walls
Although the existing walls
of Jerusalem go back in their present form to but the days of Suleiman the
Magnificent, circa 1542 ad, their study is an essential preliminary to the
understanding of the ancient walls. The total circuit of the modern walls is
4,326 yards, or nearly 2 1/8 miles, their average height is 35 ft., and they
have altogether 35 towers and 8 gates - one of which is walled up. They make a
rough square, with the four sides facing the cardinal points of the compass.
The masonry is of various kinds, and on every side there are evidences that the
present walls are a patchwork of many periods. The northern wall, from near the
northwestern angle to some distance East of the “Damascus Gate,” lies parallel
with, though somewhat inside of, an ancient fosse, and it and the gate itself
evidently follow ancient lines. The eastern and western walls, following as
they do a general direction along the edges of deep valleys, must be more or
less along the course of earlier walls. The eastern wall, from a little south of
Stephen's Gate to the southeastern angle, contains many ancient courses, and
the general line is at least as old as the time of Herod the Great; the stretch
of western wall from the so-called “Tower of David” to the southwestern corner
is certainly along an ancient line and has persisted through very many
centuries. This line of wall was allowed to remain undestroyed when Titus
leveled the remainder. At the northwestern angle are some remains known as Ḳala‛at
Jalûd (“Goliath's castle”), which, though largely medieval, contain a
rocky core and some masonry of Herodian times, which are commonly accepted as
the relics of the lofty tower Psephinus.
2. Wilson's Theory
The course of the southern
wall has long been a difficulty; it is certainly not the line of wall before
Titus; it has none of the natural advantages of the western and eastern walls,
and there are no traces of any great rock fosse, such as is to be found on the
north. The eastern end is largely built upon the lower courses of Herod's
southern wall for his enlarged temple-platform, and in it are still to be found
walled up the triple, single and double gates which lead up to the Temple. The
irregular line followed by the remainder of this wall has not until recent
times received any explanation. Sir Charles Wilson (Golgotha and the Holy
Sepulchre) suggests the probable explanation that the line of wall from the
southwestern to the “Zion Gate” was determined by the legionary camp which
stood on the part of the city now covered by the barracks and the Armenian
quarter. Allowing that the remains of the first wall on the North and West were
utilized for this fortified camp (from 70-132 ad), and supposing the camp to
have occupied the area of 50 acres, as was the case with various European Roman
camps, whose remains are known, the southern camp wall would have run along the
line of the existing southern walls. This line of fortification having been
thus selected appears to have been followed through the greater part of the
succeeding centuries down to modern times. The line connecting the two
extremities of the southern wall, thus determined by the temple-platform and
legionary camp, respectively, was probably that first followed by the southern
wall of Hadrian's city AElia.
3. The Existing Gate
Of the 8 existing city
gates, on the west side there is but one, Bâb el Khulîl (the
“Gate of Hebron”), commonly known to travelers as the Jaffa Gate. It is
probably the site of several earlier gates. On the North there are 3 gates, Bâb
Abd'ul Ḥamîd (named after the sultan who made it) or the “New
Gate”; Bab el ‛amûd (“Gate of the Columns”), now commonly
called the “Damascus Gate,” but more in ancient times known as “St. Stephen's
Gate,” and clearly, from the existing remains, the site of an earlier gateway;
and, still farther east, the Bâb es Sāhirah (“Gate of the
Plain”), or “Herod's Gate.” On the east side the only open gate is the Bâb
el ‛Asbat (“Gate of the Tribes”), commonly called by native
Christians, Bâb Sitti Miriam (“Gate of the Lady Mary”), but in
European guide-books called “St. Stephen's Gate.” A little farther South, near
the northeastern corner of the Ḥaram, is the great walled-up
Byzantine Gate, known as Bâb ed Daharīyeh (“Gate of the
Conqueror”), but to Europeans as the “Golden Gate.” This structure has been
variously ascribed to Justinian and Heraclius, but there are massive blocks
which belong to a more ancient structure, and early Christian tradition places
the “Beautiful Gate” of the Temple here. In the southern wall are two city
gates; one, insignificant and mean, occupies the center of el Wād
and is known as Bâb el Mughāribeh (“Gate of the Moors”), and
to Europeans as the “Dung Gate”; the other, which is on the crown of the
western hill, traditional Zion, is the important Bâb Nebi Daoud
(“Gate of the Prophet David”), or the “Zion Gate.”
All these gates assumed
their present form at the time of the reconstruction of the walls by Suleiman
the Magnificent, but the more important ones occupy the sites of earlier gates.
Their names have varied very much even since the times of the Crusaders. The
multiplicity of names for these various gates - they all have two or three
today - and their frequent changes are worth noticing in connection with the
fact that in the Old Testament history some of the gates appear to have had two
or more names.
As has been mentioned, the
course of the present southern wall is the result of Roman reconstruction of
the city since the time of Titus. To Warren, Guthe, Maudslay and Bliss we owe a
great deal of certain knowledge of its more ancient course. These explorers
have shown that in all the pre-Roman period (and at least one period since) the
continuation southward of the western and eastern ridges, as well as the wide
valley between - an area now but sparsely inhabited - was the site of at once
the most crowded life, and the most stirring scenes in the Hebrew history of
the city. The sanctity of the Holy Sepulchre has caused the city life to center
itself more and more around that sanctuary, thereby greatly confusing the
ancient topography for many centuries.
4. Buried Remains of Earlier Walls
(1) Warren's excavations
revealed: (a) a massive masonry wall 46 ft. East of the Golden Gate,
which curved toward the West at its northern end, following the ancient rock
contours at this spot. It is probable that this was the eastern wall of the
city in pre-Herodian times. Unfortunately the existence of a large Moslem
cemetery outside the eastern wall of the Ḥaram precludes the
possibility of any more excavations in this neighborhood. (b) More
important remains in the southeastern hill, commonly known as “Ophel.” Here
commencing at the southeastern angle of the Ḥaram, Warren
uncovered a wall 14 1/2 ft. thick running South for 90 ft. and then Southwest
along the edge of the hill for 700 ft. This wall, which shows at least two
periods of construction, abuts on the sanctuary wall with a straight joint.
Along its course were found 4 small towers with a projection of 6 ft. and a
face from 22 to 28 ft. broad, and a great corner tower projecting 41 1/2 ft.
from the wall and with a face 80 ft. broad. The face of this great tower
consists of stones one to two ft. high and 2 or 3 ft. long; it is founded upon
rock and stands to the height of 66 ft. Warren considers that this may be ha-mighdāl
ha-yōcē' or “tower that standeth out” of Neh_3:25.
(2) In 1881 Professor Guthe
picked up fragmentary traces of this city-wall farther south, and in the
excavations of Captain Parker (1910-1911) further fragments of massive walls
and a very ancient gate have been found.
(3) Maudslay's excavations
were on the southwestern hill, on the site occupied by “Bishop Gobat's School”
for boys, and in the adjoining Anglo-German cemetery. The school is built over
a great mass of scarped rock 45 ft. square, which rises to a height of 20 ft.
from a platform which surrounds it and with which it is connected by a rock-cut
stairway; upon this massive foundation must have stood a great tower at what
was in ancient times the southwestern corner of the city. From this point a
scarp facing westward was traced for 100 ft. northward toward the modern
southwestern angle of the walls, while a rock scarp, in places 40 ft. high on
the outer or southern side and at least 14 ft. on the inner face, was followed
for 250 ft. eastward until it reached another great rock projection with a face
of 43 ft. Although no stones were found in situ, it is evident that such
great rock cuttings must have supported a wall and tower of extraordinary
strength, and hundreds of massive squared stones belonging to this wall are now
incorporated in neighboring buildings.
(4) Bliss and Dickie's work
commenced at the southeastern extremity of Maudslay's scarp, where was the
above-mentioned massive projection for a tower, and here were found several
courses of masonry still in situ. This tower appears to have been the
point of divergence of two distinct lines of wall, one of which ran in a
direction Northeast, skirting the edge of the southeastern hill, and probably
joined the line of the modern walls at the ruined masonry tower known as Burj
el Kebrît, and another running Southeast down toward the Pool of
Siloam, along the edge of the Wâdy er Râbâbi (Hinnom).
The former of these walls cannot be very ancient, because of the occurrence of
late Byzantine moldings in its foundations. The coenaculum was included in the
city somewhere about 435-450 ad (see IX, 55), and also in the 14th century.
Bliss considers it probable that this is the wall built in 1239 By Frederick
II, and it is certainly that depicted in the map of Marino Sanuto (1321 ad).
Although these masonry remains are thus comparatively late, there were some
reasons for thinking that at a much earlier date a wall took a similar
direction along the edge of the southwestern hill; and it is an attractive
theory, though unsupported by any very definite archaeological evidence, that
the wall of Solomon took also this general line. The wall running Southeast
from the tower, along the edge of the gorge of Hinnom, is historically of much
greater importance. Bliss's investigations showed that here were remains
belonging to several periods, covering altogether considerably over a
millennium. The upper line of wall was of fine masonry, with stones 1 ft. by 3
ft. in size, beautifully jointed and finely dressed; in some places this wall
was founded upon the remains of the lower wall, in others a layer of débris
intervened. It is impossible that this upper wall can be pre-Roman, and Bliss
ascribes it to the Empress Eudoxia (see IX, 55). The lower wall rested upon the
rock and showed at least 3 periods of construction. In the earliest the stones
had broad margins and were carefully jointed, without mortar. This may have
been the work of Solomon or one of the early kings of Judah. The later remains
are evidently of the nature of repairs, and include the work of the later
Judean kings, and of Nehemiah and of all the wall-repairers, down to the
destruction in 70 ad. At somewhat irregular intervals along the wall were
towers of very similar projection and breadth to those found on Warren's wall
on the southeastern hill. The wall foundations were traced - except for an
interval where they passed under a Jewish cemetery - all the way to the mouth
of the Tyropoeon valley. The upper wall disappeared (the stones having been all
removed for later buildings) before the Jewish cemetery was reached.
5. The Great Dam of the Tyropoeon
During most periods, if not
indeed in all, the wall was carried across the mouth of the Tyropoeon valley
upon a great dam of which the massive foundations still exist under the ground,
some 50 ft. to the East of the slighter dam which today supports the Birket
el Ḥamra (see SILOAM). This ancient dam evidently once supported a
pool in the mouth of the Tyropoeon, and it showed evidences of having undergone
buttressing and other changes and repairs. Although it is clear that during the
greater part of Jewish history, before and after the captivity, the southern
wall of Jerusalem crossed upon this dam, there were remains of walls found
which tended to show that at one period, at any rate, the wall circled round
the two Siloam pools, leaving them outside the fortifications.
6. Ruins of Ancient Gates
In the stretch of wall from
“Maudslay's Scarp” to the Tyropoeon valley remains of 2 city gates were found,
and doubtful indications of 2 others. The ruins of the first of these gates are
now included in the new extension of the Anglo-German cemetery. The gate had
door sills, with sockets, of 4 periods superimposed upon each other; the width
of the entrance was 8 ft. 10 inches during the earliest, and 8 ft. at the
latest period. The character of the masonry tended to show that the gate
belonged to the upper wall, which is apparently entirely of the Christian era.
If this is so, this cannot be the “Gate of the Gai” of Neh_3:13, although the earlier gate may have
occupied this site. Bliss suggests as a probable position for this gate an
interval between the two contiguous towers IV and V, a little farther to the
East.
Another gate was a small
one, 4 ft. 10 inches wide, marked only by the cuttings in the rock for the door
sockets. It lay a little to the West of the city gate next to be described, and
both from its position and its insignificance, it does not appear to have been
an entrance to the city; it may, as Bliss suggests, have given access to a
tower, now destroyed.
The second great city
gateway was found some 200 ft. South of the Birket el Ḥamra, close
to the southeastern angle of the ancient wall. The existing remains are bonded
into walls of the earlier period, but the three superimposed door sills, with
their sockets - to be seen uncovered today in situ - mark three distinct
periods of long duration. The gate gave access to the great main street running
down the Tyropoeon, underneath which ran a great rock-cut drain, which probably
traversed the whole central valley of the city. During the last two periods of
the gate's use, a tower was erected - at the exact southeastern angle - to
protect the entrance. The earliest remains here probably belong to the Jewish
kings, and it is very probable that we have here the gate called by Neh (Neh_3:13) the “Dung Gate.” Bliss considered that
it might be the “Fountain Gate” (Neh_3:15),
which, however, was probably more to the East, although Bliss could find no
remains of it surviving. The repairs and alterations here have been so
extensive that its disappearance is in no way surprising. The Fountain Gate is
almost certainly identical with the “Gate between the Two Walls,” through which
Zedekiah and his men of war fled (2Ki_25:4;
Jer_39:4; Jer_52:7).
7. Josephus' Description of the Walls
The most definite account
of the old walls is that of Josephus (BJ, V, iv, 1, 2), and though it
referred primarily to the existing walls of his day, it is a convenient one for
commencing the historical survey. He describes three walls. The first wall
“began on the North, at the tower called Hippicus, and extended as far as the
Xistus, and then Joining at the Council House, ended at the western cloister of
the temple.” On the course of this section of the wall there is no dispute. The
tower Hippicus was close to the present Jaffa Gate, and the wall ran from here
almost due West to the temple-area along the southern edge of the western arm
of the Tyropoeon (see III, 2, above). It is probable that the Ḥaret ed
Dawāyeh, a street running nearly parallel with the neighboring “David
Street,” but high up above it, lies above the foundations of this wall.
8. First Wall
It must have crossed the
main Tyropoeon near the Tarīk bāb es Silsilel, and joined
the western cloisters close to where the Meḥkemeh, the present
“Council House,” is situated.
Josephus traces the
southern course of the first wall thus: “It began at the same place (i.e.
Hippicus), and extended through a place called Bethso to the gate of the
Essenes; and after that it went southward, having its bending above the
fountain Siloam, when it also bends again toward the East at Solomon's Pool,
and reaches as far as a certain place which they called 'Ophlas,' where it was
joined to the eastern cloister of the temple.” Although the main course of this
wall has now been followed with pick and shovel, several points are still
uncertain. Bethso is not known, but must have been close to the southwestern
angle, which, as we have seen, was situated where “Bishop Gobat's School” is
today. It is very probably identical with the “Tower of the Furnaces” of Neh_3:11, while the “Gate of the Essenes” must
have been near, if not identical with, the “Gate of the Gai” of Neh_3:13. The description of Josephus certainly
seems to imply that the mouth of the Siloam aqueduct (“fountain of Siloam”) and
the pools were both outside the fortification. We have seen from these
indications in the underground remains that this was the case at one period.
Solomon's Pool is very probably represented by the modern Birket el
Ḥamra. It is clear that the wall from here to the southeastern angle
of the temple-platform followed the edge of the southeastern hill, and
coincided farther north with the old wall excavated by Warren. As will be shown
below, this first wall was the main fortification of the city from the time of
the kings of Judah onward. In the time of Josephus, this first wall had 60
towers.
