The Holy City: or, historical and topographical notices of Jerusalem; with some account of its antiquities and of its present condition

Front matter

mit f^olg Œitg; 0 R HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL NOTICES OF JERUSALEM; WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS ANTIQUITIES AND OF ITS PRESENT CONDITION. BY THE REY. GEORGE WILLIAMS, M.A. FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE ; AND LATE CHAPLAIN TO BISHOP ALEXANDER, AT JEROSALEM. WITH ILLUSTRATIONS FROM SKETCHES BY THE REV. W. F. WITTS, B.A.. FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. View of tbe Dead Sea from the W. of Mt. of Olivea. LONDON: JOHN W. PARKER, WEST STRAND. CAMBRIDGE: T. STEVENSON. M.DCCC.XLV. TO THE PROVOSTS, FELLOWS, AND SCHOLARS OF THE TWO ROYAL AND RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS OF KING HENRY THE SIXTH: AS A TRIBUTE OF GRATITUDE FOR BENEFITS RECEIVED IN THOSE COLLEGES, THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED. a

Preface

. To attempt a full and connected narrative of the various events which have befallen the most ancient City of the world from its foundation to the present day, would require volumes, and was not contemplated in the present work ; the design of which is, simply to gather together into one view such notices of Jerusalem as are not easily within the reach of the English reader. I have already far exceeded the limits which I originally proposed to myself. In the prosecution of my main object, it was necessary to avoid extraneous discus sions, however strong the temptation to enter on them, and to pass very lightly over much ground on which I would fain have lingered. Where I have entered into details in the historical part, I had generally some definite purpose in view, though it may not always be apparent to the reader, and did not seem necessary or desirable to declare it.

The topography and antiquities were kept always in view in composing the historical chapters; and I was careful to note all the passages which would throw light on what I hope may prove the most valuable and successful part of my undertaking. This will explain the minute detail of the progress of the siege under Titus, and again, by the Crusaders. The earher part of the Christian period has been fully dwelt on, with a view to remove the common, but most erroneous supposition, that the ancient records of the Church of Ælia have hopelessly perished, and that Eusebius is its earliest historian, instead of a mere transcriber of contemporaneous testimony. Where later writers VI

PREFACE.

. have been full and explicit it was unnecessary to enlarge ; and I have satisfied myself with a bare outline, leaving it to be filled up from other quarters, to which I have referred. It was impossible to write on the subject of Jerusalem without recording, at almost every page, the remarkable fulfilment of numerous prophecies, relating to that city and its inhabitants; but as it would have been no kindness to the reader to deprive him of the satisfaction of gathering flowers in this interesting and important field, with his own hand, and the subject was foreign to my purpose, I have passed them in silence. And now, should it be asked, what occasion there was to inflict upon the patient public another volume, on a subject with which the press has been teeming for several seasons, I confess that it requires explanation, and I will offer the best apology I can.

A work of much research has now been for some years before the world, one unavowed but ill-disguised object of which is to bring discredit on the early local tra ditions of Palestine, so as ultimately to involve the venerable Fathers of the Church in the charge of dishonesty or unaccountable ignorance. The affectation of candour and impar tiality with which the inquiry into the value of ecclesiastical traditions is there conducted, has given an additional weight to the observations in the minds of those who have neither the means nor the opportunity of testing their accuracy for themselves ; so that much higher value has been set upon the arguments than they deserved. I do not hesitate to declare that one object of the present volume is to expose the fallacy of many conclusions, argued out very often on insufficient premises, or in contravention of historical or topographical phenomena, by the author of the " Biblical Researches in

PREFACE.

. Palestine," in the hope that the consideration of facts, which he has either overlooked or neglected, may prove, what some might imagine requires no demonstration, that the evidence of a partial witness of the nineteenth century is insufficient against the voice of catholic antiquity. My motive I need not be ashamed to avow. Whatever opinion may be entertained of the ecclesiastical writers of the fourth century by that author, or others, the slightest knowledge of the formularies of the Church of Eng land, or of the writings of her more eminent divines, convinc ingly proves, that they who remodelled our Church in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, proposed to themselves for a pattern of pure and primitive Christianity that very age which is now represented as sunk in the lowest depth of superstition or vice ; and, consequently, one who values our existing institutions must needs feel that the imputation deeply affects the character of those great men, if not for honesty, at least for sound judgment and discretion, or he must feel too deeply indebted to the Nicene age to hear its most dis tinguished doctors calumniated, and feel no interest in the quarrel.

