Antient Jerusalem. A new investigation into the history, topography and plan of the City, environs, and Temple

Front matter

©amlitiDge : ilrintrt at tfje Œtatoatts $ress. For MACMILLAN & Co. ItraBon : BELL AND DALDY, 186, FLEET STREET. ffllfotB: J. H. PARKER. ffiBlnlmtai) : EDMONSTON AND DOUGLAS. ffiutlln: HODGES AND SMITH. ©lasflOtt): JAMES MACLEHOSE. A NEW INVESTIGATION IHTO THE HISTORY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND PLAN or THE CITY, ENVIKONS, AND TEMPLE : DESIGNED PRINCIPALLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE RECORDS AND PROPHECIES OF SCRIPTURE. MUjj fHap, |JItma, ani> u%r Illustrations. TSY JOSEPH FRANCIS THRUPP, M.A. TICAE OF BAEBINGTON, AND LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE. CAMBBIDGP. Æambrfogn MACMILLAN & Co. 1855.

Preface

. No one who has visited Jerusalem can help feeling that he has enjoyed a great privilege in being thus enabled the more readily and vividly to picture to himself in after years those scenes amid which so many of the events of the Bible were transacted, and a just conception of which furnishes so much that is necessary towards a true appreciation and interpretation of the sacred writings. The interest which attaches to these scenes has encouraged very many of those personally conversant with them to give to the public the journals of their wanderings through them, and the accounts of the impressions produced upon their own minds at the time. And many have made a still better use of the advantages they have thus enjoyed, by employing them as a starting-point from which to carry on, partly on the spot, and partly on subsequent occasions, a systematic investigation into the topography of the antient city.

The labours of preceding authors have however left abundant room for a fresh work upon the subject. Prevalent errors with respect to some of the principal points in the antient topography of Jerusalem have not yet been removed; and the most important object to which investigations of this kind can be directed — the eluci dation of the writings of the Old Testament — has of late years been, comparatively speaking, either depreciated or neglected. VI

PREFACE.

. In treating of Jerusalem in the following pages, I have accordingly endeavoured to keep the one great aim of biblical illustration constantly in view; and though I have occasionally found it necessary to dwell upon points which the Scriptures do not directly bring before us, or to glance at subsequent passages in the history of the city, such digressions must be viewed throughout as only subsidiary to the main purpose of the volume. I trust however that I shall not be understood as wishing in any way to disparage the works of those of whose labours I have made use, or to appropriate any portion of the merit which justly belongs to them. Of the works which the reader will find quoted in the course of the volume, some need no commendation from me; and there is not one of them which may not be perused, and which I have not myself perused, both with pleasure and profit.

In this as in other subjects, it is only through the gradual progress made by a succession of enquirers, each working upon the researches of those that have gone before, that any hope can be entertained of ultimately arriving at the truth. It is the more incumbent upon me to make this general acknowledgment of the services of those who have preceded me, since in the course of my argument I have unavoidably dwelt the most upon those points in which it has been necessary to combat their views. In respect of my more private obligations, I must not omit to return my thanks to my friend the Rev. W. J. Beamont, Fellow of Trinity College, and Principal of the English College at Jerusalem, for the information with which he has furnished me respecting several spots in and around the city. For the views advanced in the course of the volume I alone am responsible.

As I have in every case stated the reasons for the conclusions at which I have arrived, so I have myself ever endeavoured fairly to weigh the arguments of others ; and whether I have adopted or rejected their theories, I have done

PREFACE.

. VII it neither carelessly nor rashly. And should it be deemed an objection to any of the views here advanced, that they are new, or opposed to those commonly received, the importance of the subject will at least claim for them a candid and attentive examination of the evidence by which they are supported. In writing Arabic words in Roman characters, the object aimed at has been to represent accurately the true Arabic pro nunciation. The system of Dr Robinson and Mr Eli Smith has in general been followed; but their « has been uniformly replaced by a, which like the Arabic Fathah has in rapid pro nunciation the dull sound of the a in sofa, pendant, or of the u in sun. No attempt has been made to distinguish in writing between the ordinary lc, s, &c. and the intensive k, s, &c. of the Semitic languages.