9. Second Wall
The Second Wall of Josephus
“took its beginning from that gate which they called 'Gennath,' which belonged
to the first wall: it only encompassed the northern quarter of the city and
reached as far as the tower Antonia” (same place). In no part of Jerusalem
topography has there been more disagreement than upon this wall, both as
regards its curve and as regards its date of origin. Unfortunately, we have no
idea at all where the “Gate Gennath” was. The Tower Antonia we know. The line
must have passed in a curved or zigzag direction from some unknown point on the
first wall, i.e. between the Jaffa Gate and the Ḥaram to the
Antonia. A considerable number of authorities in the past and a few careful
students today would identify the general course of this wall with that of the
modern northern wall. The greatest objections to this view are that no really
satisfactory alternative course has been laid down for the third wall (see
below), and that it must have run far North of the Antonia, a course which does
not seem to agree with the description of Josephus, which states that the wall
“went up” to the Antonia. On the other hand, no certain remains of any city
wall within the present north wall have ever been found; fragments have been
reported by various observers (e.g. the piece referred to as forming the
eastern wall of the so-called “Pool of Hezekiah”; see VII, ii, below), but in
an area so frequently desolated and rebuilt upon - where the demand for squared
stones must always have been great - it is probable that the traces, if
surviving at all, are very scanty. This is the case with the south wall
excavated by Bliss (see VI), and that neighborhood has for many centuries been
unbuilt upon. It is quite probable that the area included within the second
wall may have been quite small, merely the buildings which clustered along the
sides of the Tyropoeon. Its 40 towers may have been small and built close
together, because the position was, from the military aspect, weak. It must be
remembered that it was the unsatisfactory state of the second wall which
necessitated a third wall. There is no absolute reason why it may not have
excluded the greater part of the northwestern hill - and with it the site of
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre - but there is no proof that it did. The date
of the second wall is unknown (see below).
10. Third Wall
This third wall, which was
commenced after the time of Christ by Herod Agrippa I, is described in more
detail by Josephus. It was begun upon an elaborate plan, but was not finished
in its original design because Agrippa feared Claudius Caesar, “lest he should
suspect that so strong a wall was built in order to make some innovation in
public affairs” (BJ, V, iv, 2). It, however, at the time of the siege,
was of a breadth of over 18 ft., and a height of 40 ft., and had 90 massive
towers. Josephus describes it as beginning at the tower Hippicus (near the
Jaffa Gate), “where it reached as far as the north quarter of the city, and the
tower Psephinus.” This mighty tower, 135 ft. high, was at the northwestern
corner and overlooked the whole city. From it, according to Josephus (BJ,
V, vi, 3), there was a view of Arabia (Moab) at sunrising, and also of “the
utmost limits of the Hebrew possessions at the Sea westward.” From this corner
the wall turned eastward until it came over against the monuments of Helene of
Adiabene, a statement, however, which must be read in connection with another
passage (Ant., XX, iv, 3), where it says that this tomb “was distant no
more than 3 furlongs from the city of Jerusalem.” The wall then “extended to a
very great length” and passed by the sepulchral caverns of the kings - which
may well be the so-called “Solomon's Quarries,” and it then bent at the “Tower
of the Corner,” at a monument which is called the Monument of the Fuller (not
identified), and joined to the old wall at the Kidron valley.
The commonly accepted
theory is that a great part of this line of wall is that pursued by the modern
north wall, and Kal‛at el Jalud, or rather the foundation of it,
that marks the site of Psephinus. The Damascus Gate is certainly on the line of
some earlier gate. The “Tower of the Corner” was probably about where the
modern Herod's Gate is, or a little more to the East, and the course of the
wall was from here very probably along the southern edge of the “St. Anne's
Valley,” joining on to the Northeast corner of the Ḥaram a little
South of the present Stephen's Gate. This course of the wall fits in well with
the description of Josephus. If the so-called “Tombs of the Kings” are really
those of Queen Helena of Adiabene and her family, then the distance given as 3
furlongs is not as far out as the distance to the modern wall; the distance is
actually 3 1/2 furlongs.
Others, following the
learned Dr. Robinson, find it impossible to believe that the total circuit of
the walls was so small, and would carry the third wall considerably farther
north, making the general line of the modern north wall coincide with the
second wall of Josephus. The supporters of this view point to the description
of the extensive view from Psephinus, and contend that this presupposed a site
on still higher ground, e.g. where the present Russian buildings now are. They
also claim that the statement that the wall came “over against” the monument of
Queen Helena certainly should mean very much nearer that monument than the
present walls. Dr. Robinson and others who have followed him have pointed to
various fragments which they claim to have been pieces of the missing wall. The
present writer, after very many years' residence in Jerusalem, watching the
buildings which in the last 25 years have sprung up over the area across which
this line of wall is claimed to have run, has never seen a trace of wall foundations
or of fosse which was in the very least convincing; while on the other hand
this area now being rapidly covered by the modern suburb of Jerusalem presents
almost everywhere below the surface virgin rock. There is no evidence of any
more buildings than occasional scattered Roman villas, with mosaic floors. The
present writer has rather unwillingly come to the opinion that the city walls
were never farther north than the line they follow today. With respect to the
objection raised that there could not possibly have been room enough between
the two walls for the “Camp of the Assyrians,” where Titus pitched his camp (BJ,
V, vii, 3), any probable line for the second wall would leave a mean of 1,000
ft. between the two walls, and in several directions considerably more. The
probable position of the “Camp of the Assyrians” would, according to this view,
be in the high ground (the northwestern hill) now occupied by the Christian
quarter of the modern city. The question of what the population of Jerusalem
was at this period is discussed in IX, 49, below. For the other great buildings
of the city at this period, see also IX, 43-44, below.
11. Date of Second Wall
Taking then the walls of
Jerusalem as described by Josephus, we may work backward and see how the walls
ran in earlier periods. The third wall does not concern us any more, as it was
built after the Crucifixion. With respect to the second wall, there is a great
deal of difference of opinion regarding its origin. Some consider, like Sir
Charles Watson, that it does not go back earlier than the Hasmoneans; whereas
others (e.g. G.A. Smith), because of the expression in 2Ch_32:5 that Hezekiah, after repairing the
wall, raised “another wall without,” think that this wall goes back as far as
this monarch. The evidence is inconclusive, but the most probable view seems to
be that the “first wall,” as described by Josephus, was the only circuit of
wall from the kings of Judah down to the 2nd century bc, and perhaps later.
12. Nehemiah's Account of the Walls
The most complete
Scriptural description we have of the walls and gates of Jerusalem is that
given by Nehemiah. His account is valuable, not only as a record of what he
did, but of what had been the state of the walls before the exile. It is
perfectly clear that considerable traces of the old walls and gates remained,
and that his one endeavor was to restore what had been before - even though it
produced a city enclosure much larger than necessary at his time. The relevant
passages are Neh_2:13-15, the account
of his night ride; 3:1-32, the description of the rebuilding; and Neh_12:31-39, the routes of the two processions
at the dedication.
13. Valley Gate
In the first account we
learn that Nehemiah went out by night by the VALLEY GATE (which see), or Gate
of the Gai, a gate (that is, opening) into the Gai Hinnom, and probably at or
near the gate discovered by Bliss in what is now part of the Anglo-German
cemetery; he passed from it to the Dung Gate, and from here viewed the walls of
the city.
14. Dung Gate
This, with considerable
assurance, may be located at the ruined foundations of a gate discovered by
Bliss at the southeastern corner of the city. The line of wall clearly followed
the south edge of the southwestern hill from the Anglo-German cemetery to this
point. He then proceeded to the Fountain Gate, the site of which has not been
recovered, but, as there must have been water running out here (as today) from
the mouth of the Siloam tunnel, is very appropriately named here.
15. Fountain Gate
Near by was the KING'S POOL
(which see), probably the pool - now deeply buried - which is today represented
by the Birket el Ḥamra. Here Nehemiah apparently thought of
turning into the city, “but there was no place for the beast that was under me
to pass” (Neh_2:14), so he went up by
the Naḥal (Kidron), viewed the walls from there, and then retraced
his steps to the Valley Gate. There is another possibility, and that is that
the King's Pool was the pool (which certainly existed) at Gihon, in which case
the Fountain Gate may also have been in that neighborhood.
All the archaeological
evidence is in favor of the wall having crossed the mouth of the Tyropoeon by
the great dam at this time, and the propinquity of this structure to the
Fountain Gate is seen in Neh_3:15,
where we read that Shallum built the Fountain Gate “and covered it, and set up
the doors thereof ... and the bars thereof, and the wall of the pool of Shelah
(see SILOAM) by the KING'S GARDEN (which see), even unto the stairs that go
down from the city of David.” All these localities were close together at the
mouth of el Wād.
Passing from here we can
follow the circuit of the city from the accounts of the rebuilding of the walls
in Neh_3:15 f. The wall from here was
carried “over against the sepulchres of David,” which we know to have stood in
the original “City of David” above Gihon, past “the pool that was made,” and
“the house of the Gibbōrīm” (mighty men) - both unknown
sites. It is clear that the wall is being carried along the edge of the
southeastern hill toward the temple. We read of two angles in the wall - both
needed by the geographical conditions - the high priest's house, of “the tower
that standeth out” (supposed to have been unearthed by Warren), and the wall of
the OPHEL (which see).
16. Water Gate
There is also mention of a
Water Gate in this position, which is just where one would expect a road to
lead from the temple-area down to Gihon. From the great number of companies
engaged in building, it may be inferred that all along this stretch of wall from
the Tyropoeon to the temple, the destruction of the walls had been specially
great.
17. Horse Gate
Proceeding North, we come
to the Horse Gate. This was close to the entry to the king's house (2Ki_11:16; 2Ch_23:15;
Jer_31:40). The expression used, “above”
the Horse Gate, may imply that the gate itself may have been uninjured; it may
have been a kind of rock-cut passage or tunnel. It cannot have been far from
the present southeastern angle of the city. Thence “repaired the priests, every
one over against his own house” - the houses of these people being to the East
of the temple. Then comes the GATE OF HAMMIPHKAD (which see), the ascent (or
“upper chamber,” margin) of the corner, and finally the SHEEP GATE (which see),
which was repaired by the goldsmiths and merchants.
18. Sheep Gate
This last gate was the
point from which the circuit of the repairs was traced. The references, Neh_3:1, Neh_3:31;
Neh_12:39, clearly show that it was at
the eastern extremity of the north wall.
The details of the gates
and buildings in the north wall as described by Nehemiah, are difficult, and
certainty is impossible; this side must always necessarily have been the weak
side for defense because it was protected by no, or at best by very little,
natural valley. As has been said, we cannot be certain whether Nehemiah is
describing a wall which on its western two-thirds corresponded with the first
or the second wall of Josephus. Taking the first theory as probable, we may
plan it as follows: West of the Sheep Gate two towers are mentioned (Neh_3:1; Neh_12:39).
Of these HANANEL (which see) was more easterly than HAMMEAH (which see), and,
too, it would appear from Zec_14:10 to
have been the most northerly point of the city. Probably then two towers
occupied the important hill where afterward stood the fortress Baris and,
later, the Antonia. At the Hammeah tower the wall would descend into the
Tyropoeon to join the eastern extremity of the first wall where in the time of
Josephus stood the Council House (BJ, V, iv, 2).
19. Fish Gate
It is generally considered
that the FISH GATE (which see) (Neh_3:3;
Neh_12:39; Zep_1:10;
2Ch_33:14) stood across the Tyropoeon
in much the same way as the modern Damascus Gate does now, only considerably
farther South. It was probably so called because here the men of Tyre sold
their fish (Neh_13:16). It is very
probably identical with the “Middle Gate” of Jer_39:3.
With this region are associated the MISHNEH (which see) or “second quarter” (Zep_1:10 margin) and the MAKTESH (which see) or
“mortar” (Zep_1:11).
20. “Old Gate”
The next gate westward,
after apparently a considerable interval, is translated in English Versions of
the Bible the “OLD GATE” (which see), but is more correctly the “Gate of the
old ....”; what the word thus qualified is, is doubtful. Neh_3:6 margin suggests “old city” or
“old wall,” whereas Mitchell (Wall of Jerusalem according to the Book
of Neh) proposes “old pool,” taking the pool in question to be the
so-called “Pool of Hezekiah.” According to the view here accepted, that the
account of Nehemiah refers only to the first wall, the expression “old wall”
would be peculiarly suitable, as here must have been some part of that first
wall which went back unaltered to the time of Solomon. The western wall to the
extent of 400 cubits had been rebuilt after its destruction by Jehoash, king of
Israel (see IX, 12, below), and Manasseh had repaired all the wall from Gihon
round North and then West to the Fish Gate. This gate has also been identified
with the Sha‛ar ha-Pinnāh, or “Corner Gate,” of 2Ki_14:13; 2Ch_25:23;
Jer_31:38; Zec_14:10,
and with the Sha‛ar ha-Ri'shōn, or “First Gate,” of Zec_14:10, which is identified as the same as
the Corner Gate; indeed ri'shōn (“first”) is probably a textual
error for yāshān (“old”). If this is so, this “Gate of the
Old” or “Corner Gate” must have stood near the northwestern corner of the city,
somewhere near the present Jaffa Gate.
21. Gate of Ephraim
The next gate mentioned is
the Gate of Ephraim (Neh_12:39), which,
according to 2Ki_14:13; 2Ch_25:23, was 400 cubits or 600 ft. from the
Corner Gate. This must have been somewhere on the western wall; it is scarcely
possible to believe, as some writers would suggest, that there could have been
no single gate between the Corner Gate near the northwestern corner and the
Valley Gate on the southern wall.
22. Tower of the Furnaces
The “Broad Wall” appears to
correspond to the southern stretch of the western wall as far as the “Tower of
the Furnaces” or ovens, which was probably the extremely important corner tower
now incorporated in “Bishop Gobat's School.” This circuit of the walls
satisfies fairly well all the conditions; the difficulties are chiefly on the
North and West. It is a problem how the Gate of Ephraim comes to be omitted in
the account of the repairs, but G.A. Smith suggests that it may be indicated by
the expression, “throne of the governor beyond the river” (Neh_3:7). See, however, Mitchell (loc. cit.). If
theory be accepted that the second wall already existed, the Corner Gate and
the Fish Gate will have to be placed farther north.
23. The Gate of Benjamin
In Old Testament as in
later times, some of the gates appear to have received different names at
various times. Thus the Sheep Gate, at the northeastern angle, appears to be
identical with the Gate of Benjamin or Upper Gate of Benjamin (Jer_20:2; Jer_37:13;
Jer_38:7); the prophet was going,
apparently, the nearest way to his home in Anathoth. In Zec_14:10 the breadth of the city is indicated,
where the prophet writes, “She shall be lifted up, and shall dwell in her
place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner
gate.”
24. Upper Gate of the Temple
The Upper Gate of the
Temple (2Ki_15:35; 2Ch_27:3; compare 2Ch_23:20;
Eze_9:2) is probably another name for
the same gate. It must be remembered the gates were, as excavations have shown
us, reduced to a minimum in fortified sites: they were sources of weakness.
The general outline of the
walls and gates thus followed is in the main that existing from Nehemiah back
until the early Judean monarchy, and possibly to Solomon.