A longer residence in Jerusalem than falls to the lot of common travellers, the diligent investigation of its antiquities on the spot, with the use of a carefully chosen library, have at least afforded me opportunities of arriving at a right decision on many points ; and may, I trust, excuse my presumption in pleading for a hearing in behalf of antiquity, whose cause seems to have been entirely given up before the champion of novelty, whom many subsequent travellers, without inves tigating for themselves, have followed with marvellous sub serviency. And it may add somewhat to the value of my

PREFACE.

. remarks to acknowledge that several of his theories are so very plausible, and appear at first sight to be so strongly supported, that I was myself for some time inclined to adopt many of them, until further consideration and study con vinced me that they were wholly untenable. I may specify particularly the interesting subject of the Temple-area and the Antonia, as points on which I expected that I should wholly coincide with his views ; but on which I venture to hope that he himself will acknowledge he was mistaken. For as no ecclesiastical tradition is involved in this question, there can be no temptation to either party to persist in a mistake ; inasmuch as the argument for or against their general credibility cannot be at all affected by the conces sion ; nor will any reasonable person imagine that a writer's credit is injured by the demonstration or acknowledgment of error on a point of so much obscurity.

I learn from a number of a magazine, of which Dr Ro binson is editor, that so long ago as November 1843, he had received instructions from various quarters " that some of his statements and positions in respect to the topography of Jeru salem, and some other places, were likely to be assailed, in carrying on a crusade in favour of the reputed site of the Holy Sepulchre." Who may be the " wandering hermit," prepared to " wake the storm of war" in this good cause, I cannot imagine, but I sincerely hope that I may not be interfering with the task of one better qualified than myself to perform it. My only desire is to act as a humble " man at-arms" in the attempt " to tear from the unbelievers the precious Tomb of the Captain of our Salvation ;" and in com mon with all engaged in the " Holy War," I must feel very grateful to a generous adversary for placing me under such

PREFACE.

. IX a glorious banner, thereby, I trust unwittingly, arraying him self with the disciples of the Koran and the Crescent, the avowed enemies not of the Sepulchre alone, but of the Holy Church Catholic. Should it be thought that the constant reference to one author has invested the controversy with a private and per sonal character, I can truly say that the result was felt to be as inevitable as it is undesirable. The " Biblical Researches" have obtained, and on many accounts have deserved, so much celebrity in England and in Germany, and so much attention has been devoted by the writer to this particular subject, that he stands forth necessarily in the first ranks as Chief tain of the wnbelieving array, and as such must bear the brunt of the battle. And may I be permitted to express a hope, that while fighting under our respective colours, we shall all remember, that the only cause worth contending for is Truth, and that we may imitate not only the zeal but the courtesy of Christian and Saracenic warfare ?

It remains only that I express my obligations to those who have in any way aided me in my undertaking. The services of some have been acknowledged in the notes, but I must here mention two dear friends, my companions in Jerusalem, and fellow-travellers at different times in Palestine, The Reverend W. F. Witts of my own College, to whom I am indebted for the illustrations, and who has further under taken the labour of editorship during my absence from Eng land, — and the Reverend J. Rowlands of Queens' College, in the same University, whose early suggestions at Jerusalem have exercised a greater influence over this work than either X

PREFACE.

. of us are aware of. But for the solicitation of the former the work would not have been undertaken ; the intelligent sympathy and diligent research of the latter have done much towards qualifying me to perform it. Lastly, I would tender my thanks to his Excellency the Director of the Imperial Library at St Petersburg, and to two of the Librarians, for their great courtesy to a stranger. The attentions of Dr Gottwald and Dr Dorn, to whose kindness I was indebted for materials for my work at a distance from my own library, will not readily be forgotten. May their interest in Asiatic research derive some gratification from this volume, as a small compensation for the trouble which it has occasioned them. St Petersburg, Feast of the Epiphany, 1845. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Part I. History, Chap