Of the vowels, a has the various sounds of the a in grant, pant, want, and pendant; a those of the a in father, water ; e may be sounded as in tell; i as in chin i; as in machine; o as in cold; u as in full; u as in rule; y as in truly: ai as in aisle, ei as in veil; while the sound of the ou in house would be represented by au. The consonants b, d,f, h,j, lc, I, m, n, r, s, sh, t, w, y, z, may be pronounced nearly as in English ; th has the sound of th in think: the th in this would be written dh; kh is a guttural aspirate, stronger than the German ch, and resembling the Spanish j or Greek x i 9^ the SaTS^S 8°und °f the Paris r ; and (') is a modification of the gh: it is the sound which would be made in passing rapidly from the sound of the o in world to that of the vowel before which it stands.

PREFACE.

. In writing Hebrew words in Roman characters, no accurate orthographical system has been attempted, but the analogy of the Hebrew names in our English Bible has been followed. It must be specially noted that the letter z stands, as in our Bible, not only for the t (z) but also for the V (ts) of the Hebrew alphabet. CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Paqb

Introduction ............ i The modern city ........... 7 Zion — The City of David 12 The earlier and later Zion ......... ib. Zion the temple-hill ........... 17 Origin of the later tradition ......... 18 Topography of .Tosephus .......... 30

Chapter II

History op the City. The Salem of Melchizedek .41 The land of Moriah 42 History of Manetho .......... 50 The fortress Chadash .......... 51 Invasion of the Israelites 53 David — The Upper and Lower City ....... 55 Millo 57 Removal of the ark — Preparations for the temple .... 59 Solomon 64 The palace 66 The ascent into the House of the Lord 68 The House of the Forest of Lebanon 73 Separation of the kingdoms 75 The gate of Ephraim and corner-gate 78 Towers of Uzziah ........... 79 Ophel ib. X CONTENTS.

FACI Invasion of Sennacherib .....-••• Upper watercourse of Gihon New watercourse of Gihon ...•••■■ Wall of Hezekiah and Manasseh Later northern wall ....-•■•• Gate of Benjamin * Further history and decline of the Monarchy "5 Return from the captivity Rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah "** The sheep-gate and fish-gate 1'24 The middle gate and old gate ,45 The broad waU I27 The valley or pottery-gate and tower of the furnaces . . • .1*28 Course of the southern wall .....•••• I29 The cheese-gate ... ■ • l32 The fountain-gate .....••••■ "33 Position of Siloah . . . . ■ • ■ • • • --35 The dragon-well 136 Water of Siloah H5 Water of the dragon-well ......... i£o The king's winepresses 158 Sepulchres of David ' °° Wall of the temple area '69 Horse-gate . . . . . • • • • ■ • • '71 Supplementary topographical notices . . . ■ • • I72 Jerusalem under the Persians and Macedonians . . . . . *73 The Maccabees 1 78 Removal of the Akra ........-■ '79 Capture of the city by Pompey 181 Herod the Great 183 Herod's towers, — Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne 186 The palace and Xystus ......... 190 Jerusalem in the times of the New Testament . . . . .192 House of Caiaphas .......... 193 Judgment-hall of Pilate . . . . . . . . . .194 Great wall of Herod Agrippa ........ 195 Destruction of Jerusalem ......... 199 Foundation of Ælia loi Buildings of Hadrian — the Golden Gateway ...... 103 Attempt of Julian to rebuild the temple . .... CONTENTS. XI

Chapter III

Environs or Jerusalem. PAGE Wall of circumvallation of Titus 208 Camp of the Assyrians .......... 210 Sepulchres of John the high-priest and king Alexander . ... ib. The Kidron 211 Gethsemane . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Valley of Jehoshaphat 213 Mount of Olives 214 Bethany .......*.... 216 Bethphage . . . . . . . . . . . .217 Cave ofthe Prophecy . . ....... 222 Church and place of the Ascension . . . . . . . .223 Monuments of the Kidron 227 Peristereon or Dovecote . . . . . . . . . .236 Valley of the Fountain .......... 237 Enrogel ii. Sepulchres south of Hinnom ......... 239 House of Annas ........... 241 Valley of Hinnom, Tophet ......... 242 Sepulchres of Herod, and Serpents' Pool ....... 243 Sepulchre of Helena .......... 246 Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre . . . . . . . .266