25. The Earlier Walls
Of the various destructions
and repairs which occurred during the time of the monarchy, a sufficient
account is given in IX below, on the history. Solomon was probably the first to
enclose the northwestern hill within the walls, and to him usually is ascribed
all the northern and western stretch of the “First Wall”; whether his wall ran
down to the mouth of the Tyropoeon, or only skirted the summit of the
northwestern hill is uncertain, but the latter view is probable. David was
protected by the powerful fortifications of the Jebusites, which probably
enclosed only the southeastern hill; he added to the defenses the fortress
MILLO (which see). It is quite possible that the original Jebusite city had but
one gate, on the North (2Sa_15:2), but
the city must have overflowed its narrow limits during David's reign and have
needed an extended and powerful defense, such as Solomon made, to secure the
capital. For the varied history and situation of the walls in the post-Biblical
period, see IX (“History”), below.
VII. Antiquarian Remains
Connected with the Water-Supply
In a city like Jerusalem, where the problem of a
water-supply must always have been one of the greatest, it is only natural that
some of the most ancient and important works should have centered round it. The
three sources of supply have been (1) springs, (2) cisterns, (3) aqueducts.
1.
Gihon: The Natural Spring
(1) The natural springs have been described
in II, 3; but connected with them, and especially with the city's greatest and
most venerated source, the Gihon, there are certain antiquarian remains of
great interest.
(a) The “Virgin's Fount,” ancient Gihon,
arises, as has been described (II, 3), in a rocky cleft in the Kidron valley
bottom; under natural conditions the water would run along the valley bed, now
deeply buried under débris of the ancient city, and doubtless when the earliest
settlers made their dwellings in the caves (which have been excavated) on the
sides of the valley near the spring, they and their flocks lived on the banks
of a stream of running water in a sequestered valley among waterless hills.
From, however, a comparatively early period - at the least 2000 bc - efforts
were made to retain some of the water, and a solid stone dam was built which
converted the sources into a pool of considerable depth. Either then, or
somewhat later, excavations were made in the cliffs overhanging the pool,
whereby some at least of these waters were conducted, by means of a tunnel,
into the heart of the southeastern hill, “Ophel,” so that the source could be
reached from within the city walls. There are today two systems of tunnels
which are usually classed as one under the name of the “Siloam aqueduct,” but
the two systems are probably many centuries apart in age.
2. The
Aqueduct of the Canaanites
The older tunnel begins in a cave near the source
and then runs westward for a distance of 67 ft.; at the inner end of the tunnel
there is a perpendicular shaft which ascends for over 40 ft. and opens into a
lofty rock-cut passage which runs, with a slight lateral curvature, to the
North, in the direction of the surface. The upper end has been partially
destroyed, and the roof, which had fallen in, was long ago partially restored
by a masonry arch. At this part of the passage the floor is abruptly interrupted
across its whole width by a deep chasm which Warren partially excavated, but
which Parker has since conclusively shown to end blindly. It is clear that this
great gallery, which is 8 to 9 ft. wide, and in places as high or higher, was
constructed (a natural cavern possibly utilized in the process) to enable the
inhabitants of the walled-in city above it to reach the spring. It is in fact a
similar work to the great water-passage at GEZER (which see), which commenced
in a rock-cut pit 26 ft. deep and descended with steps, to a depth of 94 ft. 6
inches below the level of the rock surface; the sloping passage was 23 ft. high
and 13 ft. broad. This passage which could be dated with certainty as before
1500 bc, and almost certainly as early as 2000 bc, was cut out with flint
knives and apparently was made entirely to reach a great underground source of
water.
3.
Warren's Shaft
The discovery of this Gezer well-passage has thrown
a flood of light upon the “Warren's Shaft” in Jerusalem, which would appear to
have been made for an exactly similar purpose. The chasm mentioned before may
have been an effort to reach the source from a higher point, or it may have
been made, or later adapted, to prevent ingress by means of the system of
tunnels into the city. This passage is in all probability the “watercourse” (צנּור, cinnōr) of 2Sa_5:8 up which, apparently, Joab and his men (1Ch_11:6) secretly made their way; they must
have waded through the water at the source, ascended the perpendicular shaft (a
feat performed in 1910 by some British officers without any assistance from
ladders), and then made their way into the heart of the city along the great
tunnel. Judging by the similar Gezer water tunnel, this great work may not only
have existed in David's time, but may have been constructed as much as 1,000
years before.
4.
Hezekiah's “Siloam” Aqueduct
The true Siloam tunnel is a considerably later
work. It branches off from the older aqueduct at a point 67 ft. from the
entrance, and after running an exceedingly winding course of 1,682 ft., it
empties itself into the Pool of Siloam (total length 1,749 ft.). The whole
canal is rock cut; it is 2 to 3 ft. wide, and varies in height from 16 ft. at
the south end to 4 ft. 6 inches at the lowest point, near the middle. The
condition of this tunnel has recently been greatly changed through Captain
Parker's party having cleared out the accumulated silt of centuries; before
this, parts of the channel could be traversed only with the greatest difficulty
and discomfort. The primitive nature of this construction is shown by the many
false passages made, and also by the extensive curves which greatly add to its
length. This latter may also be partly due to the workmen following lines of
soft strata. M. Clermont-Ganneau and others have thought that one or more of
the great curves may have been made deliberately to avoid the tombs of the
kings of Judah. The method of construction of the tunnel is narrated in the
Siloam Inscription (see SILOAM). It was begun simultaneously from each end, and
the two parties met in the middle. It is a remarkable thing that there is a
difference of level of only one foot at each end; but the lofty height of the
southern end is probably due to a lowering of the floor here after the junction
was effected. It is practically certain that this great work is that referred
to in 2Ki_20:20 : “Now the rest of the
acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made the pool, and the conduit,
and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the
chronicles of the kings of Judah?” And in 2Ch_32:30
: “This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, and
brought them straight down on the west side of the city of David.”
5.
Other Aqueducts at Gihon
In addition to these two conduits, which have a
direct Scriptural interest, there are remains of at least two other aqueducts
which take their origin at the Virgin's Fount - one a channel deeply cut in
rock along the western sides of the Kidron valley, found by Captain Parker, and
the other a built channel, lined with very good cement, which takes its rise at
a lower level than any of the other conduits close to the before-mentioned
rocky cleft from which the water rises, and runs in a very winding direction
along the western side of the Kidron. This the present writer has described in PEFS,
1902. One of these, perhaps more probably the former, may be the conduit which
is referred to as Shiloah (shilōaḥ), or
“conducted” (Isa_8:6), before the
construction of Hezekiah s work (see SILOAM).
There are other caves and rock-cut channels around
the ancient Gihon which cannot fully be described here, but which abundantly
confirm the sanctity of the site.
6. Bîr
Eyyûb
(b) Bîr Eyyûb has a depth
of 125 ft.; the water collects at the bottom in a large rock-hewn chamber, and
it is clear that it has been deepened at some period, because at the depth of
113 ft. there is a collecting chamber which is now replaced by the deeper one.
Various rock-cut passages or staircases were found by Warren in the neighborhood
of this well.
7.
Varieties of Cisterns
(2) The cisterns and tanks. - Every ancient
site in the hill country of Palestine is riddled with cisterns for the storage
of rain water. In Jerusalem for very many centuries the private resident has
depended largely upon the water collected from the roof of his house for all
domestic purposes. Such cisterns lie either under or alongside the dwelling.
Many of the earliest of these excavations are bottle-shaped, with a
comparatively narrow mouth cut through the hard Mizzeh and a large
rounded excavation made in the underlying Melekeh (see II, 1 above).
Other ancient cisterns are cavities hewn in the rock, of irregular shape, with
a roof of harder rock and often several openings. The later forms are vaulted
over, and are either cut in the rock or sometimes partially built in the
superlying rubbish.
For more public purposes large cisterns were made
in the Ḥaram, or temple-area. Some 3 dozen are known and planned;
the largest is calculated to contain 3,000,000 gallons. Such structures were
made largely for the religious ritual, but, as we shall see, they have been
supplied by other sources than the rainfall. In many parts of the city open
tanks have been constructed, such a tank being known in Arabic as a birkeh,
or, followed by a vowel, birket. With most of these there is
considerable doubt as to their date of construction, but probably none of them,
in their present form at any rate, antedates the Roman period.
8.
Birket Israel
Within the city walls the largest reservoir is the Birket
Israel which extends from the northeastern angle of the Ḥaram
westward for 360 ft. It is 125 ft. wide and was originally 80 ft. deep, but has
in recent years been largely filled up by the city's refuse. The eastern and
western ends of this pool are partially rock-cut and partly masonry, the
masonry of the former being a great dam 45 ft. thick, the lower part of which
is continuous with the ancient eastern wall of the temple-area. The sides of
the pool are entirely masonry because this reservoir is built across the width
of the valley referred to before (III, 2) as “St. Anne's Valley.” Other parts
of this valley are filled with débris to the depth of 100 ft. The original
bottom of the reservoir is covered with a layer of about 19 inches of very hard
concrete and cement. There was a great conduit at the eastern end of the pool
built of massive stones, and connected with the pool by a perforated stone with
three round holes 5 1/2 inches in diameter. The position of this outlet shows that
all water over a depth of 22 ft. must have flowed away. Some authorities
consider this pool to have been pre-exilic. By early Christian pilgrims it was
identified as the “Sheep Pool” of Joh_5:2,
and at a later period, until quite recent times, it was supposed to have been
the Pool of Bethesda.
9.
Pool of Bethesda
The discovery, a few years ago, of the long-lost Piscina
in the neighborhood of the “Church of Anne,” which was without doubt the Pool
of Bethesda of the 5th century ad, has caused this identification to be
abandoned. See BETHESDA.
10.
The Twin Pools
To the West of the Birket Israel are the
“twin pools” which extend under the roadway in the neighborhood of the “Ecce
Homo” arch. The western one is 165 ft. by 20 ft. and the eastern 127 ft. by 20
ft. M. Clermont-Ganneau considers them to be identical with the Pool Struthius
of Josephus (BJ, V, xi, 4), but others, considering that they are
actually made in the fosse of the Antonia, give them a later date of origin. In
connection with these pools a great aqueduct was discovered in 1871, 2 1/2-3
ft. wide and in places 12 ft. high, running from the neighborhood of the
Damascus Gate - but destroyed farther north - and from the pools another
aqueduct runs in the direction of the Ḥaram̌.
11. Birket
Ḥammâm el Baṭrak
On the northwestern hill, between the Jaffa Gate
and the Church of the Sepulchre there is a large open reservoir, known to the
modern inhabitants of the city as Birket Ḥammâm el Baṭrak,
“the Pool of the Patriarch's Bath.” It is 240 ft. long (North to South), 144
ft. broad and 19-24 ft. deep. The cement lining of the bottom is cracked and
practically useless. The eastern wall of this pool is particularly massive, and
forms the base of the remarkably level street Ḥaret en Nasara, or
“Christian Street”; it is a not improbable theory that this is actually a
fragment of the long-sought “second” wall. If so, the pool, which is proved to
have once extended 60 ft. farther north, may have been constructed originally
as part of the fosse. On the other hand, this pool appears to have been the
Amygdalon Pool, or “Pool of the Tower” (ברכת
המגדלין, berēkhath ha-mighdālīn),
mentioned by Josephus (BJ, V, xi, 4), which was the scene of the
activities of the 10th legion, and this seems inconsistent with the previous
theory, as the events described seem to imply that the second wall ran outside
the pool. The popular travelers' name, “Pool of Hezekiah,” given to this
reservoir is due to theory, now quite discredited, that this is the pool
referred to in 2Ki_20:20, “He made the
pool, and the conduit, and brought water into the city.” Other earlier
topographists have identified it as the “upper pool” of Isa_7:3; Isa_36:2.
12.
Birket Mamilla
The Birket Hammâm el Baṭrak is
supplied with water from the Birket Mamilla, about 1/2 mile to the West.
This large pool, 293 ft. long by 193 ft. broad and 19 1/2 ft. deep, lies in the
midst of a large Moslem cemetery at the head of the Wâdy Mês,
the first beginning of the Wâdy er Râbâbi (Hinnom).
The aqueduct which connects the two pools springs from the eastern end of the Birket
Mamilla, runs a somewhat winding course and enters the city near the Jaffa
Gate. The aqueduct is in bad repair, and the water it carries, chiefly during
heavy rain, is filthy. In the Middle Ages it was supposed that this was the
“Upper Pool of Gihon” (see GIHON), but this and likewise the “highway of the
FULLER'S FIELD” (which see) are now located elsewhere. Wilson and others have
suggested that it is the “Serpent's Pool” of Josephus (BJ, V, iii, 2).
Titus leveled “all the places from Scopus to Herod's monument which adjoins the
pool called that of the Serpent.” Like many such identifications, there is not
very much to be said for or against it; it is probable that the pool existed at
the time of the siege. It is likely that this is the Beth Memel of the
Talmud (the Babylonian Talmud, ‛Ērūbīn 51b;
Sanhedrīn 24a; Berē'shīth
Rabbā' 51).
13. Birket
es Sultān
The Birket es Sultān is a large pool -
or, more strictly speaking, enclosure - 555 ft. North and South by 220 ft. East
and West. It is bounded on the West and North by a great curve of the low-level
aqueduct as it passes along and then across the Wâdy er
Râbâbi. The southern side consists of a massive dam across the
valley over which the Bethlehem carriage road runs. The name may signify either
the “great” pool or be connected with the fact that it was reconstructed in the
16th century by the sultan Suleiman ibn Selim, as is recorded on an inscription
upon a wayside fountain upon the southern wall. This pool is registered in the
cartulary of the Holy Sepulchre as the Lacus Germani, after the name of a
knight of Germanus, who built or renovated the pool in 1176 ad. Probably a
great part of the pool is a catchment area, and the true reservoir is the
rock-cut birkeh at the southern end, which has recently been cleaned
out. It is extremely difficult to believe that under any conditions any large
proportion of the whole area could ever have even been filled. Today the
reservoir at the lower end holds, after the rainy season, some 10 or 12 ft. of
very dirty water, chiefly the street drainage of the Jaffa road, while the
upper two-thirds of the enclosure is used as a cattle market on Fridays. The
water is now used for sprinkling the dusty roads in dry seasons.
The Pool of Siloam and the now dry Birket el
Hamra are described under SILOAM (which see).
There are other tanks of considerable size in and
around the city, e.g. the Birket Sitti Miriam, near “St. Stephen's
Gate,” an uncemented pool in the Wâdy Jôz, connected with
which there is a rockcut aqueduct and others, but they are not of sufficient
historical importance to merit description here.
14.
“Solomon's Pools”
(3) The conduits bringing water to the city
from a distance are called the “high-level” and “low-level” aqueducts
respectively, because they reached the city at different levels - the former
probably somewhere near the present Jaffa Gate, the latter at the
temple-platform.
15.
Low-Level Aqueduct
The low-level aqueduct which, though out of repair,
can still be followed along its whole course, conveyed water from three great
pools in the Wādy ‛Artās, 7 miles South of Jerusalem.
They are usually called “Solomon's pools,” in reference perhaps partly to Ecc_2:6 : “I made me pools o water, to water
therefrom the forest where trees were reared,” but as any mighty work in
Palestine is apt to be referred to the wise king of Israel, much stress cannot
be laid on the name. These three storage reservoirs are constructed across the
breadth of the valley, the lowest and largest being 582 ft. long by 177 ft.
broad and, at the lowest end, 50 ft. deep. Although the overflow waters of ‛Ain
es Sâleh, commonly known as the “sealed fountain” (compare Son_4:12), reach the pools, the chief function
was probably to collect the flood waters from the winter rains, and the water
was passed from tank to tank after purification. There are in all four springs
in this valley which supply the aqueduct which still conveys water to Bethlehem,
where it passes through the hill by means of a tunnel and then, after running,
winding along the sides of the hill, it enters another tunnel now converted
into a storage tank for Jerusalem; from this it runs along the mountain sides
and along the southern slopes of the site of Jerusalem to the Ḥaram̌.