PAGE I. Jerusalem from its Foundation to its Destruction by Nebuchadnezzar 1 — _8 II. From the Restoration under Cyrus, to its Destruction by Titus 49—120 III. From the Rebuilding of " Ælia Capitolina," under Adrian, to its Destruction by Chosroes 121 — 195 IV. Jerusalem under the Christian and Mahommedan Domination 196—249 PAGE

Part II. Topography, Antiquities

&c I. Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Dr Robinson's Topography 253—314 II. The Jewish Temple, and the Fortress Antonia 315 — 362 III. Antiquities without the City 363 — 428 IV. Modern Jerusalem, and its Inhabitants 429 — EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES. As the illustrations have been introduced with a view to the topography, it has been thought that the following remarks may add to their value. By right and left in the description, the reader is to understand that position with reference to himself. 1. FRONTISPIECE. JERUSALEM, FROM THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. The spectator is looking west, over the deep Valley of Jehoshaphat, or the Valley of the Kedron : the pile of buildings on the left, outside the walls, is now known as Neby Daoud ; it comprehends the Tomb of David and the Cœ naculum, (see p. 417), and is situated on the part of Mount Zion now excluded from the city, (p. 415).

On the right, within the city, the lofty dome marks the Armenian Convent of St James, (p. 455). Beneath this, is a long building, with a dome, this is the Church of the Purification, built by Justinian, (p. 331), afterwards converted into the Mosk el-Aksa, (p. 334). The dark ridge sloping down to the left is Ophel, (p. 330). Beneath the church is seen the top of the Pillar of Absalom, standing in the valley, (p. 374). The three towers to the right of the Armenian Convent compose the modern citadel, and the one distinguished by the flag (which only flies on Fridays) is the Castle of David, or the Tower of the Pisans, the probable site of the ancient Hippie tower, (p. 105). The Mosk of Omar, with its courts, cannot be mistaken, (p. 205). Beneath this, in the wall, is the Golden Gate, (p. 328).

The two domes, above this, belong to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre ; the hinder one covers the Sacred Cave itself, (p. 298), the other belongs to the Greek Church, (p. 299). To the extreme right of the view is the Gate of St Stephen, (p. 364). 2. JERUSALEM, FROM THE NORTH. On the extreme left is the Mount of Olives, once crowned by the Church of the Ascension, (p. 365). Below this the Valley of the Kedron, from which rises Bezetha, obscuring the Mosk of Omar, whose dome is visible above it, (p. 282). Over the mosk is seen the Hill of Evil Council, (p. 410). To the right of Bezetha the ridge of Acra is visible crossed by the city walls, (p. 283). The cupola of the Armenian Convent, the two domes of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Castle of David will be easily found by consulting the description of the frontispiece.

The road to the city passes the Tombs of the Kings (p. 424), through an extensive olive-grove. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES. 3. WEST VIEW OF MOUNT ZION. This is taken from the head of the Valley of Hinnom (406, 431), the course of which is seen, bending to the right, round Mount Zion, part of which is without the city-walls, (p. 218). Without the walls, on the right, is seen the Tomb of David, &c. (p. 415), and within the large Armenian Convent of St James, (p. 455), with its garden in front ; to the left of which is the fortress, with the Hippie Tower, &c. (pp. 105, 217, 225), and below is the Jaffa Gate. 4. ENTRANCE TO THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE. The tower on the left is an ancient belfry ; it has suffered severely from earthquakes at various times. The date of this and of the windows and doors is disputed (298—9). 5.

ACRA, BEZETHA, AND THE SCOPUS. The view looks east, along the northern line of wall, the scene of the operations of the Crusaders and of Saladin, (p. 217). It is taken from the north-west angle of the present walls, within which are the remains of Tancred's Tower, (p. 217). It looks over the Tyropæon, (p. 273), to the hill Acra, (p. 277), and shews on the left an ancient stone quarry, called the Cave of Jeremiah, probably included in the second wall of Josephus, (p. 283). Beyond this is seen another hill, with olive-trees. This is Bezetha, (p. 282), and the high ground behind is the Scopus where Titus first encamped, (p. 110). 6. THE DAMASCUS GATE. This gate, which stands at the head of the Valley of the Tyropæon, in the north wall, probably occupies the site of the Gate of Ephraim, (p. 391).