Chapter IV

The Temple. History of the temple 292 The Haram esh-Sherif 296 Site of the temple ........... 302 Masonry of the Haram walls ........ 305 Extent of the temple .......... 309 The Antonia ........... 313 Valley north of the temple . . . . . . . . .319 Limits of the temple enclosure ........ 330 Details of the temple of Herod . . . . . . . . .322 Temple of Solomon — its Egyptian character 337 Details of the temple of Solomon ........ CONTENTS. XII PAI.K Completion of the first temple ....-•• 359 Subsequent history of the first temple .....-• 3"3 Character of Ezekiel's vision ...••••■• 305 Details of the temple of Ezekiel ....-■•• 377 Conclusion .....-••••■• 394

Appendix

. Note A. Theories respecting Akra ........ 401 Note B. Shiloh 404 Note C. The Church of Justinian at Jerusalem 405 Note D. Traditions respecting the Sakhrah, &c. ..... 408 Description of the Plates 410 Index of Scripture references . . . . . . . . . 413 Plates I. II. III. and Map JERUSALEM. BASED UPON THE ENGLISH ORDNANCE SURVEY AND ON THE MAP OF D" TOBLER.

Introduction

.

rpHE importance of the history of the Jewish nation, -■- whom God chose from among all the nations of the earth to be the guardians of His sacred truth until the fulness of the times of the Messiah was come, and the inestimable value of the inspired records in which that history is preserved, invest Jerusalem with an interest beyond that which attaches to any other antient city. Not only was it the royal metropolis of David and of the succeeding Jewish kings : not only was it within its walls that many of the gospel prophecies of the Hebrew prophets were uttered : but from the time of king Solo mon onward it was the chosen city where, within the sacred shrine that had been reared to the honour and glory of His name, God sojourned among men. "In Salem was His tabernacle, and His dwelling-place in Zion."

And when the time of the fulfilment of the promises had arrived, and when the sins of Jerusalem had provoked God to leave her house desolate, and to spread through all the world the knowledge of the truth which had been hitherto confined to a single nation, still it was in the city of Jerusalem that the A. J. ' V Saviour of the world was condemned to die, and it was not far from her walls that the one solemn sacrifice was offered, by which Adam's transgression was done away, and man redeemed. It was in Jerusalem that the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the apostles on the great day of Pentecost ; and from Jerusalem that they commenced the preaching of the gospel of Christ. It is not however merely by reason of her con nexion with the historical events of the Bible that Jerusalem forces her claims upon our attention.

It is not solely because the historical interest of the Bible exceeds that of all other histories, that the memory of Jerusalem awakens in our hearts feelings of such deep and solemn emotion. In pursuance of God's plan of revelation, which is to explain spiritual truths by their analogy with outward and visible things, and thus to make what is earthly the type of that which is of a higher order, the city and temple of Jerusalem were employed by the Hebrew prophets as the suggestive groundwork of the prophecies which they delivered respecting the future glories of the Christian church. The hills, the walls and the sanctuary of Jerusalem formed, as it were, the language in which the history of the Christian church was written : and the capital of the Jewish nation was thus endowed with a world-wide importance and interest.

The extent of the interest which is really felt in the city that men once called The Perfection of Beauty, The Joy of the whole Earth, has been practically evinced by the way in which, from the earliest ages of Christianity to the present day, pilgrims and travellers have thronged from every part of Christendom to this one spot, to survey the hallowed site, to gaze on the buildings that still adorn and the walls that still sur round it, and to seek out and explore the existing

INTRODUCTION.