The total length of this aqueduct is nearly 12 miles, but at a later date the
supply was increased by the construction of a long extension of the conduit for
a further 28 miles to Wâdy ‛Arrûb on the road to
Hebron, another 5 miles directly South of the pools. Here, too, there is a
reservoir, the Birket el ‛Arrûb, for the collection of the
flood-water, and also several small springs, which are conducted in a number of
underground rock-cut channels to the aqueduct. The total length of the
low-level aqueduct is about 40 miles, and the fall in level from Birket el
‛Arrûb (2,645 ft. above sea-level) at its far end to el
Kâs, the termination in the Ḥaram Jerusalem (2, 410 ft.
above sea-level), is 235 ft.
16. High-Level
Aqueduct
The high-level aqueduct commences in a remarkable
chain of wells connected with a tunnel, about 4 miles long, in the Wâdy
Bīār, “the Valley of Wells.” Upward of 50 wells along the
valley bottom supplied each its quotient; the water thence passed through a
pool where the solid matter settled, and traversed a tunnel 1,700 ft. long into
the 'Artas valley. Here, where its level was 150 ft. above that of the
low-level aqueduct, the conduit received the waters of the “sealed fountain,”
and finally “delivered them in Jerusalem at a level of about 20 ft. above that
of the Jaffa Gate” (Wilson). The most remarkable feature of this conduit is the
inverted siphon of perforated limestone blocks, forming a stone tube 15 inches
in diameter, which carried the water across the valley near Rachel's Tomb.
17.
Dates of Construction of These Aqueducts
On a number of these blocks, Latin inscriptions
with the names of centurions of the time of Severus (195 ad) have been found,
and this has led many to fix a date to this great work. So good an authority as
Wilson, however, considers that these inscriptions may refer to repairs, and
that the work is more probably Herodian. Unless the accounts of Josephus (BJ,
V, iv, 4; II, xvii, 9) are exaggerated, Herod must have had some means of
bringing abundant running water into the city at the level obtained by this
conduit. The late Dr. Schick even suggested a date as early as Hyrcanus
(135-125 bc). With regard to the low-level aqueduct, we have two definite data.
First Josephus (Ant., XVIII, iii, 2) states that Pontius Pilate
“undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred
money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of 200 furlongs,”
over 22 miles; in BJ, II, ix, 4 he is said to have brought the water
“from 400 furlongs” - probably a copyist's error. But these references must
either be to restorations or to the extension from Wâdy
‛Arrûb to Wâdy ‛Artās (28 miles), for
the low-level aqueduct from the pools to Jerusalem is certainly the same
construction as the aqueduct from these pools to the “Frank Mountain,” the
Herodium, and that, according to the definite statements of Josephus (Ant.,
XV, ix, 4; BJ, I, xxi, 10), was made by Herod the Great. On the whole
the usual view is that the high-level aqueduct was the work of Severus, the
low-level that of Herod, with an extension southward by Pontius Pilate.
Jerus still benefits somewhat from the low-level
aqueduct which is in repair as far as Bethlehem, though all that reaches the
city comes only through a solitary 4-inch pipe. The high-level aqueduct is
hopelessly destroyed and can be traced only in places; the wells of Wâdy
Bīār are choked and useless, and the long winding aqueduct to Wâdy
‛Arrûb is quite broken.
VIII. Tombs, Antiquarian
Remains and Ecclesiastical Sites
1. The “Tombs of the Kings”
Needless to say all the
known ancient tombs in the Jerusalem area have been rifled of their contents
long ago. The so-called Tombs of the Kings in the Wâdy el Jôz
are actually the monument of Queen Helena of Adiabene, a convert to Judaism
(circa 48 ad). Josephus (Ant., XX, iv, 3) states that her bones, with
those of members of her family, were buried “at the pyramids,” which were 3 in
number and distant from Jerusalem 3 furlongs. A Hebrew inscription upon a
sarcophagus found here by De Saulcy ran: (צרה
מלכתה, cārāh malkethāh),
“Queen Sarah,” possibly the Jewish name of Queen Helena.
2. “Herod's Tomb”
On the western side of the Wâdy
el Mês (the higher part of Hinnom), is a very interesting Greek tomb
containing beautifully carved sarcophagi. These are commonly known as “Herod's
Tombs” (although Herod the Great was buried on the Herodium), and, according to
Schick, one of the sarcophagi may have belonged to Mariamne, Herod's wife. A
more probable theory is that this is the tomb of the high priest Ananias (BJ,
V, xii, 2).
3. “Absalom's Tomb”
On the eastern side of the
Kidron, near the southeastern angle of the Ḥaram, are 3
conspicuous tombs. The most northerly, Tantûr Fer‛ōn,
generally called “Absalom's Tomb,” is a Greek-Jewish tomb of the Hasmonean
period, and, according to Conder, possibly the tomb of Alexander Janneus (HDB,
article “Jerusalem”). S. of this is the traditional “Grotto of James,” which we
know by a square Hebrew inscription over the pillars to be the family tomb of
certain members of the priestly family (1Ch_24:15),
of the Beni Hazir. It may belong to the century before Christ.
The adjoining traditional
tomb of Zachariah is a monolithic monument cut out of the living rock, 16 ft.
square and 30 ft. high. It has square pilasters at the corners, Ionic pillars
between, and a pyramidal top. Its origin is unknown; its traditional name is
due to our Lord's word in Mat_23:35; Luk_11:51 (see ZACHARIAH).
4. The “Egyptian Tomb”
A little farther down the
valley of the Kidron, at the commencement of the village of Siloam, is another
rock-cut tomb, the so-called Egyptian Tomb, or according to some, “the tomb of
Solomon's Egyptian wife.” It is a monolith 18 ft. square and 11 ft. high, and
the interior has at one time been used as a chapel. It is now Russian property.
It probably belongs to much the same period as the three before-mentioned
tombs, and, like them, shows strong Egyptian influence.
The so-called “Tombs of the
Judges” belong to the Roman period, as do the scores of similar excavations in
the same valley. The “Tombs of the Prophets” on the western slopes of the Mount
of Olives are now considered to belong to the 4th or 5th Christian century.
Near the knoll over
Jeremiah's Grotto, to the West and Northwest, are a great number of tombs,
mostly Christian. The more northerly members of the group are now included in
the property of the Dominicans attached to the Church of Stephen, but one, the
southernmost, has attracted a great deal of attention because it was supposed
by the late General Gordon to be the tomb of Christ.
5. The “Garden Tomb”
In its condition when found
it was without doubt, like its neighbors, a Christian tomb of about the 5th
century, and it was full of skeletons. Whether it may originally have been a
Jewish tomb is unproved; it certainly could not have been recognized as a site
of any sanctity until General Gordon promulgated his theory (see PEFS,
1892, 120-24; see also GOLGOTHA).
6. Tomb of “Simon the Just”
The Jews greatly venerate a
tomb on the eastern side of the Wâdy el Jôz, not far South
of the great North Road; they consider it to be the tomb of Simon the Just, but
it is in all probability not a Jewish tomb at all.
7. Other Antiquities
Only passing mention can
here be made of certain remains of interest connected with the exterior walls
of the Ḥaram̌. The foundation walls of the temple-platform
are built, specially upon the East, South and West, of magnificent blocks of
smooth, drafted masonry with an average height of 3 1/2 ft. One line, known as
the “master course,” runs for 600 ft. westward from the southeastern angle,
with blocks 7 ft. high. Near the southeastern angle at the foundation itself,
certain of the blocks were found by the Palestine Exploration Fund engineers to
be marked with Phoenician characters, which it was supposed by many at the time
of their discovery indicated their Solomonic origin. It is now generally held
that these “masons' marks” may just as well have been used in the time of Herod
the Great, and on other grounds it is held that all this magnificent masonry is
due to the vast reconstruction of the Temple which this great monarch initiated
(see TEMPLE). In the western wall of the Ḥaram, between the
southwestern corner and the “Jewish wailing place,” lies “Robinson's Arch.” It
is the spring of an arch 50 ft. wide, projecting from the temple-wall; the
bridge arising from it had a span of 50 ft., and the pier on the farther side
was discovered by Warren. Under the bridge ran a contemporary paved Roman
street, and beneath the unbroken pavement was found, lying inside a rock
aqueduct, a voussoir of an older bridge. This bridge connected the
temple-enclosure with the upper city in the days of the Hasmonean kings. It was
broken down in 63 bc by the Jews in anticipation of the attack of Pompey (Ant,
XIV, iv, 2; BJ, I, vii, 2), but was rebuilt by Herod in 19 bc (BJ,
VI, viii, 1; vi, 2), and finally destroyed in 70 ad.
Nearly 600 ft. farther
North, along this western temple-wall is Wilson's Arch, which lies under the
surface within the causeway which crosses the Tyropoeon to the Bâb es
Silseleh of the Ḥaram; although not itself very ancient there
are here, deeper down, arches belonging to the Herodian causeway which here
approached the temple-platform.
8. Ecclesiastical Sites
With regard to the common
ecclesiastical sites visited by pious pilgrims little need be said here. The
congeries of churches that is included under that name of Church of the Holy
Sepulchre includes a great many minor sites of the scenes of the Passion which
have no serious claims. Besides the Holy Sepulchre itself - which, apart from
its situation, cannot be proved or disproved, as it has actually been destroyed
- the only important site is that of “Mount Calvary.” All that can be said is
that if the Sepulchre is genuine, then the site may be also; it is today
the hollowed-out shell of a rocky knoll encased in marble and other stones and
riddled with chapels. See GOLGOTHA.
The coenaculum, close to
the Moslem “Tomb of David” (a site which has no serious claims), has been
upheld by Professor Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels) as one which
has a very strong tradition in its favor. The most important evidence is that
of Epiphanias, who states that when Hadrian visited Jerusalem in 130, one of
the few buildings left standing was “the little Church of God, on the site
where the disciples, returning after the Ascension of the Saviour from Olivet,
had gone up to the Upper room, for there it had been built, that is to say in
the quarter of Zion.” In connection with this spot there has been pointed out
from early Christian times the site of the House of Caiaphas and the site of
the death of the Virgin Mary - the Dormitio Sanctae Virginis. It is in
consequence of this latter tradition that the German Roman Catholics have now
erected here their magnificent new church of the Dormition. A rival line of
traditions locates the tomb of the Virgin in the Kidron valley near Gethsemane,
where there is a remarkable underground chapel belonging to the Greeks.
IX. History
Pre-Israelite period. -
The beginnings of Jerusalem are long before recorded history: at various points
in the neighborhood, e.g. at el Bukei‛a to the Southwest, and at
the northern extremity of the Mount of Olives to the Northeast, were very large
settlements of Paleolithic man, long before the dawn of history, as is proved
by the enormous quantities of Celts scattered over the surface. It is certain
that the city's site itself was occupied many centuries before David, and it is
a traditional view that the city called SALEM (which see) (Gen_14:18), over which Melchizedek was king, was
identical with Jerusalem.
1.
Tell El-Amarna Correspondence
The first certain reference to this city is about
1450 bc, when the name Ur-u-salem occurs in several letters belonging to the Tell
el-Amarna Letters correspondence. In 7 of these letters occurs the name Abd
Khiba, and it is clear that this man was “king,” or governor of the city,
as the representative of Pharaoh of Egypt. In this correspondence Abd Khiba
represents himself as hard pressed to uphold the rights of his suzerain against
the hostile forces which threaten to overwhelm him. Incidentally we may gather
that the place was then a fortified city, guarded partly by mercenary Egyptian
troops, and there are reasons for thinking that then ruler of Egypt, Amenhotep
IV, had made it a sanctuary of his god Aten - the sun-disc. Some territory,
possibly extending as far west as Ajalon, seems to have been under the
jurisdiction of the governor. Professor Sayce has stated that Abd Khiba was
probably a Hittite chief, but this is doubtful. The correspondence closes
abruptly, leaving us in uncertainty with regard to the fate of the writer, but
we know that the domination of Egypt over Palestine suffered an eclipse about
this time.
2.
Joshua's Conquest
At the time of Joshua's invasion of Canaan,
ADONI-ZEDEK (which see) is mentioned (Josh 10:1-27) as king of Jerusalem; he
united with the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon to fight against
the Gibeonites who had made peace with Joshua; the 5 kings were defeated and,
being captured in hiding at the cave Makkedah, were all slain. Another king,
ADONIBEZEK (which see) (whom some identify with Adoni-zedek), was defeated by
Judah after the death of Joshua, and after being mutilated was brought to
Jerusalem and died there (Jdg_1:1-7),
after which it is recorded (Jdg_1:8)
that Judah “fought against Jerusalem, and took it ... and set the city on
fire.” But it is clear that the city remained in the hands of the “Jebusites”
for some years more (Jdg_1:21; Jdg_19:11), although it was theoretically
reckoned on the southern border of Benjamin (Jos_15:8;
Jos_18:16, Jos_18:28).
David, after he had reigned 7 1/2 years at Hebron, determined to make the place
his capital and, about 1000 bc, captured the city.
3.
Site of the Jebusite City
Up to this event it is probable that Jerusalem was
like other contemporary fortified sites, a comparatively small place encircled
with powerful walls, with but one or perhaps two gates; it is very generally
admitted that this city occupied the ridge to the South of the temple long
incorrectly called “Ophel,” and that its walls stood upon steep rocky scarps
above the Kidron valley on the one side, and the Tyropoeon on the other. We
have every reason to believe that the great system of tunnels, known as
“Warren's Shaft” (see VII, 3, above) existed all through this period.
4.
David
The account of the capture of Jerusalem by David is
obscure, but it seems a probable explanation of a difficult passage (2Sa_5:6-9) if we conclude that the Jebusites,
relying upon the extraordinary strength of their position, challenged David:
“Thou shalt not come in hither, but the blind and the lame shall turn thee
away” (2Sa_5:6 margin), and that David
directed his followers to go up the “watercourse” and smite the “lame and the
blind” - a term he in his turn applies mockingly to the Jebusites. “And Joab
the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was made chief” (1Ch_11:6). It seems at least probable that
David's men captured the city through a surprise attack up the great tunnels
(see VII, 3, above). David having captured the stronghold “Zion,” renamed it
the “City of David” and took up his residence there; he added to the strength
of the fortifications “round about from the MILLO (which see) and onward”; with
the assistance of Phoenician workmen supplied by Hiram, king of Tyre, he built
himself “a house of cedar” (2Sa_5:11;
compare 2Sa_7:2). The ark of Yahweh was
brought from the house of Obed-edom and lodged in a tent (2Sa_6:17) in the “city of David” (compare 1Ki_8:1). The threshing-floor of Araunah (2Sa_24:18), or Ornan (1Ch_21:15), the Jebusite, was later purchased as the future
site of the temple.
5.