It was called the St Stephen's Gate, in the time of the Crusaders, (p. 364). It is now known as Bab-es-Sham (the Damascus Gate), or Bab-el-Amud (the Gate of the Column). It is the handsomest gate now existing, and the new Pashas make their entrance through it. It is sometimes called, by the Moslems, " The Gate of Power." Immediately within this gate, on either hand, are two ruined chambers of cyclopean architecture, of an unknown date, (p. 262). The two domes ofthe Church ofthe Holy Sepulchre are seen over the wall. 7. CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE FROM NORTH OF MOUNT ZION. This is looking north, from the terrace of her Britannic Majesty's consul, situated on the steep brow of Mount Zion. The ruins of the extensive Hospital of the Knights of St John (p. 431) occupy the open space before the front of the Holy Sepulchre, whose features may be recognized by the two domes and tower.

To the right you look down upon the principal street in Jerusalem, usually known as " Christian Street," or " Patriarch Street," from which is the principal entrance to the court of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES. XV 8. INTERIOR OF THE CAVE OF ST JAMES. This ancient tomb is situated in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, near the Pillar of Absalom, (p. 373), and is entirely excavated in the rock. On the opposite side of the valley is shewn the south-east angle of what is commonly called the Temple Enclosure, i. e. the wall of the present haram, or court of the Mosk of Omar. The cyclopean stones may possibly have belonged to an angle in the first wall of Josephus, and be of Jewish masonry, (p. 330). 9. THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, The view is taken from the terrace of the house occupied by the author during his sojourn at Jerusalem, and afterwards tenanted by his Prussian Majesty's consul.

It should be mentioned, that in this view only artistic liberties have been taken with the foreground, but the representation of Mount Olivet is very faithful. Its three summits, the centre of which was occupied by the Church of the Ascension, (p. 365), now by a mosk and small village, may be clearly dis tinguished. 10. TOWER OF DAVID AND RESIDENCE OF THE ANGLICAN BISHOP, &c. The artist is standing immediately within the Jaffa Gate, (p. 430), with the Hippie Tower, now the Castle of David, on his right. To the left is the house occupied by Bishop Alexander, (1843). Through the opening, formed by the street which leads down to the Bazaars and the Mosk of Omar (p. 268), is seen the summit of the Mount of Olives. 11. BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF JERUSALEM. This view is supposed to be taken from a point in the air directly above the Hill of Evil Council, to the south of the city.

By comparing it with the Map of Jerusalem, and the different views, it will not be difficult to identify each particular object and feature. ERRATA. PAGE LINE FOB READ 5 note 4, dele "not." 8 15 mainly vainly. ii note 5, my tynar. 97 26 Prophyry Porphyry. 125 note 1 and 2, Valerius Valesius. 158 16 county country. 266 10 rubbrish rubbish. 275 note 7, Eyout Eyoub. Kef ereiic e. 1 Waiting place ofthe Jaws 2 Mckhcme or Cadi & Office 3 BT Robinsons rdrch. 4- Probable Site ofthe Gate of Get math 5 Ruined Gateway... 6 Ahlberge ofthe Ehiykts of S. John 7 H-('/rtt.\T.ofthei.on(1o7t.Te.:vSo<wH'f\A and foundations ofthe (hitfch . > Palace of S; Helena. 10 House of Sr J_ronica 11 Areh ofthe Hire Homo" 1. Church of the Flagellation 13 Tno Ciuimheiw of large stones Hllar of Absalom,

PART I. CHAPTER

I The early history of that city which was destined to occupy so conspicuous a place in the annals of the world, is so involved in obscurity, owing to the remote antiquity to which it belongs, that not only is nothing certain known of its origin, but writers are not agreed as to where it is first mentioned in Holy Scripture. The testimony of Josephus, representing as is probable the tradition of the Jewish church, has not been enough to satisfy either ancients or moderns that the Salem of Melchizedek is identical with the Jerusa lem of which David was the second founder ; but as this opinion rests on very high authority1, and has nothing in 1 Lightfoot quotes the Rabbies for j this tradition (Chorograph. Cent. cap. I xxi.). St Jerome speaks of "Josephus et nostri omnes," of whom he mentions ■2 [part I. THE HOLY CITY. it inconsistent with the sacred narrative, we may be allowed to adopt a theory which will give additional interest to the Holy City, by identifying the scene of the offering of the kinonf Salem with that of the sacramental institution of the Prince of Peace which was therein typified.