. remains of antiquity. These last, in spite of the restric tions imposed upon antiquarian research by the jealousy of Moslem domination, have been of late years by the labours of several enterprising travellers and residents diligently investigated and examined. There are how ever few antient cities whose topography is enveloped in such grievous uncertainties as those which still hang over the position of the different parts and buildings of Jerusalem : and notwithstanding all that has been recently written on the subject, it is hardly too much to say that there is not one point in the whole topography of the Holy City with respect to which scholars are entirely agreed. These uncertainties may be in great measure ex plained by the intensity of the interest with which Jerusalem has been regarded, which has from a very early period led men to identify the different parts of the antient city with unconscious heedlessness, or on insufficient grounds.

The conclusions thus formed have, after being handed down from generation to generation, obtained general acceptance from having been allowed to pass so long unchallenged : and suc ceeding writers, even those of the most independent tone of mind and the best qualified to judge for them selves, have not been in all instances able to disencumber themselves of erroneous views, some of them of the highest importance, which have thus unfortunately gained prevalence. The inconvenience of these false views is painfully felt by the student in the very no menclature current among the Christians of the present day : and it is for this reason that I shall, even at the risk of incurring the charge of pedantry, attempt, in describing the parts of the modem city, to employ as much as possible those names which do not involve any theory of its antient topography. 1—2 It is not easy to draw any accurate line of dis tinction between these traditional theories of sacred topography, and those almost innumerable ecclesiastical traditions indicatory of the localities of sacred interest in the city and neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which have been preserved rather for the avowed purpose of assist ing the devotions of the pilgrim than by the unconscious perpetuation of a received nomenclature, or in any spirit of archæological research.

Of the general value of these traditions as aids in the prosecution of our inves tigations it would be unwise to form a priori any rash or decisive estimate. Their general authority is best tested by those particular instances in which we have independent means of ascertaining their truth. If we find some of the traditions trustworthy, we shall be justly led to attach more value to the rest. And if, on the other hand, we can shew that many of the current traditions are inconsistent with each other, or with those received in previous ages, or that they palpably contradict the authority of Scripture, then our estimate of the general authority of the traditionary evidence will be necessarily lowered. The specific worth of any particular tradition consists in the degree of probability there is that it may have been handed down in un broken continuity, and unaltered, from the time when there were undoubted means of knowing or arriving at the truth.

The comparative value of the traditions must consequently be partly measured by what is gene rally, though incorrectly, designated their antiquity : that is to say, the distance of time to which they can be traced back. The traditions of which the first notices come before us in the writings of the twelfth century are obviously of very inferior authority to those men tioned in the records of the fourth. Indeed the truth of the later traditions can in a large number, perhaps

INTRODUCTION.

. in the majority of instances, be hardly seriously de fended. There can be httle doubt that many of them were originated in the times following the conquest of the city by the crusaders, when the convents of Latin monks were established as the express guardians of the sacred localities. The scenes of the minutest events recorded in the Bible, more especially of those con nected with the gospel history, were, if unknown, con ventionally fixed : and fresh events, of which the Bible makes no mention, were supplied by the imagination. With each successive age the number of sacred locali ties was gradually increased. Truth in these matters was not in general the end that the pilgrims had in view : and where the means or the disposition for arriving at the truth were wanting, plausible error or rash conjecture was accepted in its place.

In estimating the value of traditionary evidence, it must be further remembered that the attention of the Christians of all ages has been more especially fastened upon the scenes of exclusively Christian interest; and it can therefore be no matter of surprise if all traditional knowledge respecting most of the spots important in the study of Jewish archæology should prove to have been completely corrupted or lost. The utter demo lition of the city by Titus, the prohibition to the Jews from the time of Hadrian to that of Constantine to approach their former capital under pain of death, the transformation of Jerusalem into the Roman colony of Ælia, a name which was even familiarly adopted by the Christian inhabitants of the place, all conspire to render it probable that the accurate topography of the antient city was forgotten at a very early period.

By far the most important writings which bear upon the biblical topography of the city, are those of the historian Josephus. What he describes, he describes as an eye-witness : and his descriptions are generally trustworthy, although he betrays a continual tendency to exaggerate1. Bearing in mind however that he was fully acquainted with what he relates, it is not generally difficult in bis works to separate the true from the false. It is at the same time unfortunate that the names by which the different parts and gates of the city were known in his day, do not generally coincide with those employed in the Old Testament. The books of the Maccabees are important for many incidental notices of Jerusalem. Of inferior authority to the writings of Josephus are the traditionary records of the Jews which are preserved to us in the Talmud ; but though they must be used with caution, they throw considerable light upon the arrangement and size of the parts of the Jewish temple.