Expansion of the City
The Jerusalem which David captured was small and
compact, but there are indications that during his reign it must have increased
considerably by the growth of suburbs outside the Jebusite walls. The
population must have been increased from several sources. The influx of David's
followers doubtless caused many of the older inhabitants to be crowded out of
the walled area. There appear to have been a large garrison (2Sa_15:18; 2Sa_20:7),
many officials and priests and their families (2Sa_8:16-18;
2Sa_20:23-26; 2Sa_23:8), and the various members of David's
own family and their relatives (2Sa_5:13-16;
2Sa_14:24, 2Sa_14:28;
1Ki_1:5, 1Ki_1:53,
etc.). It is impossible to suppose that all these were crowded into so narrow
an area, while the incidental mention that Absalom lived two whole years in
Jerusalem without seeing the king's face implies suburbs (2Sa_14:24, 2Sa_14:28).
The new dwellings could probably extend northward toward the site of the future
temple and northwestward into and up the Tyropoeon valley along the great north
road. It is improbable that they could have occupied much of the western hill.
6.
Solomon
With the accession of Solomon, the increased
magnificence of the court, the foreign wives and their establishments, the new
officials and the great number of work people brought to the city for Solomon's
great buildings must necessarily have enormously swelled the resident
population, while the recorded buildings of the city, the temple, the king's
house, the House of the Daughter of Pharaoh, the House of the Forest of
Lebanon, the Throne Hall and the Pillared Hall (1Ki_7:1-8)
must have altered the whole aspect of the site. In consequence of these new
buildings, the sanctuary together with the houses of the common folk, a new
wall for the city was necessary, and we have a statement twice made that
Solomon built “the wall of Jerusalem round about” (1Ki_3:1;
1Ki_9:15); it is also recorded that he
built Millo (1Ki_9:15, 1Ki_9:24; 1Ki_11:27),
and that “he repaired the breach of the city of David his father” (1Ki_11:27). The question of the Millo is
discussed elsewhere (see MILLO); the “breach” referred to may have been the
connecting wall needed to include the Millo within the complete circle of
fortifications, or else some part of David's fortification which his death had
left incomplete.
7.
Solomon's City Wall
As regards the “Wall of Jerus” which Solomon built,
it is practically certain that it was, on the North and West, that described by
Josephus as the First Wall (see VI, 7 above). The vast rock-cut scarps at the
southwestern corner testify to the massiveness of the building. Whether the
whole of the southwestern hill was included is matter of doubt. Inasmuch as
there are indications at Bliss's tower (see VI, 4d above) of an ancient
wall running northeasterly, and enclosing the summit of the southwestern hill,
it would appear highly probable that Solomon's wall followed that line; in this
case this wall must have crossed the Tyropoeon at somewhat the line of the
existing southern wall, and then have run southeasterly to join the western
wall of the old city of the Jebusites. The temple and palace buildings were all
enclosed in a wall of finished masonry which made it a fortified place by
itself - as it appears to have been through Hebrew history - and these walls,
where external to the rest of the city, formed part of the whole circle of
fortification.
Although Solomon built so magnificent a house for
Yahweh, he erected in the neighborhood shrines to other local gods (1Ki_11:7, 1Ki_11:8),
a lapse ascribed largely to the influence of his foreign wives and consequent
foreign alliances.
8. The
Disruption (933 bc)
The disruption of the kingdom must have been a
severe blow to Jerusalem, which was left the capital, no longer of a united
state, but of a petty tribe. The resources which were at the command of Solomon
for the building up of the city were suddenly cut off by Jeroboam's avowed
policy, while the long state of war which existed between the two peoples - a
state lasting 60 years (1Ki_14:30; 1Ki_15:6, 1Ki_15:16;
1Ki_22:44) - must have been very
injurious to the growth of commerce and the arts of peace.
9.
Invasion of Shishak (928 bc)
In the 5th year of Rehoboam (928), Shishak (ק, Sheshonḳ) king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem
(1Ki_14:25) and took “the fenced cities
of Judah” (2Ch_12:4 the King James
Version). It has been commonly supposed that he besieged and captured Jerusalem
itself, but as there is no account of the destruction of fortifications and as
the name of this city has not been deciphered upon the Egyptian records of this
campaign, it is at least as probable, and is as consistent with the Scriptural
references, that Shishak was bought off with “the treasures of the house of
Yahweh, and the treasures of the king's house” and “all the shields of gold
which Solomon had made” (1Ki_14:26).
10.
City Plundered by Arabs
It is clear that by the reign of Jehoshaphat the
city had again largely recovered its importance (compare 1 Ki 22), but in his
son Jehoram's reign (849-842 bc) Judah was invaded and the royal house was
pillaged by Philistines and Arabs (2Ch_21:16-17).
Ahaziah (842 bc), Jehoram's son, came to grief while visiting his maternal
relative at Jezreel, and after being wounded in his chariot near Ibleam, and
expiring at Megiddo, his body was carried to Jerusalem and there buried (2Ki_9:27-28). Jerusalem was now the scene of the
dramatic events which center round the usurpation and death of Queen Athaliah (2Ki_11:16; 2Ch_23:15)
and the coronation and reforms of her grandson Joash (2 Ki 12:1-16; 2Ch_24:1-14).
11.
Hazael King of Syria Bought off (797 bc)
After the death of the good priest Jehoiada, it is
recorded (2Ch_24:15) that the king was
led astray by the princes of Judah and forsook the house of Yahweh, as a
consequence of which the Syrians under Hazael came against Judah and Jerusalem,
slew the princes and spoiled the land, Joash giving him much treasure from both
palace and temple (2Ki_12:17, 2Ki_12:18; 2Ch_24:23).
Finally Joash was assassinated (2Ki_12:20,
2Ki_12:21; 2Ch_24:25)
“at the house of Millo, on the way that goeth down to Silla.”
12.
Capture of the City of Jehoash of Israel
During the reign of Amaziah (797-729 bc), the
murdered king's son, a victory over Edom appears to have so elated the king
that he wantonly challenged Jehoash of Israel to battle (2Ki_14:8 f). The two armies met at Beth-shemesh,
and Judah was defeated and “fled every man to his tent.” Jerusalem was unable
to offer any resistance to the victors, and Jehoash “brake down the wall of
Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, 400 cubits” and then
returned to Samaria, loaded with plunder and hostages (2Ki_14:14). Fifteen years later, Amaziah was
assassinated at Lachish whither he had fled from a conspiracy; nevertheless
they brought his body upon horses, and he was buried in Jerusalem.
13.
Uzziah's Refortification (779-740 bc)
Doubtless it was a remembrance of the humiliation
which his father had undergone which made Uzziah (Azariah) strengthen his
position. He subdued the Philistines and the Arabs in Gûr, and put the
Ammonites to tribute (2Ch_26:7, 2Ch_26:8). He “built towers in Jerusalem at the
corner gate, and at the valley gate, and at the turnings (Septuagint) of the
walls, and fortified them” (2Ch_26:9).
He is also described as having made in Jerusalem “engines, invented by skillful
men, to be on the towers and upon the battlements, wherewith to shoot arrows
and great stones” (2Ch_26:15). The city
during its long peace with its northern neighbors appears to have recovered
something of her prosperity in the days of Solomon. During his reign the city
was visited by a great earthquake (Zec_14:4;
Amo_1:1; compare Isa_9:10; Isa_29:6;
Amo_4:11; Amo_8:8).
Jotham, his son, built the upper gate of the house of Yahweh” (2Ki_15:35; 2Ch_27:3),
probably the same as the “upper gate of Benjamin” (Jer_20:2).
He also built much on the wall of Ophel - probably the ancient fortress of Zion
on the southeastern hill (2Ch_27:3);
see OPHEL.
14.
Ahaz Allies with Assyria (736-728 bc)
His son Ahaz was soon to have cause to be thankful
for his father's and grandfather's work in fortifying the city, for now its
walls were successful in defense against the kings of Syria and Israel (2Ki_16:5, 2Ki_16:6);
but Ahaz, feeling the weakness of his little kingdom, bought with silver and
gold from the house of Yahweh the alliance of Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria.
He met the king at Damascus and paid him a compliment by having an altar
similar to his made for his own ritual in the temple (2Ki_16:10-12). His reign is darkened by a record
of heathen practices, and specially by his making “his son to pass through the
fire” - as a human sacrifice in, apparently, the Valley of Hinnom (1Ki_16:3-4; compare 2Ch_28:3).
15.
Hezekiah's Great Works
Hezekiah (727-699 bc), his son, succeeded to the
kingdom at a time of surpassing danger. Samaria, and with it the last of
Israel's kingdom, had fallen. Assyria had with difficulty been bought off, the
people were largely apostate, yet Jerusalem was never so great and so inviolate
to prophetic eyes (Isa_7:4 f; Isa_8:8, Isa_8:10;
Isa_10:28 f; Isa_14:25-32, etc.). Early in his reign, the uprising of the
Chaldean Merodach-baladan against Assyria relieved Judah of her greatest
danger, and Hezekiah entered into friendly relations with this new king of
Babylon, showing his messengers all his treasures (Isa_39:1,
Isa_39:2). At this time or soon after,
Hezekiah appears to have undertaken great works in fitting his capital for the
troubled times which lay before him. He sealed the waters of Gihon and brought
them within the city to prevent the kings of Assyria from getting access to
them (2Ki_20:20; 2Ch_32:4, 2Ch_32:30).
See SILOAM.
It is certain, if their tunnel was to be of any
use, the southwestern hill must have been entirely enclosed, and it is at least
highly probable that in the account (2Ch_32:5),
he “built up all the wall that was broken down, and built towers thereon (margin),
and the other wall without,” the last phrase may refer to the stretch of wall
along the edge of the southwestern hill to Siloam. On the other hand, if that
was the work of Solomon, “the other wall” may have been the great buttressed
dam, with a wall across it which closed the mouth of the Tyropoeon, which was
an essential part of his scheme of preventing a besieging army from getting
access to water. He also strengthened MILLO (which see), on the southeastern
hill. Secure in these fortifications, which made Jerusalem one of the strongest
walled cities in Western Asia, Hezekiah, assisted, as we learn from
Sennacherib's descriptions, by Arab mercenaries, was able to buy off the great
Assyrian king and to keep his city inviolate (2Ki_18:13-16).
A second threatened attack on the city appears to be referred to in 2 Ki
19:9-37.
16.
His Religious Reforms
Hezekiah undertook reforms. “He removed the high
places, and brake the pillars, and cut down the Asherah: and he brake in pieces
the brazen serpent that Moses had made and ... he called it Nehushtan,” i.e. a
piece of brass (2Ki_18:4).
Manasseh succeeded his father when but 12, and
reigned 55 years (698-643) in Jerusalem (2Ki_21:1).
He was tributary to Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, as we know from their inscriptions;
in one of the latter's he is referred to as king “of the city of Judah.” The
king of Assyria who, it is said (2Ch_33:11;
compare Ant, X, iii, 2), carried Manasseh in chains to Babylon, was
probably Ashurbanipal. How thoroughly the country was permeated by Assyrian
influence is witnessed by the two cuneiform tablets recently found at Gezer
belonging to this Assyrian monarch's reign (PEFS, 1905, 206, etc.).
17.
Manasseh's Alliance with Assyria
The same influence, extending to the religious
sphere, is seen in the record (2Ki_21:5)
that Manasseh “built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the
house of Yahweh.” There are other references to the idolatrous practices
introduced by this king (compare Jer_7:18;
2Ki_23:5, 2Ki_23:11,
2Ki_23:12, etc.). He also filled
Jerusalem from one end to the other with the innocent blood of martyrs faithful
to Yahweh (2Ki_21:16; compare Jer_19:4). Probably during this long reign of
external peace the population of the city much increased, particularly by the
influx of foreigners from less isolated regions.
18.
His Repair of the Walls
Of this king's improvements to the fortifications
of Jerusalem we have the statement (2Ch_33:14),
“He built an outer wall to the city of David, on the west side of Gihon in the
valley, even to the entrance at the fish gate.” This must have been a new or
rebuilt wall for the whole eastern side of the city. He also compassed about
the OPHEL (which see) and raised it to a very great height.
Manasseh was the first of the Judahic kings to be
buried away from the royal tombs. He was buried (as was his son Amon) “in the
garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza” (2Ki_21:18).
These may be the tombs referred to (Eze_43:7-9)
as too near the temple precincts.
19.
Josiah and Religious Reforms (640-609 bc)
In the reign of Josiah was found the “Book of the
Law,” and the king in consequence instituted radical reforms (2 Ki 22; 23).
Kidron smoked with the burnings of the Asherah and of the vessels of Baal, and
Topheth in the Valley of Hinnom was defiled. At length after a reign of 31
years (2Ki_23:29, 2Ki_23:30), Josiah, in endeavoring to intercept
Pharaoh-necoh from combining with the king of Babylon, was defeated and slain
at Megiddo and was buried “in his own sepulchre” in Jerusalem - probably in the
same locality where his father and grandfather lay buried. Jehoahaz, after a
reign of but 3 months, was carried captive (1 Ki 23:34) by Necoh to Egypt,
where he died - and apparently was buried among strangers (Jer_22:10-12). His brother Eliakim, renamed
Jehoiakim, succeeded. In the 4th year of his reign, Egypt was defeated at
Carchemish by the Babylonians, and as a consequence Jehoiakim had to change
from subjection to Egypt to that of Babylon (1 Ki 23:35ff).
20.
Jeremiah Prophesies the Approaching Doom
During this time Jeremiah was actively foretelling
in streets and courts of Jerusalem (Jer_5:1,
etc.) the approaching ruin of the city, messages which were received with
contempt and anger by the king and court (Jer_36:23).
In consequence of his revolt against Babylon, bands of Chaldeans, Syrians,
Moabites and Ammonites came against him (2Ki_24:2),
and his death was inglorious (2Ki_24:6;
Jer_22:18, Jer_22:19).
21.
Nebuchadnezzar Twice Takes Jerusalem (586 bc)
His son Jehoiachin, who succeeded him, went out
with all his household and surrendered to the approaching Nebuchadnezzar (597),
and was carried to Babylon where he passed more than 37 years (2Ki_25:27-30). Jerusalem was despoiled of all
its treasures and all its important inhabitants. The king of Babylon's nominee,
Zedekiah, after 11 years rebelled against him, and consequently Jerusalem was
besieged for a year and a half until “famine was sore in the city.” On the 9th
of Ab all the men of war “fled by night by the way of the gate between the two
walls, which was by the king's garden,” i.e. near the mouth of the Tyropoeon,
and the king “went by the way of the Arabah,” but was overtaken and captured
“in the plains of Jericho.” A terrible punishment followed his faithlessness to
Babylon (2Ki_25:1-7). The city and the
temple were despoiled and burnt; the walls of Jerusalem were broken down, and
none but the poorest of the land “to be vinedressers and husbandmen” were left
behind (2Ki_25:8 f; 2Ch_36:17 f). It is probable that the ark was
removed also at this time.
22.
Cyrus and the First Return (538 bc)
With the destruction of their city, the hopes of the
best elements in Judah turned with longing to the thought of her restoration.