The Jewish historian without any hesitation ascribes its foundation to Melchizedek, who, he says, " was there the first priest of God, and first built a temple there ' ;" and if this mysterious personage were identical with Shem, the son of Noah, as ancient tradition with singular consistency has delivered2, then may the Holy City boast an antiquity greater than any city in the world, and a founder every way worthy of its future celebrity. But whatever uncertainty may attach to these questions, there can be little doubt that the spot selected by God for the offering up of Isaac " in the land of Moriah," was one Hippolytus, Irenæus, Eusebius of Cæ sarea and Emesa, Apollinarius, and Eustathius, as favouring this opinion, which he, however, did not adopt. He places the Salem of Melchizedek near Scythopolis, and identities it with that in Gen. xxxiii. 18 (the same probably as in John iii. 23), where he says that extensive ruins of the palace of Mel chizedek were shewn in his day, Epist.

Crit. Vol. n. pp. 571, 573, B. Ed. This father was mostly followed by the writers of the middle ages. Of modem writers, Wells, Bossuet, Hales, Gese nius, Raumer, and others, follow Jose phus ; the learned Reland, and, after him, Rosenrnuller, Bleek, and others, follow St Jerome. A living French author flatters himself that he has set the question at rest for ever, in two words. He takes for granted that the Salem of Melchizedek was the "city of Shechem," Gen. xxxiii. 18; and then shews that this must have been north of Jerusalem, which, however, he allows was also originally called Salem. His toire de Jerusalem, par 31. Poujoulat, Vol. i. p. 53. 1 Jewish War, B. vi. cap.x. comp. Antiquities i. x. 2. 2 Lightfoot says that "all acknow ledge Melchizedek for Shem." Cho rograph. Decad. cap. x. sect.

I. He adduces the Chaldeans, Jews, and many Christians (Miscell. xxviii. ), and com putes that Shem lived 75 years after Abraham came into Canaan. (Chron. in Gen. xv.). St Jerome mentions this tradition, and shews from the Bible chronology that Shem outlived Abra ham 35 years, (Epist. Crit. Vol. n. p. 573. B. Ed.) CH. I.] 3 THE HOLY CITY. of the hills of Jerusalem, where, in this type, designed not only for the trial of his faith, but for the confirmation of his hope, transacted amid the scenes thereafter to be conse crated by the expiatory sacrifice of the Son of God, the patriarch Abraham in an especial manner " rejoiced to see the day of Christ, and he saw it, and was glad3." It is interesting, whatever be the value of the tradition. to find a record of these events still existing in Jerusalem ; to be shewn the tomb of Melchizedek, the place where Abraham offered up Isaac, and the tree which occupies the spot where the ram was caught in a thicket by its horns : it serves at least to bring these transactions most vividly before the mind, and to give a vitality to the Sacred History, which will incline those who profit by it more readily to pardon the credulity of the Greeks, in whose chapel of the Forerunner the venerable tomb is preserved, as is the place of sacrifice in the monastery of Abraham, on the hill of Calvary ; or the superstition of the Copts, who regard with veneration a tree, as sociated in their minds with an event of Scripture interest, which they reckon among the few treasures of their convent.

We have no further mention of Jerusalem until after an interval of more than five centuries, when, the iniquity of the Amorites being full, and the time appointed for the fulfilment of thc promise to Abraham having arrived4, the Israelites, under the command of Joshua, entered upon the possession of their inheritance5. 3 Genesis xxii. ; John viii. 56 : comp. Hebrews xi. 19 ; and see War burton's Divine Legation, Lib. vi. sect. v. Works, Vol. m. p. 383, &c. Ed. 1788. occurs in the Sacred narrative, and even here it seems to be used by anticipation while the city retained it ancient name of Jebus , ( see Joshua xv. 8 ; xviii. 28 ; and Judges xix. 1 0 ) . Josephus informs us that Melchizedek first called it Jerusalem (J. W. vi. v. 1); but his account of the origin of this name 4 Genesis xv. 13, 16. 5 Joshua x. This is the first pas sage in which the name of Jerusalem 1—2 [part I. 4 THE HOLY CITY.