Valuable however as are these sources of information, I do not hesitate to express my belief that sufficient use has not been made of the notice which the Scriptures themselves contain, towards obtaining an accurate knowledge of the topography of the antient city. It is true that these notices are entirely inciden tal, yet such also, more or less, are the notices in Josephus : and if, instead of merely seeking to make the topography of the Bible square with preconceived notions, and with theories originally formed without reference to it, those scholars who have written on the subject had endeavoured, to a greater extent than they have done, to make the Bible itself its own interpreter, it is probable that they would at least have avoided 1 As instances of this may be mentioned his estimate of the num ber killed in the siege of Jerusa lem— 1,100,000 : and of the depth of the foundation of Solomon's temple — 300 cubits.

Tacitus gives the whole number of the besieged at 600,000 : and the height of the site of the temple above the adjacent valley is not more than 200 feet.

INTRODUCTION.

. some of the more important errors into which they have fallen. For the complete elucidation of the subject an accu rate survey of the nature of the ground occupied by the city, as also of the existing remains and vestiges of the antient buildings, is indispensable. The plan there fore that I shall pursue in the present volume will be, first to describe the position and parts of the modern town : next, having thus obtained a basis of proceeding, to identify the principal parts of the antient city both as mentioned in the Bible and by Josephus : I shall then endeavour to trace the history of the city from the earliest times, shewing how it was gradually fortified, enlarged, rebuilt, altered, and beautified by successive generations : I shall then devote a chapter to the principal objects of interest in its immediate en virons: and lastly seek to determine the exact position and arrangement of that building which formed the especial glory of antient Jerusalem — the temple.

THE MODERN CITY. The city of Jerusalem, called by the Arabs Beit el-Mukaddas, "The Hallowed House, the Sanctuary," or more shortly, el-Kuds, " The Holy," hes near the summit of a broad mountain ridge', which extends in a southerly direction throughout the southern part of the Holy Land, from the great plain of Jezreel, to the frontier of the Arabian desert. The northern part of this mountain tract was formerly known under the name of the mountain of Ephraim, or mount Ephraim2, as it is somewhat inaccurately rendered in our Enghsh i See Robinson, Bibl. Res. I. p. 380 seqq. 2 Josh. xvii. 15, &c. Bible : the southern part formed the hill-country of Judah1 : in the centre of which, near the city of He bron, about six hours' journey south of Jerusalem, the ridge attains its greatest height of upwards of 3000 Enghsh feet above the level of the sea.

The highest point of the city of Jerusalem is between 2300 and 2400 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. It is not unworthy of remark, that after the divi sion of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, the rival capital of Samaria, built by Omri, occupied one of the mountains of this same ridge : it was thus that Jere miah, in foretelling the restoration of Israel, described them as planting vines upon the mountains of Sa maria2 : and Ezekiel, in speaking of the reunion of the two kingdoms, prophesied that they should be made one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel3. The ground on which the city of Jerusalem stands, is included in a fork between two valleys which meet to the south, or south-east of the city, near the Well of Job (Bir Eyub), and run on together under the name Wady en-Nar or Wady er-Rahib, first in a south erly, and then in an easterly direction to the Dead Sea.

Of these two valleys, the south-western, known at the present day as Wady er-Rababy, begins near the large pool Birket el-Mamilla, west of the city, and runs for about 600 yards towards the Western or Yafa gate : it then bends southward, and then once more eastward, thus skirting the city on the western and southern sides. The other valley, which has acquired the name Wady Yehoshafat, or the Valley of Jehoshaphat, takes its rise near the Tombs of the Judges, considerably to the north-west of the city : but from a point nearly three quarters of a mile due N. of the Birket el- 1 Josh. xv. 48 ; xx. 7 ; xxi. 11. 2 Jer. xxxi. 5. Luke i. 39. 3 Ezek. xxxvii 3 Ezek. xxxvii. 22. THE MODERN CITY. Mamilla, it runs in an easterly direction for about a mile, and then turning southward skirts the whole of the eastern side of the city till it finally joins the Wady er- Rababy near the Well of Job.