It is possible that some of the remnant left in the land may have kept up some
semblance of the worship of Yahweh at the temple-site. At length, however, when
in 538 Cyrus the Persian became master of the Babylonian empire, among many
acts of a similar nature for the shrines of Assyrian and Babylonian gods, he
gave permission to Jews to return to rebuild the house of Yahweh (Ezr_1:1 f). Over 40,000 (Ezr_1:1-11; 2) under Sheshbazzar, prince of
Judah (Ezr_1:8, Ezr_1:11), governor of a province, returned,
bringing with them the sacred vessels of the temple. The daily sacrifices were
renewed and the feasts and fasts restored (Ezr_3:3-7),
and later the foundations of the restored temple were laid (Ezr_3:10; Ezr_5:16),
but on account of the opposition of the people of the land and the Samaritans,
the building was not completed until 20 years later (Ezr_6:15).
23.
Nehemiah Rebuilds the Walls
The graphic description of the rebuilding of the
walls of Jerusalem in 445 by Nehemiah gives us the fullest account we have of
these fortifications at any ancient period. It is clear that Nehemiah set
himself to restore the walls, as far as possible, in their condition before the
exile. The work was done hurriedly and under conditions of danger, half the
workers being armed with swords, spears and bows to protect the others, and
every workman was a soldier (Neh_4:13, Neh_4:16-21). The rebuilding took 52 days, but
could not have been done at all had not much of the material lain to hand in
the piles of ruined masonry. Doubtless the haste and limited resources resulted
in a wall far weaker than that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed 142 years previously,
but it followed the same outline and had the same general structure.
24.
Bagohi Governor
For the next 100 years we have scarcely any
historical knowledge of Jerusalem. A glimpse is afforded by the papyri of
Elephantine where we read of a Jewish community in Upper Egypt petitioning
Bagohi, the governor of Judea, for permission to rebuild their own temple to
Yahweh in Egypt; incidentally they mention that they had already sent an
unsuccessful petition to Johanan the high priest and his colleagues in
Jerusalem. In another document we gather that this petition to the Persian
governor was granted. These documents must date about 411-407 bc. Later,
probably about 350, we have somewhat ambiguous references to the destruction of
Jerusalem and the captivity of numbers of Jews in the time of Artaxerxes (III)
Ochus (358-337 bc).
With the battle of Issus and Alexander's
Palestinian campaign (circa 332 bc), we are upon surer historical ground,
though the details of the account (Ant., XI, viii, 4) of Alexander's
visit to Jerusalem itself are considered of doubtful authenticity.
25.
Alexander the Great
After his death (323 bc), Palestine suffered much
from its position, between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Antioch.
Each became in turn its suzerain, and indeed at one time the tribute appears to
have been divided between them (Ant., XII, iv, 1).
26.
The Ptolemaic Rule
In 321 Ptolemy Soter invaded Palestine, and, it is
said (Ant., XII, i, 1), captured Jerusalem by a ruse, entering the city
on the Sabbath as if anxious to offer sacrifice. He carried away many of his
Jewish prisoners to Egypt and settled them there. In the struggles between the
contending monarchies, although Palestine suffered, the capital itself, on
account of its isolated position, remained undisturbed, under the suzerainty of
Egypt. In 217 bc, Ptolemy (IV) Philopator, after his victory over Antiochus III
at Raphia, visited the temple at Jerusalem and offered sacrifices; he is
reported (3 Macc 1) to have entered the “Holy of Holies.” The comparative
prosperity of the city during the Egyptian domination is witnessed to by
Hecataeus of Abdera, who is quoted by Jos; he even puts the population of the
city at 120,000, which is probably an exaggeration.
27.
Antiochus the Great
At length in 198, Antiochus the Great having
conquered Coele-Syria in the epoch-making battle at Banias, the Jews of their
own accord went over to him and supplied his army with plentiful provisions;
they assisted him in besieging the Egyptian garrison in the AKRA (which see) (Ant.,
XII, iii, 3). Josephus produces letters in which Antiochus records his
gratification at the reception given him by the Jews and grants them various
privileges (same place) . We have an account of the prosperity of the city
about this time (190-180 bc) by Jesus ben Sira in the Book of Ecclus; it is a
city of crowded life and manifold activities. He refers in glowing terms to the
great high priest, Simon ben Onias (226-199 bc), who (Ecclesiasticus 50:1-4)
had repaired and fortified the temple and strengthened the walls against a
siege. The letter of Aristeas, dated probably at the close of this great man's
life (circa 200 bc), gives a similar picture. It is here stated that the
compass of the city was 40 stadia. The very considerable prosperity and
religious liberty which the Jews had enjoyed under the Egyptians were soon
menaced under the new ruler; the taxes were increased, and very soon fidelity
to the tenets of Judaism came to be regarded as treachery to the Seleucid rule.
28.
Hellenization of the City Under Antiochus Epiphanes
Under Antiochus Epiphanes the Hellenization of the
nation grew apace (2 Macc 4:9-12; Ant, XII, v, 1); at the request of the
Hellenizing party a “place of exercise” was erected in Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:14;
2 Macc 4:7 f). The Gymnasium was built and was soon thronged by young priests;
the Greek hat - the pétasoš - became the fashionable
headdress in Jerusalem. The Hellenistic party, which was composed of the
aristocracy, was so loud in its professed devotion to the king's wishes that it
is not to be wondered at that Antiochus, who, on a visit to the city, had been
received with rapturous greetings, came to think that the poor and pious who
resisted him from religious motives were largely infected with leanings toward
his enemies in Egypt. The actual open rupture began when tidings reached
Antiochus, after a victorious though politically barren campaign in Egypt, that
Jerusalem had risen in his rear on behalf of the house of Ptolemy. Jason, the
renegade high priest, who had been hiding across the Jordan, had, on the false
report of the death of Antiochus, suddenly returned and re-possessed himself of
the city. Only the Akra remained to Syria, and this was crowded with Menelaus
and those of his followers who had escaped the sword of Jason.
29.
Capture of the City (170 bc)
Antiochus lost no time; he hastened (170 bc)
against Jerusalem with a great army, captured the city, massacred the people
and despoiled the temple (1 Macc 1:20-24; Ant, XII, v, 3). Two years
later Antiochus, balked by Rome in Egypt (Polyb. xxix. 27; Livy xlv. 12),
appears to have determined that in Jerusalem, at any rate, he would have no
sympathizers with Egypt.
30.
Capture of 168 bc
He sent his chief collector of tribute (1 Macc
1:29), who attacked the city with strong force and, by means of stratagem,
entered it (1 Macc 1:30). After he had despoiled it, he set it on fire and
pulled down both dwellings and walls. He massacred the men, and many of the
women and children he sold as slaves (1 Macc 1:31-35; 2 Macc 5:24).
31.
Attempted Suppression of Judaism
He sacrificed swine (or at least a sow) upon the
holy altar, and caused the high priest himself - a Greek in all his sympathies
- to partake of the impure sacrificial feasts; he tried by barbarous cruelties
to suppress the ritual of circumcision (Ant., XII, v, 4). In everything
he endeavored, in conjunction with the strong Hellenizing party, to organize
Jerusalem as a Greek city, and to secure his position he built a strong wall,
and a great tower for the Akra, and, having furnished it well with armor and
victuals, he left a strong garrison (1 Macc 1:33-35). But the Syrians had
overreached themselves this time, and the reaction against persecution and
attempted religious suppression produced the great uprising of the Maccabeans.
32.
The Maccabean Rebellion
The defeat and retirement of the Syrian commander
Lysias, followed by the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, led to an entire reversal
of policy on the part of the Council of the boy-king, Antiochus V. A general
amnesty was granted, with leave to restore the temple-worship in its ancestral
forms. The following year (165 bc) Judas Maccabeus found “the sanctuary
desolate, and the altar profaned, the gates burned up, and shrubs growing in
the courts as in a forest ... and the priests' chambers pulled down” (1 Macc
4:38).
33.
The Dedication of the Temple (165 bc)
He at once saw to the reconstruction of the altar
and restored the temple-services, an event celebrated ever after as the “Feast
of the Dedication,” or ḥănukkāh (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2
Macc 10:1-11; Ant, XII, vii, 7; compare Joh_10:22).
Judas also “builded up Mt. Zion,” i.e. the temple-hill, making it a fortress
with “high walls and strong towers round about,” and set a garrison in it (1
Macc 4:41-61).
34.
Defeat of Judas and Capture of the City
The Hellenizing party suffered in the reaction, and
the Syrian garrison in the Akra, Syria's one hold on Judea, was closely
invested, but though Judas had defeated three Syrian armies in the open, he
could not expel this garrison. In 163 bc a great Syrian army, with a camel
corps and many elephants, came to the relief of the hard-pressed garrison.
Lysias, accompanied by the boy-king himself (Antiochus V), approached the city
from the South via BETH-ZUR (which see). At Beth-zachariah the Jews were
defeated, and Judas' brother Eleazar was slain, and Jerusalem was soon
captured. The fort on Mt. Zion which surrounded the sanctuary was surrendered
by treaty, but when the king saw its strength he broke his oath and destroyed
the fortifications (1 Macc 6:62). But even in this desperate state Judas and
his followers were saved. A certain pretender, Philip, raised a rebellion in a
distant part of the empire, and Lysias was obliged to patch up a truce with the
nationalist Jews more favorable to Judas than before his defeat; the garrison
in the Akra remained, however, to remind the Jews that they were not
independent. In 161 bc another Syrian general, Nicanor, was sent against Judas,
but he was at first won over to friendship and when, later, at the instigation
of the Hellenistic party, he was compelled to attack Judas, he did so with
hastily raised levies and was defeated at Adasa, a little North of Jerusalem.
Judas was, however, not long suffered to celebrate his triumph. A month later
Bacchides appeared before Jerusalem, and in April, 161, Judas was slain in
battle with him at Berea.
35.
His Death (161 bc)
Both the city and the land were re-garrisoned by
Syrians; nevertheless, by 152, Jonathan, Judas' brother, who was residing at
Michmash, was virtual ruler of the land, and by astute negotiation between
Demetrius and Alexander, the rival claimants to the throne of Antioch, Jonathan
gained more than any of his family had ever done. He was appointed high priest
and stratēgós, or deputy for the king, in Judea. He repaired
the city and restored the temple-fortress with squared stones (1 Macc
10:10-11).
36.
Jonathan's Restorations
He made the walls higher and built up a great part
of the eastern wall which had been destroyed and “repaired which was called
Caphenatha” (1 Macc 12:36-37; Ant, XIII, v, ii); he also made a great
mound between the Akra and the city to isolate the Syrian garrison (same place)
.
37.
Surrender of City to Antiochus Sidetes (134 bc)
Simon, who succeeded Jonathan, finally captured the
Akra in 139, and, according to Josephus (Ant., XIII, vi, 7), not only
destroyed it, but partially leveled the very hill on which it stood (see,
however, 1 Macc 14:36, 37). John Hyrcanus, 5 years later (134 bc), was besieged
in Jerusalem by Antiochus Sidetes in the 4th year of his reign; during the
siege the Syrian king raised 100 towers each 3 stories high against the
northern wall - possibly these may subsequently have been used for the
foundations of the second wall. Antiochus was finally bought off by the giving
of hostages and by heavy tribute, which Hyrcanus is said to have obtained by
opening the sepulcher of David. Nevertheless the king “broke down the
fortifications that encompassed the city” (Ant., XIII, viii, 2-4).
38.
Hasmonean Buildings
During the more prosperous days of the Hasmonean
rulers, several important buildings were erected. There was a great palace on
the western (southwestern) hill overlooking the temple (Ant., XX, viii,
11), and connected with it at one time by means of a bridge across the
Tyropoeon, and on the northern side of the temple a citadel - which may (see
VIII, 7 above) have been the successor of one here in pre-exilic times - known
as the Baris; this, later on, Herod enlarged into the Antonia (Ant., XV,
xi, 4; BJ, V, v, 8).
39.
Rome's Intervention
In consequence of the quarrel of the later
Hasmonean princes, further troubles fell upon the city. In 65 bc, Hyrcanus II,
under the instigation of Antipas the Idumean, rebelled against his brother
Aristobulus, to whom he had recently surrendered his claim to sovereignty. With
the assistance of Aretas, king of the Nabateans, he besieged Aristobulus in the
temple. The Roman general Scaurus, however, by order of Pompey, compelled Aretas
to retire, and then lent his assistance to Aristobulus, who overcame his
brother (Ant., XIV, ii, 1-3). Two years later (63 bc) Pompey, having
been met by the ambassadors of both parties, bearing presents, as well as of
the Pharisees, came himself to compose the quarrel of the rival factions, and,
being shut out of the city, took it by storm.
40.
Pompey Takes the City by Storm
He entered the “Holy of Holies,” but left the
temple treasures unharmed. The walls of the city were demolished; Hyrcanus II
was reinstated high priest, but Aristobulus was carried a prisoner to Rome, and
the city became tributary to the Roman Empire (Ant., XIV, iv, 1-4; BJ,
I, vii, 1-7). The Syrian proconsul, M. Lucinius Crassus, going upon his
expedition against the Parthians in 55 bc, carried off from the temple the
money which Pompey had left (Ant., XIV, vii, 1).
41.
Julius Caesar Appoints Antipater Procurator (47 bc)
In 47 bc Antipater, who for 10 years had been
gaining power as a self-appointed adviser to the weak Hyrcanus, was made a
Roman citizen and appointed procurator in return for very material services
which he had been able to render to Julius Caesar in Egypt (Ant., XIV,
viii, 1, 3, 5); at the same time Caesar granted to Hyrcanus permission to
rebuild the walls of Jerusalem besides other privileges (Ant., XIV, x,
5). Antipater made his eldest son, Phaselus, governor of Jerusalem, and
committed Galilee to the care of his able younger son, Herod.
42.
Parthian Invasion
In 40 bc Herod succeeded his father as procurator
of Judea by order of the Roman Senate, but the same year the Parthians under
Pacorus and Barzapharnes captured and plundered Jerusalem (Ant., XIV,
xiii, 3, 5) and re-established Antigonus (BJ, I, xiii, 13). Herod
removed his family and treasures to Massada and, having been appointed king of
Judea by Antony, returned, after various adventures, in 37 bc. Assisted by
Sosius, the Roman proconsul, he took Jerusalem by storm after a 5 months siege;
by the promise of liberal reward he restrained the soldiers from sacking the
city (Ant., XIV, xvi, 2-3).
43.
Reign of Herod the Great (37-4 bc)
During the reign of this great monarch Jerusalem
assumed a magnificence surpassing that of all other ages. In 24 bc the king
built his vast palace in the upper city on the southwestern hill, near where
today are the Turkish barracks and the Armenian Quarter. He rebuilt the
fortress to the North of the temple - the ancient Baris - on a great scale with
4 lofty corner towers, and renamed it the Antonia in honor of his patron. He
celebrated games in a new theater, and constructed a hippodrome (BJ, II,
iii, 1) or amphitheater (Ant, XV, viii, 1).
44.
Herod's Great Buildings
He must necessarily have strengthened and repaired
the walls, but such work was outshone by the 4 great towers which he erected,
Hippicus, Pharsel and Mariamne, near the present Jaffa Gate - the foundations
of the first two Great are supposed to be incorporated in the present so-called
“Tower of David” - and the lofty octagonal tower, Psephinus, farther to the
Northwest. The development of Herod's plans for the reconstruction of the
temple was commenced in 19 bc, but they were not completed till 64 ad (Joh_2:20; Mat_24:1,
Mat_24:2; Luk_21:5,
Luk_21:6). The sanctuary itself was
built by 1,000 specially trained priests within a space of 18 months (11-10
bc). The conception was magnificent, and resulted in a mass of buildings of
size and beauty far surpassing anything that had stood there before.