The name of the king of Jerusalem at this time, compared with that of its former king in the time of Abraham, would seem to intimate that this city had already a religious character among the Canaanites which entitled its ruler to the honourable appellation of the " Righteous King," or the "Righteous Lord1." It would appear, too, that Adonizedec was in a position to exercise some kind of authority over the petty princes of the neighbouring cities, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon, who obeyed his summons " to come up to him and help him, that they might smite is very obscure, (Ant. vn. iii. 2, a passage which has much perplexed the learned). St Jerome aud others under stood him to make it a compound of the Greek 'Lepov, and the Hebrew D7tf' but Isaac Vossius defends him from this imputation.

Lightfoot, after the Rabbies, derives it from the latter part of the name " Jehovah-^ir^," (see Genesis xxii. 8, 14), and Shalem or Salem, (Genesis xiv. 18), by which name it is certainly called in Psalm lxxvi. 2, thus n«"i,|+D^=DI7tt;ns and he gives a curious reason for this compound, which need not be repeated, (Cent. Chorog. Matt. Præmissa, cap. xxi.). Whiston, who adopts this deri vation, supposes the place to have been so called prophetically, after Abraham had received that oracle " Jehovah jireh." " Since that expression, ' God will see,' or rather, ' God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt-offering,' is said to have been proverbial till the days of Moses," he thinks it probable that the word may denote " that God would provide peace, by that Lamb of God which was to take away the sins of the world."

Note on Josephus, Ant. vn. iii. 2. It is not unlikely that, after the event referred to, the two patriarchs 3Ielchizedek and Abraham would adopt this name with its pro phetical signification, which was lost among the ungodly Canaanites, but retained and restored by the posterity of the patriarch. Reland adopts ttnT1 U?\U " hereditas, or possessio heredi taria pacis," (accounting for the loss of the W by assimilation) which gives a very good meaning, but wants the authority of the former. He is follow ed by Raumer, Palestina, p. 333. The least satisfactory is that of Dr Wells, who supposes it to be composed of its two ancient names Jebus and Salem — the 3 being changed into "1 euphoni gratia (Geog. of O.T. Pt. in. cap.ii.) or, as Professor Lee, who adopts the same theory, imagines, on account of the unsuitableness of the name, D^ti^l' ("which would signify the trampling or treading down of peace") to the city which God himself had chosen for his own.

Lexicon, sub voce. 1 The union of the kingly and priestly offices in one person would be no unusual thing in those times. CH. I.] THE HOLY CITY. 5 Gibeon, because it had made peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel." The site of Gibeon is still marked by the modern village of Geeb, distant about an hour from Jerusalem on the road to Jaffa, by Bethoron and Lydda; and the plain "before" it (i. e. to the east of it) is well adapted for the encampment of a large army. It was here that Joshua gained that decisive victory over the combined army, when the day was lengthened to complete it — so that " the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." The king of Jerusalem with his four allies was taken and put to death; but we do not read that his city, bke theirs, fell into the hands of the conquerors at this time : indeed, it is difficult to determine the period of its capture by the Israelites, or to which tribe it was allotted in the division of the land2 ; since we read in one passage, " As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out, but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day3;" while the same is elsewhere said of the children of Ben jamin, in the same chapter in which we find that " the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem and taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire4."

The most satisfactory explanation of these apparent discrepancies is, that this city, being situated in the borders of the two tribes, was considered common to both ; and that during the long contest with the people of the land it experienced various fortunes, according to the strength of the contending parties : for while it would appear certain 2 Joshua xviii. 28, compared with xv. 8, would, without doubt, place it within the tribe of Benjamin; but other passages as clearly assign it to Judah. See e. g. Psalm lxxviii. 68. 3 Joshua xv. 63. 4 Judges i. 21—8. The language of Josephus, note 3 in the next page, will not enable us to reconcile the passages here referred to. [part I. 6 THE HOLY CITY. at least that soon after the death of Joshua it was in pos session of the Israelites, it is no less clear that before the time of the Judges it was so completely in the power of Jebusites, as to have passed among the Israelites for "the city of a stranger," which would scarcely have afforded a secure shelter to one of their nation1.