It is probable that for the few years that elapsed between the enlargement of the city by Herod Agrippa a.d. 42, and its destruction by Titus a.d. 71, nearly the whole of the ground intercepted between these val leys was included within the walls : but the present north wall runs very considerably to the south of the northern part of the Wady Yehoshafat : and we shall have reason to see that in the Bible times, the city was still less extensive in the north. The modern city may be said to approximate to the form of a parallelogram, whose eastern and western sides run north and south, but whose north-eastern and south-eastern corners stand more northerly than the north-western and south western corners respectively. A very marked valley, which deepens as it runs southward, traverses the city from north to south, commencing outside the north or Damascus gate, crossing the south wall of the city near the Bab el-Mugharibeh or Moors' gate (now closed), and running into the Wady Yeh6shafat just above its junction with the Wady er-Rababy.

The main part of the city in antient times must always have stood upon the hill that now forms its south-western quarter, and which is bounded on the west and south by the Wady er-Rababy, on the east by the traversing valley, and on the north by a street leading eastward from the Yafa gate, known by the crusaders as the Street of David, and afterwards called ELhat 'Arset el-Ghalal1, (Line of the Space of Produce), and its continuations. This hill is universally known among the Christians as Mount Zion : its summit is 1 Mejir ed-Din, in Appendix to Williams' Memoir, p. 158. now occupied by the Armenian convent, its north brow might be not improperly termed the English quarter, its eastern part and brow form the Jews' quarter, while its southern part, with all its south brow, lies at present without the city-wall.

There can however be little doubt that they were included in the antient city. At the foot of this hill, and stretching northward from the Khat 'Arset el-Ghalal, and bounded on the east by a long line of street leading up to the Damascus gate, is the Christian quarter, in the middle of which stands the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The greater part of this quarter is now level : the ground rises how ever near the north wall, and especially towards the north-west corner above the Latin Convent, which is thus said to be the highest part of the whole city. To the east of the traversing valley, the south eastern part of the city is occupied by the area of the great mosk Kubbet es-Sakhrah or the Dome of the Rock. The area itself, which is upwards of 1500 feet from N. to S. and averages nearly 1000 feet from E. to W. is called el-Haram esh-Sherif, " The Noble Sanc tuaiy."

It is universally agreed that somewhere within this area stood the antient Jewish temple. The southern part of the hill occupied by the area slopes down outside the south wall, and is thus excluded from the city, although we shall find that, like the southern part of the former hill, it was in antient times included within it. Between the Haram esh-Sherif and the north city wall, rises a high hill, which together with the valley in the middle of the city, and even some ground to the west of the valley, form the Muhammedan quarter. That part of the Muhammedan quarter which occupies the southern portion of the valley, may be specially distinguished from the rest as the Moors' quarter. THE MODERN CITY. 11 Besides this, there is to the north of the Haram esh- Sherif, and intercepted between the high hill last men tioned and the northern part of the east city-wall, a narrow ridge, connected with the high ground north of the city, which is occupied by what is known as the Haret Bab el-Hitta or quarter of the Gate of Pardon ; so called from the name of the gate of the Haram which opens on to it.

Politically, the Haret Bab el- Hitta forms a mere part of the Muhammedan quarter : but for topographical purposes it may be conveniently distinguished from it. Of all these, the first, the hill on which stand the Armenian and Jewish quarters, and the third, the Haram esh-Sherif, are in an antiquarian point of view the most important : as it will be seen that they, together with those portions of their respective ridges which are now excluded by the south wall, including also the Moors' quarter which hes in the valley between them, formed the site of the city in the times of the Old Testament : and Josephus tells us1 that the old city-wall, which was principally built in the days of David and Solomon, was, on account of the valleys by which it was sur rounded, and the crest of the hill on which it was built, almost impregnable.