Practically all the remains of the foundations of the temple-enclosure now
surviving in connection with the Ḥaram belong to this period. In 4
bc - the year of the Nativity - occurred the disturbances following upon the
destruction of the Golden Eagle which Herod had erected over the great gate of
the temple, and shortly afterward Herod died, having previously shut up many of
the leading Jews in the hippodrome with orders that they should be slain when
he passed away (BJ, I, xxxiii, 6). The accession of Archelaus was
signalized by Passover riots which ended in the death of 3,000, an after-result
of the affair of the Golden Eagle.
45.
Herod Archelaus (4 bc-6 ad)
Thinking that order had been restored, Archelaus
set out for Rome to have his title confirmed. During his absence Sabinus, the
Roman procurator, by mismanagement and greed, raised the city about his ears,
and the next Passover was celebrated by a massacre, street fighting and open
robbery. Varus, the governor of Syria, who had hastened to the help of his
subordinate, suppressed the rebellion with ruthless severity and crucified
2,000 Jews. Archelaus returned shortly afterward as ethnarch, an office which
he retained until his exile in 6 ad. During the procuratorship of Coponius
(6-10 ad) another Passover riot occurred in consequence of the aggravating
conduct of some Samaritans.
46.
Pontius Pilate
During the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate (26-37
ad) there were several disturbances, culminating in a riot consequent upon his
taking some of the “corban” or sacred offerings of the temple for the
construction of an aqueduct (Ant., XVIII, iii, 2) - probably part at
least of the “lowlevel aqueduct” (see VII, 15, above). Herod Agrippa I enclosed
the suburbs, which had grown up North of the second wall and of the temple, by
what Josephus calls the “Third Wall” (see V, above).
47.
King Agrippa
His son, King Agrippa, built - about 56 ad - a
large addition to the old Hasmonean palace, from which he could overlook the
temple area. This act was a cause of offense to the Jews who built a wall on
the western boundary of the Inner Court to shut off his view. In the quarrel
which ensued the Jews were successful in gaining the support of Nero (Ant.,
XX, viii, 11). In 64 ad the long rebuilding of the temple-courts, which had
been begun in 19 bc, was concluded. The 18,000 workmen thrown out of employment
appear to have been given “unemployed work” in “paving the city with white
stone” (Ant., XX, ix, 6-7).
48.
Rising Against Florus and Defeat of Gallus
Finally the long-smoldering discontent of the Jews
against the Romans burst forth into open rebellion under the criminal
incompetence of Gessius Florus, 66 ad (Ant., XX, xi, 1). Palaces and
public buildings were fired by the angered multitude, and after but two days'
siege, the Antonia itself was captured, set on fire and its garrison slain (BJ,
II, xvii, 6-7). Cestius Gallus, hastening from Syria, was soon engaged in a
siege of the city. The third wall was captured and the suburb BEZETHA (which
see) burnt, but, when about to renew the attack upon the second wall, Gallus
appears to have been seized with panic, and his partial withdrawal developed
into an inglorious retreat in which he was pursued by the Jews down the pass to
the Beth-horons as far as Antipatris (BJ, II, xix).
49.
The City Besieged by Titus (70 ad)
This victory cost the Jews dearly in the long run,
as it led to the campaign of Vespasian and the eventual crushing of all their
national hopes. Vespasian commenced the conquest in the north, and advanced by
slow and certain steps. Being recalled to Rome as emperor in the midst of the
war, the work of besieging and capturing the city itself fell to his son Titus.
None of the many calamities which had happened to the city are to be compared
with this terrible siege. In none had the city been so magnificent, its
fortifications so powerful, its population so crowded. It was Passover time,
but, in addition to the crowds assembled for this event, vast numbers had
hurried there, flying from the advancing Roman army. The loss of life was
enormous; refugees to Titus gave 600,000 as the number dead (BJ, V,
xiii, 7), but this seems incredible. The total population today within the
walls cannot be more than 20,000, and the total population of modern Jerusalem,
which covers a far greater area than that of those days, cannot at the most liberal
estimate exceed 80,000. Three times this, or, say, a quarter of a million,
seems to be the utmost that is credible, and many would place the numbers at
far less.
50.
Party Divisions Within the Besieged Walls
The siege commenced on the 14th of Nisan, 70 ad,
and ended on the 8th of Elul, a total of 134 days. The city was distracted by
internal feuds. Simon held the upper and lower cities; John of Gischala, the
temple and “Ophel”; the Idumeans, introduced by the Zealots, fought only Walls
for themselves, until they relieved the city of their terrors. Yet another
party, too weak to make its counsels felt, was for peace with Rome, a policy
which, if taken in time, would have found in Titus a spirit of reason and
mercy. The miseries of the siege and the destruction of life and property were
at least as much the work of the Jews themselves as of their conquerors. On the
15th day of the siege the third wall (Agrippa's), which had been but hastily
finished upon the approach of the Romans, was captured; the second wall was
finally taken on the 24th day; on the 72nd day the Antonia fell, and 12 days
later the daily sacrifice ceased. On the 105th day - the ominous 9th of Ab -
the temple and the lower city were burnt, and the last day found the whole city
in flames.
51.
Capture and Utter Destruction of the City
Only the three great towers of Herod, Hippicus,
Pharsel and Mariamne, with the western walls, were spared to protect the camp
of the Xth Legion which was left to guard the site, and “in order to
demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was and how well fortified”; the
rest of the city was dug up to its foundations (BJ, VII, i, 1).
52.
Rebellion of Bar-Cochba
For 60 years after its capture silence reigns over
Jerusalem. We know that the site continued to be garrisoned, but it was not to
any extent rebuilt. In 130 ad it was visited by Hadrian, who found but few
buildings standing. Two years later (132-35 ad) occurred the last great
rebellion of the Jews in the uprising of Bar-Cocha (“son of a star”), who was
encouraged by the rabbi Akiba. With the suppression of this last effort for
freedom by Julius Severus, the remaining traces of Judaism were stamped out,
and it is even said (the Jerusalem Talmud, Ta‛ănīth 4)
that the very site of the temple was plowed up by T. Annius Rufus; An altar of
Jupiter was placed upon the temple-site, and Jews were excluded from Jerusalem
on pain of death.
53.
Hadrian Builds Aelia Capitolina
In 138 Hadrian rebuilt the city, giving it the name
Aelia Capitolina. The line of the Southern wall of Aelia was probably
determined by the southern fortification of the great Roman legionary camp on
the western (southwestern) hill, and it is probable that it was the general
line of the existing southern wall. At any rate, we know that the area occupied
by the coenaculum and the traditional “Tomb of David” was outside the walls in
the 4th century. An equestrian statue of Hadrian was placed on the site of the
“Holy of Holies” (Jerome, Commentary on Isa_2:8;
Mat_24:15). An inscription now existing
in the southern wall of the temple-area, in which occurs the name of Hadrian,
may have belonged to this monument, while a stone head, discovered in the
neighborhood of Jerusalem some 40 years ago, may have belonged to the statue.
Either Hadrian himself, or one of the Antonine emperors, erected a temple of
Venus on the northwestern hill, where subsequently was built the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre (Euseb., Life of Constantine, III, 36). The habit of
pilgrimage to the holy sites, which appears to have had its roots far back in
the 2nd century (see Turner, Journal of Theological Studies, I, 551,
quoted by Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 75-76), seems to have
increasingly flourished in the next two centuries; beyond this we know little
of the city.
54. Constantine
Builds the Church of the Anastasis
In 333 ad, by order of Constantine, the new church
of the Anastasis, marking the supposed site of the Holy Sepulchre, was begun.
The traditions regarding this site and the Holy Cross alleged to have been
found there, are recorded some time after the events and are of doubtful
veracity. The building must have been magnificent, and covered a considerably
larger area than that of the existing church. In 362 Julian is said to have
attempted to rebuild the temple, but the work was interrupted by an explosion.
The story is doubtful.
At some uncertain date before 450 the coenaculum
and “Church of the Holy Zion” were incorporated within the walls. This is the
condition depicted in the Madeba Mosaic and also that described by Eucherius
who, writing between 345-50 ad, states that the circuit of the walls “now
receives within itself Mt. Zion, which was once outside, and which, lying on
the southern side, overhangs the city like a citadel.” It is possible this was
the work of the emperor Valentinian who is known to have done some
reconstruction of the walls.
55.
The Empress Eudoxia Rebuilds the Walls
In 450 the empress Eudoxia, the widow of Theodosius
II, took up her residence in Jerusalem and rebuilt the walls upon their ancient
lines, bringing the whole of the southwestern hill, as well as the Pool of
Siloam, within the circuit (Evagarius, Hist. Eccles., I, 22). At any
rate, this inclusion of the pool existed in the walls described by Antoninus
Martyr in 560 ad, and it is confirmed by Bliss's work (see above VI, 4). She
also built the church of Stephen, that at the Pool of Siloam and others.
56.
Justinian
The emperor Justinian, who was perhaps the greatest
of the Christian builders, erected the great Church of Mary, the remains of
which are now considered by some authorities to be incorporated in the el
Aḳsa Mosque; he built also a “Church of Sophia” in the “Pretorian,”
i.e. on the site of the Antonia (see, however, PRAETORIUM), and a hospital to
the West of the temple. The site of the temple itself appears to have remained
in ruins down to the 7th century.
57.
Chosroes II Captures the City
In 614 Palestine was conquered by the Persian
Chosroes II, and the Jerusalem churches, including that of the Holy Sepulchre,
were destroyed, an event which did much to prepare the way for the Moslem
architects of half a century later, who freely used the columns of these ruined
churches in the building of the “Dome of the Rock.”
58.
Heracleus Enters It in Triumph
In 629 Heracleus, having meanwhile made peace with
the successor of Chosroes II, reached Jerusalem in triumph, bearing back the
captured fragment of the cross. He entered the city through the “Golden Gate,”
which indeed is believed by many to have reached its present form through his restorations.
The triumph of Christendom was but short. Seven years earlier had occurred the
historic flight of Mohammed from Mecca (the Hegira), and in 637 the victorious
followers of the Prophet appeared in the Holy City. After a short siege, it
capitulated, but the khalif Omar treated the Christians with generous mercy.
59.
Clemency of Omar
The Christian sites were spared, but upon the
temple-site, which up to this had apparently been occupied by no important
Christian building but was of peculiar sanctity to the Moslems through
Mohammed's alleged visions there, a wooden mosque was erected, capable of
accommodating 3,000 worshippers. This was replaced in 691 ad by the magnificent
Kubbet es Ṣaḥrah, or “Dome of the Rock,” built by ‛Abd'ul
Malek, the 10th khalif. For some centuries the relations of the Christians
and Moslems appear to have been friendly: the historian el Muḳaddasi,
writing in 985, describes the Christians and Jews as having the upper hand in
Jerusalem. In 969 Palestine passed into the power of the Egyptian dynasty, and
in 1010 her ruler, the mad Hakim, burnt many of the churches, which, however,
were restored in a poor way.
60.
The Seljuk Turks and Their Cruelties
In 1077 Isar el Atsis, a leader of the Seljuk Turks
conquered Palestine from the North, drove out the Egyptians and massacred 3,000
of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The cruelty of the Turks - in contrast, be it
noted, with the conduct of the Arab Moslems - was the immediate cause of the
Crusades. In 1098 the city was retaken by the Egyptian Arabs, and the following
year was again captured after a 40 days' seige by the soldiers of the First
Crusade, and Godfrey de Bouillon became the first king. Great building activity
marked the next 80 peaceful years of Latin rule: numbers of churches were
built, but, until toward the end of this period, the walls were neglected.
61. Crusaders
Capture the City in 1099
In 1177 they were repaired, but 10 years later
failed to resist the arms of the victorious Saladin. The city surrendered, but
City the inhabitants were spared. In 1192 Saladin repaired the walls, but in
1219 they were dismantled by orders of the sultan of Damascus. In 1229 the
emperor Frederick II of Germany obtained the Holy City by treaty, on condition
that he did not restore the fortifications, a stipulation which, being broken
by the inhabitants 10 years later, brought down upon them the vengeance of the
emir of Kerak. Nevertheless, in 1243 the city was again restored to the
Christians unconditionally.
62.
The Kharizimians
The following year, however, the Kharizimian
Tartars - a wild, savage horde from Central Asia - burst into Palestine,
carrying destruction before them; they seized Jerusalem, massacred the people,
and rifled the tombs of the Latin kings. Three years later they were ejected
from Palestine by the Egyptians who in their turn retained it until, in 1517,
they were conquered by the Ottoman Turks, who still hold it. The greatest of
their sultans, Suleiman the Magnificent, built the present walls in 1542.
63.
Ottoman Turks Obtain the City (1517 ad)
In 1832 Mohammed Ali with his Egyptian forces came
and captured the city, but 2 years later the fellahin rose against his
rule and for a time actually gained possession of the city, except the citadel,
making their entrance through the main drain. The besieged citadel was relieved
by the arrival of Ibrahim Pasha from Egypt with reinforcements. The city and
land were restored to the Ottoman Turks by the Great Powers in 1840.
X. Modern Jerusalem
1. Jews and “Zionism”
The modern city of
Jerusalem has about 75,000 inhabitants, of whom over two-thirds are Jews. Until
about 50 years ago the city was confined within its 16th-century walls, the
doors of its gates locked every night, and even here there were considerable
areas unoccupied. Since then, and particularly during the last 25 years, there
has been a rapid growth of suburbs to the North, Northwest, and West of the old
city. This has been largely due to the steady stream of immigrant Jews from
every part of the world, particularly from Russia, Romania, Yemin, Persia,
Bokhara, the Caucasus, and from all parts of the Turkish empire. This influx of
Jews, a large proportion of whom are extremely poor, has led to settlements or
“colonies” of various classes of Jews being erected all over the plateau to the
North - an area never built upon before - but also on other sides of the city.
With the exception of the Bokhara Colony, which has some fine buildings and
occupies a lofty and salubrious situation, most of the settlements are mean
cottages or ugly almshouses. With the exception of a couple of hospitals, there
is no Jewish public building of any architectural pretensions. The “Zionist”
movement, which has drawn so many Jews to Jerusalem, cannot be called a
success, as far as this city is concerned, as the settlers and their children
as a rule either steadily deteriorate physically and morally - from constant
attacks of malaria, combined with pauperism and want of work - or, in the case
of the energetic and enlightened, they emigrate - to America especially; this
emigration has been much stimulated of late by the new law whereby Jews and
Christians must now, like Moslems, do military service.
The foreign Christian
population represents all nations and all sects; the Roman church is rapidly
surpassing all other sects or religions in the importance of their buildings.
The Russians are well represented by their extensive enclosure, which includes
a large cathedral, a hospital, extensive hospice in several blocks, and a
handsome residence for the consul-general, and by the churches and other
buildings on the Mount of Olives. The Germans have a successful colony
belonging to the “Temple” sect to the West of Jerusalem near the railway
station, and are worthily represented by several handsome buildings, e.g. the
Protestant “Church of the Redeemer,” built on the site and on the ground plan
of a fine church belonging to the Knights of John, the new (Roman Catholic)
Church of the Dormition on “Mount Zion,” with an adjoining Benedictine convent,
a very handsome Roman Catholic hospice outside the Damascus Gate, the Kaiserin
Augusta Victoria Sanatorium on the Mount of Olives, and a Protestant Johanniter
Hospice in the city, a large general hospital and a leper hospital, a consulate
and two large schools. In influence, both secular and religious, the Germans
have rapidly gained ground in the last 2 decades. British influence has much
diminished, relatively.
2. Christian Buildings and Institutions
The British Ophthalmic
Hospital, belonging to the “Order of the Knights of John,” the English Mission
Hospital, belonging to the London Jews Society, the Bishop Gobat's School and
English College connected with the Church Missionary Society, 3 Anglican
churches, of which the handsome George's Collegiate Church adjoins the
residence of the Anglican bishop, and a few small schools comprise the extent
of public buildings connected with British societies. France and the Roman
Catholic church are worthily represented by the Dominican monastery and
seminary connected with the handsome church of Stephen - rebuilt on the plan of
an old Christian church - by the Ratisbon (Jesuit) Schools, the Hospital of
Louis, the hospice and Church of Augustine, and the monastery and seminary of
the “white fathers” or Frères de la mission algérienne, whose
headquarters center round the beautifully restored Church of Anne. Not far from
here are the convent and school of the Soeurs de Sion, at the Ecce Homo
Church. Also inside the walls near the New Gate is the residence of the Latin
Patriarch - a cardinal of the Church of Rome - with a church, the school of the
Frères de la doctrine chrétienne, and the schools, hospital and convent
of the Franciscans, who are recognized among their co-religionists as the
“parish priests” in the city, having been established there longer than the
numerous other orders.
All the various
nationalities are under their respective consuls and enjoy extra-territorial
rights. Besides the Turkish post-office, which is very inefficiently managed,
the Austrians, Germans, French, Russians and Italians all have post-offices
open to all, with special “Levant” stamps. The American mail is delivered at
the French post-office. There are four chief banks, French, German, Ottoman and
Anglo-Palestinian (Jewish). As may be supposed, on account of the demand for land
for Jewish settlements or for Christian schools or convents, the price of such
property has risen enormously. Unfortunately in recent years all owners of land
- and Moslems have not been slow to copy the foreigners - have taken to
enclosing their property with high and unsightly walls, greatly spoiling both
the walks around the city and the prospects from many points of view. The
increased development of carriage traffic has led to considerable dust in the
dry season, and mud in winter, as the roads are metaled with very soft
limestone. The Jerus-Jaffa Railway (a French company), 54 miles long, which was
opened in 1892, has steadily increased its traffic year by year, and is now a
very paying concern. There is no real municipal water-supply, and no public sewers
for the new suburbs - though the old city is drained by a leaking,
ill-constructed medieval sewer, which opens just below the Jewish settlement in
the Kidron and runs down the Wâdy en Nâr. A water-supply,
new Sewers, electric trams and electric lights for the streets, are all
much-talked-of improvements. There are numerous hotels, besides extensive
accommodations in the religious hospices, and no less than 15 hospitals and
asylums.
Literature
This is enormous, but of very unequal value and
much of it out of date. For all purposes the best book of reference is Jerusalem
from the Earliest Times to ad 70, 2 volumes, by Principal G.A. Smith. It
contains references to all the literature. To this book and to its author it is
impossible for the present writer adequately to express his indebtedness, and
no attempt at acknowledgment in detail has been made in this article. In
supplement of the above, Jerusalem, by Dr. Selah Merrill, and Jerusalem
in Bible Times, by Professor Lewis B. Paton, will be found useful. The
latter is a condensed account, especially valuable for its illustrations and
its copious references. Of the articles in the recent Bible Dictionaries on
Jerusalem, that by Conder in HDB is perhaps the most valuable. Of
guide-books, Baedeker's Guide to Palestine and Syria (1911), by Socin
and Benzinger, and Barnabe Meistermann's (R.C.) New Guide to the Holy Land
(1909), will be found useful; also Hanauer's Walks about Jerusalem.
On
Geology, Climate and Water-Supply
Hull's “Memoir on Physical Geography and Geology of
Arabian Petrea, Palestine, and Adjoining Districts,” PEF; and
Blankenhorn,” Geology of the Nearer Environs of Jerusalem,” ZDPV, 1905;
Chaplin, “Climate of Jerusalem,” PEFS, 1883; Glaisher, “Meteorol.
Observations in Palestine,” special pamphlet of the Palestine Exploration
Fund; Hilderscheid, “Die Niederschlägsverhaltnisse Palestine in alter u.
neuer Zeit,” ZDPV (1902); Huntington, Palestine and Its
Transformation (1911); Andrew Watt, “Climate in Hebron,” etc., Journal
of the Scottish Meteorological Society (1900-11); Schick, “Die
Wasserversorgung der Stadt Jerusalem,” ZDPV, 1878; Wilson “Water Supply
of Jerusalem,” Proceedings of the Victoria Institute, 1906; Masterman,
in Biblical World, 1905.
On
Archaeology and Topography
PEF, volume on Jerusalem,
with accompanying maps and plans; Clermont-Ganneau, Archaeological
Researches, I, 1899 (PEF); William, Holy City (1849);
Robinson, Biblical Researches (1856); Wilson, Recovery of Jerusalem
(1871); Warren, Underground Jerusalem (1876); Vincent, Underground
Jerusalem (1911); Guthe, “Ausgrabungen in Jerusalem,” ZDPV, V; Bliss
and Dickie, Excavations in Jerusalem (1894-97); Sanday, Sacred Sites
of the Gospels (1903); Mitchell, “The Wall of Jerusalem according to the
Book of Neh,” JBL (1903); Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre
(1906); Kuemmel, Materialien z. Topographie des alten Jerusalem; also
numerous reports in the PEFS; Zeitschrift des deutschen Palestine
Vereins; and the Revue biblique.
On
History
Besides Bible, Apocrypha, works of Josephus, and History
of Tacitus: Besant and Palmer, History of Jerusalem; Conder, Judas
Maccabeus and Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem; Le Strange, Palestine
under the Moslems (1890); C.F. Kent, Biblical Geography and History
(1911). Bevan, Jerusalem under the High-Priests; Watson, The Story of
Jerusalem.
Source:
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Jerusalem
Called also Salem, Ariel, Jebus, the “city of God,” the “holy city;” by
the modern Arabs el-Khuds, meaning “the holy;” once “the city of Judah” (2Ch_25:28). This name is in the original in the
dual form, and means “possession of peace,” or “foundation of peace.” The dual
form probably refers to the two mountains on which it was built, viz., Zion and
Moriah; or, as some suppose, to the two parts of the city, the “upper” and the
“lower city.” Jerusalem is a “mountain city enthroned on a mountain fastness”
(compare Psa_68:15, Psa_68:16; Psa_87:1;
Psa_125:2; Psa_76:1,
Psa_76:2; Psa_122:3).
It stands on the edge of one of the highest table-lands in Palestine, and is
surrounded on the south-eastern, the southern, and the western sides by deep
and precipitous ravines.
It is first mentioned in Scripture under the name Salem (Gen_14:18; compare Psa_76:2).
When first mentioned under the name Jerusalem, Adonizedek was its king (Jos_10:1). It is afterwards named among the
cities of Benjamin (Jdg_19:10; 1Ch_11:4); but in the time of David it was
divided between Benjamin and Judah. After the death of Joshua the city was
taken and set on fire by the men of Judah (Jdg_1:1-8);
but the Jebusites were not wholly driven out of it. The city is not again
mentioned till we are told that David brought the head of Goliath thither (1Sa_17:54). David afterwards led his forces
against the Jebusites still residing within its walls, and drove them out,
fixing his own dwelling on Zion, which he called “the city of David” (2Sa_5:5-9; 1Ch_11:4-8).
Here he built an altar to the Lord on the threshing-floor of Araunah the
Jebusite (2Sa_24:15-25), and thither he
brought up the ark of the covenant and placed it in the new tabernacle which he
had prepared for it. Jerusalem now became the capital of the kingdom.
After the death of David, Solomon built the temple, a house for the name
of the Lord, on Mount Moriah (1010 B.C.). He also greatly strengthened and
adorned the city, and it became the great centre of all the civil and religious
affairs of the nation (Deu_12:5;
compare Deu_12:14; Deu_14:23; Deu_16:11-16;
Psa_122:1-9).
After the disruption of the kingdom on the accession to the throne of
Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, Jerusalem became the capital of the kingdom of
the two tribes. It was subsequently often taken and retaken by the Egyptians,
the Assyrians, and by the kings of Israel (2Ki_14:13,
2Ki_14:14; 2Ki_18:15,
2Ki_18:16; 2Ki_23:33-35;
2Ki_24:14; 2Ch_12:9;
2Ch_26:9; 2Ch_27:3,
2Ch_27:4; 2Ch_29:3;
2Ch_32:30; 2Ch_33:11),
till finally, for the abounding iniquities of the nation, after a siege of
three years, it was taken and utterly destroyed, its walls razed to the ground,
and its temple and palaces consumed by fire, by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of
Babylon (2 Kings 25; 2 Chr. 36; Jer. 39), 588 B.C.. The desolation of the city
and the land was completed by the retreat of the principal Jews into Egypt
(Jer. 40-44), and by the final carrying captive into Babylon of all that still
remained in the land (Jer_52:3), so
that it was left without an inhabitant (582 B.C.). Compare the predictions,
Deut. 28; Lev. 26:14-39.
But the streets and walls of Jerusalem were again to be built, in
troublous times (Dan_9:16, Dan_9:19, Dan_9:25),
after a captivity of seventy years. This restoration was begun 536 B.C., “in
the first year of Cyrus” (Ezr_1:2, Ezr_1:3, Ezr_1:5-11).
The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah contain the history of the re-building of the
city and temple, and the restoration of the kingdom of the Jews, consisting of
a portion of all the tribes. The kingdom thus constituted was for two centuries
under the dominion of Persia, till 331 B.C.; and thereafter, for about a
century and a half, under the rulers of the Greek empire in Asia, till 167
B.C.. For a century the Jews maintained their independence under native rulers,
the Asmonean princes. At the close of this period they fell under the rule of
Herod and of members of his family, but practically under Rome, till the time
of the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. The city was then laid in ruins.
The modern Jerusalem by-and-by began to be built over the immense beds
of rubbish resulting from the overthrow of the ancient city; and whilst it
occupies certainly the same site, there are no evidences that even the lines of
its streets are now what they were in the ancient city. Till A.D. 131 the Jews
who still lingered about Jerusalem quietly submitted to the Roman sway. But in
that year the emperor (Hadrian), in order to hold them in subjection, rebuilt
and fortified the city. The Jews, however, took possession of it, having risen
under the leadership of one Bar-Chohaba (i.e., “the son of the star”) in revolt
against the Romans. Some four years afterwards (A.D. 135), however, they were
driven out of it with great slaughter, and the city was again destroyed; and
over its ruins was built a Roman city called Aelia Capitolina, a name which it
retained till it fell under the dominion of the Mohammedans, when it was called
el-Khuds, i.e., “the holy.”
In A.D. 326 Helena, mother of the emperor Constantine, made a pilgrimage
to Jerusalem with the view of discovering the places mentioned in the life of
our Lord. She caused a church to be built on what was then supposed to be the
place of the nativity at Bethlehem. Constantine, animated by her example,
searched for the holy sepulchre, and built over the supposed site a magnificent
church, which was completed and dedicated A.D. 335. He relaxed the laws against
the Jews till this time in force, and permitted them once a year to visit the
city and wail over the desolation of “the holy and beautiful house.”
In A.D. 614 the Persians, after defeating the Roman forces of the
emperor Heraclius, took Jerusalem by storm, and retained it till A.D. 637, when
it was taken by the Arabians under the Khalif Omar. It remained in their possession
till it passed, in A.D. 960, under the dominion of the Fatimite khalifs of
Egypt, and in A.D. 1073 under the Turcomans. In A.D. 1099 the crusader Godfrey
of Bouillon took the city from the Moslems with great slaughter, and was
elected king of Jerusalem. He converted the Mosque of Omar into a Christian
cathedral. During the eighty-eight years which followed, many churches and
convents were erected in the holy city. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was
rebuilt during this period, and it alone remains to this day. In A.D. 1187 the
sultan Saladin wrested the city from the Christians. From that time to the
present day, with few intervals, Jerusalem has remained in the hands of the
Moslems. It has, however, during that period been again and again taken and retaken,
demolished in great part and rebuilt, no city in the world having passed
through so many vicissitudes.
In the year 1850 the Greek and Latin monks residing in Jerusalem had a
fierce dispute about the guardianship of what are called the “holy places.” In
this dispute the emperor Nicholas of Russia sided with the Greeks, and Louis
Napoleon, the emperor of the French, with the Latins. This led the Turkish
authorities to settle the question in a way unsatisfactory to Russia. Out of
this there sprang the Crimean War, which was protracted and sanguinary, but
which had important consequences in the way of breaking down the barriers of
Turkish exclusiveness.
Modern Jerusalem “lies near the summit of a broad mountain-ridge, which
extends without interruption from the plain of Esdraelon to a line drawn
between the southern end of the Dead Sea and the southeastern corner of the
Mediterranean.” This high, uneven table-land is everywhere from 20 to 25
geographical miles in breadth. It was anciently known as the mountains of
Ephraim and Judah.
“Jerusalem is a city of contrasts, and differs widely from Damascus, not
merely because it is a stone town in mountains, whilst the latter is a mud city
in a plain, but because while in Damascus Moslem religion and Oriental custom
are unmixed with any foreign element, in Jerusalem every form of religion,
every nationality of East and West, is represented at one time.”
Jerusalem is first mentioned under that name in the Book of Joshua, and
the Tell-el-Amarna collection of tablets includes six letters from its Amorite
king to Egypt, recording the attack of the Abiri about 1480 B.C.. The name is
there spelt Uru-Salim (“city of peace”). Another monumental record in which the
Holy City is named is that of Sennacherib's attack in 702 B.C.. The “camp of
the Assyrians” was still shown about A.D. 70, on the flat ground to the
north-west, included in the new quarter of the city.
The city of David included both the upper city and Millo, and was
surrounded by a wall built by David and Solomon, who appear to have restored
the original Jebusite fortifications. The name Zion (or Sion) appears to have
been, like Ariel (“the hearth of God”), a poetical term for Jerusalem, but in
the Greek age was more specially used of the Temple hill. The priests' quarter
grew up on Ophel, south of the Temple, where also was Solomon's Palace outside
the original city of David. The walls of the city were extended by Jotham and
Manasseh to include this suburb and the Temple (2Ch_27:3;
2Ch_33:14).
Jerusalem is now a town of some 50,000 inhabitants,
with ancient mediaeval walls, partly on the old lines, but extending less far
to the south. The traditional sites, as a rule, were first shown in the 4th and
later centuries A.D., and have no authority. The results of excavation have,
however, settled most of the disputed questions, the limits of the Temple area,
and the course of the old walls having been traced. limits of the Temple area,
and the course of the old walls having been traced.
Source:
Easton’s Bible Dictionary